In the News

A forum titled "Uncommon Dissent Forum: Scientists Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing" will take place in Greenville, SC, August 4, 5, and 6. Featured speakers will be Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, David Keller, Ed Peltzer, Ralf Seelke, John Angus Campbell and Jed Macosko.

The order of topics is important, as a typical anti-ID person needs to see the problems with the icons that they have bought into before they can appreciate the irreducible complexity arguments of Michael Behe, which lie at the heart of ID. This conference nicely follows that same approach.

Specifically, the eight topics broken into two sections. First, the "Icons" chunk, in which Jonathan's talk is bookended by Ed and Paul presenting the first two chapters of Icons of Evolution, respectively, (Miller-Urey and Tree of Life), and by Ralph presenting what I see as the eleventh icon (bacteria evolving in test tubes). Second, there is the "Black Box" chunk, in which Behe's talk is bookended by David and Jed presenting an overview of all the machines that a typical cell needs, highlighting the three groups that are studied in the lab, and by John Angus presenting what every anti-ID person should hear right after they finish reading Darwin's Black Box in order to answer the question, "I see the merits of ID, but now what should we teach in the public schools?"

To look at the announcement of the forum, click HERE.

Tom Cruise has been getting much press lately, and now he weighs in on ET.

In an interview with the German tabloid daily Bild and reported on CNN.com, Cruise says, "Are you really so arrogant as to believe we are alone in this universe? Millions of stars, and we're supposed to be the only living creatures? No, there are many things out there, we just don't know."

His comments speak to the common notion that life springing from non-life is easy and inevitable. To date, the scientific evidence shows nothing to support that notion, but rather, a number of speculations that have led to dead ends. Also, from a design perspective, the universe HAS to be as big as it is, with the given physics, to be able to produce the "just right" conditions for life to exist, and for advanced life to thrive. He is claiming the same misguided idea that Dr. Stephen Hawking has voiced. Odd that Hawking, one of the most brilliant men on the planet, would not realize this, though.

But what caught my attention was the comment that people are "arrogant" for believing that we might just be alone in this vast cosmos. This is just the passive aggressive name-calling trick. Call anyone "arrogant" and presto, they are marginalized. The fact is, the idea that we might be alone is in no way arrogant in itself. Now, someone could present this idea in an arrogant manner, but the idea itself is not "arrogant". Tom Cruise should look into a mirror before he is tempted to use this passive aggressive trick on others. Trouble is, people who are consistently and truly arrogant seldom reflect deeply on how to craft a good argument, and on how they present their arguments. Often, the arrogant cannot see that they themselves are arrogant.

Finally, his last quote seems puzzling. He asserts there are many things out there, but has no scientific evidence (because there isn't any). Then he says "we don't know". Let's see, I am arrogant for believing that we may be alone in the cosmos, but he doesn't know either. So he simply asserts there are millions of other life forms out there. Seems like Tom Cruise's worldview is clashing with the known scientific facts.

For the full article, click HERE.

On July 22-23 a conference will take place in the San Francisco Bay Area, condcuted by Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D. and other Reasons To Believe team members.

The conference (Cosmic Fingerprints: Evidence of Design) will focus on issues related to fine tuning, irreducible complexity and evidence for design in our universe that can only be due to an intelligent agent.

This conference will be a good forum for folks to ask tough questions and perhaps come to understand that science and the belief in intelligent agency are quite compatible. This would be a great opportunity to invite friends and acquaintances who believe in materialism (atheists) or are agnostic on this important issue.

For more information, click HERE.

A brief interview took place between Dr. Jonathan Wells and IDURC (Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center) member Daniel Cervera.

To view, please click HERE.

Here's another example of Caltech scientists that experience the "wow factor" when investigating the utter complexity of creatures.

Author Douglas L. Smith discusses the complexity of a "lowly" worm. Not so fast, this worm is reverse-engineered for starters! Surely, it takes alot of faith to be a Darwinist.

For more information, click HERE.

George Will, a commentator I agree with more often than not, says something quite remarkable in the latest issue of Newsweek. Writing on the debate on origins and life's history, he says that ID is not a falsifiable theory, and therefore is not legitimately a part of the scientific endeavor, and therefore, does not belong in science class.

For a piece by William Dembski on the testability and falsifiability of ID click HERE.

For the full George Will commentary, click HERE.

This editorial by the Boston Globe shows a profound ignorance and bias.

"More holes than swiss cheese" would be a good analogy regarding the description of the Smithsonian Institution and Stephen (not Scott) C. Meyer's article accepted by peer review in their publication.

In addition, the author(s) actually believe that most ID proponents and the Discovery Institute have a goal of wanting ID taught alongside Darwinism in public schools science classes.

Errors and obfuscation abound in this editorial. Click HERE to view.

Science Magazine, a mouthpiece for AAAS, stated in it's Netwatch that

"school boards in Kansas and other states consider whether to mandate teaching of "intelligent design," a glorified version of creationism (Science, 29 April, p. 627)."

