Intelligent Design

Biography of Benjamin Carson

Published by Papa Giorgio

The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Professor Barr said,

“Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the ‘days’ of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

Thus, according to the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, Tim is completely deceived in his wish to read Genesis figuratively. Let it be emphasized that according to professor Barr, virtually every professor at a world-class universities believes Gen. 1-11 are intended to convey the six 24 hour day creation and universality of Noah’s flood. (Planet Preterist)

Just a few updated notes on this — mainly an — import of an older post from my old blog. Firstly, the above is Dr. Carson at the prayer breakfast which Obama and his lovely wife had to sit through. Dr. Carson lays into their policies forcefully ans well as politely. It has caused the Wall Street Journal to call for his Presidency, pointing out that, “The Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon may not be politically correct, but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.” I will also post at the end of this Bio by another young-earth scientist a quote from an atheist on intelligent design that has ruffled a few skeptics feathers, so-to-speak. I will include Dr. Carson’s appearance on Hannity as well as my call and great commentary from Dennis Prager when I told him and his listening audience about Dr. Carson’s creationist views.

  • Dr. Robert Hartzler writes to add: “Ben Carson’s book Gifted Hands is worth noting… I read it when I was about 10 years old and it inspired me to become a surgeon. He has a great life.” The film version starring Cuba Gooding is also available on DVD. (Via Powerline)

Dr. Carson spoke of taking risks while trusting in, one example is below of this risk taking that makes a difference in peoples lives:

Of course the movie, Gifted Hands, is Dr. Carson’s biography of triumph over life, here is a bio of him by Dr. Bergman:

Benjamin Carson: The Pediatric Neurosurgeon with Gifted Hands
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. [Bio of Dr. Bergman]

Introduction

Benjamin S. Carson, M.D., one of the world’s foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, is professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School.[1] Born on September 18, 1951, in Detroit to a single mother in a working class neighborhood, Ben showed promise from a young age.[2] A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled “America’s Best” as a “super surgeon.”[3] Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation’s top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 “living-legends.”[4]

Dr. Carson is a leading research scientist. A “voracious reader of the medical and scientific literature” from his graduate school days, he has long been very interested in scientific research and has been very active in this area for his entire career,[5]-[6] with over 120 major scientific publications in peer reviewed journals, 38 books and book chapters, and grant awards of almost a million dollars. His achievements have so far earned him 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia Universities.

A Master Surgeon and Scholar

Ben Carson revolutionized his field in several areas, including hemispherectomies (removal of half of the brain to prevent untreatable severe seizures, such as those caused by Rasmussen’s encephalitis). He dramatically increased the safety of the procedure by developing several major surgical innovations, which include better ways of controlling bleeding and infection, as well as an innovative system of incrementally removing specific brain parts as units rather than in whole sections.[3]

Dr. Carson has also contributed to new techniques used for conjoined twin separation[7] and accomplished one of the most complex surgical feats in history as the lead surgeon of a team that separated twins joined at the back of the head in a 22-hour-long operation. Known as the doctor who takes cases that no other doctor will risk, Dr. Carson has had outstanding success in spite of this challenge. For example, he has achieved an amazing 80 to 90 percent success rate for difficult-to-treat trigeminal neuralgia.[8]

A Creationist

After Dr. Carson reviewed in detail the evidence for design in nature, he concluded, “I just don’t have enough faith to believe” that the living world happened by evolutionary processes.[9] He added that 150 years after Darwin, there is still no evidence for evolution.

It’s just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is “Well…uh…it’s lost!”…I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, “Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we’ll probably never find it,” doesn’t seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response.[10]

Carson concluded that the “plausibility of evolution is further strained by Darwin’s assertion that within fifty to one hundred years of his time, scientists would become geologically sophisticated enough to find the fossil remains of the entire evolutionary tree in an unequivocal step-by-step progression of life from amoeba to man.”[11]

As a neurosurgeon, he stresses the “factors that contribute to the failure to utilize fully the most amazing God-given resource, our brain, such as peer pressure and political correctness, which often limits our willingness, even as objective scientists, to have thoughtful, rational discussions about evolution versus creationism.”[9] It is even harder for him to accept how so many people who can’t explain how evolution can account for all life claim that it is a fact, while at the same time “insisting anyone who wants to consider or discuss creationism as a possibility cannot be a real scientist.”[10]

Taking the Risk

In Dr Carson’s latest best-selling book, Take the Risk, he discusses the need to balance the risks and benefits of any activity that one considers undertaking. For example, although Dr. Carson has addressed students and general audiences hundreds of times, he took a big risk to explain his creation views as the keynote speaker at the National Science Teachers convention in Philadelphia. He told the science teachers that “evolution and creationism both require faith. It’s just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.”

