Post-Darwinist

Is nature really a struggle in which natural selection is the key factor?

2009-11-19T11:16:00.006-05:00

British physicist David Tyler comments:

In a perceptive essay, Daniel Todes focuses attention on the reactions of Russian biologists to Darwin's writings. Many of these naturalists "were evolutionists before 1859", so they did not dissent from common ancestry. However, their experiences of the living world were quite different from Darwin and Wallace, who drew their inspiration from densely populated tropical forests and related habitats. They witnessed a struggle for existence that matched the description Thomas Malthus had given of human communities. Using the same logic, Darwin and Wallace were stimulated to think about winners and losers in populations of animals and plants. The Russian scientists lived in a different world.

[They] "investigated a vast under-populated continental plain. For them, nature was not an "entangled bank" - the image Darwin took from the Brazilian jungle. It was a largely empty Siberian expanse in which overpopulation was rare and only the struggle of organisms against a harsh environment was dramatic."

The Russian response to living in a harsh environment was to develop "the language of communalism - stressing not individual initiative and struggle, but the importance of cooperation within social groups and the virtues of social harmony." The analysis of Malthus did not match the biological communities in their part of the world, so Darwin's metaphor of the "struggle for existence" was not, in their view, well grounded.

That's always what bothered me. I see competition in nature, to be sure, but also lots of cooperation. Otherwise, life could not survive against non-life. There is much more non-life than life. That much should be obvious. For more, go here.

Tyler also points out that the modern synthesis that is supposed to save Darwinism is gone.

Earlier this year, Eugene Koonin published a masterly analysis of the impact of genomics on evolutionary thinking. This proved to be too meaty a study for a concise blog, and my initial draft was abandoned. Happily, a shorter overview has now been published, and this abstracts salient points from the research paper. Koonin notes that the 1959 Origin centennial was "marked by the consolidation of the modern synthesis" but subsequent years have witnessed great changes which have undermined its credibility. "The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair."

Koonin uses the metaphor of "the landscape of evolutionary biology". There are three distinct revolutions have occurred over the past half-century: the molecular, the microbiological and the genomic revolutions.

"[T]his year is the perfect time to ask some crucial questions: how has evolutionary biology changed in the 50 years since the hardening of the modern synthesis? Is it still a viable conceptual framework for evolutionary thinking and research?"

The molecular revolution culminated, says Koonin, in the neutral theory, which means that purifying selection is more common than positive selection. The microbiological revolution brought the world of prokaryotes into the domain of evolutionary biology, but it then became apparent that the concepts of Darwinism and the modern synthesis "applied only to multicellular organisms". The genomic revolution revealed that the living world was "a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the modern synthesis". In particular, it is now interpreted as an "extremely dynamic world where horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is not a rarity but the regular way of existence, and mobile genetic elements that are vehicles of HGT are ubiquitous". "The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the tree of life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the modern synthesis inherited from Darwin, namely gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable."

Koonin is serious in saying that all the concepts of the modern synthesis are in need of a fundamental overhaul. "Moreover, with pan-adaptationism gone forever, so is the notion of evolutionary progress that is undoubtedly central to traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit. The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking. In the postgenomic era, all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone."

Koonin tentatively identifies two candidates to fill the vacuum left by the discarded modern synthesis. The first of these appears to emphasis the role of chance; the second appears to emphasise law. "The first is the population-genetic theory of the evolution of genomic architecture, according to which evolving complexity is a side product of non-adaptive evolutionary processes occurring in small populations where the constraints of purifying selection are weak. The second area with a potential for major unification could be the study of universal patterns of evolution such as the distribution of evolutionary rates of orthologous genes, which is nearly the same in organisms from bacteria to mammals or the equally universal anticorrelation between the rate of evolution and the expression level of a gene. The existence of these universals suggests that simple theory of the kind used in statistical physics might explain some crucial aspects of evolution."

It is not difficult to predict that Koonin's analysis will not be received quietly by the very vocal leaders of evolutionary biology. They are still entrenched in neoDarwinism and show no signs of conceding any ground to anyone.

Go here for more.

Actually, Koonin is just as likely to be ignored as not quietly received. The fantasy creation story of fashionable atheism is in many places, government policy. Its proponents often have tenure and get their pay every month. The only solution is eventual retirement parties, followed by a big revaluation - = what do we really know?

Find out the real reason why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Uncommon Descent Question 11 - can biotechnology bring back extinct animals - winners announced

2009-11-18T21:29:00.000-05:00

For Uncommon Descent Question 11: Can biotechnology bring back extinct animals?, we have declared a winner, and it is binary! Twins!

Aussie ID and Nakashima.

I loved Aussie ID's information about the specifics of attempts to restore the thylacine - he calls it a Tasmanian tiger. Possibly due to culture issues, I am more familiar with hearing the animal called a Tasmanian wolf. But anyone interested should review his information.

I'd love to know what a staked out* sled pack in northern Canada would make of the marsupial Tasmanian. He doesn't look to me like he has three coats of hair, so he might need to work in the office.

I also appreciated Nakashima's thoughtful reflections on the question of how behaviour might not follow the physical recreation of an animal. I suspect he's right; it's an open question indeed.

Each of you must provide me with a valid postal address** in order to receive the prize, a free copy of Steven Meyer's Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009).

If you go here, you will get a bit of background on the contest, and read many interesting contributions, but for now, here is the skinny:

This one's a bit of fun, but there is a serious purpose behind it.

In "A Life of Its Own: Where will synthetic biology lead us?" (September 28, 2009 New Yorker mag), Michael Specter reports, "If the science truly succeeds, it will make it possible to supplant the world created by Darwinian evolution with one created by us."

Jurassic Park, anyone?

Additional notes on interesting posts as well.

