In the News

The "teach the controversy" idea has come to the forefront in Utah, when State Senator Chris Buttars introduced a bill to teach "divine design" in the schools.

The controversy gets much ink in the Salt Lake Tribune.

For the full story by Peggy Fletcher Stack, click HERE.

Check out the PBS offering of Religion and Ethics with Bob Abernethy which delves into the concept of "teaching the controversy" in public schools. Dr. Stephen Meyers and a few others get a few sound bites in edgewise. Eugenie Scott sticks to the talking points, one of which is that the introducing the "G" word is a science stopper. If a materialistic explanation is so ridiculously remotely possible, why not go with a much more plausible explanation, even if it might involve an intelligent agent?

For the transcript, click HERE.

This story in Wired News by Amit Asaravala reports on the National Academies desire to stifle a growing movement to teach anternatives to Darwinism in U.S. public schools. The National Academies has unveiled a new section of its website dedicated to teachers' resources on evolution.

The site features academic papers supporting evolutionary theory and supplements for educators detailing how to teach evolution in the classroom.

Intelligent design is an updated form of creationism that claims life was created by an "intelligent designer", according to the NA party line.

(Here we go again with the science vs faith dichotomy)

The National Academies and other scientific organizations have long said that intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it counters many scientific observations about biology and the origins of life.

(Imagine that...trying to overturn a stale...reigning paradigm!)

The National Academies is a collection of private, nonprofit organizations that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter.

The assertion by the National Academie that the status of Darwinian theory is "robust" is misleading, at best.

Darwinism assumes that variation is not limited. However, every experiment which has tried to push past the normal limits of variation, has always been stopped at a point where either further changes are lethal to the species, or further variation is simply not possible. It would be honest to say that Darwinism can't even get to home plate.

Darwinism predicts that billions of bits of functional information can be generated through natural processes. Yet, we have no demonstrable natural process that can do such a thing. Computer simulations are also showing that millions of generations will not be able to even cross a relatively minor jump in information of even 50 bits. An average protein requires on the order of 500 bits of functional information to properly encode.

An assertion by the National Academies that Darwinism is robust shows either an ignorance of the scientific results, or a profound self-imposed blindness to the facts.

For the full report, click HERE.