Channel One is an advertisement based educational television network that is currently broadcast into more then 11,000 schools in the United States. In exchange for having students watch their programming and commercials, the schools receive the programming and viewing equipment such as TV monitors and VCRs for free.

Channel One has regularly run stories critical of Intelligent Design and supportive of Darwinism. The stories contained many inaccuracies, misrepresentations, errors of fact, and misleading material. These inaccuracies include using the term evolution to mean Darwinism and using the term Intelligent Design as if it included only Young Earth Creationism. This was done in an effort to portray Intelligent Design in the worst light possible. They tried their best to paint the proponents of Intelligent Design as enemies of science, truth, and fact. They conversely tried to present Darwinists in the most positive light possible, portraying them as beacons of reason, intelligence, truth, beauty, virtue, and the American Way. They stopped short of claiming that Darwinists could leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Recently, Channel One ran a poll in their “Your Turn” section under the title “Evolution or Design” to explore the reaction of the students to whom they have been broadcasting their propaganda. On February 15th an online survey of almost 1500 high school students was conducted to test the effectiveness of their crusade for Darwinism. The students were given the choice of four options regarding what should be allowed in the teaching of origins. The results must have astounded the Darwinist advocates at Channel One. The results are below.

High School Students Only
1. Evolution Only - 9%
2. Intelligent Design Only - 53%
3. Evolution and Intelligent Design - 25%
4. None of These - 13%

The poll remains open to the general public now, and as of today the results from all respondents, not just high school students, are below.

All Respondents as of 3/1/08
1. Evolution Only - 19%
2. Intelligent Design Only - 44%
3. Evolution and Intelligent Design - 24%
4. None of These - 13%

Why This is Important

Despite the enormous efforts of the media, Hollywood, and the rest of the Materialist/Darwinist Complex, they are failing miserably to convince the public that life is the result of a random, purposeless, and exclusively natural process. It is especially interesting that high school students reject the Darwinist Paradigm by an even wider majority then the public in general.

Those who are trying to get the message out that there is a God and that life has meaning and purpose should take heart from these results.

Source:
ChannelOne.com

By: Lawrence Vescera Ph. D., Isaac Newton Institute

In 1943, C.S. Lewis published “The Abolition of Man.” In it, he warned against using science to debunk natural law and objective values to the detriment of the understanding of what constitutes humanity. It is doubtful that Lewis envisioned that “man” as an objectively definable entity could cease to exist within the next sixty-five years, but that is indeed what is about to happen.

British researchers at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne have announced the development of a technique to turn female bone marrow cells (mesenchymal cells) into sperm cells. A similar technique is also expected to allow male marrow cells to be turned into egg cells. Therefore, women will soon be able to produce sperm, and men will be able to produce eggs. The projected uses of the technique are to enable infertile couples to produce children, but its most startling effect will be to allow same-sex couples to produce children that are biologically their own. In the near future, there will be children that are not born of a woman and a man. There will be children of two fathers or of two mothers.

This is no small matter. Think about this carefully. What will the status be of these entities? Are they true human beings? They will certainly appear to be fully human in every way, but what is a human being? Historically and biologically, humans have always been the offspring of a father and a mother. These beings will be persons who will either have no mother or no father. Where will this go in the future? Cloning is possible now. Even more troubling, human genes have begun to be introduced into animal and plant reproductive germ lines, and animal and plant genes will likely soon be introduced into the human germ line. Consequently, “enlightened scientists unencumbered by religious prejudices” will endeavor to produce more completely hybridized humans, finally succeeding where the Nazi’s earlier efforts had failed by producing half ape, half human creatures.

Why This Is Important.

The physical consequences of this new technology probably will be small compared to the spiritual, psychological, social, and emotional consequences. What will it mean to be human? As this technology expands, the very concept of humanity will expand and be progressively eroded and diluted until it becomes as ill defined as the modern concepts of beauty and justice. What the fruit of this abolition of man will be is extremely difficult to predict; nonetheless, it seems probable that it will not be good. Knowing the proclivities of humanity, the extinction of “human beings,” in historical terms, is a virtual certainty.

Source:
1. “Death of the Father: British Scientists Discover How to Turn Bone Marrow into Sperm,” By Feona Macrae, Daily Mail, January 31, 2008.

