STR † THE FREEDOM BLOG

Friends,

The Democratic strategy is clear - they are undermining our spiritual welfare by bringing some of the world’s most notorious atheists from overseas to “blast” our faith with their overwhelming “reason”. When translated through the multiple layers of Democratic-doublespeak and gobeldygook, this translates as yet another attack on our values - but this time they are going for the very heart of what makes us American: Our spirituality.

The Atheist: He has been conditioned by a secularist society to react with horror to the message of Christ’s love. To him it is blatently ridiculous, and absurd notion to be laughed at, but Jesus will have the last laugh when the atheist is condemned to Satan’s fiery pit of eternal death!

This attack is being lead by malevolent foregin forces, folks like Christopher Hitchins (British), Sam Harris (who acts like a foreigner but is American, if you believe), or the cyber-terrorism advocate Cory Doctorow (Canadian) but worst of all king of the wing-nuts is richard Richard Dawkins who has been rewarded for his most recent assault on American values by being given a new TV series. As usual, the comments on William Dembski’s blog “Overwhelming Evidence” are right on the money:

Richard Dawkins, the self-appointed cop of enlightenment rationality is at it again, his new show on BBC’s Channel 4 is called “The Enemies of Reason” - no he’s not finally come round to our common sense point of view, he’s flailing his blunt atheistic hatchet in ever wider circles, and this time his target is spirituality.

For me, spirituality is one of the most important gifts a human being can have: That ineffable knowledge that something might be out there - our connection with higher-powers, a spiritual realm or even G-d himself. What right does Richard Dawkins have to deny a generation of human beings the comfort of a spiritual life?

That’s right, Dawkins has set his Al-Queda sniper target on the beating heart of American culture, the very thing that makes us different from the infidels, and atheists of Europe - our profound sense of spiritual life, our love of God. But what of Dawkins’ motive for this unprovoked attack on our values? Dembski’s blog again has the answer:

Dawkins is exposed as an angry old man - lacking in spirituality himself he is determined that nobody else should enjoy it. Yet, the world abounds with evidence that clearly contradicts Dawkin’s unfounded assertions. We all know of accounts of people who have seen living phantasms, or communicated telepathically. Dawkins wants you to believe that your spiritual experiences are nothing but bunk, hallucinations. Is this mere provocation, or has militant Dawkins got a dark agenda - trying to convert the world to his brand of atheism?

Once again, militant fundamentalist atheism rears it’s ugly head: Dawkin’s business is more than rejecting the love of Jesus, he is trying to make the world more spiritually ignorant by denying that spiritual phenomena exists. It is precisely this kind of spiritual ignorance that leads the population at large to ignore the malevolent power of pro-witchcraft books like Harry Potter. Could the Atheists therefore be the unwitting stooges of satanists and other forms of occultists? I think so.

Shortly after this meeting with Richard Dawkins, this brave Pastor was tempted by unspeakable liberal sins. Would this man have been exposed to a culture of corruption had it not been for Dawkins? I think not.

For dawkins facts we take for granted, such as the healing power of prayer are reduced to mere co-incidences for his gang of rogue statisticians to analyze and dismiss as irrelivant, but we shall not allow our cherished faith to be dismissed so easily. Once again, Dembski has the answers:

I call upon spiritual people of all backgrounds, whether you are a pagan, Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem, Jew or Christan. It’s time to inform the BBC that our spiritual beliefs are sacred and that British taxpayers should not be funding this of offense to our most cherished beliefs.

Mr Dawkins should be denied the opportunity to speak about matters of which he clearly has no knowledge. If he stopped his angry atheist act just for a moment, then G-d’s spirit might just find a way to enlighten his corrupt soul.

I’m not sure if I can agree 100%. I could only stand near a pagan if I had good reason to suspect that they were not homosexual and a firm guarantee that they would not put the evil-eye or some other gypsy curse on me. Even if the idea is flawed in practice, I do applaud the principle that people of spirituality should band together and demonstrate Dawkns’ atheist ideas for the sheer lunacy that it obviously is.

