Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with comments

1. David Berlinski and The Deniable Darwin

Excerpt from my comments:

Earlier this year I was listening to a committed materialist, theoretical physicist Larry Krauss of Arizona State U, explain in detail, exactly how the world is going to end.

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how he differs from the hellfire sect banging on my door inconveniently on Saturday morning, handing me a tract explaining ... how the world is going to end. Krauss says he has "science" on his side. Yes, but ... . science has changed its mind on a number of issues many times in the past few centuries, when its theories proved false.

So has the hellfire sect, though the history is less often recorded.

Anyway, listen here.

On today’s episode of ID the Future, mathematician and consummate skeptic David Berlinski shares with Discovery President Bruce Chapman about his award-winning essays from Commentary Magazine and the answers that are unacceptable to the scientific community.

The essays first published in Commentary Magazine are now available in The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays , a new book published by Discovery Institute Press, where nothing is exempt from Berlinski’s famous skepticism, excluding neither Darwinism nor intelligent design from his critical eye. The 32 essays included in this volume span fifteen years of wit and insight. Visit the website for more information.

More about the book:

When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence.

Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff.

I should say so. Earlier this year I was listening to a committed materialist, theoretical physicist Larry Krauss of Arizona State U, explain in detail, exactly how the world is going to end.

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how he differs from the hellfire sect banging on my door inconveniently on Saturday morning, handing me a tract explaining ... how the world is going to end.

Krauss says he has "science" on his side. Yes, but ... . science has changed its mind on a number of issues many times in the past few centuries, when its theories proved false.

So has the hellfire sect, though the history is less often recorded.

Look, I am a Catholic Christian and am busy and don't know how the world is going to end.

Onto the next pod:

2. You should also listen to this one:

How Information Theory Is Taking Intelligent Design Mainstream: An Interview With Dr. William Dembski

This episode of ID the Future continues Casey Luskin's interviews Dr. William Dembski on his new peer-reviewed paper, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," published in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans.

How does this peer-reviewed scientific paper support intelligent design? Listen in as Dr. Dembski shares how his research tests evolutionary theory using information theory and the follow-up paper that he and fellow researcher Dr. Robert Marks are working on.

For more information, read the paper at EvoInfo.org.

Darwinism, as fronted today, is a bankrupt idea. But lots of public payrollers front it into their retirement by sounding alarms about the awful things that will happen if anyone is permitted to question it.

The fact is, natural selection is an immense conservative, not creative, force in nature. As I have said before, it explains why wild wolves of the northern forest* tend to look alike but tame dogs - subject only to intelligent (?) design could be dachsunds, chihuahuas, or Newfoundland rescue dogs.

I can only attribute the current belief in the supposedly immense creative powers of natural selection to urbanization, indoctrination in schools, the desire to avoid conflict, and atheist superstition.

*Note: Yes, I did once meet a wolf. He sure looked like a wolf to me, but he was part of a sled dog pack. When a typical pack bark started up, he could only howl. Okay, he was a wolf, as I had guessed. (In general, wolves do not bark.) I did not rat him or his keeper out. Look, when you need a job, you need a job. Each sled pack member gets frozen bricks of chicken parts daily. And every form of refuge has its price. Also, there is no unemployment insurance lineup for wolves.

3. The Origins of Intelligent Design: Countering Darwinist Urban Legends

Listen here

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC’s Robert Crowther takes aim at Darwinist misinformation about the origins of intelligent design. Crowther makes mincemeat of the assertion that the term “intelligent design” was fabricated following the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court case, showing instead that the term is over 100 years old. He also targets the old Darwinist canard that terms like micro- and macro-evolution were made up by Darwin’s critics.

For more information on the history of intelligent design, read CSC Senior Fellow Jonathan Witt’s "The Origin of Intelligent Design."

As Darwinism becomes increasingly unbelievable in the light of new information, it is no surprise that urban legends start up, to defend it. But it is useful to know which charges some overheated person is making at a public meeting are in fact urban legends. Remember, that person may have been pumped in advance by a Darwinist or Christian Darwinist operative, and may not even realize that the Truths they have been told are merely legends, so go lightly over the earth. Also, remember, many teachers are compelled to recite Darwinist nonsense (or other nonsense, possibly) to keep their jobs. No reason to assume they believe it.

Whatever happened to the days when teachers were considered professionals, like doctors and lawyers?

4. The Real Frankenstein: Giovanni Aldini

Listen here.

On this special Halloween edition of ID the Future, John West shares the inspiration for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

In his book, Darwin Day in America, West examines the experiments that Italian scientist Giovanni Aldini conducted on human corpses. His gruesome experiments provided the inspiration for Frankenstein and foreshadowed the rise of a virulent strain of materialism that attempted to use science to reduce human beings to mere matter in motion.

Okay, Hallowe'en is over and we have mostly got the window soap message pranks and toilet paper pranks out of our lives, but West's book is much recommended by me. He really helped me understand how materialism came to be a dominant force in society.

5. Darwin's Predictions With Cornelius Hunter

Listen here:

On this episode of ID the Future, Cornelius Hunter is interviewed by Casey Luskin about his website, DarwinsPredictions.com , and his blog, Darwin's God:

Listen in as Dr. Hunter examines the evidence of evolution's failure as a theory and answers the objections evolutionists raise to his arguments.

Well, which of Darwin's predictions ever did come true? I'd be interested to hear.

I don't know what's true, but I know what isn't. And I hate seeing Brit toff Darwin compared to refugee scientist Einstein or emancipator Abe Lincoln.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:




5. Posted November 5, 2009


Darwinism and popular culture: A tour of the textbooks

Sometimes, when discussing the much misunderstood Scopes Trial, I have referred to the textbook from which Scopes was teaching, Hunter's Civic Biology, which seems to have been an amalgam of civics and biology, with a dose of eugenics thrown in, and smug assertions about "highest" or "lowest". Bad idea. Enough already with total subject confusion, ecological misunderstanding, and useless social conflict. Here's an interesting site where Ron Ladouceur gives us a tour of exotic textbooks of our storied past.

I am glad my own biology teachers focused on the cell theory of life, the germ theory of disease, and the life and times of the endangered ribbon snake (= ecology).

There is only so much students will take away when they graduate (if they do) , and you want it to be something they can make sense of in dealing with their own life and environment.


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Darwinism and popular culture: A tour of the textbooks

Sometimes, when discussing the much misunderstood Scopes Trial, I have referred to the textbook from which Scopes was teaching, Hunter's Civic Biology, which seems to have been an amalgam of civics and biology, with a dose of eugenics thrown in, and smug assertions about "highest" or "lowest". Bad idea. Enough already with total subject confusion, ecological misunderstanding, and useless social conflict. Here's an interesting site where Ron Ladouceur gives us a tour of exotic textbooks of our storied past.

I am glad my own biology teachers focused on the cell theory of life, the germ theory of disease, and the life and times of the endangered ribbon snake (= ecology).

There is only so much students will take away when they graduate (if they do) , and you want it to be something they can make sense of in dealing with their own life and environment.

Note: I wasn't blogging recently because I was editing.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god now?

Apparently, the charges in my article in Touchstone - about the little god Darwin - have been noticed by at least one person.

THE DARWIN MOVIE’S NOT SELLING, but John Scalzi doubts those evil Creationmongers are a part of the reason:

How about this: The movie is not selling because it is not believed ... Huh? Maybe the charge is not believable?

People now generally guess that Darwin was a materialist atheist long before his daughter died?

Fact: In North America, you cannot legally line up people at gun point and force them to watch some propaganda film about Darwin - or about anything - and threaten to shoot them if they say they do not believe it. If that is not the law where you live, please hold a revolution now.*

*As a traditional Canadian, I am not a fan of revolutions in general. We prefer peaceful transitions. But we must all be realists. In Canada, nature is our vast antagonist, not man. Check a map But in some places maybe people need a revolution, to get the point across.

While I am here, one of the most significant books published this year, because it - potentially - rids us of much Darwin nonsense, endlessly iterated in textbooks, teacher’s manuals and popular films, is Michael Flannery's republishing, with a useful introduction, of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory Of Intelligent Evolution . We would be vastly better off if Wallace, rather than Darwin, had been the main theorist. For example, we would never had dealt with awful eugenics movement and the completely ridiculous evolutionary psychology movement. Wallace was far wiser than his co-theorist, Darwin, about the stuff that really mattered.

Intellectual freedom in Canada : News roundup

Yesterday, I received the smuggest, stupidest media release I have encountered in forty years, from a dying religious denomination in the United States, announcing their support for some "hate crimes" legislation, because they are supposedly on the side of "love."

Not me. I'm for hate. If you hate me, I want to know.

Briefly, the way this kind of legislation has worked out in Canada is:

- activists who have the ear of government shut down honest discussion by declaring their opponents guilty of "hate". Islamists (not to be confused with Muslims) and anti-Christian gay activists* were the driving force behind recent anti-free speech drives in Canada, based on "human rights" commissions and laws against "hate."

- most people cannot afford the legal fees to defend themselves against an organized assault.

- it spills over into just about every area of life (which late nite comic's jokes are funny, for example). There is nothing a bureaucrat won't regulate if you give him a chance.

- media here are fighting back, for the right to report the news, but government is slow to give back liberties it has wrested from us, so the problem will take a long time to fix.

That religious denomination cannot die fast enough to suit me.

Americans who are interested in what really happens when the big "anti-hate" "human rights" shakedown starts should read Shakedown, Lights Out, or Tyranny of Nice.

*The big gay rights group did not even agree with these activists. They think, as I do, that free speech is a good idea. But it will take a long time to work the anti-free speech activists and their tax-funded enablers out of the system.

Here is what I wrote back:

For what it is worth:

I was astonished to receive this press release given that at least three books have been published in Canada about the injustices caused by “hate crimes” laws/”human rights” commissions.

[ ... books already mentioned above ... ]

There is a huge social movement against that here, NOT funded by “right wing hate groups” but by working journalists.

We can’t report the news any more. Well, we can, but it is dangerous and costly.

I’m one of the oppressed myself. [ ... personal family example redacted ... ]

The worst thing I could ever wish on you people is the experience many of my friends and I have had. But I might not need to.

Maybe, in a world where journalism , done right, is a dangerous profession, you are just a slimeball who lusts for the government payroll.

Anyway, xxxxxxxxxxx, please get me off your mailing list now. I can find out about your nonsense later if it is ever of any interest.

Do not expect me to greet you as a colleague. You are not.

My colleagues are the free press, worldwide.

Journalism is one of the world's dangerous professions, and should not be disgraced by people cheering for censorship.

Meanwhile, ...

Franklin Carter at the Book and Periodical Council's Freedom of Expression Committee reminds me:

On October 26, Jennifer Lynch [yes, she's the one with the 1200 name hate list and the house Nazis] appeared before the justice committee of the House of Commons to defend Section 13 (i.e., the Internet censorship clause) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Lynch is the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Parliament's official video of her testimony is here. On the same afternoon, Professor Richard Moon appeared before the justice committee to discuss Section 13. Moon teaches law at the University of Windsor; he appeared as an "individual" (that is, not as the representative of an organization).

Two executives of the Canadian Jewish Congress also appeared before the committee: Bernie Farber, CEO, and Mark Freiman, president. Parliament's official video their testimony is here.

During their testimony, Jennifer Lynch and Mark Freiman referred -- sometimes allusively and sometimes explicitly -- to the previous testimonies of their political opponents, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.

On October 5, Steyn and Levant appeared before the justice committee to attack Section 13 and the CHRC. Parliament's official video of their joint appearance is here.

Basically, the Canadian Jewish Congress messed up big time with this one, because the Islamists actually used the "anti-hate" legislation to attack Jews or people who were sympathetic to them. Why they can't just admit it and walk away, I will never know.

Oh, and did I say that journalism was one of the world's dangerous professions?

Well, Carter also reminds me that Kathryn Blaze Carlson reports another local serious assault on a journalist in the National Post.

He also quotes,

At present, in the most civilized countries, freedom of speech is taken as a matter of course and seems a perfectly simple thing. We are so accustomed to it that we look on it as a natural right. But this right has been acquired only in quite recent times, and the way to its attainment has lain through lakes of blood.

John Bagnell Bury, A History of Freedom of Thought (1912)

Uh huh. Which is why I have so little patience with happy champions of censorship, like the ridiculous people who sent me the media release referenced above.

Just up at The Mindful Hack

Neurolaw: Could capital punishment kill it?

Neuroscience and popular culture: What makes the human brain unique?

Neuroscience: Are more pop culture mags "getting" the problem with atheist materialism?

Neuroscience and pop culture: More trouble for education

(Note: If you follow me at Twitter, you will get regular notice of new Mindful Hack posts, usually when I have posted five or so stories.)

Darwinism and academic culture: So now we admit there are problems?

A friend draws my attention to this paper by a materialist, in which we read,

"Incremental changes in an existing biological structure the alterations in beak shape of the finches that so impressed Charles Darwin during his voyage to the Galapagos Islands, for instance - can indeed be attributed to natural selection. Even most creationists do not deny this. But when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures (‘‘morphological novelties’’) such as segmentally organized bodies (seen in earthworms, insects, and vertebrates such as humans, but not jellyfish or molluscs), or the hands and feet of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs), Darwin’s mechanism comes up short. This is a reality that is increasingly acknowledged by biologists, particularly those working in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘‘EvoDevo.’’ "

“Derision of a traditionalist segment of the public for not immediately jumping into line with standard selectionist narratives (however far-fetched they may be), is not the answer here. The scientific mainstream should rightly be prevailing in the evolution debate, since the living world is manifestly a product of evolution. But it and its liberal advocates are so wedded to a neo-Darwinism that has effectively become the house philosophy of the market economy that they are barely holding on in their attempts to prevent naturalistic accounts of the history of life from being expunged from school curricula. Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.”

Much of SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS: Evolution: The Public’s Problem, and the Scientists’ by Stuart A. Newman is nonsense, but the author has certainly got one thing right: People don't believe it because it is not believable.

Newman, if you do not have a better story (and you obviously don't), it is okay to say you don't know. I don't either. But please discourage people from insulting the public any more with the Big Spenders or Big Bazooms theories of human evolution.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Cambrian explosion film to be shown, after all

Anika Smith, at the Discovery Institute, informs me that:

Those who live in the Los Angeles area are invited to attend a gala premiere screening of Illustra Media's new documentary, Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record next Sunday, October 25th at 7:00 pm at the University of Southern California. The event is sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance.

This premiere was originally scheduled for the California Science Center, but the Center canceled the event just a few days ago, leaving the organizers virtually no time to find a new location. If you live in the Los Angeles area, you can show your support for free speech ...

That might be a very good idea. Especially if you note what is going on in Canada (which recently dropped a number of points in press freedom rankings, due to struggles that have sucked up much of the lives of many of my friends).

Basically, Darwin always knew that the Cambrian explosion was a problem for his theory, and he attributed it to the poverty of the fossil record. Now that the record is better, it is a bigger problem for his theory. The film might be good or bad, right or wrong, but if it cannot be shown ... welcome to the world where government tells you what to think.

Which reminds me: The 19th century Smithsonian secretary avoided dealing with this evidence for many years. Ever since, it has been downplayed. We are expected to forever wait for a Darwinian explanation. That's like waiting for the guy dead drunk at the bottom of the stairs to pay his rent.

So if, as some have said, the Smithsonian had anything to do with the sudden cancellation, it would be no surprise.

Personally, I am sick and tired of all the garbage. Darwinism is an unbelievable belief currently funded by government. It makes about as much sense as this stuff.

Canada slips in media freedom rankings

As if we didn't guess this would happen, due to the endless disgrace created by "human rights" commissions. As Ezra Levant writes,

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and its megalomanaic chief commissioner, Jennifer Lynch, have disgraced Canada on the international stage.