By: Lawrence Vescera Ph.D., Isaac Newton Institute

The mysterious nature of intelligence has been deepened by increasing evidence that intelligence requires neither a brain nor a nervous system. This is abundantly displayed in the animal kingdom where all sorts of organisms with no brain, and in some cases no nervous system, carry out tasks that require intelligence. Colonies of social insects such as bees, ants, termites, and social spiders display an amazing degree of intelligence building hives, engaging in agriculture, trading symbiotically, enslaving other insects, herding, and engaging in other specialized activities. In some cases, as with certain species of spiders, even isolated individuals perform extremely complex tasks with only the most rudimentary ganglia and primitive nervous systems.

Going even further, it was reported by this Blog on September 15, 2007 in “Microbes Have Consciousness” that even bacteria can display what certainly appears to be intelligence and self-awareness. Not only was the shocking behavior of slime molds discussed but also the even more stunning discovery that some microorganisms actually carry out “genetic engineering.”

As mind-boggling as these discoveries are, it appears that they have been surpassed by the new discovery of “molecular telepathy.” A team of researchers at the Division of Molecular Bioscience of the Imperial College, London has discovered that subunits of DNA molecules have the ability to recognize similar units in other DNA molecules and then congregate together. This is done without intervening proteins and over considerable distance (1 nanometer). The mechanism by which this is preformed is unknown.

Why This Is Important

Despite monumental failures, materialists continue to claim that they know that intelligence and consciousness are simply the by-product of the electro-chemical activities of the brain. It is too early to explain this amazing behavior by segments of DNA molecules. Chemistry and physics may be able to account for molecular telepathy; however, it may turn out to be one more inexplicable discovery that is set aside because it does not fit the expectations of materialist philosophers. This would be a shame for many reasons not the least of which is knowing the truth of reality.

Source:

1. Geoff Baldwin, et. al. “DNA Double Helices Recognize Mutual Sequence Homology in a Protein Free Environment,” Journal of Physical Chemistry, January 31, 2008, Volume 112, No. 4, pp 1060-1064.

2. www.physorg.com/news120735315.html, Jan. 28, 2008.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

When I took Evolutionary Biology, even considering the possibility of direction in evolution was a Class I “thought crime” and so was Lamarckian Evolution. Lamarck’s evolutionary theory argued that acquired characteristics could be transmitted to offspring. Suggesting that either of these conjectures could be a valid idea was punishable by an F in the class and a strong recommendation that you change your major to Physical Education. These “thought crimes” could only be absolved if you recanted your heresy by placing your hand on a copy of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” and swearing fealty to the true Darwinian faith in Evolution by means of Undirected Natural Selection alone as the only route to true “evolutionary understanding.” Therefore I was astonished to learn that “Current Biology” has just published an article authored by an international team of biologists that argues for “Directed Evolution” through a Lamarckian mechanism.

These scientists have been studying the shape of the female genitals in flat worms. While studying this glamorous topic they discovered that the evolution of these organs was displaying “direction.” This directionality of a process that was supposedly random forced an about-face and the resurrection of Lamarck’s long despised theory in a desperate attempt to avoid an even more unacceptable possibility. Lamarck had to be resurrected because the other major explanatory theory that this finding could be pointing to is some type of supernatural design and this of course is an even greater anathema than Lamarckianism.

What is also remarkable about this new finding is the reaction of the scientific community and the media to this about face. Somehow they have twisted this finding around to be a proof of Darwinism, rather than a refutation. For example on January 18, “sciencedaily.com” carried the astonishing claim that “According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, individuals in a species pass successful traits onto their offspring through a process called ‘deterministic inheritance.’” “Deterministic inheritance”? Are my eyes deceiving me? Have not random mutation and natural selection been the cornerstones of Darwinism, while Intelligent Design advocated a “directed process” of some type?

In using the term “Deterministic inheritance”, what the Darwinists are referring to is one of the “dirty little secrets of Darwinism”; this is the fact that it was Darwin’s disciples, not Darwin, who completely rejected Lamarck or the possibility of evolution through a supernaturally directed process.

