Bruce Chapman

When the controversy over Darwinism and intelligent design is debated on university campuses, the deck is usually stacked heavily against proponents of intelligent design. North Carolina State University has shown, however, that the topic can be debated with the fairness and civility that ought to characterize academic discussions. On Thursday, April 20, before a crowd of some 200 people, a biologist and philosopher defended intelligent design, and a biologist and philosopher defended Darwinism. That debate continued Thursday night at N.C. State University before a crowd of almost 200 people. Sponsored by the NCSU and Wake chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, the debate featured four speakers — one scientist and one philosopher from both sides of the issue. The Read More ›

The contention that biochemist Michael Behe’s intelligent design argument of “irreducible complexity” (IC) is not science was undercut in a recent issue of Science magazine which contains a paper purporting to falsify the theory. If it’s not science, why bother to try to falsify it? Further, the hapless case made against Behe’s theory — as Dr. Behe explains in his detailed response — shows that irreducible complexity is also good science. Unintentionally, this paper in Science puts the lie to the whole line used in the Dover trial against Behe and his theory of irreducible complexity. It will be interesting to see whether Science lets Behe reply to the Thornton paper in its pages.If you can’t find it in Science, Read More ›

There were three kinds of stories that could have developed from the news that Science magazine released a paper by professors at the University of Oregon’s Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology that supposedly falsifies Michael Behe’s theory of irreducible complexity (as an indication of intelligent design). That Science accompanied the paper with an interpretive piece by Christoph Adami of Claremont, underscores the coup Science hoped it had accomplished. What, studying the paper and commentary, should be done with this news?

The first possible story was the one that Science hoped: that finally someone in the science world had done actual research to refute Behe’s theory. Hence, intelligent design could be dismissed conclusively as bad science.

Trouble was, in preparing this first story line, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal science writers contacted us and asked for our scientists’ reaction. Mike Behe did answer and conclusively. So did Steve Meyer. There was no way thereafter to say that Thornton et al had made a conclusive case.

It is frequently claimed by anti-Darwinists that the eugenics movement of 100 years ago was a fluke and not really the product of Darwinian science–even though the science establishment of the time was proud of the Darwinian justification, backed eugenics completely and was ruthlessly dismissive of any other view (sound familiar?). The Nazi embrace of eugenics discredited it for nearly a half century. But it is re-emerging in our time, as Discovery senior fellow Wesley J. Smith has pointed out repeatedly and does again in the Weekly Standard. Slowly, the awareness dawns.

Richard John Neuhaus, the one-time Lutheran pastor/philosopher who became a Catholic priest (he didn’t just “evolve” into it, however), edits First Things magazine with the kind of scholarship and grace one might hope to find in a particularly sparkling discussion over dinner with an old college friend. His “While we’re at it” column is especially sought out each month for Fr. Neuhaus’ take on topical events. This month he has some tough things to say to the science community that seems to think it is a royal priesthood itself, set above even legitimate criticism.

Landing on the fiasco of South Korean cloning claims that were pumped up by those supposedly flawless “peer reviewed science journals” until the story of the scam was made public–from Korea, not the U.S. science world–Neuhaus proceeds to the “blunderbuss verdict” of Judge John E.

Jones in the Dover case. (Regrettably, the March First Things is not online yet; hence, no link. Break down and buy a copy.)

In this Catholic News Agency article about the statement of Kansas Archbishop Naumann, it is clear that the Archbishop understands the policy issue: both ID and Darwinian materialism have a philosophical base (theoretical science does have, folks), so you can’t rule out one and retain the other just because you prefer it. Either keep both out, he says, out or let both in.

Sensibly, Archbishop Naumann thinks students would be best served by acknowledging the place of philosophy in science (it is philosophy, after all, that defines science) and stop using an invidious reading of the First Amendment to disallow ID because of its theistic implications, while ignoring the atheistic implications of Darwinism.

Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, takes apart Daniel C. Dennett’s new book, “Breaking the Spell,” in Saturday’s New York Times in a way that one wishes the Times’ own editors–and other editors in the MSM–would examine. In the very first line of his trenchant review, Wieseltier reminds — or perhaps informs — the reader that “The question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question.” The attempt to self-define science, as Dennett does, of course, is to turn science into scientism. And scientism (or materialism) is the issue that Darwinists and their media fans are resolutely avoiding in public policy discourse. Dennett’s books serves as a “sorry Read More ›

Today’s Wall Street Journal news section features an article that should be read carefully at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. “How Pygmy Ota Benga Ended Up in Bronx Zoo as Darwinism Dawned,” by Cynthia Crossen, is an example of the embarrassing history you will not see acknowledged at the AMNH’s self-congratulatory Darwin retrospective — or anywhere else that Darwinists are in charge. Darwinism helped perpetuate and justify racism, as the Ota Benga story makes clear. It also produced the eugenics movement, where Darwinists (including, please note, the American Museum of Natural History) were the leaders. Eugenics was “science” and anyone who dissented was considered benighted. (See Richard Weikart’s “From Darwin to Hitler” for the eugenics story Read More ›

Congressman John A. Boehner of Ohio, who was instrumental in assuring that the report language of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 contained a strong recommendation that scientific evidence for biological evolution–and also scientific evidence against evolution — should be taught in science class, was elected Majority Leader of the U.S. House today. Boehner, as chairman of the House Education Committee and co-chairman of the Conference Committee that completed work on the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, fended off efforts to remove the so-called “Santorum language” from the final report. The Act’s report provides that “Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range Read More ›