Go here for more.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Spiritual Brain: Me 'n YouTube: Discussing my "Hot Apple Cider" essay

2009-11-17T12:46:00.001-05:00

Here. The clip is short, and talks about an aspect of The Spiritual Brain - spirituality helps your health.
.
Hot Apple Cider is a collection of Canadian writers' work.

I'll be at Faith Family Books & Gifts on Friday, November 20, along with many other, more distinguished authors and excellent performers, so if you are in the area, come and have a coffee with me.

Interesting design inference concerning a historic photo

2009-11-15T15:05:00.000-05:00

The cloud patterns in two photos taken during the Spanish Civil War are identical, according to a column by George Will:

In a slightly less dramatic photo of another falling soldier, taken by Capa at the same time - the cloud configuration is the same as in "Falling Soldier" - the soldier falls on the same spot.

The interesting thing is, don't blame photoshop; these pix were created in 1936.

Will goes on to note, quite properly, that photographer Capa had an honourable career as a war photographer (a highly dangerous profession), which came to an abrupt end when he stepped on a land mine. But it seems likely now that he manipulated an iconic photo.

For the evidence base I'll go with the cloud patterns, whose configuration is the same most likely because they had been captured once on film. A design inference.

Added: Commenter Voice Coil at 1 below gives a more expert account of how the photo was probably staged/faked. Note: When I make a design inference, I don't necessarily know how it was done; it's the statistical unlikelihood of chance that prompts investigation. Reuters bought doctored stuff for quite a while before the penny dropped, as have other news outlets.

Why did Capa do it? First, people have only recently begun to be fairly certain that he did it, and he has been dead a long time, so I can only hazard a guess. Will says he was a man of the Left, so I surmise he probably wanted to help his own side by producing an unforgettable photo. But, as every photographer knows, unforgettable photos cannot be produced just when needed. Lots of people hated Franco, as he did, so there probably was no great incentive to doubt or fact-checking.

Just up at The Mindful Hack

2009-11-14T22:18:00.002-05:00

Do you really need a refrigerator when you have this?

Neuroskepticism: A breath of fresh air, and maybe more legal safety too

Materialism and popular culture: The human brain as a machine?

Spiritual Brain: Polish translation rights bought

Curiosity and the dead cat

(Note: If you follow me at Twitter, you will get regular notice of new Mindful Hack posts, usually when I have posted five or so stories.)

The Mindful Hack, my blog on neuroscience and spirituality, which supports The Spiritual Brain

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with brief comments

2009-11-14T16:47:00.002-05:00

Intelligently Designed Nanotechnology

As Casey Luskin reveals in this episode of ID the Future, eminent biologists have said that they must continually remind themselves that what they see in biology evolved, and was not designed. But now engineers are turning to biology to replace human technology because biological pathways provide superior solutions to biomedical-technological needs. Is this trend more consistent with an evolved biosphere, or an intelligent designed one? Listen to this podcast and decide for yourself.

Listen here.

Yes, but sometimes people don't see the forest for the trees. The majority of humans think, where it is safe to do so, that there is a God, based on personal experience. No surprise there. If there is a God, he can communicate with humans when he wishes to do so, just as Elizabeth, Queen of England, can do*. And she would be the first to say that her rank is at a fundamentally much lower grade.

The question is, why is this controversial? Why should it be any surprise? Why do I keep running into efforts to prove it is not true?

If that is really science (space aliens, multiple universes), I could not distinguish it from witchcraft or some other foolishness. I think we'd just get more done if we accepted, with Antony Flew , that There IS a God and got on with useful projects in science, like cures for AIDS and non-polluting sources of energy. Oh, and weight loss programs for people who used to suffer from famine but are now afflicted with obesity - an outcome of modern science.

*I still have my father's commission, courtesy Elizabeth's father, advancing him to the rank of officer.

Also: Chris Mooney's War on Intelligent Design

Listen here.

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC's Rob Crowther interviews Casey Luskin about his in-depth response to Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science, correcting fourteen major factual and logical errors in Mooney's chapter on intelligent design. How can Chris Mooney be so wrong on this issue? Listen in and find out.

Read the original response to Mooney here.

Yes, well, I don't know why anyone should be surprised. Darwinism has morphed into a major public enterprise and anyone who wants his finger in the pie ... I think we can wait a long time before a guy like Chris Mooney even needs to get anything about intelligent design right.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Intellectual freedom in Canada news roundup, with comments

2009-11-14T14:27:00.005-05:00

Here's how Focus on the Family edits its content for Canada, to avoid "hate speech" laws. I always found the group totally boring myself; I doubt they could do hate if they tried.

Meanwhile, Franklin Carter at the Book and Periodical Council's Freedom of Expression Committee writes to tell me, in Saskatchewan, convicted murderer Colin Thatcher appeared in court to defend his right to make money by writing a book about his legal case. Angela Hall reports for the Regina Leader-Post (and the Ottawa Citizen).

From Denyse: It's a complex issue to be sure. Once, two dogs' ages ago, I was almost going to edit Thatcher's first manuscript but the company never signed the book, or something, and then went bust. My own view is that if a guy doesn't have unpaid fines, the government doesn't have any business stopping him from making money. Of course, the government could always assign a big fine to him, in which case ...

Other items on the same story: Canadian Press; CBC News.

On to the next story:

He tells me, in Ontario, a court sentenced Michael Jay Thomas to 14 days in jail for writing sex and incest stories about adults and teen girls. Megan Gillis reports for the Ottawa Sun. See also Andrew Seymour for the Ottawa Citizen.

Look, that all sounds pretty disgusting to me too. But I wish governments would pay far more attention to real issues like prostitution of migrants and underage girls, and also forced marriage of girls who are citizens - and less attention to people who are just writing fiction - however foolish and vile the fiction may happen to be.

Look, you needn't give the fiction any notice. If it's in the library, do not check it out. If it is on TV, change the channel. If it is on the radio, twiddle the dial. If it is on the Internet, use your back browser button. That sort of freedom - which would guarantee the disappearance of much garbage - is more than one can say, unfortunately, for the fate of many women and girls.

