The Dawn Treader

Neuroscientists have made a shocking discovery.  Babies feel pain.  Even young babies.  Even really young premies -- the medical miracle kind of babies.

Scientists have witnessed babies writhing as they lanced their heels for blood or inserted chest tubes.  Amazingly, they thought it was reflexive versus an indication that their young patient was in agony.  Gee thanks, doc.

Rather making the obvious conclusion, our esteemed scientific culture had to hook up brain monitors just to make sure that the babies were really hurting.  The results are in.  The babies are hurting.

So do you think being dismembered in a suction abortion might be a wee bit painful?  How about being burned alive in saline solution?  Or should we hook up brain monitors just to be sure?

Who needs miracles when we have scientists to explain things?

An oceanographer has theorized that Jesus may have walked on water ... well, chemically speaking.  But,  that "water" may have been an isolated chunk of ice floating on the sea of Galilee.  I always wondered how Jesus accomplished that.

Perhaps Peter caught a ride on some floating ice too, and drifted over to Jesus.  Sadly, according to the Bible, the wind blew and Peter's ice melted causing him to sink and cry out "Lord, save me"!

The are in.  This space borne instrument adds further evidence to support the inflationary Big Bang model.

It confirms that the following took place.  The universe grew from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.  Try to wrap your mind around that fact.

Ever wonder why God gave us microevolution in His grand design of the universe?

To put it to good use, of course.

Will there ever be another Einstein?  Science writer John Horgan thinks not.

Is it because there are no geniuses out there?  No.  Ed Whitten, for example, is considered to be the most mathematically gifted human being since Sir Isaac Newton.

So why?

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. A humorous and enterprising blogger copied my "interview with a cell biologist" and went and interviewed PZ Myers to see if he still believed in Evolution. Myers, the b'sphere's leading evangelist for Darwin, with a creationist-mocking blog that boasts of 10k visitors a day, does in fact still believe in every aspect of Evolution. Perhaps Richard Dawkins is next in line for an interview.

What is the status of evolutionary theory from the perspective of a cell biologist?  Is dissent of evolutionary theory allowed?  Has Behe been debunked?  Is evolution a theory in crisis? 

I have my opinion, certainly.  But what about a professional?  Perhaps someone like a cell biologist who holds a PhD in biochemistry from a Big Ten school, who teaches cell biology for a living, and who has been published in scientific journals. 

I found someone with all of those credentials and set up an interview. Here are my notes from that discussion.

For you non-techies, != is short hand for "not equals".  ;-)

Offering further support that ID != creationism, read CT's weblog post.  (note: the context of the CT post implies creationism to mean political activism aimed toward teaching that God created the heavens and the earth in public schools).

The Discovery Institute folks are against teaching ID in public schools because it is not ripe yet.  They want to continue the scientific research ... hopefully, under the metascientific heading of design.  The philosophers of science still need to work out the details.

Then, there are political activists who are promoting that doors be opened to teaching "the theory of intelligent design" in public classrooms.  Here is one such proposed bill in Pennsylvania.  It is not clear, to me anyway, who is championing this.  Discovery Institute is not behind mandating that intelligent design be taught, but only that negative evidence for Darwinian theory be presented next to positive evidence.  BTW, the PA bill (called HB 1007) does not mandate teaching intelligent design - it permits it, and only with board approval.  Still, I am not aware of which 'creationist" organization is claiming responsibility.

Then, there is Answers In Genesis (a leading YEC group) who criticizes the intelligent design movement as 'philosophically flawed".  They give Intelligent Design a lukewarm response.

Then, there is Reasons To Believe (a leading OEC group) who criticizes the intelligent design movement as "so painstakingly cautious, that naturalism may die of natural causes" before ID ever reaches its goals.  They "see a larger challenge to Christianity than naturalism: the challenge of a vague or idiosyncratic spirituality, faith detached from objective truth and legitimate spiritual authority."

Summary:  Organizations that promote the teaching of creation models are not enthusiastically supporting the Intelligent Design movement.  Further, the major supporter of the Intelligent Design movement (Discovery Institute) is not promoting the teaching of Intelligent Design theory in the classroom.   If they were, they would back HB 1007.

Ergo,  ID != creationism.

"It’s eerie, really. Five centuries ago, lay university professors invoked Scripture and religion in order to attack and destroy an opponent whose views threatened to topple academia. Today, they are doing it again. The only difference is the targets – in the early 1600’s, the university professors were trying to destroy Galileo. Today, they’re trying to destroy the theory behind intelligent design, using very nearly the same techniques they used against Galileo.

Contrary to popular belief, neither Copernicus nor Galileo were initially attacked by the Catholic Church. Indeed, both received most of their initial support from Catholic priests, bishops and popes. No, when it came to these two mathematicians, it was the lay academic community, the university professors, who hated their guts."

Galileo Redux
By Steve Kellmeyer (08/16/05)

Thought provoking.

HT: Prosthesis who HT'd Steve Bishop

I am well overdue for the completion to this story.  I went back to hear Hugh Ross speak in the evening service.  I was hoping to hang out afterwards and ask him questions about his experiences in apologetics, versus questions about science and faith.

The evening service at Sierra Madre was really nice.  The worship singing was excellent.  Hugh was given a brief introduction and rose to speak.  He once again used a powerpoint.