Richard Dawkins vs Governor Perry

Last week Governor Perry from Texas announced he’ll be running for President. Days after the announcement, he makes a statement about being against evolution and is an intelligent design proponent. This is a highly unusual statement, given the fact that, the United States has been in a recession since 2008. People are still loosing jobs or being being laid off at an alarming rate. Nevertheless, this issue always draws a lot of media attention and debate. Perhaps this is why he brought it up.

Richard Dawkins, known for his book, “God Delusion” weighed in on Governor Perry’s statement by quoting him this way which is supposed to be a copy from the Washington Post…

Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” According to a 2009 Gallup study , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?”

There is a typo in this quote that should be corrected. Public schools in Texas do not teach both creationism and evolution, they only teach evolution. What Perry did say was this…

“I am a firm believer in Intelligent Design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution.”

So Richard Dawkins attacks Governor Perry educational background and character, which is the norm for him but so childish then proceeds to tell him evolution is a fact, and the tree of life hypothesis is evidence of that. Since the modern intelligent design movement is a promoter of a common ancestor, but not in the Darwinian way, they come to Perry’s defense and attack Dawkins stance with other evolutionary biologists who reject the tree of life hypothesis for something else within the framework of evolution because it has been falsified so many times, they can no longer force the data into its explanation.

“Unknown to Darwin, microbes use two mechanisms of natural variation that disobey the rules of tree-like evolution: lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis” -Nature 2004.

Random biological variation according to evolution eventually produces all kinds of biological novelties. However, their proposal of biological variation comes with a cost rather than with a reward like evolution requires. For example, horizontal gene transfer is when genetic material gets transferred between individuals rather than vertically between generations. Recent studies have found that attempts to simulate the evolution of the genetic code via traditional evolutionary mechanisms leads to utter failure.

One study as recently as last year, states…“Starting with a random initial population of codes being used by different organisms—all using the same DNA bases but with different associations of codons and amino acids—they first explored how the code might evolve in ordinary Darwinian evolution. While the ability of the code to withstand errors improves with time, they found that the results were inconsistent with the pattern we actually see in two ways.

“First, the code never became shared among all organisms—a number of distinct codes remained in use no matter how long the team ran their simulations. Second, in none of their runs did any of the codes evolve to reach the optimal structure of the actual code. “With vertical, Darwinian evolution,” says Goldenfeld, “we found that the code evolution gets stuck and does not find the true optimum.”

Nothing in biology obtains clarity in light of evolution, only mystery on top of mystery which is perceived as observational facts by inventing a storyline for it, which makes it the only theory in science without experimental evidence.  The tree of life hypothesis does not prove evolution as a fact like Richard Dawkins tries to suggest.

Indeed, there are many gaps, and many of these gaps are filled with a lot of speculation.  I respectfully disagree with Governor’s Perry’s idea even though I agree, God is the designer of nature. It’s highly unlikely creationism would be treated fairly, rather than having public schools focus on where it came from, focus on how nature works and let students decide where it came from like God or evolution!

Desperate Darwinist War Against The Discovery Channel

James J. Lee decided the cable channel wasn’t in agreement with his agenda so he took hostages and was killed before any harm was done to the people who were in his custody. Every movement or organization has a nutcase who wants to be part of their cause. This one happened to be a Darwinist who has a list of demands…

“All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease. There is no sense in advertising weapons of mass-destruction anymore.”

All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.”

“Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!”

Atheist PZ Myers disputes a connection between Darwinian evolution and James Lee, he writes in his political liberal (not really much in science) blog

“They don’t make claims that believing in Darwin will make you a good person.”

Just Darwin himself? No, the theory of evolution. His good friend Richard Dawkins who is also an atheist, says to the contrary in his book, The Selfish Gene

“Faith cannot move mountains (though generations of children are solemnly told the contrary and believe it). But it is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness. It leads people to believe in whatever it is so strongly that in extreme cases they are prepared to kill and to die for it without the need for further justification… Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings…”

One has to be in some sort of denial concerning the implication Dawkins is giving here. To him, if one rejects the Bible and God and embraces evolution, they are a better person than one who is religious or a Christian. PZ Meyers also believes this as well.

“Religious faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbow, the warhorse, the tank, and the hydrogen bomb.”

This sounds like James J. Lee except he’s not criticizing the discovery channel rather anyone of faith including Christians. While it’s true Dawkins and PZ Myers are not as extreme like going out and putting fear into people by taking them hostage to promote their cause, but they do have similar tones to their statements. The fact of the matter is, Dawkins is wrong about faith even a Darwinist can be prepared to take lives or die for his or her cause.

There is certainly a connection with evolution and the self-imposed war that was conducted by James Lee, if he claimed to be a Christian, they would be blaming his religious beliefs for his evil deeds, much like Dawkins calls faith a “metal illness.”

Darwin Apologist Writes Another Story About Nature

For those of you who are not aware, one of the leading proponents and advocate of evolution, who also attempts to use evolution as a tool against the Bible in order to try and sway people in another direction, his name of course is none other than Richard Dawkins.

