In the News

Rob Zaleski, in the Madison WI Capital Times, a "progressive newspaper", reports the rhetoric of Hugh Iltis, the esteemed and feisty - at age 79 - professor emeritus of botany at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Iltis makes statements such as:

teaching creationism (ID) is "total lunacy. Embarrassing. A step back into the Dark Ages".

not believing in evolution is "largely due to ignorance, to a generation of people who don't understand evolution and are scared to death about the world we're seeing now," he says. "Families are breaking apart, there's war everywhere. And so people hook onto the Bible and say that's the answer".

"We even have a president who's said in the past he doesn't think there's anything to evolution. It's absolutely crazy."

For more on Dr. Iltis, click HERE.

EurekAlert reports that a team of applied mathematicians, physicists, and biologists has discovered how the Venus flytrap snaps up its prey in a mere tenth of a second by actively shifting the curved shape of its mouth-like leaves. Their study, published in the Jan. 27 issue of the journal Nature, investigates the series of events that occur from the time the plant's leaves are stimulated to the time the trap is clamped shut.

When an insect brushes up against a hair trigger, the plant responds by moving water to actively change the curvature of its leaves. While exactly how the water is moved is not completely understood, the scientists observed that the deformation of the leaves, once stimulated, provided the means by which elastic energy was stored and released, creating a simple yet effective jaw-like movement.

For more on this remarkably designed plant,click HERE.

The BBC says that a sharp rise in global temperatures about 50 million years ago may have been responsible for the evolution of bats, Science magazine reports.

This warming is linked to an explosion in the diversity of other mammals, but little was known about bat evolution.

The question may be asked, what is the linkage between higher temperatures and the rapid evolution of mammals. A statement could be made that when the earth's temperature rose, an intelligent designer made creatures that could thrive in the warmer climates. But, of course, this isn't SCIENCE (methodological naturalism) so it is dismissed out of hand.

For the full story, click HERE.

In the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal the subject of ID came up.

David Klinghoffer reports that ID is now roiling the government-supported Smithsonian Institution, where one scientist has had his career all but ruined over it.

The scientist is Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."

The piece happened to be the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design.

Mr. Sternberg's future as a researcher is in jeopardy. He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned. He now rests his hope for vindication on his complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs.

For the full commentary, click HERE.

A parent in California is suing the school district over its exclusion of science materials that present weaknesses and criticisms of evolution. Larry Caldwell's lawsuit alleges the Roseville School District rejected his proposed curriculum because he is a Christian and school officials do not want to inform students of the controversy surrounding Darwin's theories.

Caldwell says if the district truly wants to promote tolerance and diversity of thought, they would embrace his science materials.

For the full story in Agapepress, click HERE.

There have been many reviews of the book By Design or Chance? by Denyse O'Leary from Christians and atheists, but this one is well done and from a Muslim perspective.

Lamya Hamad is IslamOnline.net’s Health & Science Assistant Editor. She is a graduate of Cairo University’s School of Pharmacy.

For the full review, click HERE.

In his latest book, Michael Ruse, a preeminent authority on Darwinian evolutionary thought and a leading participant in the ongoing debate, uncovers surprising similarities between evolutionist and creationist thinking.

Several ID proponents were interviewed for the book.

For a brief description of the book, click HERE.

Rick Santorum, a Republican, is Pennsylvania's junior U.S. Senator. He weighs in on the origins issue in public schools with an opinion piece, suggesting we "teach the controversy".

An opposing view by Jeffrey Rudski, an associate professor of psychology at Muhlenberg College in Allentown discusses the false dichotomy of science vs faith when speaking about ID in public schools.

What would be good to point out to Dr. Rudski is that the controversy could be approached in a different way. Let's look at the evidence, both the repeatable and the forensic, without any preconceived bias that "nature is all there is." The narrowing approach of the materialists should be pointed out. After all, there are "things" we experience that are not material: rational thoughts, animating souls, math, etc. Let's leave open the probability of an extra-natural world, and follow the evidence where it leads, as Senator Santorum suggests.

For the Senator's view on teaching origins, click HERE.

For Dr. Rudski's view click HERE.

