Archives
Salvo Magazine: Are Neo-Darwinists “Barking up the Wrong Tree”?
In the recent Intelligent Design issue of Salvo Magazine, Logan Gage and I co-authored a piece titled, “Barking up the Wrong Tree,” which assesses popular arguments for universal common ancestry. From the outset, it should be stated that neither Logan Gage nor I feel that universal common ancestry is necessarily incompatible with theism. In a twist of poor logic, however, that fact is apparently sufficient for some theists to think that they should therefore accept common ancestry. Logan Gage and I observe that “when discussing science and faith, it is vital to ask the right questions. Queries beginning with the words ‘Could God have…?’ tend to be unenlightening. The much more revealing question is ‘What does the evidence say?’” Thus Read More ›
None Dare Call it Journalism
Whether the Times will discover the full scope of the threat is uncertain. No one at the Times has yet noticed, for example, that if you play the movie’s interview with Richard Dawkins backward, you can hear Ben Stein saying, “Bill Dembski is dead”
O’Leary Reviews Cardinal Schonborn’s Chance or Purpose?
I am often asked what to make of Christoph Cardinal Schonborn’s new book Chance or Purpose?Luckily, I can now point people to Denyse O’Leary’s spot-on review. Among the many highlights, O’Leary notes that
Wesley J. Smith on Scientism and Preaching Scientistic Religion
Discovery senior fellow and bioethicists Wesley J. Smith weighs in on scientism at his blog SecondHand Smoke. You can read the whole thing here.
New York Times Error about “Strengths and Weaknesses” Mutates and Spreads
As previously pointed out, the New York Times botched its recent story about the science standards debate in Texas, implying that support for covering the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution is supposedly a new strategy on the part of Darwin critics. The only problem is that the “strengths and weaknesses” language in the Texas science standards was already included some 10 years ago in 1998 when the existing science standards were adopted, and so there is nothing new about it. (Indeed, the language itself derives from the 1980s, before the current sciences standards.) More importantly, the debate over whether to teach both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution has been going on across the nation for the past decade. Read More ›