Darwinism: Latest installment of the Darwin legend

Australia's Hiram Caton writes to say,

Hello Denyse!

I'm sending you this latest version of my synopsis of the Darwin Legend. There are two new entries since our last contact--Darwin's Biggest Fib, and Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln and Race. The fib is his claim, in the 6th ed of Origin, to have been the first to have argued the case for evolution. The other article draws attention to belief in the superiority of the Caucasian race espoused by Darwin and Lincoln. Darwin also believed that the lower races were on the path to extinction. Any comments will be appreciated.Cheers! - Hiram Caton

Synopsis of the Legend

++Belief that the Origin was a 'revolutionary' scientific breakthrough conflicts with the fact that public opinion was at the time saturated by the evolution idea. It was so widespread that in 1860 the showman P T Barnum put on display a freak, Zip the Pinhead, alleged to be the 'missing link' between apes and humans. In the Historical Sketch preface to the Origin, Darwin acknowledged 34 prior evolutionists.

[When I was in school 45 years ago, we learned that Evolution was a big, general idea in mid-nineteenth century Britain. It wasn't until I had to listen to wearisome rants by new atheists and Darwin lobbyists seeking funds that I discovered that Darwin had invented the idea.]

++The natural selection principle was not Darwin's world-changing discovery. It was first stated in 1831 by Patrick Matthew and was independently discovered in 1836 by Darwin's colleague, Edward Blyth. Herbert Spencer came close to a formulation in 1852, and Alfred Russel Wallace formulated it in 1858. Aware that natural selection did not explain racial variation, Darwin devised sexual selection as a supplementary principle.

[And we know where that led. To all kinds of silliness, actually. = "You cheatie on your sweetie because of your 'selfish genes'" - classic, stupid Valentines Day story]

++The Origin did not found modern biology. By 1850 it was a thriving cluster of cell biology sciences whose leaders were Matthias Schleiden, Theodor Schwann, Louis Pasteur, Rudolph Vircow, and Robert Koch. Darwin, a naturalist, was not involved in this research mode. His unfamiliarity with cell biology is manifest in his Pangenesis theory of the basis of organisms. Conversely, evolution did not become a parameter of experimental biology until August Weismann set out his germ plasm theory of inheritance in 1884.

++The Origin did not instigate a 'revolutionary' disruption of science from religious belief. That antagonism became a major cultural force thanks to the French Revolution. Utilitarianism, positivism, and socialism were the main drivers. By the 1830s these secularists began to add evolution to their rebuttals of religious beliefs. By 1860 this position was widespread throughout Europe and Latin America. Conversely, numerous scientists and clergy believed in the compatibility of science and religious faith, including the discoverer of the first quantitative biological laws, Gregor Mendel.

[Well, Mendel was a monk, right? I suppose he must have thought that the laws of inheritance were compatible with being a good Catholic ... otherwise .. ?]

++The Origin did not set out a single paleontological sequence of evolved species. Reason: methods for empirical analysis of fossil evidence were meager, a predicament that remained until the 1890s. The discovery of the Burgess Shale fossil deposit in 1909 could have supported a blossom of paleontology, yet that did not happen for another half century. The rudimentary level of human paleontology is expressed in the acceptance, in 1912, of the Piltdown Man as a genuine fossil. The hoax was not exposed until 1953.

[Hiram, I have always wondered about the fact that the Piltdown hoax took so long to be exposed, because a smart high school student could have exposed it. I casnnot believe that many people did not know. A sociologist might be able to explain why it was so important to keep the fraud going. Steve Fuller? ]

++Although Darwin opposed slavery from an early age, he did not believe in racial equality. In the Descent of Man and in correspondence, he arranged humanity in a hierarchy, with Caucasians at the top, and he believed that the extinction of 'lower races' was on course and would continue. This widely-shared view was integral to Euro-American imperial domination. Abraham Lincoln is among the anti-slavery proponents who so believed. Post-Civil War America imposed segregation on the freed blacks and Amerindians, while imperial powers treated colonial subjects in that vast empire as inferiors.

++The only application of evolutionary theory with practical effect was eugenics, devised by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. Three of his sons were dedicated to the cause, and one, Leonard, was the long-term President of the Eugenics Society who claimed to advance his father's views. He was also patron of a key figure in the creation of neo-darwinism, R A Fisher, who also supported eugenics.

[indispensable reading follows:]

Charles Robert Darwin www.darwin-legend.org
a.. The Darwin Legend
b.. Getting Our History Right - Six Errors about Darwin and His Influence
c.. The Origin of the Origin of Species: Revolution or More of the Same?
d.. Darwin's Illness
e.. The Syllabus of Errors
f.. Darwin's Cathedral
g.. Three Minilegends
h.. Charles Darwin, Abraham Lincoln and Race
i.. Darwin's Biggest Fib
j.. Soren Lovtrup's Rebuttal of Darwinism
k.. Review of Carroll's On the Origin of Species
l.. Review of Mayr's One Long Argument
m.. Review of Dempster's study of Patrick Matthew

[Well, thanks, Hiram! I don't expect to see this on typical school curricula, which are still fronting Darwin legends and vilifying anyone who doubts them.

But, you know, there are always people who actually want to know what really happened. And, in the end, they are the people who matter.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Intelligent design and popular culture: Actors wanted = Hams and eggheads

Actors wanted for play in Sydney, Austalia: here:

Some of you may know that last year I staged a play at the annual British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, which brought back Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin – who were both born on 12th February 1809 — to reflect on what has taken place since their time. Denyse O’Leary kindly mentioned the play here.

It takes the form of a talk show, with all the show biz that entails. At the end Lincoln and Darwin were asked whether they wished to stay in the present or return to the 19th century. One stays and the other goes – but which does which?

The play’s running time is 80 minutes and it covers a host of issues common to Lincoln and Darwin’s interests, including race, religion, science and politics. It’s got some funny bits, both intentional (especially from Jack) and unintentional (usually from Lincoln and Darwin trying to adjust to today).

