December 28th, 2010 by M. French

Astronomer Martin Gaskell is suing the University of Kentucky for religious discrimination.  Evolution News & Views sums it up well (emphasis mine):

Perhaps the most interesting detail Oppenheimer reports concerns the “smoking gun” in Gaskell’s case: the text of a 2007 email from UK staffer Sally Shafer to two colleagues:

“Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with,” Ms. Shafer wrote, “but potentially evangelical. If we hire him, we should expect similar content to be posted on or directly linked from the department Web site.”

To this gem, Gaskell’s attorney, Francis J. Manion, said: “I couldn’t have made up a better quote. ‘We like this guy, but he is potentially Jewish’? ‘Potentially Muslim’?”

Bingo. Apparently committing evangelical Christianity disqualifies a scientist from employment at the University of Kentucky.

Yet again, the popular myth that current scientific authorities are “scientific” and “objective” while followers of Jesus are the ones with a worldview is shown to be false.  Even though Dr. Gaskell was not interviewing to teach evolutionary theory, and even though he’s stated that he “accepted standard evolutionary science,” he was (gasp) “potentially evangelical,” and therefore someone to be avoided.  Sounds like the scientific authorities are the ones interested in propagating their godless worldview without incident, while Dr. Gaskell just wants to teach Astronomy, doesn’t it?

Posted in News, Philosophy & Science Tagged with: , , , , , ,

December 5th, 2009 by Frank Turek

Editor’s Note: Originally published on, used with permission. Frank Turek is a speaker and author, and a leading Christian apologist. Learn more at his website

You can’t put honesty in a test tube.

“Science” doesn’t say anything—scientists do.

Those are a couple of the illuminating conclusions we can draw from the global warming e-mail scandal.

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE

“You mean science is not objective?”  No, unless the scientists are, and too often they are not.   I don’t want to impugn all scientists, but it is true that some of them are less than honest.  Sometimes they lie to get or keep their jobs.  Sometimes they lie to get grant money.  Sometimes they lie to further their political beliefs.   Sometimes they don’t intentionally lie, but they draw bad scientific conclusions because they only look for what they hope to find.

Misbehavior by scientists is more prevalent than you might think.  A survey conducted by University of Minnesota researchers found that 33% of scientists admitted to engaging in some kind of research misbehavior, including more than 20% of mid-career scientists who admitted to “changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”  Think of how many more have done this but refuse to admit it!   (The researchers said as much in their findings.)

Outright lies and deception certainly seem to be the case with “Climategate.”  The exposed e-mails reveal cherry picking; manipulating data; working behind the scenes to censor dissenting views; and doubting what the measurements say because they don’t fit their pre-determined conclusion.   Matt Drudge headlined this yesterday as the “Greatest scandal in modern science.”

I actually think there is another great scientific scandal, but its misrepresentations are not quite as obvious.  In this scandal, instead of outright lies, scientific conclusions are smuggled in as philosophical presuppositions.  Such is the case with the controversy over the origin of life and new life forms.  Did natural forces working on non-living chemicals cause life, or is life the result of intelligent activity?   Did new life forms evolve from lower life forms by natural forces or was intelligence needed?

Dr. Stephen Meyer has written a fabulous new best-selling book addressing those questions called Signature in the Cell. Having earned his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science, Dr. Meyer is at the top of the science food chain.  In our August 8th radio interview, he told me he’s been working on his 600+ page book—which isn’t short of technical detail—for more than a decade.

What qualifies a man who has a Ph. D. in the “philosophy of science” to write on the origin of life or macroevolution?  Everything.  What some scientists, and many in the general public fail to understand is that science cannot be done without philosophy.  All data must be interpreted.  And much of the debate between Intelligent Design proponents (like Dr. Meyer) and the Darwinists (like Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins) is not a debate over evidence—everyone is looking at the same evidence.  It’s a debate over philosophy.   It’s a debate over what causes will be considered possible before we look at the evidence.

Scientists look for causes, and logically, there are only two possible types of causes—intelligent causes or non-intelligent causes (i.e. natural causes).   A natural cause can explain a geologic wonder like the Grand Canyon, but only an intelligent cause can explain a geologic wonder like the faces of the presidents on Mount Rushmore.  Likewise, natural laws can explain why ink adheres to the paper in Dr. Meyer’s book, but only an intelligent cause can explain the information in that book (i.e. Dr. Meyer!).

