In the News

The San Francisco Chronicle's Anna Badkhen reports on the growing tide of the ID movement and creationism in public schools.

"There's a constant impetus by conservative evangelical Christians to bring religion back into the public schools," said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania branch of the American Civil Liberties Union."

Patricia Nason at the Institute for Creation Research, the world leader in creation science, said her organization and other activist groups are encouraging people who share conservative religious beliefs to seek positions on local school boards.

"The movement is to get the truth out," Nason said. "We Christians have as much right to be involved in politics as evolutionists. We've been asleep for two generations, and it's time for us to come back."

While ICR is quite clear on the identity of the intelligent designer, the ID movement does not specifically identify the designer.

Eugenie Scott of NCSE says "The religious right has a list of topics that it wants action on. Things like abortion, abstinence, gays are higher up in the food chain of their concern, but evolution is part of the package."

For the full article, click HERE.

An extensive response to the National Geographic article "Was Darwin Wrong" has been offered by the organization Apologetics Press.

Dr. Bert Thompson and Dr. Brad Harrub provide detailed rebuttals to the many tired claims of organic evolution put forth by David Quammen.

National Geographic seems to have misstepped again by being woefully behind on the current topics.

For the full discussion, click HERE.

The evidence continues to mount that the non-coding sequences of DNA serve vital functions, instead of the Darwinist claims that they are "junk" DNA. It may be time for molecular biologists who advocate an ID interpretation of the facts to appeal to major journals to withhold judgment on DNA sequences whose function has yet to be determined.

For the full article in PLoS Biology, click HERE.

Laura Parker, writing for USA Today, chronicles recent developments in the debate over origins.

Because of a requirement in the federal No Child Left Behind law that states must review science standards over the next two years, the debate is likely to further heat up.

Eugenie Scott, director of NCSE, thinks that the new approach is politically smart.

"They have no science," Scott says. "But they can argue to the American public that it's only fair to teach alternative science theories or evidence against evolution."

To say that ID has no science to back up its claims is over the top.

For the full article, click HERE.

Steve Jones writes a byline about the mounting evidence for the evolution of the eye. The human eye, which gave Darwin himself a "shudder" (because of it's perfection in design), is nowadays thought to be easily explained by tiny incremental changes over eons of time and "convergent" evolution.

A letter to the editor of the London Daily Telegraph by David Tyler says that "Steve Jones uses his column to accuse "believers" of arrogance. 'When the facts don't fit, tell lies' is the caricature he uses. Whatever the issues are, they are not to do with lying about facts. They are about interpretations. Jones describes the evolutionary ancestor as a 'complex creature', even though it lived in the Precambrian. The new research pushes back the origin of eye complexity to a time where Darwinists think that there were no predators and no land life-forms and where there are no convincing drivers for natural selection to act on natural variations. This new research makes Richard Dawkins' assertion (that the eye has evolved over 40 times independently) to look a bit thin. More importantly, since there are so many design features relating to eyes, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that similar architectures are related to design rather than evolution. Indeed, one might deem it arrogant to suggest that all talk of design belongs to the 'anti-science brigade'."

Random mutations are all the Darwinists have, so teleologic arguments get them nowhere. Supposed convergent evolution, in any form, strongly argues
against random mutations and for something else. Perhaps similar eyes point to a common designer with general templates for the eye?

For the full article (you must register and search for Steve Jones) in the London Daily Telegraph, click HERE.

Thomas Woodward, author of Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design reviews the recent story in National Geographic that causes quite a buzz.

Woodward pointed out that "several scholars have noted in recent weeks that throughout the article, small-scale or modest "variations" in animals are treated blithely as evidence for the origin of new organs or body structures—what biologists call "macroevolution." Huge unsolved problems that plague the current gene-centered macroevolutionary theory—revealed in such cutting-edge texts as MIT Press's Origination of Organismal Form—are not mentioned. Most significantly, there is no hint that intelligent, well-informed dissent exists anywhere in the university world. As I read Quammen's article, I kept looking in vain for his response to the telling critiques of the Intelligent Design Movement. This is puzzling, in light of the conundrum that is confronted in the article: Why so many Americans still doubt Darwinism?"

For the full article in Christianity Today, click HERE.

