The ID Arts Blog

Here’s a brilliant example of language embedded in language. A friend writes to tell me that this video was submitted in a contest by a 20 year old. The contest was Titled “u @ 50.”

To get the point you must watch it through to the end.

Here’s the latest online short story from Australian Jason Rennie’s online Science Fiction and Philosophy shop: “Epilogue” by British author Paul S. Jenkins, free in a number of formats, about the day God decides to resign:

“Let me summarise my proposed course of action. Soon after the end of this broadcast, and of those transmitted to other countries, I shall be vacating my position as overseer of the world, indeed of the universe. I shall be going you-know-not-where, never to return. It will be as if I had never existed, a state of affairs which correlates quite closely with the views held by a significant proportion of you. “The result of this action will be to render some specific questions irrelevant: Did the universe have a creator? Does mankind have free will? What is the meaning of life?

by Tom Gilson

Did you know there were two tin woodmen in Oz? Probably not–the second one appears for the first time here.

“He thought it was a curse. I saw it differently. You probably remember his story–how he fell in love with a certain girl, who happened to be my niece. Her mother, my poor late brother’s widow, didn’t want her girl getting married, so she went to the witch to buy a hex on the fellow. Next time he went out to the woods, his axe slipped and cut a horrible gash in his leg. There was nothing to be done for it, the leg was lost; so he went to the tinsmith and got a replacement. He went back to chopping, not knowing his axe had been turned against him. He lost one arm to it, then another–and then in the end he was all tin.

“I didn’t understand what was going on any more than he did. Anybody could have told something was up, though. He wasn’t that bad an axe-handler! Somehow he was oblivious to what was really happening, and he kept right on cutting wood, and cutting himself. Maybe there was a spell on his brain, too–I can’t believe it was just his axe that was addled. Most people would have found it pretty remarkable to survive with a tin body, but he took it in stride–as long as he was well oiled, that is. His one big complaint was he had lost his heart.

“Well, I’m a woodman too. I saw what he never saw. Oh, he was proud enough of his new tin body, all shiny and all, and he was glad enough to have a skin that the axe couldn’t cut any more. But he never caught on to just how much good it had done him. He was a woodcutting machine! Fast, accurate, never bothered by the nettles and the brambles; he could keep going and going with hardly a break except to oil up. And he had the gall to complain about it!

“He didn’t know–not until it was way too late–just who it was who had caused this. But I knew. She was having one of those little gossip sessions with my wife, complaining about this and that. My wife–bless her–was one of my own bigger mistakes. When she got into one of these gripe-fests with other women, she only complained about one thing: me. ‘He’s lazy, he doesn’t make us any money, I’m so mistreated,’ and on and on. What did she know about woodcutting? I swung that axe all day long, sweating, blistering my hands, never knowing when some idiot with another axe was going to drop a tree on my head–and all she could do was whine.

“I have to admit, though, she wasn’t all wrong. Woodcutting is a hardlife: we never had any extra money, hardly enough food to eat, and our home was always just about falling apart. That’s how it was until I got things figured out. It was lucky, in a way, how I happened to overhear them talking (usually I stay as far from them as I can). My sister-in-law was crowing to my wife about how she had gone to the Wicked Witch of the East, and how it had cost her just two sheep and a cow to get this spell cast.

“That gave me the idea. It was only natural, don’t you think? We didn’t have any livestock to spare at the time, but I figured I could make a deal to pay the witch later, once I got myself improved.

“The witch went for it, the same deal she asked from my sister-in-law. Now, you’re probably thinking she would have had some huge evil trick in mind, to steal my soul from me, or make me burn with misery getting turned into tin, or have me pine away with regret for all I gave up. No, she may be a wicked witch, but she kept her word. A few good chops and a visit to the tinsmith, that’s all it took; then two sheep and a cow, as soon as I could afford them. That’s all she got out of me.

“I really don’t need animals like that now anyway–tin men don’t eat, and we don’t mind about keeping warm. I just have to keep my joints oiled up. I may not have a heart, but then, I wasn’t all that lovey-dovey with my wife anyway, if you know what I mean. Who cares about all that, anyway? I hardly ever think about a tree falling on me anymore; the other woodcutters mostly stay out of my part of the woods. I move a lot faster now.

“Why do they call her a wicked witch, anyway?”

by Dennis Wagner

Prediction: intelligent design will be here to stay when it appears in Hip-Hop music.  News Flash: Atom tha Immortal has released the first full-fledged ID Hip-Hop song I’m aware of called Achilles. Give it a listen here and read the lyrics below. To learn more about Atom or to download his newest album, Sons of Slaves and Lords, go to his website.

