Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 has written a nice review of Dawkins’ new book. He is very polite in this review, but also very effective.  He also posted the audio for the recent debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins.

Brian starts his review by explaining Dawkins’ plan for the book:

Dawkins seems to place all doubters into the young-earth category, while the illustrations he employs put them on par with “well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers.”

That’s right. He is not refuting the work of intelligent design theorists – he is refuting young earth creationists. He spends an entire chapter on the age of the earth. The names of intelligent design scholars hardly even appear in the index of his book! This book is not a refutation of the likes of William A. Demsbki, PhD, PhD or Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD. (That is not a typo, they each have two PhDs, and from top-tier schools)

And then it goes from bad to worse.  He uses intelligent selection by human dog-breeders as proof of the efficacy of random mutation and natural selection. Intelligent design that produces micro-evolution is used as evidence for unguided macro-evolution.

[...]“The difference between any two breeds of dog gives us a rough idea of the quantity of evolutionary change that can be achieved in less than a millennium. The next question we should ask is, how many millennia do we have available to us in accounting for the whole history of life? If we imagine the sheer quantity of differences that separate a pye-dog from a peke, which took only a few centuries of evolution, how much longer is the time that separates us from the beginning of evolution or, say, from the beginning of mammals? … Can you imagine two million centuries, laid end to end?”

Actually, this “can you imagine” argument is a lot better than his fraudulent drawings of embryos argument. Neither of them works, but at least he isn’t using fraudulent evidence with this “can you imagine” argument.

Oh, but here’s the “you’re stupid and evil” argument, which taken together with the “can you imagine” argument and the fraudulent embryos, forms the beginning of a very persuasive case for macro-evolution.

“If the history-deniers who doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worse than ignorant, they are deluded to the point of perversity.”

Did you know that human pregnancy is actually evidence for macro-evolution? Yes – babies evolve in a Darwinian fashion from a fertilized egg until their birth! That’s macro-evolution!

Chapter eight is entitled You Did It Yourself in Nine Months. Here Dawkins cites an interaction between J.B.S. Haldane, a leading architect of neo-Darwinism, and an evolution skeptic. The skeptic poses a complex question of how, even given billions of years, a single cell could develop into a complicated human body that thinks and feels. Haldane’s one-liner response was, “But madam, you did it yourself. And it only took you nine months.”

Brilliant! Sheer brilliance! Let’s call this one the “pregnancy is macro-evolution in action” argument. Put that with the rest.

Dawkins says that scientists don’t even need to observe any fossils in order to know that evolution happened, even on distant planets.

“I love speculating on how weirdly different we should expect life to be elsewhere in the universe, but one or two things I suspect are universal, wherever life might be found. All life will turn out to have evolved by a process related to Darwinian natural selection of genes.”

He knows that aliens evolved because what else could have happened? Evidence is irrelevant when you have blind faith. Let’s call this the “fossil record? we don’t need no stinking fossil record!” argument. And of course you know that Dawkins thinks that these aliens who evolved unobserved may have seeded the Earth with life – that’s his solution to the origin of life problem.

OK, one more quote from Brian’s review before I really have to stop. It’s Christopher Hitchens’ “I wouldn’t have done it that way” argument!

“…the overwhelming impression you get from surveying any part of the innards of a large animal is that it is a mess! Not only would a designer never have made a mistake like that nervous detour; a decent designer would never have perpetuated anything of the shambles that is the criss-crossing maze of arteries, veins, intestines, wads of fat and muscle, mesenteries and more.”

Oh, just one more! This is the “origin of life? what’s that? (nervous titter)” argument.

“We don’t actually need a plausible theory of the origin of life…”

OK, I really have to stop. You will all go to Brian’s site and read his review. It is awesome. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims to believe that Dawkins is NOT a lazy-brained ignoramus, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

Note to Darwinist commenters. If you want to defend Dawkins here, then pick one of his arguments that I cited here, and go for it. For everything else, comment on Brian’s site.

