In the News

To check out Time magazine's take on the trial in Harrisburg, PA, click HERE.

On October 14, Denyse O'Leary, well known Canadian author, will be at Biola University in Los Angeles, leading a breakout session on blogging on the intelligent design controversy.

The organizers want her to tell how blogs and the blogosphere have helped a small group of ID advocates circumvent and frustrate a formidable intellectual orthodoxy.

For more details on Christianity.ca, click HERE.

The week long on-line debate between Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies at Baylor University and Douglas Laycock, holding the Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law at The University of Texas at Austin has come to a close.

To look at the debate, click HERE.

The New York Times published a piece on the continued wrangling in Kansas over science standards in public schools.

Seems the Nobel prize winners don't quite have it right when it comes to ID.

For the brief article (you will need to register with the NYT), click HERE., or in the Kansas City Star (you will need to register), click HERE.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, rightly points out that Darwinism (or what he calls the theory of evolution) is tightly bound to a philosophical creed. The entire paradigm, thus, resembles the methodology of Biblical creationism. However, ID is an a posteriori argument; it is the inference drawn from examination of complex structures in living organisms and the universe.

For the article in AgapePress, click HERE.

There was a debate in Washington, DC on the legal/constitutional issues surrounding the teaching of ID in schools.

It was sponsored by several major organizations (Pew Forum, Federalist Society, The Constitution Project). Around 100 people attended with press in attendance as well.

To read a transcript of the event, click HERE.

Johnathan Witt, of the Discovery Institute, is attending the trial in PA, regarding the "teaching" of ID in York, PA.

For his summary of the proceedings, click HERE.

Christina Kauffman of the York (PA) Dispatch is well aware of the importance of THE trial that began in Harrisburg.

For the story in the local paper, click HERE.

Joe Manzari, in the online version of American Enterprise, gives a plug for the persecution taking place against ID proponents in education throughout the last several years.

To read the article, and especially the last sentence, click HERE.

An on-line debate will take place this week. The participants are
Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies at Baylor University, and Douglas Laycock, the Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law at The University of Texas at Austin.

To follow the debate in the Legal Affairs magazine, click HERE.

Livescience.com and writer Ker Than take a swipe at ID in his two part series.

Judge for yourself regarding the barbs thrown, and old rebuttals, such as cooption which claims to refute irreducible complexity.

For the series, click HERE.

The court case in Pennsylvania will surely draw increasing national media attention next week.

Aided by the ACLU, 11 parents of Dover, Pa., schoolchildren have filed a federal lawsuit against that town's school board, accusing it of violating the principle of separation of church and state. The school board requires that at the beginning of the 9th grade unit on evolution, teachers are supposed to read a statement to a biology class: "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact...Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

For the full story in the Wall Street Journal by Suzanne Sataline, click HERE.

For an interesting twist on ID from a sports perspective, reading Sally Jenkins column in the Washington Post by clicking HERE.

For a list of recent stories on the Darwinism v ID (creationism) debate compiled by Christianity Today click HERE.

Charles Colson, long time Christian apologist and commentator on culture weighs in on the Darwinism v ID debate again.

To view his most recent commentary and other Breakpoint commentaries, click HERE.

Museum lecturers and docents are frequently being confronted by small groups of creationists challenging Darwinism.

The National Science Foundation, sponsoring evolution-themed exhibits at six museums of natural history across the nation, includes training for docents and staff members in how to respond to creationists.

To see an example of the docent training, click HERE.

WorldNetDaily reports that a federal court of appeals ruled that Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. There is a precedent for the ruling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

So, if we are going to keep religion out of the public school science classroom, let’s keep all the religions out, including Darwinism, which has atheistic metaphysical implications.

For the full article, click HERE.

For American Atheist's and Freethinker's comments, click HERE.

An article by Christina Kauffman of the York Dispatch points out again what has been known for quite some time.

The Discovery Institute issued a policy position against Dover in its upcoming court case. John West calls the Dover policy "misguided" and "likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design."

For the full article, click HERE.

