CSC senior fellow David Berlinski writes: Paris — This link is to an article by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. Please read the article while endeavoring not to laugh, chortle, snicker, hoot or whistle. You will find it cannot be done. In the course of affirming why there is absolutely no controversy about anything over there where Darwinian biologists hang out, they indicate quite soberly that, in fact, there are lots of controversies after all — all of them precisely of the sort that Darwinian critics have been insisting were there all along and that Darwinian biologists have all along insisted did not exist and were of no consequence. You could, if you wished, line up Darwin on Trial or Read More ›
Over at Redstate.org Homunculus has embarked on a series of posts related to intelligent design, and the first post properly addresses what the definitions of Darwinism and ID are. I suspect that Homunculus will be inundated by rabid Darwinists irked by such an insighful post. Should be interesting to see where this all leads.
The Darwinist inquisition is spreading — as if by design. Inquisitors at George Mason University, Ohio State University, and the Smithsonian have recently hunted down and tried to disgrace scientists and educators for daring to defy the Darwinian orthodoxy. Now we see that the witch hunt has turned to Iowa State University and CSC senior fellow, astronomer, Guillermo Gonzalez.
Discovery’s resident sports fanatic Marshall Sana provided these thoughts on today’s Washgington Post column by Sally Jenkins. Kudos to Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins for her thoughtful piece on intelligent design and athletics. Jenkins, a well-regarded Post sportswriter, starts off her August 29th column (“Just Check the ID”) saying: “the sports section would not seem to be a place to discuss intelligent design, the notion that nature shows signs of an intrinsic intelligence too highly organized to be solely the product of evolution.”
Update: In my hurry to get this posted I inadvertently left out the fact that it is not from me, but rather are thoughts from a CSC Fellow. Some Darwinists are upset with Ken Chang for his recent New York Times report on the controversy over evolution and intelligent design. It seems that the Darwinists would have preferred a propaganda piece advertising only their side in the debate. Oh, well; they should take comfort in the fact that they managed to slip at least one piece of pro-Darwin propaganda into the article. Chang wrote: “Nowhere has evolution been more powerful than in its prediction that there must be a means to pass on information from one generation to another. Darwin Read More ›