Bruce Chapman

We are repeatedly impressed to find that supposedly professional reporters use Wikipedia as an information source on Discovery Institute, intelligent design and various people related to these topics. I think the TV series “The Office” says it best (please don’t miss the irony): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRlXZ5W8lTs

Has Darwin successfully replaced Marx and Freud, and, of course, the Bible, as a narrative for Western civilization? David Brooks, House Conservative at the New York Times and often a writer of real insight, apparently thinks so. (He is another example of conservatives, like George Will and Charles Krauthammer, who do not want to be bothered to actually read the works of serious Darwin critics, let alone talk with them.) Richard Kirk replies effectively to Brooks in the new American Spectator.

As Rob Crowther noted earlier, Dr. Ronald K. Wetherington, anthropology professor at Southern Methodist University, has penned an article in the SMU Daily Campus defending himself and other faculty who object to a conference on Darwin versus Design that will be held on the SMU campus this weekend. Wetherington wants to assure readers that he and other objecting faculty are all for debate, so long as it’s in the proper time and place. In fact, he notes that the university actually sponsored an evolution debate back in 1992.

In 1992, mind you! Wow, how could we have forgotten that? Congratulations! It’s just too bad that that the SMU students of today were not even in grade school back then.

There have been a couple of stories out in recent days about the pope’s views on science and religion as revealed in a new book. Given their bias and preoccupation, it probably was inevitable that some in the media would try to discern more than is present in a 2006 paper of the Holy Father’s that runs in a new German language book. Largely missing is the context. In case you forgot, last September, as he does each fall, Pope Benedict XVI met with his former theology students and discussed a topic of mutual interest. Two years ago the topic was Islam and the West; this year it was science and religion. The meeting, held at Castel Gondolfo, was well-covered in the media and the papers that were delivered were later turned into the present German language volume. (Almost all the meeting participants, understandably, were German speakers, having studied under the pope when he was Fr. Dr. Ratzinger.)

The media, of course, wanted to know what the pontiff and others had said about intelligent design, but ID was not the topic of the meeting. Philosophy, rather, was the focus. Hence, the breathless report by Reuters now that the paper by the pope fails to back ID is, well, silly.

The Physics Department at SMU criticizes intelligent design as bad science and has a number of invidious things to say about the supposed motivations of ID proponents. In a campus bulletin it then suggests that, in contrast, there will be a “good science” program on Friday–a showing of the film Inherit the Wind! Apparently, they are not joking. The film (and the play that preceded it) is a 1950s-era attack on McCarthyism. The Scopes Trial is roughly a metaphor for anti-communist hysteria. The film as a whole is not history at all, since (for example) it seriously scrambles and exaggerates actual events. A few years ago Ed Larson’s award-winning book Summer for the Gods explained the real and very different Read More ›

The published letters of Charles Darwin reveal a man who debated about design in a manner that seems “more tolerant and humble” than one encounters in the current debate, says Anthony Barnes in a book review in The Independent (U.K.). It could also be noted that Darwin was treated better by his critics 150 years ago than his followers — the dominant neo-Darwinists — treat their critics today. Darwin himself obviously thought a lot about religion, but, like his successors, he had what seems like a rather puerile understanding of theology and philosophy. He told the American botanist Asa Gray that Darwin’s own nose, which he considered large and unattractive, was evidence against design. “Will you honestly tell me that Read More ›

The Municipality of Istanbul’s conference on intelligent design apparently turned out to be a precedent-setting hit. We can’t think of anything comparable in the Middle East. At least one follow up conference is planned. (See this post from earlier today.) Some photos have just come in that illustrate the impressive venue:

Cross-posted at Discovery Blog. “Defcon,” the Campaign to Defend the Constitution (such a high sounding name!), put out a press release and blog post this week that attempted to sandbag Sen. John McCain, criticizing him for speaking to a Seattle policy luncheon today where Discovery Institute was one of the “co-presenters”. Defcon scolded McCain for attending an event in which Discovery was involved and for thereby “lending credence (sic) to this organization”. Defcon called on McCain to cancel the speech. At the definitely un-cancelled event today I asked Sen. McCain if he had heard of Defcon. He hadn’t. Defcon is a creature of Fenton Communications, the left and far-left operation that backs the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, the Council Read More ›

RIA Novosti news service writer Alexander Arkhangelsky discusses culture, politics and science in an insightful article (“Cartoons and Darwin”) that should give Americans pause. Cultural traditions in Russia today simultaneously bounce off the old Soviet values, pre-Revolutionary values (evoking the prominence of the Orthodox Church) and the rather chaotic commercial and political influences of the present. Where Arkhangelsky comes down seems to us eminently sound: “Students should know about Darwinism and anti-Darwinism, the scientific and the religious.” If he means the science on both sides and the religion ON BOTH SIDES, I would have to agree — for Russians. Here in America, we should stick to the scientific case on both sides. That alone would be a huge advantage. But Read More ›