On this episode of the podcast ID The Future, host David Boze discusses the ambiguous label "anti-science". What does it mean? What are the implications? Who's using it? Tune in to unpack this curious term and learn how it is shaping current debates about evolutionary theory and intelligent design. The followup episode to this one includes analysis of a recent article in New Scientist warning of "unscientific America" and its "dangerous retreat from reason." Boze also reviews definitions of science, just to be clear on what science is and what it isn't.
That suggests the need to listen to another ID The Future podcast: Is Darwinian Evolution a Theory, Fact, or Hypothesis? On this episode, Casey Luskin discusses a paper by Northern Arizona University philosopher Peter Kosso that challenges the typical definition of theory used by the Darwin lobby. When attacking opponents, Darwin lobbyists, such as those in the National Academy of Sciences, have defined "theory" as necessarily requiring a vast body of evidence. But is that what "theory" really means? Some people even describe Darwinian evolution to be both theory and fact. Tune in as Luskin clarifies these terms and reveals methods we can use to challenge Darwinian evolution without getting caught up in an endless argument of semantics. (Also you may read Luskin in this related article).
Regarding the "fact" or "theory" of evolution, consider the ENV essay "Evolution in Fact and Theory, Revisited,: which begins:
Around the 30th anniversary of the publication of Stephen Jay Gould's essay with a similar name, Larry Moran has reposted his essay "Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory." His article begins by blithely accepting the confused terminological protocol that uses the same word, "evolution," to describe very different things: a) the observation that life forms have changed over vast stretches of time, and b) a set of proposed observations regarding how, by what mechanisms, the forms of life have changed. Read more.