Tue, 11 Mar 2008
>> 1) What is darwinism, exactly?
Darwinism is the belief that man evolved from apes, and apes from lower creatures like snails. Snails evolved from yeast. Yeast evolved from bacteria. Bacteria evolved from viruses. Viruses evolved from dirt, water and electrical stimulation. OF COURSE, this is all untrue since man was made in God’s image - so if man had to evolve, God would have had to evolve, too. However, God is perfect and did not need to evolve. Therefore, evolution is a lie and man was designed intelligently by the Creator of the universe about 6000 years ago.
>> 2) Who explicitly calls themselves darwinists?
The people who call themselves Darwinists are frustrated scientists who cannot crack the big mysteries and are thus forced to putter around in various labs with the hope that they will actually discover something meaningful. However, since they always declare the TRUTH to be invalid and unworthy of investigation, they are always shy of reality and meaning. These are those who name themselves Darwinists. Of course, the immoral also - like Adolph Hitler and Margaret Sanger - have adopted the Darwinist spirit if not its moniker. Is it a contest of how low can one go? There is a lower place coming up that none of these so-called rationalists will enjoy should they not repent.
>> 3) Why is it considered a religion?
It is not a religion. It is an immoral philosophy of sin by and for sinners who are unwilling to know the Scripture, but who would like to fall back on rationalism as a defense for their souls. There is only one true religion.
>> 4) How is it that such a tiny fraction of the
>> population can be in so much control of the rest?
>> (Atheists are by recent estimates about 1 to 15
>> percent of the U.S. population, depending on which
>> poll you accept)
How are the rich in control of the poor?
>> 5) Who, exactly, is Big Science?
Big Science is the group consisting of the NSF, NIH, WHO, NOAA, CDC, Merck, Pfizer, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Planned Parenthood, all Universities especially Michigan, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, UW, Harvard, Carnegie-Mellon, Princeton, Columbia, UC Berkeley, Penn, Stony Brook, U Conn, Yale, Brown, UT Austin, and Harvey Mudd. It is funded by lamentably immoral activities and the propagation thereof.
>> 6) What was the question asked that seems to have
>> prompted Richard Dawkins’ extraterrestrial response
>> and what exactly was his full answer?
Who knows what motivates him? He would definitely like us to believe that it is logic, reason, empiricism, objectivity and dispassion. Clearly, Ben Stein aspires to something different and more important - freedom of speech and the unrelenting dialog of debate. Dawkins’ exact answers are relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things, so I will not address them.
>> I haven’t commented on the accuracy or morality of the
>> film. I haven’t seen it. I have tried to answer
>> questions posed in the comments, or commented on the
>> content of the original blog posts. I think that some
>> parties on all sides of this issue have reacted in an
>> extreme and unproductive manner.
Of course, this is the nature of the debate, but it is important to HAVE the debate. The debate is never resolved, because only few in the debate have access to the Truth - the others deny the Truth at every turn. That is exactly why I decried the ‘Incessant Scribblers.’ They simply refuse to accept what is clearly true and have no reliable evidence against it.
I am not sure about “Frank”, and I don’t know what “Thinking Man” is. Thinking Man seems to think that I am ‘typing in tongues’ or something like that and seems to be quite similar to Shirakawasuna. They could be the same person, but who can know. Keith Eaton seems quite legitimate as do you. I once met Glen D. - that was shortly before his famous questioning of the evidence of the relativistic effects of gravity. (???) He seems to have a tenuous grasp of science. If the SSC had been built, I would have jokingly told him to go stand next to the beamline and self-induce some consciousness - he did not like me much. Luckily, I moved to NH.
About the Institute if anyone is interested: The Institute’s benefactors - a consortium of a few wealthy families who have interest in ID and would prefer to see the end of its suppression - donated a very significant sum. They are unabashedly creationists which is why I sometimes recite YEC philosophy. Nevertheless, when the Institute’s new research (based on the ideas of du Gerdemain and standard physics minus the corrections that are sure to come) is revealed, God willing, evolutionary theory and Darwinism will be simply swept aside.
With this mission, the Institute of Theory was founded - it is not in a basement as someone once jeered. The Institute is to be built off I-95 at 6xx Long Wharf Drive in New Haven. The purchase of the land should be completed soon, and the architectural designs too should be approved soon. So, hopefully, if the construction goes as planned, the Institute will be staffing a brand-new $30M complex with state of the art IT infrastructure and molecular biology labs later next year. There are several people whom the Institute would like to hire for this new facility, but we have not contacted them, as of yet. The positions will be very lucrative and it is expected that we will attract some top-notch scientists. When the IT department is settled, new hosting will be acquired and a completely new website for the Institute of Theory will be put in place and subsequently moved to the Institute. You truly have something to look forward to: an open house is planned.
>> I also believe there have been trolls and parody posts
>> from all sides, and straw-men galore. Worst of all are
>> the ninnies on all sides yelling, with fingers in ear,
>> “Na-na-na-na, I can’t hear you” (well, figuratively,
>> anyway).
This is just the nature of the internet. One has to get used to it.
Beyond this, you have to accept that funding is increasing and soon Darwinism will go the way of the Dodo.
Peace,
Mark Witt
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
