In the News

A story by Lisa Anderson in the Chicago Tribune shows the materialists bemoaning the plight of biology teachers in Kansas, who are "under the thumb" of those who want to change the definition of science and allow the "designer's foot in the door."

The emotional sympathy card is being played. According to the materialists, those poor adults are being harassed by students who are so uneducated and indoctrinated, that don’t believe in Darwinism.

Their "Constitutional right to be comfortable" is being violated. But, the students "right" to be comfortable is being violated as well. It cuts both ways. Maybe the teachers are being ridiculed by people who don’t get the debate. More education of the adults and students is needed.

CafePress is having a Post-Holiday sale and you can save some bucks for the next week on select items from the ARN Merchandise. Between 12/28/05 and 01/04/06 (next Friday) you can get $5 off any Hoodie and $4 off all Greeting Cards and Wall Calendars. Just enter the Discount Code: BIG5 or BIG4 in the Discount Coupon field at checkout and the credit will be applied. This includes our new 2006 "Mind Preceded Matter" Wall Calendar with thirteen fantastic Hubble Space Telescope photos and quotes about the design of the universe. All of our designs are available on Greeting Cards which are pretty unique and also qualify for the sale.

A story on the ACLU trial lawyers of Kitzmiller v. Dover written by Gina Passarella appears in the Law Intelligencer.

The lawyers are now world famous and showing how they approach the debate. For instance, Stephen Harvey comments, "The right to believe includes the right not to believe."

Does this mean that if two or three worldview positions are put before public school students, they can choose which one seems most plausible. That option is no longer allowed in Pennsylvania. The Darwinistic worldview will now be taught unchallenged. While in school in Pennsylvania, you WILL be taught the state-sponsored worldview, but elsewhere, you can learn about other worldviews. Darwinism/Materialism has been elevated to the level of indisputable fact.

The lawyers also say that since there will be no appeal on the ruling, this case will most likely stand as a trial court opinion that is not binding on any other state.

Pat Buchanan weighs in on the Kitzmiller v. Dover judicial ruling on the RealClearPolitics Web site.

Mr. Buchanan gives a wide-angle view of the decision which stretches from Aristotle to the present.

A story by Erin Hemme Froslie on the InForum Web site, tells of a decision made in North Dakota regarding ID and high school debating.

The North Dakota High School Activities Association won’t allow students to debate the role of intelligent design in public school classrooms.
Some parents and administrators feel the topic is too controversial.

A former debate coach, Kent Hjelmstad, said the process of debate is more important than the topic. He thinks "the message is that you want the experience of an academic challenge, but you don’t need to have objectionable discussions to get that challenge".

Now, we wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's "Constitutional right to be comfortable".

You will need to register with InForum to read this amazing article.

This article in First Things is a MUST read to understand the current culture war between scientism (neo-Darwinism) and design theory.

Many misunderstood Cardinal Schonborn's article in the New York Times, and this is his eloquent and clear-thinking response.

He rightly points out that there are not just two ways to discover the Truth of Reality, but three. He states that "Modern science alone may well be incapable of grasping the key truths about nature that are woven into the fabric of Catholic theology and morality. And theology proper does not supply these key truths either. Prior to both science and theology is philosophy, the “science of common experience.” Its role in these crucial matters is indispensable.

The following is a crucial point that all must grasp. Schonborn says "Let us return to the heart of the problem: positivism. Modern science first excludes a priori final and formal causes, then investigates nature under the reductive mode of mechanism (efficient and material causes), and then turns around to claim both final and formal causes are obviously unreal, and also that its mode of knowing the corporeal world takes priority over all other forms of human knowledge. Being mechanistic, modern science is also historicist: It argues that a complete description of the efficient and material causal history of an entity is a complete explanation of the entity itself—in other words, that an understanding of how something came to be is the same as understanding what it is. But Catholic thinking rejects the genetic fallacy applied to the natural world and contains instead a holistic understanding of reality based on all the faculties of reason and all the causes evident in nature—including the “vertical” causation of formality and finality.

This article should be read over and over, and slowly digested. In doing so, the reader will see it's overall importance, and Schonborn's critics will seem like the sound of "tinkling cymbals".

On the Science & Theology News Web site, Dr. William A. Dembski comments on the recent ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover, and it's implications for ID and the culture war.

