In the News

A story by Lisa Anderson in the Chicago Tribune shows the materialists bemoaning the plight of biology teachers in Kansas, who are "under the thumb" of those who want to change the definition of science and allow the "designer's foot in the door."

The emotional sympathy card is being played. According to the materialists, those poor adults are being harassed by students who are so uneducated and indoctrinated, that don’t believe in Darwinism.

Their "Constitutional right to be comfortable" is being violated. But, the students "right" to be comfortable is being violated as well. It cuts both ways. Maybe the teachers are being ridiculed by people who don’t get the debate. More education of the adults and students is needed.

CafePress is having a Post-Holiday sale and you can save some bucks for the next week on select items from the ARN Merchandise. Between 12/28/05 and 01/04/06 (next Friday) you can get $5 off any Hoodie and $4 off all Greeting Cards and Wall Calendars. Just enter the Discount Code: BIG5 or BIG4 in the Discount Coupon field at checkout and the credit will be applied. This includes our new 2006 "Mind Preceded Matter" Wall Calendar with thirteen fantastic Hubble Space Telescope photos and quotes about the design of the universe. All of our designs are available on Greeting Cards which are pretty unique and also qualify for the sale.

A story on the ACLU trial lawyers of Kitzmiller v. Dover written by Gina Passarella appears in the Law Intelligencer.

The lawyers are now world famous and showing how they approach the debate. For instance, Stephen Harvey comments, "The right to believe includes the right not to believe."

Does this mean that if two or three worldview positions are put before public school students, they can choose which one seems most plausible. That option is no longer allowed in Pennsylvania. The Darwinistic worldview will now be taught unchallenged. While in school in Pennsylvania, you WILL be taught the state-sponsored worldview, but elsewhere, you can learn about other worldviews. Darwinism/Materialism has been elevated to the level of indisputable fact.

The lawyers also say that since there will be no appeal on the ruling, this case will most likely stand as a trial court opinion that is not binding on any other state.

Pat Buchanan weighs in on the Kitzmiller v. Dover judicial ruling on the RealClearPolitics Web site.

Mr. Buchanan gives a wide-angle view of the decision which stretches from Aristotle to the present.

A story by Erin Hemme Froslie on the InForum Web site, tells of a decision made in North Dakota regarding ID and high school debating.

The North Dakota High School Activities Association won’t allow students to debate the role of intelligent design in public school classrooms.
Some parents and administrators feel the topic is too controversial.

A former debate coach, Kent Hjelmstad, said the process of debate is more important than the topic. He thinks "the message is that you want the experience of an academic challenge, but you don’t need to have objectionable discussions to get that challenge".

Now, we wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's "Constitutional right to be comfortable".

You will need to register with InForum to read this amazing article.

This article in First Things is a MUST read to understand the current culture war between scientism (neo-Darwinism) and design theory.

Many misunderstood Cardinal Schonborn's article in the New York Times, and this is his eloquent and clear-thinking response.

He rightly points out that there are not just two ways to discover the Truth of Reality, but three. He states that "Modern science alone may well be incapable of grasping the key truths about nature that are woven into the fabric of Catholic theology and morality. And theology proper does not supply these key truths either. Prior to both science and theology is philosophy, the “science of common experience.” Its role in these crucial matters is indispensable.

The following is a crucial point that all must grasp. Schonborn says "Let us return to the heart of the problem: positivism. Modern science first excludes a priori final and formal causes, then investigates nature under the reductive mode of mechanism (efficient and material causes), and then turns around to claim both final and formal causes are obviously unreal, and also that its mode of knowing the corporeal world takes priority over all other forms of human knowledge. Being mechanistic, modern science is also historicist: It argues that a complete description of the efficient and material causal history of an entity is a complete explanation of the entity itself—in other words, that an understanding of how something came to be is the same as understanding what it is. But Catholic thinking rejects the genetic fallacy applied to the natural world and contains instead a holistic understanding of reality based on all the faculties of reason and all the causes evident in nature—including the “vertical” causation of formality and finality.

This article should be read over and over, and slowly digested. In doing so, the reader will see it's overall importance, and Schonborn's critics will seem like the sound of "tinkling cymbals".

On the Science & Theology News Web site, Dr. William A. Dembski comments on the recent ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover, and it's implications for ID and the culture war.

It is not the "Waterloo" of ID, just as the Scopes Trial was not the "Waterloo" for Darwinism.

An opinion by Paul Campos appears in the Rocky Mountain News. Campos practiced law in Chicago before returning to his home state in 1990 to join the law faculty at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He has written extensively on the role of law in American society.

His opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover is illuminating.

KMBC-TV News reports that next semester, a class will examine intelligent design. The class will be taught by Richard Menninger, a religion professor, and Henry Tillinghast, a biology professor.

Ottawa University, located in Ottawa, KS has about 500 students and is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA.

Albert Alschuler, Julius Kreeger Professor of Law and Criminology at the University of Chicago, continues his three-part series on Kitzmiller v. Dover. Included are comments from others in the faculty blog.

Tom Bethell, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, give his perspective on the recent Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling in the Washington Times.

Hiroaki Sato, and essayist and translator, writes on Id and Darwinism in the Japan Times.

The article is anything but objective and fair, assuming that Biblical Creationism and ID are one-and-the-same.

He batters Hisayoshi Watanabe, professor emeritus of English and American literature at the University of Kyoto. He calls Watanabe an "intellectual" who defined ID as "a theory that proposes to give up explaining the making of this universe and the natural world in terms of aimless, plan-less mechanical forces alone," and to "recognize as science, other than natural factors like 'inevitability' (natural law) and 'coincidence', a 'design' factor."

James Skillen, president of the Center for Public Justice, weighs in on the issue of who decides what our children can be taught in the public schools.

Skillen points out that "...the history-of-science lesson that Judge Jones in PA included in his ruling was largely philosophical and theological in character. He stated, for example, that science is limited to 'the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena' and must therefore reject revelation in favor of empirical evidence. None of this amounts to a biological argument".

Dr. G sends his Christmas greetings to our ARN web visitors with this special year-end column in response to the recent Kitzmiller v. Dover court decision about Intelligent Design:

A proposed letter to my Hospice patients in light of the ruling in Dover.

Dear Hospice Patient:

Recently a ruling was made in a federal court, with respect to the separation of faith and state, concluding that intelligent design in biology is not Science.

Since I am a medical scientist (physician) who is reimbursed by the state for my services and you are a biological entity (human being) that is enrolled in a state funded program, it is my unhappy duty to inform you that henceforth I will no longer be able to adequately tend to your spiritual needs.

I realize that as a human being who is approaching imminent death, the questions surrounding the mystery of life take on great import, so much so that significant existential angst may be the result. However, with this ruling, Judge Jones has made the legal decision that your concerns have been determined to be unfounded and irrelevant to all practical biological science and therefore I must comply with his judgment.

Please be advised however that for your physical and emotional comfort I will continue to prescribe for you intelligently designed pharmaceutical agents which work by acting upon, the now legally determined, unintelligently designed enzymes and receptors that are necessary for life.

Sincerely yours,
Howard Glicksman M.D.

While the Darwinists are celebrating in the streets over Judge Jones' Dover decision outlawing ID and criticism of Darwin's theory, Paul Nelson explains in this blog entry why nothing has really changed. Be sure to read his previous comments link about anti-glacier books. Between the two (one written before the decision and one after) Paul gives us a pretty good bird's eye perspective on why nothing has really changed.

"Issuing theological statements isn't normally thought of as the job of a federal judge. Yet, this week when U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III released the first federal ruling on intelligent design, there was at the core of his written decision an unambiguously theological ruling: that evolution as formulated by Charles Darwin presents no conflict with the God of the Bible. Quite apart from what one thinks of his legal decision, what should we make of his theology?"

David Klinghoffer writes in the Seattle Times that Judge Jones decision to declare it is constitutional to expose young people to one such worldview, but not lawful to introduce them to another, is not really education. It is indoctrination.

In the Colorado Springs Gazette, Brian Newsome reports on a state legislator's thoughts on introducing ID into public school, but without the "mandatory" wording.

Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, believes the Pennsylvania ruling and a general culture of “political correctness” will leave school boards afraid to take up the topic. He wants to draft legislation that would allow school districts to teach intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not covered in Colorado statutes. If a school board attempted to add intelligent design to a curriculum, its legality probably would be determined by a lawsuit, as it was in Pennsylvania.

Brophy’s idea will receive a chilly greeting at the Statehouse.

Reasons to Believe, a Christian science/faith organization, issued a press release on the Dover ruling.

"As currently formulated, 'intelligent design' is not science," says biochemist, Dr. Fazale 'Fuz' Rana. "It is not testable and does not make predictions about future scientific discoveries."

Rana continued by saying that "at Reasons To Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research."

Terry Devitt, reporting for the University of Wisconsin, writes on the frustration of scientists trying to fit the facts of natural history into a Darwinistic framework.

Considering that the general theory of evolution (macro-evolution) is a "fact", this is puzzling.

Stephen Dyer, reporter for The Akron Beacon Journal, writes on the Dover ruling's affect in Ohio.

It is truly amazing how each side sees such different potentials from the same ruling. Read on for the details.

Fox News reports that U.S. Senator Rick Santorum says he intends to withdraw his affiliation with the Christian-rights law center that defended a school district's policy mandating the teaching of "intelligent design."

"I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did," Santorum said Wednesday. He said he would end his affiliation with the center.