And now for the mighty civil rights lawyer Ezra Levant, the fearless leader of the Canadians who fight back against the psychotic Nanny State: In a synagogue in Montreal, author and activist Ezra Levant spoke against HRC censorship in Canada. David Lazarus reports for The Canadian Jewish News.

I hope Jews are listening. In general, they will not benefit from the growth of a "human rights" system used by Islamists against Jews (= Ezra Levant) or people believed to be Jews (= Mark Steyn).

He also tells me,

In the United States, Scholastic reversed its decision to censor Lauren Myracle’s Luv Ya Bunches from school book fairs and will make a sanitized version of the title available at middle schools in spring 2010. But the novel won’t be for sale at elementary fairs—even though it targets that age group. In School Library Journal, Rocco Staino and Debra Lau Whelan report. Also, Zoe Whittall reports for Canada's Quill & Quire.

In my view, the question of what books should be offered to teachers should be made by curriculum developers, with key input from the teachers themselves. Any kind of lobby is, in my experience, basically just a pest. Lobbyist, if you want to get involved, either teach for a living or be a textbook editor, not just a lobbyist. Otherwise, get lost.

Oh, and one last item: In Ontario, a Roman Catholic school board is considering a "novel" idea to prevent book-banning controversies. Stuart Woods comments in Quill & Quire. Again, I think a distinction must be made between material available to the adult public and material that can reasonably be put on a curriculum for minors in a tax-funded school system. In the latter case, I think teachers usually know best what they can effectively teach, though one must always guard against ideologues and cranks tampering with the process.

Morning coffee: Bear meets cat No! No! Not what you might think!

2009-11-12T05:50:00.001-05:00

When I was a kid we used to learn useful stuff in school, one item of which is never get between a she-animal and her offspring.

Here's some stuff that happens in the Canadian wilderness: A defence of angry bears. (Actually, I think the bear in this case is a he-bear, but a she-bear would behave exactly the same.)

In this one, the cat wins, and you will see why: This is a defence of angry cats.

But, if you watch it through, not a defence for bear behinds.

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with comments

2009-11-06T10:31:00.004-05:00

1. David Berlinski and The Deniable Darwin

Excerpt from my comments:

Earlier this year I was listening to a committed materialist, theoretical physicist Larry Krauss of Arizona State U, explain in detail, exactly how the world is going to end.

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how he differs from the hellfire sect banging on my door inconveniently on Saturday morning, handing me a tract explaining ... how the world is going to end. Krauss says he has "science" on his side. Yes, but ... . science has changed its mind on a number of issues many times in the past few centuries, when its theories proved false.

So has the hellfire sect, though the history is less often recorded.

Anyway, listen here.

On today’s episode of ID the Future, mathematician and consummate skeptic David Berlinski shares with Discovery President Bruce Chapman about his award-winning essays from Commentary Magazine and the answers that are unacceptable to the scientific community.

The essays first published in Commentary Magazine are now available in The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays , a new book published by Discovery Institute Press, where nothing is exempt from Berlinski’s famous skepticism, excluding neither Darwinism nor intelligent design from his critical eye. The 32 essays included in this volume span fifteen years of wit and insight. Visit the website for more information.

More about the book:

When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence.

Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff.

I should say so. Earlier this year I was listening to a committed materialist, theoretical physicist Larry Krauss of Arizona State U, explain in detail, exactly how the world is going to end.

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how he differs from the hellfire sect banging on my door inconveniently on Saturday morning, handing me a tract explaining ... how the world is going to end.

Krauss says he has "science" on his side. Yes, but ... . science has changed its mind on a number of issues many times in the past few centuries, when its theories proved false.

So has the hellfire sect, though the history is less often recorded.

Look, I am a Catholic Christian and am busy and don't know how the world is going to end.

Onto the next pod:

2. You should also listen to this one:

How Information Theory Is Taking Intelligent Design Mainstream: An Interview With Dr. William Dembski

This episode of ID the Future continues Casey Luskin's interviews Dr. William Dembski on his new peer-reviewed paper, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," published in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans.

How does this peer-reviewed scientific paper support intelligent design? Listen in as Dr. Dembski shares how his research tests evolutionary theory using information theory and the follow-up paper that he and fellow researcher Dr. Robert Marks are working on.

For more information, read the paper at EvoInfo.org.

Darwinism, as fronted today, is a bankrupt idea. But lots of public payrollers front it into their retirement by sounding alarms about the awful things that will happen if anyone is permitted to question it.

The fact is, natural selection is an immense conservative, not creative, force in nature. As I have said before, it explains why wild wolves of the northern forest* tend to look alike but tame dogs - subject only to intelligent (?) design could be dachsunds, chihuahuas, or Newfoundland rescue dogs.

I can only attribute the current belief in the supposedly immense creative powers of natural selection to urbanization, indoctrination in schools, the desire to avoid conflict, and atheist superstition.

*Note: Yes, I did once meet a wolf. He sure looked like a wolf to me, but he was part of a sled dog pack. When a typical pack bark started up, he could only howl. Okay, he was a wolf, as I had guessed. (In general, wolves do not bark.) I did not rat him or his keeper out. Look, when you need a job, you need a job. Each sled pack member gets frozen bricks of chicken parts daily. And every form of refuge has its price. Also, there is no unemployment insurance lineup for wolves.

3. The Origins of Intelligent Design: Countering Darwinist Urban Legends

Listen here

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC’s Robert Crowther takes aim at Darwinist misinformation about the origins of intelligent design. Crowther makes mincemeat of the assertion that the term “intelligent design” was fabricated following the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court case, showing instead that the term is over 100 years old. He also targets the old Darwinist canard that terms like micro- and macro-evolution were made up by Darwin’s critics.

