More about multiverses, aka the Darwinist Concession Speech

Via Really getting into multiverse thinking here, this quote out of Perhaps-It-Used-To-Be-Scientific American:

To me, the key point is that if theories are scientific, then it’s legitimate science to work out and discuss all their consequences even if they involve unobservable entities. For a theory to be falsifiable, we need not be able to observe and test all its predictions, merely at least one of them.

- in “The Case for Parallel Universes: Why the multiverse, crazy as it sounds, is a solid scientific idea” (Scientific American, July 19, 2011)

They call that solid science while claiming that Intelligent Design isn’t science?  Wow.

I realized many years ago that as the Weekend at Bernie’s Darwinian tautology got harder and harder to prop up that its proponents would eventually have to find something new.  They do it regularly on a smaller scale (“junk DNA,” anyone?), but at some point — despite the Darwinian monopoly in education, media and politics — the masses will see through the endless errors.

I just didn’t realize that the new meme would be the multiverse fairy tale.  I thought they would be more clever than that.  It sounds like something people on marijuana would come up with, and has just as much science behind it.

Not-so-vestigial organs and the costs of Darwinian presuppositions

It is such a shame that allegedly pro-science atheists get away with the canard that Christians are anti-science.  See What will be the next time and money-wasting error Darwinism leads scientists into?.  They are the real culprits.

The explicit reason for both the junk DNA error and the vestigial organs errorwas the need to find evidence for Darwinism in the form of stuff in life forms that doesn’t work. Without that need, these errors would not have been made. For many kids, mid-twentieth century, it was an error that resulted in needless, risky surgeries, removing supposedly vestigial tonsils and adenoids.

What will the next error be? Thoughts?

The Darwinist can take comfort that he is paid to stop science, and entitled to persecute those who want a reckoning – though that latter right is becoming more tenuous, as the recent Granville Sewell case and others show.

Are Darwinists remorseful about their “junk DNA” errors?

Image of a DNA chain which shows the double he...

Image via Wikipedia

Many Darwinists thought that DNA contained “junk,” and they used this “fact” as part of their mockery of Intelligent Design (ID).  It turns out that DNA wasn’t junky after all — just as ID would have predicted.  And these same Darwinists pretend that ID gets in the way of scientific progress.

Read this quote carefully.  It is by Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer and it was written only 5 years ago.

We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, tandem repeats, and pseudogenes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production, It looks as though Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution.

Via Who believed in the myth of junk DNA? – Michael Shermer, for one.

That is just another in a long line of evolutionary fairy tales.  This false belief system dominates education, politics, science and fake Christian churches.  Get informed and stop letting them get away with bad science.

Do you think their bias could be leading them to be wrong on anything else?  Will Shermer et al apologize for hindering science with their false beliefs?  Do they have any shame?

Clairvoyant Darwinists don’t even need to read Intelligent Design books to “review” them

See ID critics do not read ID books before reviewing them « Wintery Knight.  Those are book “no-views,” not book reviews.  This reminds me of how the Darwin fans will rush to Amazon to give one star to books like Stephen Meyers’ Signature in the Cell when they obviously haven’t read it.  You’d think their transparent dishonesty would embarrass them, but apparently they haven’t evolved to hold that sort of morality.  I was very disappointed that someone from Forbes would be so sloppy.  Their editorial content is usually held to much higher standards.

My guess is that they know if they actually read the books they’d have to respond to the arguments, and not their straw-man versions of what Intelligent Design is.

“As a friend of ours puts it, Jonathan Wells’s The Myth of Junk DNA is in the process of being “Ayala’ed.” To “Ayala” a book is to attack it in review without having bothered to read or even read much about it, simply on the basis of what you think it probably says given your uninformed preconceptions about the author. The term comes from the wonderful instance where distinguished biologist Francisco Ayala pompously “reviewed” Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell for the Biologos Foundation website while giving clear evidence of not having cracked the book open or even looked at the table of contents.

Thus we have several posts from University of Toronto biochemist Larry Moran, criticizing Myth while being totally open about not having read it first. Moran wrote no fewer than four posts on the book in this fashion, claiming as an excuse that Myth would not be published in Canada until May 31. (In fact, the book was available for purchase from Amazon since early May.) And now, as Casey already noted, we have Forbes science writer John Farrell, citing Moran as his source — a “double Ayala,” so to speak, where you attack a book without reading it citing as justification a review by someone else who also hasn’t read it.

Farrell thinks the myth of junk DNA is itself a myth — that “scientists never dismissed junk DNA in the literature.” In other words, Wells has set up a straw man. Of course, not having looked at the book, Farrell can’t have consulted Dr. Wells’s fifty pages of notes documenting his argument. The notes may be downloaded for free here. (Also available in Canada.)”

So this is what criticism of intelligent design amounts to… denouncing a book before reading it.

Read the whole post.

“Junk” DNA: Not so junky after all

The non-protein coding portion of DNA was thought for decades to be “junk” DNA, a useless by-product of Darwinian evolution.  Turns out that was wrong.  Really, really, very wrong.  See New book: Junk DNA junked … in favour of what? | Uncommon Descent.

The last sentence is a great response to those claiming that “God wouldn’t create things this way.”

Junk DNA was one of those ideas that just had to be true. Genome mapper and NIH head Francis Collins saw it as a slam dunk for his beloved Darwinism in his first book, The Language of God, (“Darwin’s theory predicts … That is exactly what is observed”) but seems to have changed his tune in his second, The Language of Life.

I’ll be interviewing Wells on the book next week, but in the meantime, two questions occur to me: To what extent did Darwinism cause the myth to be retained longer than it otherwise would be? Given that Darwinists must now be in search of another guiding myth, any idea out there which one it will be?

Now, one prediction:

Darwinists who used to point to all the alleged junk in DNA, as Collins did, will resort – seeing anything they don’t like – to saying God wouldn’t have done it that way” implying that, unlike the rest of us, they are on familiar terms with God, and cold take over the desk themselves on his lunch break, with no interruption in service.