Q: How many Darwin sites does it take to stem the tide of intelligent design?

A: As many as they can build! Apparently having such websites at a multitude of universities, and having all manner of self-elected guardians of Darwin’s holy theory put up such websites, and having every biology professor and graduate student blogging the value of Darwinism isn’t doing much to convince people to believe in the fact of Darwinian evolution. The brights at the National Acadamies are throwing more money into marketing, instead of into new product development. The answer they arrived at is that there aren’t enough websites to convince people, so make more. Here’s a new one. Wired magazine briefly reported this in an obvious attempt to solidify its claim as the hip new mouthpiece of the Darwinian elite. Getting Read More ›

Privileged Planet Critic Taken to the Woodshed

The NCSE has posted a rant against The Privileged Planet by William H Jefferys from University of Texas at Austin. Fortunately, I don’t have to waste time responding to this anti-intellectual diatribe because physicist David Heddle has already responded with a detailed rebuttal, noting that of all The Privileged Planet reviews out there’s he’s never seen “one as comprehensively bad and unthinking as William H Jefferys’s.” If you’re wondering who is Heddle to be trash talking a “scientist” from a state University, well first he has his very own Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University. And hey, he has actually put it to work conducting postdoctoral research at the University of Maryland and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. And, oh Read More ›

Privileged Planet Critics Still Don’t Get It

Today’s Washington Post has a handful of letters about the dust-up at the Smithsonian over the screening of The Privileged Planet later this month, both good and bad. First the good. CSC Fellow Jonathan Witt’s letter leads off making this point: “The editorial said, “While ‘The Privileged Planet’ is an extremely sophisticated religious film, it is a religious film nevertheless. It uses scientific information . . . to answer, affirmatively, the philosophical question of whether life on Earth was part of a grand design.” Notice that The Post granted that the film explored scientific information. It is the film’s conclusion that The Post and the Smithsonian find inappropriate. Curiously, the museum has no problem sponsoring events that advance the opposite Read More ›

Washington Post Editorial Unsophisticated in its Misrepresentations

The Washington Post today publishes an editorial prepared by Anne Applebaum (“Dissing Darwin“) that uses the term “intelligent creator” three times to describe the concept of intelligent design. The writer knows better, but apparently believes that if she can lodge the word “creator” (as in “creationist”) in people’s minds, it will reside there forever. The key to understanding such writing: the proponents of intelligent design must never be allowed to speak for themselves or define their own ideas. Instead they must only be spoken about and accept definitions of their terms that are offered by their foes. The editorial also twice describes the film The Privileged Planet as “religious”, though the writer admits it doesn’t mention the word God. (It Read More ›

Smithsonian Dust-Up Not Dying Down

Telic Thoughts and Post-Darwinist are among the many blogs talking about The Privileged Planet premiere at the Smithsonian that has so outraged Darwinian bloggers. (For all the real juicy details see our previous blog here.)