The ID Update

Phyllis Schlafly gives a fine summary of the cultural battle for the minds of our children between theists and atheists on the townhall web site.

Schlafly states that "the worst censors are those who prohibit classroom criticism of the theory of evolution".

A Chinese scholar observed, "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

The intolerant minority is forcing the majority of students (who do not believe in Darwinism) to be indoctrinated in public school classrooms. Their justification for doing so is simply asserting that all the evidence is in, and Darwinism is a FACT.

For the full opinion, click HERE.

Sarah Hied expresses her well thought view concerning ID in the York Daily Review, the local paper covering the ID controversy in the Dover PA School District.

For the entire letter to the editor, click HERE.

A breakthrough will come when we can scale the wall of the false dichotomy of science vs religion, fact vs philosophy.

In Men's News Daily, Joe Mariani provides an excellent example of potentially confusing rhetoric.

It's a good read to test your skills in recognizing the tactics that materialists use to attempt to twist the debate in their favor.

For the full opinion, click HERE.

A biology major cannot see the big fuss about Dover school board's decision to require ID to be taught in biology class.

It's a big deal because it goes to the core of what human beings believe their origin is, and that informs them on how they structure their lives and behave.

Darwinists do believe that macroevolution is a FACT, not wishful thinking (faith). That's exactly at the core of the controversy.

For the full opinion, click HERE.

ID will not be required to be taught in Biology class in the Dover School District in January.

For the story, click HERE.

Michael C. Dorf, Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law at Columbia University in New York City, comments on ID in the Find Law's Legal Commentary.

Like so many others, Dr. Dorf claims that our search for the truth about the world is described either "scientifically" or "religiously". Entertaining the possibility of a transcendent reality beyond matter, energy, space, and time, is deemed "religious". Materialists, in their narrowed world view will never allow for the possibility that non-material, transcendent beings (agents) exist, or that acknowledgement of them is "scientific".

Dr. Dorf does offer an interesting take on school curriculum. He states that "there is no general constitutional requirement that public school students be taught the truth." If the curriculum serves the "good" of the state, teach it.

Dr. Dorf claims that ID is not a scientific theory because it conflates uncertainty with error, and it is not an explanation for the reality we discover.

He states, "by contrast, what does it mean to say that species arise or change through 'intelligent design?' Certainly the term connotes intervention by some intelligent agent. But are the intelligent agent's interventions themselves subject to the laws of the natural world, or are they supernatural? Even if one is prepared to accept the possibility that science could, without sacrificing its essential premises, include accounts of supernatural phenomena, the concept of 'intelligent design,' standing alone, is simply a label, not an account."

But, would ID be any less true because the agent chose not to fully reveal the details or overarching plan and purpose of the creation? Remember, though, the constitution does not require that truth be taught in public schools.

Perhaps origins should not be taught in any science class. Maybe Darwinism should be put in its proper place in a Comparative Religion curriculum.

For the full commentary, click HERE.

The Discovery Institute announced on their web site that "Students in Kansas will be allowed to learn about the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution if the State’s Board of Education adopts a proposed revisions from a group of scientists on the science standards writing committee."

One of the statements in the proposal is that the teaching of ID is NOT required as an objective.

DI believes that this is the proper approach to take. The problems with Darwinism should be taught, without mandating the teaching of ID.

For the full news release, click HERE.

Robert Meyer, on the renewamerica web site gives a lucid commentary on what the debate between evolution and ID is all about.

To tie in with the last post, Meyer correctly labels evolution (secularism, materialism, etc.) as a religion.

Meyer comments on the characterization (actually false dichotomy) of "science vs faith". He also weighs in on the absurdity of matter, energy, space, and time appearing out of absolute nothing.

Furthermore, he discusses the atheist dissenters of classical Darwinism, Gould and Crick. He shows that Darwinism is far from a monolithic belief system.

For the full commentary, click HERE.

David Klinghoffer writes for Christianity Today on the religion of secularism.

While the vast majority of secularists would vehemently object to their worldview being called a religion, a valid definition of religion in Webster's dictionary is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Secularists try to get around this by dogmatically asserting that Darwinism is a proven fact, which it is not.

The problem we have with many secularists is "their aggressive means in advancing their political agenda and spreading their faith."

Public education is the place where secularists have "ensured that its creation account alone should be taught."