For more information on the history of intelligent design, read CSC Senior Fellow Jonathan Witt’s "The Origin of Intelligent Design."

As Darwinism becomes increasingly unbelievable in the light of new information, it is no surprise that urban legends start up, to defend it. But it is useful to know which charges some overheated person is making at a public meeting are in fact urban legends. Remember, that person may have been pumped in advance by a Darwinist or Christian Darwinist operative, and may not even realize that the Truths they have been told are merely legends, so go lightly over the earth. Also, remember, many teachers are compelled to recite Darwinist nonsense (or other nonsense, possibly) to keep their jobs. No reason to assume they believe it.

Whatever happened to the days when teachers were considered professionals, like doctors and lawyers?

4. The Real Frankenstein: Giovanni Aldini

Listen here.

On this special Halloween edition of ID the Future, John West shares the inspiration for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

In his book, Darwin Day in America, West examines the experiments that Italian scientist Giovanni Aldini conducted on human corpses. His gruesome experiments provided the inspiration for Frankenstein and foreshadowed the rise of a virulent strain of materialism that attempted to use science to reduce human beings to mere matter in motion.

Okay, Hallowe'en is over and we have mostly got the window soap message pranks and toilet paper pranks out of our lives, but West's book is much recommended by me. He really helped me understand how materialism came to be a dominant force in society.

5. Darwin's Predictions With Cornelius Hunter

Listen here:

On this episode of ID the Future, Cornelius Hunter is interviewed by Casey Luskin about his website, DarwinsPredictions.com , and his blog, Darwin's God:

Listen in as Dr. Hunter examines the evidence of evolution's failure as a theory and answers the objections evolutionists raise to his arguments.

Well, which of Darwin's predictions ever did come true? I'd be interested to hear.

I don't know what's true, but I know what isn't. And I hate seeing Brit toff Darwin compared to refugee scientist Einstein or emancipator Abe Lincoln.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

5. Posted November 5, 2009

Darwinism and popular culture: A tour of the textbooks

Sometimes, when discussing the much misunderstood Scopes Trial, I have referred to the textbook from which Scopes was teaching, Hunter's Civic Biology, which seems to have been an amalgam of civics and biology, with a dose of eugenics thrown in, and smug assertions about "highest" or "lowest". Bad idea. Enough already with total subject confusion, ecological misunderstanding, and useless social conflict. Here's an interesting site where Ron Ladouceur gives us a tour of exotic textbooks of our storied past.

I am glad my own biology teachers focused on the cell theory of life, the germ theory of disease, and the life and times of the endangered ribbon snake (= ecology).

There is only so much students will take away when they graduate (if they do) , and you want it to be something they can make sense of in dealing with their own life and environment.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Darwinism and popular culture: A tour of the textbooks

2009-11-05T03:56:00.003-05:00

Sometimes, when discussing the much misunderstood Scopes Trial, I have referred to the textbook from which Scopes was teaching, Hunter's Civic Biology, which seems to have been an amalgam of civics and biology, with a dose of eugenics thrown in, and smug assertions about "highest" or "lowest". Bad idea. Enough already with total subject confusion, ecological misunderstanding, and useless social conflict. Here's an interesting site where Ron Ladouceur gives us a tour of exotic textbooks of our storied past.

I am glad my own biology teachers focused on the cell theory of life, the germ theory of disease, and the life and times of the endangered ribbon snake (= ecology).

There is only so much students will take away when they graduate (if they do) , and you want it to be something they can make sense of in dealing with their own life and environment.

Note: I wasn't blogging recently because I was editing.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god now?

2009-11-01T15:06:00.002-05:00

Apparently, the charges in my article in Touchstone - about the little god Darwin - have been noticed by at least one person.

THE DARWIN MOVIE’S NOT SELLING, but John Scalzi doubts those evil Creationmongers are a part of the reason:

How about this: The movie is not selling because it is not believed ... Huh? Maybe the charge is not believable?

People now generally guess that Darwin was a materialist atheist long before his daughter died?

Fact: In North America, you cannot legally line up people at gun point and force them to watch some propaganda film about Darwin - or about anything - and threaten to shoot them if they say they do not believe it. If that is not the law where you live, please hold a revolution now.*

*As a traditional Canadian, I am not a fan of revolutions in general. We prefer peaceful transitions. But we must all be realists. In Canada, nature is our vast antagonist, not man. Check a map But in some places maybe people need a revolution, to get the point across.

While I am here, one of the most significant books published this year, because it - potentially - rids us of much Darwin nonsense, endlessly iterated in textbooks, teacher’s manuals and popular films, is Michael Flannery's republishing, with a useful introduction, of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory Of Intelligent Evolution . We would be vastly better off if Wallace, rather than Darwin, had been the main theorist. For example, we would never had dealt with awful eugenics movement and the completely ridiculous evolutionary psychology movement. Wallace was far wiser than his co-theorist, Darwin, about the stuff that really mattered.

Intellectual freedom in Canada : News roundup

2009-10-29T03:52:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, I received the smuggest, stupidest media release I have encountered in forty years, from a dying religious denomination in the United States, announcing their support for some "hate crimes" legislation, because they are supposedly on the side of "love."

Not me. I'm for hate. If you hate me, I want to know.

Briefly, the way this kind of legislation has worked out in Canada is:

- activists who have the ear of government shut down honest discussion by declaring their opponents guilty of "hate". Islamists (not to be confused with Muslims) and anti-Christian gay activists* were the driving force behind recent anti-free speech drives in Canada, based on "human rights" commissions and laws against "hate."

- most people cannot afford the legal fees to defend themselves against an organized assault.

- it spills over into just about every area of life (which late nite comic's jokes are funny, for example). There is nothing a bureaucrat won't regulate if you give him a chance.

- media here are fighting back, for the right to report the news, but government is slow to give back liberties it has wrested from us, so the problem will take a long time to fix.

