In the News

AgapePress reports on the South Carolina lawmaker, Mike Fair, who has made good on his promise of introducing a bill that would free up public schools to teach the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory by requiring them to expose students to the "full range of scientific views that exist" on biological evolution.

For the full article, click HERE.

Jonah Avriel Cohen recently finished his PhD in philosophy and religion at the University of London. He is not persuaded by intelligent design arguments, yet has written an honest piece in The American Thinker on the disingenuousness of most ID critics.

Please read the facts in this article by clicking HERE.

An article by Lucas Grundmeier in the student newspaper Iowa State Daily reports on the thoughts of atheist professors pertaining to ID. The comments are straight out of the "talking points" of methodological naturalists. A lecture, sponsored by the Atheist and Agnostic Society, tried to point out why ID is not scientific.

Dr. Tom Ingebritsen, associate professor of genetics, development and cell biology, said he thought the atheist's worldview is biasing their understand of whether intelligent design could be legitimate science.

For the full article, click HERE.

In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jamie Schuman reports on the declaration of many Iowa State University professors to distance themselves and ISU from the theory of ID.

The statement, published this week in the student-run newspaper, the Iowa State Daily, was prompted in part by recent news-media attention surrounding Guillermo Gonzalez, an associate professor at ISU, who supports ID.

While the professors insist they are not making their dogma known to silence Gonzalez, "Mr. Gonzalez is having none of that. In a written statement, he called the petition 'an attempt to silence talk of ID by definitional fiat.'"

Especially vocal is associate professor of religious studies, Hector Avalos.

The statement calls the theory "an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism," which it describes as "the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events."

What has come out of the discussion is that their defintion of science has been exposed. "Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events" restricts the search for ultimate truth. Suppose that there is a designer. Then their science will never find the designer, because the designer's existence is made impossible, a priori.

For the full article, click HERE.

In this reminder, one of Darwin's "icons" is nothing more than oscillating adaptation of Darwin's finches. They are still finches, when all is said and done, as they adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Peter and Mary Grant (Princeton) – wrote a Quick Guide in Current Biology in question-and-answer format. If the finches diverge then converge back to what they were before, is that really evolution? The Quick Guide moves on, leaving that question unasked and unanswered.

Of course, we know that the answer is yes, but only microevolution.

For the full story, click HERE.

Mike Littwin of the Rocky Mountain News takes digs at the designer and State Representative Debbie Stafford in this commentary. Littwin resorts to ad hominem attacks and subterfuge with the good Representative, and seems to know more about the balance of nature than the designer.

To read the whole commentary, click HERE.