It is not the "Waterloo" of ID, just as the Scopes Trial was not the "Waterloo" for Darwinism.

An opinion by Paul Campos appears in the Rocky Mountain News. Campos practiced law in Chicago before returning to his home state in 1990 to join the law faculty at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He has written extensively on the role of law in American society.

His opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover is illuminating.

KMBC-TV News reports that next semester, a class will examine intelligent design. The class will be taught by Richard Menninger, a religion professor, and Henry Tillinghast, a biology professor.

Ottawa University, located in Ottawa, KS has about 500 students and is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA.

Albert Alschuler, Julius Kreeger Professor of Law and Criminology at the University of Chicago, continues his three-part series on Kitzmiller v. Dover. Included are comments from others in the faculty blog.

Tom Bethell, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, give his perspective on the recent Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling in the Washington Times.

Hiroaki Sato, and essayist and translator, writes on Id and Darwinism in the Japan Times.

The article is anything but objective and fair, assuming that Biblical Creationism and ID are one-and-the-same.

He batters Hisayoshi Watanabe, professor emeritus of English and American literature at the University of Kyoto. He calls Watanabe an "intellectual" who defined ID as "a theory that proposes to give up explaining the making of this universe and the natural world in terms of aimless, plan-less mechanical forces alone," and to "recognize as science, other than natural factors like 'inevitability' (natural law) and 'coincidence', a 'design' factor."

James Skillen, president of the Center for Public Justice, weighs in on the issue of who decides what our children can be taught in the public schools.

Skillen points out that "...the history-of-science lesson that Judge Jones in PA included in his ruling was largely philosophical and theological in character. He stated, for example, that science is limited to 'the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena' and must therefore reject revelation in favor of empirical evidence. None of this amounts to a biological argument".

Dr. G sends his Christmas greetings to our ARN web visitors with this special year-end column in response to the recent Kitzmiller v. Dover court decision about Intelligent Design:

A proposed letter to my Hospice patients in light of the ruling in Dover.

Dear Hospice Patient:

Recently a ruling was made in a federal court, with respect to the separation of faith and state, concluding that intelligent design in biology is not Science.

Since I am a medical scientist (physician) who is reimbursed by the state for my services and you are a biological entity (human being) that is enrolled in a state funded program, it is my unhappy duty to inform you that henceforth I will no longer be able to adequately tend to your spiritual needs.

I realize that as a human being who is approaching imminent death, the questions surrounding the mystery of life take on great import, so much so that significant existential angst may be the result. However, with this ruling, Judge Jones has made the legal decision that your concerns have been determined to be unfounded and irrelevant to all practical biological science and therefore I must comply with his judgment.

Please be advised however that for your physical and emotional comfort I will continue to prescribe for you intelligently designed pharmaceutical agents which work by acting upon, the now legally determined, unintelligently designed enzymes and receptors that are necessary for life.

Sincerely yours,
Howard Glicksman M.D.

While the Darwinists are celebrating in the streets over Judge Jones' Dover decision outlawing ID and criticism of Darwin's theory, Paul Nelson explains in this blog entry why nothing has really changed. Be sure to read his previous comments link about anti-glacier books. Between the two (one written before the decision and one after) Paul gives us a pretty good bird's eye perspective on why nothing has really changed.

"Issuing theological statements isn't normally thought of as the job of a federal judge. Yet, this week when U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III released the first federal ruling on intelligent design, there was at the core of his written decision an unambiguously theological ruling: that evolution as formulated by Charles Darwin presents no conflict with the God of the Bible. Quite apart from what one thinks of his legal decision, what should we make of his theology?"

David Klinghoffer writes in the Seattle Times that Judge Jones decision to declare it is constitutional to expose young people to one such worldview, but not lawful to introduce them to another, is not really education. It is indoctrination.

In the Colorado Springs Gazette, Brian Newsome reports on a state legislator's thoughts on introducing ID into public school, but without the "mandatory" wording.

Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, believes the Pennsylvania ruling and a general culture of “political correctness” will leave school boards afraid to take up the topic. He wants to draft legislation that would allow school districts to teach intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not covered in Colorado statutes. If a school board attempted to add intelligent design to a curriculum, its legality probably would be determined by a lawsuit, as it was in Pennsylvania.

