By Design

ID the Future

2007-11-15T13:35:00.000+09:00

Today I am adding a podcast link at the top of this blog. It connects to the "ID the Future" podcast that is a part of the Discovery Institute. I believe that they are on the cutting edge of the ID/evolution debate.

The podcasts are a very good way for anyone to keep abreast of developments in the debate.

As usual, it does not mean that I support every single view or cause that they support.

A couple of sites that I find helpful in research and keeping up with the debate are:
Access Research Network: http://www.arn.org/index.html
Truth In Science: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

(for some reason the link posting function is not working at this time, hopefully I can get these as a link to click on very soon! sorry for the inconvenience!)

Be blessed as you do your research!

A Revealing Statement by Richard Dawkins

2007-10-06T11:34:00.000+09:00

Here is a short video clip that reveals one of the main problems with evolution proponents. I'm not sure when this video was made but, Mr Dawkins finally admits the inadmissible, both positions operate on some unprovable assumptions. Or to use his own word, there is, in fact, an element of "faith" involved on both sides of this debate.

This is contrary to what die-hard evolution proponents, including Dawkins, tell us most of the time. Almost every paper and debate tells us that evolution is "scientific" and anything else is disqualified from consideration because of the need for "faith". Most telling is Mr Dawkins stumbling as he tries to think of what to call it other than "faith".

You can find more things like this at: http://www.arn.org/index.html

The Levinthal Paradox 3

2007-09-12T00:30:00.000+09:00

Finally, I would like to probe a little deeper into the Levinthal Paradox .
Here is a little bit more information about proteins.

"A typical protein contains 200–300 amino acids but some are much smaller (the smallest are often called peptides) and some much larger (the largest to date is titin a protein found in skeletal and cardiac muscle; it contains 26,926 amino acids in a single chain!)."
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Proteins.html

According to this author "typical" proteins are 2 to 3 times larger than the 100 amino acid protein mentioned in our first post. It seems this would make them "typically" at least 2 or 3 times harder to assemble.

But most amazingly, the largest protein known to man contains 26,926 amino acids in a single chain!! If a 100 amino acid chain is so difficult to form...what are the "chances" that 26,926 amino acids are going to spontaneously arrange themselves.

There aren't enough monkeys or typewriters in the universe to create anything that huge. (see previous posts)

As I said before many times, the more you dig into this subject the more you find you are not being told the truth...

The Levinthal Paradox 2

2007-07-11T15:33:00.000+09:00

In the previous post where I introduced the Levinthal Paradox I mentioned the following http:
http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/protstructure/olprotfold.html

If any of you went there and checked out the information, you would find the following:

"Lubert Stryer (in his classic Biochemistry text), shows a way out of this dilemma by using an analogy of a monkey sitting at a typewriter, and typing this line out of Hamlet: "Me thinks it is like a weasel." Random typing would produce that line after 10⁴⁰ keystrokes on average, but if the correct letters were maintained, the number of keystrokes would be in the realm of a few thousand. Proteins could fold more quickly if they retain native-like intermediates along the way."

This a quote from a university level biochemistry text. Did you notice anything completely lacking in the above analogy? How about 3 or 4 things? If you didn't don't worry. I didn't either, until I began thinking about and analyzing this "way out of this dilemma".

First, "the way out of this dilemma" requires a monkey.A monkey is a very complex living organism that contains 100's, if not 1000's of proteins. (As well as a few hundred other complex organic molecules. Not to mention organ systems.) Where did they get a monkey? How did all of its proteins form, when there is not enough time in the age of the whole universe for ONE, one hundred amino acid protein to form?

Secondly, it requires a typewriter.Some of you reading this may not even know what that is ;-) , but believe me, it is a relatively complex piece of office machinery. They require hundreds of exactly machined and correctly assembled parts. Even if it is only a pre-electric, manual one.

Where did a typewriter come from? What unguided, completely random forces caused it to suddenly appear out of no where? What is the mathematical probability of that happening? And what miraculous force keeps the keys from jamming?