Apocalyptic G-d presence/
Feeling the fire of G-d’s essence/
You need Rosetta Stones to unlock my poem’s message/
Born in a body of sand since early dawn/
Adam spawned genetic code of early on/
Written on the rocks of Hebron, The Earth Is Gone/
Reverted from an Information Age to Early Bronze/
Punishment of Civilization/
The only reason why this wicked nation ain’t burning is G-d’s patient/

Chorus:
——-
The best decision/
For somebody in your position/
Is head down, hands up in submission/
Realize/
We’re where the future lies/
With Y-S-H-U-A the truth’s alive/
(x2)

Will somebody tell me how come/
My sound waves will never ricochet/
Obliterate your breath and leave your chest concave/
Killing a knave/
Sound decibel levels of wrath/
Your inner ear hammer will crack your anvil in half/
I follow a path through Euclidean spacetime/
Mythological allusion inserted in every line/
Telekinetically crack a lion’s spine/
Freeing the blind from mind control on mankind’s soul/
So/
We strike Achilles at his heel/
We strike the modern man like Gregor Mendel, meddling with his alleles/
Wounds of Darwinian Theory will never heal/
Once the population finds Intelligent Design/
Enzymes hold the signs of a Divine Mind/
Darwinian speculation is useless/
To explain emergence/
Of cellular machines below the surface/
Seeing Specified Complexity points to a purpose/
Of a system of integrated parts/
Excluding chance as part/
Of how it could ever start/
So/
I speak with truth and in reason/
But whether you believe or not/
We leave Darwinian fish bleeding/

(Chorus)

Jason Rennie pf Sci Phi journal offers

This weeks installment of Sci Phi Journal is the wonderful story, You Pretty Thing by Australian Author Lee Battersby. It is read by Rick Stringer of the variant Frequencies Podcast. I hope you like it.

The basic thesis is that a man has developed a plan to cheat death:

“This,” he said, indicating his body. “A clone, created from genetically manipulated junk stock. Download myself into it via a brain transplant at the point of death.”

“The cancer?”

“Not in my brain.” He tapped the side of his head. “All my memories, all my experiences. I’m me. The body is just a vessel.”

“Except?”

“Except I have to prove it. Beyond reasonable doubt.”

The questions you are invited to discuss in the comments are

I Do you think Rhodes has managed to achieve immortality ?

II Is this really still Jonathan Rhodes ? I

II Does the test prove that ?

The story is available in available in a variety of sound, text, and palm reader formats. 

Here is an interesting piece by science fiction reviewer, Annalee Newitz who, in “In recent sci-fi, intelligent design is truth”, needs to convince herself that, generally, science fiction based on an intelligent design premise is an attempt to disprove it. Or something:

What these authors are doing is even more tricky, if you look at their work as a sneaky critique of ID theory. Essentially they’re saying, “Let’s invent a universe where ID is truth. Oh, that would be the universe that science will build for us.” And ultimately, in these novels, the Designer is not a God or even gods, but instead a whole bunch of sentient creatures harnessing the power of science and technology to design worlds and bodies intelligently.

Well, what if … whatever.

Sociologist Steve Fuller who studies the intelligent design-Darwin controversy – and is in danger of being roasted by Darwin trolls – has written a play, and it’s actually a good show.

True, I have gone on record saying that almost all “cause” art of any kind is “freakingly awful”:

Most “cause” books and movies are terrible. Just terrible. Freakingly awful. There is a good reason for that. A novel or film must incarnate, not explain. It must show people living the situation, not talking about it.

But Fuller has an interesting premise: A postmodern talk show on which Charles Darwin (Chuck) and Abe Lincoln (Abe), whose birthdays fall on the same day, appear. They are interviewed, and decide if they want to stay in the present or go back to wherever they are now (not disclosed as a matter of broadcast policy). There are two hosts – the big hair hostette (Sheila) and a wisecracking dude on a short lead (Jack). Here’s just a snippet:

ABE [bemused]: Like it or not, Darwin, it seems that you’ve been turned into the God behind the new science of Genesis!

CHUCK [looks cross]: I fail to see the humour in all this. My good name has been misappropriated for some sophisticated form of alchemy!

SHEILA: Chuck, lighten up! The stuff works – at least most of the time. I mean – I’ve got this recent testimonial from an expert. Listen to what he says: “Genes are digitally coded text, in a sense too full to be dismissed as an analogy. Like human words they have the power to hurt and to heal, and that power is the greater because, given the right conditions, genetic words can dictate with stronger predictability than most human imperatives.”

CHUCK: That sounds like the ravings of some theologian still stuck in the seventeenth century with his Book of Nature and Book of God.

SHEILA: No, Chuck! That’s Richard Dawkins. He’s on your side. He’s the greatest evolutionist ever produced by television!

CHUCK: That word again! Television.

JACK [Trying to be helpful]: Chuck, look at it this way: Not only do we need to manufacture evolution and the science of evolution, but we also need to manufacture a demand for the science of evolution. And so, in the end, most of our money gets thrown at the marketing department to sell evolution to the masses. And by God, can Dawkins reel in the punters! And he does this in the medium we call television…

Actually Dawkins and the ponderous “evolution” TV specials have been the best source of business for the intelligent design advocates in my view. I am glad someone understands this, even if it is only the ghost of Darwin. Hey, let’s give the ol’ ghost a glass of spirits to ease his passage back to wherever …

A fascinating article by Judith Thurman, “First Impressions: What does the world’s oldest art say about us?” (June 23, 2008) in The New Yorker explores the attempts we make to understand the artworks left by humans drawing on the walls of caves thousands of years ago.

She reflects on the Chauvet paintings found in south central France. These oldest known paintings predate the Lascaux and Altamira friezes by fifteen to eighteen thousand years. The history of interpretation of older artworks has suffered from too-ready assumptions about “primitive” people, in particular that, as mud slowly morphed into mind, art would gradually become more sophisticated. For example,

He had also made the Darwinian assumption that the most ancient art was the most primitive, and [i]n that respect, Chauvet was a bombshell. It is Aurignacian, and its earliest paintings are at least thirty-two thousand years old, yet they are just as sophisticated as much later compositions. What emerged with that revelation was an image of Paleolithic artists transmitting their techniques from generation to generation for twenty-five millennia with almost no innovation or revolt. A profound conservatism in art, Curtis notes, is one of the hallmarks of a “classical civilization.” For the conventions of cave painting to have endured four times as long as recorded history, the culture it served, he concludes, must have been “deeply satisfying”—and stable to a degree it is hard for modern humans to imagine.