A recent paper in Trends in Biotechnology November 2004 issue pleas for a more realistic assessment of the biotechnology industry and what it can deliver. An abstract of the paper is below:

The myth of the biotech revolution
Paul Nightingale and Paul Martin
Trends in Biotechnology, Volume 22, Issue 11 , November 2004, Pages 564-569

The existence of a medicinal 'biotech revolution' has been widely accepted and promoted by academics, consultants, industry and government. This has generated expectations about significant improvements in the drug discovery process, healthcare and economic development that influence a considerable amount of policy-making. Here we present empirical evidence, from a variety of indicators, that shows that a range of outputs have failed to keep pace with increased research and development spending. Rather than producing revolutionary changes, medicinal biotechnology is following a well-established pattern of slow and incremental technology diffusion. Consequently, many expectations are wildly optimistic and over-estimate the speed and extent of the impact of biotechnology, suggesting that the assumptions underpinning much contemporary policymaking need to be rethought.

Conclusion
The data we have presented suggests that it is time to rethink the biotech revolution. Policy makers need to follow the FDA and move away from an increasingly discredited linear model of innovation that sees new drug and diagnostic products as little more than the application of basic research. Instead, policy needs to address the uncertain, systemic nature of technical change and the very long time scales between advances in basic knowledge and productivity improvements 23, 32 and 33.
The FDA's emphasis on the importance of getting our facts right is a welcome development because unrealistic expectations have had a major impact on government policy.
Undoubtedly, some of the
policy suggestions are intrinsically good ideas, such as promoting better knowledge transfer between industry, universities and the healthcare system, but successful policy needs to be based on sound evidence and a sense of proportion. This has not always been the case with biotechnology and there is now a substantial mismatch between the real world and the unrealistic expectations of policy-makers, consultants and social scientists.
Although we have hinted at an alternative model we can say very little at present about the long-term prospects for biotechnology and our data are compatible with a range of eventualities. A pessimistic perspective might highlight that the biotechnology revolution has been closely associated with a reductionist, genetic model of disease 37 and 38 that is increasingly being challenged by explanations that emphasize the interaction between environmental, lifestyle and biological factors across the life course [27]. Epidemiologists have already noted how the social distribution of a range of common disorders, such as obesity, stomach ulcers and heart disease, has radically changed in the last century, suggesting that the major determinants of these diseases are social rather than purely genetic in origin [39]. These environmental factors, such as poverty and smoking require comprehensive public health programmes rather than unproven high-tech solutions that are unlikely to be delivered in the short term [29]. This uncertainty about the timing and benefits of biotechnology suggests the need for regular checks against the evidence to avoid constructing shared expectations that have little empirical foundation.
Our concern is not the future but the present, and more particularly how current expectations and talk of revolutions help generate the social co-operation needed to deal with the very long-term lead times required to create new medicines. Unrealistic expectations are dangerous as they lead to poor investment decisions, misplaced hope, and distorted priorities, and can distract us from acting on the knowledge we already have about the prevention of illness and disease.

For the full article (for a fee), click HERE.

The recent vote in California that takes $3 billion to conduct embryonic stem cell research is an example of the false hope involved in some biotechnological research. Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help those who suffer from debilitating diseases, however, great work has been done in the arena of adult stem cell research, umbilical cord blood stem cell research, etc., without killing a human embryo.

In connection with this thought-provoking article from Trends in Biotechnology, click HERE to see an article from the Los Angeles Times.

In addition, an article from CBC shows the exciting treatment of patients using umbilical cord blood with stem cells. For the full article, click HERE.

On Friday, November 19th, a Pennsylvania school district defended its decision to discount Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and take a lead in teaching what critics say is a version of creationism.

A statement by the school district "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence."

"Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo," said Nick Matzke, a spokesman for the National Center for Science Education. As if that statement is all that is needed to brush aside the growing ID movement.

Americans' belief in creationism remains strong. A recent Gallup poll found that nearly half of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form, with a mere 13 percent saying God played no part in the process of human development.

For the full article, click HERE.

National Public Radio (NPR) aired a program on the controversy of a number of school districts mandating or suggesting that ID be taught along with evolution in public schools.