The Discovery Institute vigorously encouraged the Dover School Board to not mandate the reading of a four paragraph statement which led to the case.

David DeWitt, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow has provided a short analysis of the decision in the Dover School Board case. DeWolf is a professor of law at Gonzaga University and the author of a briefing book for public school administrators, Teaching the Controversy: Darwinism, Design and the Public School Curriculum.

From Creation-Evolution Headlines comes commentary on a guide on how to win over the reluctant to evolution.

Dr. Albert Alschuler, of the School of Law at the University of Chicago, has posted his opinion on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

He opines, "If fundamentalism still means what it meant in the early twentieth century, however, accepting the Bible as literal truth, the champions of intelligent design are not fundamentalists. They uniformly disclaim reliance on the Book and focus only on where the biological evidence leads. The court’s response – 'well, that’s what they say, but we know what they mean', is uncivil...an illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse. Once we know who you are, we need not listen. We’ve heard it all already".

This trial was truly not about ID, it was about what one confused judge thinks about ID. The success of ID will not depend on its success in the courtroom, but rather on its success in the scientific realm.

Read on.

A press release concerning the Dover decision from IDnet (Kansas) is available for viewing. The title says it all.

Commentator Joe Loconto, the William E. Simon Fellow in religion at the Heritage Foundation, gives his opinion on the Dover decision on NPR's All Things Considered. It's definitely worth a listen.

An opinion piece by David Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute appears in the National Review Online.

Klinghoffer opines by saying that "Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science, raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.

'We conclude that the religious nature of Intelligent Design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child,' wrote Judge John E. Jones III in his decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which rules that disparaging Darwin's theory in biology class is unconstitutional. Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?"

So, according to the judge, Darwinists do NOT have a worldview agenda? Klinghoffer gives many examples of the Darwinist's agenda and disingenuous nature of executing the forced acceptance of their worldview and scientism.

Many have said this ruling was so poor that it may help ID in the long run. It reminds one of the current movie Chronicles of Narnia, where the White Witch and her minions are gleefully dancing after the execution of Aslan. Just wait till tomorrow.

The above story by Fox News is typical of many stories across the world. Getting some of the details correct, but not all.

For instance, while the reading of "the statement" would have been mandatory, ID would not have been taught in the Dover School District.

Some comments from those in the higher ranks of the ID movement:

- Is ID science or not? If it's science, some judge's opinion somewhere doesn't really matter. He can't make things true that are actually false or false that are actually true. He delays the day of reckoning.

- Has a court ever considered whether a civil rights ordinance would be unconstitutional because a legislator thought he was conforming the country to the will of God that all people be treated equally?

- Welcome to the USSA where you can't question the anti-religious motives of those who want the exclusive teaching of the Theory of Unintelligent Design in our public schools.

- The judge said IDers "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors". The ACLU could not have written it any better. By implication, evolution is just science.

- U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs.
Sounds like we should be hearing some perjury trials coming up, if this is true.

- The judge's ruling said "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy".

In my mind, this is one of the most misleading statements in the opinion. It ignores the fact that everyone has a metaphysical commitment of some kind. It buys into the positivist notion that philosphical materialism or naturalism is somehow neutral, unbiased, and can be simply ignored.

- The judges opinion says that "to preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any schoolwithin the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Does this mean that Punctuated Equilibrium (a criticism/alternative of traditional evolutionary theory) cannot be required to be taught? What about endosymbiotic theory a la Margulis? Surely that denigrates Darwin's gradualistic vision. Does this forever enshrine a 19th century theory as everlasting dogma, regardless of where future science leads? This is a sad day for Dover.

No doubt, opponents of ID will spin this story to dizzying proportions: some with a humble tone, and some not, such as this example in Time online.

You asked for it and here it is: Mind Preceded Matter 12 Month Wall Calendar

It includes thirteen stunning space photos from the Hubble Telescope and twelve fabulous quotes about the design of the universe. Order today and request overnight shipping to get it before Christmas.

Merry Christmas from the ARN Staff!

Judge Jones ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and accepted the theory that the board's policy was adopted as part of the "Wedge" strategy. Here is an excerpt that summarizes his opinion:

“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”

There were some surprise statements in the decision such as the implication that teachers in Dover cannot criticize the theory of evolution in any way:

"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

What are they afraid of? Apparently Judge Jones has forgotten what Justice Jackson said in the flag salute case:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943)

Although there was some fascinating testimony by ID scientists such as Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, and many interesting aspects to the case, Discovery Institute and many other supporters of Intelligent Design saw this as a poor test case for ID and predict that this will be just the first court case on the Intelligent Design, not the last.

A column by Dennis Byrne in the Chicago Tribune speaks to the overarching quest to answer the "Big Question" about origins. This is a fair and balanced piece, which deserves a look.

The Dover trial decision by Judge John E. Jones III is expected on Tuesday. Read this article by Ap in the Philadelphia Daily News.

In the continuing saga of Dr. Paul Mirecki, backers of the Religious Studies Department at the University of Kansas have sent a postcard to potential donors, seeking to distance themselves from the department’s former chairman. Read the article by AP picked up by the Kansas City Star.

This column by Douglas Baynton in the Washington Post is the kind of muddled thinking that will bring further shame to, and possibly eventually bring down the Darwinists.

Baynton presents a false dichotomy: either understand the world as a meaningful place of beauty and purpose or a mechanical, meaningless accident to be understood via material causes only.

Given this false dichotomy, it's amazing how much scientific progress was made when many scientists were theists in the 17th and 18th centuries.

According to Baynton, since theistic scientists said silly or stupid things in the 19th century, then ID is worthy of ridicule today. Following that line of argument, since Darwin was a racist, then Neo-Darwinism isn't worth holding to today!

One who follows ID closely commented that "Braynton is committing the fallacy of composition, arguing that whatever is true of the parts of something must true of the whole. Some 19th century design thinkers said stupid things, but it does not follow from that that those stupid statements get transferred to all design advocates. It would be like saying, 'Stephen Douglas and other 19th century Democrats believed that states should have the right to permit slavery, so therefore, if 21st century Democrats were to achieve political power again, then we would see a resurgence of proslavery-state rhetoric.'"

Baynton's thinking needs to be exposed for what it is...nonsense.

Amanda Gefter, on NewScientist.com, gets into the mind of Leonard Susskind. He is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University in California. His new book is titled Cosmic Landscape: String theory and the illusion of intelligent design.

It is an interesting Q & A session on string theory and the naturalistic scientist's grappling with origins. He admits that multiverse theory is unfalsifiably, but will not give an inch to ID.

The last question and paragraph are telling:

"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design"?

"I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."

Sorry Dr., but it would be much more faith-based than what ID is really about.

Ellen Berry, writer for the LA Times, reports on the Cobb County Georgia book sticker ruling.

A federal appeals court panel appeared sharply critical Thursday of a ruling this year that ordered the removal of stickers in science textbooks stating, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact."

Science Education book by Michael Poole added to ARN catalog.

Someone recently brought this gem to our attention which was originally published in Britain in 1995. Much of the raging Darwin vs Design debate boils down to the worldview of scientists, educators, school boards, or editors that are in command, and how that worldview is imposed on those with different worldviews. The debate is seldom over the scientific data, but the framework within which that data is interpreted.

This book hits that issue head on. If if more educators teaching science would embrace Poole's wise guidance on addressing Beliefs and Values in Science Education in an honest an open fashion we believe much of the public agnst over teaching Darwin or Design would dissipate.

Consider this quote from the preface of the book:

An Educational Model

"the sensible educator...will not expect or intend to produce an educated adult who has no beliefs, values, or attitudes, which he cannot rationally defend against all commers and who is incapable of settled convictions, deep-seated virtues, or profound loyalties. But neither will he treat his pupils in such a way as to leave them with closed minds and restricted sympathies. The process of being educated is like learning to build a house by actually building one and then having to live in the house one has built

It is a process in which the individual inevitably requires help. The extreme authoritarian helps by building the house himself according to what he believes to be the best plan and making the novice live in it. He designs it in such a way as to make it as difficult as possible for the novice to alter it. The extreme liberal leaves the novice to find his own materials and devise his own plan, for fear of exercising improper influence. The most he will do is to provide strictly technical information if asked. The sensible educator helps the novice to build the best house he can (in the light of accumulated experience). He strikes a balance between the need to produce a good house and the the desirability of letting the novice make his own choices; but he is careful that the house is designed in such a way that it can subsequently be altered and improved as the owner, no longer a novice, sees fit."

-- Professor Basil Mitchell, The Durham Report

With this model in mind, Michael Poole engages the topics of science standards; beliefs and values about science; language, concepts and models; environmental beliefs and values; cosmology and creation; the Galileo affair; and the Darwinian controversies. His approach to science education is an excellent example on how to move forward with the Darwin vs. Design controversy in a pluralistic society.

A free, 31 page study guide in pdf format for Nancy Pearcey's book Total Truth is available on the Web site above. Merry Christmas from the Pearceys!

On the CBC Web site an article describes that scientists have figured out the functions of the narwhal whale tusk.

How did that evolve by random chance and natural selection? How many lucky steps occurred, and was there enough time for this to happen? Oh, the faith of the Darwinists!

On Friday, December 16th, the University of Leiden in the Netherlands will hold a half-day symposium on ID. The Web site is in Dutch. The question addressed in the symposium is, "Is ID about theology or science?"

ID is becoming a global topic.

