Testing Common Descent via the Continuity Between Biogeography and Evolution

Last fall I spoke at a symposium on intelligent design (ID) and the law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, Minnesota. My forthcoming paper from that conference, “The Constitutionality and Pedagogical Benefits of Teaching Evolution Scientifically,” deals with many issues, one of which is a rebuttal to dumbed down versions of evolution that some evolution-lobbyists wish to teach students. The primary force in the evolution lobby is the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). In its response to the chapter on biogeography in the supplementary textbook Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (“EE”), the NCSE asserts that EE “mangles the tiny fraction of biogeography covered.” The reality, however, is that the NCSE drastically Read More ›

The NCSE’s Citation Bluffs Reveal Little About the Evolutionary Origin of Information

Links to our 8-Part Series, “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Citation Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information”: • Part 1: Judge Jones’s Misguided NCSE-Scripted Kitzmiller Ruling and the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information • Part 2: The Evolution-Lobby’s Useless Definition of Biological Information • Part 3: The Evolution-Lobby’s Misguided Definition of “New” • Part 4: Finding Darwin in All the Wrong Places • Part 5: How to Play the Gene Evolution Game • Part 6: Asking the Right Questions about the Evolutionary Origin of New Biological Information • Part 7: Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information • Part 8 (This Article): The NCSE’s Citation Bluffs Reveal Little About the Evolutionary Read More ›

Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information

Links to our 8-Part Series, “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Citation Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information”: • Part 1: Judge Jones’s Misguided NCSE-Scripted Kitzmiller Ruling and the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information • Part 2: The Evolution-Lobby’s Useless Definition of Biological Information • Part 3: The Evolution-Lobby’s Misguided Definition of “New” • Part 4: Finding Darwin in All the Wrong Places • Part 5: How to Play the Gene Evolution Game • Part 6: Asking the Right Questions about the Evolutionary Origin of New Biological Information • Part 7 (This Article): Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information • Part 8: The NCSE’s Citation Bluffs Reveal Little About the Evolutionary Read More ›

Asking the Right Questions about the Evolutionary Origin of New Biological Information

Links to our 8-Part Series, “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Citation Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information”: • Part 1: Judge Jones’s Misguided NCSE-Scripted Kitzmiller Ruling and the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information • Part 2: The Evolution-Lobby’s Useless Definition of Biological Information • Part 3: The Evolution-Lobby’s Misguided Definition of “New” • Part 4: Finding Darwin in All the Wrong Places • Part 5: How to Play the Gene Evolution Game • Part 6 (This Article): Asking the Right Questions about the Evolutionary Origin of New Biological Information • Part 7: Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information • Part 8: The NCSE’s Citation Bluffs Reveal Little About the Evolutionary Read More ›

Fodor on Darwinism: “One sees, even without God, how this Darwinian story could turn out to be radically wrong.”

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini aren’t making many friends among evolutionists with their new book What Darwin Got Wrong. Salon magazine published an interview with Fodor today in which he has some interesting things to say about the attacks he’s received online, about whether he is providing aid and succor to the ID community, and what he thinks is wrong with modern evolutionary theory. As you explain in the book, one of the problems with Darwinism is that Darwin is inventing explanations for something that happened long ago, over a long period of time. Isn’t that similar to creationism? Creationism isn’t the only doctrine that’s heavily into post-hoc explanation. Darwinism is too. If a creature develops the capacity to spin Read More ›