News

It is frequently claimed by anti-Darwinists that the eugenics movement of 100 years ago was a fluke and not really the product of Darwinian science–even though the science establishment of the time was proud of the Darwinian justification, backed eugenics completely and was ruthlessly dismissive of any other view (sound familiar?). The Nazi embrace of eugenics discredited it for nearly a half century. But it is re-emerging in our time, as Discovery senior fellow Wesley J. Smith has pointed out repeatedly and does again in the Weekly Standard. Slowly, the awareness dawns.

Today’s Washington Times’ carries an interesting interview with Carson Holloway, author of the new book, The Right Darwin: Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy. Holloway criticizes efforts to ground morality in Darwinian biology.

Last night, the Board of Trustees of the Lancaster School District in southern California voted unanimously to adopt a “Science Philosophy” policy permitting teachers to present scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution. The policy had been supported by the groups Integrity in Academics and Quality Science Education for All. The new policy states that Darwin’s theory should not be taught as “unalterable fact” and states that “Discussions that question the theory may be appropriate as long as they do not stray from current criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis and theory.” The policy further allows the use of supplemental materials by teachers in teaching about science. “This is an innovative effort by the Lancaster School District to propel science education out of Read More ›

In 1897 Mark Twain reportedly sent a cable from London to the Associated Press in New York, saying “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” after a mistaken obituary announcement appeared in a newspaper. The mistaken announcement is not unlike Robert Pennock’s article of March 6th in Science & Theology News which also greatly exaggerates the significance of Dover for the ID movment.

Robert Pennock has made a career of critiquing ID; thus it comes as no surprise that he is now trumpeting the Dover decision. But Ph.D. though he may be, there are so many logical fallacies in his article that it is ripe fodder for Irving Copi’s Introduction to Logic. Robert Pennock may be a third, or perhaps a fourth rate philosopher, but a first rate critique of his kind of reasoning along with Judge Jones’s by a top tier philosopher is available on the very same website by no less than Alvin Plantinga. Rather than repeat Plantinga’s devastating riposte, allow me to critique Robert Pennock and by extension Jones on slightly different grounds.

It is true that Judge Jones said:

The New York Times recently ran an article that highlighted microevolution, without ever defining it as such, “Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story.” Basically, the article explains how over time humans have adapted to their surroundings, “evolved” into the human species we recognize today, and may still be “adapting”. “Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny. “ There is nothing very newsworthy here, since this is not something we didn’t already know, nor is it anything that most scientists disagree with. Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint today is right on point on the New York Times crusade to prop up neo-Darwinism and attack Darwinian critics and tear down intelligent design theory. Read More ›

Alvin Plantinga, one of the world’s leading philosophers, asks: Suppose I claim all Democrats belong in jail. One might ask: Could I advance the discussion by just defining the word “Democrat” to mean “convicted felon”? If you defined “Republican” to mean “unmitigated scoundrel,” should Republicans everywhere hang their heads in shame? What’s his point? Ultimately, that while Judge Jones gave two arguments for concluding that ID is not science (in the Dover trial), neither argument is sound. The full article is here at Science and Theology News.

This just in, the South Carolina Board of Education has rejected new science standards language that would have called for students to critically analyze evolution in their biology classes. According to the Charlotte Observer: The primary change the EOC had asked for was to add the words in italics to the standard governing the teaching of evolution: “The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life by using data from a variety of scientific sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” Apparently, even modest language like this was opposed by the Darwinian education establishment. Where the South Carolina debate over how to teach evolution is headed now is somewhat unclear, but it Read More ›