Gregory Koukl Interviews Stephen Meyer on a Myriad of Topics

Topics: censorship, theistic evolution, origins of life, junk DNA, and Francis Collins.

Stephen Meyer and Gregory Koukl talk specifically about three hurdles the theistic evolutionist must jum in order to reject Intelligent Design in the origin of life. The conversation ends with them talking about Francis Collins “evolution” to reject “Junk DNA” and the impact this has on his own theistic evolutionary stance. (Posted by Religio-Political Talk)

For more clear thinking like this from Greg Koukl see Stand to Reason: http://www.str.org/

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Building a Compelling Case for ID

On this episode of ID The Future, Casey Luskin puts to rest once and for all the common assertion by opponents of intelligent design that there are no scientific papers supporting the claims of ID. This wasn’t true in 2005 when Eugenie Scott of the NCSE stated it on MSNBC and it certainly isn’t true six years later. Luskin discusses the most recent scientific paper, by Stephen Meyer and Paul Nelson, and talks about the importance of the peer-reviewed scientific literature: “These papers collectively make a case that intelligent causation is necessary to produce the sort of biological complexity that we are discovering in the cell today.”

Whats Okay with Big Gov and Not Okay With It (Nanny State Comparisons)

Libertarian Republican notes the latest nanny state move by the banning of cartoon characters for sugary cereals.

The Federal Government, pushed along by liberal pressure groups, is taking the first steps towards banning the sale of sugary cereals and salt-abundant foods to kids.

CBS News reports: “GOP decries “nanny state” push on junk food ads”:

To critics, it’s the latest example of “nanny state” overreach by the federal government that could cost money and jobs.

The issue? A proposed set of voluntary guidelines backed by the Obama administration designed to limit the marketing of junk food to children through mascots like “Tony the Tiger,” the smiling animated figure used for decades to sell Kellogg’s “Frosted Flakes” breakfast cereal. Under the guidelines, companies would only be able to advertize and promote healthy foods low in fat, sugar…

…(read more)…

Professor Walter Williams described these “Do Gooders” as lifestyle Nazis. CS Lewis aptly talked about his fear of such people:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, p. 292.

The government will demand the following to be placed on cigarette packs (forcing private business to place gruesome photos on their product:

That, however, is not my main focus. What I do wish to zero in on is what causes the secular left does go to the mat/floor for. That is, the above at the Federal level is kosher… the below at the local level is not! That is, to ban simple labels inserted into biology textbooks simply warning the school children about the monolithic view taught in their science classes [in regards to origin science, not working science] in a small label inserted into their biology textbooks:

  1. This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. (Selman v. Cobb County School District)
  2. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. (Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)

How is this argument misconstrued with straw-men and non-sequiturs? Here is a great example that comes from an evolutionary website, first the person posts this graphic equating ID to the following:

Did you notice the lumping in of Neo-Darwinian THEORY with laws of science and effects that are repeatable, observable? The author contunues down the non-sequitur road creating a straw-man and then defeating it, not the real argument:

How long does this fight need to go on? Do we need to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of gravity? That’s right. That’s all it is. A theory. But I don’t see any creationists defiantly jumping off cliffs.

One commentator also hops in and says something that is truly amazing and shows you the depths of non-thinking in regards to this topic:

The world is flat, the moon landing was a hoax, global warming is not real, and intelligent design is true. Amazing what some people will resort to, just to avoid facing the truth and questioning their beliefs or their lifestyles.

All I have to say is “WOW!” Which brings me to the god centered vacuum that man tries to fill with himself. And this is the bottom line, do you want to give ultimate credence to The Designer, or the creature:

Romans 1:21-23 (ESV):

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

 I would hope, to rightly understand what Intelligent Design theorists ARE saying, one would take the time to read the small portion entitled “The Golden Arm,” posted after an atheists point about ID:

If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism – the philosophical position that restricts all explanations in science to naturalistic explanations – it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility.

Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design ~ Apologetics315 h/t

Enjoy the following read, click to enlarge:

Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket
Photobucket

Woodpecker Technology Coming to a Store Near You (From God to You)

I found this very interesting article on the beak of the woodpecker and its applicability to shock absorption. I will import the article in its entirety with the LINK TO THE ARTICLE/AUTHOR in full sight. Enjoy!