On Human Events Online, Casey Luskin, of the Discovery Institute, is published. The opinion is a clear thinking, right-on-the-mark, critique of recent ID articles by Charles Krauthammer and George Will.

When I read those articles, my first thought was, "Didn't they do their homework (rhetorical question)?"

Luskin answers that question.

A story by Ryan Alessi, reporter for the Lexington Herald-Leader, investigates what may be going on politically with ID in Kentucky. Too bad he didn't interview anyone with a good working knowledge of ID to get a good sound bite from our side.

A story on the ID controversy at ISU by Marcos Rivera, Virginia Arrigucci and Emily Schaefer appears in the Iowa State Daily.

A seminar, led by Hector Avalos, Jim Colbert and Michael Clough titled "The Nature of Science: 'Why the Overwhelming Consensus of Science is that Intelligent Design is not Good Science,'" will be held to explore why the majority of scientists are coming out in such strong opposition to introducing Intelligent Design as a science.

Avalos said he is not in favor of completely dismissing the theory, but thinks it should be introduced in the philosophy or religious studies departments rather than as a science.

One person who will not be attending the discussion forums is Guillermo Gonzalez, author of "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery," assistant professor of physics and astronomy. He says that the arguments for ID are not based on religion.

"I don't intend to participate in any kind of forum presented by the opposing side," Gonzalez said.

Larry Caldwell's voice is being heard in California, with regard to a proposed Quality Science Education Policy, dedicated to improving how Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in public schools.

This is his response to the editorial on the subject in the Sacramento Bee. You may need to register to read the opinion.

Sophia Maines, of the Lawrence-World Journal, writes on the continuing saga of Dr. Mirecki. Seems he's unhappy with the sheriff's department and KU. You be the judge.

This is an excellent opinion letter in the Rocky Mountain News by professor Doug Groothuis, of Denver Seminary.

Straw men are easy for the other side to knock down. Of course, it's a deceptive practice, and a waste of people's time.

Dave Carhart writes a lucid opinion letter in the Chicago Tribune.

It's definitely worth a read, and you need to do a free register with the Trib.

Chris Kahn, of the Sun-Sentinel, writes on a flap over a new biology textbook that makes a mention of ID.

Teachers should decide whether to buy a textbook that tells students about intelligent design, not Superintendent Frank Till, the Broward County Teacher's Union said Friday.

Till made the decision on his own Thursday when he said references to the creationist idea would be cut out of Biology: The Dynamics of Life, one of two books under consideration for use in local classrooms.

Seems the thought police are everywhere. WIll he use scissors?

Pillars of Naturalism

Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are considered the pillars of modern western thought. They differed in many ways but had one thing in common—they were reductionists who claimed that all higher realms of existence could be explained by lower natural causes. They were the pillars of naturalism.

But their ideas were tested during the twentieth century and found wanting. Freud was the first fall. Incidents in his career were cited to call into question both his integrity and his scientific competence, and psychiatry seemed to make more progress through medication than through Freudian analysis. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s inflicted a death blow on Marxism, which is now seen as not only failing to deliver its promised utopia but as creating an inhumane tyranny. Darwin is the last man standing, but his theory is rapidly eroding as modern biological science reveals amazing complexity and design that cannot possibly be explained by Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutations and natural selection. This led Phillip Johnson to summarize the situation one day with the phrase that appears on this shirt: “Freud is dead, Marx is dead, and Darwin is not feeling very well.”

Elizabeth Pennisi, writing for ScienceNOW Daily News, reports that a new survey of marine life indicates that "simple" organisms such as corals and sea anemones have many of the same genes and complex gene families, consisting of many closely related genes derived from the same ancestral gene as we do.

The complexity of genes is causing all to pause...and wonder.

Listen to a debate between William Dembski and Michael Shermer on audiomartini.

The Wichita Eagle picked up the story from the Kansas City Star by David Klepper, regarding the embattled Dr. Paul Mirecki of the University of Kansas.

Dr. Mirecki claimed he was beaten up by people sympathetic with creationism or ID on a lonely rural road south of Lawrence, Kansas this past Monday. While many believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt, some aren't so charitable, such as the piece you can access by clicking HERE.

You may recall, Dr. Mirecki said some rather unkind things about people of faith and ID proponents in a letter to his friends. He was going to teach a course at KU the next semester which called ID a myth (among other things), but the course was canceled shortly after his e-mail became public.

MyrtleBeach online picks up the story by Lisa Anderson of the Chicago Tribune.

It examines the three possibilities of the judicial decision in the Dover trail. The ruling could range from landmark to local. No matter what the outcome, you can bet the political spin will be dizzying.

"There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support in the theory of intelligent design, or even just questioning evolution," said Robert Crowther director of communications for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.

For the disturbing details, read the entire blog on the Discovery Institute Web site in Evolution News & Views.

MSNBC carries a stroy by Victoria Bosch in Newsweek.

For students who doubt the validity of evolution, college science class can be daunting. What happens when beliefs and schoolwork collide?

IDEA Clubs are mentioned in the piece.

We are pleased to announce that a 25% discount will be made available on any of the Intelligent Design T-shirts and merchandise in our Café Press store on December 7th and 8th.

On those two days (this Wed & Thur) any Café Press orders will receive the following discounts:

HOL5 $5 off $20
HOL10 $10 off $40
HOL25 $25 off $100

When you checkout just enter the HOL5, HOL10, or HOL25 in the Coupon/Promotional Code box on the checkout page and if your order total (before tax and shipping) exceeds the $20, $40 or $100 threshold, the discount will be applied to your order. The coupon codes are only valid Dec 7-8, 2005.

Cheers,
The ARN Staff

On space.com, Seth Shostak thinks that IDers are being less than honest when using the SETI program to bolster support for ID.

You can read a rebuttal from David Coppedge on the Creationsafari Web site by clicking HERE.

Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute reports on another proposed course mentioning ID to be taught at Knox College in Illinois. Knox will also host Phil Johnson in February.

A link to a story about sloppy reporting in the New York Times is also found on the link above.

William Dembski comments on an article in the New York Times on the Templeton Foundation and its willingness to support proposals for actual research.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer states our case for ID in the National Post (Canada)

An article by Kenneth Silber on Tech Central Station briefly looks into String Theory and ID.

The multi-verse hypothesis is brought up, which is a way for atheists and Darwinists to brush aside the idea of an uncaused intelligence. The only problem is we will never know if multiverses exist, because they can never break into this space-time continuum. It takes as much, if not more, faith to believe in them as an eternal, intelligent being.

In the National Review online, Mustafa Akyol, a Muslim writer based in Istanbul, Turkey, and one of the expert witnesses who testified to the Kansas State Education Board during the hearings on evolution, writes on the cultural bridge that ID could offer.

Akyol points out that in a New Republic cover story, "The Case Against Intelligent Design," Jerry Coyne implied that all non-Christians, including Muslims, should be alarmed by this supposedly Christian theory of beginnings that "might offend those of other faiths." Little does he realize that if there is any view on the origin of life that might seriously offend other faiths, including Islam, it is the materialist dogma: the assumptions that God, by definition, is a superstition, and that rationality is inherently atheistic.

The New York Times picked up on this Reuters story.

Ronald Numbers said that the proponents of intelligent design "want to change the definition of science" to include God, an issue he predicted would end up in the Supreme Court. He added, "one of the most successful PR campaigns we've seen in recent years is intelligent design."

John Milburn, writing in Guardian Unlimited, reports that the course at KU, which was to be taught by professor Mirecki, has been canceled.

Not surprising, because of the furor that arose from his arrogant and condescending attitude revealed in an email to his pals that became public.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder of MIT discusses the amazing odds against random mutation to create anything remotely complex on aish.com.

Boggles the mind...atheists dare not read this.

The new book by Tom Bethell, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, is now available through ARN. There are many interesting topics covered, including the crumbling of Darwinism.

This is a must read for scientists like me, who get asked about Global warming and Darwinism frequently.

A joint op-ed column by Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas appears in USA Today.

Beckel begins by saying, "Cal, I'm going to stray from the consensus liberal line on the issue of intelligent design. The Dover, Pa., school board had a good reason to allow the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific alternative to Darwinism in the school system's science classes. Despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that evolution is the sole explanation for all living things, these scientists have yet to prove the theory conclusively. Not only are there still gaping holes in the evolutionary chain from single cells to man, the science crowd hasn't come close to explaining why only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will".

Thomas then adds, "What I find curious about this debate, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Kansas and throughout the country, is that so many scientists and educators are behaving like fundamentalist secularists. Only they will define science".

Much more good dialogue in this piece...

We have added new links at the ARN home page. The combination of watching Meyer talk about design and then Dawkins talk about "apparent design" and his faith in natural selection makes for an excellent one-two punch.

The links are near the top, in the center of the home page.

Denis Boyle writes in National Review, about the recent debate and antics of the opposition.

The chairman of KU’s religious-studies department, Paul Mirecki, and the campus group he mentors, the 120-member "Society of Open-minded Atheists and Agnostics" is exposed for what he and they are.

Beware, there is some profane and possibly offensive language in the piece.

On the Human Events Online Web site Nancy Pearcey weighs in on the debate and shows why a paradigm shift to ID will occur.

A story on NPR by Barbara Bradley Hagerty treats the subject fairly.

Express you appreciation to NPR for this story. Ms. Hagerty has received condescending emails in the past from the opposition.