Yours in Christ,

Tristan J. Shuddery

Friends,

A common criticism of ID made by neo-darwinist liars is that our science of Intelligent Design brings no benefits. They claim that ID is useless because it has no practical applications. How wrong they are. More than any other science, I predict that advances in ID biology will yield important discoveries in medicine and soon people will forget entirely about the discredited theory of Evolution. The topic of today’s article is only the “tip of the iceberg” compared to what the ID approach has to offer.

Some recent presentations on the “ID the Future Podcast” by the Discovery Institute’s Luskin-award winning Casey Luskin and Senior Fellow Michael Behe have corrected some common liberal misconceptions about neo-darwinist evolution, these misconceptions have enormous medical impact.

When you visit a doctor with a cold, why is it that he may be reluctant to prescribe a life-saving antibiotic? Could it be because your doctor has fallen for a neo-darwinist lie?

In a nutshell, these podcasts explain that doctors have mis-understood the concept of antibiotic resistance, mainly because they have applied a flawed materialistic, evolutionary world-view to this problem. Doctors often restrict the prescription of anti-biotics because they fear that antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria will evolve, thus creating super-bacteria, which they incorrectly believe might be very deadly diseases. Antibiotic resistant bacterial infections are often cited as evidence for the power of neo-darwinian evolutionary theory. But is it?

What they failed to notice was that each time a bacteria becomes immune to an antibiotic, it usually becomes dramatically weakened and less able to survive in other respects. Antibiotic is like a poision for bacteria. If you took repeated doeses of poison would it make you stronger? Of course, not and the evolutionist’s view makes as much sense as drinking poison to stay healthy!

See “Is Antibiotic Resistance Evidence for Darwinian Evolution?”:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-06-15T12_37_45-07_00

Evolutionist doctors believe that antibiotic resistance is a bad thing because in their world-view, the thing they fear the most is a strain of bacteria which is resistant to multiple forms of antibiotic; however what they have failed to comprehend is that such a bacterial strain would have been so weakened by evolution as to become hardly a danger to mankind.

Why should eliteist liberal doctors who perform abortions get to decide who receives antibiotics? These drugs are a gift from God to help us fight the Devil’s plague. The Bible commands us to use all weapons at our disposal to fight the enemy.

Why has this knowledge been suppressed? I believe that elitist liberal doctors who have an interest in controlling our access to medication do not want us to know how easy it would be to eliminate all bacterial disease. They keep the antibiotics for themselves, and their liberal friends in order to kill-off hard-working Christians and their families. There is a simple solution to this problem, and it’s a perfectly conservative proposal that would make any Reagan conservative smile:

How would President Reagan have solved this problem: Simple - he’d trust a free, unregulated market economy to distribute antibiotics to anybody who through hard-work and diligence can afford them. Why should Americans be forced to tolerate government hand-outs for these drugs? A free market economy in which the drug-companies have direct access to customers is the only fair way to sell these products.

We simply need to de-regulate the market for antibiotics, so that anybody can buy what they need. Why should we care if the bacteria will become “antibiotic resistant”. As Michael Behe explains in this podcast, a resistant bacteria has been weakened and is therefore unable to cause infection.

“An Interview with Michael Behe author of The Edge of Evolution”
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-06-13T14_11_59-07_00

Doctors have misunderstood the nature of evolution. Mislead by neo-darwinist lies they have imagined that evolution is a creative, intelligent force that can somehow make bacteria more deadly. As Behe explains, Evolution is nothing to be afraid of, and can only practically weaken a strain of bacteria to the point where it is no longer a threat to mankind.

That’s the kind of practical important results that come from a study of ID - now why is it that Evolutionists are still in denial?

Yours in Christ,

Tristan J. Shuddery

Ask a materialist if an infinitely powerful entity is possible, and they will reply with a “No!”, without even bothering to consider your question for a moment. The materialist’s understanding of the laws of thermodynamics exclude any knowledge of systems that have infinite energy. Unfortunately for materialists, their understanding of these basic scientific principles is about to receive a major challenge.