The above statement is odd because the school board in Kansas was considering teaching more about Darwinism and nothing about ID. So their claim shows a disregard for the truth about what is happening and a bias. This is a public statement being made in an effort to prejudice readers about what is going on, and therefore, they should be publicly challenged to produce the evidence to back up their claim.

Later in the day, John West, of the Discovery Institute, issued a $100 challenge to Science magazine about its bogus claim regarding Kansas. If Science can produce proof of the claim, he will donate $100 to the AAAS to promote evolution. For his challenge, click HERE.

The Darwinism - ID debate may reach into the Montana State Legislature later this year if some representatives have their way.

One debate will be over whether the curriculum decisions will be made at the local or state level.

Of course, science educators don't see intelligent design as an alternative. Here come the talking points:

"Creationism is based on supernatural, religious, mystic beliefs. There is no scientific basis; it can't be proven or disproved with empirical data."

"There are reasons why it (ID) is not science. I'm not knocking anyone's beliefs, but it's not testable by the rigors of science."

"The public needs to be wary of those promoting intelligent design."

"There are people saying they are in favor of this intelligent design theory and they say they have a Ph.D. or a doctorate, but what are they doctors in? I doubt very much it's in evolutionary science or biology or in any field related to evolution."

Gee...ever heard of Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Forrest Mims III, etc...?

When are they going to debate the actual merits of the views instead of making ad homenim attacks and bald assertions?

For the full article by John Fitzgerald of the Billings Gazette, click HERE.

In an article by Cornelia Dean in the New York Times a fairly balanced piece on the Kansas "debate" was presented.

Watch for these problems though:

- the use of the equivocal term "evolution," which is never defined. ("Evolution" can mean many things (change over time, etc.), but it's the Darwinian mechanism we have a problem with.)

- that there is no real evidence, independent from faith, against Darwinism. (Darwinists have to exercise a certain amount of faith to believe their position, because the evidence is either not there, or is equivocal. But they vehemently deny their faith.)

- faith is not a factor influencing opinions on all sides of the debate. (Darwinists assert that their position has airtight evidence, but it really is not.)

For the full article (you may have to register with the New York Times), click HERE.

This somewhat slanted article by AP on FoxNews online reports that a Pennsylvania Legislature House Subcommittee on Basic Education heard testimony on a bill that would allow local school boards to mandate that science lessons include intelligent design.

The American Civil Liberties Union claims that allowing intelligent design to be taught would undermine the state's science standards, which specify the teaching of evolution. (If a dogma is suspect, then just maybe it would be okay for the state to change how it's taught. Rather than teaching ID, maybe teaching more about Darwinism would be a good first step.)

"How many new biotechnology companies will want to locate here in Pennsylvania if our students are being taught a watered-down version of the complexities of evolution?" asked Larry Frankel, legislative director for the state's ACLU chapter. (Mr. Frankel, how would students learning more about Darwinism or ID hinder biotech research?)

For the full story, click HERE.

ROSEVILLE, CA -- The California Academy of Sciences has settled with a California parent, Larry Caldwell, who raised a potential libel claim against the organization over its publication of a false and defamatory article authored by Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc. (NCSE) Scott's article, entitled "In My Backyard: Creationists in California," appeared in the Spring print and online editions of the Academy's California Wild magazine. The article had also been accessible through a link on the NCSE's website.

In a lawsuit filed against Scott and the NCSE in April, Caldwell claimed that the Scott article contained numerous factual misstatements and libeled him in an effort by Scott and the NCSE to discredit his efforts to promote his "Quality Science Education" policy, which is designed to include some of the scientific weaknesses of the Darwin's theory of evolution in biology classes. Caldwell's lawsuit did not formally name the California Academy of Sciences as a defendant, although, as the publisher of the Scott article, it was a potential defendant in the suit.

In a settlement agreement finalized recently, the California Academy of Sciences has agreed to permanently remove all on-line access to the Scott article. The Academy has also agreed to publish a lengthy letter by Caldwell and a retraction letter by Scott in the upcoming Summer 2005 Edition of Calfornia Wild, which will be available in print and on the internet in early July.

Caldwell's letter will correct a number of factual misstatements in the Scott article.

Scott's letter will retract several false allegations about Caldwell and his-year long effort to improve science education in the Roseville high school district. For example, Scott had falsely accused Caldwell of purportedly proposing two young earth creation science books to the Roseville Joint Union High School District for potential adoption and use in biology classes--one of which is authored and published by the Jehovah's Witnesses. In her letter to be published in California Wild, Scott now concedes that Caldwell did not submit these books to the school district.

Contrary to her article, Scott also now admits that school officials in the Roseville high school district never actually considered those books for adoption anyway.

Scott also concedes that her allegation that a science expert had purportedly expressed his opinion that Caldwell had a "gross misunderstanding of science" was false; and Scott will also retract her claim that the Roseville high school board had purportedly passed a resolution "recommending" that "creationist" materials be used in science classes.

