The glibness of the recent Darwin exhibit at the Museum of Natural History in New York shows off the fact that Darwinism has become an officially sanctioned orthodoxy, an orthodoxy which is to be promoted and defended at all costs.
Having stayed out of the evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate up to this time, I don't intend to get into it now at least, not to the extent of pronouncing Intelligent Design correct. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I just can't say.
In July 2005 the New York Times published my short essay "Finding Design in Nature." The reaction has been overwhelming, and not overwhelmingly positive.
If philosophy is a search for wisdom, then a true philosopher who philosophizes long enough will surely find at least a glimpse of the enticing goal that first animated his search.
The intuition of human experience that there is intelligent design in the universe is so overwhelming that only ideology would deny it a hearing alongside any other theories about the origin of life.
A fellow Catholic is now being persecuted, in no small part, because of his religion. You havent heard about it nor are you likely to precisely because it is just the kind of story the reigning media assiduously ignore.
How far can biology take us? Are there limits on what it can know or on what it may enable us to do?
Ever since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance or at least acquiescence of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith. But this is not true.
Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?
Cardinal Schonborn recently wrote an opinion-page article in the New York Times on evolution. What was the real point he made in that piece?