The NCHRA (National Coalition of Human Rights Activists) has officially denounced "Intelligent Design" as a violation of students' human right of religious freedom. However, several members of the NCHRA also consider ID blasphemous.

Nevermind, that Darwinism is also a worldview with metaphysical implications.

The article generates more "heat" than "light", and portrays IDers as sneaky and mostly ignorant.

For the article from Pressbox.co.uk, click HERE.

An insightful journal article (Journal of Geoscience Education) by Mr. Marcus Ross of Liberty University clears up confusion on different scientific worldviews.

Mr. Ross claims, and rightly so, the demarcation of scientific vs non-scientific worldviews by Scott and Wise is illegitimate.

He proposes a Nested Hierarchy of Design, which "is meant to classify teleological positions based on the relative strength of design claims.

This article is a must read for all concerned with origins issues, and shows you formal definitions of the ten teleological positions, including ID.

For a free download of this article (this link begins downloading immediately and is 5.3MB !!!), please click HERE.

A 25-year old man from Oregon has taken the web world be storm with his clever and satirical website which takes on ID. Bobby Henderson believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His creative powers, and wants you to believe as well.

For a look at the FSM site, click HERE.

For a rebuttal letter from a university student, read on...

Philosophical Foundation for a FSM Worldview

Dear Mr. Henderson,

First, let me compliment you on your creative website. After viewing a theory which you disagree with, you have responded with parody, sarcasm, and satire, much as the ancient Greeks did. However, in combating one theory, you invented a second which can now be subjected to its own criticisms and complaints.

My first criticism: your theory is self-defeating. You say that there exists a power that both can and does replace true information in one's mind with false information. In saying that, you immediately open the door to the possibility that the information about your Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply false information in your mind replacing the truth about reality. And if that were the case, then the existence of the FSM would be false. In other words: If you argue that information enters the mind against its own will that alters the truth about reality, then of course, one can use your own argument against you proving that the theory you just presented was merely implanted in your head. Therefore, a Being that freely implants false information in the minds of humans cannot rationally exist. This appears to be a discrepancy in your COVERT attempt to compare the FSM to the Mono-theistic God of Judeo-Christianity as the primary basis of the existence of our knowledge of that all-good God is the creation of free-will.

Second: Darwinian evolution (the belief that all of life can be explained by the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection) is the primary origin belief of atheists (would you agree?) as there is no other currently widely accepted belief that does not involve a deity of some sort. As of three weeks ago, atheism was declared a religion by the U.S. 7th court of appeals. Darwinism would now appear to violate the wonderful, though falsely based, separation of church and state which you seem to be a heavy advocate of, and should hence be removed from all classrooms across the country. Am I mistaken in thinking that you really only want "just science" taught in the science classroom?

Third: If you don't think that "faith-based theories should be taught in the classroom" then you really shouldn't be advocating Darwinian evolution and all it entails. Darwinian evolution requires MUCH more faith than any other theory. Given the scientific evidence seen both cosmologically and molecularly, at this point in time, even your FSM theory would be more reasonable than believing the universe existed infinitely. Of course, in there we discover another fatal flaw in your theory in that the FSM, although invisible, is materialistic. It exists in this universe as evidenced by its "noodley appendage." For it to create the universe (and the time/space/material) limits that the universe represents, it would have to be immaterial and transcend time and space. This would of course rule out your flying-spaghetti monster as #1 it's made of spaghetti (material) and #2 it is always flying from place to place inside the universe (space).

Fourth: Your tomes of historical knowledge. How do we know they are the words of a supernatural being? Do we have some sort of accurate and specific prophesies in there that can be verified as written prior to the happenings? Also, referring to my earlier point, any writings in your tome would of course be subject to being just false information implanted by your FSM. In which case, they would not prove the existence of a FSM.