First, let’s Wikipedia make clear who Ernst Heackel is:

Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (February 16, 1834 – August 9, 1919), also written von Haeckel, was an eminent German biologist, naturalist, philosopher, physician, professor and artist who discovered, described and named thousands of new species, mapped a genealogical tree relating all life forms, and coined many terms in biology, including phylum, phylogeny, ecology and the kingdom Protista. [...]

The published artwork of Haeckel includes over 100 detailed, multi-colour illustrations of animals and sea creatures (see: Kunstformen der Natur, “Artforms of Nature”).

Second, Here are some awesome illustrations from his Kunstformen der Natur via Wikimedia Commons:

Third, what Subblue made of these images using a couple of image filters:

pretty neat right? I thought so.

Before discussing Dawkins’ latest antics, I want you to recall that he cites a professor of who teaches German as an authority on the historical Jesus, and that he believes that a plausible scenario to explain the origin of life is that unobservable aliens evolved on an unobservable planet and (unobserved) seeded the earth with life. So we’re dealing with a real first class intellect, here. Not a brain-damaged ideologue on the order of Kent Hovind.

Dawkins cites Haekel’s embryo drawings as evidence for Darwinism

Darwinian fundamentalist Ernst Haeckel’s embryo drawings were discredited as a fraud in the 19th century.

So why is Dawkins using discredited hoaxes to preach to the faithful?

What does scientific progress matter? Just keep clinging to that old-time religion.

Dawkins trips on his yellow belly while running away from debate with Stephen Meyer

Here is the transcript of Dawkins on the Michael Medved radio show.

Excerpt:

Bruce Chapman: …Your new book apparently doesn’t really deal with intelligent design. But it seems to me, that in your previous book, you said that it’s a question of science, that it is a scientific argument – I congratulate you for that — But if it is, how about having a debate with Stephen Meyer, who is the author of another new book, Signature in the Cell, which deals with this question, and have this in a respectful, civilized, scholarly fashion where you look at the scientific arguments, pro and con?

[...]Put that scientific argument to the test, not with somebody who’s a straw man that you bring up, but have somebody like Meyer, who has written a very scholarly book, to actually debate this topic with you…

Michael Medved: All right, the proposal’s on the table, response from Professor Dawkins, thank you, Bruce.

Richard Dawkins: I will have a discussion with somebody who has a genuinely different scientific point of view. I have never come across any kind of creationism, whether you call it intelligent design or not, which has a serious scientific case to put.

The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned.

Dawkin’s new policy is only to debate with people who agree with him. You see, he’s looked and looked for qualified opponents in his echo chamber, and there just aren’t any.

Dawkins’ new book features no credible intelligent scholars

You’d think that his new book would encounter the work of ID scholars. But you’d be wrong.

Excerpt:

Richard Dawkins’ new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, is being touted as a scathing rebuttal to intelligent design (ID), yet an actual response to mainstream ID thinking can hardly be found in the book. Though the book makes passing mention of “irreducible complexity” in a couple places, there are zero mentions of leading ID proponents like Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, or any other well-known ID proponent. Instead, Dawkins refers extensively to “creationists,” repeatedly attacking young earth creationism, while also making heavy use of fallacious (and dubious) “poor design” examples that rebut no argument made by a leading advocate of design since perhaps the 19th century. It seems that Dawkins didn’t have the stomach to tackle the actual modern theory of intelligent design in his new book.

His popular brand of invincible ignorance coupled with foam-flecked fanaticism sells a lot of hymnals written for the kool-aid drinking choir. It’s not about science, it’s about creating your own private world where everyone is stupid except you. Dawkins is a self-help author for those raised by fundamentalist parents. It’s escapism. And if anyone asks them to debate, they can just deploy some insults and call it a day. Whatever sells books, right?

UPDATE: I note that the pro-intelligent design team have organized a debate with their critics. Speakers include Stephen Meyer, Rick Sternberg, Michael Shermer and Don Prothero. Say what you want about Michael Shermer, he is not a coward.

UPDATE: (from the comments) “Just for the record, Dawkins turned down ANOTHER request to debate Dr. William Lane Craig a couple of weeks ago.”

