Jonathan Witt

Here’s the transcript of the CNN debate that included Discovery Institute senior fellow Jonathan Wells, prominent evolutionist Michael Ruse, and the ICR’s John Morris. Use the search word “Tucker” to scroll down to the evolution segment.

An essay of mine ran in today’s Kansas City Star. It begins:

It seems the Darwinists in Kansas are living in the past. Not the past of, say, the fossil record. The history written there tells of the abrupt appearance of major animal forms, nothing like the gradually branching tree of life that Darwin envisioned. The past that some evolutionists are living in, rather, is the Kansas science curriculum battle of 1999.

According to a recent Prentice Hall biology textbook, a few centuries ago ‘very light-skinned’ people, shipwrecked on a tropical island, became “dark-skinned” after “many years under the tropical sun.”

But as Pamela R. Winnick at the Weekly Standard explains, this is nonsense, one of many examples of junk science in our high school science textbooks:

There’s lots that’s puzzling about the science textbooks used in American classrooms. A sloppy way with facts, a preference for the politically correct over the scientifically sound, and sheer faddism characterize their content. It’s as if their authors had decided above all not to expose students to the intellectual rigor that is the lifeblood of science.

According to Neo-Darwinism, once the first lusty cell leapt onto the stage of the world, purely impersonal, material processes reigned — a blind watchmaker and less than blind. It was a mindless mechanism. This is quite different from the teleological evolution that some, including the Catholic Church, have considered a possibility. Darwininian evolution possesses no distant goal nor is man the twinkle in the eye of any god.

Apparently I don’t have any reason to be grumpy with the agronomists.

World magazine has a brief essay and interview with historian Richard Weikart on how Germany moved from Darwin to Hitler. The essay begins, “Phillip Johnson, leader of the Intelligent Design movement, writes, “The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed.” The interview concludes with Weikart noting that “Darwinist terminology and concepts are prominent in many of Hitler’s writings and speeches.” In the example Weikart gives, Hitler is explaining the danger of saving and caring for the weak and imperfect: The natural struggle for existence, which only allows the strongest and healthiest to survive, will be replaced by the obvious desire to save at any cost even the Read More ›

Cardinal Ratzinger’s sermon at the Mass for the Election of a Supreme Pontiff has been trumpeted as a frontal assault against cultural relativism. This it was and, yet, digging deeper one finds reason to believe that Ratzinger, the newly elected Pope, may also have materialist interpretations of science (including Darwinism) in his sights.

In an impassioned essay at NRO, Michael Novak writes:

Update: Craig Roberts, Editor-in-Chief of Crop Science Society of America, pointed out that the poll noted below was posted for the normal, two-week period of time before giving way to the next two-week Quick Question. The ASA should be commended for leaving the poll up for the full period, and for all of its members who support free scientific inquiry into the question of origins. The post has been updated to incorporate Roberts’ information. As William Dembski notes here, there’s a new fad among professional societies — denouncing intelligent design. Perhaps somebody wanted the American Society of Agronomy to join the new fad; but agronomists, apparently, don’t herd very well. The society conducted an online poll regarding the teaching of Read More ›