Woodpecker drumming inspires shock-absorbing system

One of the pleasures of walking through a wood is hearing the distant drumming of woodpeckers. We know they are searching for food, but few of us grasp the extraordinary nature of their achievement. Drumming rates of about 20 impacts per second are normal, with decelerations of 1200 g, and the drumming sessions may be repeated 500-600 times per day. By contrast, humans can lose consciousness when experiencing 4-6 g and are left concussed with a single deceleration of about 100 g. The authors of a recent analysis of the woodpecker’s shock-absorbing mechanism describes it as “advanced” and “special”. By looking at video material of drumming and CT scans of the bird’s head and neck, they found four structures that absorb mechanical shock:

“These are its hard-but-elastic beak; a sinewy, springy tongue-supporting structure that extends behind the skull called the hyoid; an area of spongy bone in its skull; and the way the skull and cerebrospinal fluid interact to suppress vibration.” (source)

Informed by these findings, the research sought to mimic these characteristics and construct a system that could protect micromachined devices from high-g impacts.

“To mimic the beak’s deformation resistance, they use a cylindrical metal enclosure. The hyoid’s ability to distribute mechanical loads is mimicked by a layer of rubber within that cylinder, and the skull/cerebrospinal fluid by an aluminium layer. The spongy bone’s vibration resistance is mimicked by closely packed 1-millimetre-diameter glass spheres, in which the fragile circuit sits.”

To test out their shock-absorbing material, they used a 60 mm air gun capable of generating scenarios of 60,000 g. For comparison, a hard resin shock absorbing system was used (representing current state-of-the-art technology). They fired micromachined devices and checked them for damage. They found that the hard resin system protected up to 40,000 g but 26.4% were damaged at 60,000 g. By contrast:

“In the bio-inspired shock absorbing system, almost all the micromachined devices survived at a high-g mechanical excitation of 60,000 g. This is because high-frequency mechanical excitations corresponding to the resonance frequencies of the micromachined devices are absorbed by the bio-inspired shock-absorbing system and even the transmitted mechanical excitations are detoured around the micromachined devices.”

The researchers are understandably pleased with their new shock-absorbing system, and already the work is creating interest – with many diverse application areas (see Marks). Of particular interest here is the way woodpecker drumming has stimulated this research and has provided the conceptual model for developing the biomimetic system. The authors refer to the conventional Darwinian framework for understanding design in nature:

“Nature causes some traits that aid survival and reproduction to become commoner, and makes other traits that hinder them to become rarer; all creatures in nature are believed to be perfectly equipped with biological features over successive generations through natural selection.”

If this is the much-vaunted role of Darwinism underpinning biology, then it is not impressive. When the designs make the organism “perfectly equipped”, Darwinism is the explanation; when the designs are ‘imperfect’ and ‘cobbled together’, Darwinism is the explanation. Whatever the evidence, Darwinism has the answer! Yet, when the power of natural selection to select characters is studied, it does not appear very effective at all. Whether it is finch beaks or peppered moths, the classic proofs of the power of natural selection do not take us very far. The suggestion that natural selection acting on successive generations of woodpeckers is a convincing explanation of all the adaptations necessary for the birds to engage in drumming must be challenged. What we have here is a complex and sophisticated system of interrelated traits. Natural selection does not begin to address the assembly of such an exquisite design. The only way we know such systems can be assembled is, like the researchers’ new shock-absorbing system, by intelligent design.

Sang-Hee Yoon and Sungmin Park, Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 6(1), 2011, 016003 | doi: 10.1088/1748-3182/6/1/016003

Abstract: A woodpecker is known to drum the hard woody surface of a tree at a rate of 18 to 22 times per second with a deceleration of 1200 g, yet with no sign of blackout or brain damage. As a model in nature, a woodpecker is studied to find clues to develop a shock-absorbing system for micromachined devices. Its advanced shock-absorbing mechanism, which cannot be explained merely by allometric scaling, is analyzed in terms of endoskeletal structures. In this analysis, the head structures (beak, hyoid, spongy bone, and skull bone with cerebrospinal fluid) of the golden-fronted woodpecker, Melanerpes aurifrons, are explored with x-ray computed tomography images, and their shock-absorbing mechanism is analyzed with a mechanical vibration model and an empirical method. Based on these analyses, a new shock-absorbing system is designed to protect commercial micromachined devices from unwanted high-g and high-frequency mechanical excitations. The new shock-absorbing system consists of close-packed microglasses within two metal enclosures and a viscoelastic layer fastened by steel bolts, which are biologically inspired from a spongy bone contained within a skull bone encompassed with the hyoid of a woodpecker. In the experimental characterizations using a 60 mm smoothbore air-gun, this bio-inspired shock-absorbing system shows a failure rate of 0.7% for the commercial micromachined devices at 60 000 g, whereas a conventional hard-resin method yields a failure rate of 26.4%, thus verifying remarkable improvement in the g-force tolerance of the commercial micromachined devices

Scientific Evidence for Intelligence

The Video That Proves Intelligent Design

(Uncommon Descent h/t)

Seeing is believing, and they say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Over at Creation.com, Brian Thomas has posted a fascinating article entitled, ATP synthase: majestic molecular machine made by a mastermind. ATP synthase is an enzyme that synthesizes an energy-rich compound, ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which is used by almost every biochemical process in the body. ATP synthase is also the world’s tiniest rotary motor, and it operates at near 100% efficiency, which is far greater than that of any man-made motor. In his article, Brian Thomas does an excellent job of describing the workings of this enzyme and of exposing the inadequacies of proposed evolutionary explanations for its origin.