Jason Rennie plans to stage this play for Australian radio and needs four actors for the following roles, each of which is quite distinct:

Lincoln and Darwin (as you’d expect them each to be)
Sheila (the bubbly talk show host)
Jack (the smart aleck sidekick)

(In principle, Sheila and Jack could reverse genders but the personality contrast needs to be present.)

If you’re interested, please contact Jason at thesciphishow@gmail.com

I think Steve Fuller's play is great fun, and when it gets produced in Australia, all I can say re hams and eggheads is, "I like mine turned upside Down."

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

The Post-Darwinist: Now back to our regular coverage ...

Yesterday, an astonishing number of people visited the Post-Darwinist, according to the site meter, and I see that this traffic bump continues*, at least for a while. This was the story that attracted their attention.

So I should perhaps say something to new visitors:

The Post-Darwinist was started in May 2005, to update my book, By Design or by Chance?, a 2004 overview of the intelligent design controversy. As I explained in a recent post:

When I first started monitoring the controversy in 1999, I heard that it was dead every six months. Then every three months, then every few weeks ... . I was fascinated by the difference between what pundits said and what I knew was happening. So in 2003, I ducked lucrative education writing contracts and wrote a book (By Design or by Chance?, 2004) exploring the controversy. In 2005, I started a blog, Post-Darwinist, to log its continued development.

I feel sorry for the third- and fourth-rate tax burdens who have written me shrill missives, advising that I am completely wrong to have ever doubted the old Brit toff Darwin - who ripped off earlier scientists to create a never-demonstrated creation story for atheism. You have done pretty well in forcing the rest of us to pay taxes to support your religion, but that’s where the train stops, I am afraid. And don’t get me started on Darwin's virulent racism either.

Just this on that:
Darwin and his fellow Victorian toffs were stuck with the creationist idea that we are all equally human. That's what the Bible said, but they didn't believe the Bible - however, they did not know exactly how to discredit the Bible. Darwin provided the toffs with a "scientific" means of discrediting the Bible, so that the hoped-for break between races of humans

will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (The Descent of Man)

So there it was at last. A "scientific" excuse for the toffs' existing sense of vast superiority and entitlement over other races. And the rest is, alas, history.

And Darwinists are so sure of their hold over popular culture that, incredibly, they have somehow wanted to link Lincoln and Darwin as liberators. A popular culture that accepts such a patent lie could not be liberated from anything, ever.

Re the Darwin cult: Go here and here for links to ridiculous hagiography of the old Brit toff - along with appropriate antidotes to splitting a gut laughing.

Anyway, the primary purpose of this blog is to log events in the intelligent design controversy, especially those that relate to popular culture, so let me put up ten of them before I get back to editing a manuscript I am supposed to be working on:

1. A friend directs my attention to Turkish creationist Harun Yahya’s fossil museum, containing, he says, 1500 reasons for doubting Darwin. Yahya, about whom I have written here and here, is interesting and indefatigable, and has a genius for publishing. Look at this coelacanth entry, for example.

Personally, I have only one reason for doubting Darwin: An essentially conservative process like natural selection does not create anything much. I don't claim that it cannot create anything ever, but only that it cannot create the abundance of intricate life we see around us -and that it is obvious that the universe we live in is designed.

*If you find yourself reading this message months from now, the pattern could be back to the usual, of people looking up stories in the archives, to the tune of several hundred a day only. I am referring to the pattern on January 8, 2009, 8:30 a.m. EST.

And while we are here, look at the orchid mantis. This Malaysian insect arranges itself to look like various flowers (while crunching up their pests).

Of course, in the days when the orchid mantis - supposedly slowly evolving along Darwinian lines - looked only 10% like an orchid - and other insects had well-tested strategies for avoiding appearing on the lunch menu - there was no chance whatever of the orchid mantis starving to death just because it looked like a mantis instead of a flower, right? So … oh, wait. Maybe we better go back to a familiar Darwin legend.

Generous donors to my PayPal button will be rewarded with the knowledge that I will try to acquire an orchid mantis and terrarium, and learn how to care for it in Toronto.

Do you live in Australia? Would you like to be part of a play - Darwin and Lincoln appear on a talk show - the author is Warwick University's controversial sociologist Steve Fuller. Hey - practice your 19th century Brit and American accents, folks - and may the best impersonators win! Learn more about the play here.

[More soon]

Deprogram from Darwin legends - free and fun!

I now have a chance to say more about retired Australian political science prof Hiram Caton's new Web site on the pious Darwin legends that currently infest popular media. (I first mentioned it here but couldn't follow up until now.)

Caton, a friend and associate of the late David Stove, author of Darwinian Fairy Tales, has done extensive research on the real story behind Darwin and his Origin of Species - and no, it is not the pious legends you will be hearing on public television.

Both Caton and Stove are recognized as agnostic philosophers with limited use for pious legends in science or religion (must be something in the air Down Under?) Anyway, here is Caton's beginning stab at hauling away the trash (and his deceased colleague would be proud):

^Belief that the Origin was a 'revolutionary' scientific breakthrough conflicts with the fact that public opinion was at the time saturated with the evolution idea. It was so widespread that in 1860 the showman P T Barnum put on display a freak, styled Zip the Pinhead, alleged to be the 'missing link' between apes and humans.

^The natural selection principle was first stated in 1831 by Patrick Matthew, and was independently discovered in 1836 by Darwin's naturalist colleague, Edward Blyth. Herbert Spencer came close to a formulation in 1852, and Alfred Wallace discovered it in 1858.

^The Origin did not found modern biology. By 1850 it was a thriving science whose leading men were Louis Pasteur, Claude Bernard, Rudolph Vircow, and Robert Koch. Darwin, a naturalist, was not involved in this research mode. Conversely, evolution was not a parameter of experimental biology.

^The Origin did not instigate a 'revolutionary' disruption of science from religious belief. That antagonism became a cultural force thanks to the French Revolution. By the 1830s, French and British radicals invoked evolution as a rebuttal of religious beliefs about God's creation.

By 1860 this position was widespread throughout Europe and Latin America. Conversely, numerous scientists and clergymen believed in the compatibility of science and religious faith. That includes the discoverer of the first quantitative biological laws, Gregor Mendel.

