In a series of dramatic thrusts and parries over the closing holes of the Evian Championship, Hyo Joo Kim struck last to overtake Hall of Famer Karrie Webb Sunday and win the year’s final major championship. Kim, 19, prevailed in her first start in a major. “I was a little nervous, but I’m very happy with this win,” Kim said through a translator in a Golf Channel interview beside the 18th green. A star on the Korean LPGA’s tour, Kim is the third youngest player to win a women’s major behind Morgan Pressel and Lexi Thompson. Pressel won the Kraft Nabisco Championship at 18 years, 10 months and 9 days old in 2007. Thompson won the Kraft Nabisco earlier this year at 19 years, 1 month and 27 days old. Kim is 19 years and 2 months old. Up early in a final-round duel, Kim looked like she was going to pull away from Webb, taking a three-shot lead to the back nine, but Webb rallied to overtake Kim, only to see Kim answer with a final heart-thumping birdie. A shot down going to the final hole, Kim worked her approach to 12 feet, holing that clutch birdie and forcing Webb to make a 10-footer for par to force a playoff. “The putt was probably a 19-year-old’s nerves, but the shot [into the green] was definitely very mature,” Webb said. Webb looked in total control with a one-shot lead, striping her tee shot down the middle at the 18th fairway. Her trouble came around the green. After missing just her second green of the day, Webb tried to belly a wedge like a putt through about a foot of fringe, but she hit the shot too hard, leaving herself that difficult putt for par coming back. With Webb ultimately making bogey at the last, it marked the second two-shot swing over the final five holes of her duel with Kim. “I don’t know what hit me,” Webb said of the staggering turn of events at the last hole. “Just a rush of adrenaline, I think, with the belly wedge.” Kim opened her first major in historic fashion Thursday, posting a record 10-under-par 61, the lowest round in a men’s or women’s major. She took home the $487,500 winner’s check, closing with a 68 to finish at 11-under 273 overall. Webb was aiming for a piece of history, trying to win her eighth career major and tie Betsy Rawls for sixth on the list of most women’s major championship titles. She was also going for an unprecedented sixth different major title. “I believe in fate a little bit, and I wasn’t mean to win,” Webb said. Kim, a freshman at Seoul University, was the KLPGA Rookie of the Year last season and also nearly won that tour’s Player of the Year award. The victory comes with a two-year exemption to the American LPGA tour.
SNOQUALMIE, Wash. – By the time Bernhard Langer made the turn in the final round of the Boeing Classic, he was five shots out if the lead. At one point Sunday he was tied for 14th after not finishing lower than 13th in any tournament this year. A few hours later, Langer had outlasted Kevin Sutherland and Woody Austin in a playoff and was celebrating his fourth PGA Tour Champions victory this season and 29th overall on the 50-and-over tour. ”I blew tournaments when I had a lead and I’ve come from seven behind, so you just never know,” Langer said. Langer made a 3-foot birdie putt on the first hole of a playoff with Austin and Sutherland to win the Boeing Classic for the second time. A day after his 59th birthday, Langer birdied the par-5 18th in regulation for a 5-under 67 to match Austin and Sutherland at 13-under 203 at TPC Snoqualmie Ridge. Austin also had a 67, and Sutherland shot 64, the low round of the week. It took a special stretch for Langer to recover from a shaky front nine where he needed a few lengthy par putts to stay on the edge of contention. Langer went out in 1-over 37, but played the back nine in 6-under 30, also making birdies on Nos. 10-13 and 15. ”When he gets hot with that broom,” Austin said in reference to Langer’s putter, ”you can’t beat that broom.” Langer tied Lee Trevino for second on the career victory, still well behind leader Hale Irwin at 45. Langer also won the Boeing Classic in 2010. Langer took advantage of Austin and Sutherland both finding bunkers on the 18th in the playoff. Sutherland ended up in a bunker off the tee, while Austin’s second to the par 5 found a greenside bunker. Langer’s second shot landed 10 yards short of the green and he nearly chipped in for eagle before making the birdie putt to win. ”You need to be precise and have the nerve and play the golf course the way it needs to be played,” Langer said. ”There’s still a little bit of life left in me.” Gene Sauers, the second-round leader and U.S. Senior Open winner two weeks ago, shot a 72 to finish a shot out of the playoff. Sauers started his day with two straight birdies to reach 14 under. But he struggled on the back nine, bogeying three of the first five holes and allowed the chase group to catch up. Sauers was still in contention until making bogey at the 17th after his tee shot came up short. Sauers made birdie at the 18th to finish alone in fourth. While Langer rolled through the back nine, Austin was hot on the front nine going out in 32. His first mistake of the round came at the 15th when he went for the green in two on the par 5 unaware he was in a tie for the lead because electronic scoreboards on the back nine were not working. Austin found a bunker and ended up making bogey. ”I would have laid up to the right for sure, absolutely, no question,” said Austin, who birdied Nos. 17 and 18 to get into the playoff. Sutherland started the day seven shots behind Sauers and made eight birdies with no bogeys in his round. Sutherland was attempting to win his first stroke-play tournament on either the regular or senior tour.