Also, curiously in the light of the notion of the “violent brute” cave man,

No human conflict is recorded in cave art, although at three separate sites there are four ambiguous drawings of a creature with a man’s limbs and torso, pierced with spearlike lines. More pertinent, perhaps, is a famous vignette in the shaft at Lascaux. It depicts a rather comical stick figure with an avian beak or mask, a puny physique, and a long skinny penis. He and his erect member seem to have rigor mortis. He is flat on his back at the feet of an exquisitely realistic wounded bison, whose intestines are spilling out. The bison’s glance is turned away, but it might have an ironic smile. Could the subject be hubris? Whatever it represents, some mythic contest—and the struggle of prehistorians to interpret their subject is such a contest—has ended in a draw.

Her descriptions are beautiful,

A great frieze covers the back left wall: a pride of lions with Pointillist whiskers seems to be hunting a herd of bison, which appear to have stampeded a troop of rhinos, one of which looks as if it had fallen into, or is climbing out of, a cavity in the rock. As at many sites, the scratches made by a standing bear have been overlaid with a palimpsest of signs or drawings, and one has to wonder if cave art didn’t begin with a recognition that bear claws were an expressive tool for engraving a record—poignant and indelible—of a stressed creature’s passage through the dark.

and I will spoil no more of them for you. A fierce controversy rages over how exactly to interpret the art and its purpose – or whether one should attempt to interpret it at all. One archaeologist defended his interpretation as follows:

Clottes was hurt and outraged by the rancor of the attacks that greeted “The Shamans of Prehistory” (“psychedelic ravings,” one critic wrote), and the authors defended themselves in a subsequent edition. “You can advance a scientific hypothesis without claiming certainty,” Clottes told me one evening. “Everyone agrees that the paintings are, in some way, religious. I’m not a believer myself, and I’m certainly not a mystic. But Homo sapiens is Homo spiritualis. The ability to make tools defines us less than the need to create belief systems that influence nature. And shamanism is the most prevalent belief system of hunter-gatherers.”

Influence nature, yes, but we also need to understand and interpret nature. Probably the most important thing that the cave paintings tell us about ourselves is that the mind seems to have emerged rather suddenly, not by a long series of increments, a point that Mario Beauregard and I discuss in The Spiritual Brain.

Tour the caves, courtesy France’s culture ministry. The image above is but one of many you can click on. Also tour Lascaux here (at Virtual visit) and view Altamira images here.

by Casey Luskin

Somewhere a dialogue is presently taking place concerning intelligent design, and it may be going something like this:

ID Proponent: DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Human intelligence. Creative Genius. Love. Music. Art. Leonardo da Vinci. Beethoven.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Science. Evidence. Data. Observations. Intelligent design.

Darwinist: Wedge.

ID Proponent: Atheism: Richard Dawkins. Daniel Dennett. Sam Harris. Eugenie Scott. Barbara Forrest. Stephen Jay Gould. E.O. Wilson. Michael Ruse. P.Z. Myers. Many others. Wedge? Irrelevant.

Darwinist: Hmmf. Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judges can’t settle science. Courts can’t change data.

Darwinist: Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judge adopted false definition of ID.

Darwinist: Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judge ignored positive case for design.

Darwinist: Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judge copied many errors into ruling from ACLU. Judge ignored ID rebuttals. Judges make mistakes all the time.

Darwinist: Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judge ignored peer-reviewed pro-ID publications. Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Dembski, The Design Inference. Beye/Snoke, Protein Science. Others.

Darwinist: Kitzmiller.

ID Proponent: Judge ignored pro-ID research. Minnich’s flagellum research.

Darwinist: Hmmf. Type III Secretory System has ¼ flagellar parts.

ID Proponent: Not an explanation. Huge Leap.

Darwinist: Type III Secretory System has ¼ flagellar parts.

ID Proponent: Flagellum: Rotor, Stator, Bushings, Motor, Propeller, U-Joint, Rotary Engine 100,000 RPM. Irreducibly complex.

Darwinist: Type III Secretory System has ¼ flagellar parts.

ID Proponent: Then provide step-by-step evolutionary model.

Darwinist: Hmmf. ID has no research.

ID Proponent: Minnich. Axe. Dembski. Marks. Meyer. Behe. Snoke. Gonzalez. Biologic. Others.

Darwinist: Hmmf. NAS rejects. AAAS rejects. “Steves” reject.

ID Proponent: That’s Politics. Thomas Kuhn was right. “Science not a democracy” –Eugenie Scott. All majority views started off as minority views.

Darwinist: Hmmf. ID = Politics.

ID Proponent: ID also has science. Plus Darwinism has politics: NAS anti-ID edicts; AAAS anti-ID edicts; Witch hunts (Sternberg, Crocker, Gonzalez, others).

Darwinist: Hmmf. ID = Creationism.

ID Proponent: DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Not Bible based.

Darwinist: ID = Creationism.

ID Proponent: Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Not Faith based.

Darwinist: ID = Creationism.

ID Proponent: Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Not Divine Revelation based.

Darwinist: ID = Creationism.