That religious denomination cannot die fast enough to suit me.

Americans who are interested in what really happens when the big "anti-hate" "human rights" shakedown starts should read Shakedown, Lights Out, or Tyranny of Nice.

*The big gay rights group did not even agree with these activists. They think, as I do, that free speech is a good idea. But it will take a long time to work the anti-free speech activists and their tax-funded enablers out of the system.

Here is what I wrote back:

For what it is worth:

I was astonished to receive this press release given that at least three books have been published in Canada about the injustices caused by “hate crimes” laws/”human rights” commissions.

[ ... books already mentioned above ... ]

There is a huge social movement against that here, NOT funded by “right wing hate groups” but by working journalists.

We can’t report the news any more. Well, we can, but it is dangerous and costly.

I’m one of the oppressed myself. [ ... personal family example redacted ... ]

The worst thing I could ever wish on you people is the experience many of my friends and I have had. But I might not need to.

Maybe, in a world where journalism , done right, is a dangerous profession, you are just a slimeball who lusts for the government payroll.

Anyway, xxxxxxxxxxx, please get me off your mailing list now. I can find out about your nonsense later if it is ever of any interest.

Do not expect me to greet you as a colleague. You are not.

My colleagues are the free press, worldwide.

Journalism is one of the world's dangerous professions, and should not be disgraced by people cheering for censorship.

Meanwhile, ...

Franklin Carter at the Book and Periodical Council's Freedom of Expression Committee reminds me:

On October 26, Jennifer Lynch [yes, she's the one with the 1200 name hate list and the house Nazis] appeared before the justice committee of the House of Commons to defend Section 13 (i.e., the Internet censorship clause) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Lynch is the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Parliament's official video of her testimony is here. On the same afternoon, Professor Richard Moon appeared before the justice committee to discuss Section 13. Moon teaches law at the University of Windsor; he appeared as an "individual" (that is, not as the representative of an organization).

Two executives of the Canadian Jewish Congress also appeared before the committee: Bernie Farber, CEO, and Mark Freiman, president. Parliament's official video their testimony is here.

During their testimony, Jennifer Lynch and Mark Freiman referred -- sometimes allusively and sometimes explicitly -- to the previous testimonies of their political opponents, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant.

On October 5, Steyn and Levant appeared before the justice committee to attack Section 13 and the CHRC. Parliament's official video of their joint appearance is here.

Basically, the Canadian Jewish Congress messed up big time with this one, because the Islamists actually used the "anti-hate" legislation to attack Jews or people who were sympathetic to them. Why they can't just admit it and walk away, I will never know.

Oh, and did I say that journalism was one of the world's dangerous professions?

Well, Carter also reminds me that Kathryn Blaze Carlson reports another local serious assault on a journalist in the National Post.

He also quotes,

At present, in the most civilized countries, freedom of speech is taken as a matter of course and seems a perfectly simple thing. We are so accustomed to it that we look on it as a natural right. But this right has been acquired only in quite recent times, and the way to its attainment has lain through lakes of blood.

John Bagnell Bury, A History of Freedom of Thought (1912)

Uh huh. Which is why I have so little patience with happy champions of censorship, like the ridiculous people who sent me the media release referenced above.

Just up at The Mindful Hack

2009-10-25T13:44:00.001-04:00

Neurolaw: Could capital punishment kill it?

Neuroscience and popular culture: What makes the human brain unique?

Neuroscience: Are more pop culture mags "getting" the problem with atheist materialism?

Neuroscience and pop culture: More trouble for education

(Note: If you follow me at Twitter, you will get regular notice of new Mindful Hack posts, usually when I have posted five or so stories.)

Darwinism and academic culture: So now we admit there are problems?

2009-10-23T14:00:00.003-04:00

A friend draws my attention to this paper by a materialist, in which we read,

"Incremental changes in an existing biological structure the alterations in beak shape of the finches that so impressed Charles Darwin during his voyage to the Galapagos Islands, for instance - can indeed be attributed to natural selection. Even most creationists do not deny this. But when it comes to the innovation of entirely new structures (‘‘morphological novelties’’) such as segmentally organized bodies (seen in earthworms, insects, and vertebrates such as humans, but not jellyfish or molluscs), or the hands and feet of tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs), Darwin’s mechanism comes up short. This is a reality that is increasingly acknowledged by biologists, particularly those working in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘‘EvoDevo.’’ "

“Derision of a traditionalist segment of the public for not immediately jumping into line with standard selectionist narratives (however far-fetched they may be), is not the answer here. The scientific mainstream should rightly be prevailing in the evolution debate, since the living world is manifestly a product of evolution. But it and its liberal advocates are so wedded to a neo-Darwinism that has effectively become the house philosophy of the market economy that they are barely holding on in their attempts to prevent naturalistic accounts of the history of life from being expunged from school curricula. Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.”

Much of SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS: Evolution: The Public’s Problem, and the Scientists’ by Stuart A. Newman is nonsense, but the author has certainly got one thing right: People don't believe it because it is not believable.

Newman, if you do not have a better story (and you obviously don't), it is okay to say you don't know. I don't either. But please discourage people from insulting the public any more with the Big Spenders or Big Bazooms theories of human evolution.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Cambrian explosion film to be shown, after all

2009-10-23T05:48:00.002-04:00

Anika Smith, at the Discovery Institute, informs me that:

Those who live in the Los Angeles area are invited to attend a gala premiere screening of Illustra Media's new documentary, Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record next Sunday, October 25th at 7:00 pm at the University of Southern California. The event is sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance.

This premiere was originally scheduled for the California Science Center, but the Center canceled the event just a few days ago, leaving the organizers virtually no time to find a new location. If you live in the Los Angeles area, you can show your support for free speech ...

That might be a very good idea. Especially if you note what is going on in Canada (which recently dropped a number of points in press freedom rankings, due to struggles that have sucked up much of the lives of many of my friends).