Said Caldwell, "I am pleased that the California Academy of Sciences and California Wild have shown the professional integrity to remove this libelous article from internet access, and to give me an opportunity to set the record straight on my Quality Science Education Policy"

Caldwell added, "It's a shame it took a lawsuit to get Scott, the author of the article, to retract some of the more outrageous factual misstatements in her article.

"Unfortunately, Scott and the NCSE have a long history of libeling people in the debate over how evolution should be taught in our public schools; my case is only the most recent example. Hopefully, it won't take any more libel lawsuits to teach them how to stick to the truth."

"Other critics of Darwin's theory have been personally attacked on the basis of misrepresentations in similar cases where the Darwinists claim that the critics' professional statements or qualifications are false," said Caldwell. "The difference between them and me is that I decided to take legal action. Darwinists need to get the message: engage in civil discourse without defamation or prepare to answer in court."

According to Caldwell, there is also an important lesson for journalists and publishers: Claims by Darwinists should by carefully investigated before being reported as facts.

Meanwhile, Caldwell's libel lawsuit against Scott and the National Center for Science Education, Inc. continues.

Caldwell is the founder of Quality Science Education for All, a non-profit organization dedicated to securing and defending the right of all students to receive a quality science education that exposes them to the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Quality Science Education for All is on the web at http://www.qsea.org.

State Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville is advocating that S.C. schools teach more than Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution. Fair plans to push for his latest idea to modify standards for teaching science, particularly in high schools.

Public school students, he said, should be told a “full range of scientific views ... exist. We must have our eyes wide open on these issues. What I’m saying is let’s give the whole story. Let the kids make up their own minds. Don’t be afraid of the truth.”

Fair is lead sponsor of a bill filled June 1, a day before the Legislature adjourned, that puts the issue in play when lawmakers return to work in January.

For more by Bill Robinson in The State, click HERE.

Religion and science, according to Charles Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor in the Graduate School, they are united by similar goals: science seeks to discern the laws and order of our universe; religion, to understand the universe's purpose and meaning, and how humankind fits into both.

Townes has been exploring for many of his 89 years, and in March his insights were honored with the 2005 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities. Worth about $1.5 million, the Templeton Prize recognizes those who, throughout their lives, have sought to advance ideas and/or institutions that will deepen the world's understanding of God and of spiritual realities.

Embedded within this interesting article and interview of Townes by Bonnie Azab Powell in the UC Berkeley News Online is an unsurprising statistic that 56 percent of those surveyed at UC Berkeley believe in Darwinism, as compared with 13 percent of those surveyed across the U.S.

For the full article, click HERE.

Under the title of "Guarding the Integrity of Science in Classrooms"
AAAS is countering efforts to "teach the controversy" in U.S. public school science classrooms.

Of course, the organization says, what controversy? All genuine scientists are in lockstep agreement.

On their website, resources include an informational Q&A on evolution and intelligent design and commentary including an op-ed piece on the State of Kansas Board of Education evolution hearings.

For some "enlightenment", compliments AAAS, click HERE.

Inside Higher Education News reports that Ohio State University called off a dissertation defense scheduled for this week. Seems some faculty were concerned that it was set up to favor a Ph.D. candidate’s views that question Darwinism.

Bryan Leonard, a graduate student in science education and a national leader on behalf of “intelligent design” theory, was scheduled to defend a thesis dealing with how students’ attitudes change how they “are taught the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution.”

Some were concerned that OSU is about to award and Ph.D. that legitimizes ID.

For the full story click HERE.

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.

EurekAlert posts a public release from the University of Chicago which announces that an important component of Darwinism is not exactly spot on. New data suggest that the accumulation of genetic changes is not solely determined by natural selection. It turns out that the rate of mutations determines how many are incorporated into the genome. While this certainly does not scream that ID is true, it does show that "things ain't often as they are advertised."

For the full release, click HERE.

The Christian Post reports that a proposal to REQUIRE the teaching of divine design in public schools has been introduced in Utah.

State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) has agreed to take the lead in pushing new legislation on the teaching of intelligent design in conjunction with evolution in schools.

Buttars is supported by a strong conservative lobby, headed by the Eagle Forum.

For more details, click HERE.

After co-sponsoring the movie about the book The Privileged Planet, the Smithsonian is apparently distancing itself from the content of the movie.

At first, Smithsonian folk said that enjoyed the movie, but now, they will not require the screening fee of $16,000 from the Discovery Institute, and have apparently withdrawn their co-sponsorship.

The Darwinistas are a curious lot.

For the story in the Washington Post by Tommy Nguyen, click HERE.

Doug Cowan of Port Orchard, WA is a public school biology teacher who teaches more evolution than he has to. In fact, he teaches the controversy, and the students are glad he does.

For the full story in the Christian Science Monitor, click HERE.