Why This Is Interesting

What is most remarkable about this whole affair is the ease with which Darwinists manage to interpret or misinterpret any finding so that it supports their assumptions. Even though this research is in total disagreement with the cornerstone of Darwinian orthodoxy, the Darwinists pretend that there is no problem at all. This should cause them to open their minds to the possibility that some of their previous ideas have been based on faulty assumptions, but such an idea is beyond unthinkable and would result in career-ending excommunication by their colleagues in academia.

So no matter what the research shows, Darwinism is not questioned. This hypocritical pattern is also seen in other areas, such as “global warming” where above average temperatures are embraced as proof of global warming. But in places where temperature averages are below normal, the cause is also attributed to global warming. This is reminiscent of the Freudian tactic of claiming proof for his theories such as his theory of “latent homosexuality”. Freud claimed that, like him, we are all supposed to have such feelings. The proof of this was twofold. If you admitted to having such feelings, it proved how correct he was. If you rejected the claim, however, that also proved how correct he was by virtue of the “fact” that you were too threatened by the feeling to admit the truth.

Sources:
1. “Trends, Stasis and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulua Development” Current Biology, Karen Kiontke et al, Nov. 2008, Volume 17, pp. 1925-1937.

2. “New Findings Confirm Darwin’s Theory: Evolution Not Random”, sciencedaily.com, Jan. 18, 2008

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Scientists from around the world met in Edinburgh, Scotland this August at the annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation. The title of the conference was “New Frontiers in Science and Faith.” Many outstanding scientists from around the world attended including five Fellows of the prestigious Royal Academy of Science (FRS). The conference focused on examining the theological implications of recent discoveries and developments in Cosmology, Genetics, Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience, Bioethics, and Ecology and on integrating these developments with Christian faith.

Among the exciting topics discussed were those presented in the Keynote address by Alister McGrath. Dr. McGrath is a Molecular Biophysicist and theologian who holds the post of Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Oxford University. He cited several areas that represent the “New Frontiers in Science and Faith.” Among these are the renewed interest in Anthropic Phenomenon and the return to Natural Theology. The Anthropic Phenomenon (or Principle) explores the growing set of scientific observations that point to the fact that the Universe has been fine tuned (designed) to accommodate intelligent life. Natural Theology is the historical Christian approach to understanding nature and is the foundation of modern science. The return to Natural Theology has reinvigorated Christian scientists’ interest in cognitive research (where does our consciousness come from?), the origins of life, quantum physics, biology, and other areas of scientific study.

Dr. McGrath also pointed out that this new interest in the theological implications of recent scientific discoveries has contributed to the appearance of a new militant atheism that is trying to use science to evangelize its belief system.

In his lecture “Space, Time and Eternity,” Sir John Polkinghorne, FRS and former professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, discussed recent attempts by atheists to explain away the nearly undisputed fact that the universe is fine tuned for human life. In this particular instance, the atheists’ denial of God’s creation of the Universe is founded upon the claim of a Multiverse. The Multiverse theory postulates that our Universe is only one of an infinite or nearly infinite number of other Universes. With enough Universes, all with different natural laws operating in them, you will eventually get one like ours, which is perfect for human life. No designer needed! Unfortunately for the Multiverse advocates, these Universes are now and may always be undetectable; however, we are asked to believe on faith alone in their existence as an alternative to believing that the one Universe we know of and live in was created by God as a habitation for life.

Polkinghorne pointed out that this is, ‘“an idea of quite incredible ontological prodigality’ that would make William of Ockham roll over in his grave.”

Another presenter, Dr. Jan Centrella, Chief of NASA’s Gravitational Astrophysics Laboratory at the Goddard Space Flight Center, discussed her groundbreaking work on gravity waves and their implications for testing the General Theory of Relativity. She also discussed her faith journey.

Dr. Conway Morris, FRS professor of Paleobiology at the Cambridge University, discussed the fact that recent work on “evolutionary convergence” brings into question the Primary Axiom of Darwinism. The Primary Axiom is the idea that organisms are the result of random natural processes. Convergence research is showing that the necessary building blocks for intelligence appeared billions of years before the emergence of intelligence, indicating very advanced and highly sophisticated planning and design at work rather then random chance.