Genius magnet-man Richard Walche outside his company’s high-tech laboratory. Steorn’s desire to find a source of free energy may also be the best validation for William Dembski’s ID theories.

Sean McCarthy and Richard Walshe, the two boffins behind Steorn Research unveiled their latest gizmo: The Orbo, a magnetic engine which according to their carefully controlled experiments can produce up to three times as much energy as is put into it, effectively creating an infinite amount of energy from apparently nowhere.

Just like the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Steorn’s discoveries have been called blasphemy by the pharisees of our day: Materialist scientists like Richard Dawkins. The Bible teaches us to stand by our convictions, indeed Steorn’s CEO knows that his product works in the same way that he knows God exists. What more could you want than that?

Steorn’s findings totally undermine a basic premise of materialism, simply by demonstrating a confirmed physical effect that materialists predict cannot happen. These clever Irish researchers have demonstrated that the principles of thermodynamics function in a manner far closer to the predictions of ID Gurus William Dembski and William Brookfield than the clearly flawed thermodynamic claims of Stephen Hawkings and Maxwell.

Powered by magnets, Steorn’s Orbo uses no fuel at all and yet is able to produce three times as much energy as is put into it. Materialists have long claimed that this is impossible, however this chart strongly disproves that long-held materialist dogma.

The same scientists who tell you that Intelligent Design is impossible also dispute the hard-facts of Steorn’s peer-reviewed findings. I predict that this humble contraption will show the world just how much materialists have misled mainstream-science.

Thanks to Sam Chen from OverwhelmingEvidence.com for permission to re-publish this excellent article.

[Note - This article?is reposted?from Blogs For Brownback.? We're trying to get hold of the original author, sisyphus, and get proper permission, but sometimes you read something that smacks you upside the head so hard that your brains get knocked back into the place where they used to be before Madeline Murray O'Hare and the Dummy-Crats poisoned the air of God's righteousness with their secular humanism and sodomy.? I'm expecting the pews to be full on Sunday after y'all read this!]

What?s even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulless doctrine of evolution, is the non-debate over an issue that rational Americans have foolishly conceded to the secular among us: the issue of Heliocentrism, or the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Now, it has to be granted that there may be some mathematical evidence going either way; mathematically speaking, Copernicus may be on ground nearly as firm as that of Tycho Brahe. Right-thinking people know the correct doctrine, however:

Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,[1] and became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. It was abandoned in the 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations

It seems clear that it may occasionally be convenient to assume that the calculations of Copernicus and Kepler were mathematically sound. However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving. That?s called empiricism, the experience of the senses. Don?t take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, Copernicans. There?s also the Word of the Lord:

?He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.? (1 Chronicles 16:30)

?Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ?? (Psalm 93:1)

?Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.? (Psalm 104:5)

??who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast?? (Isaiah 45:18)

?The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.? (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

?Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.? (Joshua 10, 12-13)

Moreover, as Answers in Genesis points out,

?[S]omething well known to high-school physics students, but apparently not to bibliosceptics?that it?s valid to describe motion from any reference frame, although an inertial one usually makes the mathematics simpler.3 But there are many times when the Earth is a convenient reference frame; i.e. at some point we all use the geocentric model in one sense. For instance, a planetarium is a geocentric model. Calculation of rising, transiting, and setting of various celestial objects is calculated geocentrically. There are numerous other examples. Since modern astronomers often use an Earth-centred reference frame, it?s unfair and anti-scientific to criticise the Bible for doing the same.

The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine of Heliocentrism is http://www.fixedearth.com/. The website contains numerous links to essays and analyses proving that the embrace of Copernicus is almost as foolish as the embrace of Darwinism. To quote from just one of these astounding essays:

Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid ?scientific? concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men?s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man?s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe?and do believe?that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning, now long since freed from religious superstitions based on the Bible.

Indeed, it was this Copernican heliocentricity concept that gradually broke the back of Bible credibility as the source of Absolute Truth in Christendom. Once the Copernican Revolution had conquered the physical sciences of Astronomy and Physics and put down deep roots in Universities and lower schools everywhere, it was only a matter of time until the Biological sciences launched the Darwinian Revolution.

