In the News

Michael Balter, who writes for Science magazine, wrote an opinion in International Herald Tribune.

He argues that the challenges to Darwinism should be included in the science classroom. He cites some research that suggests that when students were exposed to alternatives to Darwinism, a majority changed their minds, and moved in the Darwinist worldview.

More...

Evolution News & Views reports on Forthekids, a blogger who writes regularly at Reasonable Kansans. The blogger has been keeping things interesting since August of last year, holding the Kansas media accountable and getting to the truth of the matter, especially in regards to the debate over intelligent design. Recently, she had a great post.

More...

NCSE reports that a resolution was introduced by Representative Robin Hamilton (D-District 92) on January 26, 2007, in the Montana House of Representatives. Referring to the Committee on Education, it would, if enacted, express the Montana legislature's recognition of the importance of separation of church and state and support of the right of local school board trustees to adopt a science curriculum based on sound scientific principles.

More...

Interesting abstract in PNAS regarding Darwin's Tree of Life hypothesis.

Although the authors are no ID proponents, they say that a TOL hypothesis is imposed on the data, and those who advocate the TOL need to give up the quixotic search.

More...

Here is a column by Babu G. Ranganathan in The Conservative Voice.

He raises some great points that all ID proponents should commit to memory before engaging the other side.

More...

Christina Kauffman, of the York Dispatch, reports on the Pulitzer Prize-winner journalist and best-selling author Edward Humes' book about the Dover intelligent design trial, which was released to most major booksellers recently.

Humes interviewed several of the trial's key players for the nonfiction book, which classifies the events in Dover as a representation of the larger national conflict over what people believe about human origins.

Humes is no great friend to ID, saying, "People doubt or outright reject the theory of evolution but they don't even know what it is they've rejected. They just know they don't like it. Ultimately, the fallout for such thinking could be a national crisis; fewer young Americans are getting science degrees, and that doesn't bode well for the United States' progress against foreign competitors."

More...

Check out a brief and cogent post on the Dilbert Blog.

Steve appeals for a big bang which was front-loaded with "intelligence" which would strongly suggest that it was caused by an intelligent entity.

When we look back on the problem of the infinite regression of cause and effect, we eventually get to the point of a necessary, eternal entity; it may be either "God", or eternally existing matter, because you cannot have matter, energy, space and time pop out of absolutely nothing.

A great example of clear thinking is in Evolution News & Views by Logan Gage.

What's wrong with the title of this post?

Gage says "This is one of the most patronizing lines in the debate over Darwinism and public schools. Call me simple, but if something isn’t based in fact, why isn't it wrong?"

In our relativist society, something can be subjectively "right" for an individual, but not based on facts. How do you rationally and reasonably talk to people like that? You attempt to appeal to their rational intuition. There really is a Truth out there that corresponds with reality. A True Truth.

The press release below will likely spark a big fight over the issue of Kansas' institutionalization of materialism.

January 30, 2007

NEWS RELEASE:
John Calvert, 913-268-0852

KANSANS FIGHT AGAINST STATE MATERIALISM

The debate about evolution actually hinges on a deeper issue - materialism, also known as naturalism.

Materialism and naturalism are philosophies that claim that natural phenomena, including humans, derive simply from the interactions of matter, energy and the physical forces - by material or natural causes. Materialists reject any creative force or cause.

Many Kansans are concerned that proposed changes to Kansas Science Standards will cause Kansas Public Education to indoctrinate young children in Materialism, the philosophy that dominates Russian culture. This teaching model permits only material or natural causes to explain where we come from. It systematically excludes legitimate scientific controversies about materialistic theories of the origin of life (chemical evolution) and the origin of large scale changes in bio-diversity (macro-evolution).

Kansans are voicing their concerns in a variety of ways. A petition urging the Board to reject the materialistic proposals is circulating throughout Kansas. Over 2500 signatures were delivered to the State Board at its meeting on Jan 9. Yesterday the team that proposed the objective teaching model in the current standards posted the petition on their web site. This will allow people from all over the state to voice their concerns electronically.

http://www.KansasScience2005.com/petition.html

Kansans are concerned because Materialism is the origins story that is the foundation for a variety of non-theistic religions and religious beliefs. Atheism and Humanism depend on a purposeless self-existing universe with life being the product of unguided evolutionary change.

In response to the Petition one Board member has asked the Board’s legal counsel whether it is appropriate for State Schools to promote materialism and to systematically exclude scientific information relevant to evolution that is critical of the theory.

"We believe the State should be scrupulously objective when it engages children in a discussion of the origin of life," Said Bill Harris, PhD, a research biochemist. Dr. Harris led the Team of scientists and educators who proposed the current model for teaching evolution.

"The current objective standards were scientifically and educationally validated by extensive hearings in May 2005," said Greg Lassey, a biology teacher who helped with the project.

A new movie about the hearings and the testimony of the 23 experts will be shown at the Glenwood theater on January 12, 2007 in Kansas City: Kansas Science Hearings: Exposing the Evolution Controversy.

For information about "Materialism" go to this Web site and click on "What is Materialism? Click here and find out!"

For information about the proposal that will import materialism into the standards, click on the first item on the top left of the side bar for that Web page which is titled: "Proposed Changes which Substitute Materialism for Objective Origins Science." The provisions that mandate materialism are in red. The provisions being systematically excluded by the red are in blue.

The problem is not with evolution as a theory, it is with a construct that does not tolerate any critical analysis of it. That construct is called Methodological Naturalism or Scientific Materialism. It is actually worse than a philosophy because, its tenets can’t be questioned. They must be accepted. It converts evolution into a religious dogma.

This article (in the American Chronicle) by Kazmer Ujvarosy, the founder of Frontline Science, an independent think tank, based in San Francisco, comes from a Christian perspective.

He makes several salient points, which goes beyond what ID claims.

More...

Casey Luskin, of the Discovery Institute, comments on the many mistatements of Dr. George Kampis during a recent lecture at East Tennessee State University entitled "Intelligent Design Theory and the Poverty of Anti-Science Thought." Ironically Dr. Kampis is a historian, as well as a philosopher and cognitive scientist. Dr. Kampis' lecture spread much misinformation about intelligent design.

More...

Pat Boone comments on Darwinism and ID in WordNetDaily.

Coming from the persepective of a layperson with knowledge on the subject he starts out the commentary with a Steve Martin joke. "Would you like to make a million dollars and pay no taxes? OK. First, make a million dollars. Now, just don't pay any taxes; and if somebody from the IRS asks you about it, just say, 'I forgot!'" Nonsense? Sure. But funny, especially as Steve delivered it? You bet.

More...

Dr. C. John Collins, professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, will lecture for three days, February 1-3, at Covenant College, Lookout Mountain GA in the WIC Lecture Series. The topic will be Science and Faith.

Guy Kramer, of the Eastern Tennessean, reports on a lecture given at the university.

Science has been forced into a defensive position according to visiting professor and Basler Chair Dr. George Kampis. "What we need in science now is an offensive that is not offensive," he said during a lecture given Monday evening in the D.P. Culp auditorium. Kampis' lecture, titled "Intelligent Design Theory and the Poverty of Anti-Science Thought", focused on the debate between supporters of evolution and those who insist that living things were created by an Intelligent Designer.

Dr. Kampis hit every "talking point" of Darwinists.

More...

Maria P. Gonzalez, of the Union-Bulletin, reports on lectures on intelligent design at Walla Walla College by Michael Behe.

Today and Friday, Jan. 26th Behe of Lehigh University will hold two public talks focused on his studies of intelligent design. Behe is speaking at the Seventh-day Adventist university as part of its 2007 Distinguished Scholar Lecture Series.

More...

Bob Unruh, for WorldNetDaily, reports that a new study is blaming the monolithic public school system being used in the United States for the estimated 150 major battles over the course of the last year over religion, evolutionary theory, etc.

"All across the country, public schools threw Americans' fundamental values into conflict during the 2005-2006 school year, whether over intelligent design, dress codes, controversial school books..." said the study by Neal McCluskey, policy analyst with the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom.

More...

Evolution News & Views says Robert Naeye at Sky & Telescope recently posted a simplistic rant against intelligent design. His logic is astoundingly bad, and his "attacks" on ID are the most elementary sort that have been rebutted too many times to mention.

More...

The Guardian Unlimited reports that teenagers will be asked to debate ID in their religious education classes and read texts by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins under new government guidelines.

In a move that is likely to spark controversy, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has for the first time recommended that pupils be taught about atheism and creationism in RE classes.

More...

The University of Georgia Christian Faculty Forum will host a debate over evolution and intelligent design at 7:30 p.m. Feb. 7 in the Center for Complex Carbohydrate Research Auditorium.

The participants, Paul Nelson and Chris Peterson, are Christians, but they disagree on the best scientific explanation for the origin of life.

Click the link above, and scroll down a bit for more information.

The Christian Post advertises "The Cave Painting", offered at ARN.

"Masterful...winsome...entertaining". These are just some of the words one reader used to describe The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science.

Never before has the science of Intelligent Design been so artfully and forcefully presented in one book. The novel, together with the extensive, fully documented endnotes explains the theory of Intelligent Design and delivers a devastating critique of Darwinism, all with wit and style. There's simply no other book like it. Everyone will enjoy The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science.

ScienceDaily reports on the complex flight of bats.

Kenneth Breuer, a professor of engineering at Brown University, is particularly intrigued by bats because "they can generate different wing shapes and motions that other creatures can't."

"Bats have unique capabilities," says Breuer.

Breuer claims that "gliding has evolved in mammals seven times...and now it doesn't look like bats have any relationship to these gliding things."

More...

Evolution News & Views reports that The Chronicle of Higher Education is currently running a refreshing op-ed piece entitled, "Why Can't We Discuss Intelligent Design?," by J. Scott Turner, arguing for open discussion of ID on university campuses. The twist: Dr. Turner is a an associate professor of biology at the State University of New York's College of Environmental Science and Forestry who thinks intelligent design is "wrongheaded," but nevertheless deserves to be discussed in academia.

More...

In Slate, Gary Trudeau attempts to make the Facts vs Faith claim.

However, Darwinists and other scientists nearly always say that scientific results are controversial and more research is needed to push science forward. We need to have faith that science will find the answer no matter how unlikely that may seem at the moment.

If Trudeau is against "situational science," then he should also be against "situational ethics". But, no. His inconsistency is transparent.

Steven Weinberg's commentary on Richard Dawkins recent book, and other musings, appears in the London Times online.

While the commentary has some breadth, it lacks depth. He makes several factual errors, a couple concerning the early church Fathers. He quickly "dispatches" the ontological, cosmological, and design arguments for God/designer.

He attacks certitude, and yet seems rather certain of the arguments he posits. Would this be hypocritical?

The problem of "deadly certitude" is not that people groups are certain they have a correct worldview, it is what they are certain of (which may be false) that can lead to troublesome or horrific consequences. For instance, the decline of civility and morals can be traced to Darwinism, which asserts, as Weinberg points out, that our moral intuitions are merely a product of random mutation and natural selection, and have no objective basis. Therefore, individuals are actually accountable to no one: not their family, their neighbors, their government, or a supernatural creator. Weinberg fails to see that we are reaping the sown seeds of materialism. Professing to be wise, he is the fool.

Click the link above for Weinberg's thought-provoking commentary.

Below is the text of a 1996 op-ed from The Fairfield [CA] Daily Republic that compares Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln. Among other things, the op-ed below shows how little the Darwinists' tired rhetoric has "evolved" over the past 10 years.

One amazing comment that the good professor made is that "there is no biology without him (Darwin)." Odd...because biology seemed to be practiced quite well before Darwin came up with his idea. In addition, there were other scientists of the time who had the idea. For example, Darwin just beat Wallace to the punch.

Another overreaching statement is that "natural selection now governs the interpretation of every one of the thousands of scientific papers published each month." According to the professor, natural selection is universally acknowledged as the mechanism. Says who?

This paragraph is also quite remarkable:
"Evolution refers to the obvious observation that there are no dinosaurs
walking down North Texas Street [the main drag in Fairfield, CA] - that is, that the plants and animals present on the planet today are very different from those present in the past. Natural selection, the mechanism of evolution, explains the process by which these differences arose."

Many atheist and agnostic scientists today question this "obvious" conclusion that it must be natural selection. Findings in the past 10 years suggest that natural selection is a poor candidate for explaining the historic phenomenon of different biological creatures.

The professor asserts that St. Augustine, the 6th century [sic] Christian scholar, concluded that evolution had to have occurred. By equivocating on the definition of "evolution", even I would say it has occurred. For instance, change over time is a definition of evolution, or (micro)-evolution, change within a "kind".

And the beat goes on...

The Fairfield [CA] Daily Republic
February 18, 1996

For biologists, Presidents Day can lead to thoughts of Darwin

By Jim DeKloe

Harvard biologist Stephen J. Gould often points out that Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the same day: February 12, 1809. So on Feb. 12, while most Americans celebrate the great president of the American Civil War, biologists everywhere commemorate the key historic figure in biology.

Professor Gould uses the term "soulmates" to describe the relationship
between the two men. As Abraham Lincoln freed U.S. slaves with his 1863
Emancipation Proclamation, Charles Darwin liberated science from oppressive Victorian dogma with the publication of his 1859 book, "The Origin of Species."

Darwin's bold idea transformed the field of biology, and changed geology,
astronomy and medicine forever. Darwin provided the glue that holds biology together - there is no biology without him.

Charles Darwin, of course, introduced the concept of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution (which he called "descent with modification"). Many prominent scientists of the day kicked themselves for missing such an
obvious idea. Natural selection now governs the interpretation of every one of the thousands of scientific papers published each month.

Public discussions of Darwin and his ideas usually betray a fundamental
misunderstanding. These discussions often confuse the fact of evolution with the mechanism of natural selection.

Evolution refers to the obvious observation that there are no dinosaurs
walking down North Texas Street [the main drag in Fairfield, CA] - that is, that the plants and animals present on the planet today are very different from those present in the past. Natural selection, the mechanism of evolution, explains the process by which these differences arose.

Natural selection explains why evolution proceeded in one direction or
another. The idea of evolution is ancient. St. Augustine, the 6th century [sic] Christian scholar, concluded that evolution had to have occurred. Centuries later, Charles Darwin explained how it occurred.

Of course, Darwin's idea created a firestorm of controversy, in both the
scientific and public realms, in the mid-1800s. Today, this controversy has entirely subsided in scientific circles thanks to universal recognition of the truth of natural selection.

But the controversy still periodically breaks out in public (and political) circles. "Creationists" sometimes improperly couch the dispute as "science versus religion," even though many denominations find no conflict between their beliefs and the scientific view of organic evolution.

In 1981 court case, clergy from the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, United
Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, and African Methodist Episcopal
churches, Southern Baptist Convention, American Jewish Congress, Union of
American Hebrew Congregations and the American Jewish Committee filed as
plaintiffs against the state of Arkansas to strike down an "equal time"
provision. This provision would have forced Arkansas science teachers to
present the view that the world was created in six 24-hour days along with
the 4.6 billion year scientific alternative.

Most denominations find the scientific explanation of evolution and natural selection entirely compatible with their religious beliefs. Of course, those denominations don't own the religious radio stations.

Political interference on the issue has been known to encourage high school teachers to de-emphasize or sometimes entirely omit the key idea in biology. In a time when scientific literacy is more important than ever, such omission is a crime.

Even without "The Origin of Species," Darwin would have been recognized as
one of the best naturalists of the 19th century on the basis of his other
writings. His place of burial confirms his status in the world of scientific history; his grave is next to Isaac Newton's in Westminster Abbey.

So biologists celebrate Charles Darwin's birthday. His importance to
science rivals Abraham Lincoln's contribution to American history. It's
unfortunate that Darwin doesn't get his own three-day weekend.

Professor DeKloe is a Howard Hughes Teaching Fellow at the University of
California, Davis.

Nearly a quarter of Swedes think that astrology is scientific. Fourteen per cent consider Intelligent Design to be a scientific subject. At the same time, more than half dismiss these subjects as completely unscientific. This is according to a new opinion study.

The results show that people do not have enough knowledge about what science is. Read more about the survey in the link above.

In Evolution News & Views, Casey Luskin writes that after posting about the law review article in the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion which argued that Judge Jones went too far, he was sent an unsolicited e-mail with the subject, "Intelligent Design is Not Science." The e-mail was sent as a letter to the Editor-In-Chief and Managing Editor of the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, apparently intended for public consumption. The letter largely misunderstands ID and Mr. Italiano's legal arguments. Click the above link to read more...

eSkeptic magazine had quoted PEER's claim that Grand Canyon rangers were obeying some new policy about remaining agnostic about the age of the canyon. When challenged, Michael Shermer personally checked out this claim, found it was false, criticized PEER, and apologized in print.

