Authors
Over at Redstate.org Homunculus has embarked on a series of posts related to intelligent design, and the first post properly addresses what the definitions of Darwinism and ID are. I suspect that Homunculus will be inundated by rabid Darwinists irked by such an insighful post. Should be interesting to see where this all leads.
The Darwinist inquisition is spreading — as if by design. Inquisitors at George Mason University, Ohio State University, and the Smithsonian have recently hunted down and tried to disgrace scientists and educators for daring to defy the Darwinian orthodoxy. Now we see that the witch hunt has turned to Iowa State University and CSC senior fellow, astronomer, Guillermo Gonzalez.
Read More ›Discovery’s resident sports fanatic Marshall Sana provided these thoughts on today’s Washgington Post column by Sally Jenkins.
Kudos to Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins for her thoughtful piece on intelligent design and athletics.
Jenkins, a well-regarded Post sportswriter, starts off her August 29th column (“Just Check the ID”) saying:
Read More ›“the sports section would not seem to be a place to discuss intelligent design, the notion that nature shows signs of an intrinsic intelligence too highly organized to be solely the product of evolution.”
Update: In my hurry to get this posted I inadvertently left out the fact that it is not from me, but rather are thoughts from a CSC Fellow. Some Darwinists are upset with Ken Chang for his recent New York Times report on the controversy over evolution and intelligent design. It seems that the Darwinists would have preferred a propaganda piece advertising only their side in the debate. Oh, well; they should take comfort in the fact that they managed to slip at least one piece of pro-Darwin propaganda into the article. Chang wrote: “Nowhere has evolution been more powerful than in its prediction that there must be a means to pass on information from one generation to another. Darwin Read More ›
The New York Times has another front page story about the origins debate, “Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science.” The reporter, Cornelia Dean, does a good job of interviewing both theists and atheists, but she leaves out of the picture scientists like Michael Behe, who has made it clear that his religious background left him perfectly open to the possibility that God had front-loaded design into the fine-tuned laws of nature at the instant of the Big Bang, allowing it to evolve from there all the way to our living earth. Behe and other Darwin-doubters, like quantum chemist Henry F. Schaefer III and evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, reject the Darwinian story simply because Read More ›
The New York Times editorial page aside, the coverage of the debate over evolution and intelligent design is improving (see (Sunday’s and Monday’s front page stories). Discovery president Bruce Chapman has an insightful analysis of the weekend’s major coverage by the nation’s paper of record.
Read More ›(Updated) Despite getting plenty of ink, the Darwinists don’t come off looking so well in Kenneth Chang’s story about intelligent design in the Science section of today’s New York Times.
Imagine intelligent design is an elephant in the next room. A cat lies crushed on the floor before us, with the clear mark of an elephant’s toe imprinted on his poor, flat, fuzzy body.
Read More ›In the Monday New York Times, William Safire discusses the history of the term “intelligent design” and the growing controversy over the theory. Safire concludes with the advice of neuroscientist Leon Cooper, a Nobel laureate at Brown University: If we could all lighten up a bit perhaps, we could have some fun in the classroom discussing the evidence and the proposed explanations — just as we do at scientific conferences. Excellent advice. Now cue up the Darwin-Only tape about how, next thing you know, we’ll have to teach the controversy over the geocentric model of the earth, or give the flat earthers a place at the table. Do the Darwin-Only lobbyists think they’re speaking to anyone but the choir when Read More ›
The Washington Post today breaks a major story about the federal probe into the persecution and harassment suffered by evolutionary biologist (twice over no less), Dr. Richard Sternberg. What, you might ask, could get scientists so riled up? Well, Sternberg is suffering the equivalent of a 21st century inquisition for having had the courage to buck the Darwinian establishment and publish a pro-intelligent design paper by CSC Director Dr. Stephen Meyer, himself a Cambridge University educated philosopher of science. The firestorm of a pro-ID paper appearing in a peer-reviewed biology journal has been reported elsewhere but I’ll try to recap the situation briefly here to put this in context.
Read More ›Rosenblog has an interesting post on the outrageous response to Ashland, OR’s Daily Tidings published a web-only piece by its editor endorsing the teaching of intelligent design. From the responses you’d think the writer had violated all the rules of human decorum. The reaction is all too typical of the recent rise in attacks on anyone who speaks out against Darwinism. It is exactly these types of public reactions that are fueling the increasing number of attacks on scientists and scholars who critically analyse evolution, or advocate the theory of intelligent design. Academic freedom seems to be okay for those who want to opine on the problems with America, but not for scientists who want to research and discuss the Read More ›