This embrace of Darwinism then quite predictably emboldened increasingly secular-minded mankind to further reject Biblical Absolutism and replace its teachings with yet more new ?truths? in areas of learning having to do with economics and government. Thus was unsuccessful and floundering Marxism given new life. Marx openly tried to dedicate his own books to Darwin, exulting: ?You have given me the basis for my system?. Thus, the ?Social Science? disciplines were born and began to make their contributions to the destruction of Bible credibility?

Darwin, of course, only popularized evolutionism with his book in 1859, giving it a supposed mechanism thru natural selection and mutations, both since demonstrated to be utter nonsense. The actual roots of the evolutionary concept can be traced back to antiquity?as indeed can the roots of Copernican heliocentricism. Certainly the neo-heliocentrists, i.e., the early Copernicans such as Kepler were evolutionists. Galileo, like Kepler his friend, a neo-heliocentrist, was probably an evolutionist. Newton gave Copernicanism its biggest boost with his book in 1687, but I?ve seen no overt evidence that he was an evolutionist. (If you know of such evidence, I?d like to see it?.)

Thanks, however, to Newton?s invented math and the excesses of his gravitational hypotheses (HERE), Copernicanism dug in its heels in the universities in the 1700?s, and by the last quarter of that century had produced a large crop of hard core heliocentrists, not a few of whom were advocating ape-man theories (amongst them, Darwin?s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, Voltaire?s disciples in France, etc.). This was the age of ?The Enlightenment? which produced Thomas Paine, the celebrated pamphleteer of the American Revolution, whom George Washington referred to as ?that filthy little atheist?. Thomas Jefferson?s and Ben Franklin?s Deism was commonplace in Europe as well as amongst the rebellious American colonies. During the French Revolution of the 1790?s the Bible was actually outlawed.

These developments were sixty to a hundred years and more before Darwin, but the damage to Bible credibility done by the Copernican Revolution by that time was making an ever-widening open door for Evolutionism to take root. By 1830?even before Darwin (with his Degree in Theology, not Biology) went to the Galapagos Islands and began to formulate his mythology, Charles Lyell (with his degree in Law, not Geology) had advanced his idea of a ?geologic column? with great ages attached to alleged descending layers of the earth. Though such a column has never, ever been confirmed, and though there are mountainous examples of the theoretically old layers being on top of the supposedly more recent ones, and though the Cambrian layer shows a sudden profusion of highly developed life forms with no antecedents, Darwin picked up on Lyell?s fantasy and it is still taught as a proof of an ancient earth and macro-evolutionism.

If that, alone, isn?t enough to convince you of the folly of embracing a soulless, atheistic pseudoscience like Heliocentrism, perhaps this will soften your stony head:

God, thru His Word, teaches a non-moving and immovable earth just as surely as he teaches a six-day Creation 6000 years ago and a universal Flood some 1600 years later. All attempts to twist and even boldly reverse geocentric Scriptures by claiming that God just used a ?language of appearance? are extremely reckless for the Christian devoted to the inerrancy of Scripture. After all, the same argument has been employed with near devastating effect upon the Creationist Movement by Theistic Evolutionists, has it not?

Attacking vulnerable Copernicanism is a strategy that outflanks the entire secular science establishment (overrunning the Theistic Evolutionist?s position in the process!)

In addition to all that, being men and women of sound mind (II Tim. 1:7), Creationists should be eager to learn that:

1) No one?not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein?absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.

2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.

3) Over 200 truly scientific experiments using real mathematics have shown no earth movement, and these had the science establishment in a panic from the 1880?s until Einstein came to the rescue in 1905 with his ?relativity? hypothesis.

4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn?t a person reading this who can?t know that fact.

5) Foucault?s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.

6) Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments?especially the light fringe results?prove a stationary earth; and other facts about eclipses, satellite re-positionings, alleged blinding earth speeds, gravitational hooey, etc., add to the proof. Moreover, the Big Bang Baloney, the growing awareness of the effect of Dark Matter on galactic speeds, parallax factors (HERE) which shrink the cosmos, the evidence for speed-of-light retardation, the behavior of reflections and their capabilities for producing phenomena regarding size and depth, etc., all combine to corroborate the certitude of a greatly sanforized universe (one no more than one light day thick: Start HERE), a universe put in diurnal rotation around the spiritual and physical center of God?s Creation, just exactly as it appears to be day in and day out.

7) The Bible not only flatly states scores of times (HERE) and in several ways (HERE) that the earth does not move, it actually has a built-in geocentric assumption?sun rise, sun set?from beginning to end. (One scholar, a geocentrist and mathematician, is cataloguing some 2000 (!) of these.)

In the beginning, the Bible makes clear, the earth was the center of our ?solar? system, with no sun for it to go around until the 4th day of creation (Gen.1:14-19; HERE). At the End we read of a New Earth (HERE) replacing in the same location this old one (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,2). This New Earth which occupies the same location in the cosmos as the old one which has ?fled away? is the place where God the Father and Jesus will dwell with the redeemed forever (Rev. 21:3).

Given that unpreached but clear teaching, do you think that God the Father and Jesus the Son will eternally be somewhere out on the edge of Their NEW Universe in the boonies?or at the center?

If you ask me, that settles the question right there. I support the Bible, and I don?t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don?t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It?s complete rot, and I hope that those of us who come to realize this can ultimately prevail against its propogation amongst OUR children with the money from OUR salaries.

I can?t wait to hear from the moonbats and the Darwinists and the other rubes on this one, though. Go on, witch doctors. Preach to me how the planet hurtles through the ether, Scriptural and physical evidence to the contrary! Your false doctrines will be cast down on the day when America rediscovers its Christian roots. That is a promise.

Friends,

If you have a moment to spare, I urge you all to spend it at our sister-site Overwhelming Evidence - it’s one of the Internet’s best science education sites, and just like Conservapedia, it answers the questions that your kids are asking. If you think that Christianity is opposed to Science, then you have a great deal to learn, and the people at OE.com are going to set you right.

Overwhelming Evidence is the teen blog set up by one of the founding fathers of Intelligent Design Creation Science, William A. Dembski. As many of you know, William is a professor of mathematics, a committed Christian and one of STR.com’s board of advisers. He’s invited some of the Internet’s best thinkers to help explain a range of difficult scientific issues. Here are some of my favourite articles from the past few weeks:

• “State of the Art Non-Materialism” - This article asks some pretty big “What-ifs”, such as what if the fundamental basis of science as taught by atheists is wrong. OE Blogger “Qunitillis” opens our doors of perception to non-material science, an exciting realm where anything can happen.
• “Darwinism’s Blind Alley” - The discussion on this is as good as the article itself. Once again Quntillis tackles the business of science and shows that these so-called scientists are really not doing their job because they have closed their eyes to the possibility that God did it all.
• “Darwinist Nano-erosion vs Irreducible Complexity” - Atheists argue that life on earth came about purely by random chance, but one of their lesser known claims is that the geological structure of earth is just a freak-occurance caused by blind-stupid geological processes. Qunitillis tackles this absurd idea head on and blows it apart.

I read some of these articles out at our Sunday School and I’ve got to say, the kids just loved them. It just goes to show that good science does not have to be boring, and it does not have to contradict the Bible. That’s the great thing about OE.com.

If you enjoyed these articles as much as we do, how about saying a big thank-you to the OE.com editors. Simply go on over to their site and sign up. Have a read at some of the great articles they have and vote up the articles that you think best teach science and Christianity. Those will end up on the home page.

Yours in Christ,

Tristan J. Shuddery

Friends, This is the last in our series of articles from our sister site http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com, please join me in thanks for all the good work they are doing to help teach Americans about science. Today’s article by OE blogger “quizzlestick” asks some profound questions about the very nature of science. Tristan

Critics of Intelligent Design often present the same few objections to our theory: They claim that we do not yet offer a testable theory, and that we avoid peer-review of our discoveries because we have something to hide.