ID Proponent: Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Not Religion.

Darwinist: ID = Creationism.

ID Proponent: World’s most famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins (who is anti-ID): “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Darwinist: Hmmf. TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project.

ID Proponent: DNA Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick (who is anti-ID): “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.“

Darwinist: TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project.

ID Proponent: Former NAS president Bruce Alberts (who is anti-ID): “The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.”

Darwinist: Hmmf. Then who designed the designer?

ID Proponent: Theological Objection—Irrelevant. Theological Answer: God is eternal, has no designer.

Darwinist: Who designed the designer?

ID Proponent: Knowledge of designer not necessary for design inference.

Darwinist: Who designed the designer?

ID Proponent: Why does the universe exist?

Darwinist: Hmmf. Progress of science. God of the gaps.

ID Proponent: Science seeks truth. If ID is right, ID is progress.

Darwinist: Progress of science must be NATURALISTIC. God of the gaps.

ID Proponent: That’s my point: Naturalism failing. How did flagellum evolve? Evolution of the gaps.

Darwinist: Progress of science. God of the gaps.

ID Proponent: Where are Cambrian ancestors? Evolution of the gaps.

Darwinist: Progress of science. God of the gaps.

ID Proponent: How did the first cell arise? Evolution of the gaps.

Darwinist: Progress of science. God of the gaps.

ID Proponent: ID is positive. DNA. Genetic code. Language. Commands. Information. Cambrian Explosion. Pattern of Explosions. Cosmic Fine-Tuning. Complexity of life. Irreducible complexity. Specified Complexity. Human intelligence. Love. Music. Art. Leonardo da Vinci. Beethoven. Molecular Machines. Molecular motors. Cellular factories. Science. Evidence. Data. Observations. Information in nature requires intelligent design.

[Empty Silence; Crickets]

ID Proponent: How did any single biochemical pathway arise? Evolution of the gaps. ID dramatically superior.

[Empty Silence; Crickets.]

Darwinist: Wedge. You’re ignorant, insane, and wicked.

——————————–

Note: This was intended as a parody only, although sadly it represents the many fallacious objections to ID raised by Darwinists. If anything, this parody underestimates the amount of name-calling and personal attacks that a Darwinist would have probably leveled (in this case, the Darwinist refrains from personal attacks until the very end.)

A real scholarly debate between those on both sides of the intelligent design controversy would have much more technical arguments. Nonetheless, the sad truth is that when many criticize intelligent design in the media, courtrooms, classrooms, and even scientific journals, their arguments often fail to rise above those of the “Darwinist” antagonist presented here. For those interested in serious, scientific discussions of intelligent design, check out any of these two books that have both pro- and con- arguments regarding intelligent design:

·  Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, Edited By: Campbell, John Angus and Meyer, Stephen (Michigan State University Press, 2003).

·  Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, Edited By: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

 A friend alerted me to this wonderful poem on the brain by Pier Giorgio Di Cicco (1949-) “Brain Litany: Or, Overlooking the Existential Factor”, poet laureate of Toronto and Augustinian priest:

*” … and when we think of coconuts and pigs, there are no coconuts or pigs in the brain.” — Gregory Bateson

[ ... ]

Where are the pigs Where are the coconuts

The brain is a compendium of holographic mechanisms

Help me find the coconuts Help me find the pigs

The brain is a neuro-physiological metaphor

The brain is an illusionist’s exercise in Euclidean geometry

The brain is a vibrational amplifier for ambient field quanta

Find me the goddamned coconuts the pigs

The brain is a cybernetic miracle with a three-ring triune brain circus at its centre [ ... ]

Read the rest here. It is simply the best sendup I have ever heard of materialist neuroscience.

So rarely does a poet actually take on the nonsense rigorously, as opposed to simply sneaking away into some romantic or nihilist haze.  – Denyse O’Leary

PS: If you find the pigs, lose them again, will you, and keep the coconuts for your trouble. – d.

We recently received a large brown envelop from our mail carrier with no return address. Inside we found photocopies of what appear to be internal memos from the Natural Sciences Department at the University of Ivory Tower. A note inside indicated that the sender was a graduate student at the university who felt these documents needed to be made available to the public. The sender simply referred to himself/herself as “Sager”. We will be posting these memos (that our staff dubbed the “Ivorygate” documents) one at a time as we are able to review and authenticate them. Today we are releasing the memo entitled “Educators Guide to dealing with intelligent design“.

by Dennis Wagner

One of the most profound spiritual experiences I’ve ever had was my first encounter with the Hubble Deep Field Photographs. What appears to be a little dark space in the heavens as we gaze up with the naked eye turns out to be filled with hundreds of odd shaped galaxies when examined more closely by the Hubble Space Telescope. You can hear a hundred lectures on how big the universe is, but when your mind starts extrapolating what your eye sees in this photo, you are suddenly overwhelmed by the largeness of the universe and the smallness of your life, and yet somehow you fell connected to that largeness, and privileged to be here to observe it. I think folk guitarist Peter Mayer has captured that experience beautify in his song My Soul from his Midwinter CD.

