Culture

There has been much discussion about the recent appearance on Jeopardy of a computer named Watson. Watson has played against human contestants, and has provided uncannily accurate answers to some questions. Can Watson actually think? Does Watson have a mind?

It’s springtime (almost), which means that Darwin lobbyists are starting to come out in full force to spread misinformation about academic freedom legislation. This is most unfortunate because their goal, plain and simple, is to prevent students from hearing about scientific critiques of neo-Darwinian evolution in the classroom. I’ve already covered some of these bad objections here. Let’s consider the false claims being promoted by critics of academic freedom legislation. Myth #1. Academic Freedom Laws Have Led to Litigation Some critics, especially those in Oklahoma, have felt the need to promote outright falsehoods by claiming that the Louisiana Science Education Act has been subject to lawsuits. The truth is that there has never been a legal challenge to an academic Read More ›

Philosopher Jay Richards has published an interesting piece about IBM’s Watson computer trouncing Jeopardy champs looking at the consternation this caused for some people.

World Magazine has an excellent report on the David Coppedge story with new insights into his background — and new reason to do something about the discrimination he’s suffered.

The writers for the Associated Press recently claimed that ID is a position that “contends life can be so complex it must have been created by an intelligent being, as opposed to evolving through natural selection.” This statement is ALMOST right. Unfortunately, it reflects the AP’s propensity to continually get things wrong when it comes to ID and then perpetuate the myth in a mindless Darwinian fashion. It should say that intelligent design is a position that “contends that the complexity of life is best explained by intelligence, as opposed to evolving *mindlessly* through natural selection.”