Bored by bickering relatives or co-workers over the holiday season? Check these out:
1. What makes Darwinism politically correct?
This episode of ID the Future features Robert Crowther interviewing CSC senior fellow Dr. Jonathan Wells on his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Dr. Wells explains the peer-pressure involved with Darwin’s theory and shares from his studies in 19th century Darwinian controversies and evolutionary development at Yale and UC Berkeley, respectively.
The book’s Web site is here.
In my view, Darwinism is politically correct because it is a tax-funded racket parasitizing real science. It attracts the sort of people who like free form speculation about the tyrannosaur’s parenting skills, Neanderthal man’s sex life and why homo sapiens (modern man) believes in God (not because some had an encounter with God, of course; such an idea could never be entertained).
2. The Design of Life: What the Evidence of Biological Systems Reveals
On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin discusses The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems with author Dr. William Dembski. Is design in nature just an “illusion,” as Richard Dawkins proclaims? Dembski and co-author Dr. Jonathan Wells show the answer is “no.” Biologists have and continue to use the assumption of design successfully, precisely because design in biology is not an illusion but real.
Design is not an illusion, but then neither is the cushy position that current society grants to people who make that claim. Almost any other position, no matter how ridiculous, can be fronted (space aliens, multiple universes … and I suspect that these are only a start.)
3. How to teach responsibly without getting sued?
This episode of ID the Future features Casey Luskin interviewed by Kevin Wirth on the key legal cases involving teachers teaching evolution. What does the case law say about teachers’ rights and free speech?
Luskin, a lawyer with a science background, published a survey of case law in Hamline University Law Review to help the public understand what the courts have ruled on the topic of teaching origins.
This survey of twenty-one cases investigates the question many teacher, parents, and students ask: what is legal when it comes to teaching evolution? Can public schools teach scientific critiques of evolution? What does Discovery Institute recommend for teaching in schools? Find out by downloading the survey of case law here.
What the Discovery Institute endorses? You’d never know it from what you read. Two reasons I realized years ago that the legacy mainstream media are gone cats are
a) the inability of the average reporter to get certain basic facts straight, for example:
Doubts about Darwin do not turn on the age of the Earth, but on implausible claims about the origin of high levels of information – you know, the jumbo jet slowly materializes from the scrap heap, with no intelligent input at all … And so does the trilobite and the tyrannosaur, and man. And that Alfa Romeo you always wanted (but you had to buy a minivan when your wife had twins)? Yeah, really.
b) passive, gullible acceptance of completely stupid claims about human psychology, whose only purpose is to prop up Darwinism.
As I wrote to some friends recently:
I have said this many times, but indulge me while I say it again: The “big bazooms” theory of human evolution – taken seriously by Psychology Today as the biggest truth – is a classic in the field.
Allegedly, men prefer well-endowed women so that their selfish genes can determine whether the woman is fertile.
Oh? So it has nothing to do with the reasons many men prefer big steaks, big mugs of beer, SUVs vs. Golf Minis, bagging a moose vs. bagging a prairie chicken?
Who knew? Who could ever have guessed?
As I have pointed out elsewhere, animals show similar preferences to people.
Wolf packs prefer bringing down a caribou or a beefalo to bringing down a deer. The deer is as much trouble to chase, but doesn’t give anywhere near the number of servings.
So if we want to talk about the evolution of the preference for abundance vs. non-abundance, we must go way, way back into mammal or vertebrate evolution. No need to spend a lot of time with Old Stone Age Man.
The only reason for the Darwinist’s Old Stone Age Man schtick is to find a question that “evolutionary” psychology can supposedly answer in a materialist way.
I have yet to see it perform better than psychology in real time.
Yet sponsored Darwinist nonsense is everywhere now, and it corrupts both thinking and behaviour.