Category: Free Speech
Cardinal Condemns Suppression of the Darwin Debate in America: “A truly liberal society would at least allow students to hear of the debate.”
In a speech last night in New York City, Roman Catholic Cardinal Cristoph Schoenborn of Vienna sharply criticized efforts in America to prevent students and the public from learning about the debate over Darwin’s theory. According to the Associated Press report: Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna said in a lecture that restricting debate about Darwin’s theory of evolution amounts to censorship in schools and in the broader public. “Commonly in the scientific community every inquiry into the scientific weaknesses of the theory is blocked off at the very outset,” Schoenborn said of Darwinism. “To some extent there prevails a type of censoring here of the sort for which one eagerly reproached the church in former times.”
When it Comes to Proof of Evolution, Don’t Let Your Eyes Deceive You
Scienceblog writer Josh Rosenau accuses John West of wrongly faulting a 2002 textbook for printing bogus embryo diagrams derived from Ernst Haeckel’s famous faked drawings. Rosenau assures readers: You’ll note that, despite West’s claim that this is “a version of Haeckel’s drawings,” they are actually quite different in their details. These are clearly redrawn photographs of actual embryos, and as such do not bear the taint of any errors Haeckel made, intentionally or otherwise. Trying to smear biologist and filmmaker Randy Olson because West doesn’t understand the subject is hardly honest. Rosenau either didn’t bother to look at the actual comparison images we provided, or he is Olsonizing the issue by deliberately misleading his readers. Click here to see an Read More ›
Warren Reports Blog: Judge Jones Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It (Part I)
Last year, a post from Michael Francisco presented the “Judge Jones Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It” bumper sticker. A recent blog post at Warren Reports Blog employs so much uncritical acceptance of Judge Jones’ ruling (calling it a “scathing decision” and a “hard blow”), gets so many facts wrong, and is so full of contradictions that its author, Devin James Carpenter, deserves to have the bumper sticker awarded to him. This 2-part series will respond to some of Carpenter’s statements. The “Main Issues”Carpenter states: “The main issues in Kitzmiller v. Dover were: the soundness of evolution and ‘intelligent design’ as science, the separation of church and state, and the philosophy of science itself.” Actually, that’s not true. Read More ›
Darwinists Begin Their Attacks on New Mexico Academic Freedom Bill
I recently predicted that Darwinists in New Mexico would oppose an innocuous academic freedom bill which protects the teaching of science, and science only, in the science classroom, even if the science challenges neo-Darwinism. As the bill states, “‘Scientific information’ does not include information derived from religious or philosophical writings, beliefs or doctrines,” but teachers will be given “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.” How could this bill possibly allow the teaching of anything but science in the science classroom? Darwinists’ attacks upon the bill have already begun, as Marshall Berman presented a talk at Los Alamos National Read More ›
Albuquerque Journal Colludes with Darwinist Bloggers to Misconstrue New Mexico Academic Freedom Bill
John Fleck, a science writer with the Albuquerque Journal, has praised the evolution blog Panda’s Thumb on the Albuquerque Journal website, even linking to the Darwinist blog. The Albuquerque Journal headlined the academic freedom bill as a “‘Creationism’ Measure” while Fleck called it “the latest ‘intelligent design’ bill in the New Mexico legilsature [sic].” The bill says nothing about intelligent design or creationism, and it only protects the teaching of “scientific information relevant to the strengths and weaknesses” of a theory of biological origins. Both articles leave off a crucial portion of the bill which explicitly does not protect the teaching of “information derived from religious or philosophical writings, beliefs or doctrines.” Why would anyone oppose this bill? It’s simple: Read More ›