A great example of how some on the other side of the debate misinform is in the Berkshire MA Eagle. How much pejorative language and how many ad hominem attacks can you find? But, more importantly, how would you counter them in a face-to-face dialogue?

For the full article, click HERE.

In The Cincinnati Enquirer, Clyde E. Stauffer of Finneytown, OH, who holds a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Minnesota, gives his take on the ID "controversy".

He aptly points out that, "Science extends our understanding of the natural world through at least four steps: 1) gather data; 2) form a hypothesis to explain the data; 3) gather more data to test predictions drawn from the hypothesis; and 4) modify the hypothesis if data from Step 3 show areas of inadequacy (it does not explain all the data)."

If scientific evidence does not fit the ruling paradigm (theory), then the hypothesis must be modified. "Science-of-the-gaps" must not be implemented by the materialists.

The other side continues to obfuscate the debate with misleading language, such as science vs religion, science vs faith, facts vs faith etc. They can only get away with this "confusion rhetoric" for so long. The common goal of all should be to simply seek the truth about reality through the scientific realm. And if the conclusion is extra-natural, so be it.

For the full opinion, click HERE.

To say that ID is getting much publicity lately would be an understatement. Time Magazine writers Michael D. Lemonick, Noah Isackson and Jeffrey Ressner give a scathing critique of ID. Not to be outdone by Time, The Washington Post editorial levels even more pejorative language and ad hominem attacks on ID and its supporters.

As one ID proponent quipped, "The utterly predictable content and tone
of these recent pieces is simultaneously discouraging and amusing. On the amusing side, someone should write an 'anti-ID' macro. Why waste keystrokes? Just hit shift-I and the following phrases will appear in grammatical English:

'slick'
'more sophisticated than...'
'well-funded'
'pseudo-scientific'
'alarming to scientists'
'all biologists accept...'
'comparative religion classes'
'no scientist doubts...'
'ill-informed Americans'
'manufactured controversy'
'concerned civil libertarians'
'science deals with natural...'"

How true. The bias is extraordinarily transparent.

For the Times Magazine article, click HERE.

For The Washington Post editorial (you may need to register with the Post), please click HERE.

In The York Dispatch Caryn Tamber reports that the Dover School District controversy has drawn the attention of Buddhism.

Sensei Anthony Stultz, a Buddhist leader, will participate in a discussion on religion's place in science classes.

"In Buddhism, we don't have a specific mythology about creation," said Stultz. "In fact, we don't have any kind of teaching about a creator."

"Our assumption is that the universe has always existed in one form or another," he said. Furthermore, he says, "When it comes to asking questions about the origin of the universe, we rely on scientific inquiry most of the time."

Stultz said he does not see how intelligent design has any science to back it up.

These are interesting statements. Buddhism's ASSUMPTION is that the universe is eternal. Apparently, no evidence is needed here, and contrary to the evidences of science, which he says his religion relies on MOST of the time.

He claims that ID does not have ANY scientific evidence in its favor. There...just assert it, and it's true. Now lets move on to things more important.

For the full article, click HERE.

CNN reports that ID was taught in the Dover PA School District.

Richard Thompson, the Thomas More Law Center's president and chief counsel, remarked that "this is the first step in which students will be given an honest scientific evaluation of the theory of evolution and its problems."

"Students who sat in the classroom were taught material which is religious in content, not scientific, and I think it's unfortunate that has occurred," said Eric Rothschild, a Philadelphia attorney representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.

The opponents of ID continue to obfuscate the issue by casting ID as a "religion", when all that is occurring is scientific evidence is looked at, and rational conclusions are reached.

Biology teacher Jennifer Miller said that "some students were upset that administrators would not entertain any questions about intelligent design".

For the full story, click HERE.

Bruce McLarty, a minister with the College Church of Christ in Searcy, Arkansas, gives a strong rebuttal to an article in the Daily Citizen.

McLarty provides clear thought on what the debate really entails, by accurately critiquing the aforementioned article.

His opinion is a rebuttal of the wrongheaded thinking of the other side, and acts as a excellent template for principled rebuttals that can be employed by others everywhere.