I’m not sure how I found this one. It’s a stunning and conflicted film. The film oscillates between being a traditional documentary and a more experimental film. Images of 19th century etchings are layered and animated in striking ways. The best moments feature Ernst Haeckel’s illustrations cycling and set to music. These moments linger and stun me. I could watch them indefinitely,

But, Proteus: A 19th Century Vision tries hard to contextualize the biologist, artist, and philosopher Haeckel. It is a bio-pic. Making use of Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Faust and drawing parallels to the journey of the HMS Challenger the films does a good job of giving us a sense of Haeckel’s world. But this happens before we are really have a sense of Haeckel himself. Then the film has to rescue Haeckel from himself, from his typically 19th century vision.

In spite of the brilliance of much of Haeckel’s work, the beauty of his illustrations, the respectably obsessive quality of his efforts, and his deep appreciation of nature we still have to recognize the nature of his structural and hierarchical conclusions. His conclusions about human evolution are faulty and clumsy at best, racist and deeply ethnocentric at worst.

Had the film really recognized this irony, that a man who saw such beauty in wonder in the smallest of living creatures insisted on seeing cultures and races as below his own, instead of apologizing for him and justifying it as a trait of his entire century, it would have been much improved. Still it is a beautiful and interesting biography and Haeckel is worthy of an artist’s consideration if for nothing more than his ability to see natural form as art form. At least the film recognizes the full picture of who its subject was.

Really, this is an era of exploration story about the connection between art and science. It was a century full of ideas and discovery and Haeckel has been forgotten. He was a driven and thoughtful who dedicates himself to something spectacular and wonderful.

Haekel wrote, “Nature  has created an inexhaustible wealth of wondrous forms whose beauty and diversity way exceed anything that has been created by man.”

And there is certainly some humility in that sentiment. There may even be a suggestion for artistic practice in that sentiment.

Back at the turn of the 20th century (1899-1904), eminent German biologist Ernst Haeckel published a collection of 100 prints of a wide spectrum of organisms in a 10 volume set called Art Forms of Nature (Kunstformen der Natur). Many of those creatures were first described by Haeckel and provided a basis for his effort to map a genealogical tree of life. In addition to his significant contributions to biology, he was noted for being an advocate for the theories of Charles Darwin and for helping to popularize them in Germany. Below is a small sampling from his remarkable naturalistic art work, the entire collection of which is now available on Wikimedia Commons.

Haeckel Discomedusae

Haeckel Ascomycetes

Haeckel Phaeodaria

Haeckel Siphonophorae

The Discovery Institute is the headquarters for ID research and advocacy in the United States. They send out a newsletter by e-mail and I though this week’s hit on all cylinders. Below are some of their stories from the newsletter. Thanks to commenter ECM for an earlier tip on the Junk DNA story.

Richard Sternberg, research scientist at the Biologic Institute supported by the Center for Science and Culture, is now blogging at Evolution News & Views, weighing in on the latest research showing that so-called “Junk DNA,” which Darwinists have discounted as “rubbish,” are actually “anything but that.”

Sternberg writes:

In the Darwinist repertoire, a standard response to evidence of design in the genome is to point to the existence of “junk DNA.” What is it doing there, if purposeful design really is detectable in the history of life’s development? Of course this assumes that the “junk” really is junk. That assumption has been cast increasingly into doubt. New research just out in the journal Nature Genetics finds evidence that genetic elements previously thought of as rubbish are anything but that. The research describes tiny strands of RNA, previously thought to be junk, that now turn out to play a role in gene expression. Another finding by Dr. Geoff Faulkner shows that “retrotransposons,” a further variety of “junk” as the dogma previously taught, play a similar role.