To get to the NPR reply form, click on "contact us" at the top of the webpage, then click the circle "NPR Program" and select "All things considered" from the drop-down menu.

The controversy is discussed in an article in the Harvard Crimson by Sarah E. F. Milov.

Leading scholars on the issue at Harvard Divinity School (HDS) and other divinity schools say their faculties have almost no proponents of intelligent design.

Michael Behe says that the intelligent design argument is purely scientific and is in no way related to the creationism debates of the early twentieth century.

Mark U. Edwards Jr., professor of the history of Christianity and associate HDS dean for academic affairs, says intelligent design is bad science and bad theology.

Edwards has an explanation for the persistence of a contentious dialogue between science and religion. "One quarter of the population is evangelical," Edwards says. "They aren’t very sophisticated."

Excuse me while I knuckle-drag my way to the kitchen for a snack...

Recently a discussion on ID and Darwinism took place at Warwick University in the UK.

To have a listen, go to the site above and scroll down a bit.

An AP story reports that, in a written apology, Paul Mirecki, chairman of the university's Religious Studies Department, said he would teach the planned class "as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view."

In an email to associates and friends, his real thoughts and emotions on the subject came out.

Rep. Brenda Landwehr, vice chairwoman of the Kansas House Appropriations Committee, called the e-mail "venomous," adding, "He's not sorry he wrote it. He's sorry it became public."

So true.

The controversy between Darwinism and Intelligent Design has, in addition to sparking lively, and sometimes vitriolic exchanges, caused a rise in sales of merchandise on both sides.

This AP story in the Kansas City Star describes that phenomenon.

Russell Jacoby, a professor of history at UCLA, opines in the LA Times on why controversy should not always be taught in the university, and chimes in with an ID example. One interesting comment by Dr. Jacoby is that ID "is now mandated to be taught in five states and proposed in 20 others." Truth is, ID is not mandated to be taught in any one of the United States.

According to Jacoby, the jargon of choice and diversity actually corrodes academic freedom, which once referred to the freedom of college instructors to teach what they considered salient, subject to the review of their peers, not outside authorities. Today, it increasingly means the freedom of students to hear what they, or their parents want.

Using material from the Boston College Honors web site:

What is a Liberal Education?

The British playwright George Bernard Shaw once said, with more wit perhaps than truth, that a school is much like a prison, indeed worse since in a prison at least the inmates aren't forced to read books written by the warden and the guards. Well, you may have felt this way once or twice during the years you've spent in school, but a good education should have precisely the opposite effect. It should "free" a person, Aristotle thought, from the bondage of unexamined opinions, prejudices, and ignorance.

The American university in the late 20th century has become a supermarket of bewildering choices, reflecting the breakdown of agreement in our culture about what is worth knowing. In contrast, we in the Honors Program believe that there is no better foundation for an education than a solid grasp of the history of the debate--from Homer and the Hebrew Bible to our own century--about the perennial topics that have preoccupied men and women: the origin and destiny of our lives, human nature, the just society, the constitution of the physical world, how we understand our history.

But learning the wisdom of the past is not enough. An education for a constantly changing world has to be a training in a special way of thinking: one that leads you to see connections across disciplines, to notice what the tradition has valued and what it has neglected, to challenge your own conclusions and commitments, and to prize what can be learned from people different from you. But even this style of thinking will remain incomplete, unless you use it to develop a vision of a worthwhile life for you and your neighbors and to imagine plausible ways of achieving it.

This is the real goal of a liberal education.

"Teach the Controversy" makes a lot of sense after this kind of introduction to what college is suppose to be about.

Becky Bartindale and Lisa Krieger of the San Jose Mercury News report on the lawsuit filed by Larry Caldwell against operators of a University of California-Berkeley web site that is designed to help teachers teach evolution. Caldwell claims the site improperly strays into religion.

Defendants include two top biologists from the UC Museum of Paleontology, which runs the Understanding Evolution web site (http://evolution. berkeley.edu) and an official from the National Science Foundation, who is named because the foundation provided more than $400,000 in public funding for the site.

Caldwell says that amounts to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others, and is an effort "to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true."

Strange but Glenn Branch of NCSE says this action encourages a "climate of hostility", and yet the University of Kansas professor's new courses are just fine, with no victims apparent there. One word to describe that: hypocrite.

ID will make its way into a second KU classroom in the fall, this time labeled as a 'pseudoscience.' Sophia Maines reports in the Lawrence World Journal of the new class at KU.

John Hoopes, associate professor of anthropology, said the course focused on critical thinking and will teach how to differentiate science and 'pseudoscience.' Intelligent design belongs in the second category, he said, because it cannot be tested and proven false.

Oddly enough, Darwinian theory is also not falsifiable. Darwin's test of irreducible complexity can always be "explained away" by creative Darwinists. The highly elastic theory will always be stretched to cover whatever is found to be the case factually. Note, in some circles the move from gradualism, once thought to be crucial to the theory by Darwin himself, to Gould's punctuated equilibria.

It is amazing when you examine the bias and hypocrisy of the professor at KU who will teach the course 'Special Topics in Religion, Intelligent Design, Creationism and othef Religious Mythologies.'

An email of his has been circulated and written about in the Lawrence World Journal. For the story by Sophia Maines, click HERE.

In addition, the upcoming class has obviously upset ID proponents. For the story by Sophia Maines, click HERE.

One could easily counter by simply observing that Professor Mirecki is uneasy with the notion that one can offer rational arguments for beliefs that fit well within a religious worldview. This attitude would stifle the intellectual development of both him and his students. At an institution funded by citizens from a wide range of worldviews, the University of Kansas faculty and administrators have an obligation to offer respectful critiques of positions with which they disagree. American pluralism requires nothing less. Professors like Mirecki appear to be narrow minded religious bigots whose passion for protecting their orthodoxy clouds their otherwise good judgment.

It's this kind of activity that should cause some Kansas legislators to
question the extent to which Kansas taxpayers should be funding state sponsored faith bashing. Imagine if a religious studies professor announced an upcoming course bashing Native American 'mythologies.'

Of course, bashing ID seems to be just fine.

Fox News picks up this AP sotry that creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas.

A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."

Paul Mirecki, department chairman, says "Creationism is mythology. Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."

John Calvert is quoted in the short story.

Of course, scientific creationism and intelligent design are treated as being identical.

On the website LiveScience the marvels of Monarch butterfly navigation are revealed. Was this system designed or "designed" by chance?

Michael Behe was interviewed on C-SPAN on Monday. Scroll down to find the 30 minute segment.

The upcoming issue of Newsweek has a story on the controversy, with a photo of Charles Darwin on the cover.

Jonathan Witt, of the Discovery Institute, is a published guest columnist in the Seattle Times.

This op-ed piece nicely balances (in the Seattle Times) the Charles Krauthammer rant of a few days ago.

Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor for Reuters, reports on Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn's remarks on scientific creationism, Darwinism, and Intelligent Design.

The Kansas City Star picks up on a story by Garance Burke of AP, who writes on parents and students fretting over the new Kansas State Board science standards.

It is truly amazing how muddled people's thinking is on this issue. The science standards set forth in Kansas actually now fit in better with the standards in over 40 other states.

Also, wouldn't it be nice if people could just sit down and dialogue in a cordial, gentle, respectful manner instead of setting up strawman arguments and doling out ad hominems attacks? The above usually comes from the Darwinist's side, but not exclusively.

Instead of Kansas "being the laughingstock" of the US, which the other side claims is occurring, the truth is Kansas is falling into line with a majority of the rest of the states, and is taking out a narrow definition of science. That being, that science only looks for the right kind of explanations (materialistic), not the right explanations. Why in other science endeavors, criminology, SETI, archeology is intelligent agent causation allowed, yet in biology it is arbitrarily disallowed? That's the question you should continuously be asking the other side, and demanding an answer.

The New York Daily News reports on a no holds barred attack on the President and ID at an exhibit unveiling on the life of Charles Darwin at a museum event in New York.

Tom Brokaw, one of the museum patrons, was quoted as saying that the exhibit "doesn't attempt to argue the theory of evolution because there is no argument."

And other guests became even more condescending...

Charles Krauthammer opines in the Washington Post on ID....AGAIN!

He didn't get the facts right the first time, and apparently still hasn't boned-up on what ID theory is and is not.

He states, "Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud."

Maybe, with some feedback from ID proponents, his third time (opinion) will be the charm.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) for Public Policy Research published it's newsletter Friday. In it, a short piece with the above title discusses the subject.

AEI should be taken to task for a statement in the first paragraph, which says, "The Kansas Board of Education recently voted to require that students learn about intelligent design". This, of course, is completely false. The Kansas Board encouraged more teaching of Darwinism, including it's weaknesses as a scientific theory. The words "intelligent design" do NOT appear in the standards.

From BBC News, a remarkable example of design in living creatures.

Yet the final line of the story quoting Dr. Vukusic (who discovered this feature), "When you study these things and get a feel for the photonic architecture available, you really start to appreciate the elegance with which nature put some of these things together."

Yes, it all boils down to a happy series of accidents...

On the Malaysiakini website Dr. Stefen Tan opines on ID and Darwinism.

William Dillon of the Tribune (mid Iowa) reports that 150 faculty of the University of Iowa have signed a statement denouncing the use of intelligent design in science.

The nearly 400 signatures from ISU, University of Northern Iowa and UI accounts for only about 10 percent of the faculty at the three universities.

