Professor Ruse’s new book suggests that the religious resistance to evolutionary theory is a lot more understandable and a lot less unreasonable than its opponents recognize.
Many criticized the Darwinists for extrapolating too far, and now the Darwinists confess that actual, observable variation–whether in the barnyard or in nature–demonstrates only the capacity of a species population to vary within limits.
Here’s a blurb from the June issue of Advances, the AAAS monthly newsletter:
Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral is doing a multimillion-dollar multimedia production trying to reconcile science and religion. Check out this report: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20050616-9999-lz1c16crystal.html.
Timothy Shortell is an associate professor of sociology at Brooklyn College who, on his homepage (go here), states: “I am currently working on a project examining public reaction to Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection from his day to our own.” It will be interesting to see what becomes of this project in light […]
There’s an interesting exchange tucked away in some comments at the Pandasthumb on what it would take to provide an evolutionary explanation of the bacterial flagellum:
To say that evolution is “a theory which has created cures for diseases and alleviated suffering” is therefore grossly misleading. It is like saying that tooth decay has assisted in designing new methods of filling cavities.
I think their listeners would be rather stunned to hear you or Behe or similar not remotely sounding like anti-scientific biblical creationists, which is the current stereotype they have of you and the ID movement
Of all the fundamentalist groups at large in the world today, the Darwinians seem to me the most objectionable.
evolutionists, in their thirst to crush ID, are every bit as committed to political maneuvering the most ardent supporter of the “Wedge.”
The Scientific Contrarian By George Scialabba a frequent contributor to Book World, the Boston Globe and other publications Washington Post, Thursday, June 2, 2005; Page C03
James Pinkerton offers a transhumanist critique of ID at Tech Central Station titled “The Real Intelligent Designers.” Transhumanists believe in enhancing the human person through technology (for some the goal is to upload the human to a more efficient technology, thereby dispensing entirely with our current wetware).
I’ve been out of pocket a few days to attend the deposition of Barbara Forrest in the Dover County ID Case (I’m an expert witness for the ID side and was advising the ID side’s deposing attorney; by the way, Forrest struck me as very nice in person). I expect I’ll be reporting more on […]
So asking for a detailed, testable Darwinian pathway to show that evolution occurs is now a perverse evidential demand. Yes, you heard right.
Dekker … hopes the debate will get more serious after the impending publication of a collection of 22 essays about ID and related themes, most of them by Dutch scientists, which he has co-edited.