Also at ENV, Dr. Sternberg takes a look at the old Darwinian tripe that biological systems couldn’t possibly have been designed because they exhibit “shoddy engineering”:

We often hear from Darwinians that the biological world is replete with examples of shoddy engineering, or, as they prefer to put it, bad design. One such case of really poor construction is the inverted retina of the vertebrate eye. As we all know, the retina of our eyes is configured all wrong because the cells that gather photons, the rod photoreceptors, are behind two other tissue layers. Light first strikes the ganglion cells and then passes by or through the bipolar cells before reaching the rod photoreceptors. Surely, a child could have arranged the system better — so they tell us.

The problem with this story of supposed unintelligent design is that it is long on anthropomorphisms and short on evidence. Consider nocturnal mammals. Night vision for, say, a mouse is no small feat. Light intensities during night can be a million times less than those of the day, so the rod cells must be optimized — yes, optimized — to capture even the few stray photons that strike them. Given the backwards organization of the mouse’s retina, how is this scavenging of light accomplished? Part of the solution is that the ganglion and bipolar cell layers are thinner in mammals that are nocturnal. But other optimizations must also occur. Enter the cell nucleus and “junk” DNA.

Jerry Coyne Recycles: Why Darwinism Is False

Jonathan Wells is reviewing Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True over at ENV, and already the list of problems with Coyne’s book is mounting:

On Earth Day 2009, we are reminded of the ecological importance of recycling. As a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago, Jerry A. Coyne must be keen on recycling: He even recycles worn-out arguments for Darwinism.

If “evolution” meant simply that existing species can undergo minor changes over time, or that many species alive today did not exist in the past, then evolution would undeniably be true. But “evolution” for Coyne means Darwinism — the theory that all living things are descendants of a common ancestor, modified by unguided natural processes such as DNA mutations and natural selection.

Coyne discusses the fossil record, embryos, vestigial structures, the geographic distribution of species, artificial and natural selection, and the origin of species. In the process, (1) he ignores the Cambrian explosion — which Darwin considered a “serious” problem — and he rearranges the fossil record to fit Darwin’s theory; (2) he defends Ernst Haeckel — who faked some drawings of vertebrate embryos to provide support for Darwinism — and he dredges up the doctrine that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; (3) he claims that much human DNA is useless junk — despite abundant recent evidence that this is not true — and he relies on theological arguments that have no legitimate place in natural science; (4) he invokes “the well-known process called convergent evolution” to explain many cases of the geographic distribution of species — even though the “well-known process” is merely speculation — and he again falls back on theology to justify a supposedly scientific theory; and (5) he describes examples of natural and artificial selection — none of which show anything more than minor changes within existing species — and he misrepresents experimental evidence to make it sound as though the origin of species by natural selection has been directly observed.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

The newsletter also discussed historian A.N. Wilson’s return to faith from atheism, which is really interesting because he seems to be well-rounded in his reasons for rejecting atheism. And the newsletter mentions that Jay Richards’ forthcoming book, “Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem” is out May 6th! Jay gave a great lecture on basic economics for Christians and another great lecture on what Christians should think about global warming.

Hace ya unos cuantos años  que abandoné lo que fue uno de mis mayores sueños, hacer la carrera de biología. No obstante, los meses que estuve en la facultad (fueron años, pero si los  juntamos, no suman más que pocos meses xD)  me sirvieron para confirmar el interés que despierta  la vida y todas las preguntas que la rodean ( ¿Cómo?, ¿Cuándo? Y ¿Por qué?) incluso ahora, unos años después.

Una de las cosas que llamaron mi atención fue la teoría de la recapitulación como prueba evolutiva. Esta teoría fue planteada por John Hunter  (1728-1793) y Carl Friedrich Kielmeyer (1795-1844) pero fue Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), defensor y difusor en Alemania de la obra de Charles Darwin ( aunque Haeckel apoyaba las teorías De Lamarck, desestimando la acción del azar en el proceso evolutivo de las especies) quién en 1866 publicó su obra : Generelle Morphologie der Organismen y difundió entonces la teoría de la recapitulación.

