Denyse O'Leary

A friend writes, regarding this information regarding some information about science philosopher Karl Popper on a Scientific American blog: “It’s the first time I’ve read that Popper later regretted allowing himself to be browbeaten on the subject of the irrefutability of Darwinism.” In “A Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution”, John Horgan writes (Jul 6, 2010) The philosopher Daniel Dennett once called the theory of evolution by natural selection “the single best idea anyone has ever had.” I’m inclined to agree. But Darwinism sticks in the craw of some really smart people I don’t mean intelligent-designers (aka IDiots) and other religious ignorami but knowledgeable scientists and scholars. He goes on to trash knowledgeble scientists Read More ›

Some have wondered whether Noam Chomsky was a friend to Darwinism. A friend in linguistics kindly writes, Chomsky made many anti-Darwinian comments, as in his “Language and Mind,” and his critique of B. F. Skinner’s “Verbal Behavior” made quite an impact. Chomsky also collaborated with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger who I believe was anti-Darwinian. But he’s distanced himself from ID-his anti-ID screed was noted. [ … ] Chomsky started out positive, as with his demand for explicitness and his model of transformational grammar, but his regime was dictatorial, he would take ideas and rename them never acknowledging their source, and so eventually he fell out of favor in linguistics. In linguistic circles it is said that his prestige issued from his radical Read More ›

In Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology (Broadman and Holman, November 2011), mathematician Dembski and journalist O’Leary address a powerful new trend to accommodate Christianity with atheist materialism, via acceptance of Darwinian (“survival of the fittest”) evolution. This trend includes “Evolution Sundays” at churches and endorsements by high administration officials like Francis Collins. Dembski and O’Leary say it all just doesn’t work. How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with “altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!” How can we accommodate monogamy as the image of Christ and his church – for which he gave himself up – with “The human animal was never meant to be monogamous!”? In the Read More ›

This started in the combox on a post below, but … xxxxxx, I do not get your point. Eugenics was not science; it was nonsense. Nonsense firmly founded in Darwin’s own beliefs. Remember, Darwin was a guy who thought that black people were closer to gorillas than white people. Darwin has always been protected by professional Darwinists from the normal social consequences of such antisocial beliefs. I am not letting the matter go because it cannot be let go until the belief is formally renounced. I am not interested in what “whackjobs” or “dopes” think (who is?).  Can’t they just yell in the cell block or mental home? The use of such terms is classically how Darwinists like yourself avoid facing Read More ›

In the first half of the 20th century, the U.S. 60,000 sterilized Americans, to which California contributed a very robust 20,000. One of the more haunting features of an excellent new cable documentary coming out this summer, What Hath Darwin Wrought?, is the setting where many of its interviews with scholars were conducted: the grounds of the old Stockton State Hospital in Stockton, California.

[Yes, that same California in which, today, stars boast proudly of out of wedlock pregnancies. … Not that I make it my business; I do not pay taxes there, and they do make lots of money, so I assume that deadbeat dads can be brought to justice.]

A leading center for coerced sterilization in that dark era, the hospital today looks quite picturesque as the backdrop to conversations with my Discovery Institute colleagues, political scientist John West and historian Richard Weikart (who teaches at the Cal State University campus of which the state hospital building is now a part). Along with philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski, another Discovery fellow, they do a remarkably lucid and informative job of sketching a side of 20th-century history — the malign cultural and moral influence of Darwinian evolutionary thinking — that tends to get overlooked.

A huge scandal. All worth reading. Read More ›

Here’s something worth knowing if you don’t want your kids spending a lot of time on Darwin worship when they could be learning something useful: Last year, during the bicentennial anniversary of Darwin’s birth, Nature released a free online packet titled “15 Evolutionary Gems.” Its subtitle was “A resource from Nature for those wishing to spread awareness of evidence for evolution by natural selection.” It might have been better subtitled ‘A evangelism packet for those wishing to spread the good news about Darwinism.’ After all, when Nature announced the packet, they said they were heeding a prior call which “urged scientists and their institutions to ‘spread the word’” about evolution and “highlight reasons why scientists can treat evolution by natural Read More ›

Who would have thought so? Have the Times people actually started connecting with the public again? Here Virginia Heffernan comments on The stilted and seething tone of some of the defection posts sent me into the ScienceBlogs archives, where I expected to find original insights into science by writers who stress that they are part of, in the blogger Dave Munger’s words, “the most influential science blogging network in the world.” And while I found interesting stuff here and there, I also discovered that ScienceBlogs has become preoccupied with trivia, name-calling and saber rattling. Maybe that’s why the ScienceBlogs ship started to sink. Recently a blogger called GrrlScientist, on Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted), expressed her disgust at the Read More ›

Look, I tried. I practically had a nervous breakdown trying to think up anything as ridiculous as this that was not obscene. I am not into that. You need to pay or sign up for something (which probably means contuaally being  pestered for some promotion) to see the rest of this story from the National Enquirer of science mags, New Scientist, on why the large human brain can be explained by cooking food. Strikes me that useful information would work the other way around. You start with a large brain, and … voila! Escoffier!! I doubt it works the other way round.

Click here to listen. On this episode of ID the Future, Anika Smith interviews mathematician and philosopher William Dembski on a break from teaching at Discovery Institute’s Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design. Listen in as Dr. Dembski shares his advice for young scientists interested in ID and the hope he has for the future of intelligent design.

As long as it’s NOT about their love for evolution. It is common to hear that the Nazis utterly lacked morality. Of course, that satisfies deep anger. But is it true? University of California professor Richard Weikart’s recent book, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), offers an illuminating answer: No. Hitler’s Ethic (a companion to his From Darwin to Hitler, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004) demonstrates that the Nazis indeed had an ethic. It flowed directly and painstakingly from evolutionary theory, as understood in Germany at the time. I wish I had said this stuff. Come to think of it, I at least reported it here. Subscribe to Salvo, one of the few pubs worth reading these Read More ›

This question started out as “science and religion” but the religion part got lost somehow, not because I am unreligious but because I wasn’t sure how much religion, as such, you can learn from a serious exposition of the reasons for thinking that design is a feature of our universe.

All you can really learn from books about design is that materialist atheism is nuts. And, not surprisingly, all the materialist atheist mooches and tax burdens do everything they can to try to sink design friendly books in the ratings. Don’t usually succeed, of course, but can’t blame ’em for trying.

Anyway, here are my five top picks (exempting any book for which – so far as I know – I had anything to do with the text): Read More ›

A friend offers observations about the Dover (Kitzmiller) decision (2005).

 I didn’t cover it, because everyone else did, and I was writing a book, under contract, about something else, basically. Just as well. Everyone else who cared seemed to be on the scene already, and I was otherwise occupied.

Essentially, modern American culture is biased toward atheism, and nothing suits atheism better than Darwinism, its creation story. That Darwin himself thought so can be determined from his own writings, so one does get tired of the various bible school profs, museum curators, and textbook writers who pretend otherwise.

If you believe it, fine. If you don’t, why suck up to it? Read More ›

I am pleased to announce this book by Jane Harris-Zsovan on the Canadian eugenics scandal. I tried to cover it in the 1970s, from Ontario, but couldn’t get very far – literally. It took someone like Jane, who went through box loads of archives in her home province of Alberta, to start putting the pieces together. It is NOT a pretty picture. People here were all too willing to just accept the beliefs of important Darwinists, with disastrous results. So what happened? Why did so many professionals believe Darwinism and act on it? The Canadian experience was pretty scandalous. Eugenics? As someone who has late life parents, I can say that having kids is a real smart idea, provided you Read More ›