"The distance between a human being and our nearest chimpanzee-like ancestors, common ancestors is much, much, much greater than the difference between a chimpanzee and a flower."

If materialism is true, we are nothing more than glorified monkeys. There is no meaning behind anything you do. You are simply a product of an accident that began billions of years ago.

I think they live in denial about it because they understand it. Why do anything good if there is no such thing as good in the first place? These folks are the freeloaders of religion.

Why discover new drugs to cure cancer and malaria? Why help the poor and needy? Why was the holocaust wrong?

Is there any difference between a stripper dancing in vegas and a doctor serving in west Africa? If materialism is true, there is no difference at all.

[Eigenstate: “So, if I say the most meaningful and profound choices (in terms of human understanding and consequences) come from the same processes driven by our biological constitution as our most trivial choices, what of it? Why is that a problem for you or anyone, Barry?”]

Not a problem for me, Eigenstate. For example, I often pray while I’m taking a dump. Jesus loves. Prayer is evidence of deeper evolution btw.

Today I was watching my 8-month old sleep and how perfectly formed her eyelashes are. I marveled that evolution could, supposedly, make her little eyelashes such an optimal shape and size to confer the slight advantage of having a little less dust in her eyes, but evolution is not powerful enough to cull things like homosexuality out of the population.

A corollary of light photons having an absolute speed, its measurement as such, not being subject to the relative motions of the rest of objects in space-time, is that its origin is a non-local reference-frame.

Moreover, how else can you explain that curious phenomenon other than the supervening of an omniscient and omnipotent being, aka God? Since such agent needs to know who (which potential Observers) are motionless or traveling at a constant speed, where on the globe, and at what speed, in order to adjust the speed of such photons to always hit said traveling object at its absolute speed.

That is, unless we have two worlds coinhering – which is what the mainstream religions attest. Certainly Christianity.

Its just not true that men and women acheive equally.
Science axhievement still reflects this.
I’m not saying women are intellectual inferior.
Actually Darwin did say this.
I’m saying womens failure is due to motivation.
I see this as a very real identity of them due to their biblical calling to support their husbands first or only.
women don’t have ambition and despite or society pushing them they still fail to keep up anywhere where results are unbiased.
Only in school or other simple enterprises of mere studying do they compete.

This is a Mans world because we were created to do well before God.
We are on the make.

Yes there is a organized and profound agenda to raise women up at the immoral and illegal loss to men.
Affirmative action is for anyone the establishment wants to raise up and knows can’t without it.

So what should the ID guys do? Create a complex life form from scratch in under 100 days? That would show that intelligent design is required. Nature never done that. But if they can’t do it, does that prove intelligent design is not necessary? I don’t think so.

Could we please dispense with any patronizing nonsense about Darwin being less than the messiah of a materialistic religion that pretends to find its justification in science. If Darwin was not the alpha and omega of evolution, the he was either a knave or a fool or a madman. Darwin did not leave us any other options. He did not intend to.

(So when the Discovery Institute talks about an Intelligent Designer, it really does mean God?)

In the same manner as when the National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE) talks about the theory of evolution they mean that God is a superstitious fantasy and living things are really all just purposeless bags of chemicals - assembled by cosmic accident.

I hope that clears things up for you.

[comment on blog post about how "Darwinism" is an upper-class movement]

Not surprising, really. Religion tends to put restrictions on how much money one makes and how one makes money in the first place. So wealthy people have plenty of motivation to adopt an ideology that undermines religon.

[From the decision of Europen Council: “Creationism, which declares Scripture true then seeks material evidence to support the claim.”]

I would correct that to, “seeing that all the evidence we currently have available points to the Scripture being true we now seek the evidence to support it’s claims regarding human origins” - that’s more precise.

[Something gibberish, sorry, couldn't read what it said]

Indeed, you cannot count on the typical Darwinist for beginning from a position of either honesty or truth seeking.

They balways start from a “How dare you question Darwin, you fundamentalist fanatic you!” stance.

The only Darwinists I’ve met who were honestly seeking the truth of the matter are now IDists or full blown creationists.

I just want to know what they mean by “high molecular evolutionary rate.” It can’t be mutations, since there is no such thing at the molecular level. You need genes for that. So what are they referring to? These scientists are so blinded by evolutionary dogma that they are having trouble making the appropriate distinctions.

