Culture

Readers may recall U.S. prez hopeful Michele Bachmann, who is sympathetic to intelligent design: In “The National Organization of Women defends Bachmann against Newsweek” (Daily Caller, August 8, 2011) Caroline May reports,

“It’s sexist,” NOW president Terry O’Neill told TheDC. “Casting her in that expression and then adding ‘The Queen of Rage’ I think [it is]. Gloria Steinem has a very simple test: If this were done to a man or would it ever be done to a man – has it ever been done to a man? Surely this has never been done to a man.”

While some have pointed out that Newsweek has used unflattering photos of men such as Rush Limbaugh and John McCain on its cover, O’Neill says that is not the issue.

“Who has ever called a man ‘The King of Rage?’ Read More ›

A friend of Uncommon Descent was asked recently, is there any proposition in Darwinism so obviously stupid and false that a Darwinist would not defend it? The far-sighted mares, for example? He responded,

… Assuming a Darwinist tries to be self-consistent: why should we believe anything a Darwinist tells us? Read More ›

The US Darwin lobby announces:

There’s only a month left for you to submit your idea for a new NCSE bumper sticker, so sharpen your pencils, cudgel your brains, and consult your muse! This is your chance to speak loud, speak proud for evolution, by crafting a killer slogan that could end up on the tail end of thousands of cars.

UD News staff remember first seeing the fish-with-feet bumpo, labelled “Darwin,” about 30 years ago – and assuming it was an attack on Darwinism. Read More ›

Here. The first seven species classified by James Delingpole (Telegraph Online, 31 July 2011). One species he describes:

3. Stalker troll. It takes a fairly sick mentality to want to be a troll. If you were in any way healthy, you would prefer to hang out the blogs of people you agree with, rather than maliciously setting out to disrupt those of people you hate. Stalker troll is the sickest of the lot. He becomes obsessed with every last detail of life of the person whose blog he infests, in the hope of gleaning titbits which he can use against his nemesis. For example, one of the regular trolls on this blog makes frequent sneery references to the fact that Read More ›

In Washington Post, along with (also ID-friendly) Palin:

Religion historian Marie Griffith has been watching this shift, and recently wrote an essay titled “The New Evangelical Feminism of Bachmann and Palin.” She caught all kinds of heat from feminists on the left who say that neither Bachmann nor Palin, whom some have dubbed “the spiritual heads” of the tea party, can remotely be regarded as their conceptual colleagues. Read More ›

The Ottawa Citizen’s David Warren thinks so: Re “Most superstitions go back to the Middle Ages,” he writes,

… Not true. Most go back either to the beginning of time, or to the beginning of modernity. The Middle Ages were, to those with a mild acquaintance with them, centuries remarkably free of “common superstitions.” Unless, of course, you count faith in God as a superstition. But even if so, Read More ›

After analysing the traits present in Xiaotingia and its relations, Xu and his colleagues are suggesting that the creatures bear more resemblance to the dinosaurs Velociraptor and Microraptor than to early birds, and so belong in the dinosaur group Deinonychosauria rather than in the bird group, Avialae. Many features led the team to this decision, but the most immediately noticeable are that Xiaotingia, Archaeopteryx and Anchiornis have shallow snouts and expanded regions behind their eye sockets. Microraptor has similar traits, but the early birds in Avialae have very different skulls.

But what if they find a fossil that looks like those ones, but has a bird-like skull? Can they say why they are sure they won’t? Is that a prediction? Read More ›

Here:

In his 1518-page “European Declaration of Independence,” Breivik reveals himself as an unapologetic champion of modern biology and the scientific worldview. Indeed, despite his right-wing views in some areas, he does not believe that the progress of science can be left to private enterprise. Instead, it requires lavish and permanent support by the state. He argues that 20% of government spending must be devoted to scientific research (pp. 1188, 1386), and he insists that funding science is more important than government help for the poor. “Welfare expenditure should not take precedent over the 20% fixed sum dedicated to science/technology, research and development.” (p. 1195)

– John G. West, The Professor and the Madman (Evolution News & Views, July 27, 2011)

Sounds just like yer everyday “science blogger.” He probably supported compulsory, tax-funded education in Darwinism. Read More ›