An Evolutionist’s Evolution By GLENN COLLINS, NYTimes, 7Nov05 It may seem that the American Museum of Natural History is cruising for controversy in presenting “Darwin,” the most comprehensive exhibition any museum has offered on the naturalist’s life and theories. It is a time, after all, when the theory of evolution by natural selection seems as newsworthy as it was back in the days of the Scopes trial 80 years ago. . . . The exhibition mentions intelligent design not as science, or as a theory to be debated, but as a form of creationism, which offers the biblical view that God created the earth and its creatures fully formed within the last 10,000 years. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled Read More ›

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science
by Tom Bethell

Regnery, 2005

In science, dispassionate, objective inquiry reigns supreme, and researchers
will readily give up their most cherished views if the evidence proves them
wrong — right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Read More ›

The Muslim uprising of the last week is a challenge to the half century of policy that has brought France to this point. Policies which deprecated European culture, frowned on a national identity, lowered the birthrate, created a welfare state, imported ‘guest workers’, promoted mindless multiculturalism and relied on ‘international’ treaties for protection — all articles of Leftist faith — are now facing the judgment of history; and worse, the verdict of Islam. It would be supremely ironical if the European Left, the ‘vanguard of history’, required for its future survival the very things it had set out to destroy. [Go here for more: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com.]

CORNELL UNIVERSITY CHRISTIAN FACULTY/STAFF FORUM

THIS WEEK AT CORNELL:

Intelligent Design, Intelligent Discourse:
Reflections on the State of the University Address
A Panel discussion

Friday, November 4, 2:30pm – 4:00 pm
Anabel Taylor Hall Auditorium

In his recent State of the University address, Cornell President Hunter Rawlings discussed at length “the challenge to science posed by religiously-based opposition to evolution, described, in its current form, as ‘intelligent design.'” The address received national media coverage and is now serving as the basis for discussions taking place at the departmental level at Cornell.

The response to the address by the Christian community at Cornell has been mixed. Some Christians favorably disposed toward intelligent design were troubled by the talk; others have no more sympathy for intelligent design than Rawlings, and agreed with the large majority of what he said. Read More ›

This just in from a colleague in Australia: Michael Behe was misquoted on the Aussie Catalyst program as follows. From Australian ABC Catalyst program slamming ID. (Thurs 20th October 2005) According to the ABC “the purpose of the report was to explain what is meant by Intelligent Design and to ask whether it is, in fact, a science.” From Catalyst transcript: “Paul Willis: It’s simply not science. And the ‘claimed’ scientific clout behind Intelligent Design is very small. Prof. Michael Behe: There are not that many people who are actively involved in it. Probably, oh maybe a handful you know, five to ten, something like that. Paul Willis: And this handful of scientists have a good idea just who the Read More ›

http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web

Rick Smalley, a Nobel laureate in chemistry at Rice University, died earlier this week. You can read about his scientific contributions and passing here. I had the privilege of having lunch with Rick this summer. The meeting was arranged by his pastor at Houston’s Second Baptist Church, my friend Ben Young. Rick had in the previous year become a Christian as well as a member of Second Baptist Church, and begun to express his doubts about Darwinism publicly (see here and here). I reported on my lunch meeting with Rick here, though to spare him harrassment I did not mention him by name. Rick’s prediction at the end of his life was that ID would be mainstreamed in five years Read More ›

From “Science Versus Scientism” by John Silber (appeared in the Nov05 issue of The New Criterion):

The critical question posed for evolutionists is not about the survival of the fittest but about their arrival. Biologists arguing for evolution have been challenged by critics for more than a hundred years for their failure to offer any scientific explanation for the arrival of the fittest. Supporters of evolution have no explanation beyond their dogmatic assertion that all advances are explained by random mutations and environmental influences over millions of years. Read More ›

Pam Winnick’s new book, A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion, is out in stores. It provides a nice counterblast to Chris Mooney’s diatribe about the Republican/conservative hijacking of science.