At the website Credo, our colleague Richard Weikart is writing a clear-eyed series of articles about what happens to ethics when it’s subjected to evolutionary thinking.
Exporting Darwin is a dangerous business.
When the building security pushes you out, keys in hand, and there are still five people standing at the microphone waiting to ask their questions, you know it’s been a good evening.
Recently, David Brooks published a column titled “The End of Philosophy” in The New York Times (April 7, 2009). Brooks, long one of the most thoughtful writers in public life, addresses an ages-old tension over whether reason controls our moral intuitions and passions, or whether moral intuition/feeling is king and reason is only rationalization. In the latter view, Brooks says,
The length some Darwinists have gone to in their efforts to deny that Haeckel’s embryo drawings were fraudulently used in modern biology textbooks has made for some interesting reading over the years. That these efforts were often used to paint intelligent design scientists such as Jonathan Wells as liars is even more outrageous. Where is the evidence for these claims? Or, as Casey Luskin puts it in a new article, “What Do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel’s Embryos?”