The materialists are teaching their sectarian theological that God, if He exists, never engaged in special divine action (miracles) in the history of life. If the Iowa universities intend to exclude ID, then they must suppress their sectarian theology, which is teaching macroevolutionary biology.

This column on the EducationNews.org website by Steve Abrams, chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education, is an ABSOLUTE MUST READ for those who engage in dialogue on the subject of teaching all of Darwinism in the public schools.

It shows how the other side is disingenuously engaging in the debate with their cohorts, the media, and the public.

Well...this is not really NEWS...but it's good to be reminded of how truly powerless random mutation and natural selection (that would be Darwinism) are when examined by a brilliant scientist.

In this 1997 book review by Ashby Camp of Dr. Lee Spetner's book Not By Chance!, the odds are shown regarding the evolution of one species into another species.

After reading this, I don't have enough faith to be a true believer in Darwinian theory. How about you?

From the Univeristy of Guelph in Canada, comes a short and simplified description of the "gun cell" of a fungus known as Haptoglossa mirabilis.

Also, see another description and photos by clicking HERE to access information in a supplement to the Fifth Kingdom.

Does this looks irreducibly complex? Surely the Darwinists have come up with a detailed pathway of development! Perhaps, given enough time, anything can happen.

MSNBC reports on James Mellett, a retired professor of biology, geology and paleontology at New York University, and his defense of Darwinism.

Tristan Abbey, executive director of the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) in Stanford, CA was quoted in the story. Abbey said that "when you go to an intelligent design conference, the discussion is always completely about science. It's important to acknowledge that."

Mellett said, "George Bush, our president, says he doesn't believe in evolution. The next minute, he tells the country, 'We have to watch out for the flu virus.'"

That he can try to get away with conflating micro- and macro-evolution is startling. Or is it?

Learning more about the Kansas School Board's definition of science as it relates to other states according to the Discovery Institute.

The naturalistic defintion replaced by the Kansas School Boeard was taken from Ohio's Science Standards, which got the definition from the Ohio Academy of Science. The definition is areligious.

The Louisville Courier-Journal picks up on a story by Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star on a intelligent design debate which may heat up in the Hoosier state's House of Representatives.

This op-ed by the editorial page editor of the Jackson (TN) Sun is a fine example of someone with a strong naturalistic bias, using the talking points of Darwinists, pejorative language, and ad hominem attacks. See how many you can find, and think how you would counter each one by asking the right questions. It would be tough to have a conversation concerning ID with this gentleman...

Bill Sulon of the Patriot-News reports that the The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based proponent of intelligent design, wants judge John E. Jones to limit his ruling to the school board's actions. Opponents of the policy want a broad ruling, one that addresses not only the board's decision but the issue of whether intelligent design is science or a new term for creationism.

Jones commented that he had been given "the opportunity to preside over one of the most important trials [on the] First Amendment and the Establishment Clause."

NPR's religion correspondent, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, reports on the Richard Sternberg controversy in All Things Considered.

Eugenie Scott's comments are ridiculous, saying the the incident didn't hurt Sternberg, that he wasn't a real scientist, that he allowed a "creationist" paper to be published, and basically he should get over it.

The propaganda machine is surely working overtime at NCSE.

Douglas Kern, a lawyer, gives five reasons why ID will replace Darwinism as the reigning biological paradigm on the website Tech Central Station.

The article is informative and sometimes very funny (reason 2, ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers).

Learn and enjoy!

Geoff Brumfiel gets it wrong in this article on the Nature website.

In the first paragraph he states that ID is "the idea that an intelligent creator shaped the course of evolution". He should simply be saying that ID is about making design inferences. The two tenets of ID are that intelligent causes exist, and intelligent causes can be detected empirically. Period. Leave the discovery of the indentity of the designer for another discipline.

On a positive note, Casey Luskin, of the Discovery Institute is give some ink.

A piece by William Ress-Mogg in the London Times reports on the recent news of the Catholic's Church view on Darwinism.

Cardinal Paul Poupard has said that the description in Genesis of the Creation was perfectly compatible with Darwinism, if the Bible were read properly.

The Pope made his views known. For a look, click HERE.

Does the Church support a concept of God-guided Darwinism? And, how would that work, since Darwinism is an unguided, purposelss process that did not have man in mind?

Focus on the Family's Citizen Link reports on the vote in Kansas and the inability of some of the mainstream press to get it right. The standards are all about teaching more about Darwinism, not about teaching ID.

Martha Raffaele of the AP reports that voters ousted eight incumbent Dover Area school board members who favor mentioning ID as an alternative to evolution, replacing them with a slate of eight opponents who want to remove the subject from the science curriculum.

The Seattle Times picked up the story by John Hanna of the AP that the Kansas state Board of Education approved science standards for public schools today that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was considered a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards.

The website ScienceDaily reports on research conducted at the Wistar Institute. Wow...looks irreducibly complex!!! Read the details and be amazed!!!

A series of articles on ID by Owen Gingerich, professor emeritus of astronomy and history of science at Harvard University and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, Mass., appear on the website Science & Theology News.

Science & Theology News "takes a look at concepts of ID and presents counterpoints from scientists and theologians alike, without mudslinging or repetitive rhetoric".

ID simply argues that Darwinism, which asserts that random mutation and natural selection are all that is needed for the biological world we see today, is mistaken.

Casey Luskin, lawyer at the Discovery Institute has posted two detailed reports of the end of the Dover trial.

First, he gives a blow by blow description of Scott Minnich's cross-examination. Dr. Minnich runs a lab at the University of Idaho which studies the bacterial flagellum, and has been teaching biology at the college level for 18 years. Read the story by clicking HERE.

Also, Luskin describes the final arguments presented by the ACLU.
Read this story by clicking HERE.

Nancy Haught of the Oregonian reports that two separate panel discussions will take place on November 12th and 13th at the University of Portland.

John F. Haught, whose books include "God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution", and Michael J. Behe, who wrote "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", will discuss the theories in two separate lectures.

Haught says, "It is not the job of science to talk about ultimate explanations. That is why I object to intelligent design being taught as a science."

I wonder why it's okay to teach Darwinism in science class, since it is an ultimate explanation (from an atheistic standpoint). Darwinism is science as a philosophy, not science as a methodology.

Errol Castens of the University of Mississippi Daily Journal, writes a favorable piece on the ID-Darwinism controversy. Part of the problem ID is having in the current debate is the science vs religion mantra of Darwinists. Castens is the religion editor of the paper, by the way.

Josh Getlin, staff writer for the LA Times, reports on Michael Behe and the Dover trial.

Time and time again we encounter the "genetic fallacy" used by the other side. Just because people who believe in the God of the Bible think ID points to the God of the Bible, doesn't mean ID isn't scientific in every respect. All you Darwinists, please respond to the scientific idea, not the people of faith who back it. It's science vs science not science vs religion.

From Laurie Goldstein of the New York Times, a piece which leans a bit to the Darwinism side.

Russ Pulliam, associate editor for the Indianapolis Star, writes a very balanced opinion piece on ID and Darwinism.

Read the Expert Report filed by Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute, which was attached to an Amicus Brief filed in Dover trial by clicking HERE.

Read about DI's true role in the trial and Dr. Scott Minnich's testimony by clicking HERE.

The Daily Nebraskan, newspaper of the University Nebraska, reports on a panel discussion titled 'Our Origins, Evolution, Intelligent Design or Creationism?' held November 3rd at the Lied Center for Performing Arts. Kelley Hascall reported that five men from scientific and religious backgrounds, including Dr. Paul Nelson, discussed various topics.

The mischaracterization as this being a battle between science and religion was brought to the fore again. In reality this is a worldview vs worldview battle with plenty of science to go around on both sides.

Laurie Goldstein of the New York Times reports on the Dover trial from the perspective of the defendant's law firm.

Mary Beth Schneider and Robert King of the Indianapolis Star report that Indiana public schools would teach "intelligent design" along with evolution under legislation that some Republican lawmakers are developing for the 2006 legislative session.

A related link in the Indianapolis Star by Michele McNeil on the Governer's take on ID in the public schools can be seen by clicking HERE.

As reported by Steven Ray Haberlin in the Ocala-Star Banner, the Marion County School District has decided to carry two ID friendly resources in its library.

There were no plans to use the materials during classroom instruction. But teachers were provided written and verbal advice on how to deal with the topic of intelligent design.

Just a reminder that the transcripts of the Dover trial are available on the Pennsylvania ACLU web site. The trial is in day 18.

The bacterial flagellum, long the "poster child" of the ID movement, is described in stunning detail in a 34 minute movie made by the Nanotechnology Researchers Center of Japan. The link above contains the movie. To read a report, click HERE.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist...

Casey Luskin, Program Officer of Public Policy & Legal Affairs
Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, wrote an op-ed piece for Beliefnet. It explains DI's position on what the school board in Dover, PA is attempting to do.

There are also some links to other ID pieces bordering Luskin's piece.

The York Dispatch, in a Q & A with Dover PA school board candidates, not surprisingly, first asked them about ID.

TheAge.Com.au reports that Victoria's government schools will treat intelligent design as a religious faith, not science, Education Minister Lynne Kosky has ruled.

In her first statement on the subject, Ms. Kosky reaffirmed the principle that government schools were secular and did not promote any religion.

This ruling again shows where the strategy must focus: it's science vs science, and this message must be spread. Intelligent Design Theory scientifically seeks to find out whether something in the cosmos came to be from natural causation or intelligent agency. The causes of something could be natural or intelligence, or a combination.