Finally: If you would like a philosophical, scientific, and rational argument arguing as to why Darwinian evolution requires faith then I would recommend reading Norman Geisler’s "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist." I understand that you are currently unemployed and therefore may not wish to spend the money to purchase a copy of this book. If that is the case, please respond to this e-mail, and I will be happy to send you my copy free of charge. Also, please feel free to post this on your website (although please credit many of my arguments to Mr. Geisler and his book). I don't see why you would consider this hate mail since I'm merely disagreeing with your theory, but seeing as similar e-mails have made it onto that page, I'll look forward to finding mine there as well.

Tom Long, of Citizen's Voice, reports on a school district in northeast Pennsylvania that is considering teaching ID.

For the full story, click HERE.

Paul Nelson and Michael Ruse will discuss "Design by Evolution or Evolution by Design?" tonight (9/15) at the University of Miami, in a program sponsored by the Department of Philosophy.

For more on the program for those who wish to attend from the south Florida area, click HERE.

Maybe you need to relieve a little stress...

Have fun by clicking HERE.

A recent newsletter of ISCID reminded us of an upcoming conference, Applications of Methods of Stochastic Systems and Statistical Physics in Biology October 28-30, 2005 Presented by the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Biocomplexity at Notre Dame.

Its purpose is to stimulate new interdisciplinary collaborations between physicists, mathematicians, biologists, chemists and engineers with interests in modeling stochastic behavior in biology. More information by clicking HERE.

ISCID's featured book

"Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom"
click here
by Sean B. Carroll

is a look at the development of organisms, discussing the "toolkit genes" and "genetic switches" which shape and control the forms of biological life.

Two papers on the origin of man by Casey Luskin and Willaim Dembski are also offered:

Casey Luskin

William Dembski

The Guardian Unlimited (UK) chatted with Michael Behe on the ID movement. It must have drove the Darwinists crazy. There was no rebuttal in the piece.

To read the interview, click HERE.

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” will air a four-day report on the controversy over evolution.

“Evolution Schmevolution” will air nightly at 10 p.m. Monday through Thursday on Comedy Central.

To view the details, courtesy of the Lawrence (KS) Journal World please click HERE.

A recent opinion in the Fredericksburg (VA) Free Lance-Star by an average person who is a theist evolutionist (TE) can be instructive.

Sarah Marcus says that Dr. Ken Miller, a theist evolutionist, absolutely debunks the research done by Dr. Michael Behe. Hardly the truth, but you are free to believe anything you want Sarah.

Sarah is a Christian, and a theistic evolutionist. She believes in an intelligent designer (God) who uses "evolution" to accomplish what we see in biological history and the current biologicial system.

One flavor of theistic evolution has nothing to do with Darwinism, because Darwinism, by definition, is a random, undirected process (random mutation and natural selection (no God need apply)). Proponents of this type of TE say God "tinkers" with the evolutionary process, and hides His "tinkering."

Another flavor of theistic evolution, which some Christians hold to, claims that God designed the cosmos in such a way that life would inevitably originate and evolve from the properties of chemistry and physics initially "programmed" into the Creation Event, with no further "tinkering" necessary. The Christian Bible does not suggest this frontloading, but rather a progressive creation over time, be it days or eons. The difference between this view and atheistic Darwinism is that the TE frontloads the cosmos with properties ordained by God, while the Darwinist says this cosmos and life are effects of a lucky throw of the dice. Of course, initially, the Darwinist has to make the incredible blind leap of faith that this universe, or whatever it came from, arose from absolute nothing. And NOTHING is literally NOTHING...no space...time... energy...matter.

