In the News

For more insight into ID in Australia on the Lifesite website, click HERE.

Edward J. Larson is a historian of law, science and medicine at the University of Georgia. His book, "Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion," won the Pulitzer Prize in history in 1998.

I could never hope to win a Pulitzer Prize. Dr. Johnson is a much brighter man than I, but can be added to the list of people who make foolish mistakes when it come to the debate.

He insists that intelligent design is not science, because it does not seek testable, repeatable — and therefore exploitable — explanations. Can the biological history on planet earth be repeatable, in experiment after experiment? My point is, Darwinism is a result of the scientific philosophy of methodological naturalism (MN). It's a narrow approach, intending to find the right kind of "truth", which may miss the true truth about origins of the cosmos and life.

Dr. Edwards is a brilliant man, with blinders on.

For his essay, in the LA Times, click HERE.

Philip S. Skell is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. An essay of Dr. Skell was published in The Scientist.

To those in the know, it made the rather obvious point that embracing Darwinism has, in almost all cases, nothing to do with ongoing scientific research. Those on the other side blindly assert that holding to Darwinism has everything to do with carrying on valid, scientific endeavors.

For this excellent essay provided by the Discovery Institute, click HERE.

William Safire's opinion column in The New York Times was picked up by the International Herald Tribune.

The origin of the use of the words "intelligent design" is briefly traced from the 19th through the 20th century. The use in the 21st century is driving the opposition nuts.

For the opinion, click HERE.

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.

The New York Times features a major profile of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) that credits the Institute with transforming the public debate over evolution in America. By advocating "a 'teach-the-controversy' approach to evolution."

For the full article, click HERE.

Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader, weighs in on ID and public schools in this MSNBC story. While Senator Frist's ideas may not fall in line exactly with many ID proponent's wishes for science education in the schools, the exposure of ID from politicians and others recently is stunning.

For the full article, click HERE.

Dr. Richard Sternberg is suffering the equivalent of a 21st century inquisition for having had the courage to buck the Darwinian establishment and publish a pro-intelligent design paper by CSC Director Dr. Stephen Meyer, himself a Cambridge educated philosopher of science.

For a breaking story on the controversary, click HERE.

David, brother of Rush Limbaugh, gets it right, again!

For the full commentary, click HERE.

A commentary by Hendrik Hertzberg was recented published in the New Yorker. It had to do with ID.

In the commentary Hertzberg says that ID is easily refuted and untestable. Think about that; ID is both false and can’t be proven false or true.

If that is not bad enough, ID “enjoys virtually no scientific support,” implying that there is some scientific support for it. But it is also “unsupportable by empirical evidence.” We can conclude then, that ID is both unsupportable and has some support.

To read more mental gymnastics, click HERE.

Glenn Branch and Eugenie Scott of NCSE also have an opinion piece in USA Today.

Mixing pejorative language and some false claims, the "creationists" are portrayed as "sneaky" ,"underhanded", and "dogmatic."

They say that "America needs to produce the scientists who will pioneer in these fields, which means maintaining and improving the quality of science education— including a healthy dose of evolution, uncompromised by sectarian dogma, bad science and fake "critical analysis."

Their phrase "sectarian dogma" is simply another negative rhetorical way in which they refer to ID creationist rascals. They assume that sectarian dogma in principle can not have evidence in its favor, thus betraying their claim that they are not promoting atheism. Only if you know that atheism is the unrevisable truth can one claim that theistic claims can never be the result of a sound argument.

For their full editorial, click HERE.

John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer have an opinion piece in USA Today.

The article carefully walks through the current position of why the controversy about Neo-Darwinism should be taught.

They correctly point out that the Kansas School Board policy would "require students to learn not only the full scientific case for contemporary evolutionary theory, called 'neo-Darwinism,' but also the current criticisms of the theory as they appear in scientific literature. The Kansas policy would not require, or prohibit, discussing the theory of 'intelligent design,' which has been so much in the news since President Bush spoke about it earlier this month."