Brophy’s idea will receive a chilly greeting at the Statehouse.

Reasons to Believe, a Christian science/faith organization, issued a press release on the Dover ruling.

"As currently formulated, 'intelligent design' is not science," says biochemist, Dr. Fazale 'Fuz' Rana. "It is not testable and does not make predictions about future scientific discoveries."

Rana continued by saying that "at Reasons To Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research."

Terry Devitt, reporting for the University of Wisconsin, writes on the frustration of scientists trying to fit the facts of natural history into a Darwinistic framework.

Considering that the general theory of evolution (macro-evolution) is a "fact", this is puzzling.

Stephen Dyer, reporter for The Akron Beacon Journal, writes on the Dover ruling's affect in Ohio.

It is truly amazing how each side sees such different potentials from the same ruling. Read on for the details.

Fox News reports that U.S. Senator Rick Santorum says he intends to withdraw his affiliation with the Christian-rights law center that defended a school district's policy mandating the teaching of "intelligent design."

"I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did," Santorum said Wednesday. He said he would end his affiliation with the center.

The Discovery Institute vigorously encouraged the Dover School Board to not mandate the reading of a four paragraph statement which led to the case.

David DeWitt, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow has provided a short analysis of the decision in the Dover School Board case. DeWolf is a professor of law at Gonzaga University and the author of a briefing book for public school administrators, Teaching the Controversy: Darwinism, Design and the Public School Curriculum.

From Creation-Evolution Headlines comes commentary on a guide on how to win over the reluctant to evolution.

Dr. Albert Alschuler, of the School of Law at the University of Chicago, has posted his opinion on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

He opines, "If fundamentalism still means what it meant in the early twentieth century, however, accepting the Bible as literal truth, the champions of intelligent design are not fundamentalists. They uniformly disclaim reliance on the Book and focus only on where the biological evidence leads. The court’s response – 'well, that’s what they say, but we know what they mean', is uncivil...an illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse. Once we know who you are, we need not listen. We’ve heard it all already".

This trial was truly not about ID, it was about what one confused judge thinks about ID. The success of ID will not depend on its success in the courtroom, but rather on its success in the scientific realm.

Read on.

A press release concerning the Dover decision from IDnet (Kansas) is available for viewing. The title says it all.

Commentator Joe Loconto, the William E. Simon Fellow in religion at the Heritage Foundation, gives his opinion on the Dover decision on NPR's All Things Considered. It's definitely worth a listen.

An opinion piece by David Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute appears in the National Review Online.

Klinghoffer opines by saying that "Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science, raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.

'We conclude that the religious nature of Intelligent Design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child,' wrote Judge John E. Jones III in his decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which rules that disparaging Darwin's theory in biology class is unconstitutional. Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?"

So, according to the judge, Darwinists do NOT have a worldview agenda? Klinghoffer gives many examples of the Darwinist's agenda and disingenuous nature of executing the forced acceptance of their worldview and scientism.

Many have said this ruling was so poor that it may help ID in the long run. It reminds one of the current movie Chronicles of Narnia, where the White Witch and her minions are gleefully dancing after the execution of Aslan. Just wait till tomorrow.

The above story by Fox News is typical of many stories across the world. Getting some of the details correct, but not all.

For instance, while the reading of "the statement" would have been mandatory, ID would not have been taught in the Dover School District.

Some comments from those in the higher ranks of the ID movement:

- Is ID science or not? If it's science, some judge's opinion somewhere doesn't really matter. He can't make things true that are actually false or false that are actually true. He delays the day of reckoning.

- Has a court ever considered whether a civil rights ordinance would be unconstitutional because a legislator thought he was conforming the country to the will of God that all people be treated equally?

- Welcome to the USSA where you can't question the anti-religious motives of those who want the exclusive teaching of the Theory of Unintelligent Design in our public schools.

- The judge said IDers "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors". The ACLU could not have written it any better. By implication, evolution is just science.

- U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs.
Sounds like we should be hearing some perjury trials coming up, if this is true.

- The judge's ruling said "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy".

In my mind, this is one of the most misleading statements in the opinion. It ignores the fact that everyone has a metaphysical commitment of some kind. It buys into the positivist notion that philosphical materialism or naturalism is somehow neutral, unbiased, and can be simply ignored.