Haeckel introdujo dos nuevos conceptos : Ontogenia y Filogenia. La Ontogenia  es la historia del desarrollo de los individuos ( en este caso de los embriones)  y la filogenia es la historia evolutiva de ese individuo . Haeckel relacionó  ambos conceptos afirmando que la Ontogenia reproduce la Filogenia , es decir, en el desarrollo del embrión de un individuo podremos observar los distintos estados evolutivos por los que ha pasado. Según el biólogo alemán su teoría reforzaba las ideas de Darwin acerca de la existencia de un ancestro común ya que en las primeras fases embrionarias todas las especies muestran características muy parecidas y según van pasando las semanas de desarrollo, la diferenciación y especialización se hace más evidente.

Aquí están las ilustraciones que Haeckel realizó comparando los embriones de distintas especies en tres estados embrionarios distintos. En estos dibujos se observa el gran parecido que tienen los embriones en el primer estado de desarrollo en todas las especies ( es casi idéntico el embrión de una tortuga y el de un cerdo) y como los embriones van evolucionando , siendo más parecidos entre sí los más cercanos desde el punto de vista evolutivo. (En el tercer estado, el embrión de la salamandra, un anfibio  y el pez tienen muchas similitudes, del mismo modo que el ser  humano y el perro ).

Actualmente, esta teoría tiene más detractores que defensores y se rechaza la versión literal de la teoría de Haeckel en cuanto a la reproducción exacta de la filogenia en el desarrollo embrionario como prueba evolutiva, aunque se ha aceptado en el Caso del Homo Sapiens reconociendo la evolución del pez, a través de los reptiles, hasta los mamíferos. Ahora bien, que la teoría de Haeckel no sea aceptada en su totalidad  no puede usarse como argumento por los Creacionistas en contra de la evolución. Los conceptos de filogenia y Ontogenia también son usados en la biología moderna desde el punto de vista evolutivo y el desarrollo embrionario sigue siendo una más de las pruebas que soportan las actuales teorías Neo darwinistas.

Pues hasta aquí, interesante es, ¿no?

[Today's post is excerpted from the forthcoming book, Living Fossils, by Dr. Carl Werner. This is Volume 2 in the series, Evolution: The Grand Experiment. Both books are published by New Leaf Press. Living Fossils will be released in March, 2009.]

It is said to have a proper story, three essential components are required: a beginning, a middle and an end. While I will adequately provide you with a beginning (my story begins with a bet in medical school), and a middle (which leads to an incredible 30-year journey), I hesitate to say that my story has an “ending” for two reasons. First, I have more information I would eventually like to share with you (Volumes III and IV of this series); and second, my version of an ending doesn’t really matter. As the author, I would prefer you write the ending. When you finish, you need to ask yourself: Has my perception of the past been changed?

Before I get into the specifics of how I became fascinated with the theory of evolution, you need to understand my background.

I was born in 1959 in a large Midwestern city and raised Catholic. I attended Catholic grade school and high school. Through my early years, I believed in the creation story and the Bible stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, etc. I had no reason to doubt them and, of course, no one gave me any other options.

It was in my later high school years, between the ages of 15 and 17, that I found myself drifting away from my religious ideas and beliefs. This was my state of affairs when I was accepted to an accelerated college and medical school at the relatively young age of 17.

My first class in med school was physiology. Here, the professor taught us the evolutionary principle of “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny” created by Dr. Ernst Haeckel in the late 1800s.

I had never heard of this concept and neither could I pronouce it. Fortunately, the professor had the class repeat the phrase, “on-todge-en-knee Re-ca-pit-you-lates Fi-lodge-in-knee” over and over until we could say it smoothly and efficiently like a machine gun spitting ut bullets at a thousand rounds per minute. He proceeded to explain what it meant: Prior to birth, animals retrace the history of evoluton in their embryonic stages. For example, humans have had their origin in a single-cell bacterium, which evolved into an invertebrate like a jellyfish, then a fish, then an amphibian, a reptile, a mammal, a monkey with a tail, and finally a tail-less ape. He then showed us Dr. Haeckel’s drawings of human embryos in various phases of development such as a single-cell fertilized egg (similar to a single-cell bacterium), an embryo with “gill slits” (similar to a fish with gills), and an embryo with a tail (similar to a monkey).

