Don McLeroy Looses and Gets Viciously Attacked

Senate rejects McLeroy by only a couple of votes, the majority was needed for his confirmation, but still 19 out of 3o who voted wasn’t bad. To no surprise the vote went down party lines.

McLeroy stirred up a hornet’s nest from militant defenders of evolution. Excitement, name calling, insulting people’s intelligence transpired in the reaction towards the result of the Senate rejecting McLeroy’s confirmation.

Taking a brief survey of the blog community, here are some of them, take a look…

One blogger writes, “Let me set you straight…Anyone with intelligence does not agree with Dr McLeroy. Just because he is a dentist, doesn’t make him intelligent.”

Another blogger writes, “McLeroy going down like this is punishment for licking Phillip Johnson’s boot. You silly little anti-science liars…who soil true religion with your lies… can pack up your stealth creationism pamphlets and head on back to Seattle now.”

“And don’t think you are doing the Lord’s work. There isn’t a God or Christ in heaven who approves of your lies. You are dishonest about your origin, dishonest about your intent, and dishonest about the science. Jesus certainly does not approve. To hell with Discovery Institute and intelligent design creationism. To hell with you trying to brainwash our children. Don’t mess with Texas.”

And one more blogger writes, “Good riddance to bad rubbish! McLeroy was an embarrassment to education in our state. Now…if we can just get rid of other religious nut-jobs like Senators Ogden & Patrick, we’d be in even better shape. So many right-wing Christians…so few lions!”

So what was upsetting these people so much which they thought they needed to comment in such an uncivil way? The new Science Standards which will soon go into effect in Texas which state and I quote…

“analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations.”

The angry pro-evolutionist crowd cried out, “code words” for creationism…lol…Here we go with the freemasonary conspiracy theory again only it’s a worldview in this case. Indeed, creationism uses this scientific method but it’s not inclusive for creationism. It can be also used while being taught evolution.

PZ Meyers encourages vicious attacks, mainly I believe to intimate those who he disagrees with, thinking it will help keep them quiet…One of his loyal commentators who’s number is #65 states the following…

“Maybe most of us atheists are calm rational people, but there is a line you cross, and deserve a violent response. The only thing keeping us going apeshit and smashing your skull through is recognizing the evolutionary changes that have allowed us to rationalize our thoughts, reason through violent urges, and actually empathize with even the most disgusting examples of human waste.”

What is really interesting, those who are trying to trap people in their black box have very pathetic results, one of which is very embarrassing considering how much money is spent on a student to education them in evolution.

Reported in a pro-evolutionist University blog…“On average, only 28% of the high school students taking the ACT , which is a national standardized test for college admission , reached a score indicating college readiness for biology and no state reached even 50%.”

This shows so plainly the public education dominated by the dictates of the liberal scientific establishment with more money than any other country in the world being spent has been failing.

It’s highly possible the Governor of Texas will appoint someone who will make militant special interest groups very angry, but who cares. We need strong leaders in government.  McLeroy helped improved the teaching method for science and we are certainly thankful for his efforts, students need to be taught how to ““analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing…”

Video Uses Homology To Challenge Non-Darwinists

A buzz about this new video has captured the attention from both sides of the fence concerning evolution. Originally this video was created by another person in youtube and then it was later revised. Major players in the pro-evolution movement such as the likes of PZ Meyers put his stamp of approval on the video. Others from the intelligent design movement have discovered the video as well and posted various responses about it.

I’m going to address the homology argument often times used by evolutionists as evidence of naturalism in biology as a means of showing a Creator namely God wasn’t involved in creating the design or in the terms of the modern ID movement, it wasn’t an unknown “intelligent agent or agents” involved with the design either.

In Nature: Molecular Systems Biology, the work on the Bacterial flagellum was commented upon…

“Motility in most bacterial species depends on a sophisticated molecular machine called the flagellum.  The flagellar apparatus is made of dozens of different proteins and thousands of individual subunits.  The bacterial flagellum is actually a mechanical nanomachine with a rotation frequency of 300 Hz, an energy conversion rate of nearly 100%, and the ability to self assemble.”

The paper reveals even more essential protein parts for the flagellum than in Michael Behe’s Book, Darwin’s Black Box but tries to interpret the data in light of evolution…

“The bacterial flagellum represents an interesting entity to study the evolution of complex biological machines.  For an evolutionary view of the flagellum on the protein level, we constructed a phylogenetic supertree solely based on flagellar protein sequences.  As anticipated, this tree closely recapitulates phylogenetic relationships identified, employing traditional phylogenetic marker molecules such as rRNAs.”

“Whereas it is generally believed that the motility machinery evolved from an ancient type III secretion system, the detailed steps leading to current structures have yet to be defined….Similar to protein sequences and structures, interactions among proteins are often conserved in the course of evolution.  In fact, the phylogenetic relationships of different species are partially reflected by the phylogenetic interaction profile of the integrated network.”

What is wrong with this so-called evidence of homology that is supposed to disprove intelligent design in favor of an unthinking natural cause? You might have noticed, there is something missing namely the absence of explanations in this paper on how naturalism could have produced a continually functioning bacterial flagellum through various steps of adaption rather the authors are telling us, similar to what we seen in the video challenge who uses the same argument that it merely self organized itself based on similarities.

