Christian "News advisory": Scientific evidence says God created universe

[Bluebear]

Separation of Church and State Has No Legitimate Bearing on Science Education says Creation Scientist

To: National Desk

NEWS ADVISORY, Aug. 4 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Internationally respected biochemist and one of the world's top three leading experts in origin of life research, Fazale "Fuz" Rana, PhD, is available for comment on the validity of teaching "Intelligent Design" in public schools. Dr. Rana states:

"Science is not about being politically correct. It is about discovering truth and following the evidence where ever it leads. The scientific evidence increasingly indicates that the Universe and life bears the hallmark of a Creator. Students needs to be aware of the most recent discoveries and their implications.

"Darwin's Theory of Biological Evolution dominates academic thought and public discourse as the only valid explanation for humanity's origin. Yet numerous, recent scientific discoveries are causing many scientists to question traditional evolutionary accounts in favor of a radically different explanation. Belief in a literal and historical Adam and Eve as recounted in the Bible has greater scientific credibility today than at any other time in human history, while recent scientific advances raise serious concerns for biological evolution."

Dr. Fazale Rana and his colleague and co-author, renowned astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross, are neither natural evolutionists nor proponents of the Intelligent Design movement. In their book, Who Was Adam?, these scientists discuss the cutting-edge advances in the most recent origin of life research, and propose a new model for human origins--a model that is fully testable, falsifiable, and predictive--the very argument that the natural evolutionists use to discredit those who espouse Intelligent Design by saying they cannot scientifically prove their case for a creator.

To interview Dr. Fazale "Fuz" Rana contact Kathleen Campbell; Campbell Public Relations; 877-540-6022; [e-mail]

[wli]

1. what are they going to break out next, omega point crap?

Freaking frauds.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. At least ...

... "omega point crap" requires learning math and physics, and rejects phony Bible evidence.

The Fundies are using "Intelligent Design" to shoehorn their way into control of the schools. Their mystical beliefs are secondary and always have been. They don't care whether evolution exists or not.

Their god is Power, and their goal is domination.

--p!

[wli]

5. granted, but it didn't pass peer review

And that's the reason why it had to be pushed in popsci books instead of physics journals.

[Dogmudgeon]

22. All the Peers love Britney Spears

1. Which topic are you referring to in particular? Intelligent Design or the Omega Point theory? Neither are really topics for peer review.

Peer Review for ID or OP is kind of like Peer Review for porn. I know what I like, but I don't expect my tastes to be evaluated by an academic committee consisting of Ron Jeremy, Jenna Jamison, and Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas. But you really should check out "Liberty College Girls Gone Wild", each volume, but especially the one with Snoop Dog.

2. Not passing peer review isn't exactly the Mark of Cain. There is a major debate going on about the problems involved with peer review. I know that peer review is held in high esteem by the skeptic community, but the process is vulnerable to subversion, especially when money and/or prestige is involved. When that happens, its subversion has an enormously destructive effect on scientific work. (I believe that Mike Shermer has addressed this once or twice in Skeptic mag, and hope CSICOP also takes up the effort.)

3. Neither ID nor OP are scientific disciplines; they are not direct products of scientific work, either. They are philosophical ideas that speculate about the underpinning of "reality", and cite scientific work to support them. They may be useful ideas, though ID is currently being used as a political battering ram.

(Intelligent Design actually has a venerable philosophical history, and its earlier authors never promoted it as science. Galileo and Newton each philosophized on the nature of the First Cause, and in our own time, the late Sir Fred Hoyle wrote about what we would call Intelligent Design. Naturally, Sir Fred didn't say it was science, and didn't try to force Parliament to legislate it under pain of eternal damnation.)

I don't find ID to be offensive on its own philosophical basis, but that's NOT what's happening in this inane "debate" on it. It's a candy-coating for Scientific (sic) Creationism, and it's also been used for its "Vedic" variant, being promoted in the English-speaking world by Michael Cremo (whom I even hold in higher respect than the Jesus-simple crowd).

It's kind of like with the Russian (Cyrillic) alphabet and Stalin. There was a major orthographic reform, at the start of Stalin's reign, that made Russian a lot easier to spell and read.

On the other hand, Stalin came along with it.

As to the Omega Point theory, I enjoyed Tipler's essays and his book (The Physics of Immortality), but never took them to be anything other than speculation. I thought a lot of his critics went far further than Tipler did in assuming he was either claiming scientific or theological territory.

Plus, I like Frank Tipler (physics) and Wolfhart Pannenberg (philosophy) a whole lot more than the pack of howling assclowns promoting a cheap knock-off of ID these days.

And, no, this isn't really about Britney Spears at all, unless you consider her existence a refutation of both Intelligent Design AND the Omega Point theory. Which might actually be a scientifically tenable argument.

--p!
Next on the Intelligent Design Channel:
The Christian Cable Coalition Strip Poker Championship
Live at the Sands in Las Vegas
With your hosts Amy Grant and Kirk Cameron
(Parental Guidence is strongly advised.)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. They're unworthy to called scientist

"Quack" for a lack of a better term.