Thirdly, the author tells us "if the correct letters were maintained, the number of keystrokes would be in the realm of a few thousand. " Although this sounds logical, this one, short statement is full of difficulties.

1)The sentence "Me thinks it is like a weasel." requires the existence of a system of communication called "English". In this short sentence there is vocabulary, grammar and syntax that are peculiar to the English language.

Where did this complex communication system come from? That is to say, WHO decided what the correct letters are anyway?

2) The amino acid-protein structure is not a 2 dimensional words on paper construction. Proteins have 3 different levels of structure individually, and proteins interacting with each other form a fourth level of structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteins#Structure_of_protein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_structure#Levels_of_protein_structure

The fourth level could possibly be ignored for a solitary, one hundred amino acid protein. However, there is seldom if ever a solitary, one hundred amino acid protein floating in an isolated condition.

You are not just typing random letters and keeping the ones that fit a preselected sentence.Every level of amino acid sequence-protein structure is influenced by the previous level of structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_structure#Protein_folding

When you rearrange "letters" you affect the protein on 3 different levels. And ripping amino acids out to replace them with new ones would totally change the configuration of the previous structure. And therefore, there would be no advantage of keeping the ones "that fit"...none of them would fit in the unintelligible sentence.

Use a poem for an example. It would be as if the letters in a sentence not only affected vocabulary, grammar and syntax, and the length and number of lines, but also the individual letters had an attraction on all the other letters that pulled the poem into a geometric shape, a cube, for example. Changing ONE LETTER would change the entire geometric shape...and in many cases make it entirely worthless.

As a note, the structure of proteins is much more complex than a cube.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Protein-structure.png

Wikipedia also tells us "A unique polypeptide may have more than one stable folded conformation, which could have a different biological activity, but usually, only one conformation is considered to be the active, or native conformation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_structure#Protein_folding (emphasis added)

The "correct" protein in the wrong place would be useless. An incorrectly assembled "protein" in the right place would be the same.

And LAST but not least, their sentence is no where near 100 characters. Even IF you could use a 2 dimensional sentence to represent a protein, their sentence counting the spaces and the period is only 30 characters. Their calculation of the necessary keystrokes should be multiplied by 3.3, just to get it approximately correct. (Not to mention the fact that the sentence requires a capital "m" to make it correct...but I won't even go into that...)

Me thinks their "way out of this dilemma" is a weasel...

The Levinthal Paradox

2007-07-11T15:11:00.001+09:00

The more I study about the creation vs. evolution debate, the more I find, we are not being told truth in many different cases.

I just "happened" to find a site called Biochemistry Online. As I researched about amino acids and proteins, I found the following statement:

"Given the number of possibly nonnative states, it is amazing that proteins fold to the native state at all, let alone in a reasonable time frame." (emphasis added)

Then the writer goes on to say:

"Consider this greatly simplified view of protein folding for a protein containing 100 amino acids. If each amino acid can adopt only 3 possible conformations, the total number of conformations could be 3¹⁰⁰ = 5 x 10⁴⁷. Assuming that it would take 10^-13s to change each conformation, the time required to "test" all conformations would be 5 x 10³⁴s or 10²⁷ years, longer than the age of the universe (14 x 10⁹ yr). Yet the protein can fold within seconds. This paradox is called the Levinthal paradox, after Cyrus Levinthal. " (emphasis added)
(http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/protstructure/olprotfold.html)

Even if you believe the universe is BILLIONS of years old, there is not enough time in the estimated age of the universe for ONE 100 amino acid protein to form!! NOT ONE!! How many of you heard that in any of your high school or university science classes?

Here is what is amazing...Even though there is not enough time in the whole age of the entire universe for ONE protein to form, evolution teaches that all the elements in the earth's atmosphere SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE came into being from nothing and then those elements SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE were able to form amino acids, then SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE they began to form into proteins, that SOMEHOW, BY CHANCE they evolved into all the unique lifeforms we see today!!

