For some, tormenting themselves with this stuff probably seems to make more sense than confronting the fact that Darwinism (which is generally what they mean by “evolution”) isn’t as widely believed as it used to be within biology. Never mind what a judge thinks should be taught to kids in school.
Just think how many people make their living off Darwinism and we can see a motive right there for the kind of study that attempts to exculpate Darwinism.
Overheard in the Uncommon Descent News virtual coffee room: “It figures, eh? And I’m pretty sure that was Richard Dawkins I saw passing out free copies of Behe’s A Mousetrap for Darwin on the Toronto subway.”
That’s right, Joshua Swamidass of Washington University and Peaceful Science, Fuz Rana of Reasons to Believe, and Marcus Ross of Liberty University. Essentially, theistic evolution vs. old Earth creationism, vs. young Earth creationism. A chance to find out from spokesmen, not Twitter, what people really think.
Darwinian evolutionary biologist Coyne doesn’t dispute teaching Indigenous beliefs in a cultural class. But he may be at a major disadvantage because – if many years of his blogging are any guide – he wants science taught as a branch of naturalist atheism. Thus, the question arises, why shouldn’t we teach naturalist atheism too as an outcropping of Western culture?
Sadly, the Darwinians are now learning the value of the very intellectual freedom they have so long denied to non-Darwinians of all stripes.
as, it is worthy of further consideration (which is not the same as an endorsement). I headline a comment: [[Kojonen develops his case further: I will . . . argue in this book that the teleological order of biological organisms can still, in a rationally permissible way, be understood as a sign of the divine Read More…
It’s good that First Things is sponsoring an honest and civil debate.
That includes, for example, dragging it into debates over repatriation of the remains of Indigenous peoples.
Richard Weikart: I have done a good deal of research on this topic, and as it turns out, the vast majority of white supremacists today embrace Darwinian evolution and use it as evidence for their white supremacy.
Bolyard: “I’m not here to debate the hows and whys of creationism. I’ll point you to Answers in Genesis for that. But I want to point out a couple of shameless strawmen in Hopper’s piece that discredit everything else she writes in this piece.” Of course. Hopper was almost certainly making it up as she went along, trusting that few readers had read or spent much time on the relevant literature.
It seems obvious, on reflection, that Hopper’s piece is a disastrously clumsy effort on the part of Scientific American to get Woke. Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne thinks the mag is not just circling the drain but “approaching the drainhole.” To the extent that the editors couldn’t find someone who at least gets basic facts right, he has a point.
I have posted the second video in my two part book recommendation series on the YouTube channel. In the previous video I highlighted many books that argue for intelligent design. My view is that proponents of design should face the strongest criticisms possible, and not be afraid of doing so. In line with this philosophy, Read More…
What to think? Well, Darwinism was the original Cancel Culture, as many reading this will know. For many decades, it was difficult or impossible to critique it from any perspective, no matter what the evidence. If social power alone wins, why not Indigenous creationism? Weiss and Springer will be lucky to come out of this with their careers intact.
TheConversation.com touts itself as having “academic rigor” combined with “journalistic flair”. In polite society today, creationism is usually out of bounds for this milieu. However, I was surprised to find that, in a recent article, they at least seemed to promote the idea of treating creationism with respect not just in history, but in STEM Read More…