How does this apply to the question of the origin of life?  Long after Darwin, we discovered that “simple” single-celled life is comprised of massive volumes of DNA information called specified complexity—in everyday terms, a complicated software program or a really long message.  Richard Dawkins admits that the information content of the “unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoeba” would fill 1,000 volumes of an encyclopedia!

What’s the cause of this?  Here’s where the philosophy comes in.  Dr. Meyer is open to both types of causes.  Richard Dawkins is not.  Dr. Meyer’s book explains why natural forces do not appear to have the capacity to do the job, only intelligence does.  However, Dawkins and his Darwinist cohorts philosophically rule out intelligent causes before they look at the evidence.  So no matter how much the evidence they discover points to intelligence (as a long message surely does), they will always conclude it had to be some kind of natural cause.   In other words, their conclusion is the result of their philosophical presupposition.

While Dawkins has no viable natural explanation for life or the message contained therein, he says he knows it cannot be intelligence.  That philosophical presupposition leads to what appears to be an unbelievable conclusion:  To believe that 1,000 volumes of an encyclopedia resulted from blind natural forces is like believing that the Library of Congress resulted from an explosion in a printing shop.  I don’t have enough faith to believe that.

“This is a ‘God of the gaps’ argument!”  Dawkins might protest.  No it isn’t.  We don’t just lack a natural explanation for “simple” life—1,000 encyclopedias worth of information is positive empirically verifiable evidence for an intelligence cause.  Consider the cause of the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, for example.  It’s not merely that we lack a natural explanation for the book (of course we know that the laws of ink and paper couldn’t have written the book).  It’s also the fact that we know that messages only come from minds.   Therefore, we rightly posit an intelligent author, not a blind natural process.

Why is it so hard for Dawkins and other Darwinists to see this?  Maybe they refuse to see it.  Maybe, like global warming “scientists,” they have their own political or moral reasons for denying the obvious.  Or maybe they’ve never realized that you cannot do science without philosophy.  As Einstein said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.”   And poor philosophers of science may often arrive at false scientific conclusions.  That’s because science doesn’t say anything—scientists do.

Posted in News, Philosophy & Science Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 2nd, 2009 by Daniel Kolenda

Adovasio hold up ancient tool as evidence of early human settlement

I was practically screaming at my television set as I watched this. I don’t usually get so carried away when scientists say things that are intellectually dishonest. Actually, I guess I’ve come to expect it after many hours of watching NOVA and Steven Hawking. But this time, I couldn’t contain myself.

This was an episode of Naked Science on the National Geographic Channel that aired on Sunday, July 26th. The show’s thesis was that, new scientific evidence is suggesting that human beings had somehow made their way to the Americas thousands of years earlier than archeologists once thought. And these humans were not the hairy knuckle dragging cave men that your high school textbooks might suggest, but rather highly intelligent sea-faring engineers of amazing skill.

For the most compelling evidence of this they turned to J.M. Adovasio, PH.D, who is the director of Mercyhurst Archeological Institute. Adovasio is excavating an archeological site at Medocroft Rock Shelter, 35 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He and his team have been peeling this excavation site back layer by layer for the last 33 years. Each layer is carbon dated for age and they are able to record their findings for each chronological snapshot of time like flipping through the pages of a history book.

It was thought that the first Americans arrived on the continent 13,500 years ago, but when Adovasio reached the 13,500-year mark he kept digging. He describes what he was finding as, “unprecedented materials”. After another year of digging, they found an artifact that would “re-write the history books”.

Adovasio himself holds up a small black rock that appears to be polished in a slightly triangular shape. He twiddles it back and forth in this fingers holding it close to the camera and declares, “This very delicate tool is the oldest form tool from the site. It’s slightly older than 16,000 years.” Then the host says with confident assurance, “This find suggests that there was human life in North America 16,000 years ago…BECAUSE IF THERE WAS A TOOL – THERE WERE PEOPLE.”

This rock is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE worthy of REWRITING THE TEXTBOOKS that human beings lived in America much earlier than previously thought. They were certain that people must have been there because tools don’t just make themselves. Could they observe the people who were there? No. Could they touch them or talk to them? No. The remnants of one of their tools was evidence enough. “…IF THERE WAS A TOOL – THERE WERE PEOPLE.” Its as simple as that.