^The only practical application of Darwinian theory with potential cultural impact was eugenics, devised by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. Three of his sons were dedicated to the eugenics cause, and one of them, Leonard, was the patron of a key figure in the creation of neo-darwinism, R A Fisher, as well as President of the Eugenics Society

Dr. Caton tells me that his Web page, Whither Progress? on "Major Changes in Evolution Theory" is almost finished, and thanks me for reporting his views accurately, noting

I believe that you know that I don't believe that the extensive revisions and corrections of Neo-Darwinism imply rejection of evolution; rather the improvement of our understanding of it.

Yes, I got that. He argues that " ... the Modern Synthesis is obsolete, and that a new grasp of evolution is in the making, has been argued by numerous authors. My purpose here is to highlight some major innovations that have transformed evolution science.", which he does. Darwintrolls, this is not for you. Serious thinkers, have a look.

Check out his deprogram from Darwin legends here.

Dr. Caton also writes me to record, for historical purposes, the response of one much-feted "religious" Darwinist,

Among the responses I've had from my mailouts is one from a prominent evolutionary biologist , who is giving a paper on Darwin and religion at the Duquesne University Darwin celebration in November 2009. He wrote:

"Your synopsis says a number of truths, but they may amount to half-truths, since they seem to me to miss (but not only) what is the most important contribution of Darwin to the history of ideas: that he completed the Copernican Revolution by bringing the design of organisms into the realm of science. At a non-technical level, I elaborate this notion in my recent Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion (Joseph Henry Press, 2007)."

Caton then offers his response:

Good morning Professor!

Thanks very much for responding to my email. I'm aware that you are among those to whom my evidence is in opposition. Specifically, I maintain that Darwin was but one in a long line of naturalists and experimental scientists whose study of living nature was based entirely on natural causes. In 1859, the British and American public had been exposed to the evolutionary naturalism of Herbert Spencer and the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.

Commentators such as Ernst Mayr dismiss Vestiges as romantic garble of no scientific significance. That view was also expessed by some scientists of the time, e.g., Herschel and Sidgwick.

Nevertheless, Vestiges presented what was for many (e.g. the young Alfred Wallace, Abe Lincoln) a convincing argument that living nature could and should be explained entirely on natural principles (documented in Secord's Victorian Sensation).

Furthermore, there was an extensive purely naturalistic evolution literature, mostly in French, from 1790--1840, documented by Corsi, The Age of Lamarck).

On p. 159 of your book you write: "Indeed, a major burden was removed from the shoulders of believers when convincing evidence was advanced that the design of organisms need not be attributed to the immediate agency of the Creator, but rather is an outcome of natural processes." Perhaps today (not all believers would agree), but not historically. In 1864 Pope Pius IX decreed the Syllabus of Errors. Eighty errors are enumerated under ten headings: Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism; Moderate Rationalism; Indifferentism and Latitudinarianism; Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies; Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights; Errors about Civil Society, Considered Both in Itself and in its Relation to the Church; Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics; Errors Concerning Christian Marriage; Errors Regarding the Civil Power of the Sovereign Pontiff; Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism. Under the last three headings, the encyclical deals extensively with varieties of the demand for separation of church and state. Under the first heading, the first six errors are:

1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. - Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. -- Ibid.

3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. -- Ibid.

4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. -- Ibid. and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. -- Ibid.

6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. -- Ibid.

Notice that Evolution is not one of the ten headings. Nowhere in this document is evolution or Darwin mentioned. Nowhere. So according to the Church, not Darwin, but pantheism, naturalism, and absolute rationalism should be credited for freeing believers from the burden you mention.

Dr. Caton also advises me that

Several other mailout recipients have identified errors in my history, but on inspection they turn out to non-errors, and of course I've responded as I did to (the) Professor.

His email persuaded me that my response to him should go up on the legend website in an expanded form. I'll also include the London Times obituary of Darwin. It's a long-very long-eulogy whose extravagance is matched only by praise of Stalin and Mao. Darwin is the greatest scientist and thinker of all times, &c &c. He's so great that the writer doesn't even compare him with anyone else--except Newton, who, of course, he excels.

Well, Dr. Caton, the BoBos need a god and I guess his name is Darwin.

Anyway, if you have read this far, check this out.

Alfred Russel Wallace comes in for some long overdue recognition

Some have suggested that intelligent design theorists should consider Darwin's much-neglected co-theorist, Alfred Russel Wallace (January 8, 1823-November 7, 1913), an inspiration. Some seem to be taking up the challenge.

Wallace came up with the same "survival of the fittest" idea as Darwin. But - because he found order, meaning, and purpose in the universe - Wallace was not a racist and did not claim that Darwinism was the best idea has ever had, as best-selling authors do today (because it explains the history of life, supposedly).

A key change in the intelligent design controversy in recent years is this: Just what Darwinism really does is slowly but surely becoming a subject of rational enquiry, rather than tax-funded, court-ordered worship.

A friend wrote recently to say,

On Nov. 7, 1913, Alfred Russel Wallace died. Once again, we didn't pay tribute to him in our blogs. I usually wait one day, read the newspapers and magazines, and then post something to remember this date and call attention to the fact that Wallace should also be remembered.

Ah, yes, do pay tribute - as long as it is not the ridiculous and appalling hagiography that surrounds Darwin, such that Darwin, his theory, and his tax-supported followers are immune from rational examination.

For the record, Wallace is not a liberator equivalent to Abraham Lincoln, or should it anything like this be said of him:

Darwin revolutionised the biology of his day; he fashioned a new concept of humankind; he challenged basic philosophical and religious ideas about the nature and meaning of life; so profound was his insight that his thought remains relevant to contemporary biology. These surpassing achievements brought a “revolution” equal in importance to the Copernican revolution. Smitten with reverence, my eye falls on the dust jacket to contemplate the photo of the dignified aged Darwin: yes, he looks like a prophet!

