Jonathan Witt

Recently Edward T. Oakes reviewed Richard Weikart’s From Darwin to Hitler:

As Richard Weikart proves in his magnificently written monograph From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection released a veritable Pandora’s box of evil vapors and demonic spirits, which, once unleashed on an eager European public, poisoned discourse on war, race, sex, nationality, diplomacy, colonization, economy, and anthropology–especially, it would seem, in Germany.
In a letter he wrote to the German Wilhelm Pryor in 1868, Darwin averred that “the support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail,” a line that could well serve as the epigraph to Weikart’s riveting tale of how Germany led itself (and thereby the rest of the world) into the abyss of internecine war and savagely applied eugenics, naïvely thinking all the while that it was helping to produce Darwin’s “higher animal” from his eagerly anticipated “war of nature.”

Robert Pollack reviews Francis Collins’s new book The Language of God in the latest issue of Science. In the process he conveniently makes it appear that virtually Collins’ entire case for the existence of God boils down to the moral law in the human heart. But Collins also makes design arguments based on the Big Bang and the fine tuning of the physical constants of nature for life, comparing the design explanation to purely materialistic explanations and building a case that a design inference is the best, the most reasonable option. Pollack mentions these design arguments in only the most vague and glancing terms, giving the impression that Collins offers them not as formal arguments but more on the level of “that’s how the universe feels to me.”

With the approach of Pope Benedict’s informal gathering at his summer palace outside Rome this weekend to discuss Darwinism and intelligent design, an increasing number of public figures have taken to standing up, waving their hands, and saying, “Pope Benedict, please oh please come to such-and-such a conclusion.” It’s all just a little bit silly, but I want to get in on the action. First I want to say that Darwinist Kenneth Miller, a leading hand waver, doesn’t seem to even know what intelligent design is (or at least pretends not to).

As a representative of Discovery Institute, I sent the following letter to The Seattle Times last week. It didn’t appear there, so we’re publishing it here.
Dear editor,

Much of the mainstream media’s coverage of the controversy surrounding Kansas’s science standards has repeatedly talked about a “conservative” or “far right” position on the one hand and a “moderate” position on the other. Are those labels accurate? The so-called “conservative” or “far right” position calls for students to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. An overwhelming majority of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, support this approach.

In contrast, the so-called “moderate” position insists that students learn only the strengths of modern evolutionary theory–science education as propaganda.

The Scripps Howard News Service is carrying this arresting story by Deroy Murdock:

Most ecologists want to make life easy for butterflies and waterfalls. Who can argue with that? Some environmental extremists, however, think what Earth really needs is fewer people. In some cases, billions fewer.

“We’re no better than bacteria!” University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka recently announced. “Things are gonna get better after the collapse because we won’t be able to decimate the Earth so much,” he added. “And, I actually think the world will be much better when there’s only 10 or 20 percent of us left.”

Pianka dreamed that disease “will control the scourge of humanity.” He celebrated the potential of Ebola Reston, an airborne strain of the killer virus, to make Earth nearly human-free. “We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”
Just five hours after Pianka’s March 3 speech to the Texas Academy of Science, which Forrest

Mims III covered March 31 in The Citizen Scientist, the Academy named Pianka its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. Several hundred scientists gave Pianka a standing ovation, Mims reported.

Pianka is not alone.