Klinghoffer goes on to say that "the prejudice on behalf of the secular faith emanating from the media is likewise hard to ignore. HBO's Bill Maher, speaks of himself as "spreading the anti-gospel."

For the full article, click HERE.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country."

Mohler appeared on the show along with David Silverman, communications director for American Atheists. Commentator Pat Buchanan served as guest host.

Mohler said parents of children who attend America's public schools "have become wise to the secular left's agenda in teaching Darwin's theory of evolution as fact." He also pointed out that "ID is not the same thing as creationism and that a majority of Americans want it taught in public schools."

Silverman dismissed in condescending terms the concept of a supreme intellect that created all things. "The idea that Darwinistic evolution has happened is fact," Silverman said. "The idea that the universe was created by an invisible magic man in the sky is fiction."

For the full story, click HERE.

Terence Kealey, a biochemist and Vice-Chancellor of Buckingham University, voices his opinion on ID in the London Times Online.

As an ID critic, he engages in some ad hominem descriptions stating that "99 per cent of ID supporters are fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal truth of Genesis, Deep South-style. This is why ID’s hub is the Discovery Institute — which, despite its authoritative name, is a typical American palaeoconservative think-tank."

He concludes by saying that he has "no objection to ID being taught in schools as long as Darwinism gets equal time. Indeed, such a debate is more, not less, likely to inculcate a true understanding of natural selection, because theories of intelligent design and creationism are transparently absurd and driven not by a search for truth but by faith."

Kealey shows his true secularist bias.

For the full editorial, click HERE.

Linda Whitlock, a literacy instructor for TAP and an adjunct English instructor at Virginia Western Community College, chimes in on the merits of ID in the Roanoke (VA) Times.

For the commentary, click HERE.

Jonathan Witt, senior fellow and writer in residence at Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture in Seattle, was a guest columnist in the Seattle Times. He commented on the remarkable turnabout by former atheist Antony Flew, and the growing influence of the intelligent design movement.

For the full article, click HERE.

Three proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present their views of design in the natural world. Each view is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution. The report, printed in its entirety, opens with an introduction by Natural History magazine and concludes with an overview of the ID movement.

For the full report, click HERE.

The ACLU is using their vast resources to make their definitions and descriptions of intelligent design the defacto standard. Much of the media, but not all, are parroting the language with little questioning.

The Discovery Institute has circulated widely, through the media, FAQ about ID.

ARN has had FAQ about ID on this web site for some time, compiled by Mark Hartwig.

For ARN's FAQ, click HERE.

For DI's FAQ, click HERE.

Barbara Bradley Hagerty of NPR recently reported on the Dover School District controversy. The report was fair and balanced. Michael Behe was allowed to give a brief exposure to the logic of the ID argument.

To listen to the program, click HERE.

Represented by the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, parents of students in the Dover School District are suing the school district. The parents say "creationism" is being mandated in classrooms.

The confusion between intelligent design and "creationism" continuously occurs. Until enough of the secularists can be pursuaded that the debate is science vs science, confusion will continue.

For the full story, click HERE.

The Discovery Institute has stated that the Dover policy is "misguided", and is calling for its withdrawl.

For this commentary, click HERE.

A Letter to the Editor by Michael S. Shelton in the Fredericksburg, VA Free Lance-Star brings out some key points about the debate between Darwinism and ID. Among those is that bacteria mutation is not an example of macroevolution. He also stresses that the debate is NOT between science and religion, but science worldview vs science worldview.

A short, cogent, letter to the editor of your local rag (or beyond) is a good way to get the word out, and to get people thinking about ID.

For the full commentary, click HERE.

AP writer Martha Raffaele reports that the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have scheduled a Tuesday afternoon news conference to discuss the lawsuit against the Dover Area School District, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, PA, ACLU spokesman Paul Silva said.

This is a predictable move. The requirement to teach ID in public schools has not been endorsed by organizations such as the Discovery Institute.

For the full story, click HERE.

San Franciso Chronicle staff writer Charles Burress went to visit with Dr. Phillip Johnson at his North Berkeley house.

They talked about ID, naturally.

Dr. Johnson does not favor the requirement of teaching ID to public school students, but continues to advocate the approach of "teaching the controversy". Students should be free to hear the problems with Darwinian theory in a classroom setting.

For the full article, click HERE.

The San Francisco Chroncile's OPEN FORUM published a commentary/opinion from Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campell, both of the Discovery Institute.