Jodi Wilgoren of the New York Times reports that the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association have denied the Kansas Board of Education permission to use their copyrighted materials as part of the state's proposed new science standards because of the standards' critical approach to evolution.

This move comes less than two weeks before the board's expected adoption of the controversial new standards, which will serve as a template for statewide tests and thus have great influence on what is taught.

Expert testimonies from the Dover trial are available for you viewing.

The testimony of Steven William Fuller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, England can be viewed HERE.

The testimony of Roger T. Pennock, Professor of Science and Technological Studies at Michigan State University's Lyman Briggs School of Science and Associate Professor of Philosophy in the Philosophy Department can be viewed HERE.

As reported on EurekAlert!, a new book, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma, Harvard Medical School's Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, of the University of California - Berkeley address a key problem in evolutionary theory that has puzzled scientists from Darwin on and which is now under intense scrutiny by proponents of intelligent design: where do the big jumps come from in evolution?

The example given reminds one of the beginning of a fairytale, "Once upon a time..." How did the living tissue develop these remarkable abilities to achieve these complex interactions through random mutation and natural selection? Let's see what discussion comes forth.

In a predictable move, USA Today reports that the AAAS head Alan Leshner announced that without better science standards, students would be unable to tell "intelligent design," which he called a religious viewpoint, from real science.

Looks like Leshner's scientific materialistic philosophy is driving this latest tactic.

John Hanna of AP reports that a retired law professor who's sometimes called the father of the intelligent design movement plans to speak Saturday, October 29th at Washburn University, amid an ongoing debate over how evolution is taught in Kansas' public schools.

Phillip Johnson's visit is sponsored by Christian Challenge, a student group on the Topeka campus. The event is scheduled for 7 p.m. at the university's union.

School Officials Must Answer in Court for Alleged Religious Discrimination

Sacramento, CA In an important legal victory for citizens seeking to improve how evolution is taught in public schools, a federal judge has ruled that California citizens have a Constitutional right under the First Amendment to put proposed evolution policies on the agenda of local school board meetings for public debate and potential adoption, and that school officials who refuse such a request are subject to potential civil rights remedies in federal court.

Said plaintiff Larry Caldwell, "The court's ruling is a vindication of the constitutional right of California citizens to initiate public debate in school board meetings on the question of how we should teach evolution to our children."

Added Caldwell, "This is a crucial educational policy issue that must be addressed if our children are to acquire the critical thinking skills they will need to compete in the Twenty-First Century."

School officials of the Roseville Joint Union High School District have maintained that they have the right to deny citizens the opportunity to have a proposed education policy placed on a school board agenda. The court ruled that such a policy, if proven, would constitute illegal "viewpoint discrimination" under the Free Speech Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The legal ruling came in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by parent activist and attorney Larry Caldwell, arising out of his year-long effort to persuade the Roseville Joint Union High School District to adopt his Quality Science Education Policy.
The QSE Policy seeks to stimulate the critical thinking skills of students by including both scientific strengths and weaknesses of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in biology classes.

U.S. District Court Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. also ruled that school officials who base their refusal on the actual or perceived religious beliefs or affiliations of the citizen proposing the policy also run afoul of the protections against religious discrimination in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In papers filed in the lawsuit, attorneys for school officials have admitted that their refusal for eight months to permit Caldwell's proposed QSE Policy to be debated and voted on at school board meetings was based in part on Caldwell's Christian religious beliefs.

Said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute, a California pro-family, public policy group, "We are pleased that the court has recognized the constitutional right of California parents to participate in local school board meetings in a pro-active way. It is unfortunate that it has taken a lawsuit to get the leadership of the Roseville high school district to honor the constitutional rights of Mr.
Caldwell and other citizens."

Pacific Justice Institute, the Sacramento-based public interest organization, is acting as co-counsel with Caldwell in the lawsuit.

Check out the link above for talks at the recent conference.

Despite the predictably disparaging reaction of the news media and some established scientists, Wells thought that the conference was a huge success.

The conference was organized by Charles Thaxton, co-author of the now classic *The Mystery of Life's Origin* (1984), and his hard-working wife, Carole. (The Thaxtons had originally planned to hold the conference several years ago, but their plan was put on hold when Charles lost his leg to
cancer.)

Held in the large hall where the Czech Communist Party used to meet, the conference featured seven speakers from five countries: Stephen C. Meyer (USA), Jonathan Wells (USA), Charles Thaxton (USA), David Berlinski (France), John C. Lennox (UK), Cees Dekker (The Netherlands), and Dalibor Krupka (Slovakia). The proceedings were chaired by Peter Verner, a Czech chemist. The talks (in English) were simultaneously translated into Czech for the audience, and the five main speakers (Meyer, Wells, Thaxton, Berlinski, and Lennox) had provided written summaries in advance that were available in English and Czech.

Stuart Pivar has asked Glenn Branch at NCSE to remove "or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurence" from the wording of the "Steve" declaration. Click the link above for more.

William Dembski, in Uncommon Descent comments on the equivocation of the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould on the role of natural selection in the macroevolutionary process.

Would Gould have signed "Steve's List"? Maybe. Maybe not.

William Provine, Professor in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, gave a lecture "Evolution and Intelligent Design" at Alpha Delta Phi fraternity at Cornell University.

The lecture came on the heels of Interim President Hunter R. Rawlings IIIs condemnation of the push to teach intelligent design in public schools during the his State of the University Address.

Provine is an avid defender of Darwinism, but believe the public debate should take place between Darwinism and ID, having debated Phil Johnson several times.

On Townhall.com, Monisha Bonsal gives a brief summary on the Washington, D.C. conference this past weekend. It seems it is only a matter of time before the phrase "intelligent design is not science" will wear thin as the public becomes more informed.

Mike Argento in the York Dispatch is good at "attacking the man" and being mildly humorous. We wonder what he really thinks of ID?

Denyse O'Leary blogs on Gould, and his supposed namesake, Steve's list. WWSHD...What would Steve have done?

One of the sessions in the upcoming AAAS Annual Meeting is Anti-Evolutionism in America, What's Ahead?

It is stated that the Dover, PA school board is declaring that teachers study ID in class. This is a total misrepresentation of reality. The biology teachers would be required to read a short statement, and tell students that there is a book in the library they can look at if they wish. That's it! In addition, did the school board state that their objective was to eliminate or restrict the teaching of evolution? We think not!

The Summary of the AAAS session...A Science Teacher's View of the Anti Evolutionary Movement
Recently, the school board in Dover, Pa., declared that teachers were to study intelligent design, a form of creationism characterized by frequent intervention by an unnamed Designer, rather than the all at once creationism of biblical literalism. With this statement, Dover joined a steadily growing U.S. movement at the state and local levels whose objective is to eliminate or restrict the teaching of evolution. The proponents of intelligent design are not attempting to carry out a legitimate scientific debate, rather they are using the teaching of biological and cosmological evolution as a mechanism to attain political objectives. While eliminating or severely restricting the teaching of biological evolution is a primary goal, all of the scientific disciplines, natural and physical, are being affected. Speakers will present an overview on the teaching of biological evolution and where it is headed, clarify the scientific issues; identify other fields, auxiliary to biology, that are directly affected, illustrate the effect of the antievolutionism movement on scientific textbooks and standards, and present the perspective of high school science teachers. The aim of this symposium is to initiate a discussion among science teachers, professional scientists, and people interested in all aspects of science designed to develop an understanding of our mutual interests in supporting the teaching of Darwinian evolution.

Christina Kaufman, of the York Dispatch, reports on the lengthiness of the trial.

Former board member William Buckingham, who resigned to move to North Carolina about two months before the trial started, has been one of the key figures in the trial because of religious comments he reportedly made at school board meetings. He is scheduled to testify Thursday.

Ondrej Hejma, AP writer, appears in the Seattle Post-Intelligence, reporting on the recent ID Conference in the Czech Republic.

About 700 attended the conference, and guess what. There were protestors on hand too.

Carlin Romano of Knight Ridder gives his opinion on the recent book and thoughts of Michael Ruse.

The following is a press release from the Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club at Cornell concerning Cornell president Rawlings' state of the University address blasting Intelligent Design.

Contact: Hannah Maxson
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tel. 607-253-2803
Email: idea@cornell.edu

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, October 22, The Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club at Cornell is deeply concerned with President Hunter Rawlings' blatant disregard for the facts concerning Intelligent Design in Friday's State of the University Address. In a speech usually reserved for current university business, he spent over two thirds of his time blasting the emerging Intelligent Design theory as anti scientific and religious in an unscrupulous, unknowledgeable manner.

Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance based process such as Darwinian evolution. It follows the principles of the scientific method, scorns the biases of either religion or naturalism, and attempts to follow all the available evidence to a valid conclusion. ID is testable and falsifiable, and so far its predictions have repeatedly been shown accurate.

The IDEA Club at Cornell holds that the problems with Neo Darwinian evolution can no longer be ignored, and it is time for true research and debate about the issues surrounding the beginnings of life to take place at universities across the country.

Attacking ID as a non scientist and without addressing its scientific claims, Rawlings states that it is religion masquerading as science and is a religious belief at its core. This gross misstatement is a disservice to unbiased discourse, besides being an insult to people of faith throughout America. Ad hominem attacks and confusing people's religious beliefs with their scientific research is not befitting a university president. We would hope Rawlings will instead follow Cornell's often lauded commitment to a free and open exchange of ideas.

