Month: February 2006
“Intelligent design is most definitely scientific”
And as Medici argues forcefully, design theorists seek to follow the evidence to the best explanation among these possibilites, much as scientists do in other fields.
Giant Article on Pygmy and Darwinism
Today’s Wall Street Journal news section features an article that should be read carefully at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. “How Pygmy Ota Benga Ended Up in Bronx Zoo as Darwinism Dawned,” by Cynthia Crossen, is an example of the embarrassing history you will not see acknowledged at the AMNH’s self-congratulatory Darwin retrospective — or anywhere else that Darwinists are in charge. Darwinism helped perpetuate and justify racism, as the Ota Benga story makes clear. It also produced the eugenics movement, where Darwinists (including, please note, the American Museum of Natural History) were the leaders. Eugenics was “science” and anyone who dissented was considered benighted. (See Richard Weikart’s “From Darwin to Hitler” for the eugenics story Read More ›
Behe Responds to Dover Intelligent Design Opinion
Judge Jones issued a ruling against the school board and in so doing asserted that intelligent design was not based on science. Dr. Behe disagrees, and here we publish his direct responses to many claims of the Court.
Poll: Evolution Not So Popular in England
It appears that evolution is not as popular as many would expect in Darwin’s home country. The BBC reports, Britons unconvinced on evolution. Less than half responded that evolution best described their view on the origin of life. Furthermore, more than 40 percent believe that intelligent design should be included in science lessons. While not directly relevant to the debate over intelligent design in the United States, the results are interesting, and came as a surprise to many scientists in Briton, including the President of the Royal Society.
One Long Article: Washington Post Highlights Persecution of Caroline Crocker
In a 7700 word article, Shankar Vedantam writes in the Washington Post about Caroline Crocker’s treatment at George Mason University. Some Darwinists I’ve known — who have never experienced what it is like to be a scientific minority in today’s climate — argue that she was not fired from her job. “Her contract was simply not renewed for reasons unrelated to ID” they claim. True: her contract was not renewed, and technically speaking, she was not “fired.” But from information I have heard, the non-renewal of her contract had much to do with her views and the fact that she mentioned ID in a biology classroom. It seems to me that Crocker’s account in the Washington Post is very accurate. Read More ›