Satirical but just. A Wallace admirer would evade this nonsense, not because Wallace wasn't a great biologist, but precisely because he was. He deserves a better remembrance than to focus neuroses, as Darwin does, for people who would really be happier swinging from the trees.

My friend advises that a small, old biographical booklet on Wallace can be downloaded free here. He reminds me that this month is the centennial of Wallace's book The World of Life, wherein he lays out his own approach to evolution. Wallace scholar Michael Flannery provides an introduction. Flannery is also shortly to publish a new biography of Wallace with Discovery Institute Press, accompanied by a Web site explaining his intelligent evolution approach.

The guardians of the miniscule Wallace cult don't like it, and promptly get everything wrong - but what would one expect? Science history is too important to be left to cultists, just as ethics is too important to be left to ethicists.

Darwin skeptic Suzan Mazur is one fine journalist

Here is her interview with David H. Koch, a Darwin-thumping multi-millionaire who has done much to front the cult to the public ("Evolution Sea Change?: David H. Koch Weighs In ," Archaeology Today, February 17, 2009). Mazur made headlines last year when she wrote about the Altenberg 16, scientists who met in Austria to plan a way of understanding evolution that was free of tax-funded Darwin worship. Anyway, among other things, we learn:

Next year, the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins opens at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, where evidence of 6 million years of human evolution will be part of an interactive display that includes the Laetoli footprints and a reconstruction of Lucy. Visitors will be able to pass through a time tunnel to view early humans "floating in and out of focus," touch models of ancient human fossils as well as watch their own faces morph into those of extinct species. The Smithsonian display follows the creation of the American Museum of Natural History's David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing.

Rendering of proposed "Human Characteristics" display at the Smithsonian's David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins, now in development. (Courtesy David Koch)
Richard Potts, director of the Smithsonian's Human Origins Program, explained about the new exhibition, "David's commitment to science and the study of human evolution will enable the Smithsonian to bring the latest discoveries in this field to the broadest audiences. The exhibition, still in the planning stages, encourages the public to explore the lengthy process of change in human characteristics over time. It also presents one of the new research themes in this field--the dramatic changes in environment that set the stage for human evolution. Although the subject can be controversial, the unearthed discoveries that bear on the question of human origins are a source of deep interest and significance for everyone to contemplate."

David Koch is Executive Vice President of $110 billion Koch Industries (he owns 42%) and CEO of its subsidiary, Koch Chemical Technology Group. He is often described as Manhattan's wealthiest resident, and contributes to Lincoln Center, Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the fertility clinic at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, to name a few. He is also is the principal private funder of PBS's Nova series.

It gets better when she begins to challenge him:

Suzan Mazur: As a man committed to the principles and practices of freedom, including scientific freedom, and as a scientist yourself with degrees from MIT in chemical engineering - is it your perspective that we are now witnessing a sea change in evolutionary thinking? That even as the global celebration begins for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, the man who brought us the theory of evolution by natural selection 150 years ago--Darwinian selection, or survival of the fittest, is now being viewed by serious evolutionary scientists as not enough to explain our existence?

To quote from my interview several months ago with NASA astrobiologist Chris Mckay, who was featured in the recent Nova Mars documentary you helped underwrite: "Something had to precede Darwinian natural selection. The Darwinian paradigm breaks down in two obvious ways. First, and most clear, Darwinian selection cannot be responsible for the origin of life. Second, there is some thought that Darwinian selection cannot fully explain the rise of complexity at the molecular level." So the question is: Is it your perspective that we are now witnessing a sea change in evolutionary thinking?

David Koch: No. I don't think it's a sea change. The sea change occurred back when Darwin published his evolutionary theories, backed up by massive, overwhelming evidence. What's happened since is that there's been a rather steady progressive acceptance of the concepts of evolution in the general public. It's amazing to me that in America a large faction of the population still doesn't believe in it.

Suzan Mazur: But the point is that Darwin started with life. He addressed what happens once you have life. He didn't address the origin of life. That's what Chris McKay, the NASA astrobiologist is saying.

And so it goes, until she gets him to admit that he does not know what he is talking about.

Well, we must give the guy marks for honesty. The average third-rate biology prof is just content to emit Darwin noises and know as little as possible about real challenges.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Dhimmis for Darwin? Well, we do live in strange times ...

Canadian journalist David Warren, who is a Catholic like me, writes to say that

American Protestant clergy prepare annual "Dhimmis for Darwin" weekend ("Evolution Sunday"), in which they present themselves to be eaten by the Natural Selectors:

He is referring, of course, to the upcoming Evolution Sunday, on which American liberal Protestant clergy will try to sell Darwin's theory of evolution to their congregations. It's unclear to me why that should be their business, but in any event, Warren also notes the Houston Chronicle's puff, and sums up Evolution Sunday as follows,

The conflict, as I have been at pains to stress, is specifically between Christianity, & Scientism. Surrendering to Scientism is one way to end that conflict, but not my preferred way.

Update!: Readers who wish to know what kind of theology results from any prolonged immersion in Darwinism should see this most interesting story by Jeremy Manier in the Chicago Tribune. If you are a Christian and Evolution Sunday is coming to your church soon, this theology probably will be too:

"If your faith requires supernaturalism, or a God who wields overpowering control over nature, then yes, evolution will challenge that," says Van Till, who took early retirement from Calvin College in 1999."The key is to correct your portrait of God," he says.

My advice: Compare it to the New Testament and make your choice. Because it IS a choice.

Frankly, I can't really blame Evangelicals for not taking part. Even if an Evangelical church and pastor were comfortable with the relationship between evolution and a specifically Evangelical expression of the Christian faith, I doubt they would be comfortable with a) identifying with a group that includes many Christian congregations and pastors well outside of Christian orthodoxy (& from the website, it looks like the group is now broadening the scope to other religions as well) and b) signing a statement that may forcefully support the science of evolution but which waters down the faith component to make it almost unpalatable for Evangelicals. (For eg., Christ is not mentioned in the formal statement see [linked here]

Martin has ideas for doing what Darwin himself could not do, and knew he couldn't do: Make materialism coincide with theism.

Oh, and while you're here, a book for your school library, if you are an American who prefers Darwin Day to Lincoln's birthday. Hat tip fivefeetoffury.com

Also, today at Access Research Network: Freud, Marx, and Darwin - this time by Theodore Dalrymple

Update February 7, 2008: Steve Martin, a supporter of Evolution Sunday admits

Intelligent design and popular culture: The ghost of Darwin rises

Yes - an entertaining play (for once) on the intelligent design controversy

Sociologist Steve Fuller who studies the intelligent design-Darwin controversy - and is in danger of being roasted by Darwin trolls - has written a play, and it's actually a good show.

I have gone on record saying that almost all "cause" art of any kind is "freakingly awful":

Most “cause” books and movies are terrible. Just terrible. Freakingly awful.

There is a good reason for that.

A novel or film must incarnate, not explain.

It must show people living the situation, not talking about it.

But Fuller has an interesting premise: A postmodern talk show on which Charles Darwin (Chuck) and Abe Lincoln (Abe), whose birthdays fall on the same day, appear.

They are interviewed, and decide if they want to stay in the present or go back to wherever they are now (not disclosed as a matter of broadcast policy).

There are two hosts - the big hair hostette (Sheila) and a wisecracking dude on a short lead (Jack). Here's just a snippet:

ABE [bemused]: Like it or not, Darwin, it seems that you’ve been turned into the God behind the new science of Genesis!

CHUCK [looks cross]: I fail to see the humour in all this. My good name has been misappropriated for some sophisticated form of alchemy!

SHEILA: Chuck, lighten up! The stuff works – at least most of the time. I mean – I’ve got this recent testimonial from an expert. Listen to what he says:

“Genes are digitally coded text, in a sense too full to be dismissed as an analogy. Like human words they have the power to hurt and to heal, and that power is the greater because, given the right conditions, genetic words can dictate with stronger predictability than most human imperatives.”

CHUCK: That sounds like the ravings of some theologian still stuck in the seventeenth century with his Book of Nature and Book of God.

SHEILA: No, Chuck! That’s Richard Dawkins. He’s on your side. He’s the greatest evolutionist ever produced by television!

CHUCK: That word again! Television.

JACK [Trying to be helpful]: Chuck, look at it this way: Not only do we need to manufacture evolution and the science of evolution, but we also need to manufacture a demand for the science of evolution. And so, in the end, most of our money gets thrown at the marketing department to sell evolution to the masses. And by God, can Dawkins reel in the punters! And he does this in the medium we call television…

Actually Dawkins and the ponderous "evolution" TV specials have been the best source of business for the intelligent design advocates in my view.

I am glad someone understands this, even if it is only the ghost of Darwin.

Hey, let's give the ol' ghost a glass of spirits to ease his passage back to wherever ...

Update (Saturday, September 20): In response to my question whether the play is online anywhere and how it was received, Steve Fuller writes to say,

The play has been video-recorded and DVDs are currently being made. However, I
don't think the video-recording compnay is making it available through the
internet. However, the buzz surrounding the play has been strong. This week's
issue of The New Scientist will have a story on it and I've been asked to stage
it at the largest science event venue in Oxford next year.

I hope they videorecord it.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

1. Socratic Method: Short Stories and James Hoskins

Click here to listen.

Today on ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews James Hoskins about his latest creative writing endeavors. Hoskins, a philosophy major at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, has written several pieces based on the debate between ID and Darwinian evolution, including one that pits Socrates and imaginary materialist Hector Dawkins against each other as they argue over the scientific merit of ID. Hoskins also reads excerpts from some of his stories, and describes the inspiration behind them.

Hoskins' work, including his Debate Between Socrates and Hector Dawkins, can be downloaded from ID Arts here. It is interesting that intelligent design is increasingly the subject of artwork. See also Steve Fuller's clever little play, which puts Abe Lincoln and Charles Darwin (born on the same day) on a contemporary talk show, hosted by a big hair hostette and a wisecracking dude on a short lead.)

2. The Dark Darwinian History of Eugenics

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, John West takes a look at the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century and how it drew direct inspiration from Darwinian biology and the writings of Charles Darwin himself. The eugenics movement was no fringe effort, but was the view of mainstream science and espoused by those at Harvard, Princeton, and the National Academy of Science.

For more, visit the website of Dr. West's book, Darwin Day in America.

(Someone should write a book about the Darwin industry's efforts to separate their prophet from the eugenics he believed in and inspired. Unlike the Catholic Church, they cannot just face up to that episode in their history, and get past it. They react with outrage and denial when anyone brings it up, though the history is very well documented. See, for example, From Darwin to Hitler.)


3. Intelligent Design 101: Casey Luskin on Human Chromosomal Fusion

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID The Future, Casey Luskin continues the series begun in the previous podcast (Intelligent Design 101: State of the Debate), rebutting an argument for common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees in Dr. Francis Collins' book The Language of God.

Taken from a recently finished appendix to Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues, Luskin responds to the notion that similar chromosomal structure between the two species is proof of a common lineage by saying plainly that the discovery is equally compatible with a theory of common design.

(I find this a messy and complex issue. I don't really have a problem with common descent of humans and chimpanzees in principle. If you think about it, we are all more closely related to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and other moral monsters than we are to Travis, the rampaging chimpanzee.

That said, the vast majority of common descent zealots see it as downgrading humans (= "We are not a little lower than the angels, as the Bible says; we are merely the third chimpanzee species, animals like any other.") It was supposed to be Darwin's great achievement to establish that that is so. The reality is that, common descent or not, we moved away from the chimpanzees' neighbourhood a long time ago, which is why I can call Joseph Stalin a moral monster, but not Travis.)

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with comments

1. David Berlinski and The Deniable Darwin

Excerpt from my comments:

Earlier this year I was listening to a committed materialist, theoretical physicist Larry Krauss of Arizona State U, explain in detail, exactly how the world is going to end.

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how he differs from the hellfire sect banging on my door inconveniently on Saturday morning, handing me a tract explaining ... how the world is going to end. Krauss says he has "science" on his side. Yes, but ... . science has changed its mind on a number of issues many times in the past few centuries, when its theories proved false.