Below is a collection of articles on the Dover trial.

For an editorial from the York Dispatch, click HERE.

For an article from MSNBC by AP, click HERE.

For an editorial in the Morning Call by a proponent of ID, Donald Hoffman, click HERE.

For an article from the Patriot-News by Bill Sulon, click HERE.

This article on the website Top Tech News delves into Michael Behe's academic sojourn at Lehigh University.

John Bright, a postgraduate humanities fellow at Lehigh, said, "frankly, just from a humanities point of view, it's considered good to challenge the conventional wisdom. It's inherently respectable." Bravo to Mr. Bright!

Alan Leshner, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, characterizes ID proponents as "mostly fringe players." We wonder if Leshner lived in the time of Galileo, would he have called Galileo a "fringe player". Too bad ad hominem remarks like Dr. Leshner's still seem to work.

An article by Ker Than goes a bit deeper than most on the website LiveScience.

It looks into the twin pillars of ID, irreducible complexity and specified complexity, and says both are wanting. Than buys into the co-option argument to "refute" irreducible complexity, and "refutes" specified complexity with the "nylon problem".

Both have been ably defended as not being examples of Darwinism.

For more on the "nylon solution", click HERE,

and HERE.

It is worth your while to read ID proponent Stephen Jones's replies to Austrailian science organizations against ID.

They pull out every old sound bite in the atheist/agnostic/freethinker playbook, including "dressed up in a cheap tuxedo"!

William Kates of the AP reports that Hunter Rawlings III, felt it imperative to use his state of the university address, usually a recitation of the school's progress over the last year, to speak out against intelligent design, which he said has put rational thought under attack.

Straight from the talking points of scientific materialists, Rawlings causes those who have delved deep into the subject to yawn, and to hope that the students at Cornell are intelligent enough to see past the rhetoric.

Michael Powell of the Washington Post reports that there is little, if any, resemblance between the Scopes Trial and the Dover Trial.

Behe impressed! But, we knew he would.

The graphical header shows a man. he symbolizes the Essence of manifestation. He is admiring the starred sky upon him. The drawing on the right shows a woman. She symbolizes the Substance pole of manifestation. (Both drawings made by Leonardo da Vinci). In the middle, there is a glimpse on the universe, which stays between (and is composed of) Essence and Substance (photo of the Dark nebula Horsehead in Orion). The vibration on the photo symbolizes an echo of the Big Bang (Substance, matter and energy) and Big Installation (Essence, information) due to the initial Fiat Lux.
The Intelligent Design label stays on a clear background (it is near the truth). The Evolution text stays on a dark background (it is far from the truth). ID is correct, evolutionism is wrong.

The articles are a mix of English and Italian.

A most important and decisive book that defends a "non-evolutionist" position is back in print. Douglas Dewar's "The Transformist Illusion" exposes, scientifically, all the maneuvers undertaken by those that prop up Darwinism. Nobody ever demonstrated scientific evidences that a species "developed" from another, and Dewar shows this. The book is available from Barnes and Noble.

PRNewswire reports on the upcoming ID Conference in Europe this weekend which is expected to draw around 1000 people from around the world.

Continue to follow the Dover trial from the perspective of the Discovery Institute, which has three staff members attending the trial.

Transcripts of the Dover trial are available on the Pennsylvania ACLU website, including Dr. Michael Behe's expert testimony.

As we have said for quite some time..."junk" DNA is not junk.

Peter Andolfatto, an assistant professor of biology at UC-San Diego, says such DNA plays an important role in maintaining an organism's genetic integrity. Read about it on ScienceDaily.

The Philadelphia Enquirer op-ed page featured opinions on both sides of the trial issue. Read about it on the DI website.

We are wrong...Darwinism has been caught on tape. Not!

Dr. Michael Behe has been on the witness stand as the defense's star witness.

For a report from the York Dispatch by Christina Kauffman, click HERE.

For a report from AP on MSNBC, click HERE.

It is amazing that the American Physical Society (APS) can get it so wrong when it comes to ID and Biblical Creationism.

ID only states that something is designed because it exhibits certain characteristics. The identity of the designer doesn't even come up.

For their statement on the Kansas State Board decision written in 1999, click HERE.

Christiana Kauffman of the York Dispatch reports that the defense has begun to present its case supporting the Dover Area school board's decision to include intelligent design in biology classes. Attorneys will set out to undo the past three weeks of testimony from expert scientists, former board members and parents.

John Staver, a fellow of the AAAS, delivered a statement at the monthly meeting of the Kansas State Board of Education in Topeka. The board is expected to give final approval to the new standards, which greatly trouble AAAS, in a vote in October. Read the statement in the AAAS news archives in the link above.

NEWS RELEASE:
Contact: Intelligent Design network, inc.
John Calvert, Managing Director
913-268-0852

IDnet Announces Establishment of IDnet of Ohio

Shawnee Mission, KS. - IDnet announced that it had re-established its Ohio division through an office in Cincinnati. The new division will be managed under the direction of attorney Roddy M. Bullock. Mr. Bullock was also elected to the IDnet Board of Directors and IDnet Executive Committee at a special meeting of the Board on October 15.

IDnet currently has offices in Kansas City, Albuquerque, and Minneapolis. The reopening of its Ohio office reflects a renewed interest in furthering institutional objectivity in teaching origins science in Ohio schools.

In addition to practicing patent law with a Fortune 100 corporation in Cincinnati, Mr. Bullock is a degreed mechanical engineer (BSME and JD from The University of Texas, Austin) and an author. Married with four children raised in public schools, Mr. Bullock has a passion for excellence in science education in Ohio and around the nation.

"I am excited about helping the citizens of Ohio capitalize on the outstanding work accomplished by others over the few years to permit teachers to open up the classroom discussion about origins," said Mr. Bullock. "Although great progress has been made by people dedicated to excellence in science education, a kind of scientific fundamentalism continues to hinder Ohio teachers from teaching Darwinism fully and honestly. That is not healthy for good science or good science education," continued Bullock. "We need to take fear out of the biology classroom and empower teachers to candidly discuss both sides of the current scientific controversy over evolution."

"The new science is generating an exciting new 21st century perspective on origins. 20st Century concepts of random mutation and natural selection are being replaced by new ways of looking at a genome that exhibits indescribably complex information processing systems," said John Calvert. "The old way of thinking about origins is going to need major revision as the new data is changing the way we think about both the operation and evolution of the genome."

*******

Intelligent Design network, inc. is a nonprofit national organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science. Intelligent design is a scientific disagreement with claims that the apparent design of certain natural phenomena is an illusion that can be adequately explained by random mutation and natural selection. Objectivity is necessary because many institutions systematically suppress any objective consideration of that disagreement.

It continues to amaze us how writers can keep on misrepresenting what ID actually is, conflating it with Biblical creationism. In a Yahoo News article by Lisa Anderson Tribune, it is reported that efforts continue by museums around the country to legitimize Darwinism at all costs.

Mentioning the Dover PA trial, the tired phrase that the school board wants to teach ID is restated. In that school district the proposal is for a short statement to be read in 9th grade biology classes saying that ID is another theory of origins, and the student can look at a book in the library if they wish to do so. That hardly constitutes "teaching" ID.

The spotlight in the Dover trial turned to Jonathan Well's book Icons of Evolution and the companion DVD. Learn more in this article in the York Dispatch by Lauri Lebo.

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is hosting a conference in Washington, D.C. on Friday, October 21st. Heavyweights on both sides of the debate will be present.

Don Cicchetti, a musical artist and free-lance writer, has dialed into the ID movement, like many others around the world, by setting up a blog. Way to go, Don!

Scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine have identified an elusive protein that performs a necessary step in the production of human chromosomes.

The new study appears in the most recent issue (Oct. 7) of the journal Cell.

The study found that a protein called CPSF73 acts like scissors to cut strands of histone messenger RNA (mRNA) in the cell nucleus. This cutting action produces the mRNA needed to create histone proteins that combine with DNA to form chromosomes.

Just another example of irreducible complexity rampant in biology.

Jonathan Well's response to The New Republic article by Jerry R. Coyne, evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago, is up on the Discovery Institute website.

Subject: Lawsuit: Federally-Funded Website Uses Religion to Sell Evolution to Students

News Release

For IMMEDIATE RELEASE on October 12, 2005

Contact: Larry Caldwell
Phone: 916-774-4667
lcaldwell@qsea.org

Lawsuit Alleges that Federally-Funded Evolution Website Violates Separation of Church and State by Using Religion to Promote Evolution

San Francisco, CA- A California parent, Jeanne Caldwell, is filing a federal lawsuit today against officials of the National Science Foundation and the University of California at Berkeley for spending more than $500,000 of federal money on a website that encourages teachers to use religion to promote evolution in violation of the First Amendment.

"In this stunning example of hypocrisy, the same people who so loudly proclaim that they oppose discussion of religion in science classes are clamoring for public school teachers to expressly use theology in order to convince students to support evolution," said Larry Caldwell, President of Quality Science Education for All, who is co-counsel in the suit with the Pacific Justice Institute.

Called "Understanding Evolution," the website identified in the lawsuit directs teachers to doctrinal statements by seventeen religious denominations and groups endorsing evolutionary theory. A statement by the United Church of Christ, for example, declares that evolution is consistent with "the revelation and presence of... God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit."