I am sorry. I just don't have enough FAITH to believe that... （cont．）

SETI and the Search for Intelligent Life on Earth...

2007-06-20T14:45:00.000+09:00

Many of you who stumble across this blog are aware of the "search for extraterrestrial intelligence" (abbreviated "SETI") . For those who have never heard of it, simply put, SETI is a loosely organized group of scientists, astronomers, etc. that are searching for intelligent life in the universe.

Basically the project consists of aiming radio telescopes into space and listening for "signals" that could be interpreted as containing evidence of intelligence. What would be considered evidence of intelligence? Any type of signal that would show a non-random, coded sequence of "information".

One part all of this that is pretty cool is the SETI @home project started by U.C. Berkeley in May 1999. Anyone can get involved in the search. Check it out at http://setiathome.berkeley.edu.

In 1977 there was signal detected by an Ohio State University scientist that came to be known as "The WOW! signal". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow%21_signal ) It lasted 72 seconds and has never been detected again in 30 years of searching.

What does this have to do with the ID/Evolution debate? Plenty. One of the most highly organized coded systems of information known in the universe is DNA. As you know, it is found in every cell of "living organisms".

Richard Dawkins, no friend of ID or creation proponents, in "The Blind Watchmaker" says the DNA in ONE HUMAN cell contains "enough information capacity ...to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over".

According to the Encarta Encyclopedia on the internet, 10,000 average size human cells would fit on the head of a pin.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568585/Cell_(biology).html

Of course, just as the information in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is organized and coded for the purpose of communication, all the information in DNA is in an organized form that is "read" to produce every single aspect of the human body, including each persons unique features all the way down to their fingerprints.

The miraculous way that the DNA encoding and reading system works is still not completely understood, even by our most brilliant scientists.

The simple question I want you to think about is "IF discovering non-random coded information signals in radio waves would be evidence for intelligent life among the stars, what does the 90-120 encyclopedia volumes of elaborately coded information we find in each one of our bodies cells tell us?"

There are literally thousands of scientists, spending at least thousands of dollars (probably millions of dollars) involved in the search for coded information to prove the existence of intelligent life in outer space.

At the same time, evolutionists want us to believe that 90-120 encyclopedia volumes of elaborately coded information happened just by chance...in the area 1/10,000th the size of a pin head.

In all honesty, I wonder if we should start searching for intelligent life here on earth before we try to find it somewhere else...

For a little more information about DNA checkout some of these sites:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561874/Deoxyribonucleic_Acid.html#701767208
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss3/dna.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp#f8

Good News about Wikipedia

2007-06-10T07:26:00.000+09:00

I found some really good news as I was working on the Japanese translation for the "Who Brainwashed Who? 2" post...Wikipedia has done some SERIOUS editing of the articles that I had linked to. Now the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaeous _generation link is redirected to a totally revamped link titled Abiogenesis, that gives a much better presentation of the facts. THANK YOU to all those who work to make Wikipedia an up-to-date and valuable resource.

I am,however, going to leave the original English post as is because there is a lot of relevant information that can be used even if the links to Wikipedia are not as they were. Honestly my main complaint was not against Wikipedia.

I am extremely grateful that Wikipedia reworked their articles to give a much more balanced reporting of the facts. However, there are many textbooks from elementary school through university level that still write on the subject in basically the way Wikipedia had reported before. Providing only the barest facts, and intentionally or unintentionally, leaving quite a bit of recent and/or relevant information unmentioned. This leaves the reader with a very one-sided interpretation of the subject at hand. When this is done intentionally it is, as I wrote it in the previous post, a form of "brainwashing".

Kudos to the volunteers at Wikipedia, I hope a lot of web sites and textbook companies will follow your example.

Who brainwashed who? 2

2007-06-04T14:56:00.000+09:00

Bullying or brainwashing…As mentioned in the previous post, we certainly wouldn’t want either to be a part of our unbiased scientific process would we.

