Anti-evolution
jlynch | December 19, 2006
I spent last night reading the updated version of Ron Numbers' classic work The Creationists. While the majority of the text has not changed from the 1992 edition, Numbers has added two new chapters - one on Intelligent Design and another on the spread of creationism outside the US.
For those that have not encountered The Creationists before, it is - without doubt - the historical examination of creationism in America. Numbers traces the roots of modern anti-evolutionism to Seventh Day Adventism, and over sixteen chapters (in the first edition) traces the interactions between young and old…
jlynch | December 19, 2006What a year it has been for the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design movement! Below the fold, I detail the advances that ID has made in the short time since Judge Jones delivered his ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
January
Dembski:
Just as a tree that has been "rimmed" (i.e., had its bark completely cut through on all sides) is effectively dead even if it retains its leaves and appears alive, so Darwinism has met its match with the movement initiated by Phillip Johnson. Expect Darwinism's death throes, like Judge Jones's decision, to continue for some time. But don't mistake death…
jlynch | December 14, 2006 Edward T. Oakes may be a good teacher of theology at St. Mary of the Lake, but he is a lousy historian of Darwinism. Witness the following statement from his review of Richard Weikart's work, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany:
Spencer might well have been the first to coin the phrase "survival of the fittest." But Darwin enthusiastically adopted it in the 6th edition of his Origin of Species as a substitute term for "natural selection." Nor did he ever demur when other advocates of evolution's social application came pleading their case. Karl Marx…
jlynch | December 13, 2006
Today is the anniversary of the death, in 1873, of the Swiss-born American zoologist and geologist, Louis Agassiz (born in 1807) whom I've mentioned before. It is fair to say that Agassiz was the last intellectually respectable creationist in America. A vehement anti-evolutionist and polygenist, Agassiz none-the-less left modern science with a theory of glaciation. He was influential in the formation of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) & the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and founded the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard (home of Gould, Mayr,…
jlynch | November 29, 2006As part of the Panda's Thumb series debunking Jonathan Wells' latest dreck (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design), Tim Sandefur, himself a self-avowed conservative libertarian Republican, argues that Wells' work offers "no helpful contribution" to any debate about the compatibility of conservatism and evolution. Tim ends his piece:
The bottom line is this: the genuine conservatism of people like Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver really is fundamentally at odds with evolution, not because of anything having to do with the free market or evolution's alleged links…
jlynch | November 24, 2006Someone in all this brouhaha (I can't remember whom and can't find the comment online) claimed that only creationists use the phrase "Darwinian Fundamentalist". The phrase actually originated with Stephen Jay Gould (New York Review of Books, June 12 1997) for the "conviction that natural selection regulates everything of any importance in evolution, and that adaptation emerges as a universal result and ultimate test of selection's ubiquity." He cites Maynard-Smith, Dawkins and Dennett as being "ultra-Darwinists" and thus Darwinian fundamentalists. In fact, Dennett (speaking in March 2006)…
jlynch | November 24, 2006There is a flamefest going on at the moment regarding atheism, agnosticism and creationism and it strikes me that many of us are missing the wood for the trees. I hope most of us can agree on the following:
It has been claimed that there are two broad groups within the pro-science movement: those that see the issue in terms of science versus anti-science within the classroom and those that see that issue as being part of a larger cultural battle between science (identified with "rationalism") and religion (identified with "superstition"). Clearly, this broad-stroke characterization is a…
jlynch | November 23, 2006Larry Moran seems to think that I belong to the "Neville Chamberlain 'apeasement' [sic] school" of evolutionists. So what does one need to believe to be part of this school? Moran, having spent long hours talking with me on these issues, and knowing me so well, can enlighten us. In short, one must believe the following:
These are scientists who are willing to compromise science in order to form an alliance with some religious groups who oppose Christian fundamentalism. Do you believe in miracles? That's okay, it's part of science. Do you believe that God guides evolution in order to produce…
jlynch | November 20, 2006Friend Fruit asks:
Has any of those people [Ed mentioned], Dawkins, Myers, et. al. advocated the elimination of religion and religious believers by stoning, disembowlment, burning at the stake, or other forms of auto de fe?
I do agree that perhaps Ed's original phrasing is a little inflammatory and should perhaps have read "religion itself, in any form, is to be attacked and destroyed." However, that doesn't alter Ed's essential point. Those of us who have been working to fight anti-evolutionism have all seen this schism occur in various groups - a schism between moderates (whom people like…
jlynch | November 20, 2006Ed Brayton writes something that I have suspected for some time now:
To be honest, I'm rapidly becoming convinced that there are two very different groups involved in fighting against the ID public relations campaign to distort science education. The distinction between the two groups is that one is fighting to prevent ID creationism from weakening science education while the other is fighting, at least in their minds, to eliminate all religious belief of any kind, even those perspectives that have no quarrel with evolution specifically or science in general, from society.
