The New Republic and The New Criterion have excellent pieces discussing the debate over Darwin. The former explains how Darwinism has become a brand of scientism in the eyes of many leading proponents. The latter takes aim at the science of Darwinism itself, comparing it to a dogmatic faith which makes claims beyond what is warranted from the evidence. Monkey and Morals In Monkey and Morals, Gertrude Himmelfarb, the distinguished professor emeritus of history at City University (N.Y.), explains that some Darwinists such as E. O. Wilson and James Watson have an anti-religious agenda in their Darwinian advocacy. Himmelfarb recognizes, however, that some proponents of intelligent design approach this issue with scientific objections to evolution: “Yet others, themselves scientists, insist Read More ›
Space.com has an article against intelligent design entitled “SETI and Intelligent Design” by Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) Institute. William Dembski has provided a clear response to Shostak’s article at http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/541. Shostak’s essential argument is that SETI doesn’t search for intelligent design, but rather “artificiality” in the universe: “SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal — a dead simple tone — is not complex; it’s artificial. Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes.” Incidentally, Shostak’s methods sound similar to how pro-ID philosopher Del Ratzsch argues we can detect design Read More ›
In the November 28, 2005 issue of Newsweek, the renowned Harvard sociobiologist E.O. Wilson claims that the term “Darwinism” is a “rhetorical device” merely invented by opponents of, well, Darwinism. The article quotes Wilson as follows: “‘In part, the fascination with the man is being driven by his enemies, who say they’re fighting ‘Darwinism,’ rather than evolution or natural selection. ‘It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism’,’ says Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson, editor of one of the two Darwin anthologies just published. … ‘Scientists,’ Wilson adds, ‘don’t call it Darwinism.’” (“Charles Darwin: Evolution of a Scientist,” by Jerry Adler, Newsweek November 28, 2005, pg. 53) The question must be asked “Is Wilson Read More ›
Media coverage of a recent lawsuit filed against UC Berkeley and NSF shows again the media’s inability to cover the debate over evolution accurately and without bias. Casey Luskin’s reports: “The AP wrongly insinuates that attorney Larry Caldwell is arguing that government funding of a website promoting neo-Darwinian theory is itself unconstitutional. It also falsely insinuates that Caldwell is somehow arguing that teaching neo-Darwinian theory is inherently religious or inherently unconstitutional. In reality, Caldwell’s legal arguments are altogether different, and very precise.” Read the rest of this story at www.evolutionnews.org.
The recent actions by the Kansas State Board of Education have given a site like Evolution News and Views, which is dedicated to help correct misinformation in the media about the debate over Darwin, an endless supply of material. This time, however, the IDEA Center has also posted some good responses to the San Diego Union Tribune’s (SDUT) recent anti-ID editorial chastely titled “Voodoo Science.” The SDUT piece makes a number of mistakes about the recent events in Kansas.