Personally I would consider any purposeful deletion of information or manipulation of information that makes one’s position seem more credible, a form of brain washing. Failing to include relevant information that would change conclusions would definitely be a form of brainwashing.

Let’s see…

When I was doing research about the previous post about bullying or brainwashing , I came across the page on Wikipedia that I footnoted concerning abiogenesis/ spontaneous generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Since this issue of the origin of life is fundamental to the creation/ID vs. evolution debate I have researched it some in the past. As I read over the Wikipedia article about spontaneous generation I found a good bit of information being ignored in the article. Further study on Wikipedia did show the information was not unavailable, but it had to be dug up by someone serious about the subject. The casual reader who stops at one article would be totally “disinformned”.

First of all, they use the example of the famous Miller Urey experiment and leave you thinking that this experiment was truly groundbreaking and is today still considered to be. Let me add a few facts that have been left out, I hope inadvertently.

First, the value of the experiment itself is now in doubt, because many scientists feel Miller-Urey may have been mistaken about the basic composition of the atmosphere used. Miller-Urey assumed a reducing atmosphere (rich in ammonia), rather than an oxidixing (rich in free oxygen) atmosphere was necessary, and adjusted their experiment accordingly.

Here we find the first evidence of brainwashing. Miller and Urey knew that an OXYGEN rich atmosphere would eventually destroy their precursors to life. “Rust” is just one form of oxidixation. However to support the life that spontaneously generates, you MUST have oxygen…quite a fact to inadvertently leave out. I hope it was inadvertent.

The fact IS mentioned on the following Wiki post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment#Earth.27s_early_atmosphere for anyone willing to search for more information.

I hope you noticed this sentence “In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO₂, N₂, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH₄ and NH₃ so long as there is no O₂.”

And this sentence further down in the section “when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed.”

“As long as there is no O2”? “When oxygen gas is added…no organic molecules are formed.”

The major life sustaining gas in our environment had to be ABSENT for abiogenesis to occur?

Secondly, the products of the experiment were incompatible with the formation of life.

All amino acids have something called chirality. This is represented by a “D-“ or an “L-“. Although this is sometimes compared to a “right or left handedness”, due to the three dimensional structure of amino acids there is no actual “left” or “right”. Amino acids in the proteins of living organisms are L- amino acids. The opposite amino acid is often detrimental to life, (i.e. poisonous).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_isomerism#Chirality_in_biology

The products of the Miller-Ulay experiment, were approximately a 50-50 D- and L-mix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment#Experiment_and_interpretation

As have been any other amino acids produced “spontaneously” by scientists working in laboratories.

Thirdly, for all the hubbub, only very miniscule amounts of the amino acids were generated. The idea of life spontaneously generating in a “pre-biotic soup”, requires a very dense concentration of these amino acids, as well as hundreds or thousands of other “materials”. The tiny percentage of amino acids created could never become a “dense soup” in a world engulfed in water. Of course this is the basis of the current “better” theory that this soup was created in a pond or lagoon allowing for the necessary concentrations. (reference same as above)

Fourthly, the acids formed were removed by Miller and Urey, because the electrical spark would have destroyed them! How close is that to a naturally occurring atmosphere? Who would have done this in the primitive earth? God? http://www.theunjustmedia.com/The%20molecular_impasse_of_evolution.htm

Another experiment listed in the abiogenesis article was by Joan Oró, a celebrated Spanish scientist. To quote the article “One of his most important contributions was the prebiotic synthesis of the nucleotide adenine (a key component of nucleic acids ) from hydrogen cyanide. This was achieved during the period 1959-1962 and stands, together with the Miller-Urey experiment, as one of the fundamental results of prebiotic chemistry.”

Hydrogen cyanide is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide as “...highly poisonous... commonly listed amongst chemical warfare agents…”. Am I the only person that finds it odd that the nucleotide, pre-cursor to an amino acid, was formed from hydrogen cyanide? How much life could be sustained in an atmosphere that is rich in hydrogen cyanide? How brainwashed do you have to be to have your hope of life without a Creator based on an atmosphere of poisonous gas?