Money Quote~Sarfati
You couldn’t have life unless you had this motor to produce the energy currency, so it looks like this motor must have been there right from the beginning

But don’t take my word for it. Have a look at this video by Creation.com, and you’ll see at once that ATP synthase is the product of design. It’ll only take 86 seconds of your valuable time.

As Jonathan Sarfati explains in another video, entitled Evolution Vs ATP Synthase – Molecular Machine:

You couldn’t have life unless you had this motor to produce the energy currency, so it looks like this motor must have been there right from the beginning, and I’d say that because this motor is so much better, so much tinier and more efficient than anything we can design, … the Designer of the motor is far more intelligent than any motor designer we have today too.

My sentiments exactly. Judge for yourself. You might like to have a look at these links here and here, on Uncommon Descent, where ATP synthase has been highlighted previously, as evidence for Intelligent Design.

I’d like to thank Bornagain77, a regular contributor to Uncommon Descent, for bringing this video to my attention, and also Ashby Camp of True.Origin.


Transcendent Beauty Only Skin Deep? Secrets of Our DNA

In this presentation Ravi Zacharias takes his time explaining a talk he was present at where Dr. Francis S. Collins (WIKI) compares a cross section of DNA to a stained-glass Rose window from Yorkminster Cathedral. The design is apparent and Collins mentions it a huge boost to his faith.

At The Veritas Forum at Caltech, Francis Collins shares two images representing the scientific worldview and the spiritual worldview. He asks whether there is a way to merge science & faith, and suggests that his experience is that these two perspectives are not in conflict. (The full presentation can be seen HERE):

RAVI WRITES:

“The picture (of the DNA) did more that take away one’s breath; it was awesome in the profoundest sense of the term – not just beautiful but overwhelming. And it almost mirrored the pattern of the Rose windowThe intricacy of the DNA’s design, which pointed to the Transcendant One, astonished those who are themselves the design and who have been created semitranscendant by design. We see ourselves only partially, but through our Creator’s eyes, we see our transcendance. In looking at our own DNA, the subject and the object come together.”

 

Defining Terms Between Two Sides of an Issue

A mock conversation from the jr. high level book What’s Darwin Got to Do With It? A Friendly Conversation About Evolution:

  • Creationist: Before we get started, we’ve got to clear up some terms. Words can be used a lot of different ways.
  • Evolutionist: That’s what we have dictionaries for.
  • Creationist: This is a little trickier than that. like, how would you define the word “adult?”
  • Evolutionist: Mature. Responsible. Grown up. Why?
  • Creationist: So, when you (as a mature, responsible grown-up) want something to read, do you shop at an adult bookstore?… I don’t think so. We have the same problem here. Evolution” and “creationism” are both wagon words. “
  • Evolutionist: Wagon words?
  • Creationist: Yeah, you know, loaded with other stuff that comes along when you pull the handle [of a wagon].
  • Evolutionist: How do you mean?
  • Creationist: Well, take “evolution.” Some people talk as though all it means is “change over time.” If that were all it meant, I’d buy it.
  • Evolutionist: You mean I win already?
  • Creationist: No, of course not. All I’m saying is that nobody in their right mind questions that some animals have changed some through the course of their existence on earth. What I find, though, is that when I grab the [wagon] handle, all sorts of other things come along with it. Things like a belief that an unguided, purposeless process can cause the accumulation of minor changes and cascade them into major complex innovations.
  • Evolutionist: What about “creationism?”
  • Creationist: Well, I prefer to be called a design theorist. My major point is that some things in the natural world are so complex that it seems more likely that they were designed rather than arose by chance. Unfortunately, when I pull this handle… you find that you’re also stuck with defending a geologically young earth… and the idea that everything we see on earth was created in six calendar days.
  • Evolutionist: So you’re saying that the terms are too broad?
  • Creationist: Yeah. I’ve seen people use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as minor changes in bird beaks. I’ve also seen people use the term to mean the spontaneous appearance of life… its unguided creation of major innovations (like the birds themselves)… and its purposeless progression into incredible complexity (like the human brain).
  • Evolutionist: And I’ve seen people use the term “creationism” for everything from a strict literal reading of Genesis… all the way to the idea that God started the ball rolling and then let nature take its course. Yeah, I guess you’re right – the terms are too broad.
  • Creationist: May I suggest that we use these terms so that we don’t end up pulling more than we want?