Why This Is Important

The misuse and misinterpretation of scientific discoveries have been among the most important tools used to undermine Christian faith. These are still seen today in the intellectually shallow and ham fisted attempts by Richard Dawkins and other evangelists of atheism to destroy Christian faith through the abuse of science. Unfortunately, many are fooled by this approach, especially those who do not have the time or expertise to investigate the accuracy of their claims.

It is important that first-rate scientists in each field counter these claims. It is important that the public realize that they are not called to a blind faith that denies the facts of the real world but rather to a Faith grounded in reality.

Source: Newsletter of the American Scientific Affiliation , Sep/Oct 2007, Vol 49, No. 5, pp 1-7.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.

“Genetic Entropy” is the title of a stunningly important new book by Dr. John Sanford, a well known and long time Professor of Genetics and genetic researcher at Cornell University. The book details his reasons for “rejecting the Primary Axiom” of Darwinism – the idea that man and all organisms are “the product of random mutations plus natural selection.”

“Genetic Entropy” is a very difficult book to review in a short Blog. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you read it. Despite its title and technical details, the book is understandable and quite interesting.

Dr. Sanford begins by pointing out that the terms “Natural Selection” and “Survival of the Fittest” have become a kind of “magic wand” for Darwinists. The terms are thrown at biological problems like an “Easy Button” that automatically explains everything. For example, why do giraffes have long necks? Easy, the longer the neck, the better to get to high leaves – therefore giraffes with longer necks have a better chance of surviving and reproducing. This ignores the fact that tens of thousands of mutually interdependent changes are required to lengthen the animal’s neck. Just for starters: additional vertebrae are needed along with an enlarged body frame, lengthened and strengthened bones and muscles, a greatly enlarged heart and oh yes, a unique new organ similar to a spleen located next to the brain that acts as a backup blood reservoir to keep the giraffe from passing out when it raises it head to 20 feet above the ground.

This mode of magic-like explanation has even been extended to the persistence of religion – why does every culture have religion? Easy, religion “even though just a fantasy” has survival value.

The power in this book comes from its exploration of how genetics actually work in the real world and of the math behind it. To greatly simplify an enormously complicated process, consider the fact that your genetic code is like a library. The genes are like books in the library and are written on three billion nucleotide pairs, three of these pairs constitute one letter of your genetic code. This equals a library of about 1700 volumes (which incidentally have undergone “data compression so sophisticated that they are contained in an area 100,000th the size of the period at the end of this sentence).” In a lifetime, about 200 point mutations or misspellings will be introduced into each person’s genetic code. It is from these misspellings, combined with a mate’s misspellings, that natural selection is supposed to produce biological evolution.

However, there are some big problems with this theory. First, when you reproduce, you do not select genes one by one; you take your mate’s entire genome; you are forced to take all modifications good and bad. Additionally you do not know what mutations your mate has undergone because these are not expressed in the adult but will only be manifest in the offspring. You don’t even know what mutations have occurred in your own genetic code!

Second, most changes to the genetic code are point mutations that effect only one nucleotide out of six billion. These mutations have such tiny effects that they are of no value or harm; their effect is “neutral.” Therefore, they are not actually “selectable” unless they are fatal.

Third, it has recently been discovered that many genes are “polyconstrained,” meaning that they simultaneous code for more than one protein (usually three and possibly more) depending on how they are read. Consequently, mutations for these nucleotides cannot produce an improvement in the organism because even if one protein were improved then at least another one or more would be damaged.

Why this is Important

Sanford’s research caused him to lose faith in the Darwinian mechanism’s ability to drive Darwinian Evolution. In the book, he describes the painful intellectual change he underwent when he realized that he would have to reject the “Primary Axiom,” “the most sacred cow in biology.” He also realized that this probably meant the end of his career and possibly his expulsion from academia. However, he felt compelled to tell the truth about what his research really showed. He became convinced that life and its development could only be explained by a purposeful design, which he attributes to God.

He now views Darwinism with its claims that life is meaningless and that man is just a bag of molecules as a false doctrine which “…has been the most insidious and destructive thought system ever devised by man.”

However the recognition that we are the product of divine planning means that we do have purpose, and life does have meaning. The consequences of this truth are truly mind-boggling.

Source: Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome , John C. Sanford, 2005, Elim Publishing, Lima, NY.

By Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.