I have one final criticism. Does it strike anyone other than me as odd that some of the best results in “prebiotic” chemistry are more than 4O years old? Shouldn’t we have gotten something more exciting than a miniscule amount of nucleotides created in a poisonous atmosphere or half poisonous amino acids produced in an environment not fit for life in the last 40+ years?

Mr. Dawkins, if these two experiments are the best evidence for life spontaneously generating without a Creator, I have to ask you, who is being bullied and brainwashed here?

Sorry for the Lack of Postings

2007-05-24T11:43:00.000+09:00

I want to apologize to any one who has been kind enough to stop by and visit this blog. As you can tell there have been no postings for quite some time...

For the last few months I have been trying to decide whether to continue with this blog or not. I know it might seem premature to be thinking about killing a blog that only began in December...
the fact that I have been extremely busy in a new phase of life and the comments of some people caused me to stop and reconsider the need for such a blog.

But now I have decided that I will continue this blog at the rate of once every 2 weeks. The subject matter can be difficult especially to translate for my Japanese language blog, but I have become aware of the definite need for such information.

I have heard several prominent (and not so prominent) Christians make comments about the "evidence for evolution" recently. That bothers me...

Although the issues addressed here are not "unto salvation", people must be told that so much of what is reported as fact on this issue is not. There are almost as many opinions as there are scientists and there is very little agreement on many of the issues promoted as fact. Most disturbing is the "disinformation" that occurs.

And so I will pick up my "pen" ( or keyboard as it were) again and push on.
True science is following the data where ever it may lead...and you might be pleasantly surprised...

Mr.Dawkins, who brainwashed who?

2006-12-17T21:23:00.000+09:00

Richard Dawkins made the following statement "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane(or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." in 1989 according to Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 3.( actual link is http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html)

To be honest, I was amazed every single time I had read the original quote. But after I read the whole article that was the follow up to that statement, I was even more amazed. Here is more from the same article: "I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other."(Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 3. ) (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_3.html)

As always, Mr. Dawkins strives to come across as the proverbial "unbiased, unimpeded by preconceptions" scientist.

But I have to be very honest...I find that very hard to swallow. Or maybe I should say I am extremely tired of that misconception....

Until the time of Louis Pasteur(1822-1895), a lot of very "great scientific minds" believed in the idea of "spontaneous generation". Most you know this is the mistaken idea that rats would spontaneously appear from rags left on the floor, or maggots spontaneously appeared on meat.

Even the great philosopher Aristotle believed aphids formed from the dew on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Most of you may also know that Pasteur preformed the experiment that proved, scientifically, once and for all that "spontaneous generation" was not correct. This is something that I learned in grade school, and I am almost certain that all of you reading learned also. Life only comes from life.

Life only comes from life...proved by Louis Pasteur in 1862...taught in grade school science as a basic rule of biology.

But then a few years later we learn the above is true, and Aristotle and all those people were wrong, EXCEPT in the case of ALL LIFE on our planet...the emergence of all life was, by accident, spontaneously generated "just this once", because there can't be any other explaination.

Doesn't any one besides me wonder, to use Mr. Dawkins own words, how "tormented, bullied, or brainwashed" you have to be to go against one of the basic laws of biology to explain the origin of all life on the planet!?!?!?!

Tormented, bullied, brainwashed...very strong emotionally charged words. I would have made sure they couldn't be used against me before I used them myself, Mr. Dawkins. (to be continued)

Of Moths and Revolutions

2006-12-12T20:58:00.000+09:00

One of the most famous evidences for evolution used is the purported change in moths, supposedly, caused by the industrial revolution in England. As you may know, (some) scientists claim the number of dark colored moths increased as compared to light colored moths due to pollution on tree trunks.