Basically, Darwin always knew that the Cambrian explosion was a problem for his theory, and he attributed it to the poverty of the fossil record. Now that the record is better, it is a bigger problem for his theory. The film might be good or bad, right or wrong, but if it cannot be shown ... welcome to the world where government tells you what to think.

Which reminds me: The 19th century Smithsonian secretary avoided dealing with this evidence for many years. Ever since, it has been downplayed. We are expected to forever wait for a Darwinian explanation. That's like waiting for the guy dead drunk at the bottom of the stairs to pay his rent.

So if, as some have said, the Smithsonian had anything to do with the sudden cancellation, it would be no surprise.

Personally, I am sick and tired of all the garbage. Darwinism is an unbelievable belief currently funded by government. It makes about as much sense as this stuff.

Canada slips in media freedom rankings

2009-10-23T05:09:00.001-04:00

As if we didn't guess this would happen, due to the endless disgrace created by "human rights" commissions. As Ezra Levant writes,

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and its megalomanaic chief commissioner, Jennifer Lynch, have disgraced Canada on the international stage.

According to the annual report by Reporters sans Frontieres (that's French for Reporters without Borders) Canada has plunged from 13th place to 19th place in the world, in terms of press freedom. Here's a CP wire story on the subject.

Chris Waddell, a journalism professor quoted in that story, attributes part of that plunge to the increasing bullying of reporters by Canada's human rights commissions -- and Lynch's CHRC is mentioned in particular.

What bothers me most is efforts to pretend that these people do some good somewhere, so therefore it is all okay. What I say is, get RID of the current practitioners of "human rights," and then we will see whether the agency as such is worth salvaging.

Intellectual freedom in Canada news roundup

2009-10-22T20:09:00.001-04:00

Any time I begin a posting cycle these days, I tend to begin with "Intellectual freedom in Canada". Why? Because if you cannot say what is wrong with an idea, you cannot plausibly say what might be right about it either.

Everybody becomes a public relations agent for the government or for ... who?

Anyway, here's a recent news round-up:

- Here's the transcript of Ezra Levant's and Mark Steyn's testimony at the Canadian Parliament's Justice Committee.

Frankly, I would not hope for too much. The only thing that will really help is serious rage among small bed and breakfast owners, late nite comedians, and such.

See, the "human rights" racket worked as long as the racketeers had enough sense to attack only people whose votes the government doesn't care about.

The government cares about Joe Lotto's and Jane Donut's votes. And Joe Lotto and Jane Donut don't care what happens to some Catholic bishop or some Jew or a guy people think is a Jew.

Yawn.

But what happens when everybody in the country is at risk from their endless, government-funded inquisition? Is everyone going to agree to barf up hundreds of dollars for someone who claims to be "offended" in a completely stupid situation?

Even money in my view. On to the next story.

- Franklin Carter at the Book and Periodical Council's Freedom of Expression Committee tells me,

REGINA — Former cabinet minister turned convicted murderer Colin Thatcher faces a court battle to keep his $5,000 book advance and any royalties, as the provincial government put in motion last week a bid to seize the cash and redirect it to victims.

The Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice has filed a document in the Court of Queen's Bench in Regina, indicating it will seek an order directing Thatcher to comply with the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. A court date has been set for Oct. 29.

Angela Hall reports for the Regina Leader-Post:

CBC News also reports.

Carter also tells me that thanks go to Marian Hebb in Toronto for forwarding the CBC's story. Indeed. Hebb has been a free speech lawyer for years.

My own view? Just as I do not think government should raise money from lotteries to fund scanners at hospitals*, I also do not think government should scarf the proceeds of crime. The fact that some perps can write and others can't is, well, a fact of life. Some are smart and some are not.

In the case of the smarter and more interesting perps, relatives of the victims should have the right to sue for some part of the proceeds - something the publishing company ( to say nothing of the perp) may wish to take into account, when deciding to publish.

*because I think government is better advised to charge, through taxes, what it costs to run a health care system at the level desired by citizens, and quit using stupid tricks to finance it.

- Carter also tells me that press freedom declined in Canada within the last year, according to an annual ranking of 175 countries by Reporters Without Borders.

Released Tuesday, the index places Canada in 19th place, a drop of six spots from 2008.

Here is RWB's latest list. Here is the Canadian Press. Here is Winnpeg Free Press.

Am I surprised? Of course not. It has become progressively impossible in this country to discuss issues that divide us, due to "human rights" and political correctness.

- Carter also notes,
The Supreme Court of Canada is considering the case of a Globe reporter. Daniel Leblanc is seeking to protect the anonymity of the source who blew the whistle on Quebec's sponsorship scandal. Kirk Makin reports for The Globe and Mail.
Tonda MacCharles reports for the Toronto Star. CBC News reports.
A difficult problem. Traditionally, the journalist was expected to risk jail to protect sources (often, that was the only way to get the story). One runs the risk, not only of jail, but of not being believed - or worst, believing an unreliable source. Well, journalism done right is one of the world's truly dangerous professions.

Uncommon Descent Question 10 winner

2009-10-19T08:14:00.002-04:00

For Uncommon Descent Provide the Code: for Dawkins' WEASEL Program, we have declared a winner - 377 responses later - and it is Oxfordensis:

It seems that Dawkins used two programs, one in his book THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, and one for a video that he did for the BBC (here’s the video-run of the program; fast forward to 6:15). After much beating the bushes, we finally heard from someone named “Oxfordensis,” who provided the two PASCAL programs below, which we refer to as WEASEL1 (corresponding to Dawkins’s book) and WEASEL2 (corresponding to Dawkins’s BBC video). These are by far the best candidates we have received to date.

Go here for more.

Note: Apparently, Bill Dembski is taking care of the award.