Muslims countries aren’t as interested in ID because they don’t need to deal with nearly as much atheist scum evolutionists with their evolving mind tricks. All our liberties are allowing the atheists here to destroy our society. George H.W. Bush was intelligent and thoughtful enough to say that atheists shouldn’t really be citizens. Maybe his son will have the intelligence to make a similar point, maybe in his next state of the union adress outlaw evolution. He wouldn’t need to say much, simply something like “every evolutionist is now an enemy of the Republic,” and then explain why. The muslim countries know how to deal with these people(one of the rare things they do right). Why can’t we follow their lead?

They say ID is dead yet they just can’t stop talking about it on Panda’s Thumb. I counted 21 mentions of “ID” and “Intelligent Design” on just the home page without expansion of any articles or comments.

If they believe ID is dead that means the thumbsters are necrophiliacs. Gross. I’ll add that to their growing list of character flaws; The Church Burnin’ Necrophiliac Ebola Boys. But hey, I just kid those fine folks. I understand that as chance worshippers they’re in the business of not letting go of dead ideas.

Hey Wesley! Can you spell non sequitur? I knew you could.

The most powerful lies are those made by true statements. In scriptures, satan often use this type of lying.

Word equals God x God (pure math)

Letting a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, etc, mathematically:

God x God x God ————————..= 47,900,160
70 seven fold x 99 x love—————. = 47,900,160
God x 1260 x love ————————= 47,900,160
10 % of heaven seven fold x God x G——.= 47,900,160
10 % of 1×2x3×4x5×6x7×8x9×10x11×12——. = 47,900,160
704 x 54 x 1260—.—.—.———————— = 47,900,160
iron (9 x 18 x 15 x 14) x 1408 (2 x God)..= 47,900,160
God x G x O x D x (God + God + God )—..= 47,900,160
47,900,160 minus (Jesus squared x one)—.= 47,160,900

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Word (22,680) x 2112 (3xGod) ———. = 47,900,160

The probability stretch is to imagine that life exists or ever existed anywhere but here. To make such a suggestion is to assume it was an accident which it most certainly was not. Ernst Mach the physicist once postulated that the entire cosmos was there simply to make this earth and all it inhabitants possible. I like that very much as it makes the earth the center of the universe after all, just as Hugh Ross and others have always assumed. However, you don’t have to be a religious fanatic to reach the same conclusion.

How do you inbred uneducated Darwimpian illiterates like that interpretation by one of the greatest minds of the past. I hope it gives you the runs. Don’t just squat there on your slimy, stinking, stool stained bar stools, blowing knee jerk Dawkinsian drivel out of both your major openings. Say something, do something, publish something. Prove to the world that you really exist. Esley Welsberry’s inner sanctum is rapidly becoming the laughing stock of the internet and I am delighted to be instrumental in making that, with all the invaluable assistance offered by the denizens there, so very obvious.

[Bye-bye privacy laws]

Anonymity is nothing but licence for ideological bigotry wherever it is permitted. I should have refused it at my blog but I had no means to enforce it or I would have. Anonymity in any form sucks. Got that? Write that down.

Religion is already set up in schools under the guise of unguided evolution. Science has not one single shred of empirical evidence to support the notion that evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. This affirmatively denies God which is something that is forbidden in science (science is agnostic) and is a clear violation of the establishment clause in that it discriminates against a religion. Government can neither promote nor demote religion. It must remain neutral on the subject.

['Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.' - Definition of evolution signed off on by 38 Nobel laureates]

As all of us who don’t cling to strawman versions of ID know, the only bone we have to pick with that definition is the unguided, unplanned part. We are of the position that evolution, in part or in whole, was a guided or planned process.

So how does one go about falsifying unguided evolution? By demonstrating that the process was guided, of course.

ID is the means by which this theory of unguided evolution can be falsified. If ID cannot be falsified and is itself just religion disguised as science [it's about time they admit that!], where does that leave unguided evolution? Why it leaves unguided evolution as unfalsifiable pseudo-science.

[Regarding the significance of Dover]

1) The devolution of Darwinism to mere “court science” is both the symptom and the means of its ultimate demise.

2) If the courts can independently proscribe religion in classrooms, then the courts can also independently require religion in classrooms.