In the new issue of The American Spectator, Dan Peterson provides this sober analysis of the media’s handling of intelligent design: Among certain sectors of the media, for example, it is an article of faith that those who believe in God, or advocate principles supporting that belief, are just a mob of Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, Scripture-spouting, hellfire and brimstone-preaching, rightwing, gun-toting, bigoted, homophobic, moralistic, paternalistic, polyester-wearing, mascara-smeared, false-eyelashed, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, big hair, big gut, fat butt, holy-rolling, snake-handling, Limbaugh-listening, Bambi-shooting, trailer-park-dwelling, uneducated, ignorant, backwater, hayseed, hick, inbred, pinhead rubes, mostly from the South, or places no better than the South, who voted for Bush. So, many of the news stories refer to intelligent design theory as “creationism” and ignore the Read More ›
Supporters of intellectual engagement in academia and a public marketplace of ideas would do well to check out the latest edition of Academe, which features letters from philosopher and legal scholar Francis J. Beckwith and distinguished Mechanical Engineer Walter Bradley. (See the bottom quarter of the page, here). The two Baylor University professors set the facts straight and defend the continuing debate over intelligent design theory in the academy. The letters come in response to earlier ad hominem attacks and wild-eyed conspiracy theories thrown their way by Barbara Forrest and Glen Branch—previously blogged about here. It would be one thing if Forrest and Branch chose to vigorously argue for neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory based upon the scientific merits. That would be Read More ›
Leading Darwin defender Richard Dawkins had a piece in The Times of London recently, reassuring readers, “The eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called ‘The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment’ in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.” Only someone who does not know, or does not care to know, the myriad problems with eye evolution could make such a claim with a straight face. Leading Darwin doubter David Berlinski shows just how feeble the Darwinists’ account of eye evolution is in this excerpt Read More ›
A new poll of medical doctors suggests that a significant minority (34%) support intelligent design over evolution. This alone is enough to show that there is a lively debate over the adequacy of Neo-Darwinism to explain intricate structures like the human body. However, if one looks past the press release at the details of the poll itself, one finds that actually a majority of doctors favor intelligent design over Neo-Darwinism.
Darwinists are making hay out of a mistake in a press release I wrote recently about National Academy of Sciences member Dr. Philip Skell and his open letter to the Kansas SBOE endorsing the teaching of scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution. My apologies to Dr. Skell. I mistakenly listed him as a biochemist in the very lead of the release, even though he is clearly a chemist and listed as such everywhere else, including the original letter on our website. This is doubly unfortunate, because many Darwinists will seize on any error in an effort to avoid discussing the scientific issues that really matter.