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

2009-10-18T09:36:00.002-04:00

Abuses of Power in Science: An Interview With Darwin Skeptic David Berlinski

Mathematician and novelistBerlinski, interviewed here, is always fun. His Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretensions is both sharp and funny. As a secular Jew, he is not arguing for religion, but rather making the point that science is not atheism's best friend by any means:

•Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

•Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.

•Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.

•Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.

•Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.

•Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.

•Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.

•Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.

•Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

To me, the main question is not why some out there try to co-opt science to support the new atheism, but why they get disproportionate attention.

Once Richard Dawkins told Expelled's Ben Stein that maybe space aliens started life on Earth but not God, I would have thought that ended the matter of who and what to believe. I gather Francis Crick entertained the same idea. Carl Sagan must have been flirting with it when he wrote Contact. And we need this?

Here, Berlinski talks about the problem of how to address dissent in science. Personally, I have a simple rule: If it can't be disconfirmed, it isn't science. That's how I knew Darwinism was not science - I was always being told that the evidence for natural selection acting on random mutation as a source of intricate machinery was overwhelming when it was quite obviously underwhelming. Disconfirmation was simply not allowed. Scientists had to slirt very carefully around any suggestion that their research suggested it wasn't true. And that's only the stuff that got published. Vast amounts of time and energy have been put into shoring up this unbelievable belief. Well, the nice thing for me as a traditional Christian is that, in general, this scandal at least can't be laid at our door.

Meanwhile, here's Bill Dembski on new peer-reviewed paper, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," published in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans.

Listen in as Dr. Dembski shares how his research provides accounting practices for checking out where the information in evolutionary processes is being inserted and expressed, thus holding evolutionists accountable to the fact that information is coming from an outside source.

Here is the paper. I remember when Baylor University tried to get rid of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. This could be one reason why. With any luck, there will be others.

Lastly, here

On this episode of ID the Future, Logan Gage interviews professor of neurosurgery at SUNY, Stony Brook Michael Egnor. Dr. Egnor discusses his current research into cerebral blood flow and the buffering of the brain from the force of blood pumped by the heart. Dr. Egnor's approach to this problem is that of an engineer, using the design inference to understand how the brain protects itself from the pulsatility of the arterial blood flow of the heart.

So just think, if it rains, you can listen to podcasts instead of raking leaves.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Intellectual freedom in Canada: News roundup

2009-10-18T07:03:00.001-04:00

Franklin Carter of the Book and Periodical Council of Canada notes:

In Toronto, British intellectual Timothy Garton Ash delivered a lecture on the need for more free speech in diverse societies. Julie Payne reports for The Canadian Journalism Project.

Here, I am reminded of Mark Steyn's remarks at the Ontario Legislature, when he pointed out (among other things) that in societies where people are not allowed to criticize religion or the government or social habits, they often respond by just blowing stuff up. One reason Canada was a low threat society for so long was precisely because it was okay to say you didn't believe in God or thought the Prime Minister a fool or thought some people should solve their "victimization" problems by staying in school, getting a job, and waiting till they have a stable partner to have children. If few care what the opinionator thinks, few will pay attention. But he has no motive for violence.

In Halifax, Canadian intellectual Mark Mercer examines the CHRT's ruling in the dispute between Marc Lemire and Richard Warman.

Carter also draws my attention to

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about bombs or the intelligence quotients of one race as against another . . . if a man is a scientist, like me, he’ll always say “Publish and be damned.”

Jacob Bronowski, quoted by George Steiner, Has Science a Future? (1978)

People today publish and are damned, alas, but by the "human rights" commission, not the public. I am thinking, for example, of the Catholic Insight case.

Re intelligence: I've always thought differential intelligence comparisons a waste of time because often it's unclear what precisely the subject under investigation is. Do we mean theoretical intelligence, like Albert Einstein's? The ability to solve practical problems, like designing a better beehive? The ability to live in a competent way? Racial comparisons only stir up needless strife. I'm not saying it should be illegal, but I sure would not fund it or consider it academically respectable.

Also, Blazing Cat Fur advises me that a petition is available:

As you know, freedom of speech is an essential characteristic of a free society. In Canada, however, this freedom has been under attack in recent years under the pretext of protecting and promoting human rights. Laws that prohibit the free expression of opinion undermine the very foundations of a free and tolerant society and are, therefore, illegitimate and must be abolished.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies has just launched an online petition calling on lawmakers at all levels of government in Canada examine legislation within their jurisdiction intended to protect and promote human rights, and to remove those provisions that prohibit or otherwise limit the free and sincere expression of opinion.

Go here.

Some question the value of such petitions: "online petitions are worse than a waste of time. They are a distraction and a drug, and in fact, are couter-productive." I'm not sure. Some people salve their consciences that way; others, having done one thing, are motivated to go on to do something more useful. We shall see.

Mathematics: Gap tooth creationist moron flunks superstition test

2009-10-17T09:31:00.002-04:00

Even though I am not a creationist by any reasonable definition, I sometimes get pegged as the local gap tooth creationist moron. (But then I don't have gaps in my teeth either. Check the unretouched photos.)

As the best gap tooth they could come up with, a local TV station interviewed me about "superstition" the other day.

The issue turned out to be superstition related to numbers. Were they hoping I'd fall in?

The skinny: Some local people want their house numbers changed because they feel the current number assignment is "unlucky."

Look, guys, numbers here are assigned on a strict directional rota. If the number bugs you so much, move.

Don't mess up the street directory for everyone else. Paramedics, fire chiefs, police chiefs, et cetera, might need a directory they can make sense of. You might be glad for that yourself one day.

Anyway, I didn't get a chance to say this on the program so I will now: No numbers are evil or unlucky. All numbers are - in my view - created by God to march in a strict series or else a discoverable* series, and that is what makes mathematics possible. And mathematics is evidence for design, not superstition.

The interview may never have aired. I tend to flub the gap-tooth creationist moron role, so interviews with me are often not aired.