The website further suggests classroom activities that explicitly use religion to promote evolution. In one suggested activity, teachers are supposed to share with students statements by religious leaders on evolution, but only those "stress[ing] the compatibility of theology with the science of evolution." In another activity, students are assigned to interview ministers about their views on evolution, with the purpose of showing students that "Evolution is OK!" Teachers are cautioned, however, that this particular activity may not work if they live in a community that is "conservative Christian."

"While the government has a legitimate purpose in educating students about the science of evolution, it's outrageous that tax dollars would be spent to indoctrinate students into a particular religious view of evolution. There are many different religious views about evolution. How dare the government tell students which religious view is correct!" said plaintiff Jeanne Caldwell. "This is propaganda, not education."

The lawsuit alleges that the state and federal government are promoting religious beliefs to minor school children through the website in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The suit seeks injunctive relief to remove these government endorsed religious beliefs from
the website.

The lawsuit also alleges that the website is being used to further the religious agenda of a private organization, the National Center for Science Education (NSCE), which has a "long history of religious advocacy" on the evolution issue. According to the suit, the NCSE, which helped design the website, provides religious "outreach" programs and "preaching" on evolution to churches, all aimed at convincing people of faith that there is no
conflict between their religious beliefs and evolution.

"It turns out that the NCSE and its allies in the scientific and educational establishments don't mind having religious beliefs discussed in science class, as long as those discussions are aimed at convincing students to convert to the religious beliefs favored by the NCSE", added attorney Caldwell. "Their willingness to flagrantly violate students'
constitutionally protected religious freedoms in order to sell evolution to our children is the height of hypocrisy."

Dave Dentel, copy editor for the York (PA) Dispatch, is a clear thinker who gets it absolutely right when describing the tactics of the Darwinists on trial. He shows their disingenuousness and wrongheaded thinking.

Cristina Bautista of UC Berkeley's Daily Californian reports on the UC Berekely's involvement in the ID controversy.

UC Berkeley integrative biology professor Kevin Padian is currently working as an expert witness in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, where he is assisting 11 parents from Dover, Penn. who argue that the school district is violating their First Amendment rights by imposing religious beliefs through the inclusion of intelligent design in their children's science curriculum.

The pro-ID side is fairly well represented in the article, mentioning Phil Johnson, and senior Tom Kim, who started up the UC Berkeley chapter of Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness this fall to provide a forum for like-minded students on campus to openly discuss their views without fear of insult.

Jeff Jacoby, op-ed writer for the Boston Globe, recently gave his pro-ID take on the controversy. He basically says what we have been saying all along. You will need to register with the Boston Globe to read the piece.

Discovery Institute has set up a resource page for the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District federal court trial that began Sept 26, 2005. The page includes transcripts from the case, press release summaries and amicus briefs.

According to lawyer Douglas Kern the future belongs to ID. The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end.

He expounds on the following five reasons in his article at Tech Central Station:

1) ID will win because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.

2) ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.

3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.

4) ID will win because it can piggyback on the growth of information theory, which will attract the best minds in the world over the next fifty years.

5) ID will win because ID assumes that man will find design in life -- and, as the mind of man is hard-wired to detect design, man will likely find what he seeks.

Could it be that the theory of evoltuion's judicially sanctioned monopoly in the classroom has backfired? That is the question asked by science writer Michael Balter in his commentary in the October 2, 2005 issue of the Los Angeles Times. He concludes that the most effective way to convince students that the theory is correct is to confront the challengers, not avoid them. We agree. So let the rumble begin. Let's teach the controversy and may the best theory win.

Academic freedom is a cherished value in our institutions of higher learning--that is until the cherished ideas of the university gatekeepers come under attack. Here are a few examples of the persecution suffered by those who have dared to challenge the Darwinian worldview in our universities:

University of Idaho

San Francisco State University

Mississippi University for Women

Geogre Mason University

Baylor University

Ohio State University

Iowa State University (faculty)

Texas Tech and Iowa State (students)

Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the "inverted" design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. Read this report by Jerry Bergman and Joseph Calkins. Jerry Bergman is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio. Joseph Calkins is an Ophthalmologist in private practice, formerly Professor of Ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University.

"This week, the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District opened in federal court. The ACLU is suing the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania for adopting a policy which requires that teachers read to students a three-paragraph statement about the theory of intelligent design. In his opening statement, Eric Rothschild, the attorney for Kitzmiller, argued against the legitimacy of intelligent design (ID). Unfortunately for Rothschild, the testimony of Kenneth Miller-a Roman Catholic biology professor from Brown University who staunchly defends evolution-has already refuted his argument. And even more unfortunately, Miller was his expert witness."

Read the rest of Joe Manzari's report on highlights from the first few days of the trial.

Paul Nussbaum writing in the Philadelpia Inquirer sees the Dover trial as a test of values between the likes of William Dembski:

"Naturalism is the disease. Intelligent design is the cure," William Dembski, director of the Center for Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., wrote in his book Intelligent Design. "... Darwin gave us a creation story in which God was absent, and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story... is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation."

and Dover plaintiff Frederick Callahan:

"One of the Dover plaintiffs, Frederick Callahan, made the link between belief in evolution and support for separation of church and state on the witness stand.

'I've come to accept that we [believers in evolution] are in the minority. I've seen the polls,' he said. 'And we've been called intolerant.'

'What am I supposed to tolerate? A small encroachment of my First Amendment rights? I will not.'"

Transcripts for the federal court case filed against the Dover Area School District and its school board over mention of intelligent design in biology classes are now available.

The parents, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, were expected to argue that the school board had religious motives in requiring a statement about intelligent design to be read in biology classes. They also contend intelligent design is based on religion.

Since the time of Darwin, scholars have resisted design in nature, but throughout the twentieth century new discoveries have forced a reappraisal and revived an interest in design. The aim of this international science conference is to review evidence for intelligent design, drawing upon results in astronomy, physics, mathematics, biochemistry, biology, genetics, and paleontology.

Prague Congress Centre, Prague, Czech Republic
October 22, 2005

8:30 Registration and Welcome
9:00 Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.Icons of Evolution (genetics)
10:00 John C. Lennox, Ph.D., D.Sc.Design Features of the Universe (mathematics)
11:00 Coffee Break
11:45 Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D., FAIC Origin of Life (biochemistry)
12:45 Lunch
2:15 Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D. Information and the Cambrian Explosion (paleontology)
3:15 Responses
Panel Discussion
5:30 Snack
6:30 Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Molecular Machines (molecular biology)
7:30 Closing

Popular Mechanics BREAKTHROUGH AWARDS 2005 salute the innovators who are shaping the world's future through science and technology-and new products that represent benchmarks of engineering. The Young Achiever Award went to Sarah Mims, an amateur scientist who is a sophomore in college, and an advocate of intelligent design, for her discovery that living fungal spores and bacteria are found in abundance in the smoke from distant biomass fires.

Conventional wisdom had always indicated that burning crops was a good way to kill disease. Not so fast, said this student who demonstrated that smoke can carry living organisms. The formal paper about Sarah's discovery is: Sarah A. Mims and Forrest M. Mims III, Fungal spores are transported long distances in smoke from biomass fires, Atmospheric Environment 38, 651-655, 2004.

In a October 4, 2005 Letter to the University of Idaho Faculty, Staff and Students, University President, Timothy P. White legislates that only evolution will be taught:

"Because of recent national media attention to the issue, I write to articulate the University of Idaho's position with respect to evolution: This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our bio-physical sciences."

To check out Time magazine's take on the trial in Harrisburg, PA, click HERE.

On October 14, Denyse O'Leary, well known Canadian author, will be at Biola University in Los Angeles, leading a breakout session on blogging on the intelligent design controversy.

The organizers want her to tell how blogs and the blogosphere have helped a small group of ID advocates circumvent and frustrate a formidable intellectual orthodoxy.

For more details on Christianity.ca, click HERE.

The week long on-line debate between Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies at Baylor University and Douglas Laycock, holding the Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law at The University of Texas at Austin has come to a close.

To look at the debate, click HERE.

The New York Times published a piece on the continued wrangling in Kansas over science standards in public schools.

Seems the Nobel prize winners don't quite have it right when it comes to ID.

For the brief article (you will need to register with the NYT), click HERE., or in the Kansas City Star (you will need to register), click HERE.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, rightly points out that Darwinism (or what he calls the theory of evolution) is tightly bound to a philosophical creed. The entire paradigm, thus, resembles the methodology of Biblical creationism. However, ID is an a posteriori argument; it is the inference drawn from examination of complex structures in living organisms and the universe.

For the article in AgapePress, click HERE.

There was a debate in Washington, DC on the legal/constitutional issues surrounding the teaching of ID in schools.

It was sponsored by several major organizations (Pew Forum, Federalist Society, The Constitution Project). Around 100 people attended with press in attendance as well.

To read a transcript of the event, click HERE.

Johnathan Witt, of the Discovery Institute, is attending the trial in PA, regarding the "teaching" of ID in York, PA.

For his summary of the proceedings, click HERE.

Christina Kauffman of the York (PA) Dispatch is well aware of the importance of THE trial that began in Harrisburg.

For the story in the local paper, click HERE.

Joe Manzari, in the online version of American Enterprise, gives a plug for the persecution taking place against ID proponents in education throughout the last several years.

To read the article, and especially the last sentence, click HERE.

An on-line debate will take place this week. The participants are
Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies at Baylor University, and Douglas Laycock, the Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law at The University of Texas at Austin.

To follow the debate in the Legal Affairs magazine, click HERE.