My Soul by Peter Mayer

There are a hundred billion snowflakes swirling in the cosmic storm
And each one is a galaxy, a billion stars or more
And each star is a million earths, a giant fiery sun
High up in some sky, maybe shining on someone

And deep inside a snowflake, I am floating quietly
I am infinitesimal, impossible to see
Sitting in my tiny kitchen in my tiny home
Staring out my window at a universe of snow

But my soul is so much bigger than the very tiny me
It reaches out into the snowstorm like a net into the sea
Out to all the lovely places where my body cannot go
I touch that beauty and embrace it in the bosom of my soul

And so brief and fleeting is this tiny life of mine
Like a single quarter note in the march of time
But my soul is like the music, it goes back to ancient days
Back before it wore a human face, long before it bore my name

Because my soul is so much older than the evanescent me
It can describe the dawn of time like a childhood memory
It is a spark that was begotten of the darkness long ago
What my body has forgotten, I remember in my soul

So we live this life together, my giant soul and tiny me
One resembling forever, one like smoke upon the breeze
One the deep abiding ocean, one a sudden flashing wave
And counting galaxies like snowflakes, I would swear we were the same

Oh my soul belongs to beauty, takes me up to lofty heights
Teaches sacred stories to me, sanctifies my tiny life
Lays a bridge across the ages, melts the boundaries of my bones
Paints a bold eternal face on this passing moment, oh my soul

Research on how the brain processes music is emerging as a rich and stimulating area of investigation of perception, memory, emotion, and performance. This 25 page paper from the Annual Review of Psychology does an excellent job of reviewing the state of research on music and the brain and provides citations to the original literature for those who want to dig deeper. Based on current knowledge researchers are attempting to build a sound model of how the brain processes music. We’d love to hear the Darwinian “story” about how the musical supercomputer between our ears developed by mutations.

An editorial by Matt R. Ealist

It seems like every time we turn around a scientist is pointing out the genetic similarities between humans and chimps – our closest evolutionary ancestors. For some of us, this constant preaching can grow old. Why is it that scientists feel it necessary to continually remind us that we are not made in the image of God, but in the image of an ape? I propose that they are doing it for our own good. The belief of human exceptionalism is a sin of the worst kind. Most evil and atrocity in the world can be traced back to this belief. The “Fall of Man” was not when humans denied God and became selfish, as the Christians say. It is exactly the opposite. The Fall occurred when humans began believing in a God and started denying their selfish genes. When scientists remind us that we are 98% ape, they are graciously attempting to save us from our sin and restore us to an apish virtue. We should be grateful. However, I believe the reason that many of us have become deaf to the Darwinist gospel is because we are disillusioned. When we hear scientists tell us that we are apes and that morals are an accidental by-product of nature, but then they turn around and talk of human “inalienable rights,” as if there is some objective moral law, we immediately recognize the hypocrisy. Therefore, I think that we owe some praise to scientists who have the courage and integrity to act with an apish virtue before they preach it to others. Although instances of this type of high character are rare, the academic community has recently witnessed just such an example.

Professors in the Astronomy, Physics, and Religious Studies departments at Iowa State University have come under scrutiny for conspiring to unfairly deny tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez (a heretic and advocate for Intelligent Design) and then lying about their reasons. While some simple minded people will criticize the behavior of these professors, I say it is commendable. They are acting consistently with the beliefs they espouse. If it is true that our closest relatives are chimps, then we should not be surprised when some of us exhibit chimp-like behavior. Nor should we apologize for it. Chimps are known to be aggressive, unfair, brutish little bullies at times. The professors’ behavior is strikingly similar. The behavior exhibited by these professors merely corroborates their own hypothesis that they are 98% ape. And while there are some Darwinists who would take that as an insult, the more enlightened ones (the true believers) should take it as a compliment. Why should they feel insulted by someone merely agreeing with a hypothesis that they proudly and boldly profess?

Some of you may be thinking, “What about the bonobo? They are our ancestors too and they are kind, sweet, and fair. Shouldn’t we harness our inner bonobo and shun our inner chimp? Isn’t the bonobo just as much a part of us as the chimpanzee?” Well, no. Our DNA is not as close to a bonobo as it is to a chimp. Furthermore, why should we prefer bonobo behavior over chimp behavior? They are both the products of purposeless processes of nature. To say that one is any better than the other is to imply an objective standard of some sort, which is rubbish.

I know that a lot of this may sound unpleasant. But I am simply stating the facts of Darwinism and applying them consistently. Not all Darwinists have the courage to admit these things, much less the stomach to act upon them. It seems our heroes at ISU have both. Their example stands as a symbol of Darwinian truth for all the world to see. Students can look to this inspirational story and glean from it an important lesson: It may take a real man to admit he is merely a sophisticated chimp, but it takes a real ape to act like one.

We are pleased to introduce ID Artist Gil Dodgen. A professional musician earlier in his career, Gil offers up some thoughts on music and ID, along with downloadable copies of his classical piano solo albums:

“As a child and young man, music spoke to my soul in a way that nothing else did. I can’t explain it and won’t attempt to. It seems to me that the arts, and music in particular, present a real problem for Darwinism. How would such an ability come about in a step-by-tiny-step fashion and what would be the survival value of the transitional intermediates, or even the end product? (Never mind what mutations would be required to rewire the central nervous system for musical ability, and the probability of those mutations occurring.) Of course, for Darwinists, Darwinism must explain everything, so they will invent stories about how ancient jungle drummers got the girls, just like rock stars get the groupies. But everyone enjoys music with absolutely no evidence that it offers any survival or reproductive advantage. It just seems to be programmed into us at a very fundamental level.