Dr. David K. DeWolf is an attorney and professor of law at Gonzaga University School of Law. He is also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. In the NPR discussion DeWolf comments, "the point of the Darwinian project is to provide an explanation without the use of any sort of intelligent process, that natural processes by themselves, through random mutation and natural selection, can generate complex organisms of marvelous complexity. The question is whether--as you investigate that scientifically, does the evidence bear that out, or does the evidence point, as you would in a murder investigation, to, say, `Gee, I don't think this is likely explained by a natural cause'? Who the intelligent agent is that is responsible for the phenomenon is a separate question after you've determined whether it's more likely explained by a natural cause."

Nick Matkze is a public information project specialist at the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California. He comments, "And so you can see, you know, when you look at creationism and how it's evolved over the last 15 years--it's gone from creationism to intelligent design to evidence against evolution, and it's always the same people with the same kinds of motivations. They all think evolution is, you know, bad for society, evolution is the root of societal evils. And that's pretty much why they're going for this."

Dr. Ken Miller voiced his concern that " the most destructive part of the disclaimer that's on the textbooks in Georgia, is the last sentence. And it says something to the effect that students are urged to study this material carefully, critically examine it and consider it with an open mind. Now, think about what that means to a student. It means to a student that you're supposed to do this to evolution, but that every other topic in that book need not be critically considered or examined with an open mind. It's like telling you we're certain of everything in science except for evolution. And I can't think of a worse policy in terms of scientific education. And, unfortunately, that's what this, the intelligent design movement, has led to: a lot of bad teaching, a lot of bad ideas about science, and, as you heard from the school board members in Dover, a lot of personal conflict at a local level, which I think is needless and unnecessary if science is taught well and taught properly.

For an article and audio file of the discussion, click HERE.

A student group, inspired by Matzke and Miller, generated a few new textbook disclaimers. For the mock Darwinist disclaimers at the IDEA Center, click HERE.

Janice Spiewak of Waukesha, Wisconsin is a student at Mount Mary College, and has something to say about "teaching the controversy" in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal.

Ms. Spekwak asks, "What would you think of a police department that disregarded evidence to follow only one of several possible theories to solve a mass murder?"

She concluded that you "would call them foolish, and you would be right, because it’s foolish to insist on looking at only one theory when there is evidence for other possibilities."

But that is what public schools all across the nation have done for decades. They teach the theory of evolution as though it’s the only one on the playing field. This article was prompted by the recent decision in Grantsburg, Wisconsin to allow the students to look at theories of biology other than Darwinism.

For the full article, click HERE.

A commentary, written by Dr. Kelly Hollowell, appears on the WorldNetDaily web site. Dr. Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D., is a scientist, patent attorney and adjunct law professor of bioethics. She is also a nationally recognized conference speaker.

The thoughtful commentary begins by noting that "A favorite liberal maxim is: 'The mind is like a parachute. It only functions when open.' So why are libs so zealously opposed to any idea that runs counter to evolution?"

Hollowell rightly points out that "the entanglement of philosophy and science over the last 100 years has led to a one-sided education system where the free exchange of ideas and critical thinking is suppressed."

She notes that the juvenile attacks of Darwinists to silence anti-evolutionists consist of "marginalize them through name-calling and character assassination. They characterized those who support the intelligent design movement as Bible-thumping fundamentalists, dangerous pseudo-scientists, flat earthers, etc."

For the full commentary, click HERE.

Jack Cashill, executive editor of Ingram's Business Journal in the Kansas City area for the past 25 years, describes, in an opinion column, his meeting with ID proponents, and the book that turned him around in the origins debate.

This eye-opening column shows the work that can be done on a mind open to the facts regarding the debate.

For the full opinion column, click HERE.

An editorial in the newspaper Charlotte Observer gets it right, then gets it wrong.

The editorial states that "The fundamental issue is intellectual honesty in public education. That's a fight worth fighting." And, so it is.

But, then the editorial goes on to talk about the separation of church and state, and religion vs science.

One of our first goals is to tear down the false dichotomy of science vs faith. We should be discussing and debating how the world really was and is. We should be answering fundamental questions to ascertain which world view is reasonable. If the most reasonable world view, determined from the evidence, includes the supernatural, so be it. Let's fight this false dichotomy.

The last sentence of the editorial compares the Georgia debate to Islamic and Taliban extremists in Iran and Afghanistan.