It would be one thing if they found a typewriter or a bicycle or a computer chip…but they found – a rock…a polished rock. This little black rock is considered watertight scientific evidence that people were there because, “…IF THERE WAS A TOOL – THERE WERE PEOPLE.”

Wait…Are you telling me that that little triangular rock couldn’t have just kind of evolved that way? Don’t you think it’s feasible that the water or weather or something other than an intelligent human designer could have contributed over thousands of years to the slightly triangular shape of this rock? Yet there is no dispute from the scientific community. The evidence is conclusive – “IF THERE WAS A TOOL – THERE WERE PEOPLE”. Any moron could make such a simple deduction…right?

Now I’m no scientist, but I see a little bit of hypocrisy here. If a tiny, black, triangular rock, is scientific evidence that intelligent people must have made it, what are we to think about the trillions upon trillions upon trillions of atoms that make up our planet, each with electrons spinning with the synchronization of a Swiss watch around a nucleus made of protons and neutrons, like a self contained solar system?

What about the unbelievably complex design of our bodies that employ the aid of over 200 muscles just to take a single step?

What about the human eye, which is so elegant that scientists still don’t fully understand how it works? It completes 100,000 separate functions in a single day and it even conducts its own maintenance work while we sleep. It has automatic aim, focus and aperture adjustment. It even provides color and 3-D images and it can automatically function from darkness to bright light instantly. It can discern over 10 million color hues, including 500 shades of grey alone and can take in more information than the largest, most complicated telescopes ever invented.

What about our skin which contains in ONE SQUARE INCH; 4 yards of nerve fibers, 600 pain sensors, 1300 nerve cells, 36 heat sensors, 75 pressure sensors, 100 sweat glands, 3 million cells, 3 yards of blood vessels and 9000 nerve endings which send messages to our brain at speeds of up to 124 mph?

What about our brains, which only weigh about 3 pounds and yet contain 12 billion cells each of which is connected to 10,000 other brain cells, making 120 trillion connections. The brain stores so much memory data that by the age of 40, it would take the Empire State building full of computers just to store the same amount of information. It generates more electrical impulses in a single day then all of the world telephones put together, yet it uses less energy than a refrigerator light.

What about the DNA molecules in our bodies – the most complex molecules in the universe. Their code is so unbelievably elaborate that if you typed out all the DNA code in your body, it would create enough books to fill Grand Canyon 40 times.

What about bacteria such as E. Coli, which is equipped with a propulsion system, complete with a motor, rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, universal joint and flexible propeller; 40 moving parts in all, made solely from protein molecules. The ion powered motor can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm, can reverse direction in only 1/4 of a revolution and has an automatic feedback control mechanism. In spite of it’s enormous complexity, its size is only 1/100,000 of an inch (1/4,000 mm) in width.

Of course I could go on and on and on talking about the wonders gravity and magnetism that science still cannot fully explain, the flawless rhythm of the solar system, the perfect balance of nitrogen and oxygen in earths atmosphere that makes life possible, the amazing order in nature that forms a self supporting system of life, reproduction and disposal. But is any of this necessary? The scientific community is holding up a triangular shaped rock as conclusive evidence of intelligent (human) design.

Now I’m not asking any scientists to fall on their face and confess Jesus as Lord, all I am asking for is a little bit of honesty and humility. If there is a tool than simple logic suggests that there must have been a person who fashioned it and if there is an amazing world full of incomprehensible wonders of design then maybe, just maybe it’s possible that there is a designer. No wonder Psalms 14:1 says, “The fool saith in his heart there is no God”.

Posted in Philosophy & Science Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

June 24th, 2009 by Marc Thomas

Guardian – 50% of Britons do not believe in evolutionism while only a quarter say it’s definitely true. Ironically, the results of the ‘Rescuing Darwin’ survey also reveal that 25% believe evolution is only ‘probably’ true.

The survey was conducted by ComRes ( whose clients include several of the biggest British banks, the BBC and the General Medical Council.

10% of British people felt that Young Earth Creationism was the best theory and a further 12% chose the idea of Intelligent Design. However, one critical voice from the academic world, James Williams (Sussex University) responded to the results, Creationists ask if ­people believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the creationists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious belief.”

Posted in News, Philosophy & Science Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,