There appears to be evidence now that the famous picture was staged. ("Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells) Because in fact, the moths seldom, if ever, land directly on tree trunks. That anyone would stage pictures to "support" there theory, doesn't seem very scientific to me .

BUT to be honest, the information that the picture was staged is NOT what makes me reject this so called “evidence” for evolution.

Actually I rejected these famous moths when I was in university from 1981-1985. At the time I was neither a follower of Christ (I am now) nor a creationist, BUT I immediately rejected this as example of evolution. And here is why...

While this example does show a shift in the population ratio, it is ONLY a shift in the population ratio.　There were light colored moths BEFORE the industrial revolution (IF, in fact, there was a ratio change). What the “scientists” did is “infer” that this "micro evolution", was evidence for "macro evolution".

Or in other words, they decided that this change in a predominance of light colored moths to a predominance of darker moths proves that amoebas gradually changed into human beings.

However, every class that I had that discussed genetics (several plant and animal science classes as part of my agriculture degree), we always were shown the “bell curve of genetic distribution”. This is a diagram that shows any population of farm animals or plants has a genetic potential of “variation” nearly equal either way from a central point. Anyone or group of characteristics has a certain amount of genetic variability, BUT then you hit an impenetrable barrier. The curve hits a “zero” point on both sides.

There is a limited amount of variation for every trait.

In other words, although there are larger and smaller breeds of cattle, you never get cattle as big as an elephant. Or to put it another way, you can try to increase the harvest by selective breeding, but there is ALWAYS a limit to the yield you will get.

HOW can daily, practical examples of limited genetic potential be correct when you are farming, one of the most down-to-earth occupations...pun intended, but incorrect when you are talking about the entire web of life on this planet?

The bell curve, that demonstrates the limitation to genetic change, is the reason that little white and black moths, glued to trees or not, never really gave any indication that we all came from singled celled bacteria. It just isn't in the genes.

The Rest of　The Story

2006-12-09T02:22:00.000+09:00

Let's finish the quote I started before from Stephen Jay Gould's "The Panda's Thumb".

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils....Darwin...wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory.'

Darwin's arguement still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassent of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly....I wish in no way to impugn...gradualism...I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks."（"The Panada's Thumb", Penguin Books, 1987 pg. 151; emphasis added）

This is almost unbelievable. Even though one of the biggest evidences we hear to support the theory of evolution is "the fossil record", BOTH Stephen Jay Gould AND Charles Darwin are saying evolution is NOT seen in the rocks. That should come as a surprise to quite a few people.

I suggest you get a copy of "The Panada's Thumb" and read it for yourself.

By Design

2006-12-04T21:31:00.000+09:00

There are a few things in my life that I am very passionate about...one of those things is the debate about creation and evolution. As someone who has always been intrigued by science and especially biology, I read many articles from various sources concerning this issue. One of my favorite authors, even today, is the now deceased Stephen Jay Gould.(Yes, I do realize he was a very vocal anti-creationist.)

In my reading, especially of Gould, one of the most surprising things was to find out how little real evidence there is for the theory of evolution. Gould says, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. " ("The Panada's Thumb", Penguin Books, 1987 pg. 150; emphasis added). Amazingly, Gould himself also often wrote about how bias of scientists has affected many of the accepted, but later disproved scientific theories, in many different fields.

In this blog I will attempt to give both evidence AGAINST the theory of evolution and FOR creation and/or Intelligent Design. I pray that anyone who is truly opened minded will take the time to at least read and look into this subject for themselves. To accept ANY belief, without questioning or thinking for one's self, is not the answer in ANY situation...

By Design

ID the Future

A Revealing Statement by Richard Dawkins

The Levinthal Paradox 3

The Levinthal Paradox 2

The Levinthal Paradox

SETI and the Search for Intelligent Life on Earth...

Good News about Wikipedia

Who brainwashed who? 2

Sorry for the Lack of Postings

Mr.Dawkins, who brainwashed who?

Of Moths and Revolutions

The Rest of The Story

By Design

The Rest of　The Story