Music is based on the physics of sound — in particular, the overtone series which is produced when a string or column of air vibrates. The division of the octave into 12 semitones is not an accident or a matter of personal preference; this produces notes that coincide with the overtone series. This is the basis of melody and harmony, and why some sounds are dissonant and some sounds are consonant.

Imagine a world without music: no music accompanying the movies you watch, no music in your church services, no music on the radio or television, no violinists, no pianists, no guitarists, no singers, no songs — no music at all! Wouldn’t your life be indescribably impoverished?

And here’s the weird thing: music is a totally abstract art form, but has tremendous power. When I was in college I took a number of courses in music theory. I remember a chapter in a book about melody. All the technical elements of melodic composition were discussed but there was one final comment that struck me (I paraphrase): Most people associate “melody” with something that cannot be described, but they know it when they hear it, and there is no way to teach how to write a good melody.

In closing I would like to offer some of the great piano music that inspired me, in hopes that it will inspire you as well. You are free to make CDs and distribute the music in any way you like, and I would encourage you to include the program notes when you do. In them I include a tribute to my wonderful music teacher, Ruby Bailey, who taught me from the time I was a child through high school, and then again in college. She was unbelievably gifted as a musician, pianist, and pedagogue, and was a wonderful person in general.

I am something of an evangelist for classical music. When one has been blessed so profoundly by something, one feels compelled to share it with others. Although I no longer perform concerts (with rare exceptions) I do continue to perform classical music informally and play keyboards for a praise band.”

Philosophy student James Hoskins has a knack for turning philosophical arguments about the Darwin v. Design debate into interesting fictional stories. Several of his creative works here at IDArts are featured in this recent Podcast interview including Confession and A Debate Between Socrates and Hector Dawkins.

by Denyse O’Leary

ARN correspondent

I first determined to make a point of reading historian Richard Weikart’s meticulously researched book, From Darwin to Hitler because Darwinists were very clearly upset by the implications of his work. Some seemed obsessed with proving Weikart, who teaches at California State University (Stanislaus) not only wrong but dishonest and irresponsible – which he certainly isn’t.

I am glad I read this magisterial work, because I now understand much better the relationship between 19^th century Darwinism and the rise of Hitler. Weikart unearths so many old, almost buried 19^th and early 20^th century German sources. Indeed, one can only wonder at his patience, systematically reading through the many, many articles and books of long-dead eugenicists, imperialists, pacifists, socialists, and such. (more…)

an editorial by Matt. R Ealist

I recently discovered my outrage at thumbs. Yes, I am speaking of the short, stubby little phalange protruding from the hands of humans and primates. Oh, I shudder at the sight of them! Not only am I convinced of the darkness of these halfling metacarpals, but I intend to start a public campaign to help educate people about the potential danger and inherent wickedness that lurks within their own hands. Allow me to explain how I arrived at this position.

I was reading some of the words of Richard Dawkins, the Oxford Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. First, he explained away belief in God as an evolutionary adaptation, no different than our eyes or feet or, *shivers* thumbs. Then he went on to express his outrage at this particular adaptation. He explained how religion has been harmful to society and is responsible for many atrocities throughout history, and how we would therefore be better off without it. At first, I was a bit confused at how he could be furious at, what he says, is simply an evolutionary adaptation formed by mindless and purposeless processes of nature. Then, slowly, I started to understand, and finally it clicked. He was right! Religion has been responsible for many atrocities throughout history. But, as I see it, he isn’t going back far enough. Dawkins’ outrage is misguided. He is campaigning against the wrong evolutionary adaptation. What first allowed animals to grasp objects well enough to use them as weapons? Thumbs! What trait led to the development of more sophisticated tools, including tools of destruction? Thumbs! What species won the good graces of Natural Selection, placing them at the top of the food chain with oppressive power over all other animals? That’s right, the species with thumbs. Long before humans evolved religious belief they were committing atrocities with the aide of their thumbs. The horrors perpetrated by these dreadful digits are incomprehensible. It is the thumb that allows the murderer to grasp the gun handle; the butcher to clench his chopping knife; and the jockey to lash his horse whip. How many people have died at the hands of thumb-wielding murderers? How many animals have been mutilated by thumb-boasting butchers? How many horses have become humiliated beasts, oppressed and enslaved by thumb-happy horse trainers? I needn’t say anymore.

It is my firm conviction, that if we are going to unite ourselves against any one of our evolved traits and cast it aside, it is our thumbs that need amputating. Dawkins helped me to realize the meaning of the verse, “If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.” It doesn’t matter that your eye is an accidental by-product of nature. For, “it is better to enter heaven with one eye, than to have two eyes and yet be cast into hell.” Just the same, it is better to enter into non-existence without thumbs than to…..well, enter into it with them! Dawkins would tell us that religion is the adaptation that needs to be expunged. But while it is a matter of debate whether belief in God is to blame for the Inquisition, there is no question as to what made possible the building of the guillotine.

As a Philosophy student, I often enjoy imagining dogmatists locked in a room with Socrates; the master of interrogation and debate. My latest fantasy involves Socrates questioning the archetype of the philosophical materialist, whom I will call Hector Dawkins, on the definition of science and the justification of Guillermo Gonzalez’ tenure denial from Iowa State University.

by Denyse O’Leary

ARN correspondent

Illustrations

Here are some illustrations riffing off the popular myth of the “Ascent of Man”, and other evolution folklore:

A spoof of the biology text

Devolution of Obese Man

Evolution of Computer Man

Evolution of the Research Grant

For these graphics, hat tip to a correspondent from Singapore!