For the full opinion, please click HERE.

A new set of parents, supporting the Dover Area School District's October decision to include intelligent design in the ninth-grade biology curriculum, have entered the controversy.

Two law firms, Drinker, Biddle and Reath in Philadelphia and The Rutherford Institute in Charlottesville, Va., have agreed to represent the six pro bono.

"These are very important discussions on the origins of life," Whitehead said. "And (students) need the truth about the different views on this subject."

If the legal representatives of the plaintiff parents succeed in their lawsuit, Whitehead said, the end result will be the total censorship of any idea that competes with "Darwin's Theory of Evolution."

For the full story by Joseph Maldonado in the York Daily Record click HERE.

This week, the subject of intelligent design is expected to be addressed in ninth grade biology classes. In three classes administrators are expected to read a four-paragraph statement on the concept.

The language of the so-called "Santorum Amendment" was adopted into the conference committee report of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment says, "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

Santorum's amendment is not part of the final language of the No Child Left Behind Act, but according to Santorum and two other congressional Republicans, the amendment's inclusion in the conference committee report "represents the official view not only of the Conference Committee but of the United States Congress as a whole about how science instruction should proceed under the No Child Left Behind Act."

"We take that language in the fact that it was part of the final conference report, regarded on par with the authority of law," said Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and lead counsel for the Dover school district. "Courts go to the reports to discover the intent of legislation. Report language has historically been considered."

But that, according to ACLU attorney Vic Walczak, does not pass constitutional scrutiny.

The Santorum language was approved in the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 91 to 8 and was supported by such staunch Democrats as Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

For the full story, click, HERE.

Another ID proponent, Chuck Warner, has his opinion published in the York (PA) Daily Record. He builds a strong case for why ID must be allowed in public school origins studies.

Those who are biased on the other side of the debate will have trouble arguing against the rational case put forth by Warner.

For the full opinion, click, HERE.

In the State College PA newspaper, Centre Daily Times, Richard S. Brown, of Spring Mills, a manufacturer and part-time tree farmer, gives a cogent and well informed opinion on what the debate is really about.

Not only are the scientists near the "point of the ID wedge" being heard, but so are those who are following. The ID "wedge" is getting broader, and more are being heard and published every month.

For the full opinion, please click HERE.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center (a national public interest law firm representing the Dover PA School District against an ACLU lawsuit) comments that the public school students in the Dover PA School District are probably getting the most balanced approach to origins studies in the country.

Thompson gets it right when he comments that the debate is NOT a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells."

For the full story, click HERE.

Brian Fahling, Esq. is senior trial attorney with the American Family Association, and comments on the recent opinion by Clarence Cooper in Atlanta, GA.

His take on the controversy is lucid and worthy of your time.

For his full commentary in AgapePress, please click HERE.

Judge Clarence Cooper has bought into the false dichotomy of science vs religion, when in fact it is science (Darwinism) vs science (intelligent design). When it comes to the study of origins of the universe, the enterprise is necessarily metaphysical on both sides. With regard to the origin of the universe it's either "someone created something from absolutely nothing or no one created something from absolutely nothing" Which is more plausible? As Aristotle once said, "Nothing is what rocks dream of." Therefore, there necessarily is an uncaused being which started the "cause-and-effect" physical world in which we dwell.

How the wording of the sticker in the Georgia textbook establishes religion is beyond belief. This decision turns the courts into Orwellian thought police. Now subjective motives become the site of crimes against the First Amendment. Every public act that can be claimed to have a religious motive is capable of being deemed a violation of the Establishment Clause.

For the full opinion by the judge in Georgia, click HERE.

Paul Simao of Reuters reports that a U.S. judge ordered a Georgia school district to remove stickers challenging the theory of evolution from its textbooks.

U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said Cobb County's school board had violated the constitutional ban on the separation of church and state.

The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

In reality, there was no mention of "religion" in the disclaimer.

For the full story, click HERE.

Science teachers will not be required to read a four paragraph statement on intelligent design to students in the Dover school district.

This article, by Joseph Maldonado of the York Daily Record, also contains the text of the four paragraphs and and open letter to the Dover Area School Board by evolutionists.

