ID more and more dirty

Not only creationists but politician also leave IDers

The Senator, who is seeking re-election, has been backpedaling away from his support of the ID ever since the Dover Area School District deep-sixed its unconstitutional intelligent design policy.

via

Read Full Post »

farewell

I’ve decided to put Uncommon Descent into mothballs indefinitely. William Dembski need to concentrate forces…
And he leaves the stage at post 609, quite symmetric! On artistic or intelligent design?

Read Full Post »

Intelligent Design attacks

We received a long email that said a lot of nasty things, but here is a quote from it to give you an idea of the content:

“You blasphemers are spreading the false scripiture (sic) of evolution, trying to make people think its okay to merge human DNA with animal DNA. Humans are not animals! It is impossible to combine Godly DNA of Man, who was created in God’s image, with the DNA of beasts. God will punish (sic) you. We have destroyed your blog and hopefully your sinful story.”
The letter was signed “ID for God.”

A gag? Perhaps. But at any rate, the Ancestor blog was hit hard. We’ve got it back online, and we’ve corrected the problem, so all of you feel free to start posting again.

How can Google help you in such a case? Check for cached pages!
I’m not a « all Google » guy but for the particular case googling « site:http://www.project-daemon.net » was useful. Recovery of some stuff was finished before the downloading of Scott Sigler‘s podcasted novel, Ancestor, so I had time for this post 😉

Read Full Post »

make your choice

Cartoon, by Doonesbury. Some times having to make a choice make you think twice about your beliefs

Read Full Post »

desperately seeking evidence

A short text signed Brian W. Ogilvie, titled « Why the Court’s Dover Decision Is a Triumph for Religion as well as Science« , interesting to read.

Creationists seem to give-up the collaboration with Intelligent Design, as William Dembski mentionned. You don’t want to be seen with a looser.

But there is more in that and Brian W. Ogilvie conclude :

If, by chance, Intelligent Design develops a real scientific research program and identifies biological adaptations that evolution cannot explain, scientists will not become modern-day natural theologians in droves. Instead, they’ll start seeking a better natural explanation. If Intelligent Design is a real science, its proponents should welcome this possibility. If they shudder at the thought, they should stop cheapening their religious beliefs by trying to pass them off as science.

Long ago, Saint Augustine warned Christians that spouting falsehoods about science would only make their faith seem ridiculous. Intelligent Design proves him right.

Interesting isn’t it?

Read Full Post »

breacktrhough

I’m discovering William Dembski, as a quite naive guy in fact. He wonders :

In what other science do its scientists have to do so much cheerleading for their theory?

None! Biology concern us in many ways and advancements have deep and almost immediate impacts in our lives, so it’s worth some celebration, not only from its scientists, but from everyone who is concerned about his health and life expectancy or about improvement in food production techniques or ecosystems balancing.

I strongly agree with William, saying:

« Scientists Vote Darwinian Evolution as Year’s Breakthrough », The problem with this headline is that it’s dated not 1859 but 2005

It should be dated 1859. We lost 146 years, but cheer up fellows, things are on the right track 🙂

Read Full Post »

ID dirty for creationists?

Aha ! News at the horizon.

William Dembski wonders what’s up to Reasons to Believe. The response is :

« At Reasons To Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research. » via

Seems that those professional quality believers believe that Intelligent Design is f*ucked up, after Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID was a religious idea and prefer to take their own chances with what they call a fully testable and falsifiable theory of them. No name yet?

One could expect a publication in a peer reviewed journal for such good news. But on the other hand Dr Ross and Dr Rana have bills to pay; so, there are two books describing a model that catapults the evolution/creation controversy to an all new level-from science vs. religion to science vs. science I suppose that they re-written the definition of Science in the dictionary, but until they publish in a peer reviewed journals I’ll ignore this revolutionary model…

Read Full Post »

commenting/tagging

While the discussion with Fulcanelli is over, there are a lot of IDers out there talking non sense. So, this blog is open again for the simple reason that IDers and/or other cretionist don’t seem to like comments on their blogs.

William Dembski want productive comments on his blog. He don’t say if the should be productive for ID or not. But I think he like « amens » more then arguments. And he do purge comments and people that bothers/bore him. So, clearly the best solution is to avoid loosing time (mine and his) to comment on his site. But tagging should help spread stuff related to his posts. William Dembski

The « Intelligent Design the future » web site doesn’t accept comments and/or trackback. So, the same policy about tagging for Michael Behe
And incidentally Paul Nelson, the first one I responded to.

Necessarily the use of the tags Intelligent Design and creationism will follow them 😉

Read Full Post »

Paul Nelson on private vs public schools

This is a response to Paul Nelson’s question. As the Intelligent Design for the future blog-like site can’t afford comments of trackbacks, it will go thought Technorati tags.

I have attend a private school and have learn creationism as the main (and only) explanation of the world. That didn’t made of me a creationist ! I tried your thought experiment and my answer is that the truth shines anyway; you are right Paul, I’m a convinced darwinist and not a merely believing creationist despite the fact that I was in a private, catholic school. And by the same way I have a rather good knowledge of the Bible and of the reasons why I consider them as great books written by people trying to manage other people. I would like to see theology to be teached in schools worldwide, presenting the Bible, the Kuran, the Evangils and as much as possible holy books », comparatively.

Whatever the issue would be darwinism wouldn’t be particularly affected. The question was, I think so, and probably the Judge Jones considered it the same way, if that was legal, not if that would affect darwinists. And if it’s place is in science or comparative theology classes.

Technorati tags: Paul Nelson, Intelligent Design, Michael Behe, William Dembski.

Read Full Post »

overwhelming evidence

« The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. »
Judge John E. Jones III via

Peut-être que Fulcanelli pourra montrer le contraire, j’attends toujours un descriptif des son hypothèse d’ailleurs.

Comme le dit le même juge,

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed.

Mais quand même, pour l’instant

« Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. »

Le plus intéressant reste peut-être à venir, si les IDers font appel en cours suprème.

Pour l’instant je m’en vais lire de près les minutes du procés.

Read Full Post »