Cartoons

I’ve also collected these ID-related cartoons along the way:

(Note: The cartoons are not necessarily ID-friendly. Most attracted my attention because they showed genuine wit.)

Eight cartoons

Tax code laff

Manwhile, here is an amazingly ugly cartoon used to promote Darwinism by a classical Darwin lobby!

.. and a Spoof!

For a spoof of Darwinism by ID-friendly wags, you can’t beat the Brites.org, its very name a spoof of The Brights – a group of self-consciously superior Darwinists.

Here are some current entries:

Professor of Pugilism Conway Moore attempts to savage ID-friendly astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez:

CM: … Look. Religious whackos who believe in Intelligent Design believe the earth is only 5000 years old because it says so in the Bible in the book of Guinness. By any standard…

ED: Do you mean Genesis ?

CM: Whatever.

ED: Dr. Gonzalez believes the universe is billions of years old and originated at the Big Bang.

CM: Oh. Nevertheless, …

The “I Love Lucy” petition, insisting that the now (apparently) discredited she-gorilla “Lucy” is really adorable Mum after all:

Professor Yoel Rak at the Sackler School of Medicine’s department of anatomy and anthropology said, “The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Australopithecus afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a common ancestor.”

Rak’s statement infuriates Finch.

“If man didn’t evolve from apes,” offered Finch, “then I am an obnoxious pompous overeducated immature egocentric materialist with goo for brains.”

Also, this sendup of evolutionary psychology’s latest theory on the origin of humor – but the trouble is, evolutionary psychology is so inherently ridiculous that it is genuinely hard to spoof. Still, the illustration of “crude Ardepithecus humor” definitely works.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O’Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada’s Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O’Leary

ARN correspondent

UCLA molecular biologists say they have converted protein sequences into classical music (though some say it’s only pop music):

On the biologists’ site , you can listen to the compositions and even submit your own genetic sequence and have it translated to music. The browser allows anyone to send in a sequence coding for a protein, which will then be converted into music and returned as a MIDI audio file. The research is published in Genome Biology, a major journal in the field of genomics.

This has all the potential in the world for schlock, of course, but on the other hand, one of the scientists found that a piano teacher understood it all better that way. Particularly scary is the sequence for the deadly disease, Huntington’s chorea.

Here are some other items I have posted at the Post-Darwinist and the Mindful Hack:

When they aren’t monitoring themselves very carefully, NASA people say the most surprising things … (more…)

by Denyse O’Leary

ARN correspondent

Just today, I received a most interesting note from a retired Australian poli sci professor Hiram Caton, late of Griffiths University, noting that the Darwin exhibition, developed at the American Museum of Natural History, is hitting the road, and may stop at a museum near you.

Caton explains,

You are well aware of my former colleague Dave Stove’s critique of Darwinism. We are alike in that we have no religious affiliation; also in that we do not believe that Darwinism can provide a basis for ethics or for ‘conservative’ politics, in the manner of Larry Arnhart.

At his site, Caton offers a most useful anti-docent, “Getting Our History Right: Six Errors about Darwin and His Influence,” documenting the following six errors:

For more go here.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O’Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada’s Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O’Leary

ARN correspondent

Before this arts site got started, I had been reviewing movies and books that are relevant to the intelligent design controversy at the regular ARN site. Here are brief intros and links to reviews that this site’s users might enjoy. I will add a link to this post to my future posts, so you can get back here if you are looking for a past review.

March of the Penguins: Why there was a fuss about the “intelligent design” implications of this film

Should you permit your children to see March of the Penguins? Not if you want to raise them as unquestioning Darwinists.

What the Bleep Do We Know?: Well, somehow, I don’t think we know this, anyway …

This film addresses the reasons, based in quantum mechanics, for doubting the radical materialist view of the universe. I’m all for doubting radical materialism, but I don’t quite think this approach is the answer, and here’s why.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose: Why was this tale of devilry linked to intelligent design theory? The only connection – but it is certainly an interesting one – is the film’s portrayal of what happens when an apparent truth cannot be accepted by a society that is committed to an ideology that rules that truth out of bounds.

Science fiction: Rob Sawyer takes on intelligent design in The Calculating God What if the aliens land, and they think the universe shows evidence of intelligent design? Even more remarkably, they are much more interested in Toronto (Canada) than in Washington or New York? Why?

Darwinian Fairy-Tales: Why evolutionary psychology is nonsense In Darwinian Fairy-Tales, agnostic Australian philosopher David Stove minces evolutionary psychology. The problem is that evo psycho is true to Darwinian theory but not to human experience.

Tech guru George Gilder: Why ID is onto something! One thing I learned from covering the ID controversy is that intelligent design makes many more converts among engineers than among biologists. I think that is because engineers have a much clearer grasp of the critical question, “how, exactly.” They must make processes work every day. So, for example, if six different processes involving cellular machinery consisting of hundreds of molecules must randomly self-assemble by means of natural selection, what, exactly, is the probability of success in given time frame? Gilder addresses Darwinism in this light.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O’Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada’s Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Its the same old story–kid goes off to college where everything he was raised to believe is challenged, but Confession, a short story by philosophy student James Hoskins, turns out to be a confession of a different sort. We asked James to give us a little background on himself and the origin of the story:

“After graduating high school in 1997, I started a rock band called Elevator Division. Shortly thereafter, I embarked on a deep journey of philosophical questions concerning my childhood Christian faith. This prompted an ongoing independent study, researching the evidence for and against the existence of God, that lasted the remainder of my time with the band. One record deal, two U.S. tours, and seven years later I decided to quit the band and go to school to become a philosophy professor. So I enrolled at the University of Missouri-Kansas City to study Philosophy, where I am currently.