Sarah goes on to say that "acceptance of evolution does not require a person to believe that life is without meaning, or that the development of life totally lacked direction". Here is where she gets herself in trouble with an equivocal term. Her word "evolution" can have so many different definitions that you don't know what she means. Substitute the word "Darwinism" for "evolution", and the statement is nonsense, because life ultimately has no meaning, value, and purpose if atheistic Darwinism is true. You can make-believe there is meaning, or say there is temporary meaning, but, ultimately, there is none. She does mean God-directed "evolution", which is not Darwinism, but simply either a mix of God-ordained physics and chemistry and millions or billions of miraculous, yet hidden interventions, or a frontloaded cosmos where life and evolution are inevitable. What would be the motive of God to have random mutation and natural selection take place, and concurrently make millions or billions of miraculous non-random selections, and then totally hide those interventions for human view? And, if an intelligent designer frontloaded the cosmos with all the properties for life to orginate and evolve, and then let it go, He would have no control over the evolution of life forms (random chance and natural selection). He would be limited, and certainly not the Christian God. The ultimate kickoff question should be, from what did the cosmos spring?...a transcendent intelligent designer, or nothing? And let's follow the evidence where it leads.

Be careful when you use the word "evolution". When discussing the debate of Darwinism vs ID, use the terms "Darwinism" or Darwinist theory", and know what it means.

For the full opinion, click HERE.

The Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) is proud to
announce the first-ever Graduate Awards to two of its most respected members. Their names are being deliberately withheld. The recent cases
of Rick Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and others testify to the
importance of these bright minds remaining out of the crosshairs of
those opposed to open-minded investigation.

Tristan Abbey, the director of IDURC, congratulated the winners with
this message: "Only honest, rigorous, scientific investigation of
intelligent design will determine its status in ten years: whether it
will be taken seriously as a scientific theory or merely regarded as a
quaint set of assertions. These two will be shining examples for years
to come of what it means to have an open mind. Live bravely, friends,
but also wisely."

Each summer, IDURC will present Graduate Awards to outstanding
students who have just completed their undergraduate degrees and have
demonstrated exemplary dedication to both the study of science and the
rigorous investigation of intelligent design.

This year, award-winners will each receive a one-time grant funded by
Access Research Network (ARN) to be used however they wish, and an
autographed copy of Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, inscribed
by William Dembski.

The Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) is proud to
announce the first-ever Graduate Awards to two of its most respected members. Their names are being deliberately withheld. The recent cases
of Rick Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and others testify to the
importance of these bright minds remaining out of the crosshairs of
those opposed to open-minded investigation.

Tristan Abbey, the director of IDURC, congratulated the winners with
this message: "Only honest, rigorous, scientific investigation of
intelligent design will determine its status in ten years: whether it
will be taken seriously as a scientific theory or merely regarded as a
quaint set of assertions. These two will be shining examples for years
to come of what it means to have an open mind. Live bravely, friends,
but also wisely."

Each summer, IDURC will present Graduate Awards to outstanding
students who have just completed their undergraduate degrees and have
demonstrated exemplary dedication to both the study of science and the
rigorous investigation of intelligent design.

This year, award-winners will each receive a one-time grant funded by
Access Research Network (ARN) to be used however they wish, and an
autographed copy of Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, inscribed
by William Dembski.

Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute is on the radio show "The Bible Answer Man" with host Hank Hanegraaf Tuesday, Sept. 6th and Wednesday, Sept. 7th. Check your local listings, OR check out or purchase the programs at:

OnePlace.

or at:

Christian Research Institute.

Rebecca Keller, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of New Mexico, is president of Gravitas Publications of Albuquerque and writes elementary and middle-school science textbooks.

Dr. Keller writes a commentary on the proper role of science, and the science vs science controversy regarding Darwinism and ID.

To read her excellent commentary, click HERE.

John West of the Discovery Institute gets some ink in the Dallas Morning News.

The article is a brief description of what ID is, and is not, and what the movement is trying to accomplish. It also shows some of the disingenuousness of Darwinists regarding the debate.

To read the article (you must register with the paper), click HERE.

Reid Forgrave, of the Des Moines Register, gives a detailed look at the life and worldview of Dr. Gonzalez, and some of the thoughts of rivals Hector Avalos, an associate professor of religious studies at Iowa State who is also the faculty adviser for the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society, and Jim Colbert, an associate professor of ecology, evolution and organismal biology at ISU.

"Anytime you incorporate the possibility of a supernatural explanation, you can't accumulate any evidence," said Colbert. We're not saying no one should believe in intelligent design. It's just that you can't accumulate evidence, so it's not science," he further added.