These drawings were extremely compelling to me, especially the “fact” that humans had gills and a tail. After this lecture, I found myself rapidly accepting evolution.

Years later, I learned that the drawings used to demonstrate Ontogeny were extremely inaccurate. “When critics brought charges of extensive retouching and outrageous fudging in his famous embryo illustrations, Haeckel replied he was only trying to make them more accurate than the faulty specimens on which they were based.”

Here are some of Haeckel’s errors: (1) Dr. Haeckel made the images of different animal embryos look similar even though the embryos do not appear this way in life; (2) Haeckel referred to neck pouches in the human embryo as “gill-arches,” yet there are no fish gills in the human embryo; and (3) Dr. Haeckel referred to the end of the vertebral column of the human embryo as “a tail,” even though these vertebrae coincide with the sacrum and coccyx to which the pelvic organs are attached.

Sadly, I cast my vote for evolution in 1977 based on this faulty evidence. No one in my medical school told me that Haeckel’s drawings were shown to be inaccurate 80 years earlier. Even sadder is the fact that Haeckel’s drawings are still part of some medical school textbooks today.

[Coming soon: "Four Questions."]

Ernst Haeckel: Evolutions controversial artist.

Ernst Haeckel, zoologist and artist, was the foremost proponent of evolutionary theory in 19th-century Europe-more famous in some circles than Charles Darwin. Go to http://www.slate.com/id/2124625/slideshow/2124679/ and chek out the slide-show about him and his work. Probably a very nice entry for us to start sketching and scripting  about the artistic tranlation from the theory of evolution into our performance(s). What do you think?

I just read a posted question from a young woman on livejournal she asked:  “Are there any Crisis Pregnancy Care Centers around here that don’t have a religious affiliation or try to influence your decision on women’s choice issues? I was about to go to Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center then I was warned how strictly evangelical it was, and therefore heavily anti-choice and I wasn’t interested in that mess. Any help would be greatly appreciated.”

I know personally the confusion a young woman is facing when she finds out she is pregnant and it is unplanned. But I have to say it really angers me that “Planned” Parenthood has become the default place for  women to go. These young women are programmed their whole lives by the entertainment industry, news media, academia etc. that Planned Parenthood is good. This is a lie. This lie carries on to further, that Planned Parenthood=Good * Pregnancy Care Centers=Bad.  This is such an illustration of what the Bible says that will occur in these end days. Isaiah 5:20 illustrates what God thinks of this: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Can you imagine how twisted the minds of young people have become? This poor girl apparently thinks that a Pregnancy Care Center is evil  in their mission of  trying to help women through an unplanned pregnancy situation with love, free pregnancy tests, free ultrasounds, wise counsel… And yet she and many think erroneously that Planned Parenthood is good. Planned Parenthood does sound nice, I suppose. It is a very euphemistic name or “eugenic” name to be more correct. But what they do is refer women and young girls for ABORTIONS. And that is all they do. Other than giving out free birth control pills and encouraging women to be as sexually free as they wish. And when their “sexual freedom” has conceived via sin of fornication a human life, then Planned Parenthood conveniently sends them to a place where they can destroy the evidence of their sins i.e. their unborn babies.

Our country has been going downhill and lying to its children for so long that the young people really do see Good as Evil and Evil as Good. Woe unto this country. One landmark in our degradation was when the US took prayer out of schools in 1963. One can see the downward spiral that has occurred from that alone. Not to mention teaching the kids in public schools the Theory of Evolution as if it were absolute fact and scientific truth.

I must say that being taught  Evolution really did mess up my mind and helped to shape my whole worldview. I can remember taking Honors Biology in 1986 with Ms. Hanes. She stood there and showed us the drawings of Ernst Haeckel. A German Evolutionary Biologist from the 19th century.

Haekel’s postulation used to be called the “recapitulation theory”. It has long been eliminated from “real” scientific literature, but it is still being presented as a scientific reality by some evolutionist publications, including school textbooks. And it was so in my middle school text book in 1986.  The term “recapitulation” is a condensation of the dictum “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”.