Essentially, they stated that it is both legal and right for students to be exposed to weaknesses of prevailing theories, and be free to learn about other competing theories. In our context, this would include Darwinism and ID.

It has not been the position of the Discovery Institute to require the teaching of ID in public schools, which is pointed out here.

For the full commentary, click HERE.

A wonderful book on the marvelous design of the human body, by Alexander Tsiaras, details the human body using the latest imaging techniques.

An academic IDer mentions, tongue in cheek, that "lots of unsophisticated people out there in the red states, who aren't privy to highly nuanced discussions, apparently think that when a book refers to the "design" of the human body, that the author means that the human body is designed.

Here is one brief review on the book from the jacket:

“Alexander Tsiaras and Anatomical Travelogue have left no technological stone unturned to build this work about the subtle architecture of the human form. He and his staff of talented imaging artists and scientists have earned their way into the finest repositories of clinical images and contemporary anatomical and physiological laboratories. The result is this astounding and beautiful book—superb in its abilities to address basic questions about the design of the human form and to anticipate the inquiries made practical only by employing the most modern medical technologies. This is a work for our time.”

—Adrianne Noe, Director of the National Museum of Health and Medicine and Associate Director of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

Looks like a good Christmas gift idea! The book can book found on the internet or at your local bookstore.

In an OPEN FORUM in the San Francisco Chronicle, Stanford neurology professor Robert M. Sapolsky discusses the current origin of life issue.

This commentary is a magnificent example of tortured thinking and ad hominem attacks, and, therefore is a must read to understand how the far left "progressive" mind interprets the world we live in.

Dr. Sapolsky, much more intelligent than I am, as a matter of fact, makes some foolish factual errors and mistakes in reasoning.

He states that "scientists don't argue about whether evolution is for real; that's proven. They argue about how exactly it works."

First, there is a vigorous debate amongst scientists on whether Darwinian theory is the most plausible explanation for life's origin and development. Of course, Sapolsky could be referring to "real" scientists without agendas, not scientists like Michael Behe, Dean Kenyon, William Dembski, or, now, former atheist Antony Flew (my tongue in cheek).

Second, Darwinian evolution is all about the "how it works" (random mutation and natural selection), and there is plenty of vigorous debate on this subject. How about the disagreement between strict Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, and punctuated equilibra proponents like the late Stephen J. Gould and Nils Eldredge? The obvious seems to escape Dr. Sapolsky!

The rhetoric really ramps up when Dr. Sapolsky describes from whence the intelligent design proponents come. He comments, " Undeniably, some are scientists (although it is rare that their expertise is in the realm of evolutionary biology). Others are educated nonscientists. But the rank and file of intelligent design supporters is most likely to come from the parts of the country with the lowest literacy rates, the lowest percentages of high-school graduates and the lowest rates of government investments in education. Much has been made of the, er, Jed-Clampett profile of the typical intelligent-design supporter..."

Suddenly I'm simultaneously noting some arrogance and sensing that my IQ is slipping.

In the doctor's eyes, most IDers are mentally challenged, perhaps worthy, by some, of being a protected class. His commentary should qualify, according to the progressive's definition, as "hate speech." What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

For this "rich" commentary, please click HERE.

In a Townhall commentary, Jay Bryant discusses Tom Vail's book Grand Canyon: a Different View. The overarching principles Bryant is espousing pertains to ID.

He recognizes the rampant anti-supernaturalistic bias of naturalists. Their wornout reply of "separation of church and church" is getting tiresome to most Americans.

He says, "So you go home and pull out your well-worn copy of the Constitution and reread the First Amendment, noting it says quite clearly, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
And if you're at all like me, you scratch your head and wonder how that very plain English could possibly be construed to mean the Park Service can't sell a book in a bookstore."

Bryant rightly points out that scientific discoveries in the last century, i.e., Big Bang, irreducible complexity in biological systems, etc., have provided compelling scientific evidence for the existence of an intelligent agent.

For the full commentary, click HERE.

The science world was all abuzz when it became known that world-renowned atheist Antony Flew had shifted his world view position from atheist to theist. He believes in an intelligent designer, but believes that "God" has walked away from mankind (a deist approach).

The significance of this change of mind by one of the most prominent atheists in the world cannot be overstated. He is now in the intelligent design camp. Flew is an example of an intellectually honest human being who takes an unbiased look at the prevailing evidence and "follows the evidence where it leads." Bravo for his courageous, yet necessary, switch!