- The judges opinion says that "to preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any schoolwithin the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Does this mean that Punctuated Equilibrium (a criticism/alternative of traditional evolutionary theory) cannot be required to be taught? What about endosymbiotic theory a la Margulis? Surely that denigrates Darwin's gradualistic vision. Does this forever enshrine a 19th century theory as everlasting dogma, regardless of where future science leads? This is a sad day for Dover.

No doubt, opponents of ID will spin this story to dizzying proportions: some with a humble tone, and some not, such as this example in Time online.

You asked for it and here it is: Mind Preceded Matter 12 Month Wall Calendar

It includes thirteen stunning space photos from the Hubble Telescope and twelve fabulous quotes about the design of the universe. Order today and request overnight shipping to get it before Christmas.

Merry Christmas from the ARN Staff!

Judge Jones ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and accepted the theory that the board's policy was adopted as part of the "Wedge" strategy. Here is an excerpt that summarizes his opinion:

“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”

There were some surprise statements in the decision such as the implication that teachers in Dover cannot criticize the theory of evolution in any way:

"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

What are they afraid of? Apparently Judge Jones has forgotten what Justice Jackson said in the flag salute case:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943)

Although there was some fascinating testimony by ID scientists such as Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, and many interesting aspects to the case, Discovery Institute and many other supporters of Intelligent Design saw this as a poor test case for ID and predict that this will be just the first court case on the Intelligent Design, not the last.

A column by Dennis Byrne in the Chicago Tribune speaks to the overarching quest to answer the "Big Question" about origins. This is a fair and balanced piece, which deserves a look.

The Dover trial decision by Judge John E. Jones III is expected on Tuesday. Read this article by Ap in the Philadelphia Daily News.

In the continuing saga of Dr. Paul Mirecki, backers of the Religious Studies Department at the University of Kansas have sent a postcard to potential donors, seeking to distance themselves from the department’s former chairman. Read the article by AP picked up by the Kansas City Star.

This column by Douglas Baynton in the Washington Post is the kind of muddled thinking that will bring further shame to, and possibly eventually bring down the Darwinists.

Baynton presents a false dichotomy: either understand the world as a meaningful place of beauty and purpose or a mechanical, meaningless accident to be understood via material causes only.

Given this false dichotomy, it's amazing how much scientific progress was made when many scientists were theists in the 17th and 18th centuries.

According to Baynton, since theistic scientists said silly or stupid things in the 19th century, then ID is worthy of ridicule today. Following that line of argument, since Darwin was a racist, then Neo-Darwinism isn't worth holding to today!

One who follows ID closely commented that "Braynton is committing the fallacy of composition, arguing that whatever is true of the parts of something must true of the whole. Some 19th century design thinkers said stupid things, but it does not follow from that that those stupid statements get transferred to all design advocates. It would be like saying, 'Stephen Douglas and other 19th century Democrats believed that states should have the right to permit slavery, so therefore, if 21st century Democrats were to achieve political power again, then we would see a resurgence of proslavery-state rhetoric.'"

Baynton's thinking needs to be exposed for what it is...nonsense.

Amanda Gefter, on NewScientist.com, gets into the mind of Leonard Susskind. He is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University in California. His new book is titled Cosmic Landscape: String theory and the illusion of intelligent design.

It is an interesting Q & A session on string theory and the naturalistic scientist's grappling with origins. He admits that multiverse theory is unfalsifiably, but will not give an inch to ID.

The last question and paragraph are telling:

"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design"?

"I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."

Sorry Dr., but it would be much more faith-based than what ID is really about.

Ellen Berry, writer for the LA Times, reports on the Cobb County Georgia book sticker ruling.

A federal appeals court panel appeared sharply critical Thursday of a ruling this year that ordered the removal of stickers in science textbooks stating, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact."

Science Education book by Michael Poole added to ARN catalog.

Someone recently brought this gem to our attention which was originally published in Britain in 1995. Much of the raging Darwin vs Design debate boils down to the worldview of scientists, educators, school boards, or editors that are in command, and how that worldview is imposed on those with different worldviews. The debate is seldom over the scientific data, but the framework within which that data is interpreted.

