A central progressive theme was historicism, crediting history almost exclusively with the development of culture.
Most of us think of science as the enterprise of seeking truth by formulating hypotheses and testing them against the evidence. This is empirical science.
The paradigm of cladistic classification based on assumed common ancestry should be reconsidered in favor of a traditional phenetic classification based on maximum similarity.
I think it’s the first time I’ve heard a discussion of the second of law thermodynamics on cable TV.
This is one key issue on which proponents of ID and of theistic evolution differ.
Anyone interested in the grim history of Social Darwinism in America, or debates over scientific racism and the sanctity of human life, will want to see this documentary.
The Seminars have consistently borne great fruit. Graduate students, post-docs, even faculty are now doing research on intelligent design that will have an impact someday.
There will be two teachers with sensitive positions who will not be named publicly, either before or after the Seminars.
It’s always refreshing to find a journalist who has thought through the scientific issues related to intelligent design for himself.
One of the consequences of academia’s embargo against ID is that students on their own university campuses can’t learn about evidence for design in nature.