I find it as hard to accept the claims of evolution as it is to think that a hurricane blowing through a junkyard could somehow assemble a fully equipped and flight-ready 747.…Which is why not one of us has ever doubted that a 747, by its very existence, gives convincing evidence of someone’s intelligent design.[12]

He then stressed the fact that the human body and brain are “immeasurably more complex, more versatile, more amazing in a gazillion ways than any airplane man has ever created.” In short, only an intelligent creator explains “how such a complex, intelligently designed universe could come into existence.”[13]

Talking to 15,000 science teachers about evolution and creation was a challenge, yet the most formidable audience Dr. Carson has ever faced was the ultra-prestigious Academy of Achievement, which invited him to be part of a panel discussion on “Faith and Science” during its annual International Summit. Dr. Carson writes that the membership was so imposing he had to ask himself whether he really wanted to discuss his spiritual beliefs in front of an organization that included every living former president of the United States, “along with numerous other heads of states and Nobel Peace Prize recipients.”

My years of membership in the Academy had provided some wonderful experiences, and I had made a lot of friends whose opinions, goodwill, and respect still matter to me. But did I want to risk all that to share honestly with them my views on faith and science?[14]

He felt that the stakes were higher this time than in all of his previous lectures because of the possibility of embarrassing himself in front of numerous Nobel scientists.

Still, the same positive potential–the chance that this opportunity could open objective discussion and might help others find the courage to talk about what they truly believe–also seemed like a better best. That wasn’t…because I thought anything I said would change the thinking of the Academy’s distinguished members, but because we invite as guests to our summit each year three hundred or so of the next generation’s best and brightest (Rhodes Scholars, Fullbright Scholars, White House Fellows, and the like).[14]

The experience proved to be both very challenging and rewarding. One reason was that the noted paleoanthropologist Dr. Donald Johanson was one of the other panelists.

[Johanson] is famous for his claims that the fossilized specimen he discovered in Africa named “Lucy” represented an extinct species from which the human race descended. In the course of our discussion, he made…a condescending remark when he asserted that “true scientists” base everything they do and decide upon facts, unlike those people who choose to depend on God. So when it was my turn to speak, I made the point that “true scientists” often overlook many, many gaps in what they purport to be fact…when in reality some of their own theories require a great deal of faith to accept.[15]

The paleoanthropologist responded by jumping out of his chair and rudely interrupting Dr. Carson, who calmly responded by noting that he was

“only making a general observation based on my experience. But if the shoe fits ….” Laughter rolled through the audience before I went on to say that religion and science both require faith, that the two disciplines don’t always have to be mutually exclusive, that people have to choose where to put their faith, and that choice doesn’t make you superior to those who believe differently.[15]

Dr. Johanson’s arrogance was apparent in view of the fact that we know “next to nothing about” how the living brain actually works, not to mention that of our putative evolutionary ancestors.[8] Dr. Carson concluded that the most affirming responses came from the graduate students who thanked him for his presentation. One scholar from Oxford even told him that, although an atheist, after hearing Dr. Carson’s talk he is now seriously rethinking his atheism. Carson concluded, “That seemed reason enough to risk talking about faith.”[16]

Conclusion

Ben Carson, one of the most respected and successful neurosurgeons in the world today, is a creationist who is not afraid of openly voicing his conclusions to august audiences the world over. Called the man with gifted hands for his surgical skill, his example of overcoming poverty to become a leading scholar and scientist has inspired millions.[6] His openness about creation may inspire millions as well.

Note: I wish to thank Dr. Ben Carson for reviewing and correcting an earlier draft of this paper.

References

[1] Bishop, R. 1999. Beyond Brain Power. Christian Reader. July-August, 19-28.

[2] McMurray, E. 1995. Benjamin S. Carson. Notable Twentieth-Century Scientists. New York: Gale Research, 320-321.

[3] Gorman, C. 2001. Super Surgeon. Time. 158 (7): 34-35.

[4] Asimakoupoulos, G. 2003. Ben Carson: A Doctor in Patients Clothing. Focus on the Family Physician. 15 (4): 4-6.

[5] Green-Bishop, J. February 2004. The Healing of a Healer. Dallas Weekly.

[6] Carson, B. S. 1990. Gifted Hands. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[7] Ryan, M. If You Can’t Teach Me, Don’t Criticize Me. Parade, May 11, 1997, 6-7.

[8] Dreifus, C. 2001. Scientific Conversations. New York: W. H. Freeman Book, 200-201.

[9] Carson, B. S. 2008. Take the Risk. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 126.

[10] Ibid, 130.

[11] Ibid, 129.

[12] Ibid, 128.

[13] Ibid, 128-129.

[14] Ibid, 137-138.

[15] Ibid, 138-139.

[16] Ibid, 140.

Of course there are many scientists who were or are leaders in technology/science, literature and the like that are believers in some form of Intelligent Design.

◆ 1) The guy most credited in getting us to the moon, Wernher von Braun: von Braun began work at the US Army Ordinance Corps testing grounds at White Sands, New Mexico. In 1952 he became technical director of the army’s ballistic-missile program. It was in the 1950’s that he produced rockets for US satellites (the first, Explorer 1, was launched early 1958) and early space flights by astronauts. He held an administrative post at NASA from 1970-1972 as well. We would have never made it to the moon if it were not for von Braun.

◆ 2) Dr Raymond V. Damadian is one that’s invention was key in diagnosing me with Multiple Sclerosis. He invented the MRI and his first working model is forever in the Smithsonian Institution‘s Hall of Medical Sciences

◆ 3) Benjamin S. Carson, M.D., one of the world’s foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, is professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School. Born on September 18, 1951, in Detroit to a single mother in a working class neighborhood, Ben showed promise from a young age. A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled “America’s Best” as a “super surgeon.” Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation’s top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 “living-legends.”

These three men are young earth creationists (YEC) and support their claims by evidence and faith. One last point here are lists found on my blog

Creation Scientists [AiG List]:

a) http://creationwiki.org/Template:Creation_Scientists

b) http://creationwiki.org/Template:Historical_Creation_Scientists

c) http://creationwiki.org/History_of_science

Read more: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/are-michele-bachmann-gaffes-really-gaffes/#ixzz2KKcYKcx4

Fuller Interview on Hannity

Human Genome in Meltdown ~ Is the Genome Project Proving a Genesis Date?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is some awesome info via Creation/Evolution Headlines:

According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”  By recent they mean really recent on evolutionary timescales:

We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.

The authors explained this in evolutionary terms as the result of “explosive population growth” and that “selection has not had sufficient time to purge them from the population.”  They claimed Europeans had more variants “consistent with weaker purifying selection due to the Out-of-Africa dispersal.”  The last paragraph assesses the impact of their findings:

More generally, the recent dramatic increase in human population size, resulting in a deluge of rare functionally important variation, has important implications for understanding and predicting current and future patterns of human disease and evolution. For example, the increased mutational capacity of recent human populations has led to a larger burden of Mendelian disorders, increased the allelic and genetic heterogeneity of traits, and may have created a new repository of recently arisen advantageous alleles that adaptive evolution will act upon in subsequent generations.

As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples.

Dr. John Sanford Interviewed About His Book, “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome“

Continuing with Creation/Evolution Headlines post:

The findings depend on models and assumptions, but appear to support the thesis of John Sanford’s book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, which argues that the genetic load increases so rapidly that mankind could not have survived for tens of thousands of years, to say nothing of millions (see recent YouTube interview part 1 and part 2 [combined into one, above]).  How can such rapid rate of degradation be sustained over evolutionary time?

The authors seemed a bit baffled by their findings.  The following paragraph gives a hint of that (compare “expected” vs observed):

The site frequency spectrum (SFS) of protein-coding SNVs revealed an enormous excess of rare variants (Fig. 1a). Indeed, we observed an SNV approximately once every 52 base pairs (bp) and 57 bp in European Americans and African Americans, respectively, whereas in a population without recent explosive growth we would expect the SNVs to occur once every 257 bp and 152 bp in European Americans and African Americans, respectively (Supplementary Information). Thus, the European American and African American samples contain approximately fivefold and threefold increases in SNVs, respectively, attributable to explosive population growth, resulting in a large burden of rare SNVs predicted to have arisen very recently (Fig. 1b). For example, the expected age of derived singletons, which comprise 55.1% of all SNVs, is 1,244 and 2,107 years for the European American and African American samples, respectively. Overall, 73.2% of SNVs (81.4% and 58.7% in European Americans and African Americans, respectively) are predicted to have arisen in the past 5,000 years. SNVs that arose more than 50,000 years ago were observed more frequently in the African American samples (Fig. 1b), which probably reflects stronger genetic drift in European Americans associated with the Out-of-Africa dispersal.

…read more..

Dr. Gerald Schroeder Proves That God’s Existence is Most Probable

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • B.Sc. Chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.)
  • M.Sc. Earth and planetary sciences, M.I.T.
  • PhD Earth Sciences and Physics, M.I.T.

Side note: Schroeder is one of the scientists that influenced Antony Flew (the “pope” of atheism) to give up his atheism and join the theistic side. Bio info taken from the Net:

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute [The Agricultural Experiment Station established in 1921 developed into the Agricultural Research Organization (ARO), widely known as the Volcani Institute], while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics.

Schroeder’s formal theological training in biblical, talmudic and kabalistic interpretation includes fifteen years of study under the late Rabbi Herman Pollack, Rabbi Chaim Brovender and Rabbi Noah Weinberg, of blessed memory.

The scientific career that Schroeder chose has given him varied and often unusual experiences. In his work with nuclear disarmament, he has been present at the detonation of six atomic bombs. Work in control of radioactivity has put him hundreds of meters below ground in U.S. and foreign uranium mines. Within this research, he invented and had patented the first real time monitor for airborne alpha beta gamma emitters. The government of the People’s Republic of China, during the decade before it established direct contacts with Israel, was willing to overlook his Jerusalem address and had him as a frequent advisor. He also has consulted for agencies of the governments of Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, USA. Invitations for him to lecture have come from around the world. He has over 60 publications in the world’s leading scientific journals on topics ranging from the radon atmosphere of the moon (in Science) to the metabolism of mother’s milk (in Nutrition Reports International). The results of Schroeder’s work have been reported in Time, Newsweek, Scientific American and in newspapers as far apart as Boston and Adelaide. His formal training in chemistry, physics and the Earth and planetary sciences provides the basis for the broad scientific perspective he brings to his books and lectures.

For the past twenty-five years, Dr. Schroeder has also pursued a study of ancient biblical interpretation. An ability to handle the biblical material in the original languages allows him to tap the subtle depths contained in the original texts. These nuances are often missed when working with translations. The uniqueness and success of Schroeder’s approach integrating biblical and scientific knowledge is demonstrated by the success of his first book, Genesis and the Big Bang (published by Bantam Doubleday), and the wide acclaim for his second book The Science of God (published by The Free Press of Simon & Schuster and Broadway Books of Bantam Doubleday) which was on the Barnes & Noble list of non-fiction best sellers and was Amazon.com’s best selling book in the field of physics/cosmology for all of 1998. This was followed by The Hidden Face of God, discovering the unity that binds all existence (published by The Free Press of Simon & Schuster). His book, God According to God, A scientist proves we’ve been wrong about God all along, was published in May 2009 with HarperOne and has enthusiastic endorsements by leading theologians, both Jewish and Christian, and a Noble Laureate scientist.

His books appear in 10 languages.

Gerald Schroeder lives in Jerusalem with his wife (the author, Barbara Sofer). They’ve had five children with a changing number of grandchildren. He moved to Israel from the USA in 1971. In addition to his current work in radiation control, he teaches at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies, writes and lectures on the extraordinary confluence of modern science and ancient biblical commentary.

 

Gregory Koukl Interviews Stephen Meyer on a Myriad of Topics

Published by Papa Giorgio

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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)

Published by Papa Giorgio

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)

Published by Papa Giorgio

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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 window… The 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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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

Published by Papa Giorgio

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.”