This book hits that issue head on. If if more educators teaching science would embrace Poole's wise guidance on addressing Beliefs and Values in Science Education in an honest an open fashion we believe much of the public agnst over teaching Darwin or Design would dissipate.

Consider this quote from the preface of the book:

An Educational Model

"the sensible educator...will not expect or intend to produce an educated adult who has no beliefs, values, or attitudes, which he cannot rationally defend against all commers and who is incapable of settled convictions, deep-seated virtues, or profound loyalties. But neither will he treat his pupils in such a way as to leave them with closed minds and restricted sympathies. The process of being educated is like learning to build a house by actually building one and then having to live in the house one has built

It is a process in which the individual inevitably requires help. The extreme authoritarian helps by building the house himself according to what he believes to be the best plan and making the novice live in it. He designs it in such a way as to make it as difficult as possible for the novice to alter it. The extreme liberal leaves the novice to find his own materials and devise his own plan, for fear of exercising improper influence. The most he will do is to provide strictly technical information if asked. The sensible educator helps the novice to build the best house he can (in the light of accumulated experience). He strikes a balance between the need to produce a good house and the the desirability of letting the novice make his own choices; but he is careful that the house is designed in such a way that it can subsequently be altered and improved as the owner, no longer a novice, sees fit."

-- Professor Basil Mitchell, The Durham Report

With this model in mind, Michael Poole engages the topics of science standards; beliefs and values about science; language, concepts and models; environmental beliefs and values; cosmology and creation; the Galileo affair; and the Darwinian controversies. His approach to science education is an excellent example on how to move forward with the Darwin vs. Design controversy in a pluralistic society.

A free, 31 page study guide in pdf format for Nancy Pearcey's book Total Truth is available on the Web site above. Merry Christmas from the Pearceys!

On the CBC Web site an article describes that scientists have figured out the functions of the narwhal whale tusk.

How did that evolve by random chance and natural selection? How many lucky steps occurred, and was there enough time for this to happen? Oh, the faith of the Darwinists!

On Friday, December 16th, the University of Leiden in the Netherlands will hold a half-day symposium on ID. The Web site is in Dutch. The question addressed in the symposium is, "Is ID about theology or science?"

ID is becoming a global topic.

On Human Events Online, Casey Luskin, of the Discovery Institute, is published. The opinion is a clear thinking, right-on-the-mark, critique of recent ID articles by Charles Krauthammer and George Will.

When I read those articles, my first thought was, "Didn't they do their homework (rhetorical question)?"

Luskin answers that question.

A story by Ryan Alessi, reporter for the Lexington Herald-Leader, investigates what may be going on politically with ID in Kentucky. Too bad he didn't interview anyone with a good working knowledge of ID to get a good sound bite from our side.

A story on the ID controversy at ISU by Marcos Rivera, Virginia Arrigucci and Emily Schaefer appears in the Iowa State Daily.

A seminar, led by Hector Avalos, Jim Colbert and Michael Clough titled "The Nature of Science: 'Why the Overwhelming Consensus of Science is that Intelligent Design is not Good Science,'" will be held to explore why the majority of scientists are coming out in such strong opposition to introducing Intelligent Design as a science.

Avalos said he is not in favor of completely dismissing the theory, but thinks it should be introduced in the philosophy or religious studies departments rather than as a science.

One person who will not be attending the discussion forums is Guillermo Gonzalez, author of "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery," assistant professor of physics and astronomy. He says that the arguments for ID are not based on religion.

"I don't intend to participate in any kind of forum presented by the opposing side," Gonzalez said.

Larry Caldwell's voice is being heard in California, with regard to a proposed Quality Science Education Policy, dedicated to improving how Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in public schools.

This is his response to the editorial on the subject in the Sacramento Bee. You may need to register to read the opinion.

Sophia Maines, of the Lawrence-World Journal, writes on the continuing saga of Dr. Mirecki. Seems he's unhappy with the sheriff's department and KU. You be the judge.

This is an excellent opinion letter in the Rocky Mountain News by professor Doug Groothuis, of Denver Seminary.

Straw men are easy for the other side to knock down. Of course, it's a deceptive practice, and a waste of people's time.

Dave Carhart writes a lucid opinion letter in the Chicago Tribune.