[FreedomAngel82]

3. Uh what?

I'm a beliver in God and am a Christian but you can't prove God exists. You can't prove he doesn't. All Creationism is is that God said "let this happen" and it happened. Read Genesis One. That is Creationism. How can you prove it? That's like me going to people and saying I saw faeries in my backyard. They'd think I was nuts even if it was true.

[athlon]

6. Wow, scientists.

maybe they can explain time cube to me---

http://www.timecube.com/

[ovidsen]

11. Makes perfect sense to me!

NOT!:yoiks:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. four day time cube, with simultaneous 96 hour rotation?

Socrates? Jesus? Clinton and Einstein?

Amazing.


But is it as crazy as these morons:



Talk about crazy - and on google news, no less!

[friesianrider]

7. Scientists?

Must be scraping the bottom of the barrel these days...

[Rex]

8. I can say equally pointless things.

"Recent cutting edge advances in the critical field of baboon hygiene shows their might be a new model of origin to the rings or colors found around a baboon's ass."

"The baboon's ass was not immediately available for comment."

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Given that there is a god, there is, of course, a god

That was easy, wasn't it? It's repeatable too; it can be--and is--repeated endlessly.

If god is superior to us, how can we determine even if it exists? We're inferior. To presume understanding of it and the cosmos is an act of extreme megalomania.

Just because one can't think of any other explanation doesn't prove that the assumption is correct, it just shows the limitations of the individual. To claim that only the assumptions one can perceive are the possible ones is to claim godlike superiority. That doesn't jibe with the agreed-upon inferiority of us compared to this god guy.

It's fear of death. It's fear of being just one of many without the all-loving embrace of the daddy who will never leave. It's fear of meaninglessness. It's adolescence exalted as mystic perfection. It's crap.

The ethical heart of science is the search for the truth of physical interaction. As such, EVERYTHING is open to conjecture, and everything must bear scrutiny. Religion demands royal acceptance, so things like this aren't science. For something like this to be science, it would need to entertain the possibility of there being no god, and that ain't gwine happen.

[charlie]

10. I love how they always

boost guys with pedestrian resumes into "internationally respected... one of the world's top... leading expert..." scientific superstardom.

Dr. Fazale "Fuz" Rana is the Vice President for Science Apologetics at Reasons to Believe, a nonprofit and non-denominational organization which provides research and teaching on the harmony of God's revelation in the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. His scientific research in biochemistry provided him with the initial evidence that life must have a Creator; a personal challenge daring him to read the Bible provided him with the scriptural evidence that that Creator is the God of the Bible. Dr. Rana attended West Virginia State College then Ohio University, where he earned a PhD in Chemistry. His post-doctoral work was conducted at the Universities of Virginia and Georgia. He was a Presidential Scholar, was elected into two honors societies and won the Donald Clippinger Research Award two different years at Ohio University. Dr. Rana worked for seven years on product development for Proctor & Gamble before joining Reasons to Believe. Prior to joining Reasons To Believe, Dr. Rana published over 15 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and delivered over twenty presentations at international scientific meetings. Dr. Rana, also has one patent and co-wrote a chapter on anti-microbial peptides for Biological and Synthetic Membranes. Dr. Rana makes regular appearances on the weekly television program Reasons to Believe which airs on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and is a contributing editor for the magazine Facts for Faith. Dr. Rana and his wife Amy have five children (four daughters and one son). Dr. Rana and his wife currently live in southern California and homeschool their children.

http://www.navpress.com/AuthorInformation/A1106.html

[Swamp Rat]

12. "Creation Scientist"

:rofl:

"Reasons To Believe" - I wonder if Moon owns that organisation?

[charlie]

13. His co-author

the "renowned astro-physicist" Dr. Hugh Ross owns that sited-in-a-stripmall institute.

Found a funny article by another University of Podunk "expert", blasting the hair off of old Hugh for espousing the wrong flavor of Creationism. Check out the battle of the pissant academicians:

Ross gives the misleading and erroneous impression that he is an academic (by the use of the word ‘our’). ‘Academic’ is a term generally used to refer to people who teach and research in an institution of higher learning, and this article appears in the Leadership U Web site, which is aimed at such an audience. But the term does not describe Ross.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0823ross_full.asp

[Swamp Rat]

17. Friends of David Horowitz?

The fuckwad reptile that goes around attacking 'librul' professors? I'll bet they are... but I'm too tired to Google now. If Horowitz ever comes to my school, I'm certain someone will serve him our famous pecan pie. :D

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I bet he likes to eat "Jumbo Shrimp", too. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

21. HAHA!

Gannon... er, cannon sized shrimp. :D

[rman]

15. no reference to peer-reviewed publication of all that evidence

typical

[Swamp Rat]

18. Eggzackly!

:eyes:

[Taxloss]

16. "Creation Scientist"

There's a contradiction in terms.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Bullshit. The scientific evidence clearly shows that global warming is

caused by a lack of pirates.


http://venganza.org

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not this "God" thingy, created everything, silly!