So has the hellfire sect, though the history is less often recorded.

Anyway, listen here.

On today’s episode of ID the Future, mathematician and consummate skeptic David Berlinski shares with Discovery President Bruce Chapman about his award-winning essays from Commentary Magazine and the answers that are unacceptable to the scientific community.

The essays first published in Commentary Magazine are now available in The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays , a new book published by Discovery Institute Press, where nothing is exempt from Berlinski’s famous skepticism, excluding neither Darwinism nor intelligent design from his critical eye. The 32 essays included in this volume span fifteen years of wit and insight. Visit the website for more information.

More about the book:

When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence.

Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff.

I should say so. Earlier this year I was listening to a committed materialist, theoretical physicist Larry Krauss of Arizona State U, explain in detail, exactly how the world is going to end.

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how he differs from the hellfire sect banging on my door inconveniently on Saturday morning, handing me a tract explaining ... how the world is going to end.

Krauss says he has "science" on his side. Yes, but ... . science has changed its mind on a number of issues many times in the past few centuries, when its theories proved false.

So has the hellfire sect, though the history is less often recorded.

Look, I am a Catholic Christian and am busy and don't know how the world is going to end.

Onto the next pod:

2. You should also listen to this one:

How Information Theory Is Taking Intelligent Design Mainstream: An Interview With Dr. William Dembski

This episode of ID the Future continues Casey Luskin's interviews Dr. William Dembski on his new peer-reviewed paper, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," published in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans.

How does this peer-reviewed scientific paper support intelligent design? Listen in as Dr. Dembski shares how his research tests evolutionary theory using information theory and the follow-up paper that he and fellow researcher Dr. Robert Marks are working on.

For more information, read the paper at EvoInfo.org.

Darwinism, as fronted today, is a bankrupt idea. But lots of public payrollers front it into their retirement by sounding alarms about the awful things that will happen if anyone is permitted to question it.

The fact is, natural selection is an immense conservative, not creative, force in nature. As I have said before, it explains why wild wolves of the northern forest* tend to look alike but tame dogs - subject only to intelligent (?) design could be dachsunds, chihuahuas, or Newfoundland rescue dogs.

I can only attribute the current belief in the supposedly immense creative powers of natural selection to urbanization, indoctrination in schools, the desire to avoid conflict, and atheist superstition.

*Note: Yes, I did once meet a wolf. He sure looked like a wolf to me, but he was part of a sled dog pack. When a typical pack bark started up, he could only howl. Okay, he was a wolf, as I had guessed. (In general, wolves do not bark.) I did not rat him or his keeper out. Look, when you need a job, you need a job. Each sled pack member gets frozen bricks of chicken parts daily. And every form of refuge has its price. Also, there is no unemployment insurance lineup for wolves.

3. The Origins of Intelligent Design: Countering Darwinist Urban Legends

Listen here

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC’s Robert Crowther takes aim at Darwinist misinformation about the origins of intelligent design. Crowther makes mincemeat of the assertion that the term “intelligent design” was fabricated following the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court case, showing instead that the term is over 100 years old. He also targets the old Darwinist canard that terms like micro- and macro-evolution were made up by Darwin’s critics.

For more information on the history of intelligent design, read CSC Senior Fellow Jonathan Witt’s "The Origin of Intelligent Design."

As Darwinism becomes increasingly unbelievable in the light of new information, it is no surprise that urban legends start up, to defend it. But it is useful to know which charges some overheated person is making at a public meeting are in fact urban legends. Remember, that person may have been pumped in advance by a Darwinist or Christian Darwinist operative, and may not even realize that the Truths they have been told are merely legends, so go lightly over the earth. Also, remember, many teachers are compelled to recite Darwinist nonsense (or other nonsense, possibly) to keep their jobs. No reason to assume they believe it.

Whatever happened to the days when teachers were considered professionals, like doctors and lawyers?

4. The Real Frankenstein: Giovanni Aldini

Listen here.

On this special Halloween edition of ID the Future, John West shares the inspiration for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

In his book, Darwin Day in America, West examines the experiments that Italian scientist Giovanni Aldini conducted on human corpses. His gruesome experiments provided the inspiration for Frankenstein and foreshadowed the rise of a virulent strain of materialism that attempted to use science to reduce human beings to mere matter in motion.

Okay, Hallowe'en is over and we have mostly got the window soap message pranks and toilet paper pranks out of our lives, but West's book is much recommended by me. He really helped me understand how materialism came to be a dominant force in society.

5. Darwin's Predictions With Cornelius Hunter

Listen here:

On this episode of ID the Future, Cornelius Hunter is interviewed by Casey Luskin about his website, DarwinsPredictions.com , and his blog, Darwin's God:

Listen in as Dr. Hunter examines the evidence of evolution's failure as a theory and answers the objections evolutionists raise to his arguments.

Well, which of Darwin's predictions ever did come true? I'd be interested to hear.

I don't know what's true, but I know what isn't. And I hate seeing Brit toff Darwin compared to refugee scientist Einstein or emancipator Abe Lincoln.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:




5. Posted November 5, 2009


Darwinism and popular culture: A tour of the textbooks

Sometimes, when discussing the much misunderstood Scopes Trial, I have referred to the textbook from which Scopes was teaching, Hunter's Civic Biology, which seems to have been an amalgam of civics and biology, with a dose of eugenics thrown in, and smug assertions about "highest" or "lowest". Bad idea. Enough already with total subject confusion, ecological misunderstanding, and useless social conflict. Here's an interesting site where Ron Ladouceur gives us a tour of exotic textbooks of our storied past.

I am glad my own biology teachers focused on the cell theory of life, the germ theory of disease, and the life and times of the endangered ribbon snake (= ecology).

There is only so much students will take away when they graduate (if they do) , and you want it to be something they can make sense of in dealing with their own life and environment.


