Author: Jonathan Witt

Lawrence Selden analyzes a recent Zogby poll asking whether public high school students should learn only the scientific evidence for Darwinism or the evidence both for and against the theory:

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, […]

In a recent and now syndicated Los Angeles Times piece, former Episcopal priest Garret Keizer argues that the theory of intelligent design is not only bad science but also bad religion, since it supposedly valorizes science over religious and aesthetic ways of knowing, and attempts to substitute reason for Christian faith. The argument, an increasingly common one, misrepresents both orthodox Christian theology and intelligent design, a point I make in the most recent issue of Touchstone.

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.

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.

A Cambridge University ex has a trenchant review of Horizon’s “War on Science,” a program looking at the controversy between Darwinsm and Intelligent Design.

Mr. VONNEGUT: … Look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.

Viewpoint has a thoughtful, five-part series on Judge John Jones and his opinion in the Dover intelligent design trial.

Many of the most vocal defenders of Darwinism aren’t behaving like dispassionate scientists, secure in the truth of their theory and, therefore, unruffled when others put forward an opposing scientific theory of life’s origin. They’re behaving as if ID theorists have touched a nerve. Three recent essays treat the subject incisively.