Pat Perez shrugs off an injury, Bernhard Langer collects more hardware, Alex Noren joins the OWGR top-10, the rules undergo a makeover and more in this week’s edition of the Monday Scramble: Perez underwent shoulder surgery in March. It was his first break he had taken – physically, mentally, emotionally – in 18 years as a pro. “I’m so stubborn,” he said, “that I needed a forced break.” And so a guy who is known mostly for his on-course outbursts returned to the Tour with a new dose of perspective. “I just try to stay aggressive and try to think of the right shot and a good shot and not worry about what happens,” he said. It worked – he won in just his third start since coming back. The grind of a 30-event season doesn’t offer much time for self-reflection, so it’s possible Perez wouldn’t have discovered that new attitude without being sidelined. Now 40, he’s in the midst of a career resurgence. 1. Perez was playing this season on a major medical extension, after missing the last six months of the 2015-16 season with a shoulder injury. He needed to make $670,050 in 15 starts to retain his card for next season. He earned $1.26 million in Mexico. 2. Perez was on such a heater that he played his last 10 holes in 1 over par – and STILL won by two shots. Over the weekend, he played a 26-hole span in 14 under. That allowed him to surge past third-round leader Gary Woodland and coast to his first victory since 2009. 3. Woodland, meanwhile, dropped to 1-for-6 with the 54-hole lead after posting a final-round 70 at Mayakoba. He had a one-shot lead heading into Sunday, but he got off to a rocky start, bogeying two of his first three holes in what was going to be a final-day shootout. He birdied the last two holes just to shoot 70, which matched the highest Sunday score of anyone in the top 14. 4. They can change the format. They can add a playoff system that, in theory, creates some unpredictability. But each PGA Tour Champions season still ends the same way – with Langer holding the most important trophy. For the third consecutive year, and the fourth time overall, he claimed the Charles Schwab Cup title. Remarkably, he has never won the season finale (he does have three runners-up), but he never has needed to. Paul Goydos won this year’s event, in wire-to-wire fashion. 5. This was supposed to be the beginning of the end for Langer. He wasn’t supposed to survive without his trusty anchored putter. All he did this year was win four times and finish in the top 10 in all but three of his 21 starts. All he did was contend at the Masters. All he did was top the money list, at $3,016,959. All he did was finish second in putting average, even while moving the long wand a few inches from his sternum. (Oh, by the way: He has finished second or better in that category every year since 2012.) 6. In EACH of the past three years, Langer has been ranked No. 1 in the following categories: Schwab Cup points Scoring average Earnings Greens in regulation Ball-striking Birdie average Par breakers Par-3 scoring At 59, he continues to defy the odds. 7. Of this year’s many breakout stars, perhaps none has been as meteoric as Noren. The 34-year-old Swede, who was ranked 108th in the world as recently as the U.S. Open in June, just won for a European Tour-best fourth time this season. Now, when he checks his world ranking, he’ll notice he’s above Bubba Watson and Rickie Fowler and Paul Casey and Sergio Garcia and Phil Mickelson – at No. 9 in the world. His most recent victory, at the Nedbank Challenge in South Africa, had his peers begging for mercy. Starting the final round six shots back, he won by the same margin after a closing 63 – the best round of the day by four shots. 8. By the way, Darren Clarke’s captain’s picks for the Ryder Cup look even worse now. Gotta love hindsight. Thomas Pieters is an absolute star, but Lee Westwood and Martin Kaymer were disasters, combining to go 1-6. It’s foolish to speculate how Paul Casey, Russell Knox and Noren would have fared at Hazeltine, but it’s clear (as Rory McIlroy and others have stated) that the Europeans should put politics aside and have the best 12 players, period. 9. Henrik Stenson finished eighth in Sun City to create even more of a cushion at the top of the Race to Dubai standings. He is nearly 300,000 points ahead of Danny Willett, who finally showed signs of life, going 67-69 on the weekend to tie for 11th. Noren is now third in the standings, followed by Rory McIlroy. All four players have a mathematical chance to win the big prize this week in Dubai. 10. Might we see wholesale changes to the golf calendar in 2020 and beyond? Here’s hoping. PGA CEO Pete Bevacqua said last week that “to make sure golf is in the Olympics for the next century, the whole schedule needs to be adjusted.” What that likely means is that, in four years, The Players would move to March, the PGA to May and the Tour season would end on Labor Day. This revamped schedule could pose a few issues. After all, The Players was pushed from March to May because the weather is more unpredictable in the spring, it was too close to the Masters and it competed against college basketball. And putting the PGA in May might impact some of the northern courses, like Rochester’s Oak Hill, which could struggle to get ready in time after a harsh winter. But this move would be praised by almost everyone, especially the players. Most importantly, it would alleviate the logjam that occurred this summer, with some players forced to choose which events they’d skip in order to survive the marathon stretch. 11. For the first time since 1981, the PGA Tour will have a team event on the schedule, with the Zurich Classic of New Orleans changing from a regular 72-hole stroke-play tournament to a two-man team competition. No complaints here. The only thing memorable about the past few editions has been the weather. That could still be a problem next year, regardless of format, but it’s cool that the Tour is willing to shake things up in what is otherwise a third-tier tour event that struggles to attract a deep field. Partnerships of Rickie Fowler-Jason Day and Justin Rose-Henrik Stenson already have added some buzz. For our money, charbroiled oysters and crawfish remain the favorites. 12. The LPGA season ends this week at the CME Group Tour Championship in Florida – and there is still plenty at stake. After a rousing battle this year, Ariya Jutanugarn, Lydia Ko and Brooke Henderson all can capture the season-long prize with a victory this week at Tiburon. As for Rolex Player of the Year honors, Ko needs a victory to overtake Jutanugarn. The money title (Jutanugarn leads by $17,305) and Vare Trophy (at 69.611, Ko has a slim lead over In Gee Chun) are also up for grabs. A new draft of the Rules of Golf – one that, thankfully, is “simpler,” in “plain English” and “easier to apply” – is set for release next year. Sure, we’re still skeptical – this is the USGA, after all – but any attempt to bring more common sense back into golf should be considered a step in the right direction. Enough is enough. Still on Fire: Hideki Matsuyama. He won again in Japan over the weekend. These are his last five results: 5-1-2-1-1. He is also 72 under over his last 14 rounds. Random Thought of the Week: Why isn’t the Charles Schwab Cup Championship a four-round event? The entire season comes down to this event, and they can’t even trot out the seniors for a fourth round, like the majors? Weak. Not What He Had in Mind: Ollie Schniederjans. This scribe’s pick for Rookie of the Year, Ollie is off to a rough start this season, missing his third consecutive cut while shooting a combined 20 over par. Feel-Good Story: Aditi Ashok. Fans might remember the name, after she briefly took the second-round lead at the Olympics. On Sunday, the 18-year-old became the first player from India to win a Ladies European Tour event. This Will Cheer Up Your Girlfriend: Adam Blyth. After starting 65-63 at the New South Wales Open, he “fired” his girlfriend/caddie at the halfway point of the tournament, opting for his usual looper, his dad. The move didn’t cost him the victory – he still won by four shots, at 24 under par for the week – and they’ll all enjoy the first-place check. Do You Even Lift?: Greg Norman. Dude’s seriously jacked. And he’s 61! Makin’ It Rain: John Peterson. For the first time in 54 weeks, he cashed a PGA Tour paycheck, with a tie for 15th in Mexico. He missed all of last season because of a hand injury. Where’s Golf Channel Cameras When You Need Them?: Charley Hoffman, going HAM on his golf bag. Blown Fantasy Pick of the Week: Harris English. A former winner here (2013) … the owner of the tournament record (21 under) … coming in off 13 consecutive made cuts … including a T-4 in Vegas … and then he missed the cut. Sigh.
NORTH BERWICK, Scotland — Mi Jung Hur surged into a two-shot lead Friday in the rain-delayed second round of the Ladies Scottish Open, getting the best of the draw and finishing in the early evening with a 9-under 62. Players with morning tee times dealt with heavy wind and rain at The Renaissance Club, and play was suspended in the early afternoon, delaying the start times for half of the field and giving them a huge advantage as the sun came out and the wind died. The second round could not be completed Friday because of darkness. Hur, who started on No. 10, made only one par over her first 12 holes. The South Korean began with two birdies and then holed a 25-yard pitch-and-run from the rough for eagle on the par-5 12th. She made six more birdies, along with two bogeys, over her next nine, and added one more birdie to post a two-day total of 14-under 128. ”I got a really lucky draw for this week. I had the morning yesterday and afternoon today,” Hur said. ”I know it was really tough this morning, but sometimes I need luck for those things.” None of the players who started in the morning was inside the top 20. Moriya Jutanugarn was 12 under after a 66. Sharing third at 10 under were U.S. Women’s Open champion Jeongeun Lee6 (65) and Anne van Dam, who followed her opening-round 63 with a 69. Full-field scores from the Aberdeen Standard Investments Ladies Scottish Open ”I think if we get decent weather, low scores are out there,” van Dam said. ”If it will get rainy and more windy, maybe two rounds around par will be fine. So I have no clue.” Muni He was 9 under with three holes to play, the best score among those who did not finish. Former U.S. Women’s Open champion Na Yeon Choi, who has struggled with back injuries for the past four years, was 6 under after a 64. She tied for third in her previous tournament, the Dow Great Lakes Bay Invitational, her best finish since 2016. Laura Davies matched the best round of the morning wave with a 68. The 55-year-old Hall of Famer aced the 152-yard fifth hole, her 12th career hole-in-one. ”Lovely wedge, never left the pin,” Davies said. ”It seemed to roll for ages and just dropped in.” Only two of the 78 players with morning tee times broke 70. ”It’s probably the second-best round I’ve probably ever shot because obviously needed to have a good round to make the cut,” said Davies, who opened with a 72 and was 2 under. ”I had a 6-under 66 in Canada years ago in similar conditions, but that’s as close as I can get to it. It was horrific out there. … I hit two 1-irons into the fourth, 1-iron off the tee and 1-iron into the green. I’ve never done that before.” It was Davies’ first made cut in 11 LPGA Tour starts this year. She has been working part-time as a TV commentator and joined the Sky Sports broadcast booth after her round on Friday. ”People say, ‘Oh, should you give up and commentate, you’re a rubbish golfer now,’ but I still know I can hit shots and play like that,” Davies said. ”I’ve just got to do it and prove it, and that’s the only thing. But you can only prove to yourself if you hit the good shots.”
LOS ANGELES — Jessica Korda rode out a series of big momentum shifts Friday at historic Wilshire Country Club to hold onto the lead in the Hugel Air Premia LA Open. Six strokes ahead after three holes, tied with top-ranked Jin Young Ko at the turn and two shots back with three to play, Korda birdied the final two holes to take a one-stroke lead into the final round. Korda shot a 3-under 68 to break the tournament 54-hole record at 16 under. She matched the event course record with a 64 on Wednesday and shot a bogey-free 65 on Thursday to break the 36-hole scoring record at 13 under. Ko shot a 66, making a 30-foot bogey putt on the par-3 18th after driving over the green and watching her second bang into the bank and roll back to her feet. Highlights: HUGEL-AIR PREMIA LA Open, Round 3 Korda matched Ko with a two-putt birdie on the par-5 15th, then hit to 3 feet for a birdie on the par-4 17th and to 2 feet on 18. She won the season-opening Diamond Resorts Tournament of Champions in January for her sixth LPGA Tour title. Korda birdied the first three holes to open the six-stroke lead, hitting to a foot on Nos. 2 and 3. She parred the next five and bogeyed the par-4 ninth to fall into a tie with Ko. Korda also bogeyed Nos. 11 and 13 before rallying late. Ko had six birdies and a bogey in a front-nine 30. She bogeyed Nos. 10 and 11 and birdied Nos. 13-15. The seven-time LPGA Tour winner is coming off a two-week break after finishing seventh in the major ANA Inspiration. Full-field scores from the Hugel-Air Premia LA Open Brooke Henderson got a spot alongside Korda and Ko in the final group Saturday, shooting a 67 to get to 12 under. The Canadian birdied Nos. 15-17, then had a 7-foot birdie try slide left on 18. Angela Stanford was 11 under after a 68, and So Yeon Ryu and Hannah Green each shot 69 to get to 9 under. Morgan Pressel had a 66 to match Tiffany Chan (70) at 8 under. Sei Young Kim, playing alongside Ko and Korda in the final group, had a 76 to fall into a tie for 18th at 4 under. She closed with her second double bogey of the day. Korda broke the 54-hole mark of 11 under set by Minjee Lee in her 2019 victory. Lee holds the 72-hole mark of 14 under in the event that was first played in 2018 and was canceled last year.
Recommended Evolution Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Intelligent Design EvoKE Project Pushes European Public to “Accept” EvolutionCasey LuskinMay 8, 2017, 2:26 PM Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour TagseducationEuropean CouncilEuropean UnionEvoKEevolutionintelligent designNature Ecology & Evolution,Trending Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Casey LuskinAssociate Director, Center for Science and CultureCasey Luskin is a geologist and an attorney with graduate degrees in science and law, giving him expertise in both the scientific and legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. He earned his PhD in Geology from the University of Johannesburg, and BS and MS degrees in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, where he studied evolution extensively at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. His law degree is from the University of San Diego, where he focused his studies on First Amendment law, education law, and environmental law.Follow CaseyProfileWebsite Share “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All Education A recent article in Nature Ecology & Evolution, “Public literacy in evolution,” discusses a newly launched project to push evolution on the European public. Called EvoKE, or “EVOlutionary Knowledge for Everyone,” the project’s main concern is to find ways to increase “European citizens’ acceptance and understanding of evolution.” In multiple places, the article quotes EvoKE leaders who are worried about the level of “acceptance” of evolution. The language is telling:On why EvoKE was needed: “[I]n Europe, we lacked a formal conversation about the public acceptance and understanding of evolution.”On the goals of EvoKE: “To stimulate a discussion on the state of European citizens’ acceptance and understanding of evolution.”On the content of EvoKE events: “The question of whether evolution is accepted and understood by European citizens indeed formed the focus of several discussions at EvoKE 2017.”On key action items for EvoKE: “[R]esearchers need to be proactive and at the forefront of science communication efforts, especially given movements to undermine the acceptance of evolution.”In case you missed it, EvoKE spends a lot of time fretting about whether the European public “accepts” evolution. They seem particularly distressed about those “movements” that do not encourage people to “accept” evolution.In response, the project aims to get political. The last paragraph states:In 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted the resolution: “The dangers of creationism in education.” This resolution urged state members to notably defend and promote scientific knowledge, and to promote evolution knowledge as a fundamental scientific theory in school curricula. However, we are not aware of an EU policy agenda regarding the teaching of evolution. Support for EvoKE and the projects that came out of the meeting would certainly be a way for the European Council to be more proactive on those issues.We reported on the above-mentioned 2007 resolution, adopted by the Council of Europe, at the time. Memorably, it stated that teaching intelligent design may entail a “threat to human rights.” Specifically, that resolution declared:“[T]he Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.”“Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The ‘intelligent design’ idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution but claims that this is the work of a superior intelligence. Though more subtle in its presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less dangerous.”“The neocreationist movement, which mainly consists of the advocates of ‘intelligent design,’ defends the hypothesis of the intervention of a so-called superior intelligence. Describing it as scientific, the supporters of intelligent design demand that their ideas be taught in biology classes alongside the theory of evolution.”“[T]he intelligent design ideas are anti-science: any activity involving blatant scientific fraud, intellectual deception, or communication that blurs the nature, objectives, and limits of science may be called anti-science. The intelligent design movement would seem to be anti-science for several reasons. Firstly, the nature of the science is distorted. Secondly, the objectives of the science are distorted. The writings of the leaders of this movement show that their motivations and objectives are not scientific but religious.”“With creationism today, we are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have built up little by little concerning nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe. There can be no doubt that this is a serious attack on human rights.”“Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The rejection of all science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.”To summarize, the resolution claims that intelligent design is a form of creationism that is “dangerous,” “anti-science,” promotes “deception,” is religiously motivated. It says that teaching these ideas amounts to “a serious attack on human rights,” of “utmost virulence on human rights” and “one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.” The resolution goes on for 105 paragraphs this way. Read the whole thing.And remember, this rabidly intolerant screed isn’t a random blog rant from some intolerant undergraduate atheist student club. It was adopted as a resolution by the Council of Europe, a quasi-governmental body and would-be protector of “human rights.” According to the article in Nature Ecology & Evolution, the EvoKE project wants to lobby the European Union — a true governmental body with real lawmaking powers — to draw inspiration from this resolution and start making policy.What kind of policy could come from such a declaration, standing directly against freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of scientific inquiry? The resolution’s claims that intelligent design could pose a “threat to human rights” sounds like a thinly veiled wish to criminalize or legally inhibit ID advocacy. Is this how EvoKE aims to encourage Europe to “accept evolution” — by declaring that alternative views pose a “threat to human rights”? Would they threaten dissenters with legal retaliation for being “anti-science”?Oppressive regimes have tried gambits like that in the past. One hopes that EvoKE would aim to persuade the public with reason and evidence, not through the force of the law. But on any objective showing, reason and evidence are on the side of intelligent design, not evolution. Maybe that’s why, it seems, some are tempted by harsher remedies.Image: Europe from space, by Smh232 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
In a recent blog post, already noted by Michael Egnor and Wesley Smith, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne not only argued that infanticide and assisted suicide should be permitted, but he insisted that our increasing acceptance of these deeds is a sign of moral improvement in our society. He stated, “This change in views about euthanasia and assisted suicide [i.e., legalization in some states and countries] are [sic] the result of a tide of increasing morality in our world.”In his book Faith Versus Fact, Coyne made a similar proclamation: “Indeed, secular morality, which is not twisted by adherence to the supposed commands of a god, is superior to most ‘religious’ morality.” (p. 261)Earlier in Faith Versus Fact, Coyne argued that morality was the product of evolutionary forces, as well as cultural changes. He denied that morality is fixed and objective and decreed that it is malleable. He even makes a big deal out of this argument, claiming that it disproves the existence of God.It seems to me that Coyne is talking out of both sides of his mouth. There can be no “increasing morality” and no “superior” morality unless there is some objective moral standard, a point that Coyne rejects. Evolution, we are told again and again, has no goal, so any morality it produces has no objective reality. (That’s why the famous evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson and philosopher of science Michael Ruse called morality “an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes.”)Of course, one of the other major problems with Coyne’s analysis of morality is that many people see the policies he favors, such as infanticide, as evidence of our moral decline.So, how does Coyne justify his claim that infanticide and assisted suicide are morally praiseworthy? He relies on arguments that are based on his understanding of evolutionary biology. He claims humans are not a special or unique species, a point he bases on Darwinism. After thus undermining the sanctity-of-life ethic, he states in his blog: “After all, we euthanize our dogs and cats when to prolong their lives would be torture, so why not extend that to humans?”Does Coyne really believe that we should treat humans like dogs and cats? Given his desire to see the United States embrace progressive public policies similar to those in Scandinavia, I rather doubt it. But let’s test and see.I have a modest proposal for Coyne to consider. Picture this: Round up all the homeless people in Chicago, sterilize them, and then incarcerate them until someone comes to provide them a home. If no one is willing to take them in after a few weeks, then we can euthanize them. The problem of homelessness would be solved.I’m confident Coyne will be outraged by this proposal — as he should be. However, this is exactly how we treat dogs. Apparently, Coyne does not think humans should be treated like dogs. Apparently, he recognizes that some things are objectively immoral.Coyne, like many secular intellectuals, sees morality as non-objective, because he thinks it is produced by random mutations, natural selection, and also changing cultural factors. He uses this moral relativism as a sledgehammer against morality (and religion) that he doesn’t like. But then he turns around to promote a different “progressive” morality and tries to impose that on everyone. This morality, we are assured, is better and more advanced — hence the term “progressive.” It thus claims to be moving toward an objective moral standard. You cannot have it both ways, Dr. Coyne.For further analysis of Coyne, see pp. 84-87 of my book The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life.Photo credit: Dave Parker, via Flickr.Dr. Weikart is professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus, and Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. He has published six books, including The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life and Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs That Drove the Third Reich. “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide Culture & Ethics TagsDarwinismDogsE.O. WilsonevolutionFaith Versus FacthomelessJerry CoyneMichael Rusemoralitysanctity of lifeUniversity of Chicago,Trending Recommended Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Evolution Jerry Coyne, Infanticide, and the Evolution of MoralityRichard WeikartJuly 19, 2017, 2:28 PM A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Richard WeikartSenior Fellow, Center for Science and CultureRichard Weikart is Professor of History, California State University, Stanislaus, and author of From Darwin to Hitler, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Ideas that Drove the Third Reich, and The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life.Follow RichardProfileWebsite Share
Evolution Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All Life Sciences How Embryonic Development Bears on EvolutionCornelius HunterJanuary 22, 2018, 1:47 AM Cornelius G. HunterFellow, Center for Science and CultureCornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot (Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter’s interest in the theory of evolution involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects of the theory. His blog is Darwin’s God. Share In order for evolution to have occurred as the orthodox theory describes, the intricate embryonic development stages of species must have evolved. Indeed, the developmental pathways of the species would be crucial in such a process. If we are to believe the evolutionary claim that the species spontaneously arose, then untold embryonic development pathways must have somehow undergone massive change.But while evolutionists expected the study of such evolution of development to yield great insight into the evolutionary process and history, it has underwhelmed. This shortcoming is well known, as exemplified in a 2015 paper, “The Comet Cometh: Evolving Developmental Systems“:First, traditional comparative approaches to the evolution of development — whether focused on the morphological or on the molecular/genetic level — are reaching their limits in terms of explanatory power. [Emphasis added.]Except that this is an overstatement. To say that comparative approaches “are reaching their limits in terms of explanatory power” is to suggest that there was, at one time, some significant level of explanatory power provided. That would be a very optimistic interpretation of the data.The paper continues:The more we learn about the evolution of pattern-forming gene networks, or the ontogeny of complex morphological traits, the more it becomes clear that it is less than straightforward to conclude anything about evolutionary origins or dynamics based on such comparisons alone.“Less than straightforward”? Let’s be clear — a more accurate descriptor would be “impossible.” In fact, the evidence does not reveal an evolutionary history, but rather is supported by the theory. Evolutionary theory does not follow the data, as Huxley prescribed, but rather the data follow the theory.The paper continues:On the one hand, homoplasy or convergent evolution abounds at all levels of investigation. One of the most lauded major insights of EvoDevo is that a common toolkit of genes and signaling pathways is reused over and over again to create a large diversity of different body plans, shapes, and organs.Most lauded major insights? That would be the mother of all euphemisms. Evolutionists are always rationalizing devastating contradictions as teachable moments, and here we have yet another example. To cast the nonsensical finding of a “common toolkit” as a “major insight” is laughable.This becomes clear as the paper continues:Because of this, similarities in gene expression patterns or morphological structure often do not necessarily imply common ancestry, since they may as well reflect the frequent reuse of the same regulatory or morphogenetic modules.Profound similarities “do not necessarily imply common ancestry.” We have now entered a Lewis Carroll world, as Elliott Sober would put it. The whole point of evolution was that such similarities revealed and mandated common descent. But now, we have the exact opposite, as similarities cannot be due to common descent, but must have arisen independently. And this is an “insight”? A fundamental prediction is demolished and evolutionists do not skip a beat. This is not science.But it gets worse:On the other hand, developmental system drift allows conserved networks to change considerably in terms of their component genes and regulatory interactions without changing the phenotypic outcomes such systems produce. This means that even functionally conserved regulatory networks can become unrecognizably divergent at the molecular and genetic level, especially across large evolutionary time spans.We have now reached the height of absurdity. First, profound developmental similarities were found which could not be ascribed to common descent. Now we find that those developmental pathways which can (theoretically) be ascribed to common descent are profoundly different.When will this bad dream end? The science contradicts the theory. Over. And over. And over. And over.Photo: Chicken embryo, one week old, by Ben Skála (Own work) [GFDL or CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.Cross-posted at Darwin’s God. Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Tagsbody planscommon descentconvergent evolutionElliott Soberembryonic developmentEvoDevogene expressiongeneshomoplasyLewis Carrollmorphological structureorgansshapesThomas Henry Huxley,Trending Billions of Missing Links: Mysteries Evolution Can’t Explain “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide Recommended Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share
“A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide With videos and other disfavored material being suppressed by YouTube and other social media platforms, where most Americans get our news, it was only a matter of time before would-be Internet censors turned their gaze on us. Speijer submitted his article on February 29, as, incidentally, the U.S. moved to stop travel from Iran and urged citizens to avoid visiting South Korea and Italy. But again, Speijer’s focus was on other perils. Here is the gist of what he wrote. From “Bad Faith Reasoning, Predictable Chaos, and the Truth”: Photo credit: Shannon Kringen from Seattle [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.Editor’s note: Welcome to an Evolution News tradition: a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year, concluding today. Our staff have been enjoying the holidays, as we hope that you have done, too! Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Free Speech Happy New Year! #1 Story of 2020: Biology Journal Demands Government Censorship of IDEvolution News @DiscoveryCSCJanuary 1, 2021, 1:02 AM Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man No Need to Worry TagsAndrew MooreBioEssaysCDCcensorshipCOVID-19Dave SpeijerdemocracyDennis PragerDiscovery InstituteEvolution NewsFacebookFederal Governmentfree speechintelligent designInternetIranItalyKarl PopperPaul Nelsonregulationschoolssearch enginessocial mediaSouth KoreaThomas PaineUniversity of AmsterdamvaccineWhite House,Trending Far from balking at censorship, the tech companies are already willing collaborators in efforts to squeeze out ideas that don’t fit their preferred perspective. Be prepared. There is no reason to think that this could not happen to Discovery Institute, Evolution News, and others who urge a fair consideration of design evidence. Recommended The author of the editorial, biologist Dave Speijer of the University of Amsterdam, read what Nelson had to say and disliked some of the ID proponent’s comments. Speijer was also distraught about a staff-authored article at Evolution News, published back in November 2019. The latter commented on a piece by BioEssays editor Andrew Moore, which Moore titled “That ‘junk’ DNA… is full of information!” Nowadays, such sites [as Evolution News] pose as “objective” sources of information. Speaking more generally, spreading misinformation can be linked to climate science denial, vaccination avoidance, and a resurgence of pseudo‐scientific racism. Internet regulations to counter these sources of pseudo‐science are urgently needed….We have identified the problem; how about the solution? My favorite Thomas Paine quote: “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself,” eloquently explains why I am not a great fan of taking down websites. Only the most egregious ones (for instance, those inciting racial violence or denying well‐documented genocide) should be treated thus. But what about the sites discussed in this article? In such cases search engines could have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science. I can almost hear the strongly doubting voices. “The tech giants will never agree to that.” Make them. “It is impossible to draw the line, so how will you make sure that you do not stifle healthy debate?” Whenever one proposes internet regulations along these lines, opponents use such arguments to stop us from doing anything. Yes, the line might be difficult to draw, but below are several clear common‐sense cases where banner warnings should apply. And by all means, let us contribute to debates about the difficult instances: ongoing debates that a mature complex society with evolving insight should have. After all, scientists are not the ones afraid of complexity. Here is Tom Paine again: “If I do not believe as you believe, it proves that you do not believe as I believe, and that is all that it proves.” But as for Dave Speijer, if you do not believe as he believes, then that proves you need to be censored. Paine also said: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.” Biologists at the prominent science journal BioEssays issued an urgent call. What was it, you ask? Try new experimental drugs? Rush a vaccine into development? Shut the schools? Open the schools? No — censor Evolution News! The following was originally published on May 14, 2020. Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Here’s another irony: the article anticipates resistance from the “tech giants.” On that score, Dr. Speijer should stop worrying so much. A glaring problem, completely off BioEssay’s radar screen, is that Big Tech seems eager to squash ideas they don’t like. Think of YouTube demonetizing Dennis Prager videos, Twitter deciding which tweets ought to come with COVID-19 warning labels, or Facebook appointing a “Supreme Court” to decide which kinds of posts will be tolerated. Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Our Debt to the Scientific Atheists Like most censors, Dr. Speijer thinks his proposals are entirely reasonable and warranted. He writes, “below are several clear common‐sense cases where banner warnings should apply.” Wait until you see what triggered him. You’ll be shocked at how benign and careful our original comments were, how unwilling ID-critics are to hear any form of criticism, and how the accusations they make against us are, with striking irony, applicable to their own rhetorical tactics. If Speijer’s thinking catches hold in this changing media and cultural environment, Western democracy is in bigger trouble even than it seems to be at the moment. It was March 20, 2020, seven days after the U.S. Federal Government declared a national emergency over COVID-19. That was just one day after the country hit the dark milestone of 10,000 verified cases. Most people were focused on coping with new lockdown regulations, social distancing, and radical changes to everyday life. What the White House or the CDC could or should do to counter the virus was a subject of debate. Some scientists, however, had identified a surprising object of needed government action. Discovery Institute’s site offers daily analysis of evidence for intelligent design in life and the cosmos. What had we done to spark such an emergency? The timeline seems to be this: The crisis got going after February 11. That day, philosopher of biology Paul Nelson penned a brief post here at Evolution News. Dr. Nelson, a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow, asked “Is Popperian Falsification Useful in Biology?” He was responding to an editorial, from which he borrowed his headline, in BioEssays. Referring to the thought of influential philosopher Karl Popper, Nelson offered his opinion that Popperian falsification is indeed relevant in biology. There are a number of ironies here. One is that BioEssays calls for censorship while having the chutzpah to quote from Thomas Paine, a foremost spokesman for free speech in Western democracy. As Speijer notes, Paine said: Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share A Matter of Time Evolution NewsEvolution News & Science Today (EN) provides original reporting and analysis about evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues, including breaking news about scientific research. It also covers the impact of science on culture and conflicts over free speech and academic freedom in science. Finally, it fact-checks and critiques media coverage of scientific issues. Share Speijer condemns the “infamous Discovery Institute, a notorious ‘intelligent design’ (aka ‘creationism in a tuxedo’) think tank.” (Normally they say “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” so this represents a sartorial upgrade.) A separate post here will respond to the details of Speijer’s objections, offered in justifying his call for censorship. Let’s just say for now that they are bizarre. Yet Speijer’s proposal is the epitome of oppressing and restricting the liberty of those with whom he disagrees. Paine further said, “That government is best which governs least,” but if put into action, the demand from BioEssays would hugely expand government power, creating government policies or even government-backed thought-police boards to determine which ideas are unfit for public consumption and must be censored. Paine-ful Irony His proposal: “[S]earch engines could have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science.” And what if major technology companies shy from censorship? Then the government should take aggressive action: “Make them.” Let this sink in: the peer-reviewed journal BioEssays published an editorial pushing for government censorship policies to decide which websites the tech giants should be forced to take action against, diminishing the reputation and accessibility of those websites. Specifically, the scientists at BioEssays want to censor intelligent design websites like Evolution News. An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All
Recommended Intelligent Design Billions of Missing Links: Mysteries Evolution Can’t Explain Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Photo credit: Dino Reichmuth on Unsplash.Science atheists like Richard Dawkins have admitted the possibility of intelligent design — the hypothesis that an alien intelligence, not God, designed and seeded the first life on Earth. What’s wrong with this idea of “panspermia”? Stephen Meyer goes into much more detail in his new book, Return of the God Hypothesis, but he summarizes at The Stream. Physics, Earth & Space Meyer: “Is the Designer an Alien or God?”David [email protected]_klinghofferApril 4, 2021, 7:00 AM Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Share Tagsalien intelligenceatheistsbiological informationBrian KeatingcosmosDNAHarperOneintelligent designNew Atheismorigin of lifepanspermiaphysicsReturn of the God HypothesisRichard DawkinsscientistsThe StreamU.C. San Diego,Trending [I]f life in the universe displays evidence of intelligent design, can science tell us anything about the identity of the designing intelligence responsible for life? In my book Return of the God Hypothesis, I address this question by showing that there are two basic options: (1) The intelligence responsible for life is an intelligent being either (1) within the cosmos or (2) beyond it. In other words, the designer is either an immanent intelligence or a transcendent one — basically, either an alien or God. There are good reasons for thinking that the latter option provides a better explanation.First, an intelligence operating merely within the universe does not actually solve the problem of how biological information came to be. Purely undirected chemical processes have not been able to account for the origin of life because they have not been able to explain the functionally specified information in DNA — the key signature of intelligence. How then does invoking similar undirected processes in outer space solve the problem of life’s ultimate origin? It doesn’t. It only begs the question of the ultimate origin of life and biological information.Second, physics has now revealed evidence of design in the very fabric of the universe. Since the 1960s physicists have recognized that many physical parameters are finely tuned, against all odds, to make life possible. Even very slight alterations in the values of many independent factors such as the force that determines the expansion rate of the universe, the speed of light, the strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction, as well as the masses of elementary particles, would render life impossible.Much of this fine-tuning, moreover, has been present from the very beginning of the universe itself and, thus, cannot be explained by any agent arising from within the cosmos after the beginning. Instead, the fine-tuning of the universe is better explained by an intelligent agent that transcends the universe, one that has the attributes that we associate with God. Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide Read the rest at The Stream. Return of the God Hypothesis is out now from HarperOne. Brian Keating, Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Physics at U.C. San Diego, calls it, “A meticulously researched, lavishly illustrated, and thoroughly argued case against the New Atheism.” More plaudits from top scientists are here. Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All