Month: October 2010
“…you don’t get to use the influence of government to help promote your cult.”
I shouldn’t drink my morning coffee while reading P.Z. Myers. I almost choked. Myers, avant garde of the cult of atheism, commented on Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell’s observation that the First Amendment contains no phrase “separation of church and state.” Myers:
Yet More “Junk DNA” Not-so-Junk After All
Proponents of intelligent design (ID) have long predicted that many of the features of living systems which are said to exhibit “sub-optimal” design will, in time, turn out to have a rationally engineered purpose. This is one of several areas where ID actively encourages a fruitful research agenda, in a manner in which neo-Darwinian evolution does not. One such area, and a field for which I have long held an inquisitive fascination for, is the subject of so-called “junk DNA,” and the non-coding stetches of RNA which are transcribed from them. Skepticism of the “junk DNA” paradigm is not a phenomenon which is limited to proponents of ID. This popular view of the genome — while still resonating as the Read More ›
Postscript: Evolution Readiness Project Readily Evolving Before Our Very Eyes
Recently I observed that the NSF’s $1,990,459 taxpayer-funded Evolution Readiness Project declared on its website that a main concern driving the project is that “it is unacceptable that 150 years after the birth of the theory of evolution only four out of ten Americans believe in it!” Although their website expressly stated that a motivating factor is the low numbers of Americans who “believe in” evolution, the project’s principal investigator, Paul Horwitz, denied that their agenda was to convince people of evolution. As Horwitz told the NABT: “We are not promoting a belief system … Our goal is to help kids understand natural selection as a mechanism for evolution, whether they believe in it or not.” Indeed, the project’s announcement Read More ›
Royce Murray on “Science Blogs and Caveat Emptor”
Larry Moran has a post on Royce Murray’s editorial in the journal Analytical Chemistry titled, “Science Blogs and Caveat Emptor.” Murray, a highly respected scientist, bemoans the unedited candor of science bloggers:
A Thoughtful Catholic Response to Darwinism
In the midst of much confusion among Catholics about evolution, I am very pleased to see an excellent piece by Monsignor Charles Pope on the website of the Archdiocese of Washington DC. Monsignor Pope has clearly seen the fundamental incompatibility between the standard, Neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution, and Catholic theology. According to Neo-Darwinism, the adaptive complexity of life is the result of natural selection and random genetic mutations. Given this definition, Monsignor Pope argues that while many aspects of “evolution” may not be problematic, “a simple, uncritical acceptance of evolutionary theory is for a Catholic untenable.”