In the spring of 2006, I attended a seminar at school called “Was Darwin Right?” hosted by the local Muslim Students Association. At the seminar they showed a video promoting the theory of Intelligent Design, with which I was already well acquainted. Following the video was a Q & A session that turned out to be a three-frontal attack on the young Muslim host by Darwinists in the audience. Coming to the defense of the speaker I quickly found myself in the middle of a debate with a biology professor and two biology students. They ended the debate by insisting there is an unknown law of nature that causes matter to organize itself into complex working machines. Realizing this as a last ditch effort on their part, I let it rest and did not pursue the argument any further. However, I did vent my frustration from that experience in a short work of fiction called, “Confession.”

Upon the advice of my English professor, I submitted “Confession” to Number One Magazine, the University’s student literary magazine. They accepted and agreed to publish it. However, they asked me to censor parts of it because they believed it could be offensive. I refused. The magazine’s policy of printing whatever the author wishes worked in my favor and Number One published the story uncensored.

While I still play music with a buddy of mine, in a project we call Chouteau, my main passion now is school and writing – particularly in dealing with philosophy of science issues. Hopefully, other stories and essays that are in the works will get equally effective responses as did “Confession.”

Currently I live in my hometown of Kansas City, Missouri with my wife Lisa. I work and go to school full-time. I plan to graduate next December and will seek admittance to a graduate program in Philosophy.”

by Denyse O’Leary
ARN correspondent

       

My review of Rob Sawyer’ 2000 novel addressing the intelligent design controversy, Calculating God: “The aliens have landed, and they are intelligent design advocates!”       

Also:An interview I did with Rob in 1998        

Other reviews of Calculating God

Rob Sawyer’s key sci fi works.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O’Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada’s Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Rob Sawyer’sWeb site, and quote site.

Rob Sawyer’s sci-fi novels

Neanderthal Trilogy:

Hominids (Tor, 2003)

When a Neanderthal physicist, Ponter Boddit, accidentally finds himself in another universe, in an underground research facility in Canada, it turns out that Neanderthals would develop a completely different civilization.

Humans (Tor, 2003)

Ponder Boddit, a Neanderthal physicist, takes a Canadian geneticist back to his universe to see what sort of civilization the Neanderthals would develop.

Hybrids (Tor, 2003)

How would humans co-exist with other species if such distinctions as race and sex divide them?

Quintaglio Trilogy:

Far-Seer (Ace, 1992)

For intelligent dinosaur Afsan, modeled on Galileo, discovering the true arrangement of the heavens is not merely of scientific interest; it is life or death for his entire world.

Fossil Hunter (Ace, 1993)

Toroca, a dinosaur geologist, is seeking unusual metals that can take dinosaurs to the stars. But suppose he discovers instead the true origin of the dinosaurs?

Foreigner (Ace, 1994)

If the mind of a great (alien) scientist were analyzed, what would it show?

Other Novels:

Rollback (2007)

The aliens have sent us a message, and we have responded.

Mindscan (Tor, 2005)

Jake Sullivan has cheated death by copying his consciousness into an android. However … that isn’t the perfect solution.

Calculating God (Tor, 2000)

An alien lands on Earth, in Toronto, bearing the news that God really exists. But maybe Earth soon won’t.

Flashforward (Tor, 1999)

Due to a bungled physics experiment, the entire human race gets a look at two minutes twenty-one years from now. But what if you see nothing?

Factoring Humanity (Tor, 1998)

Asignal from the Alpha Centauri star system is detected in 2007. … it shows amazing new technology that practically eliminates space and time. Could this be a new stage of human evolution?

Illegal Alien (Ace, 1997)

The first time humans contact aliens is when a disabled Tosok starship lands. At first, all is conventional well-wishing. But the a popular scientist is found dead, and one of the Tosoks is the most likely suspect.

Frameshift (Tor, 1997)

A dying scientist accepts the opportunity to raise a child who might be part Neanderthal.

Starplex (Ace, 1996)

Mysterious, artificial wormhole have solved the problem of space travel. These interstellar passages seem too close, too conveniently, for Starplex Director Keith Lansing.

The Terminal Experiment (HarperPrism, 1995)

Dr. Peter Hobson, testing his theories of immortality and life after death, has copied his personality into three electronic simulations. Things don’t go as planned, of course.

End of an Era (Ace, 1994)

To learn how the dinosaurs died, we first must watch them live . . .

Golden Fleece (1990)

Is a mere starship engineer really any match for a murderous computer?

Short Story Collections

Relativity (ISFiC Press, 2004)

Iterations (Quarry Press, 2002)

Casey Luskin with Discovery Institute interviews Dennis Wagner, executive director of the Access Research Network in this week’s ID The Future podcast. Dennis discusses the launch of ARN’s new website on intelligent design and the arts, http://www.idarts.org/. Dennis explains how artists such as Jody Sjogren and Chris Woolley reflect the greater design of the universe in their artwork. ID arts includes examples from literature, poetry, music, theater, film, graphic arts and fine arts to explore this exciting new movement. Listen to:

ID Arts Podcast Part 1

ID Arts Podcast Part 2