Here’s an amazingly silly editorial from the Financial Times of London, January 16, 2009 (yes, that pink newspaper), warning against people who question Darwin worship:
Many scientists and liberal politicians regard the rising creationist tide as a side-show that they can safely ignore. They are wrong, for several reasons. Wide areas of research, from biology to cosmology, would suffer directly if it became politically difficult for governments to fund fields that depend on such a basic a part of science as evolution. The cost would be economic as well as intellectual.
But Darwin is also worth defending because attacks on evolution symbolise a wider and more varied assault on policies based on evidence rather than prejudice. Some of this assault comes from the same religious forces as creationism – think, for example, of those ranged against embryonic stem cell research. Sheer ignorance plays a role too and so do the mass media.
As a matter of fact, human embryonic stem cell research did not turn out to be as necessary as its proponents claimed, and there are lots of good reasons for questioning the ridiculous hagiography of Darwin.
Also just up at the Post-Darwinist:
Darwinism and popular culture: Newsweek columnist fronts anti-Darwinism inheritance theory
Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy
Canadian columnist David Warren takes on a Darwinoid, on the subject of whales