Those of us who have spent hard years grappling with the finer points of Intelligent Design know that nothing could be further from the truth: There is no group I know who work harder to attempt to explain these difficult scientific topics than ourselves. We engage with all levels of society, and our findings are plainly true to anybody with an open mind. More importantly we are on the verge of some of the most important scientific discoveries in the entire history of science which could yield benefits to the whole of mankind were it not for a conspiracy of Darwinists who will stop at nothing to preserve the reputation of their absurd science.

Intelligent Design’s discoveries will one day be considered more important than those of Einstein.

But what of the claim that our theories have not been tested and that we have not published peer-reviewed papers. It is initially quite astonishing that something as obvious as intelligent design should even need testing. Do we test the idea that the sun will rise in the morning? It’s just not needed because we can be certain that it will. Nonetheless, the skeptical biological community demands that our theories be tested ? and so in due time I predict that it will be one of the most rigorously tested theories known to man.

I’d like to introduce one of the scientists who will ensure that it is so. He is building on the work of Behe and Dembski. He is also one of the best communicators that the ID community could ever wish for. I would like to introduce Dr. Kazmer Ujvarosy, chief scientist of the Frontline Science Institute, one of the most prestigious research organizations dedicated to Intelligent Design.

Kazmer is one of the smartest men living today. He has been shunned by the establishment of orthodox theoretical physics because of his Christian beliefs, however his exciting results speak for themselves.

While mainstream science predicts that we would not be able to make testable claims about ID, Kazmer has done exactly that. His astonishing predictions unify areas of science which were previously considered unrelated. He may be, in the opinion of many ID researchers, at the verge of discovering a ?theory of everything?, one of the goals of high-energy physics. This is a challenge which even Einstein and Hawking have failed.

Professor Stephen Hawking: Perhaps if he had applied his intelect to Biblical creation and not the junk-science of big-bangs and astronomy then God might not have punished this limey cripple so harshly.

But let’s examine some of his discoveries ? these extracts from a recent peer-reviewed paper published at the American Chronicle show the depth and breadth of his important research:

?Dark energy, that drives the expansion of the universe, is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in modern science. We posit that dark energy is the field manifestation of the parent seed of the universe, just as the cosmic vacuum?s zero-point energy. They all originate from the cosmic seed?s biophoton emissions, which blackbody radiation provides a holographic biofield for the generation of the physical universe. Based on the fact that the biophotonic radiation emitted by DNA is coherent, we predict that the cosmic seed’s biophotonic field or “dark energy” is equally coherent.?

“Dark energy” - this enigma has baffled scientists for more than three decades. By abandoning materialist naturalism Kazmer has answered this mighty riddle.

?The elusive Higgs boson ? so vital to the Standard Model of particle physics that it is dubbed ?the God particle? ? is identical with the genotype of the phenotype universe, and each human genome is its reproduction. Based on this identification we posit that mass-giving is life-giving because the elementary particles that come into contact with the cosmic seed’s biofield or quantum vacuum receive their mass and property as a result of that interaction. ?

Both of these are 100% testable scientific statements. For example, to falsify we merely have to observe a Higgs boson to see if it has the expected properties. What could be simpler?

If Kazmer were still laboring under the shackles of materialism would any of this have been possible? Of course not ? these are the kinds of discoveries that can only come about when we first reject the rigid dogma of the philosophy behind atheism and Darwinism’s only life-support.

Perhaps the most telling illustration of the benefits of a pragmatic approach to science can be seen in Ujavorsy’s validation of Dembski’s explanation of how an unembodied designer can influence the natural world by co-opting random processes (indeterministic quantum states) and inducing them to produce specified complexity. This is of ultimate importance, because it may explain the process by which other previously inexplicable historical phenomena occurred.

Kazmer’s important theories help us understand the historical factual events told in the Holy Bible. Can standard physics help us do this - heck no. It’s time to abandon materialism.

