Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Darwinism

Darwinists need to recruit Paris Hilton to sell their product . . .

Right now this is how Darwinists are selling their product:

Watch this video:
http://www.accolo.com/Accolo-Rethink-Recruiting.wmv

This is how they need to sell their product:

Go here: http://www.spicyparis.com/index.html.

Here’s what recruiting the right people means to an ad campaign (which is what Darwinism has become): Read More ›

Pope Benedict XVI has replaced an evangelizing Darwinist, Dr. George Coyne

Vatican Astronomer Replaced by Bruce Chapman

Chapman writes:

Pope Benedict XVI has replaced an evangelizing Darwinist, Dr. George Coyne, as director the Vatican Observatory, according to Zenit News. A Jesuit with a doctorate in astronomy, Dr. Coyne in recent years made himself the public scourge of Darwin critics and scientific proponents of intelligent design. Increasingly his theology resembled that of “process theologians” who believe that God is still learning and could not have known what his world was becoming.
Read More ›

If the evidence for Darwinian theory were so great, why keep slamming ID? Just present it!

================ Excerpt from Current biology Volume 16, Issue 16, 22 August 2006, Pages R619-R620 doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.041 Copyright © 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Q & A: Roger Hendrix Pittsburgh Bacteriophage Institute and Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA Available online 21 August 2006. ================= …. Q: Given the prominence of the evolutionary perspective in your work, can you comment on the current efforts to present ‘Intelligent Design’ as an alternative to biological evolution in public schools in America? A: It is a sorry commentary on the state of public understanding of science that a large fraction of the US population is willing to accept that Intelligent Design (ID), essentially a tarted-up version of creationism, and evolution Read More ›

Dolphins — Not the supergeniuses we thought

Scientist: Dolphins are stupid
Thursday 17 August 2006 12:29 PM GMT

Dolphins are not as clever as previously thought. Dolphins may have big brains, but a South African-based scientist says laboratory rats and even goldfish can outwit them.

Paul Manger of Johannesburg’s University of the Witwatersrand says the super-sized brains of dolphins are a function of being warm-blooded in a cold water environment and not a sign of intelligence.

“We equate our big brain with intelligence. Over the years we have looked at these kinds of things and said the dolphins must be intelligent,” he said.

“The real flaw in this logic is that it suggests all brains are built the same… When you look at the structure of the dolphin brain, you see it is not built for complex information processing,” he said. Read More ›

Notable posts at Evolution News & Views

Two replies to the insufferable Jim Downard: (1) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/08/the_vampires_heart_a_response.html (2) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/08/anticipatory_erudition_a_respo.html On avoiding design inferences: Before you infer intelligent design, keep in mind that grass-cutting shears share an extremely high similarity with scissors which are used to cut paper. Since a paper stencil was apparently used in the origination of the grass-pattern, it’s likely that a pair of scissors was used to cut the stencil. This makes it plausible to assume that the grass-cutting shears were co-opted from scissors, because both are clearly homologous structures based upon their similarity. Moreover, paper is made of plant material, and grass a plant. This could account for the origin of the stencil itself. Finally, Virginia has metal resources which could account for the Read More ›

Okay, I was wrong. The flagellum did evolve after all . . .

. . . from a grain of salt: Dr. Jackson Martin, Director and Professor of the Flagellum Project at the Hoboken Nature Institute, today announced completion of software that successfully demonstrates the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. Critics of evolution have claimed that the flagellum is too complex to evolve using the gradual changes required by natural selection. “The flagellum is very complicated,” said Martin. “Like a motor, it has a rotor, a stator, and complex control mechanisms.” Martin and his students have demonstrated, however, that the complex flagellum can be easily created using the forces of natural selection. “We have not only shown that the flagellum can be evolved, it’s hard not to evolve the flagellum.” In simulation software Read More ›

Darwin’s “bright idea” — A new website and society for promoting Darwinism?

