__edited

The Catholic magazine, Crisis, is now online with an October article by two Discovery fellows, Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt. Their book, A Meaningful World, appeared in 2006 and forms a backdrop for their current reflections. Very much on their minds from 2006 is also the Regensburg address of Pope Benedict–not the Muslim comments, but the references to Reason. It is another and interesting take on all the atheist fantasy tracts coming out of Darwin-land these days. Look at nature, Wiker and Witt say, but also look at the philosophy of science, the nature of genius, the beauty of mathematics and even works of art.

CSC senior fellow Jay Richards used to joke that reporters covering evolution simply sit down at their keyboards and type ALT + CTRL + SCOPES, and out pops a complete story that simply reiterates the false storyline that the primary challenge to evolution is a religious one, just as was the case during the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in the early days of the 20th century. I laughed when he told me, because I was familiar with how often that bogus storyline was repeated by reporters, and the idea of a computer macro being used to deploy it was funny.

It’s not so funny now, though. It looks like the New York Times might indeed have some sort of macro in place for all stories concerning the ongoing debate over modern evolutionary theory. The Times has defaulted to this standard line: “There is no credible scientific challenge to evolution.” This current line has survived mainly intact and been selected out of a number of mutations over the last few years. It’s clearly been a guided and purposeful project, so it’s not really evolution at all.

This is one busy week for debates. Who says there’s no debate among scientists over Darwinian evolution?

There is a long record of conflict and persecution in the history of science, as in any area of endeavor. Scientists are given to the same failings as other human beings: greed, status anxiety, envy, and fear. To believe the pious statements by professional organizations about the enlightened way “science works” is comparable to accepting the civics textbook renderings of “how a law is made.” There is a way, all right, that science is supposed to work (and laws supposedly are made), and then there is reality. One can be grateful that there are so many cases where science does proceed along the ideal path, but there is no excuse for trying to fool the public into thinking that great Read More ›

As Rob Crowther noted earlier, NYT’s Cornelia Dean has been doing a shoddy job reporting on intelligent design and evolution. In fact, even her allies are beginning to take notice.

On Thursday the local (and vehemently anti-ID) weekly had a note on its blog to Cornelia Dean. While they agreed with her biased reporting, even they are getting tired of her knee-jerk parroting:

Cornelia Dean! It’s good to be emphatic, but you start to sound like a robot–one of those Darwin-believin’ automatons whom the Discovery Institute takes great pleasure in deriding.

Evolutionary ‘theory’ is immune to satire. Satire depends on exaggeration, and evolutionary theory is such far-fetched science– substituting preposterous generalizations, non-sequiturs and jargon for meaningful scientific inference– that it can’t be satirized. It can only be described, which is funny enough.

Much of recent evolutionary self-satire involves the origin of the human brain. How did an organ of such staggering complexity and biological novelty arise? For evolutionary biologists, no speculation (except design) is too outlandish. Evidence: a paper in Nature Genetics offers a new theory to account for the human brain: spit.

This Just In: People are smarter than monkeys. Film at 11.

According to CSC senior fellow and leading ID theorist William Dembski, what follows is: “[A] big story, perhaps the biggest story yet of academic suppression relating to ID. Robert Marks is a world-class expert in the field of evolutionary computing, and yet the Baylor administration, without any consideration of the actual content of Marks’s work at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, decided to shut it down simply because there were anonymous complaints linking the lab to intelligent design.” Read on if you care at all about academic freedom and protecting the right of scientists to freedom of scientific inquiry. What a difference a year or two makes. Or not. The ugly specter of academic suppression seems incapable of being dispelled at Read More ›

You cannot fairly pit the educated views of Darwinian scientists against the opinions of students. To be honest, you need to hear from scientists who doubt Darwinian evolution and have the evidence to defend themselves. To merely stigmatize skeptics of Darwinism as “fundamentalist Christians” and “creationists” is to serve the cause of propaganda, not objective discourse.

The ever observant Denyse O’Leary over at the Post-Dawrinist blog has an interesting little post about NCSE’s Eugenie Scott’s recent attempts to spin the “inside story about the Discovery Institute, the well-financed ‘think tank’ promoting intelligent design and other far-right causes.” (Well financed? What, compared to the average biology department at the average college? Our budget is a tiny fraction of just a tiny fraction of all the Darwin dominated budgets out there. And, far-right causes? What, like green hybrid vehicles or passenger ferry service? Among other things Scott apparently refers to us as “right wing libertarians” with a “road map to theocracy”. What in the world is a libertarian theocrat you might wonder? A former DI colleague (who asked Read More ›