For example, how was Elijah able to read the mind of the king of Syria, and tell the king of Israel the words Syria?s king spoke in the privacy of his bedchamber (see 2 Kings 6:8-23) ? the same mechanisms that power quantum-creation may also enable this kind of telepathy.

These are exciting times for true scientists like us. Intelligent Design is the tiny-seed from which will grow an enormous tree of science, one which I am certain will soon prosper and provide benefits to every living soul.

While I was reading to my daughter from Percival Davis’ excellent ?Of Pandas and People? I learnt something about the differences between the way Neo-Darwinists an proponents of ID think. I think the Darwinists are only interested in looking at disconnected details: They fail to see the big-picture and that is why they fail to spot the handiwork of the Intelligent Designer even though the evidence is staring them in the face: Let me give you an example.

This is probably the best biology text-book ever written. It totally debunks the myth of evolution.

The Tasmanian Wolf looks remarkably like the wolf you and I know of. It?s about the same size, has a similar diet and even has the same kind of fur , jaw structure, teeth and behavior. Anybody can see that these two animals are examples of the same kind of creature. But if you ask an evolutionist where this creature might be placed on the ?tree of life?, they would place these two very similar creatures about as far from each other as could be and yet still both be considered mammals. That?s sort of like somebody from Kentucky claiming that their next door neighbour lives in New Jersy!

The Tasmanian Wolf, this creature is now extinct. We do not know why extinction happens - most probably this is all part of God’s plan.

These taxonomical oddities are not an isolated feature: Darwin’s ?Tree of Life? abounds with anomalous classifications: Few high-schools mention that evolutionists regard all birds as a sub-class of reptiles. That is to say if one branch of the tree represents every living and extinct reptile, every known species of bird would be represented by a sub-branch of that reptile branch. Next time you hear an iguana say ?Polly Want a Cracker?, tell me, but until then I propose that this classification makes no sense at all!

Oh no! We are being attacked by a DINOSAUR… RUN! Oh wait - have the neo-darwinists been watching too much Jurassic-park?

Wouldn?t it make more sense if we devised a more functional taxonomy; one where very similar kinds of animal were grouped together? One based on the sensible principles and proven science of Intelligent Design?

One might wonder why this idea has not occurred to the proponents of neo-darwinism? Actually it has, but they dismiss it because of a few small details here and there. One such difference between the Tasmanian and American wolf is it?s reproductive strategy: The Tasmanian wolves are ?marsupial?, and other wolves are ?placental? like our species. Evolutionists say that these are two very different branches of evolution, one which has retained primative DNA, the other has developed more modern features. Because of this one single difference, these two wolves are consigned to different ends of evolution?s spectrum.

The American Grey Wolf - a more advanced version of the same design that gave us the marsupial wolf.

Why should reproductive strategy be valued above all other differences and similarities? It makes no sense at all given that everything else about the two wolf species is so similar. Surely science should recognise similarities as well as differences?

Wouldn?t it make more sense to see this in the context of Intelligent design? It?s possible that the designer made two different revisions of the same basic design. This is something that human designers do all the time, and it seems perfectly normal to us. What is the probability that these two creatures ?evolved? to look the same: According to evolution, change happens by random mutation. An evolutionist might therefore expect one kind of wolf to turn blue, and the other one to grow antlers.

Fortunately that is not the case. We are left with two varieties of wolf, one version placental, the other version marsupial. We can only guess at what the objectives of the designer were, but I personally suspect that these creatures are two iterations of a design that eventually left us with the most perfect wolf-like form: The modern domesticated dog.

The most perfect form of canine: The modern dog.

So what can we learn from these wolves? I suggest that in science (as in all walks of life), sometimes scrutiny of the details alone can lead to false conclusions. Sometimes the only sensible, common sense approach is to look at the big picture: And once we step back and appreciate the many wonders of creation the Designer?s signature is self-evident.

