Oct 232007
 

I know I am being redundant with the post title.

Invoking Darwin’s Theory to Argue for Inferiority of Blacks

He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”. [Emphasis added.]

Oct 152007
 

The Darwinian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad syndrome.

EN&V

Roger DeHart and a particularly egregious example of Darwinian persecution that occurred in 2000 and 2001 in Burlington, Washington. DeHart, then a veteran Washington state High School biology teacher, tried to supplement his biology textbook with articles critical of Haeckel’s embryos and peppered moths from mainstream science publications, such as The American Biology Teacher, Natural History, The Scientist, and Nature. You can guess what happened next. The American Civil Liberties Union issued veiled threats of legal action, and the National Center for Science Education, a pro-Darwin lobby group, insisted that DeHart teach only the evidence that allegedly supports Darwinism. Bowing to the intimidation, the superintendent of DeHart’s school district prohibited him from distributing the articles– or even talking about them. DeHart was subsequently removed from his biology teaching position, replaced by a junior faculty member with a degree in physical education.

Oct 032007
 

The (in)famous PZ Myers, well-known ID critic and staunch Darwinist and philosophical naturalist, is at it again. He has written a “review” of The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary. PZ starts off in a huff:

I tried. I really, honestly, sincerely tried. I’ve been struggling with this book, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul, by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, for the past week and a half, and I’ve finally decided it’s not worth the effort. It’s just about completely unreadable.

Poor fellow. It must have been a real effort for him to try to comprehend the book. Continue reading »

Sep 252007
 

In many discussions across the blogoshere about the existence of God or supernatural entities, the claim is often made that there’s no reason to think that such things exist because there simply is “no evidence”. Those who do think such entities exist are either “delusional” a la Richard Dawkins, or holding such beliefs “without evidence”. In either case, the theist has somehow failed in his or her epistemic duties to retain such beliefs, especially in our modern, scientific world.

But what precisely is the problem? Is it really a case of “no evidence”, meaning that no observation or phenomenon has ever or could ever provide evidence for the existence of God?
If that is what is meant, it would seem to be reasonable to ask for evidence that such a claim is true. But what that evidence would even look like isn’t at all clear. Or maybe what is meant is that there may be some observations that could be seen by some as evidence for the existence of God, but that there are no known principles that can connect that evidence to the conclusion. In its stronger forms, it is added that no one has ever or will ever know of such principles. What evidence there is for such a claim isn’t clear either. Continue reading »

Sep 182007
 

I’ve recently had the “privilege” of discussing some of the implications of so-called methodological naturalism (MN) on one or two blogs. For Darwinists, especially Darwinists who take philosophical naturalism (PN) as true, MN is an absolute necessity for scientific practice.
Thus MN becomes an extension of PN, and has the effect of making science a correlate of PN. Now, many defenders of MN would argue that isn’t the case at all and that MN is quite separate from PN and in no way implies its truth or even demands that PN be followed. But is that possible? Given what MN says and how it operates within science, is there a principled way to distinguish between it and full-blown PN?

I don’t think there is. Continue reading »

Aug 292007
 

Premise media has just announced the release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a new film on the intelligent design controversy starring Ben Stein, due out this February.

Expelled takes a fresh look at the debate as Ben Stein interviews the prominent scientists and academics on both sides of the issue, including ardent Darwinists Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and Eugenie Scott, and design proponents such as Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, and Guillermo Gonzalez.

Cutting through the rhetoric, the movie gets to the meat of the story — what is happening to scientists and professors who support intelligent design, and, perhaps more disturbingly, why is it happening?

According to the film’s press release, Expelled is

“a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.”

Ben Stein, a pop-culture icon who is also a lawyer, an economist, a former presidential speechwriter, author and social commentator,

“uncovers a long line of biologists, astronomers, chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection.”

Any film willing to ask these questions will spark controversy and turn up the heat on the entrenched Darwinian establishment. Expelled takes a look at several recent assaults on the academic freedom of pro-intelligent design scientists, including Drs. Richard Sternberg, Carolyn Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, and (unfortunately) many, many more. By exposing their stories to a national audience, Expelled reveals the stark truth: Darwinists have been conspiring to keep design out of classrooms, out of journals, and out of public discourse.

Read Bruce Chapman’s comments about the film at Evolution News & Views.

Watch the trailer here.

Visit the film’s website here.

 Posted by at 12:25 am
Jun 122007
 

Clark Adams was on the board of directors of Internet Infidels, the organization that hosts the infamous “swamp” (the infidels creation/evolution discussion board).

It was the swamp creatures the heroic ID proponents and creationists have fought on the internet in various places for many years, and these battle continue to this day…

But now, one of the Darwinsits generals in the person of Clark Adams falls on his owns sword in the middle of battle!

At first I was about to seriously gloat that yet another Darwinist was vanquished. He killed himself in a manner thoroughly consistent with his pointless Darwinian world view. But alas, I find the passing of this particular enemy to be an unhappy event…
Continue reading »