Archives
Intelligent Design and Peer-review
We often hear Darwinists claim that there are no peer-reviewed science articles that support intelligent design, which clearly is not true. Of course, they also used to say no scientists doubted Darwinian evolution. Back when the PBS mini-series “Evolution” was produced the NCSE’s Eugenie Scott proclaimed that “virtually every reputable scientist in the world argues that evolution is good science.” So, we produced a list of 100 scientists who doubted Darwinian evolution. That was 2001, and today there are well over 700 who have courageously stepped forward and expressed their professional skepticism about Darwin’s theory. Saying you doubt Darwin is dangerous. Such doubts do not go unpunished, just ask Richard Sternberg. Conducting research on intelligent design and writing about it Read More ›
SMU Faculty Dodges Intelligent Design Debate
Late yesterday we received notice that the Anthropology department at SMU will not take us up on our invitation for a public dialogue about intelligent design and Darwinian evolution.Robert Kemper, chair of the Anthropology department writes: Thank you for your invitation to participate in the Friday night session of your conference. We appreciate your recognition of the value of dialogue on issues that have such opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, previously scheduled events and prior commitments prevent our department from taking advantage of this opportunity. We nevertheless remain committed to public understanding of these issues, and to providing the public with information to make intelligent choices. We’ve yet to hear from the other science departments at SMU that we invited.It’s interesting that Read More ›
The Forgotten History of Eugenics
Logan Gage has an insightful article on the forgotten history of eugenics in World Net Daily today. He reminds us that: Eugenics was supposedly the “science” of human breeding. It was promoted by luminaries of biology at Harvard, Princeton and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It was, in short, the consensus view of the cultural and academic elite. How did things get so twisted? Click here to read more.
Hitchin’ a Ride: Darwinism is indispensable to Darwinists
Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a pioneer in antibiotic research, said it best: Darwinism is a “narrative gloss” on biology. Darwinists expropriate the work of other fields of science, then claim the credit for Darwin’s theory. Nowhere in science is the truth of Skell’s observation more apparent than in the Darwinist claim that Darwin’s theory — the assertion that random variation and natural selection is the source of all biological complexity — is indispensable to modern medicine. It is a claim that, upon inspection, is almost delusional.
“Intellectually Confused” Journalist Calls on Southern Methodist University to Censor Intelligent Design (ID) Supporters
In an over-the-top op-ed in today’s Dallas Morning News, journalist Lee Cullum attacks the upcoming “Darwin v. Design” conference at Southern Methodist University (SMU) as “intellectually confused,” complains that ID proponents “refuse to understand who and what they are,” and asserts that Southern Methodist University “needs to rethink its policy regarded future use of its facilities” in order to prevent intelligent design proponents from expressing their views on the SMU campus in the future. However, if anyone is “intellectually confused,” it is poor Ms. Cullum, whose article displays her own breathtaking ignorance of both intelligent design and the principles of a free society.