* I am thinking here of numbers like pi, that just go on and on and never shut up, but you can work with them anyway. (You just decide where you want to cut the mike.)

Just up at The Mindful Hack

2009-10-13T14:12:00.001-04:00

Neurolaw: Mind readers bustle into the court room

Mind and society: Why you can trust the people, when they have a chance

Neuroscience: Stuff I didn't need to hear about what people care about, but pass along anyway

Neuroscience: The importance of focused attention

Atheism and pop culture: Religious commitment as mild dementia?

(Note: If you follow me at Twitter, you will get regular notice of new Mindful Hack posts, usually when I have posted five or so stories.)

Coffee!! Pop science and popular culture: Skip the pedantry, just go for the effect?

2009-10-13T02:18:00.001-04:00

According to Michael Brooks (New Scientist, 06 October 2009), in Don't be such a scientist, Randy "Flock of Dodos" Olson "advises,

DID you spot James Cameron's mistake in Titanic? Leo DiCaprio is about to drown in the north Atlantic ocean, yet the constellations of the southern hemisphere are aglow in the sky above.

Who cares? Scientists, apparently. The mistake "ruined" the movie for Neil de Grasse Tyson, director of New York's Hayden Planetarium, Randy Olson says.

It's the kind of reaction that gets scientists a bad rap, and Olson - himself a scientist and film-maker - suggests it pays to skip the pedantry and concentrate on the bigger picture. While small factual errors can be irksome, they are not life-threatening, he says - especially when the scientist is in control. If you want to get a message across to the public, don't obsess about facts.

Well, even better: Be a professional Darwinist (evolutionary biologist), and you can just plain make it up as you go along and call it science. Hey, you can even imagine the religious opinions of Old Stone Age man and call that science. Just skip the pedantry. If we agree that what you are saying is only entertainment, sure. I've said so myself.

On the other hand, if you are my dentist or my cat's vet, and you try that, I will complain to your professional society. How important pedantry is depends on the believability or significance of the body of evidence.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Sad story: Death of a scientist in small doses

2009-10-12T16:46:00.003-04:00

Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins Dodges Debates,

Refuses to Defend Evolution as The Greatest Show On Earth

Seattle – Richard Dawkins, the world’s leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution and an advocate of the “new atheism,” has refused to debate Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a prominent advocate of intelligent design and the author of the acclaimed Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009) in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

“Richard Dawkins claims that the appearance of design in biology is an illusion and claims to have refuted the case for intelligent design,” says Dr. Meyer who received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge in England.

“But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the key evidence for intelligent design and won’t debate its leading proponents,” adds Dr. Meyer. “Dawkins says that there is no evidence for intelligent design in life, and yet he also acknowledges that neither he nor anyone else has an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first living cell. We know now even the simplest forms of life are chock-full of digital code, complex information processing systems and other exquisite forms of nanotechnology.”

In Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009) in the Cell, Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin?

Signature in the Cell has just entered its third printing according to publisher HarperOne, an imprint of Harper Collins, and has been endorsed by scientists around the world, including leading British geneticist Dr. Norman Nevin, Alastair Noble, Ph.D. chemistry, formerly Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools for Science, Scotland, and Dr. Philip Skell, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths this fall in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists.”

“Dawkins’ response is disingenuous,” said Meyer. “Creationists believe the earth is 10,000 years old and use the Bible as the basis for their views on the origins of life. I don’t think the earth is 10,000 years old and my case for intelligent design is based on scientific evidence.”

According to Discovery Institute, where Dr. Meyer directs the Center for Science & Culture, the debate challenge is a standing invitation for any time and place that is mutually agreeable to both participants.

Gosh, I really must find that feather I knock myself over with, defying the law of gravity - to the amazement of my neighbours - whenever I hear stuff like this.

Basically, after he stopped doing serious science and unwisely became a "professor of the public understanding of science", due to the unwise beneficence of a Microsoft billionaire, Dawkins committed himself to more and more to completely ridiculous positions: The selfish gene and the meme are part of the story.

Stuff for the popular press, not for science.

Dawkins won't debate because he can't, any more. Microsoft billionaires can't help him either.

Note: You can win a free copy of Signature by entering Uncommon Descent Contest 11.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Darwinism and academic culture: ID film banned

2009-10-12T08:10:00.000-04:00

Apparently, California's Science Centers refuses to show Darwin's Dilemma, about the Cambrian explosion , which was a big problem for Darwin.

He blamed the incomplete fossil record, but now that it is more complete, the significance of the explosion is all the more obvious.

Basically, almost all basic animal life forms came into existence about 550 million years ago and have pretty much developed from there. This is not good news if you are fronting a theory of evolution that depends on random, meaningless mutations (= Darwinism).

In fact, I remember a stupid Darwin lobbyist announcing that she had arguments against the "Cambrian explosion argument", only to be rebuked by mathematician David Berlinski, who pointed out that there is no Cambrian explosion argument. There is a Cambrian explosion, period. Deal with it or get lost, but please don't demand public or donor funding for your emotional problem with it. Anyway,

Today the Los Angeles Daily News reports that the California Science Center, a “department of the State of California,” cancelled the screening of Darwin’s Dilemma after the screening became public knowledge and the Center came under intense pressure to cancel, possibly from the Smithsonian Institution, with which they are affiliated. The Center’s IMAX Theater had been rented by a private group, the American Freedom Alliance, to hold the Los Angeles premiere of the film as part of a series of activities commemorating the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

This will help the American public believe that there is something to be said for Darwinism as surely as the Canadian Human Rights Commission's pretend Nazis convinced Canadians that there is something good to be said about the Commission. Like I have said before, there is fire all along the northern border, due to exercises in completely stupid, censorious, and intrusive government and its funded agencies that never address real issues.

Love it, hate it. Oh, way better you should hate it.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: