Darwinism at AEI

American Spectator (via Discovery Institute) ^ | July 1, 2007 | Tom Bethal

[Radix]

I had to think and think about your FReeper name, and it simply just would not come to me.

Gosh was I annoyed with myself once I took a peek at the FR profile page.

DRRRR!

[GodGunsGuts]

Am I supposed to be impressed by your little quote? How about some meat with those potatoes! Besides, isn’t Miller the guy who gave false testimony under oath at the Dover trial? In fact, false testimony seems like a way of life for this guy. The fact that you cling to such an obvious dissembler only goes to show just how deep your brain has been washed by the Church of Darwin:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/a_list_of_selected_responses_t.html

[tacticalogic]

The Church of Darwin is filled with nature/natural selection worshipers, and their priests wear white lab coats. ID does ask questions that overlap with religious concerns re: origins

So if it's not asking questions that "overlap with religious concerns" that makes them a "Church", is it the lab coats?

[GodGunsGuts]

==So if it’s not asking questions that “overlap with religious concerns” that makes them a “Church”, is it the lab coats?

I don’t think of them as a church because they don’t have a common object of worship like the Church of Darwin. The modern ID movement is only in its infancy stages. Who knows, perhaps they will one day identify something akin to your natural selection god to worship. In the meantime, IDers come from many different faiths and perspectives (to include atheists), and they are only united on one thing...the search for evidence of design in nature.

[Radix]

Re: your comment regarding giving old folks a bad name.

I was just wondering if you think that contemporary “old folks” have paid their full share of what they receive from “Social Security” and other Socialist Programs that they have played a part in imposing upon posterity.

You know, those sort of Programs that are not going to be there for the next few generations who have borne the major burden of their pie grabbing.

[GodGunsGuts]

MORE EGG ON MILLER’S FACE:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-may-face-more-embarrassing-facts-behes-dbb-vindicated/#more-2411

[tacticalogic]

I don’t think of them as a church because they don’t have a common object of worship like the Church of Darwin. The modern ID movement is only in its infancy stages. Who knows, perhaps they will one day identify something akin to your natural selection god to worship. In the meantime, IDers come from many different faiths and perspectives (to include atheists), and they are only united on one thing...the search for evidence of design in nature.

It appears that questioning the basis of your arguments is taken to be apostasy. I have my own opinions about fanaticism.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Darwinists depend not on science to persuade others of the truth of evolution, rather they depend on the government to enforce their ideology on the public.

I would say religion, but the two are very closely related.

[Coyoteman]

Besides, isn’t Miller the guy who gave false testimony under oath at the Dover trial?

No. From the trial decision:

• Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points.

• ...the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs' election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy.

• The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

[GodGunsGuts]

What does that have to do with Miller’s false testimony?

[GodGunsGuts]

And why should I listen to an obvious lap dog for the Church of Darwin?

[GodGunsGuts]

If a judge ever hands down a decision that Darwinism has become a religion, are you going to quote that decision too?

[puroresu]

I know I’m changing the subject here, but whatever became of that moonbat Professor Mirecki from Kansas University? He’s the one who claimed he was beaten up by two rednecks who objected to his atheism and/or opposition to ID & creationism. Last I heard he was whining that the police didn’t seem to believe his story and that KU wasn’t supporting him very strongly. A lot of people seemed to suspect that Mirecki had simply fallen and bruised himself, and concocted the story that he was attacked to get sympathy. If I recall correctly, he was on the defensive at the time over an e-mail he had written mocking Bible-believing Christians.

[GodGunsGuts]

I have no clue what happened to him. If you find anything, let me know.

[RFC_Gal]

Please add me to your “I hate science” ping list.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Please add me to your “I hate science” ping list.

Sorry, you must have me confused with another FReeper. But given the fact that you hate science, am I correct in concluding that you belong to the Church of Darwin?

[GodGunsGuts]

==but Behe has built his entire thesis on this error. Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is “beyond the edge of evolution”, he proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure. Apparently he has not followed recent studies exploring the evolution of hormone-receptor complexes by sequential mutations (Science 312, 97–101; 2006)

LOL!!!

27 June 2007

Ken Miller, the honest Darwinist

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-the-honest-darwinist/

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL again!!!

Behe waves away evidence suggesting that chloroquine resistance may be the result of sequential, not simultaneous, mutations (Science 298, 74–75; 2002),

—Honest Ken Miller

yet in Behe’s book which Miller supposedly read, Behe citest the 2002 paper! See page 45 where Behe mentions A requiem for chloroquine”, which he references on page 280 as (you guessed it):

2002 Science 298, 74–75

Exactly the paper Miller says Behe waves away. Honest Ken is not only ignorant he also has serious reading comprehension problems to be writing book reviews in the prestigious scientific journal Nature.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-the-honest-darwinist/

[GodGunsGuts]

If there is one thing people like you and Ken Miller have convinced me of, it’s that the Church of Darwin is going down, and down hard! LOL

[Coyoteman]

I don't know why you keep posting pages from creationist websites to me.

Their scientific accuracy is squat to zero. Have you ever read their "scientific" credentials? Here is a typical example (I have more if you need):

The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Science? I think not. Pure religious dogma, and a very narrow dogma at that.

Give it a rest.