Category: Evolution
Lawrence Journal-World Mistakes Dawkins for a Physicist
Can I get a fact-check on this paper? It looks like the Lawrence Journal-World has decided to forgo any quality control in their newsroom. This latest piece mistakenly identifies zoologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins as a physicist, a blunder that made its way into the very headline. Next thing you know, they’ll be telling us that Albert Einstein was the greatest chemist of the last century. While laughable, this latest gaffe illustrates a serious problem. Lawrence Journal-World has been a mouthpiece for the Darwinists, exposing their bias as they editorialize in their news articles on evolution and intelligent design. While many Kansans trust the Journal-World to keep them informed, this shoddy journalism proves what we’ve known for some time: Read More ›
Time Aping over Human-Chimp Genetic Similarities
The current issue of Time features a cover story preaching evolution to the skeptical public and editorializing that humans and chimps are related. Though the cover graphic (below) shows half-human, half-chimp iconography, University of North Carolina, Charlotte anthropologist Jonathan Marks warns us against “exhibit[ing] the same old fallacies: … humanizing apes and ape-ifying humans” (What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee, pg. xv [2002]). The cover-graphic commits both fallacies: The article also claims that it’s easy to see “how closely the great apes — gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans — resemble us,” but then observes in a contradictory fashion that “agriculture, language, art, music, technology and philosophy” are “achievements that make us profoundly different from chimpanzees.” Perhaps Michael Ruse was Read More ›
Post-Darwinist: Who Invented the term “Darwinist?”
Last December I addressed the point that “Darwinists” are wrong to allege that ID-proponents invented terms such as “Darwinist” or “Darwinism.” (See Busting Another Darwinist Myth: We’d love to take credit for “Darwinism,” but we can’t.) This post was prompted after E.O. Wilson said in Newsweek that “[s]cientists … don’t call it Darwinism,” implying that if you use the term “Darwinism” then you aren’t a scientist. But on Sunday, Denyse O’Leary posted an excellent article documenting multiple usages of the term “Darwinist” or “Darwinism” by, well, leading Darwinist scientists like Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, and H. Allen Orr. See Darwinism/Darwinist: Now a term of reproach? at Post-Darwinist blog for the full article! http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2006/08/darwinismdarwinist-now-term-of.html
Is this Heaven? No, this is Science! (My Review of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design at Amazon.com)
Below is a review of Jonathan Wells’s new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design I posted at Amazon.com: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design was a fun, quick read. I should state upfront that I work at the Discovery Institute, where the author Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow. I’m not getting paid extra to write this review–in fact it’s late, I’m hungry, and I want to leave the office and go home as I write this. Nonetheless, I feel it’s only fair for the sake of disclosure and honesty that I say who I am as a reviewer. Jonathan Wells will get called a lot of names for writing this book. In Read More ›
Kansas 102: Do the Kansas Science Standards Contain Claims Made Only by Intelligent Design Proponents?
Last week I explained how Nick Matzke was wrong to argue that the Kansas Science Standards‘ (KSS) mention of irreducible complexity implies that it requires teaching intelligent design (ID). Most of the rest of Mr. Matzke’s post concentrates on the false claim that the Kansas Science Standards’ section on evolution makes claims that come only from ID literature. This argument is only furthering a conspiracy theory which believes that, when the standards read “do not include Intelligent Design,” they really mean, “do include intelligent design.” Under Mr. Matzke’s reasoning, every science teacher in the state of Kansas is supposed to be in on this conspiracy, which would be the only reason for them to know they are supposed to disregard Read More ›