You may recall that summer of 2003 Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett proposed a new “happy” designation for themselves as atheists — a term that does for atheism what “gay” does for homosexuality (the comparison is theirs!). They decided on the word “bright.” For Dawkins’s and Dennett’s opeds, where they originally made this proposal, go here: www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bright/bright_index.html. A band of D&D devotees ran with their idea of recasting atheism’s image to form www.the-brights.net. Nonetheless, some D&D supporters thought this was a bit much (see, for instance, Chris Mooney’s piece at CSICOP: www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights). All in all, I would say Dawkins’s and Dennett’s proposal of “the brights” never really took off — until now. It appears there is a quasi-secret society inspired Read More ›

“Evangelical Atheism”: Are Dawkins and Dennett shooting themselves in the foot?

Here’s a recent exchange between me and a well-known journalist: Dear Mr. Dembski: I got your email from [snip]. I’m a science writer who has written for the usual suspects: New York Times (book review, op-ed, magazine, week in review), The Atlantic, Discover, Omni, Wall Street Journal, many others. You can google me, but the NY Times and WSJ block search engines, and that’s where most of my journalistic stuff is. . . . I am not sympathetic to ID or creationism, but I’m thinking of writing a piece–not yet sure for whom–about how silly the neo-Darwinists have become, Dawkins and Dennett come to mind. It seems to me the evolutionists have fielded the wrong team, and despite the recent Read More ›

Prospering from the controversy — Denyse isn’t the only one . . .

In her last post, Denyse O’Leary commented on how ID has been very, very good to her: Speaking for myself, I was a completely obscure trade mag hack and textbook editor (though a reliable and accurate one) until I began to wonder whether the whole of the history of life can be explained by natural selection acting on random mutations and whether that Brit toff Darwin was really the greatest man in history. Now, all sorts of people have an opinion about me who aren’t even sure of my age, sex, or nationality. She isn’t the only one. While I was still an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, I attended the deposition of Barbara Forrest, who, after Read More ›

The Anti-Wedge

Dear Members of SSE [Society for the Study of Evolution], The Joint Council of SSE, ASN and SSB has recently appointed a committee to deal with the issues of creationism and intelligent design to the teaching and funding of evolutionary biology in the U.S. The goals of the committee are spelled out in a document available at http://www.evolutionsociety.org/download/anti-wedge.pdf, and this message is to let the membership know of the existence of the committee, as well as to ask for suggestions and help from the membership. The committee will work together with the education section of SSE, which is already working in this area, as well as with the nonprofit National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncseweb.org/default.asp) which promotes education about evolution Read More ›

Jason Miller discovers the Wedge Document — Can you say out of touch and behind the times?

Can You Say Hidden Agenda? by Jason Miller August 6, 2006 at 21:17:33 The Discovery Institute’s True Raison d’être and Why We Need to Be Deeply Concerned Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank which champions socially conservative causes, has become heavily invested in the “debate” between Darwinists and those who wish to introduce Intelligent Design into public school classrooms. According to their Website, Discovery’s stated mission is: “… to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty.” Finding a handful of academics willing to act as its shills, Discovery’s ultimate goal is to subvert the prevailing paradigm of modern science Read More ›

Past Scientists Who Dissent from Darwinism

I want to invite on this thread names of past scientists who thought Darwinism was B.S. along with evidence showing that they did indeed think this. Me first: Wolfgang Pauli. Check out pp27-28 at http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs.pdf.

Why student activism is the key to winning this war

Since 1999, Kansas has now swung four times on the question of science standards and whether evolutionary theory should be properly scrutinized or swallowed whole. Below is the latest. This war will not be decided by courts, legislators, or school boards, but by young people as they wake up to the fact that dogmatic Darwinists have been systematically indoctrinating and disenfranchising them. Just as the counterculture of the 60s overturned the status quo, so a new counterculture, with high school, college, and university students taking the lead, will overturn the Darwinian status quo.

Evolution Opponents Lose in Kansas Primary
By John Hanna
Associated Press
posted: 02 August 2006
09:56 am ET

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Conservative Republicans who pushed anti-evolution standards back into Kansas schools last year have lost control of the state Board of Education once again.   Read More ›