It's definitely worth a read, and you need to do a free register with the Trib.

Chris Kahn, of the Sun-Sentinel, writes on a flap over a new biology textbook that makes a mention of ID.

Teachers should decide whether to buy a textbook that tells students about intelligent design, not Superintendent Frank Till, the Broward County Teacher's Union said Friday.

Till made the decision on his own Thursday when he said references to the creationist idea would be cut out of Biology: The Dynamics of Life, one of two books under consideration for use in local classrooms.

Seems the thought police are everywhere. WIll he use scissors?

Pillars of Naturalism

Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are considered the pillars of modern western thought. They differed in many ways but had one thing in common—they were reductionists who claimed that all higher realms of existence could be explained by lower natural causes. They were the pillars of naturalism.

But their ideas were tested during the twentieth century and found wanting. Freud was the first fall. Incidents in his career were cited to call into question both his integrity and his scientific competence, and psychiatry seemed to make more progress through medication than through Freudian analysis. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s inflicted a death blow on Marxism, which is now seen as not only failing to deliver its promised utopia but as creating an inhumane tyranny. Darwin is the last man standing, but his theory is rapidly eroding as modern biological science reveals amazing complexity and design that cannot possibly be explained by Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutations and natural selection. This led Phillip Johnson to summarize the situation one day with the phrase that appears on this shirt: “Freud is dead, Marx is dead, and Darwin is not feeling very well.”

Elizabeth Pennisi, writing for ScienceNOW Daily News, reports that a new survey of marine life indicates that "simple" organisms such as corals and sea anemones have many of the same genes and complex gene families, consisting of many closely related genes derived from the same ancestral gene as we do.

The complexity of genes is causing all to pause...and wonder.

Listen to a debate between William Dembski and Michael Shermer on audiomartini.

The Wichita Eagle picked up the story from the Kansas City Star by David Klepper, regarding the embattled Dr. Paul Mirecki of the University of Kansas.

Dr. Mirecki claimed he was beaten up by people sympathetic with creationism or ID on a lonely rural road south of Lawrence, Kansas this past Monday. While many believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt, some aren't so charitable, such as the piece you can access by clicking HERE.

You may recall, Dr. Mirecki said some rather unkind things about people of faith and ID proponents in a letter to his friends. He was going to teach a course at KU the next semester which called ID a myth (among other things), but the course was canceled shortly after his e-mail became public.

MyrtleBeach online picks up the story by Lisa Anderson of the Chicago Tribune.

It examines the three possibilities of the judicial decision in the Dover trail. The ruling could range from landmark to local. No matter what the outcome, you can bet the political spin will be dizzying.

"There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support in the theory of intelligent design, or even just questioning evolution," said Robert Crowther director of communications for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.

For the disturbing details, read the entire blog on the Discovery Institute Web site in Evolution News & Views.

MSNBC carries a stroy by Victoria Bosch in Newsweek.

For students who doubt the validity of evolution, college science class can be daunting. What happens when beliefs and schoolwork collide?

IDEA Clubs are mentioned in the piece.

We are pleased to announce that a 25% discount will be made available on any of the Intelligent Design T-shirts and merchandise in our Café Press store on December 7th and 8th.

On those two days (this Wed & Thur) any Café Press orders will receive the following discounts:

HOL5 $5 off $20
HOL10 $10 off $40
HOL25 $25 off $100

When you checkout just enter the HOL5, HOL10, or HOL25 in the Coupon/Promotional Code box on the checkout page and if your order total (before tax and shipping) exceeds the $20, $40 or $100 threshold, the discount will be applied to your order. The coupon codes are only valid Dec 7-8, 2005.

Cheers,
The ARN Staff

On space.com, Seth Shostak thinks that IDers are being less than honest when using the SETI program to bolster support for ID.

You can read a rebuttal from David Coppedge on the Creationsafari Web site by clicking HERE.

Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute reports on another proposed course mentioning ID to be taught at Knox College in Illinois. Knox will also host Phil Johnson in February.

A link to a story about sloppy reporting in the New York Times is also found on the link above.

William Dembski comments on an article in the New York Times on the Templeton Foundation and its willingness to support proposals for actual research.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer states our case for ID in the National Post (Canada)

An article by Kenneth Silber on Tech Central Station briefly looks into String Theory and ID.