Some working language then:

Creation or Creation-science

The belief that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and that all biological life forms were created in six calendar days and have remained relatively stable throughout their existence.

Intelligent Design or Design Theory

The belief that the earth and biological life owe their existence to a purposeful, intelligent creation.

Darwinism

The belief that undirected mechanistic processes (primarily random mutation and natural selection) can account for all the diverse and complex living organisms that exist. Insists that there is no long range plan or purpose in the history of life (i.e., that changes happen without intent).

Micro-evolution

Refers to minor variations that occur in populations over time. Examples include variation in moth population and finch beaks, and the emergence of different breeds of dogs.

Macro-evolution

Refers to the emergence of major innovations or the unguided development of new structures (like wings), new organs (like lungs), and body plans (like the origin of insects and birds). Includes changes above the species level, especially new phyla or classes. [species and classes are a hot – debatable – topic.]

Common Descent

The theory that all currently living organisms are descended from a common [or a few common] ancestor[s].

My Favorite

General Theory of Evolution (GTE): “the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.”

JPL Censors Speech, ADF Helps David Coppedge Draw a Line

I enjoy speaking with Mr. Coppedge on rare occasions when there are events in town about ID or creation.  I have always enjoyed his company and conversation when the opportunity is afforded. For him to be anything but gracious in conversation is a tough stretch for me. So his drawing a line in the sand is wonderful and may change the culture at JPL closer to the one thought of in the founding documents of our nation than the culture practiced by  [dialectical] Materialism found in the old Soviet Union, e.g., scientism. What Dr. Richard Lewontin, geneticist and past professor of biology at Harvard University, admitted was a metaphysical position, or, an a priori belief that interprets the evidence instead of allowing evidence to drive the interpretation:

the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories; because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Here is a recent article on the Coppedge flap:

Demoted Employee for NASA Mission Fights Discrimination

An amended complaint was filed Monday in a lawsuit against a NASA laboratory in California on behalf of an employee who was demoted for discussing his beliefs about intelligent design.

Since his demotion last year, David Coppedge, who had served as a “team lead” technical specialist on Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Cassini mission to Saturn, has been “stigmatized in such a way that career advancement opportunities have been foreclosed to him,” the complaint reads.

Last March, Coppedge was accused of “pushing religion” on his co-workers after he began engaging colleagues in conversations about intelligent design – a theory that life and the existence of the universe derive not from undirected material processes but from an intelligent cause – and offering DVDs on the subject when the co-worker expressed interest.

His supervisor, Gregory Chin, allegedly received complaints from employees and threatened the long-time employee with termination if he persisted with his intelligent design discussions.

Coppedge said he would comply with the orders not to discuss the theory, politics or religion in the office but felt his constitutional rights were violated.

He later received a “written warning” which stated that his actions were harassing in nature and created a disruption in the workplace. Thereafter, he was removed from the team lead position in order to “lessen the strife” in the work area. His demotion was announced on a memo that was distributed on April 20, 2009.

According to the amended complaint, Coppedge said he was never told by a co-worker that his discussion of intelligent design was unwelcome or disruptive to their work. He was offered no specific details of the charges allegedly made by other co-workers.

Since the incident, Coppedge continues to suffer embarrassment, emotional distress, humiliation, indignity, apprehension, fear, ordeal and mental anguish, the complaint states. Specifically, he has remained constrained in his ability to express his personal views and has been “kept a prisoner of JPL’s systemic ideological culture.” The JPL employee also “endures each working day under a cloud of suspicion and a threat of termination lest he say anything by which someone might take offense.”

Coppedge’s attorney, William J. Becker, Jr., who is part of the Alliance Defense Fund, argues, “Discussing the origins of the universe with willing co-workers is not punishable just because it doesn’t fit a prevailing view at JPL.”

Becker further contends in the amended complaint that Coppedge suffered injustice and was deprived of his constitutional right to freely speak, write and publish his sentiments.

The written warning against Coppedge that was issued last April was expunged from his personnel file this year after his supervisors and manager revisited the matter. But he was not restored to the team lead position because the company continued to believe that his conduct in distributing the DVDs and advancing his views on intelligent design was inappropriate.

ADF Senior Counsel Joseph Infranco commented, “Mr. Coppedge has always maintained that ID is a scientific theory. Regardless, JPL has discriminated against him on the basis of what they deem is ‘religion.’ The only discussion allowed is what fits the agenda. Stray, and you are silenced and punished. It just doesn’t fit with JPL’s otherwise fine reputation in the industry.”