I am firmly a…
jlynch | November 17, 2006Larry Moran says it well:
I am not a Darwinist, just as most of my colleagues in the Department of Physics are not Newtonists, and most of my friends who study genetics are not Mendelists. All three of these terms refer to the ideas of famous men (Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel) who made enormous contributions to science. But in all three cases, the modern sciences have advanced well beyond anything envisaged by their founders.
Call me an evolutionary biologist.
Darwin's genius was to provide the first workable naturalistic mechanism for evolution (that is, natural selection).…
jlynch | November 11, 2006Wilkins had hit a good one here: the Evolution Crackpot Index. Rumor has it that the denizens of Uncommon Descent, ISCID and suchlike score in the high thousands.
jlynch | October 22, 2006The C.S. Lewis Society is sponsoring the Evidence of Design conference upcoming in Florida (Nov 3rd + 4th) and featuring Walter Bradley, Paul Nelson and Tom Woodward. The goal?
[To] thoroughly equip church members and leaders with generally non-technical, cutting-edge information. It will demonstrate practical steps to use design-evidence as a thoughtful bridge to skeptics who have been taught through Darwinian evolution that God is a myth. This conference will enable Christians and others to use simple evidence to demonstrate there is in fact a designer of life and that he is Jesus Christ…
jlynch | October 16, 2006It appears that now, even the Joyce scholars think they know biology. From the recent edition of The New York Review:
If we turn now to Darwinian theory itself, which purports to explain these discoveries and which is taught in most schools and colleges in the developed world, we find that it is based on, as Darwin puts it, "the unguided processes of random variation and natural selection." Take the first part: random variation. By random is meant, presumably, accidental, and clearly accidents do happen, but there is no scientific evidence to the effect that the transformations that took…
jlynch | October 14, 2006Mike S. Adams writes (and Denyse O'Leary concurs):
In the famous 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial, Clarence Darrow stated: "For God's sake, let the children have their minds kept open - close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them. Make a distinction between theology and science. Let them have both. Let them be taught. Let them both live." Have you ever met a 21st Century liberal who believes that both evolution and creation should be taught in schools?
Problem is, Darrow never said this. It was Dudley Malone answering William Jennings Bryan. An unlikely choice for the Scopes case,…
jlynch | September 16, 2006
Arizona has unfortunately been a hot-bed for Young Earth Creationism (YEC). Some of the smaller church-affiliated schools here teach YEC, and there are a number of groups that run creationist tours to the Grand Canyon. Up north, the Creation Research Society maintains the Van Andel Creation Research Center north of Chino Valley. And in Phoenix, we have Walt Brown's Center for Scientific Creationism. For these alone, I'd have to apologize to the world on behalf on Arizona.
I recently stumbled across the Lost World Musuem which is apparently opening in Phoenix NY this Fall. The Musuem's…
jlynch | September 4, 2006Denyse O'Leary is an ID shill and journalist. Today she's touting a "new evo devo spoof site". "New" as in online since at least 2001 and I remember seeing this in the late 90's. (The original "Science Made Stupid" book was from 1986, round about the time scientific creationism was morphing into intelligent design.)
This is "new" in the same way the ID is a "new science for a new century."
jlynch | August 29, 2006Contrary to the claims of certain IDologists, the new director of the Vatican Observatory, Fr. Jose Funes, has stated that the rumors that Fr. Coyne was replaced because of his stance on Intelligent Design were "absolutely false" and that Coyne requested in May to be replaced (source). Kind of makes the following from Denyse O' Leary all the more enjoyable:
Apparently, Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education (called by some here the "National Center for Selling Evolution") has attempted to spin Fr. Coyne's departure as a normal retirement. He told Dick Fischer at the ASA…
jlynch | August 28, 2006The maintenance of intellectually sound K-12 science standards involves the work of people at many levels - scientists, educators, school board members, and the general public. I have been privileged to work with numerous great people over the years here in Arizona on just this issue, one such individual being Steve Rissing who is now at Ohio State University. Steve continues to fight the good fight, and if you are in Ohio, you too can help him and the people at Ohio Citizens for Science.
If you're in Ohio, please read this post by Ed Brayton and act on it. As Ed notes, school board elections…