|The Dawkins Confusion
by Alvin Plantinga
A review of Richard Dawkin's new book The God Delusion
From the March/April 2007 issue of Books & Culture:
|Daniel Dennett Hunts the Snark
by David B. Hart
A review of Dennett's (a self avowed "fundamentalist
Darwinian") new book Breaking the Spell.
From the January 2007 issue of First Things:
by Edward T. Oakes
The results are clear when Darwinism is applied to humanity. This should be taken into account when evaluating the truth of Darwinism/Naturalism versus other metanarratives (such as Christian theism).
From the November/December 2006 issue of Books & Culture:
|Survival of the Evolution Debate
by Adam Wolfson
Why the establishment is frustrated that the issue just won't go away.
From the January 16, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard:
by Michael Behe
How the scientific establishment is blinded by their own worldview bias and therefore must maintain the evolution orthodoxy.
From the December 2005 issue of First Things:
|Federal Judge in Pennsylvania slams local school board
Check out the arrogance, condesension and bias in the recent (12/20/05) federal judge's ruling mandating the teaching of evolution in public schools (Pennsylvania) with no alternatives at all (such as intelligent design):
(Note especially his calling critics of evolution 'inane', and his assertion that the critics of evolution are motivated by religious beliefs, while those advocating a one-sided pro-evolution position as scientific, i.e. unbiased and neutral!)
|Stifling Intellectual Inquiry
by Richard John Neuhaus
How the evolutionist establishment is intolerant of any dissent for questioning of its dogma (ironically many of the same people who accuse Christians of intolerance).
From the April 2005 issue of First Things:
|The Devil's Chaplain Confounded
by Stephen M. Barr
Good analysis of the thought of Richard Dawkins, one of the leading advocates of evolution alive today. Illustrates the difficulty (even impossibility) of being a consistent evolutionist.
From the August / September 2004 issue of First Things:
|Darwin and the Descent of Morality
by Benjamin Wiker
From the November 2001 issue of First Things
| Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation
by Nancy Pearcey
Review of a book by Peter Singer.
From the October 2000 issue of First Things:
| Conservatives, Darwin and Design
From the November 2000 issue of First Things:
| The Blind Programmer
by Edward T. Oakes
A critique of a book by Steven Pinker, which is a defense of how evolution gives rise to the human mind.
From the March 1998 issue of First Things:
| Science and Design
by William Dembski
A great article on Intelligent Design by one of the leaders of this movement. Uses the SETI project as an example of the search for intelligence as the cause of design in the universe.
From the October 1998 issue of First Things:
| The Truth about Inherit the Wind
by Carol Iannone
The Scopes trial of history vs. the dramatic fictional play and then movie version.
From the February 1997 issue of First Things:
| The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism
by Phillip E. Johnson
From the November 1997 issue of First Things:
| Untangling Evolutionism
by Stephen M. Barr
From the December 1997 issue of First Things:
| Reason in the Balance
A book review by Nancy R. Pearcey
The march of Naturalism through Science, Law, and Education.
From the February 1996 issue of First Things:
| The Atheism of the Gaps
by Stephen M. Barr
'Penrose shows that materialism itself is now the faith of the "gaps." It is in the gaps of undiscovered and unprecedented "non-computational" laws of physics and of uninvented and so-far unimaginable non- computational
thinking machines that the "missing science of consciousness" is forced to lurk.'
From the November 1995 issue of First Things:
I agree with EE Dude. Is evolution science? Does the evidence as a whole support evolution? Or are the alternatives just too horrible for many scientists and other thinkers
Before Darwin, theism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam,etc.) as a worldview had a distinct advantage over naturalistic materialists (atheists). How could materialists explain the existence of the universe vs. no universe at all? Or the existence
of man as a thinking, rational being (the origin of the human mind). With the mechanism of natural selection over billions of years, now materialists had a theory to explain all this which would also very nicely support and advance their
worldview. God, or the Prime Mover, as Aristotle called Him, was no longer required.
Cellular biologist Michael Behe has written an article called Scientific Orthodoxies in the December 2005 issue of First Things, in which he documents how a vast majority of scientists are materialists. Do they support evolution
because of the weight of the evidence, or because it supports their worldview? Postmodernism is no friend of theism or classical Christianity, but in this case it does offer an interesting observation. People, even scientists, view the world
from their perspective. The facts, the particulars of the world, are arranged to fit our pre-existing worldview. Sociologist Peter Berger called the collective worldviews of our peers or of the establishment 'plausibility structures.' Evidence
or reasons that fit within the plausibility structure are brought in. Those that do not, or those that lead to a serious challenge to that structure, are rejected.
I'll name-drop one more time. Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, observed that science does not advance incrementally, but more along the lines of an earthquake - relatively long periods of stability
and then rip! Change to a new paradigm by the weight of new evidence. Is this what happened with the acceptance of evolution as established scientific orthodoxy? Was it really the weight of evidence and reason that caused the change of paradigm?
Or, did it advance their worldview to respectability and dominance.
In our technological society, scientists are given a very high place of trust by the public. They have conquered deadly diseases, speeded up and eased travel, vastly increased food production for a hungry planet, and designed ships to travel
in space. But, given their bias, can we trust them with the issue of evolution? Is the public getting a fair evaluation by the scientific establishment on the issue of origins? Or is the issue of origins more of a metaphysical or philosophical
issue than a scientific one? If that is the case, then why should science be given a monopoly on deciding the issue?