He has written such books as “The God Delusion” and “The Blind Watchmaker” and his latest, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.” Dawkins was asked if he would debate another author who wrote a book “Signature of the Cell” by Stephen Meyer which is a book that proposes evidence for intelligent design. Dawkins a guest on Fox News who has debated O’Reily a few times on a show called; “The Factor” refused to debate Stephen Meyer’s book. He claimed it held “no water.” A shallow response, did that mean he really believed O’Reily held a stronger argument with water? Nope!  In reality, Fox News has huge ratings, so much so, Dawkins couldn’t resist the publicity it would bring to his books so he goes on there.

What about this new book? It holds too many straw-man arguments while missing some points about creationism. For example, Dawkin attempts to prove a “bad design” in nature as evidence for evolution. …He points out this so-called; example…

“But all flightless birds including ostriches and their kind, which lost their wings a very long time ago, are clearly descended from ancestors that used them to fly. No reasonable observer should doubt the truth of that, which means that anyone who thinks about it should find it very hard — why not impossible — to doubt the fact of evolution.” (p. 345)

How can anyone doubt evolution by observing flightless birds? Wow, pretty weak evidence! For one thing, Dawkins is pointing out an example of an animal loosing information (wings). What Dawkins fails to prove is an animal gaining brand new information which is at the core of the evolutionary debate! Flightless birds isn’t contrary to the creationist model! In fact, it’s still a bird! The creationist model disagrees with one animal mutating into a totally different animal, not loosing an ability or part. This might impress Dawkins’ gullible choir but it’s not really indisputable evidence for evolution as he claims it is.

Dawkins once again points out a bad example which turned out to be more of a problem with new evidence after he wrote the book, the early pterosaur, Rhamphorhynchus, with a long tail “with the ping-pong bat at the end.” A new pterosaur fossil  does damage to the Maynard Smith hypothesis as well as Dawkin’s claims in the book. The pterosaur fossils, Darwinopterus modularis being the latest discovery with a claim of being 160 million years old which is on the young side of Rhamphorhynchus, both of these fossils have a long tail with “advanced” features in the head and neck. The evolution story now looks like the latter features arose without being driven by selection for compensation for loss of stability.

This has puzzled evolutionists as the evidence is not matching up with their story as it was reported in the BBC,  McGrath states;“But the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms.” So now Darwinian gradualism which Dawkins proposes in his book as evidence is replaced by a new slant to the story.

“This pattern supports the idea that modules, tightly integrated complexes of characters with discrete, semi-independent and temporally persistent histories, were the principal focus of natural selection and played a leading role in evolutionary transitions.”

The pattern points to an intelligent designer, namely God not to this “idea” which is nothing more than a story based on evidence that doesn’t hold to any pattern in evolution whether it be with Darwinian gradualism or this new line of story telling. More on this particular subject matter located in the biotic message theory, as proposed by Walter ReMine who wrote The Biotic Message.

So we see the example of flightless birds is just one of many examples which doesn’t really prove evolution at all, Dawkins was right, it’s a show but not the greatest one and it’s without the substance!

Is The Theory Of Evolution Based On Faith?

Richard Dawkins once wrote in The Blind Watchmaker, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”  Dawkins statement really reminds me of Roman Catholicism which teaches one can read the Bible, but only the ‘church’ can interpret it’s meaning.

It’s the same with Dawkins here, what we see in nature gives the appearance of designed and purpose, but according to him, we are not to trust what we see, rather how proponents of evolution interpets it. But as Christians, the reason why nature looks designed with a purpose, because it was designed with a purpose.

The estimation by evolutionists concerning the first stone blades date back some 40,000 years ago then it had to be revised to 200,000 as more was found in the lower strata. Now Kenyan blades were recently discovered, and these stone blades interesting enough were estimated within the framework of evolution as being 500,000 years old!

Kenyan blades

Evolutionary anthropologists have a tough task ahead of them concerning more revising of their interpretation of how the earth was created with this new evidence!  The problem lays with the belief that humans emerged from an ape-like ancestor some 200,000 years ago and now are very surprised to find so-called pre-humans who were supposedly 300,000 years younger were able to make knifes.

However, the new discovery is great news for Christians all over the world, because it verifies the creationist model which makes no such claim pre-humans to humans. Man according to the creationist model, was created fully human therefore the discovery of the stone blades made by ancient man deemed to be from very early on in earth’s history (not 500,000 years when it was assumed by evolutionists that man didn’t know how to ride a horse till many tens of thousands of years later) proves this fact.

One of the most vetted experiments for over the past 50 years which has come up empty but yet still believed, is non-living matter to living organisms. This is contrary to the scientific principle of entropy.

Another aspect we see, but yet supposed to deny our observation based on evolution, is people reproduce people, animals reproducing after their own kind. But the evolutionist interpretation says mutation over millions of years create new species. Mutations are limited, they gain information by other organisms or  loose information to gain some sort advantage one dimensionally while loosing an advantaged it previously had when it didn’t mutate. So the cell which didn’t mutate has more functions over the one that mutated.

Evolutionists abandon the scientific principle of entropy for a leap in faith!