… and one that came up was What Hath Darwin Wrought?: “The standard refrain today is that social Darwinism had nothing to do with either Charles Darwin or his biological theory,” says Dr. John West, whose work is highlighted in the documentary. “But ideas have consequences, and it’s clear that Darwin himself understood that fact. I think many viewers will be surprised when they learn just how closely Darwin’s own views are connected to the rise of social Darwinism—and just how much of a continuing impact social Darwinism has on Darwin’s followers today.” Trailer: As a rule, Darwin is never responsible for what he believed. Quite the opposite, a move is made every year, it seems, in the United States, Read More ›

As Mazur tells it in The Origin of Life Circus, In a couple of e-mails to me in January 2013, Andrew Pohorille, the senior-most scientist at NASA working in the origin of life field, objected to my story, “The RNA World’s Last Hurrah?”, “The RNA World’s Last Hurrah?”, in which I interviewed Paul Davies’ collaborator at Arizona State University, physicist Sara Walker. … Pohorille seemed furious at story comments doubting the RNA world, although the Walker interview was a Q & A, and I’d quoted the “experts” and linked my interviews with them: biochemist Pier Luigi Luisi, wh characterized the RNA world as a baseless fantasy; theoretical biologist Stu Kaffman hadn’t worked; and Walker, who told me “most of the Read More ›

In several posts last month Dr. Torley and I led a spirited discussion on the nature of “evidence.” See here, here, here and here. Those discussions revealed there is a lot of confusion about this topic. This is especially the case when it comes to the purpose of evidence. Many of our materialist friends seem to believe that unless evidence compels belief it does not count as evidence at all. Worse, they seem to believe that merely by advancing an alternative explanation for some proposition, they have caused all of the evidence for the explanation advanced by their opponents to magically turn into non-evidence.  This is simply not the case. Let’s go back to the dictionary. Evidence is “the available Read More ›

I recommend the entire article from the Heartland organization (www.heartland.org), but the below is very powerful stuff: Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it. Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and Read More ›

The discussion around people being forced to support the BBC just to have the right to operate a TV was, I think, interesting and healthy (though I started it somewhat accidentally). I simply couldn’t understand how otherwise presumably intelligent people would fail so simple a proposition as this: If government says you cannot even have a TV if you don’t support some approved broadcasting service, that IS coercion. Now, as a Canadian who has received about 500 extreme weather warnings since I moved to Ottawa, I would hardly object to a minimum charge to defray the cost of warning residents against letting the main drain bust. Or flash freezing their buns.  A basic, specific EMS-type service. But the Brit-style compulsory Read More ›

But it doesn’t work Friend sends: Fave was a racist. Would it have helped if that guy were a Darwinian? Look, just wondering, okay? Wondering is still legal in most places.

I spend a bit of time teaching and talking to junior-high and high-schoolers, especially homeschool students. One of the things that I try to teach them is how to approach teachers who are Darwinists when they get to college. Anyway, I though some readers might be students and might appreciate the advice. Obviously, this is not gospel-truth, but it might give you a place to start from.
Read More ›

And friend James Barham did: The materialist ideology promotes a high degree of conformity in scientific thinking because it is indeed ideological, and materialists are unforgiving towards heretical deviations from this belief system. Over the course of the twentieth century, the atmosphere within biology became increasingly intolerant, at the same time as physics opened up a wider range of possibilities. There are still great limitations on what professional physicists can think, but there is a toleration of alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, divergent interpretations of cosmology, the question of whether there is one universe or many, and so on. Charles DarwinAnother reason for the greater uniformity of thinking is the professionalization of science. In the nineteenth century, many of the Read More ›

… Discusses intelligent design on the Solid Reasons Morning Radio Show Follow UD News at Twitter!

The person has actually written You are obsessed with whether things are tax-funded or not. I think your reference to tax-funded TV must refer back to your item on the BBC. It is not tax-funded. It is funded by a license fee which is an important distinction. It’s optional (if you don’t have a TV you don’t have to pay it) and it goes straight to the BBC which gives the BBC its independence. So, commenter, lemme get this straight: If I were a Brit, I’d have to fund the Beeb just in order to even have a working TV and get the channels I want? And the money goes straight to the BBC? – which could be using it Read More ›

Here: “I think the term ‘living fossil’ should be retired,” Turner says. “It does little good because it is almost always based on oversimplifications. ‘Living fossils’ often are judged based on some notion of overall morphological similarity. That was the case with crocs. If you squint, these various lineages all sort of look the same, but the details are all different. It ignores how evolution works on multiple levels. I wouldn’t miss it.” Oaks echoes him: “Overall, I think the term hurts more than it helps people’s understanding of evolution. Just because a species looks similar to fossils from many millions of years ago certainly does not mean that it has not evolved. The term ‘living fossil’ is often used Read More ›

See them before someone decides that their (unrelated) religion decrees their destruction.

From BBC Humans are possibly the weirdest species to have ever lived. We have freakishly big brains that allow us to build complicated gadgets, understand abstract concepts and communicate using language. We are also almost hairless with weak jaws, and struggle to give birth. How did such a bizarre creature evolve? Huh? 1. In a world packed with unusual creatures, what reason have we to assume that humans are “possibly the weirdest species to have ever lived”? Publicly funded broadcasters, like the BBC, can buy this stuff. Whether they could sell it in an open market is another question. 2. “freakishly big brains”? What is the point> of such a claim? Why is it “freaking” to have a big brain when Read More ›

Did we mention Scientific American before? Yes, we did, here, on the Neanderthal mystique (but you have to pay for way too much of it). Now here, we are informed that the purpose of the strange wiring of our eyes is “unveiled.” Wow. Such mystical language. The human eye is optimised to have good colour vision at day and high sensitivity at night. But until recently it seemed as if the cells in the retina were wired the wrong way round, with light travelling through a mass of neurons before it reaches the light-detecting rod and cone cells. New research presented at a meeting of the American Physical Society has uncovered a remarkable vision-enhancing function for this puzzling structure. So, Read More ›

Here: It’s an intriguing area of research, not least because in addition to illuminating the Neandertal mind, such investigations can help reveal what factors allowed anatomically modern humans—our kind—to succeed where other members of the human family failed. Failed? Failed to do what, exactly? AKA: Why Darwinism is headed off a rock cut.