Replies

This is from the Discovery Institute's so-called "Center for Science and Culture": About the Center.

During recent decades, evidence from many scientific disciplines has suggested the bankruptcy of strictly materialistic thinking in science and the need for new explanations and perspectives. Consider:
In cosmology, evidence suggests the universe--including all matter, space, time, and energy--came suddenly into existence a finite time ago, contradicting the earlier picture of an eternal and self-existing material cosmos.
In physics, evidence has shown that the universe is "finely-tuned" for the existence of life, suggesting the work, as Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle puts it, "of a superintellect."
In biology, the presence of complex and functionally integrated machines has cast doubt on Darwinian mechanisms of self-assembly, and has sparked new interest in the design hypothesis.
In molecular biology, the presence of information encoded along the DNA molecule has suggested the activity of a prior designing intelligence.
In "artificial intelligence" research, the persistence of the so-called "frame" and "consciousness" problems suggests a fundamental chasm separating machine intelligence and the human mind.
Predictably, many defenders of the status quo have refused to address the new evidence and have simply exhorted each other to keep faith with materialism. Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, for example, urges scientists to embrace a "materialism [that] is absolute" and to stick with "material explanations, no matter how counter intuitive."
The Center for Science and Culture takes a different view, and that's why we are supporting scientists who aren't afraid to follow the evidence where it leads.

Looks like an agenda heavily loaded with junk science. They say they follow the evidence. Then why reject the big bang? Why the desire to abandon natural evidence? Why consider ID, without evidence of a designer? Why imagine that secret messages are encoded in our DNA? These people are whackos!

Looks like an agenda heavily loaded with junk science.

It is evolution which is filled with junk science. Let's see:

Darwin proposed melding of traits from parents - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.
Darwin said that killing the feeble and genetically disabled would purify the species - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.
Darwin proposed that some races (the white race) were superior to others - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.
Evolutionists proposed that the tonsils and the appendix were useless organs, the remnants of evolution - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.
Evolutionists proposed that the 95% of humans not in genes was junk and could be used to prove evolution - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.
Paleontologists propose that brain size indicates intelligence - a total assumption disproved by real science - junk science.

I could go on and on, but the picture becomes quite clear from the above - evolutionists go around constantly making assumptions to prove their theory but once the real scientific facts are elucidated the evolutionist's assumptions are disproven. A good theory makes assumptions which are eventually verified by scientific facts. Evolution is a very bad theory and belongs in the dust bin of history.