John G. West

One of the things that has struck me this past week is just how bitter and angry many defenders of Darwin’s theory have become. This should have been a joyous week for Darwinists. After all, a federal judge in Pennsylvania issued a ruling claiming that teaching intelligent design in science classes is unconstitutional. You would have thought this result would have put Darwinists in a festive mood. But instead, many of them seem (if possible) even more sour and surly than before. Consider some of the following extracts from various pieces of hate mail I’ve received from evolutionists this past week.

It’s getting difficult to parody Darwinists, because their real statements are already so over-the-top. Take P.Z. Myers, the militant Darwinist biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris. A few days ago, Prof. Myers suggested that he regards the Biblical patriarch Abraham — revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims — as worse than Hitler: I think that if I had a time machine, I wouldn’t do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler before he caused all that trouble. I’d go all the way and pick up Abraham. I wouldn’t kill him, oh no-since I’ve got a time machine, I’d just drop him off in the Permian while I was on my grand temporal tour. That’s right: According Read More ›

Over the next week or so, I plan to file several posts analyzing issues relating to Judge Jones’ decision in the Dover case. I start today by revisiting the question of whether Judge Jones is an “activist” judge. Some Darwinists are livid that I’ve applied this label to the Judge. Although I’ve explained my reasons for regarding Jones as an activist in detail to many reporters, my full views haven’t really been reported. So I thought I would explain them here.

I regard Judge Jones as an activist in this case not because I disagree with the outcome of his decision (although I do), but because I disagree with the injudicious and overreaching manner in which he framed his decision.

Intelligent Design critic Larry Arnhart has a thoughtful essay in Inside Higher Education encouraging students to learn about the controversy over Darwin by reading Darwin. Arnhart writes:

Why not introduce our students to this debate by having them read Darwin’s own writings in their biology classes? We could teach the controversy by teaching Darwin.

Arnhart seems to think that his idea won’t be acceptable to either proponents or critics of intelligent design. Yet his proposal is something a number of ID proponents have advocated for some time.

Note: From now on, we will try to properly credit the University of Minnesota, Morris as the employer of Darwinist biologist P.Z. Myers. In a press release earlier this month, we mistakenly stated that P.Z. Myers was a biology professor at the University of Minnesota. We soon received an e-mail from a public relations person at the University of Minnesota, Morris. She wanted to make clear that Dr. Myers was actually employed by the University of Minnesota, Morris. The press release in question highlighted Myers’ bigotry and intolerance, pointing out that he advocated “the public firing and humiliation of some teachers” because they are critical of Darwin, and quoting his complaint that Darwinists “aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or Read More ›

In her new article dumping on intelligent design, New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein presents a fantasy version of the new Kansas science standards, claiming that “in Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design.” Actually, the Board did no such thing. The Kansas science standards encourage students to learn about scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory. They do not ask for the teaching of alternatives to Darwin’s theory such as intelligent design. Indeed, the Board included the following explicit statement in the standards: “We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design….” [emphasis added] This isn’t merely a case of sloppy reporting. When Ms. Read More ›

Here is the e-mail I sent to New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein after she interviewed me last Thursday for her predictable hatchet-job on intelligent design in Sunday’s Times. Decide for yourself whether her story accurately reflected all of the information she was given: Laurie, It was good to talk with you. In follow-up to our conversation, here is a link providing a list of the peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications favoring intelligent design and/or fundamental critiques of the claims of neo-Darwinism: https://www.discovery.org/a/2640/. To reiterate: We think that the debate over intelligent design will eventually be decided among scientists and scholars, and that’s why we put most of our resources into supporting the work of scholars on intelligent design and Read More ›

While the newsmedia lavish praise on the new Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History, no one seems to have noticed that the museum is presenting a thoroughly sanitized portrait of Charles Darwin, completely suppressing Darwin’s real views on such troubling issues as eugenics and race. According to the online version of the exhibit, far from being a “Social Darwinist,” Mr. Darwin is supposed to have been a passionate egalitarian who would have been horrified by any application of his theory to social and political issues. The exhibit proclaims: Darwin passionately opposed social injustice and oppression. He would have been dismayed to see the events of generations to come: his name attached to opposing ideologies from Marxism to Read More ›