2011

In a recent Fox News poll, 45 percent of voters accept the Biblical account of creation as the explanation for the origin of human life on Earth, while 21 percent say the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists is correct. Another 27 percent say both explanations are true. Belief in creationism, however, fails to explain Republican presidential primary preferences. Frontrunner Rick Perry is the top choice for GOP primary voters who believe in creationism as well as those who believe in evolution. That’s probably because the upcoming US election will likely turn on beliefs about the economy rather than origins. There’s been an increase in the number of people who believe Darwin, from 1999 through 2011: Read More ›

From Wichita State University: The Department of History mourns the loss of Niall Shanks, the Curtis D. Gridley Distinguished Professor in the History and Philosophy of Science, a joint appointment he held with the departments of History and Philosophy. He died July 13, 2011, after a long illness. Shanks was the first Gridley Distinguished professor at WSU, and taught courses on science and technology for the History Department. Born in England, Professor Shanks received a B.A. (Hons.) in Philosophy from the University of Leeds in 1979, an M. Phil. in Philosophy from the University of Liverpool in 1981, and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Alberta in 1987. Shanks authored several books and numerous articles on the history Read More ›

You know, the “sinner in the hands of an angry god?” (Darwinism) Here: Most of Reiss’ analysis is very helpful and good common sense. Adopting his approach will enhance the educational experience of all pupils. However, there is one major area where I would like to see a further development of the analysis: this is to provide a more thorough analysis of science using a worldview perspective. What should we make of Reiss when he writes: “The scientific worldview is materialistic in the sense that it is neither idealistic nor admits of non-physical explanations” (p.403)? Some of us do not find this summary one that we would use in our scientific work. In fact, the prohibition of non-physical explanations should Read More ›

In “When Science Is a Matter of Political Faith” (Townhall , September 8, 2011), commentator Robert Knight observes, The modern day faith in Science makes the most fanatical fundamentalist look indifferent by comparison. Ever since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of macro evolution, for which even he admitted had scant evidence to support it, the intelligentsia have pushed science as the Final Decider of All Things. If you think this is harmless, see how Alfred C. Kinsey’s cooked surveys on sex in the 1940s helped launch and justify the still-disastrous sexual revolution. And look at how junk science is littering Supreme Court opinions. The thing is, science does not stay still. Theories come and go as evidence pours in to Read More ›

In “What does original sin mean in the light of modern science?” (Science Blogs, September 7, 2011), Jasen Rosenhouse comments, One of the many problems modern science poses for Christianity is the question of how to understand original sin. The traditional teaching, which holds that Adam and Eve were the only humans on the planet when they were created on day six of Creation Week, that the ground was cursed and they were expelled from Eden as a result of a specific sin they committed, and that this corrupted state was in some way passed down to all future human beings, is no longer tenable. A variety of lines of evidence make it clear that the human population has always Read More ›

New research is showing that P transposable elements have some interesting insertion site hotspots. Specifically, in the fly genome these transposons often show up in the promoter region of a few hundred seemingly unrelated genes. One common theme, however, is that many of the P element target sites serve as starting points for the DNA replication process that creates a duplicate copy of the genome prior to cell division. So there is a correlation, in this case, between the transposon insertion site preference and DNA replication. This finding has implications for how the P elements spread through a population. And it is yet another indication of, in contrast to evolution’s it’s-all-just-a-random-fluke view, how much really goes on under the hood. Read More ›