An evolutionary biologist chronicles the onslaught: At first, left-wing pushback to evolution appeared largely in response to the field of human evolutionary psychology. Since Darwin, scientists have successfully applied evolutionary principles to understand the behavior of animals, often with regard to sex differences. However, when scientists began applying their knowledge of the evolutionary underpinnings of animal behavior to humans, the advancing universal acid began to threaten beliefs held sacrosanct by the Left. The group that most fervently opposed, and still opposes, evolutionary explanations for behavioral sex differences in humans were/are social justice activists. Evolutionary explanations for human behavior challenge their a priori commitment to “Blank Slate” psychology—the belief that male and female brains in humans start out identical and that Read More ›

Of course, just now, one suspects that it is mainly the editors in Frisco who have pored over it. But now, Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry “Why Evolution Is True” Coyne  tells us,l Michael Behe, author of the intelligent-design (ID) creationist books Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, has a new book coming out next February, Darwin Devolves: The New Science about DNA that Challenges Evolution. (Let me point out here that the phrase “that challenges evolution” has an unclear antecedent, either the new science that challenges evolution—what he clearly means—or the DNA itself that challenges evolution. Bad title!) The construction that offends Dr. Coyne is a clause, not a phrase; however, why be picky and it will doubtless be Read More ›

Most people mistakenly think that Intelligent Design is anti-evolution. That is not correct. To understand Intelligent Design’s criticism of evolution, it is important to pinpoint specifically where we believe evolutionary biology made a wrong turn and why it matters.

Read More ›

Language specialist Norbert Francis seems to think creationism played a role, as he writes at Quillette: In the aftermath of the persecution of biology professor Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College, we need to pause and look back. With the Higher Superstition exposé by Gross and Levitt in 1994, many of us assumed that the postmodern fashion would begin to fade. This prediction was wrong. This has prompted me to reflect on a similar suppression of academic freedom that passed virtually unnoticed years ago, when world-renowned Hopi language scholar, Ekkehart Malotki[*], was censored and vilified by the same inquisitorial thinking proliferating once more on American campuses. Far from fading, it is becoming entrenched and the current science establishment is either Read More ›

From David Warmflash at Genetic Literacy Project: There’s a problem facing college biology educators on how to teach evolution in a setting where many students hold creationist views. These evolution deniers are not a fringe element on college campuses, even among students in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. There are substantial numbers of college STEM students who begin college biology already with minds set against evolution. Instead of writing those students off as lost causes, educators are trying different approaches to reach them. … A few years ago, evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins spoke one-on-one with students at London’s Park High School, where students were known to have an anti-evolution mindset connected with religious upbringings. Dawkins was Read More ›

Earlier, we noted an interesting find: Archaea: Salt-loving methanogen found: They appear to have specialized in living off environments nothing else wants by using processes nothing else does. We will see stranger things yet, doubtless. Now, from Jonathan Wells in Zombie Science: The archaea are very different from bacteria in the chemical makeup of their cell walls and in their DNA replication machinery. Indeed, some of the enzymes the archaea use to replicate DNA are similar to those used by eukaryotes. Woese concluded that the differences between archaea and bacteria, and between them and eukaryotes, were too great to be explained by descent from a universal common ancestor, as that term is normally understood. Carl Woese proposed that there had Read More ›

Recently, Barry Arrington noted Walter Myers III’s response to at Barbara Forrest, on the question of whether “ the success of science compels acceptance of metaphysical naturalism.” Her name keeps turning up, actually. A friend writes to note her endorsement of a new book, by Guillermo Paz-y-Mino-C and Avelina Espinosa, Measuring the Evolution Controversy – A Numerical Analysis of Acceptance of Evolution at America’s Colleges and Universities (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017): The great contribution of ‘Measuring the Evolution Controversy’ is the rich content of data and analysis that asks detailed questions about the social, economic and political backgrounds of those who tend to reject evolution vs. those who accept evolution as science. Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa deftly analyze their data drawn Read More ›

From a paper at Perspectives in Science (October 15, 2016): Science Standards: The foundation of evolution education in the United States Abstract: Science standards and textbooks have a huge impact on the manner in which evolution is taught in American classrooms. Standards dictate how much time and what points have to be dedicated to the subject in order to prepare students for state-wide assessments, while the textbooks will largely determine how the subject is presented in the classroom. In the United States both standards and textbooks are determined at the state-level through a political process. Currently there is a tremendous amount of pressure arising from anti-evolutionists in the United States to weaken or omit the teaching of evolution despite recommendations Read More ›

Over at Pharyngula, PZ Myers (who is a cladist) has written an entertaining but misguided post titled, Yes, you are a fish. In today’s post, I’ll argue that the key to classifying organisms correctly isn’t phylogeny, anatomy or genetics; it’s embryology. Only embryology can tell us something specific about an organism’s past and present characteristics, as well as resolving disputes about taxonomic categories. The importance of taxonomy to biology cannot be overstated. To put it bluntly: you cannot hope to understand organisms properly unless you know how to classify them. During the past few decades, there has been a move away from the traditional approach (favored by Linnaeus and later by Richard Owen) of classifying living creatures on the basis Read More ›

From Phil Plait at Slate: I was wrong. I underestimated just how thoroughly the GOP had salted the Earth. Philosophical party planks of climate change denial, anti-evolution, anti-intellectualism, intolerance, and more have made it such that Trump can literally say almost anything, and it hardly affects his popularity.More. Izzatso? Trump was the first candidate in modern history to exploit the fact that no one now cares what legacy media, including Slate, think. When I travel the Toronto-Ottawa rail corridor in Canada, almost everyone is using a handheld to reach whoever or whatever they want anywhere on the planet. That can’t be stuffed back into a bottle. Trump spent almost nothing on publicity, trusting that the full pack cry against him Read More ›

My verdict: The debate would have been a better one without Krauss, who generally behaved like a boor, and who engaged in deliberate dishonesty (see below). Meyer and Lamoureux had a lively but amicable exchange of views. Meyer displayed admirable fortitude in soldiering on, even though he had a splitting headache. Introduction Host Karen Stiller introduces the debate, which is sponsored by Wycliffe College, in partnership with Faith Today, Power to Change, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and the Network of Christian Scholars. Professor Lawrence Krauss will speak first, followed by Dr. Stephen Meyer and finally, Dr. Denis Lamoureux. Professor Lawrence Krauss’s talk Professor Krauss begins by announcing that he wants to clear up a misconception. 3:52 Krauss declares: “The Discovery Read More ›

HeKS raises a sobering point: >>Darwinists . . . don’t seem to understand that people are capable of, for example, making ‘statements against interest’, or simply acknowledging facts and data that generally are inconsistent with evolutionary expectations, or with the popular notions of evolutionary theory, or with popular misconceptions regarding the evidence supporting the theory (or theories). Instead, they think – quite ridiculously – that it is inappropriate to quote anyone in support of a premise used in an anti-evolutionary argument unless the person being quoted agrees with a conclusion along the lines of “evolutionary theory is nonsense”. This creates a ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ scenario, because if an ID proponent quotes an evolutionary biologist (or any other Read More ›