For the full story, click HERE.

Martha Raffaele of the Associated Press reports that "eight families who sued a school district over the presence of "intelligent design" in its curriculum will not ask a federal judge to block the lessons that are expected to start next week."

Attorneys for the district argued that the curriculum "does not advance religion, but merely provides the students of Dover High School with an honest science education ... by informing students about the existing scientific controversy surrounding Darwin's Theory of Evolution."

ACLU attorney Walczak said "The parallel I would draw (with this circumstance) would be, if a social-studies teacher teaching World War II would talk about the Holocaust and make a statement - just a couple paragraphs - that there are gaps in the historical records of the Holocaust, and you should know an alternative theory that the Holocaust never happened."

For the full story, click HERE.

On the useless-knowledge.com web site, Keith Cantrell takes bloviating and ad hominem attacks to new heights.

One wonders if you could sit down with Mr. Cantrell and have a principled discussion about origins; if you could even convince him that it's not science vs religion, but rather science vs science.

His ranting is instructive, and a good read for those who are interested in seeing how the his ilk "addresses" the issue.

For the full commentary, click HERE.

David Limbaugh responds to a NY Daily News column by Errol Louis. Limbaugh claims that Louis terribly confuses certain concepts, including Biblical creationism and intelligent design. And he is correct.

Limbaugh comments that given the wealth of material documenting the problems with Darwinism it's amazing that Louis could make this statement:

"Evolution and the literally exhaustive geologic records that establish the Earth's multibillion-year age remain the most solid, well-proved science ever developed."

Limbaugh indicates that "you really should look into this scandal if you haven't already, instead of just assuming the controversy is between superstitious anti-science Christians and enlightened, open-minded scientific academics."

For the full commentary, click HERE.

The Discovery Institute announced that KNME, a local PBS station in Albuquerque New Mexico, has banned “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” a science documentary about intelligent design.

“It is simply astounding that a public television station would engage in this sort of politically-correct censorship ,” said Rob Crowther, director of communications for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

For the full news release, click HERE.

Joseph Maldonado, for the York Daily Record, said school officials seemed to reach no compromise Monday on the district science policy.

The Evolution vs ID debate continues in this Pennsylvania community.

For the full article, click HERE.

Edge The World Question Center, recently asked the 2005 Edge Question of a "who's who" of third culture scientists and science-minded thinkers. The 119 contributions comprise a document of 60,000 words. The question is the title of this entry.

Richard Dawkins responded, "I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.

Of course, with Dawkins worldview of materialism, design absolutely cannot precede mindless materialistic processes. He shows his narrowminded by his refusal to even consider that a transcendent being could exist.

For the numerous responses to the question, click HERE.

Walt Williams, of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, reports on two proposed bills that would tackle the debate over teaching evolution in Montana public schools from both sides of the issue.

Sen. Ken Toole, D-Helena, is sponsoring a resolution reaffirming the state's commitment to separation of church and state and to teaching valid scientific principles, which in his mind rules out creationism.

On the other side, Rep. Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, has introduced a bill that would give schools more leeway to teach "intelligent design" in science classrooms. Koopman said that few people realize that the scientific evidence disputing evolution is just as strong as the evidence supporting it. "The only time religious bias becomes a factor is when people try to ban scientific data that supports intelligent design, because they insist that only an atheistic model of origins should be taught," he said.

For the full article, click HERE.

John Hanna, of AP, reports that a committee assigned to rewrite Kansas state science standards has postponed public hearings on its proposals so it can address concerns raised by members of the State Board of Education about teaching evolution.

Eight of the 26 committee members presented proposed changes designed to expose students to information that is critical of evolution. They told the board they wanted to spur critical analysis to avoid turning evolution "into a dogma."

For the full article, click HERE.

Dan Pilarcik recently had his letter to the editor published in the York Daily Record. Dover PA is at the center of a controversy of whether to require ID to be taught in the public schools.

Dan's letter is exactly what is needed to convince those who are not educated on the subject that one worldview has a monopoly in the public school system, and just because it is labeled "science" no other worldview is allowed.

For his letter, please click HERE.