These are odd assertions from a learned professor, since ID professes that there is an intelligent designer, without pursuing the identity of the designer. The precise identity is, indeed, beyond science. What Colbert is saying is that we could never determine whether a person with five bullets holes in his chest died of natural causes or was the victim of a malevolent intelligent agent, because we could never gather any evidence from the crime scene to determine whether there was a crime committed. We could never determine if Mt. Rushmore came to be from the natural forces of rain, snow, and wind, or if a talented sculptor and his assistants took years to carve out the rock, because we could gather no evidence to determine the cause (natural or agent causation) of the effect (Mt. Rushmore).

The ISU petition against ID said "it's becoming increasingly clear to some of us that Iowa State University is being marketed as an intelligent design research center."

This is interesting, because on one hand people from NCSE (Glenn Branch and Eugenie Scott) tell ID theorists and researchers to get busy, do the work and get it through the peer-review process, but the idea of a ID research center is out-of-bounds. Who is being disingenuous?

For the full article, click HERE.

In the 7:30 Report on ABC in Australia, Geoff Hutchinson has a discussion about the current mindset of ID opponents and proponents.

To read the transcript of the show, click HERE.

The "openminded" and "charitable" Iowa State University Atheist and Agnostic Society will continue to oppose Dr. Gonzalez at ISU.

For examples of their mindset and tactics, visit their website by clicking HERE.

More commentary on the ISU-Gonzalez controversy can be read from the Discovery Institute by clicking HERE.

David Schweingruber, Assistant professor of Sociology at ISU weighs in on the ID debate at ISU. He takes jabs at both sides.

Be sure and read the responses to the letter below it. One reads:
"For the record, Professor, I took Astronomy 120 under Gonzalez last spring and he did in fact make the attempt to teach Intelligent Design in one of the last classes of the semester. Granted it was in passing and only covered for a minute at the outside but the fact remains that he has been allowing it into his classroom and passing it off as a scientific alternative to the idea that the universe was a product of nature".

I didn't know that the universe (nature) could be a product of nature. It seems something transcendent to the cosmos would have to cause the cosmos, and that "something" could not have a cause.

For the entire letter, click HERE.

A brief opinion in The American Thinker, points out that Charles Darwin did not address the origin of life (OOL), but rather the origin of species.

The opinion says that "Darwin knew little if anything about primitive life forms such as bacteria, viruses and the chemistry of the 'primieval soup'. He also knew little about astronomy and biological history before the fossil record, which has been developed rigorously and pointed out in the past 30 years, by scientists such as Dr. Paul Davies and Dr. Hugh Ross.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Darwin knew woefully little about the history of biological life as well, as has been demonstrated in the explosive knowledge garnered in the field of microbiology. The devil's in the details.

For the full opinion, click HERE.

Canadian author and writer Denyse O'Leary, who has also collaborated with Access Research Network, was honored at the 35th Anniversary National Convention of the Christian Booksellers Association Canada by receiving the "Recommended Canadian Author of the Year" award for 2005.

"The award was a complete surprise, as I did not even know I had been nominated," O'Leary said, when informed, on arriving at the Ottawa Congress Centre the following afternoon. "I had only come up to give a workshop."

She also noted that the award is undoubtedly linked both to her 2004 book, By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy AND to her current project with Harper San Francisco: a book co-authored with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard on the neuroscience evidence for the spiritual nature of the human being.

Both projects attracted attention because of their possible international significance. By Design or by Chance?, intended for the Canadian market, was republished by the US head office for the American market, within 30 days of its Canadian publication. The "spiritual brain" project netted the two Canadian authors an advance of US$100 000, believed to be the largest advance ever offered to Canadians for a work of this type.

The CBA Canada booksellers determine the award by a private in-group poll.

Read brief excerpts from By Design or by Chance?: The Growing Controversy On the Origins of Life in the Universe (Augsburg Fortress, 2004) at:

this site.

For the Study Guide, click HERE.