*Microevolution In Action*
“Similarities could easily be the result of “common design” rather than common descent—where a designer wanted to design organisms on a similar blueprint and thus used similar genes in both organisms. This doesn’t challenge ID.”
Read the rest at Evolution News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.
A recent column in USA Today by Cal Thomas and Robert Beckel argued for a debate on intelligent design. Patricia Princehouse, a philosopher at Case Western in Cleveland wrote in to say that she and other Darwinists of her acquaintance would welcome a debate and announced it as January 3 in Cleveland. “Put up or shut up,” was the genteel way she issued the invitation. January 3 was then only a month away, with the holidays coming meanwhile. Further, it was unfortunately clear that Dr. Princehouse planned to establish the debate format and other conditions herself. Bill Dembksi expressed a willingness to debate, but wanted to discuss terms. But the Princehouse terms kept changing through yesterday (11 days before the Read More ›
For years Darwinists have been doing their best to remind the world of the good news that evolution and religion can be compatible. Yet skepticism of evolution continues to remain at a very high level in the United States. Why is this? A timeline of random samples of statements and polls: 1982: Polls say that only 9% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes. 1984: The National Academy of Sciences assures the public that science and religion occupy “separate and mutually exclusive realms,” and that religion and science are compatible. (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 1st edition, 1984) 1993: Polls say that only 11% of Americans believe that humans developed Read More ›
This is my second post in 2 days praising media articles which get this issue right. Let there be no mistake: the Evolution News & Views blog is not a “media complaints desk.” It’s a place for objective analysis–and we just try to call the balls and the strikes as we see them! MSNBC’s Current Magazine article by Victoria Bosch (“Monkey Business“), manages to objectively discuss the question of how doubters of Darwin are treated in college science classes. The article sensitively talks about how students who are skeptical of Darwinism cope with the issue. It was also gratifying that Niall Shanks at Wichita State professes to require only that students simply understand–not fully endorse–Darwinian evolution. Not only is it 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 ›