Helena

Once again, we are in debt to the world’s best I.D. web-site, OverwhelmingEvidence.com. Today’s article is re-published by kind permission of OE’s guest blogger Henrietta Lacks. You can find the original version of this article, back at OE.com

OverwhelmingEvidence.com is the best site for serious discussion of the exciting science of Intelligent Design. This is the ID site that anybody can contribute to, just register and you can post your own articles. Spread the good news about God’s creation today!

I agree with the OverwhelmingEvidence.com blogger Helena Blavatsky who suggested that the Darwinists’ weak-spot is their addiction to scientific-naturalism, otherwise known as the ?materialist assumption? - the nihilistic conjecture that the only things worth thinking about are the mundane. I concur that we have to show the flaws in materialism if we are to engage the scientific community and show the folly of evolutionary dogma, but what shall we replace it with?

Disgusting paganist rock-musician “madona” claims to be a “material girl”, but what does this mean? Apparantly causing as much insult as possible to God-fearing Christians, parading around in her under-garments and taking the Lord’s name in vain. If scientists understood what materialism was really about, would they be so proud of it?

If we merely knock-down the materialistic assumptions on which Darwin’s theories are constructed, might something even worse rise to fill it’s place? Not if we take responsibility and suggest an alternative to the flawed concepts of materialism. Fortunately such a concept exists, and it is one with an excellent philosophical pedigree. But first, let me turn my attention to the failings of materialism:

Just look at the Discovery Institutes’s definition of materialism:

?Cultural materialism means living as if there were no God or moral absolutes, and all that matters is matter. Philosophical materialism means to argue that there is no God to establish any moral absolutes, and matter is all there is. The former world-view finds its justification in the latter. Actually, in the modern world, philosophical materialists act as the secular priesthood of a lifestyle based on hedonism and moral relativism. ? ( Source: Under God or Under Darwin? DI )

These are sobering words from one of the worlds most respected research organizations. Why then should we allow materialism to dominate our culture?

Scientific researcher Micheal Behe is one of the worlds most cited biologists. He is foremost amongst scientific researchers who demand that we reject the out-dated dogma of materialism.

Behe establishes that materialists limit themselves; that is, since most of us are forced by society to be obligatory materialists, both theists and atheists are restricted in their beliefs. Behe states that this restricts the sciences, forcing them to accept the theory of evolution as universal fact, even if it does not apply everywhere. This results in the same problem that the geocentric model, Newtonian physics, or extreme Puritanism posed in their time: arrogance about their theory, proponents do not notice that evolutionary proofs require us first to accept materialism ? they are guilty of blatant circular reasoning.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could break out of the prison of materialism when common-sense requires it? For example, when tackling scientific problems (such as the origin of species) which do not lend themselves well to materialistic analysis, we can ask ourselves if a non-materialistic solution makes more sense? Fortunately such a philosophy exists, and it is every bit superior to materialism: It’s proponents call it ?Theistic Realism?

According to Philip E. Johnson ,the founder of the Theistic Realism school, true knowledge must start with the acknowledgment of an intelligent designer as creator; This is self-evident from the unifying, ordered characteristics of the universe. Theistic Realism directly challenges materialism’s presumption that the intelligent designer cannot exist.

According to Johnson:

?Naturalistic evolutionary theory, as part of the grand metaphysical story of science, says that creation was by impersonal and unintelligent forces. The opposition between the [common-sense] and naturalistic stories is fundamental, and neither side can compromise over it. To compromise is to surrender.?

?.[T]here is absolutely no mystery about why living organisms appear to be the products of intelligent creation, and why scientific naturalists have to work so hard to keep themselves from perceiving the obvious. The reason living things give that appearance is that they actually are what they appear to be, and this fact is evident to all who do not cloud their minds with naturalistic philosophy or some comparable drug.?

What can I say other than it is all undeniable common-sense. When an evolutionist claims that Intelligent Design is not science because it does not follow the normal rules of science (materialism), I suggest that you respond that it is the evolutionist’s concept of science which has failed to evolve past it’s two-hundred year old assumptions.

Point them to Philip Johnson’s matchless ?Darwin on Trial?, and if they have a shred of objectivity, I am sure they will be convinced.