The multi-verse hypothesis is brought up, which is a way for atheists and Darwinists to brush aside the idea of an uncaused intelligence. The only problem is we will never know if multiverses exist, because they can never break into this space-time continuum. It takes as much, if not more, faith to believe in them as an eternal, intelligent being.

In the National Review online, Mustafa Akyol, a Muslim writer based in Istanbul, Turkey, and one of the expert witnesses who testified to the Kansas State Education Board during the hearings on evolution, writes on the cultural bridge that ID could offer.

Akyol points out that in a New Republic cover story, "The Case Against Intelligent Design," Jerry Coyne implied that all non-Christians, including Muslims, should be alarmed by this supposedly Christian theory of beginnings that "might offend those of other faiths." Little does he realize that if there is any view on the origin of life that might seriously offend other faiths, including Islam, it is the materialist dogma: the assumptions that God, by definition, is a superstition, and that rationality is inherently atheistic.

The New York Times picked up on this Reuters story.

Ronald Numbers said that the proponents of intelligent design "want to change the definition of science" to include God, an issue he predicted would end up in the Supreme Court. He added, "one of the most successful PR campaigns we've seen in recent years is intelligent design."

John Milburn, writing in Guardian Unlimited, reports that the course at KU, which was to be taught by professor Mirecki, has been canceled.

Not surprising, because of the furor that arose from his arrogant and condescending attitude revealed in an email to his pals that became public.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder of MIT discusses the amazing odds against random mutation to create anything remotely complex on aish.com.

Boggles the mind...atheists dare not read this.

The new book by Tom Bethell, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, is now available through ARN. There are many interesting topics covered, including the crumbling of Darwinism.

This is a must read for scientists like me, who get asked about Global warming and Darwinism frequently.

A joint op-ed column by Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas appears in USA Today.

Beckel begins by saying, "Cal, I'm going to stray from the consensus liberal line on the issue of intelligent design. The Dover, Pa., school board had a good reason to allow the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific alternative to Darwinism in the school system's science classes. Despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that evolution is the sole explanation for all living things, these scientists have yet to prove the theory conclusively. Not only are there still gaping holes in the evolutionary chain from single cells to man, the science crowd hasn't come close to explaining why only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will".

Thomas then adds, "What I find curious about this debate, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Kansas and throughout the country, is that so many scientists and educators are behaving like fundamentalist secularists. Only they will define science".

Much more good dialogue in this piece...

We have added new links at the ARN home page. The combination of watching Meyer talk about design and then Dawkins talk about "apparent design" and his faith in natural selection makes for an excellent one-two punch.

The links are near the top, in the center of the home page.

Denis Boyle writes in National Review, about the recent debate and antics of the opposition.

The chairman of KU’s religious-studies department, Paul Mirecki, and the campus group he mentors, the 120-member "Society of Open-minded Atheists and Agnostics" is exposed for what he and they are.

Beware, there is some profane and possibly offensive language in the piece.

On the Human Events Online Web site Nancy Pearcey weighs in on the debate and shows why a paradigm shift to ID will occur.

A story on NPR by Barbara Bradley Hagerty treats the subject fairly.

Express you appreciation to NPR for this story. Ms. Hagerty has received condescending emails in the past from the opposition.

To get to the NPR reply form, click on "contact us" at the top of the webpage, then click the circle "NPR Program" and select "All things considered" from the drop-down menu.

The controversy is discussed in an article in the Harvard Crimson by Sarah E. F. Milov.

Leading scholars on the issue at Harvard Divinity School (HDS) and other divinity schools say their faculties have almost no proponents of intelligent design.

Michael Behe says that the intelligent design argument is purely scientific and is in no way related to the creationism debates of the early twentieth century.

Mark U. Edwards Jr., professor of the history of Christianity and associate HDS dean for academic affairs, says intelligent design is bad science and bad theology.

Edwards has an explanation for the persistence of a contentious dialogue between science and religion. "One quarter of the population is evangelical," Edwards says. "They aren’t very sophisticated."

Excuse me while I knuckle-drag my way to the kitchen for a snack...

Recently a discussion on ID and Darwinism took place at Warwick University in the UK.

To have a listen, go to the site above and scroll down a bit.