|November 24, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, Culture, Darwinism, Media|
From Denyse O’Leary (O’Leary for News) at MercatorNet: Anyone not committed to Darwinian survival of the fittest cannot be ‘alt right’. I wrote the piece because I had been following the alt right (human biodiversity studies, etc.) for a while on account of a curious incident: An alt right group was promoting a book, Troublesome […]
|October 6, 2016||Posted by News under academic freedom, Cell biology, Creationism, Culture, Naturalism|
In the recently settled soft dino tissue find case, part of the fired prof’s evidence was the following incident: The lawsuit contends that [creationism was] why Armitage’s employment at Cal State Northridge was terminated, with one professor allegedly storming into his office and shouting: “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!” […]
|October 5, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, Culture, Intelligent Design, Legal|
Fired after discovering soft dino tissue. From Jennifer Kabbany at College Fix: A creationist scholar recently received a six-figure settlement from California State University Northridge, a payout that resolved a 2-year-old lawsuit that alleged the scholar had been fired after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops horn and publishing his findings. … Armitage, who has […]
|September 22, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, Culture, Naturalism, News|
Stefaan Blanche and Peter C. Kjærgaard indulge fears at Scientific American: We have both had encounters with creationists. They come in all shades and represent all major denominations. They live in cities and in rural areas. Some are well educated, some belong to the establishment, others don’t. Some are well organized and well funded, others […]
|August 18, 2016||Posted by johnnyb under Creationism, Evolutionary biology, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy|
The question of whether methodological naturalism is an idea worth holding onto in science has been one that the ID camp, as a whole, is not unified on. Some think that methodological naturalism is a perfectly valid way to define science, and that ID fits nicely within that scope. Others think that methodological naturalism is […]
|July 25, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, News|
The creationist biology conference See also: Todd Wood: New findings on homo Naledi Follow UD News at Twitter!
|July 15, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, Intelligent Design, News|
Readers may vaguely remember Francis Collins’* colleague at BioLogos, Karl Giberson. In an expected pan review, he tells us: Dogged by controversy since its conception, the project overcame many challenges. Tax incentives were controversial, given the organization’s view on LGBT hiring. Raising funds was a problem, solved partially by Ham’s high-profile debate with Bill Nye, who […]
|July 12, 2016||Posted by News under Christian Darwinism, Creationism|
BioLogos exists to reconcile Christians to evolution, which today seems to mainly mean Darwinism (“modern science” ). From their prez Deborah Haarsma: When people accept the AiG narrative that these scientific conclusions are essential to Christianity, then their faith is often shaken when they encounter the incredible explanatory power of modern science. In fact, we […]
|July 12, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, Naturalism, News|
Remember Bill Nye, who wants global warming skeptics prosecuted for the sake of his peace of mind? Well now, Nye went to visit Ken Ham at Ark Encounter in rural Kentucky: Ark Encounter features a full-size Noah’s Ark, built according to the dimensions given in the Bible. Spanning 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 […]
|June 20, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, Intelligent Design, News|
From a 2015 journal paper, Engines of creationism? Intelligent design, machine metaphors and visual rhetoric: Machine metaphors are ubiquitous in the molecular sciences. In addition to their use by scientists, educators and popularizers of science, they have been promoted intensively by the Intelligent Design (ID) movement in arguments for the necessity of a god-like designer […]
|June 10, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, Culture, News, science education|
From Science, where there is a paywall so I can’t swatch a bit of it for you (but you might be able to read it), there’s this big worry, via Michael Baltzley: Some students might earn credits for learning “creationism.” Would that include reading Suzan Mazur’s The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing “the Hegemony of the Culture of […]
|March 4, 2016||Posted by DLH under academic freedom, Creationism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Intelligent Design, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
Evolutionist inquisition over Chinese scientists mentioning “Creator” force PLOSOne retraction.
|January 29, 2016||Posted by DonaldM under Creationism, Culture, Darwinism, Design inference, Evolution, Intellectual freedom, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Politics/policy and origins issues, Religion, Science|
I’ve already written here about the recent dust-up between the United Methodist Church (UMC)and Discovery Institute. Being involved with this has caused me, as a United Methodist, to take a closer look at some of the official statements of the UMC on science. As regular UD readers will likely know, the church has banned Discovery […]
|January 11, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, News, Philosophy, Science|
Odd, and it speaks very poorly of the science of the day. But one historian says that the historical data demonstrate that view. Further to the new science mythbuster book, Newton’s Apple and Other Myths About Science, a reader kindly notes that we also learn from the paywalled review in Science: Michael Gordin … [debunks] […]
|January 5, 2016||Posted by niwrad under Creationism, Intelligent Design, theistic evolution|
Alister McGrath is a well-known Christian theologian, priest, and author of many apologetic books. In one of them, “The Dawkins Delusion”, he fiercely opposes the pseudo intellectual arrogance of Dawkins’ atheism. In general I appreciate much McGrath’s work in defense of theism. For this reason I sincerely regret the need to criticize some of his […]
|January 2, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, Culture, News|
Rude on Will’s conflation of progressives and creationists: Will is an atheist and dumb about Darwin. But he brings up an interesting point. There is a difference between design by central planners and design by the cooperative efforts of multitudes of individuals. Thomas Sowell (don’t know where he stands on Darwin) waxes eloquent on this. He […]
|January 2, 2016||Posted by News under Creationism, Culture, News|
Or versa vice? From commentator George Will at National Review: Creationists of the Secular Kind “Secular theists” — economist Don Boudreaux’s term — produce governments gripped by the fatal conceit that they are wiser than society’s spontaneous experimental order. Such governments’ imposed order suffocates improvisation and innovation. Like religious creationists gazing upon biological complexity, secular […]
|November 11, 2015||Posted by News under Creationism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design|
Further to johnnyb’s “Intelligent Design Creationism” as a Label”: The word salad “cdesign proponentsists” was cited as evidence of something in comments 4 and 40. For readers confused by “cdesign proponentsists’” here’s the widely circulated story from an atheist blog at Patheos: Pandas, it turns out, went through several editions: in its first (1983) edition, […]
|October 18, 2015||Posted by News under Creationism, Intelligent Design|
One minute apologist: What is the difference between ID and creationism? Bobby Conway interviews Jonathan McLatchie on the difference between ID and Creationism. Thoughts? Would it make a difference to design detection if there were no religious texts as at all? What if they had all disappeared in a barbarian onslaught (as much classical literature […]
On good government, justice, origins issues and the alleged right-wing, “Creationist”/ “Christo-fascist” Theocratic threat
|August 4, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Creationism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
It’s not news that there is a persistent (and widely promoted) perception that Intelligent Design is little more than Creationism in a cheap tuxedo suit, an attempt to dress up a Christo-fascist, right-wing, theocratic agenda as though it were legitimate science, fraudulently stealing the prestige of science. (For people who believe this, science . . […]
Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production . . . >>
Richman also cites Mussolini and Hitler:
MUSSOLINI, 1928 Autobiography:
>>The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (Mussolini, Benito. My Autobiography. New York: Scribner’s, 1928., p. 280)>>
HITLER, per citation:
>>The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai, Avraham. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Trans. Ruth Hadass-Vashitz. Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd., 1990., pp. 26–27)>>
So, it is quite reasonable to argue that there is strong evidence that Fascism and National Socialism were in fact socialistic. At heart, fascism is the notion that in a day of “unprecedented” crisis that targets a large — locally dominant or pivotally influential — perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of “destiny.”
In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then panic and align with him, hoping to at least influence him while giving him effectively unlimited dictatorial power in the face of a crisis [nothing like a burning Reichstag to get people into a panic!] — which becomes tantamount to ownership by the state concentrated in a politically messianistic autocrat or at most a new oligarchy in alliance with older centres of power too panicked to see the implications of the secret police 4:00 am knock on the door.
That is, we have now reached the threshold of tyranny.
And because of the perceived unprecedented crisis, that super-man “people’s champion” figure is cheered on and supported in taking extraordinary measures; measures that sacrifice liberty and justice for the sake of the promised utopian order. And so reigns of terror and aggressive wars naturally emerge. (Cf. here on the last couple of times around, with particular reference to arms races and where they often lead.)
Crisis — too often, manipulated — and perceived chaos, triggering reversion to the tyrannical vortex as shown above.
From this, we can see that the dynamics of state power, law and leadership are a more potentially fruitful pattern of thinking than trying to attach labels such as left or right wing, especially for the rhetorical purpose of tainting in order to polarise beyond what is justified by actual facts and reasonable consideration of same. And, particularly we can see that the limited government constitutional democracy in defence of the civil peace of justice is inherently vulnerable to chaos and/or tyranny, but with insightful principled support is sustainable.
It is sad that the debates over design theory have been so tainted, but with goodwill such can be removed.
Likewise — given the great and costly contribution of people living, thinking and working within the Judaeo-Christian frame to the growth and success of modern liberty and limited democratic self government in defence of the civil peace of justice — and, never mind the ever present issue of the sins and challenges of Christendom — we should refrain from one-sided litanies of projection and accusation against people who stand within that tradition, as though they are necessarily a peculiar threat to responsible freedom.
I trust we may now be able to proceed in a more even-tempered frame of mind. END