Michael Francisco

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga Demolishes Part of Kitzmiller Decision

The critical response to Judge Jones’s decision in the Kitzmiller case continues to build. Renowned philosopher Alvin Plantinga has recently written a short article analyzing part of Judge Jones’s reasoning. Having Plantinga’s analytic expertise and philosophic understanding come down against the Kitzmiller decision does not bode well for the intellectual vitality Judge Jones may have hoped his opinion would achieve.

Robert L. Crowther, II

New York Times Evolution Cheering Misleads Readers About the Real Issues in the Debate

The New York Times recently ran an article that highlighted microevolution, without ever defining it as such, “Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story.” Basically, the article explains how over time humans have adapted to their surroundings, “evolved” into the human species we recognize today, and may still be “adapting”. “Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny. “ There is nothing very newsworthy here, since this is not something we didn’t already know, nor is it anything that most scientists disagree with. Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint today is right on point on the New York Times crusade to prop up neo-Darwinism and attack Darwinian critics and tear down intelligent design theory. Read More ›

Jonathan Witt

The Scotsman: Intelligent Design Evidence-Based

Scotsman Alistair Donald recently engaged Peter Jones concerning intelligent design and the age of reason, and came off sounding both intelligent and reasonable.

Jonathan Witt

Darwinian Fundamentalism on Dover: “Inherit the …”

Lawrence Selden analyzes a recent Zogby poll asking whether public high school students should learn only the scientific evidence for Darwinism or the evidence both for and against the theory:

Jonathan Witt

Plantinga on Dover and Intelligent Design

Alvin Plantinga, one of the world’s leading philosophers, asks: Suppose I claim all Democrats belong in jail. One might ask: Could I advance the discussion by just defining the word “Democrat” to mean “convicted felon”? If you defined “Republican” to mean “unmitigated scoundrel,” should Republicans everywhere hang their heads in shame? What’s his point? Ultimately, that while Judge Jones gave two arguments for concluding that ID is not science (in the Dover trial), neither argument is sound. The full article is here at Science and Theology News.