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

For one night only!: Hear Steve Fuller's "Lincoln and Darwin play"

Go here to hear the play online. Basically, here's the idea:

Fuller has an interesting premise: A postmodern talk show on which Charles Darwin (Chuck) and Abe Lincoln (Abe), whose birthdays fall on the same day, appear. They are interviewed, and decide if they want to stay in the present or go back to wherever they are now (not disclosed as a matter of broadcast policy). There are two hosts - the big hair hostette (Sheila) and a wisecracking dude on a short lead (Jack). Here’s just a snippet:

ABE [bemused]: Like it or not, Darwin, it seems that you’ve been turned into the God behind the new science of Genesis!

CHUCK [looks cross]: I fail to see the humour in all this. My good name has been misappropriated for some sophisticated form of alchemy!

SHEILA: Chuck, lighten up! The stuff works – at least most of the time. I mean – I’ve got this recent testimonial from an expert. Listen to what he says: “Genes are digitally coded text, in a sense too full to be dismissed as an analogy. Like human words they have the power to hurt and to heal, and that power is the greater because, given the right conditions, genetic words can dictate with stronger predictability than most human imperatives.”

CHUCK: That sounds like the ravings of some theologian still stuck in the seventeenth century with his Book of Nature and Book of God.

SHEILA: No, Chuck! That’s Richard Dawkins. He’s on your side. He’s the greatest evolutionist ever produced by television!

More here.

Sociologist Steve Fuller: Darwin's theory is 19th century sociology

Fuller, a University of Warwick sociologist who specializes in science theory, and author of Dissent over Descent, will comment at Uncommon Descent in 2009, the Year the Darwin Cult Flowers. He starts today with this:

First, stripped of its current scientific scaffolding, Darwinism is a 19th century social theory that has been turned into a ‘general unified theory of everything’, and as such belongs in the same category as Marxism and Freudianism. The big difference is that Marxism and Freudianism – throughout their existence – have been contested (many would say decisively) by several alternative ways of organizing and interpreting the same body of data. In the case of Darwinism, this largely ended by 1950. However, it doesn’t mean that Darwinism has somehow turned into something other than a 19th century social theory. No, it’s simply a 19th century social theory with unusual clout. Indeed, Darwinism is really no different from Marxism and Freudianism in using its concepts as rhetorical devices for associating intuitively clear phenomena with rather deep and mysterious causes. I hope to draw your attention to examples of this in the coming weeks.

Agnostic Fuller also wrote a very entertaining play based on the idea of Darwin and Abe Lincoln appearing on a talk show. He has debated theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander and has replied to conventional Darwinist Sarkar Sahotra. He appears in Expelled.

Rte the Darwin cult: Go here and here for links to ridiculous hagiography of the old Brit toff - along with appropriate antidotes to splitting a gut.

See also: Intelligent design and popular culture: Population crank is now U.S. science and technology policy director

Intelligent design and popular culture: Secular humanists lead the way in offering open debate

Steve Fuller, an agnostic sociologist who has chosen for his subject the debate between intelligent design and Darwinism has come under predictable attack from widely publicised Darwinoid trolls and has responded.

Kudos to New Humanist for having the good sense to actually ask for a response, instead of sitting, fat and contented, like a toad in a hole, spouting ... whatever a fat, contented toad spouts.

Given this evidence, I must perhaps revise my opinion of secular humanists. Maybe not all are useless tax-supported sludge, launching government-funded persecutions. Some may actually enjoy a serious exchange of ideas. Well, I like those sorts of revisions. Moving people into the category of "interesting" is always good.

Meanwhile, Steve Fuller has also written a play:

He expects the play to stir up Darwinists, even though its aim was not to "beat (the Darwinists) over the head" or argue that they had to believe in God. He said he was seeking to show that the evidence base Darwin had to work with had "really shifted a lot".

Writing a dramatic work had been an interesting experience, he said. "(It) requires a different kind of thinking from normal academic work. You have to lay the stuff out much more slowly than you would if you were writing a paper, where someone has the option of rereading."

Professor Fuller wrote the play, Lincoln and Darwin: Live for One Night Only!, as a "creative" replacement to the usual symposium he would be expected to give in his capacity as president of the sociological section of the BA festival.

He hopes to stage the work at next year's festival of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

It is hard to imagine that the American Association for the Advancement of Science will be as open as New Humanist. Too much public money, too many orgmen involved.

But, in my view, Fuller's troupe should go to the AAAS Festival nonetheless, perform the play on the outskirts, and use viral marketing to guarantee a bigger crowd for their show than for the boring establishment sludge.

That would perfectly mirror the intelligent design controversy in North America.

Then all we need is more useless pundettes who flunked Grade Six math freaking out over why anyone supposes that the universe shows evidence of design.

Pundette cannot get through her own day without sixteen image assistants/consultants, so that proves her point conclusively, right?

Yuh. Camera Two, dolly in to cleavage.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Darwinism and popular culture: Capturing traditional peoples and treating them as exhibits ...

Here I reference the zoo exhibit of an African, that was clearly in support of Darwinism.

But, for the record, Darwinists did not invent the practice of grabbing traditional people and presenting them as exotic exhibits. What they did was continue, in the name of supposed "science" what had originally been done in the name of greed and exploitation.

Here is an entry concerning the latter from Canadian history:

Against Donnacona's [the chief's] wishes, Cartier set out Sept 19 to explore the river farther, reaching HOCHELAGA [Montréal] on Oct 2. On his return to Stadacona he found that relations with the natives were strained. The effect of a severe winter was made more tragic by SCURVY, which claimed 25 lives among the French. On 6 May 1536 he left for France with some captured Iroquois, including Donnacona, arriving July 16.

Right. The chief who had befriended the European explorer ended up a prisoner, in France, of all places. No surprise, he died there; most such people did. But they intrigued the populace.

But this must be said: Darwinists need "ape men" in a way that no one else does, because no one else cares if there aren't any ape men and never have been - for the same reasons as no one cares if Puff the Magic Dragon has never existed.

I wish they would just acknowledge this and get over it, so I wouldn't have to keep shoving the wrongdoing in their faces.

It is nauseating to hear the ol' Brit toff Darwin compared to Abe Lincoln as an "emancipator."

