An ID critic offers a list of features from life and nature that he says show “unintelligent design” but in fact are best classified as illustrating “undesirable design.”
An absurd false dilemma.
This just in: A rather basic question fundamental to any evolutionary account of life’s development — how “genotypes generate phenotypes,” in other words how genes build an individual creature — remains totally obscure to science.
Most theistic evolutionists use this dichotomy to try to insulate religion from scientific and historical critiques. Of course, it also removes religion from the realm of reality.
Camille Paglia has made interesting comments about global warming in the past that have made me think she might be a (very quiet) Darwin skeptic. Not the NCSE’s Josh Rosenau. His selective quote mining of her comments meant to imply the exact opposite is Orwellian. To make matters worse he really twists things up when attempts to paint those who champion critical thinking on evolution as postmodern Marxists. “Critical thinking” sounds great. But it’s a Marxist approach to culture. It’s just slapping a liberal leftist ideology on everything you do. You just find all the ways that power has defrauded or defamed or destroyed. It’s a pat formula that’s very thin. At the primary level, what kids need is facts. Read More ›