For the full story, click HERE.

And HERE.

And HERE.

And HERE.

It's hard to imagine a more innocuous statement than the one the Cobb County, Ga., school board recently ordered pasted into their biology textbooks: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Yet this disclaimer is the subject of a nationally publicized lawsuit, in which the plaintiff alleges that the wording violates the separation of church and state.

So what's the problem? After all, evolution is indeed a theory. And it seems ironic at best that calling for open-minded, critical thinking would somehow be construed as religious advocacy.

Nonetheless, there are many - folks who insist that evolution is a fact, or well-nigh to it - who read dark intentions between the lines. To them, any talk about critical thinking is simply religiously motivated rubbish.

We are told that the popular distinction between "fact" and "theory" - that one is certain and the other a matter of guesswork - is naive and conflicts with how scientists view the terms. In place, critics offer "more scientific" definitions of "theory" - which exorcise the notion of uncertainty. A theory is not a hunch, an educated guess or even a hypothesis, they tell us, but a well-substantiated naturalistic explanation for related facts.

Hence, evolution's status as a theory indicates strength and durability, not uncertainty. And if you want critical thinking about evolution, why not include other theories, such as germ theory or the theory of relativity? Indeed, we are told, singling out evolution smacks of a religious agenda masquerading as science.

To many, this is entirely plausible. But it is seriously flawed.

If you look in the science journals, you'll see that the use of the word theory often diverges from this definition. There, you can read of such things as tentative theories, failed theories, controversial theories, promising theories, and unconfirmed new theories.

Thus, contrary to the definition championed by Darwin's defenders, scientific theories vary greatly in their trustworthiness. And a school district is fully warranted in singling out such theories, especially when they have been a source of widespread, ongoing controversy - like Darwinism.

Not only is the theory controversial at the cultural level, but some pro-evolution scientists have nonetheless expressed skepticism about Darwin's theory: The processes that produce bacterial resistance to drugs or changes in birds' beaks, they say, simply can't generate the massive diversity that characterizes the living world - much less produce the bursts of wildly disparate animal forms found in the fossil record.

Such skepticism, long evident in scientific literature, has made its way into textbooks. Indeed, one major college text, Biology, reports that "many evolutionary biologists now question whether natural selection alone accounts for the evolutionary history observed in the fossil record."

There is thus every good reason to state that "evolution is a theory, not a fact," even in some popular senses of those terms. Of course, that doesn't mean the label's backers are free of religious motivation. But motivations notwithstanding, there's a legitimate secular purpose in urging kids to approach the theory with an open but critical mind.

That's far healthier than defining critical thinking out of the classroom. I only hope the judge agrees.

This article first appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The author can be reached here.

Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at an organization called The First Amendment, asks the question, "Is Darwin winning the battle, but losing the war?"

Haynes seems to think Darwin is losing the war against the advancing wave of the ID movement.

Haynes points out that "if the aim of science education is scientific literacy, then students must learn the prevailing theories in science. But if we expect them to believe what they hear, they must also learn something about the conflicts and controversies surrounding those theories. Winning the hearts and minds of students is what really counts."

For the full commentary, click HERE.

In the Christian Science Monitor, correspondent Randy Dotinga summarizes the battle of ideas between the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and the Discovery Institute (DI).

Leaders at NCSE complain that they are being outfunded by the other side, but The Discovery Institute's Bruce Chapman scoffs at Eugenie Scott's "preposterous" claims of underfunding. "There's huge bucks in evolution studies at every major university in the country," says Chapman. "We're up against a whole Darwinist establishment."

Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, who battled efforts to change the teaching of evolution in her local school district says the debate revolves around "the religious right's dislike of secular education and secular society."

Once again, does it ever occur to the secularists that the religious right recognizes the controversy about Darwinism in scientific circles, and would like students to know about this controversy?

The author of this piece describes the debate as science vs religion, when it is actually science vs science. Once this false dichotomy is overcome, the tide of ID may advance even faster.

For the full article, click HERE.

The Discovery Institute reported that by a vote of 6-1 the school board of Grantsburg, Wisconsin adopted a revised policy on the teaching of evolution at a special meeting on December 6. The policy states that "Students shall be able to explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.”

"Students are the real winners here, because now they will be able to study all the relevant scientific evidence relating to evolutionary theory, not just a skewed selection of the evidence," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

For the full news story, please click HERE.