Look, Darwinists, you are not fooling anyone except your museum docents, and a few other docile people who need the work.

Darwinist persecution wins sympathy for ID folk?

In an interesting contrarian essay on the intelligent design controversy, James Bownman notes in the New Criterion,

... contrarian that I am, I don’t seem to be able to keep myself from sympathy for those who find themselves in the bull’s eye of the media culture, no matter how unsympathetic I might otherwise find them—and from growing more and more sympathetic to them the more they are hated and reviled. The Intelligent Design people are thus beginning to look to me a bit like President George W. Bush, who has been so viciously and so unfairly execrated for so long by the sort of right-thinking media-and-entertainment types who consider Maureen Dowd a wit that I now regularly have to stifle the urge to cry him up as the greatest president since Lincoln. And he, I started out thinking, was at least a decent sort of guy. Lately I have had to clasp to my bosom such relatively unlovely media-butts as Karl Rove and Tom DeLay, men of whom I might in other circumstances be inclined to be rather critical. But I tell myself that I can’t go so very wrong by continuing to love those whom the media hate and hate those whom the media love.

He makes a number of interesting points, and he thinks John Lennon is as silly as I do. (Well-meaning, sure, but silly.)

If you like this blog, check out my award-winning book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

(Note: If you came here looking for the story about the Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here. Other frequently sought stories (academic freedom, museums fanatically promoting Darwinism, lawsuit over use of public funds to promote liberal religious views on evolution) appear at the bottom of today's posts. )

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

Blog policy note: Blogger software now permits me to moderate comments before they appear, so I am re-enabling comments on a trial basis. Regular readers may recall that for a while I disabled comments due to persistent problems with defamation and obscenity. One person, who is probably not in the running for Brilliant Rocket Scientist of the Year, made a defamatory remark about an American attorney who has demonstrated his willingness to sue in cases of defamation! After that scary episode, a legal advisor strictly warned me to either permit no comments or else make no effort to moderate them - and advertise the fact that I don't. For a while, I simply chose the first way because the second sounds completely unacceptable. Now that Blogger software has very recently enabled me to screen Comments prior to publication, let's hope we can have a lively Letters to the Editor column. As usual, no one need go to the trouble of bothering me with profanity, blasphemy, defamation, naked URLs, solicitations or appeals, threats, insults, or any material that a Canadian grandmother who has been in the news business for thirty-five years would be unlikely to publish. The Internet is the last free country in the world, and someone, somewhere, will surely publish such rubbish, so even if you think I am a prude, your rights are not violated thereby.

Recent Column: Can you choose to help? Or are you simply spreading your selfish genes?

(Note: This column won an Award of Merit at Write Canada 2007. It was originally published in Maranatha News, June 2006.)

by Denyse O'Leary

Canadian Andrew Brash, a Calgary resident, was only a few hundred steps from his dream - the summit of Mount Everest. Then, he saw something that made him turn aside.

Australian mountaineer, Lincoln Hall, was sitting on the ridge in a thin shirt, with no hat or gloves. His guides had left him for dead and, his hands nearly frozen, he was trying to jump over a cliff. Brash prevented him from jumping and thus saved his life. But Brash did not think of himself as a hero, even though days before, a group of 40 climbers had not stopped to help a Briton dying on the mountainside.

If all this sounds a bit like the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30 37), maybe that is because life imitates not merely art but prophecy. In every age, there are those who help, at a cost to themselves and those who don't.

Helping at risk to oneself is not new. When the Air France Airbus crashed in Toronto on August 2, 2005, a number of motorists helped passengers to safety. Similarly, on November 6, 2005, Grandmother Rosalia DeSantis was travelling home on the subway and, feeling hot and dizzy, she leaned over the edge of the platform . Later, in Sunnybrook Hospital's emergency ward, she learned what had happened to her. She had fainted, hit her head, fallen into the gap, and was lying across a track bleeding. The train was coming into the station in seconds.

How had she survived? Two men who knew neither her nor each other Theo Parusis, 25, and Alvaro Meija, 26 jumped down onto the track and hoisted her up to safety, five seconds before the train rolled over the spot.

One thing I learned while writing By Design or by Chance? (2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy and while co-authoring The Spiritual Brain (Harper 2007) is that materialistic philosophy has a hard time accounting for altruism. The most fashionable theory today argues that you do not act to benefit others because you think God wants you to but in order to spread your selfish genes, as a product of evolution. Thus, you might help your own relatives, because they have some identical genes with you. Therefore helping your relatives spreads at least some of your genes. But you are unlikely to help people who do not share genes with you. The famous evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane put it this way, "Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins."

The main problem with the materialistic theory expressed by Haldane is not that it offends religious believers but that it ignores the evidence. The evidence is that people often help unrelated others in situations where they cannot expect any reward, may suffer a disappointment or undergo a serious risk, and have no reason to think that they will spread their genes. This is only a small part of the growing conflict between Christianity and Darwinism that I have been tracking for a number of years now. It is certainly a far cry from "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13, NIV) and "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:7 8 ). These sayings do not even mention relatives. Jesus died both for friends and for non-friends. No wonder there are growing worldview conflicts.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

NEW!! Evolution in the light of intelligent design - look up intelligent design topics here.

Animations of life inside the cell, indexed, for your convenience.

Anti-God crusade ... no, really! My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

Catholic Church A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

Collins, Francis My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God

Columnists weigh in on the intelligent design controversy A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

Darwinism dissent Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin

Gilder, George A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

Intelligent design academic publications.

Intelligent design-friendly students should be flunked, according to bio prof Evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Intelligent design controversy My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

Intelligent design controversy timeline An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Intelligent design and culture My review of sci-fi great Rob Sawyer’s novel, The Calculating God , which addresses the concept of intelligent design.

March of the Penguins A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

Origin of life Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Peer review My backgrounder about peer review issues.

Polls relevant to the intelligent design controversy A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

Stove, David O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment will be accepted if I think they contribute to a discussion. For best results, give your name or some idea who you are and why we should care. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.