According to the annual report by Reporters sans Frontieres (that's French for Reporters without Borders) Canada has plunged from 13th place to 19th place in the world, in terms of press freedom. Here's a CP wire story on the subject.

Chris Waddell, a journalism professor quoted in that story, attributes part of that plunge to the increasing bullying of reporters by Canada's human rights commissions -- and Lynch's CHRC is mentioned in particular.

What bothers me most is efforts to pretend that these people do some good somewhere, so therefore it is all okay. What I say is, get RID of the current practitioners of "human rights," and then we will see whether the agency as such is worth salvaging.

Intellectual freedom in Canada news roundup

Any time I begin a posting cycle these days, I tend to begin with "Intellectual freedom in Canada". Why? Because if you cannot say what is wrong with an idea, you cannot plausibly say what might be right about it either.

Everybody becomes a public relations agent for the government or for ... who?

Anyway, here's a recent news round-up:

- Here's the transcript of Ezra Levant's and Mark Steyn's testimony at the Canadian Parliament's Justice Committee.

Frankly, I would not hope for too much. The only thing that will really help is serious rage among small bed and breakfast owners, late nite comedians, and such.

See, the "human rights" racket worked as long as the racketeers had enough sense to attack only people whose votes the government doesn't care about.

The government cares about Joe Lotto's and Jane Donut's votes. And Joe Lotto and Jane Donut don't care what happens to some Catholic bishop or some Jew or a guy people think is a Jew.

Yawn.

But what happens when everybody in the country is at risk from their endless, government-funded inquisition? Is everyone going to agree to barf up hundreds of dollars for someone who claims to be "offended" in a completely stupid situation?

Even money in my view. On to the next story.

- Franklin Carter at the Book and Periodical Council's Freedom of Expression Committee tells me,

REGINA — Former cabinet minister turned convicted murderer Colin Thatcher faces a court battle to keep his $5,000 book advance and any royalties, as the provincial government put in motion last week a bid to seize the cash and redirect it to victims.


The Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice has filed a document in the Court of Queen's Bench in Regina, indicating it will seek an order directing Thatcher to comply with the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. A court date has been set for Oct. 29.

Angela Hall reports for the Regina Leader-Post:

CBC News also reports.

Carter also tells me that thanks go to Marian Hebb in Toronto for forwarding the CBC's story. Indeed. Hebb has been a free speech lawyer for years.

My own view? Just as I do not think government should raise money from lotteries to fund scanners at hospitals*, I also do not think government should scarf the proceeds of crime. The fact that some perps can write and others can't is, well, a fact of life. Some are smart and some are not.

In the case of the smarter and more interesting perps, relatives of the victims should have the right to sue for some part of the proceeds - something the publishing company ( to say nothing of the perp) may wish to take into account, when deciding to publish.

*because I think government is better advised to charge, through taxes, what it costs to run a health care system at the level desired by citizens, and quit using stupid tricks to finance it.

- Carter also tells me that press freedom declined in Canada within the last year, according to an annual ranking of 175 countries by Reporters Without Borders.

Released Tuesday, the index places Canada in 19th place, a drop of six spots from 2008.

Here is RWB's latest list. Here is the Canadian Press. Here is Winnpeg Free Press.

Am I surprised? Of course not. It has become progressively impossible in this country to discuss issues that divide us, due to "human rights" and political correctness.

- Carter also notes,

The Supreme Court of Canada is considering the case of a Globe reporter. Daniel Leblanc is seeking to protect the anonymity of the source who blew the whistle on Quebec's sponsorship scandal. Kirk Makin reports for The Globe and Mail.
Tonda MacCharles reports for the Toronto Star. CBC News reports.

A difficult problem. Traditionally, the journalist was expected to risk jail to protect sources (often, that was the only way to get the story). One runs the risk, not only of jail, but of not being believed - or worst, believing an unreliable source. Well, journalism done right is one of the world's truly dangerous professions.