This theory of Haeckel’s postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorised that during its development in its mother’s womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.

It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus.It is now known that the “gills” that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The part of the embryo that was likened to the “egg yolk pouch” turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that had been identified as a “tail” by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, writes: Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny. (For full article see expert from book Harunyahya).

I mention this scientific stuff because, again, as I said, it affected me and my worldview and thusly my life-choices. As an intelligent and bookish pre-teen taking an Honors Biology class, I took what they taught me as fact.  Now I see that I was lied to and deceived mostly because the people that were teaching me were also lied to and deceived and were simply repeating and teaching what they had been taught as fact.

I shudder to think how many public schools still teach Evolution as fact. I know that in recent years there has been some progress in persuading some to also teach Intelligent Design. But this is limited. And so much damage has already been done.

Is our nation going to be like the nation Israel? In Isaiah Chapter 5. God clearly shows us that though Israel was planted as a beloved vineyard, that it brought forth wild grapes. Isn’t that just like the U.S.? God has so richly blessed and cared for this country and planted it as a Christian Nation from its inception. But look at it now. Wild, Wild, Wild…. And God says in Isaiah 5: 20-23  Woe, Woe Woe!

5:20  Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

5:21 “Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!”

5:22 “Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink

5:23 “Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!”

It goes on to say in verse 25: “Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.”

If our Holy and Righteous Lord has stretched out his hand in anger to Israel, then what do you think He will do to a nation who teaches lies and does abominations such as mass murder of innocents?

I think we, as a nation, have been warned. But if we go on with Pride and Impudence our county will continue to be destroyed, even utterly. God is not mocked.

]]> http://blog.thebrights.de/2008/08/28/die-undine-der-evolutionstheorie/ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:47:07 +0000 nickpol http://blog.thebrights.de/2008/08/28/die-undine-der-evolutionstheorie/ http://thedarwinreport.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/john-mccain-the-creationism-enabler/ Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:34:58 +0000 thedarwinreport http://thedarwinreport.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/john-mccain-the-creationism-enabler/

Remember the Alamo… I mean the 2007 Republican Debate.

McCain states in the video that he believes in evolution, but then adds that the “hand of god” can be seen in the Grand Canyon at sunset. In essence he gives a non-answer; he sits his ass on the fence. It’s almost as if he had rehearsed his response, but for a moment forgot the second half of the answer, the part that appeases the creationists. (Line, line. Where’s the director? Where’s my bottled water? The teleprompter isn’t working and neither is my ear-piece. Someone get me a moist towelette. I’m John McCain, a freaking war hero.)

I’m convinced that McCain actually does “believe” in evolution. But I also think he desperately wants to be president, and will say anything, or do almost anything, to attain and keep that position. If he has to be indirectly responsible for damaging science education, so be it. If he does win the election, he’ll most likely fuel a new creationist fire, for the very reason that he needs the approval of the Christian-right. He’ll be their enabler. Earlier this year, he courted the Intelligent Design vote. And Intelligent Design is just creationism with an easier-to-swallow coating. (But it’s still a hard pill to swallow.)

Don’t forget the 2007 Republican Debate… or the Alamo.

เป็นเว็บรวมภาพวาดของ Ernst Haeckel (นักวิทยาศาสตร์/นักนิเวศวิทยา/นักฟิสิกส์/นักชีววิทยา/และอีกหลายนัก อ้อลืม เป็นศิลปินด้วย) ชื่อว่า Artforms of Nature ฟอร์มประหลาดๆดี วาดสวยเนี๊ยบมาก

มีรูปใหญ่ๆให้เซฟด้วยลองกดๆดูละกัน

ที่นี่

ตีกินมาจาก FFFFOUND

ปล. นึกออกละว่า เลข9 โรมันมันเขียนยังงี๊ ==> IX

Here is a little tattoo I did today, it is my interpretation of an Ernst Haekel drawing of an octopus, i have to apologise for the quality of my photograph, it was late and there was no available light, when it heals i shall have a good picture.

Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel