Dr. Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus at Penn State University, has issued an open letter to the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. With Dr. Skell’s permission we have published the full text of the letter below. Jan. 20, 2005 Dr. JoAnne AndersonExecutive DirectorS.C. Education Oversight Committee Read More ›
Tuesday’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court preventing the federal government from punishing doctors who prescribe federally controlled substances — narcotics — for suicide is being spun by euthanasia advocates as a big boost for their cause. Never mind that the ruling was very narrow and did not, as proponents claim, “uphold” Oregon’s law. And never mind that Justice Read More ›
This article, published by The Indianapolis Star , quotes Bret Swanson of Discovery Institute: “For a while, industry analysts had thought cable companies were winning. They had an edge because they were — and in many cases still are — less regulated than phone companies,” said Bret Swanson, executive editor of the technology investment newsletter Gilder Technology Report. The rest Read More ›
This article, published by OneWorld, quotes Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Hance Haney: However, Hance Haney, director of the technology and democracy project at the nonpartisan Discovery Institute in Washington, D.C., said there are holes in these arguments. Billing Internet companies to use networks will not necessarily hurt consumers but rather, could benefit them, said Haney, whose public policy think tank Read More ›
Seattle – Ohio’s science standards are not going to be downgraded by an education foundation as was mistakenly reported in the Dayton Daily News and elsewhere in Ohio this week. Chester Finn, President of the Fordham Foundation, released a statement saying: “Just to clarify, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute has no plans to revisit or alter Ohio’s (or any other state’s) Read More ›
We can expect more battles about Darwin before school boards across the country. But who cares? Impatient by now with the legal and religious debate around intelligent design, many of us may wonder just that. In fact we all need to care — Darwinian theory has practical ramifications beyond the narrow question of what mechanism drives evolution. Darwinists say the Read More ›
The news about Monday’s 6-3 assisted suicide ruling is not as bad as euthanasia opponents might have feared. Indeed, even in the midst of disappointment that Oregon carried the day, there is some moderately good news: Gonzales v. Oregon was not an exercise in judicial activism. The Supreme Court did not issue a sweeping endorsement of physician-assisted suicide. Nor, did Read More ›
This article, published by Time, quotes Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Wesley Smith: But Wesley J. Smith, a Discovery Institute fellow was skeptical: “People are not exactly marching in the streets demanding the right to receive lethal prescriptions,” he said. The rest of the article can be found here.
Suppose you were appointed global economic czar, and your task was to bring the world’s per capita income up to the level of Ireland’s (almost that of the U.S.). Would you: Insist the world’s rich nations transfer substantial wealth though massive foreign aid to the poor nations? Insist all nations adopt policies that would make them as economically free as Read More ›
Original Article “What is it about even the slightest dissent from Darwin’s theory of natural selection that drives liberal elites (and even some conservative elites) bonkers?” Adam Wolfson asks that question in “Survival of the Evolution Debate: Why Darwin Is Still a Lightning Rod,” an essay published in the January 16, 2006 edition of The Weekly Standard. Wolfson now serves Read More ›