For the full editorial, click HERE.

It is often helpful and instructive to see how the other side constructs the "debate" between Darwinism and Intelligent Design. This article, written by Paul R. Gross on the web site butterflies and wheels, shows one such "fashioning", reviewing the book Why Intelligent Design Fails.

I will forego mentioning specific examples of emotionally charged language, which portrays ID proponents as backwoods rubes, or, more kindly, as scientists who haven't thought of the obvious.

A newcomer to the debate, after reading this article, would come away with the picture of the wise Darwinist who now has to casually wave his/her hand in the air to scare a bothersome gnat circling his/her head.

To read the full article, click HERE.

An article on the Discovery Institute web site reports that "The courts should not prevent educators from encouraging students to approach the study of evolution with an open mind according to over 30 scientists, including 25 from Georgia, who have submitted a legal brief to the US District Court in the Northern District of Georgia."

Attorney Seth Cooper, an expert on the legal aspects of teaching evolution points out that “the ACLU is supposed to be against censorship and favor the free marketplace of ideas, but here it is dogmatically trying to censor a school district from encouraging an open-minded approach to teaching evolution.”

To view the full article, click HERE.

Susanne Quick, reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, states that the Grantsburg, Wisconsin School District has passed a motion permitting "various theories/models of origins" to be incorporated into its science curriculum.

"Wisconsin law mandates that evolution be taught. The Grantsburg School Board felt the law was too restrictive, said Joni Burgin, the school superintendent. So when the board examined a new science curriculum - which happens every six years - a line was added that called for "various models/theories" of origin to be incorporated. According to Joseph Donovan, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction, the Grantsburg motion is perfectly legal."

You may need to register with the Journal Sentinel to view the full article. For more information on this story, please click HERE.

An itsy, bitsy water strider has a remarkably designed leg structure that helps it stay afloat, even in a driving rainstorm.

CBC News reports that in an article in Nature Magazine researchers in China have discovered the secret behind the water strider's ability to resist a violent rainstorm.

The structure of the water strider's microscopic hairs, called microsetae
are scored with tiny grooves that trap air, boosting the water resistance of the leg. A single leg can support 15 times the insect's body weight.

The researchers stated that "Our discovery may be helpful in the design of miniature aquatic devices and non-wetting materials."

It is amazing how human engineers often copy the designs in nature.

For the full article, click HERE.

A press release by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory claims that researchers have now provided concrete evidence about how the human eye evolved. Jochen Wittbrodt says that "Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision." Another scientist, Detlev Arendt, stated that he "noticed that the shape of the cells in a worm’s brain resembled the rods and cones in the human eye. I was immediately intrigued by the idea that both of these light-sensitive cells may have the same evolutionary origin."

What is interesting here is the leap of faith required. Because the SHAPE of cells in a worm's brain resembles the SHAPE of rods and cones in the human eye, one likely evolved for the other. What could be said from the ID perspective is that the intelligent designer has certain design templates that work well in all creatures that possess the sense of sight, and therefore, there are similarities in the structure and chemical makeup. What's at issue in the debate is NOT the similarity of structures between species, but rather HOW all this irreducible complexity got here in the first place. You must answer the HOW of Darwinism, not just assert that it happens. No one has provided a complex chemical evolutionary path from one irreducibly complex feature to another in a living being. Making assertions out of thin air is not science.

For a review of the full press release, Click HERE.

The Design Revolution was reviewed by Travis K. McSherley on townhall.com.

McSherley remarks that, "Intelligent design is a commendable and reasonable response to the unanswered - and in many cases unasked - questions about the feasibility of Darwinian biology. Most bothersome is the unexplained origin of the information required to generate life."

He further comments that Dr. Dembski "has produced a fascinating - albeit technical - overview of the major components of intelligent design theory and an impressive critique of Darwinian ideology."

For a look at the article, please click HERE.

A trial date has been set for a lawsuit seeking to have Cobb County remove disclaimers about evolution from its science textbooks.

The U.S. District Court in Atlanta will hear the case on Nov. 8.

The wording on the sticker said that evolution is a theory, and "this material should by approached with an open mind..."

For the entire article by AP in the Macon Telegraph, click HERE.