Author: Bruce Chapman
The Science Stories that Fizzled (and the one that Might Have Been)
There were three kinds of stories that could have developed from the news that Science magazine released a paper by professors at the University of Oregon’s Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology that supposedly falsifies Michael Behe’s theory of irreducible complexity (as an indication of intelligent design). That Science accompanied the paper with an interpretive piece by Christoph Adami of Claremont, underscores the coup Science hoped it had accomplished. What, studying the paper and commentary, should be done with this news? The first possible story was the one that Science hoped: that finally someone in the science world had done actual research to refute Behe’s theory. Hence, intelligent design could be dismissed conclusively as bad science. Trouble was, in preparing Read More ›
Eugenics 102: Wesley J Smith on Killing Babies, Compassionately
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.
Gems from Father Neuhaus
Richard John Neuhaus, the one-time Lutheran pastor/philosopher who became a Catholic priest (he didn’t just “evolve” into it, however), edits First Things magazine with the kind of scholarship and grace one might hope to find in a particularly sparkling discussion over dinner with an old college friend. His “While we’re at it” column is especially sought out each month for Fr. Neuhaus’ take on topical events. This month he has some tough things to say to the science community that seems to think it is a royal priesthood itself, set above even legitimate criticism. Landing on the fiasco of South Korean cloning claims that were pumped up by those supposedly flawless “peer reviewed science journals” until the story of the Read More ›
Another Catholic Prelate Speaks Out
In this Catholic News Agency article about the statement of Kansas Archbishop Naumann, it is clear that the Archbishop understands the policy issue: both ID and Darwinian materialism have a philosophical base (theoretical science does have, folks), so you can’t rule out one and retain the other just because you prefer it. Either keep both out, he says, out or let both in. Sensibly, Archbishop Naumann thinks students would be best served by acknowledging the place of philosophy in science (it is philosophy, after all, that defines science) and stop using an invidious reading of the First Amendment to disallow ID because of its theistic implications, while ignoring the atheistic implications of Darwinism.
Dennett’s Biological Reductionism Undressed
Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, takes apart Daniel C. Dennett’s new book, “Breaking the Spell,” in Saturday’s New York Times in a way that one wishes the Times’ own editors–and other editors in the MSM–would examine. In the very first line of his trenchant review, Wieseltier reminds — or perhaps informs — the reader that “The question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question.” The attempt to self-define science, as Dennett does, of course, is to turn science into scientism. And scientism (or materialism) is the issue that Darwinists and their media fans are resolutely avoiding in public policy discourse. Dennett’s books serves as a “sorry Read More ›