For the full editorial, click, HERE.

Harvard will give a $1 million grant per year to researchers to tackle the problem of the origin of life.

This ID unfriendly research begins with an admission that some mysteries about life's origins cannot be explained.

For the AP article picked up by the Washington Post, click HERE.

Ryan Huxley of the IDEA Center in San Diego was interviewed by Dana Parsons of the LA Times on the subject of ID being taught in public schools. One point, which Ryan believes was glossed over in the article was that more evolution should be taught in schools to shows its weaknesses.

For the article (you may need to register), click HERE.

The debate over whether ID should be taught in schools has taken hold in Australia, where the country's education minister said students should be exposed to the theory.

For the full story on Cybercast News Service by Patrick Goodenough, click HERE.

A commentary by John West of the Discovery Institute appeared recently in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

To read the commentary, click HERE.

An Australian newspaper, The Melbourne Age, contains an article by Shane Green, the education editor.

It mentions the DVD "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". This article may be the biggest news story on ID to date in Australia.

To read the full article, click HERE.

The cover story on TIME magazine for 15 August is "The Evolution Wars."

The final sentence reads:

"By raising the profile of intelligent design, the President has doubtless emboldened those who differ with Darwin and furthered one goal of that movement: he has taught all of us the controversy."

For an on-line look at TIME, click HERE.

David Limbaugh gets it right in his commentary on the ID-Darwinism debate.

For the commentary, click HERE.

George Neumayr, executive editor of The American Spectator, discussed the Washington Post's recent stories on ID.

He keys in on some of the recent mischaracterizations of the Post.

For the article/commentary in the American Thinker, click HERE.

Dan Peterson, of the American Spectator, writes on intelligent design.

For the article, click HERE.

Dennis Brown, writing for News and Information at Notre Dame, tells that Alvin Plantinga, world renowned philosopher from the University of Notre Dame, supports recent comments by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn that belief in evolution as accepted by some in science today may be incompatible with Christian beliefs.

Plantinga rightly asks, "How could science show that God has not intentionally designed and created human beings and other creatures? How could it show that they have arisen merely by chance. That’s not empirical science. That’s metaphysics...It’s a theological add-on, not part of science itself. And, since it is a theological add-on, it shouldn’t, of course, be taught in public schools.”

For the full news release, click HERE.

Read Discovery Institute's take on President Bush's statements on evolution and ID in the public classroom by clicking HERE.

Recently, it's amazing how commentators such as Mort Kondracke, and now Charles Krauthammer in Time, can get it so wrong when it comes to ID.

Krauthammer is a well-known and respected (by many) commentator. He is supposed to give intelligent, well though out insights with regard to culture debates. Yet, his characterization of ID as a "God of the Gaps" religious enterprise shows his ignorance, perhaps self-imposed, of the true debate. His idea that ID is nothing more than plugging the "holes" in scientific theories with the divine is just silly. His inability to recognize Darwinism/atheism as a philosophical worldview, based on a good deal of blind faith, is inexcusible. And, his lack of knowledge regarding Kansas standards, which do not even mention ID, is baffling.

Rather, ID can simply be characterized as a "whodunnit" investigation, based on legitimate forensic (scientific) investigation.

When someone tries to use the "Krauthammer club", tell them you know better, and explain to her what ID is really about.

For the commentary in Time, click HERE.

George Neumayr, executive editor of The American Spectator, weighs in on the ID - Darwinism debate.

The closing paragraph of the story is telling:
"While the evolutionists continue their tired celebrations of the Scopes trial, they glance anxiously over their shoulders. They are running scared, and as the list of scientists and thinkers who dissent from Darwinism grows -- the Discovery Institute lists hundreds of scientists who now regard it as an intellectually bankrupt theory -- the evolutionists will increasingly mirror the intolerance they used to bemoan".

For the full article, click HERE.

Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute are featured on the Focus on the Family broadcast Monday and Tuesday with Dr. James Dobson.

To listen, click HERE.