Month: March 2007
A Darwinist’s Idea of A Debate
How many Darwinists Does it Take to Have a “Debate” over Intelligent Design? Only one, as the Daily Democrat reports in an article entitled “Evolution vs. ‘Intelligent Design’ debated.” According to the DD, only Dr. Maureen Stanton, professor and chairwoman of the UC Davis Department of Evolution and Ecology, will “debat[e]” intelligent design vs. evolution. Apparently that’s the meaning of debate to some Darwinists.
Activists Oppose Teaching Science in Science Classes!
Dave Thomas has published an op-ed in the Albuquerque Tribune entitled “Intelligent design supporters find new, creative ways to get their message out.” Predictably, Thomas uses invectives and misrepresentations to oppose a legitimate bill which would simply give teachers “the right and freedom, when a theory of biological origins is taught, to objectively inform students of scientific information relevant to the strengths and weaknesses of that theory.” I predicted that Darwinists* would attack the bill by trying to claim that it brings creationism, intelligent design, or religion into the classroom. As I’ve noted before, Darwinists* have no legitimate reason to make such attacks because the bill would protect the teaching of science, and science only, in the science classroom, as Read More ›
Dr. Humburg Sets Me and Galen Straight
My recent post here about the irrelevance of Darwinism to the practice of medicine seems to have gotten under the skin of a medical resident at Penn State. Dr. Burt Humburg, blogging at Panda’s Thumb, unleashed a tirade, including a very clever word play on my name in the title of his post (Egnorance: The Egotistical Combination of Ignorance and Arrogance) and his very serious doubts about my competence and integrity. Burt has also been involved in the Kansas evolution struggle. You might say he has a dog in this hunt.
If the Tree of Life falls, will Darwinists hear it?
A recent article entitled “Scientists say Darwin’s ‘Tree of Life’ [TOL] not the theory of everything,” published on Physorg.com, explained that increasingly, “a minority of biologists and evolutionists have questioned the accuracy of the TOL hypothesis.” The basic problem is that similar genes appear in organisms in patterns which do not fit a universal “tree.” As one of the scientists quoted, W. F. Doolittle, elsewhere stated: “Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.” Doolittle attributes his observations to gene-swapping among microorganisms at the base of the TOL, and tries to Read More ›
Inconstant Gyri
Daniel Dennett was right, in a way. Scientific naturalism, like Darwinism, is a corrosive acid, eroding every crevice of our society. It’s now seeped into our sulci. Jeffrey Rosen, in a March 11th New York Times Magazine essay “The Brain on the Stand; how neuroscience is transforming the legal system,” tells of the influence of neuroscience on legal concepts of culpability. He quotes Harvard neuroscientist Joshua Greene: “To a neuroscientist, you are your brain; nothing causes your behavior other than the operations of your brain. If that’s right, it radically changes the way we think about the law.” And, of course, it changes the way we think about everything. It isn’t surprising that a leading neuroscientist would cloak a philosophical Read More ›