The likes of PZ Meyers likes to accuse those he disagrees with such as;  “Creationists claim genes can’t be created without the intervention of a designer, and what do they do? Nothing.” Firstly, he tries to confuse the ID movement with creationism using homology, but the essence of the two are not the same. I also addressed this issue on “A Critical Look At Intelligent Design.”

Secondly, creationists believe in studying nature, and the advancement in technology and so on. If evolution didn’t exist, studying a gene would continue, as well as advancements in technology contrary to what PZ Meyers and others have said.

Creationists have often been criticized for coming to a conclusion about seeing God’s handy work in nature while studying it. It’s not a scientific method they claim. But on the other hand, evolutionists observe similarities in nature and claim they see evolution’s handy work. It’s no wonder evolutionists like to go on the offense and be the ones who do the challenging because it’s a smoke screen to cover their own weaknesses in a story known as evolution!

PZ Meyers Response to News Daily Joseph Farah

Oh these militant atheists who think they are setting the record straight, it’s always the creationist’s fault, attack, humiliate, that will show them according to the behavior of PZ Meyers.

This stems back from the unique fossil discovery of some ancient octopuses which was reported by LiveScience. PZ Meyers makes a weak attempt to refute Joesph Farah here is both sides of the argument…

1Scientists are baffled by the latest fossil find.

² It’s an octopus they claim is 95 million years old.

³ And, guess what? It looks just like a modern-day octopus — complete with eight legs, rows of suckers and even traces of ink.

⁴ In all that time, it seems, the octopus hasn’t evolved — not one tiny bit.

Actually those are some excellent points Joseph Farah points out, now the rebuttal by PZ Meyers…

1Scientists aren’t baffled at all by this discovery.

²Superficially, this is true — they do say it is 95 million years old. Farah is trying to spin it, though, by implying it is only a “claim”. It is a conclusion supported by the evidence.

³There are hundreds of octopod species. The level of description Farah provides is about what a four-year-old with a crayon might say, and it’s false. They (there were several species identified) do not look like modern octopods, but have several tell-tale differences.

⁴Completely false. Farah hasn’t read the paper, which fits these fossils into a long history of evolutionary change in the lineage.

What PZ Meyers fails to tell you is this, primitive octopi were presumed to have fleshy fins along their bodies. The rare fossils with a presumed age of 95 million years old, doesn’t show any fins, not only that, but it’s still one hundred percent an octopus! The new discovery of  rare fossils did not show any evidence of one animal turning into another animal. Sure there are variants within the species as we observe it today which is in agreement with the creationist model, but this doesn’t prove macro-evolution.

New Scientist Under Fire For Cutting Down Darwin’s Tree

A very staunch pro-evolution magazine did the unthinkable for some scientists and special interest alike, it cut down one of most revered concepts in evolution.  PZ Meyers who is a professor at a college in Minnesota, I would say is fits a description of a militant atheist wrote not one but two rants in his blog about New Scientist…

“We’re already seeing that cover abused by creationists who see it as a tool — a reputable popular science journal has declared Darwin to be wrong, therefore, once again, science must be in retreat! — and I expect we’re going to have to face the headache of many school board meetings where that cover is flaunted as evidence that students ought to be taught about how weak Darwinism is.”

Make no mistake about it, scientific theories from the past have been updated, or replaced, because of weakness or an obvious error. Since New Scientist is pro-evolution it was just a “mistake” to come to a conclusion that Darwin’s proposal of the tree is not realistic because of the new discoveries found since then. While on the other hand, creationists (and ID proponents) are portrayed as “abusive” for using such a reference. Yea right, PZ it was just a mistake on New Scientist’s part, and totally abusive on the creationists or ID part…Nothing could be further from the truth.

Militant Darwinists generally don’t find any glory with the term “weaknesses” in evolution and it’s public discussion (more like behind close doors or published with a high subscription fee) not even the hint of  weakness because they fear it brings not only joy to the opposition of their position on science but could seed doubt in someone’s mind about evolutionary theory.

It’s the only theory in science that supposedly has no weaknesses (just mysteries of the unknown which is believed to be filled in later, another concept of “soft science”) even though we see theories explaining other theories in evolution.

Generally what image they tried so very hard to portray about evolution is for how they want the public to conceptualize what they consider a scientific theory. As far as fundamental evolutionists, Darwin’s proposals can only be added into, not dissolved. So no matter what sort of problems they have trying to chart life in a form of a tree, or how long it’s been, it cannot be eliminated.  I call this nothing more than a massive complex metaphysical research program.

I find it interesting the content of the New Scientist article, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree” wasn’t even discussed in PZ Meyers blog, rather he was so concerned about commenting on just the cover…In a rebuttal, he mocks the following…

“The cover is going to cause us some headaches, but just be prepared with that bit of text — I think even just the paragraph I’ve highlighted will be sufficient — and when a creationists sticks those 3 words in your face, just ask them to stretch their reading abilities a little bit further and read those 72 words.”

The implication directed at creationists is somehow going to start claiming many secular scientists are abandoning evolution now as a whole, because of the article in New Scientist not one aspect of the hypothes is known as Darwin’s Tree of Life.

Come on, PZ Meyers. Are you serious? Since the article has been published, I haven’t seen not even one mainstream creationist make such a statement which was directed at evolutionary biologists giving up on evolution because the tree was cut down!