Author: John G. West
Cyber Attacks Attempt to Shut Down Discovery Institute’s Websites on Day of Event Challenging Darwinism
Since early this morning, the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute has faced repeated denial-of-service attacks on its server in an effort to shut down the Institute’s various websites. The attacks coincided with the scheduled appearance tonight of Institute-supported scientists at the “4 Nails in Darwin’s Coffin” event at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas. Want to bet there is a connection? Because of the cyber attacks, the web page providing information about tonight’s event was unavailable several times today. Last fall, Darwinist cyber bullies similarly attempted to close down the website for a conference on intelligent design in Colorado in order to prevent people from registering for the event. Fortunately, more than a thousand people showed up anyway. Regardless of one’s view of Darwinism, this sort of cyber censorship ought to be out of Read More ›
James Lee Was Disturbed, but What Happens When an Entire Culture Embraces Social Darwinism?
There is little doubt that hostage-taker James Lee’s virulent Social Darwinism was the product of a tragically disturbed man. But can an entire culture fall for the pernicious ideology of Social Darwinism, especially its scientific and political elites? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is an unequivocal yes, as I have documented in my book Darwin Day in America, and as the new documentary “What Hath Darwin Wrought?” persuasively shows. Perhaps the most jarring fact about the troubling views of James Lee is that similar views have been espoused over the past century by leading scientists, politicians, and thinkers. Ideas do have consequences, and not just for seriously disturbed individuals like James Lee.
Major Media Spike Discovery Channel Gunman’s Darwinian Motivations
If someone opposed to abortion were to take hostages at an abortion clinic, you can be sure the newsmedia would tenaciously track down and publicize every anti-abortion association and comment of the criminal in question. But when a gunman inspired by Darwinism takes hostages at the offices of the Discovery Channel, reporters seem curiously uninterested in fully disclosing the criminal’s own self-described motivations. Most of yesterday’s media reports about hostage-taker James Lee dutifully reported Lee’s eco-extremism and his pathological hatred for humanity. But they also suppressed any mention of Lee’s explicit appeals to Darwin and Malthus as the intellectual foundations for his views. At least, I could find no references to Lee’s Darwinian motivations in the accounts I read by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. Read More ›
How Not to Defend Darwin on “Survival of the Fittest”
Evolutionary biologists make poor historians, especially when it comes to Charles Darwin. So intent on preserving the reputation of St. Charles, evolutionists typically do their best to paper-over Darwin’s less-than-savory views on issues like race or the application of natural selection to society. British biochemist and theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander runs true to form in a newly posted interview at BioLogos. In the interview, Alexander does his best to disassociate Darwin from the idea of “survival of the fittest,” noting that the phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer rather than Charles Darwin, and that it was then picked up by nasty politicians like Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler, who used it to promote their noxious views. Alexander is correct that Read More ›
A Biologist Misunderstands Intelligent Design (Again)
In an earlier article, I pointed out biologist Kathryn Applegate’s astonishing attempt to attribute the bacterial flagellum to “magic” rather than intelligent design. But I neglected to point out another problem with her critique of ID: She apparently does not understand what the theory of intelligent design actually proposes. Applegate’s misunderstanding becomes clear early-on when she asserts: “Despite the strong appearance of special design, most scientists, myself included, believe the evidence points to a gradual development for the bacterial flagellum.” Applegate here treats intelligent design as the opposite of “a gradual development of the bacterial flagellum.” But no intelligent design theorist would do that. Many intelligently-designed things in nature may well develop through a gradual process. That’s not the issue. Read More ›