Shermer is no friend of ID, but at least set a good example of not
putting total trust in "friendly" sources.

As YubaNet reported, the National Park Service insists that it does not teach creationism or endorse the view that the Grand Canyon is the product of Noah's Flood, according to a new agency public statement posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Despite this statement, the agency will continue selling a book making those "Young Earth" claims about the origin of the canyon - a book that top agency officials approved over the objections of its own park superintendent.

Scientists reported in an article in PLOS that all cells have the equivalent of a Zip-code built in to their DNA that partially determines their location in the body, thanks to gene expression.

Not only is the specified complexity of DNA impossible to expalin by random mutation and natural selection in finite time, but there is also much more information in the embryo than specified in its DNA. Even if neo-Darwinism could explain the specified complexity of DNA, neo-Darwinism would not even begin to be able to explain the nature of the all-important positional information in the embryo, or how it originated.

Evolution News & Views notes that a student note in Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion agrees that Judge Jones overextended the judicial arm when he decided on the question of whether ID is science. Observing that Judge Jones correctly found that the Dover School Board members had religious motives, Philip A. Italiano then explains that the ruling should have stopped its analysis there and not extended into broad questions about the definition of science. Click the above link to learn more...

Cindy Weiss of UConn Advance writes about a strong advocate of evolution.

Kent Holsinger, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, has seen his role evolve this year, from researching and teaching evolutionary biology to speaking out nationally on behalf of the theory on which it is based-evolution.

Holsinger says, ID proponents have failed to present any new predictions that can explain natural phenomena and be tested by other researchers, as the scientific method would require. Of course, neither has Darwinism. That's because Darwinism is a historic science.

"We don't ask geographers to teach flat world theory anymore," he says. Now here is an example of a backhanded ad hominem attack.

Weiss points out that some view humans as a species apart, and may worry that accepting humans as animals would mean rejecting human ethics and morals.

"If you hold these misunderstandings, accepting evolution is very threatening," says Holsinger.

The trouble is if man is the result of random motion of particles acted on by natural selection, then there is no objective foundation for morality. Dostoyevsky was right: If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.

Alvin Plantinga reviews Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion.

You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside) many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.

The review is a pure delight to read...

Kenneth Pidcock, Wilkes University professor, opines in the CentreDaily paper. He comments that American scientists are failing to act in good faith by refusing to accept intelligent design as a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

This lack of respect, among scientists, for intelligent design is attributed to metaphysical bias and hostility to religious faith arising from a sort of default materialism among members of the scientific community.

Much of the ID proponent's argument rests on information and probability theory. However, they do not offer an alternative theory that can be tested against available evidence for how speciation occurs.

This article in the Murfreesboro, TN Daily News Journal by Ed Kimbrell is so typical of most people's understanding of ID.

Down near the end of the article he makes this statement:

"Turn to the sciences for a moment and look at Kansas and Georgia, where the boards demanded that intelligent design be taught along side evolution. Thankfully, the people dumped the Kansas board and the only major court decision ruled against intelligent design, calling it religion, not science, which it is."

His misunderstanding of the events and what ID really claims is sad. There has been no demand by thoughtful IDers to teach it in public schools. That assertion by Kimbrell alone makes me wonder about the truthfullness of other sections of the article.

The Chautauqua Lecture Series at Eastern Kentucky University last February 9th can be viewed or heard at the above Web link.

This is a good resource for those who want to learn more about orphan genes and the problems that they pose for common descent.

A thought-provoking parable by David Anderson...

As I thumbed my way through the pages of "The God Delusion", a question dropped into my head. Does Richard Dawkins really exist?

Being a scientific and rational person, I decided that I wasn't going to just accept any old theory on this question. If Richard Dawkins exists, then I would need to be shown the proper evidence for it...........

Richard Buggs comments in the Guardian about the scientific enterprise of ID. Buggs sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science.

Tom O'Neill, of the Cincinnati Post, reports on the search for a new education commisioner in Kentucky.

The Kentucky Board of Education will not discuss ID.

Former Kentucky education commissioner Gene Wilhoit told state board members that it would be a mistake to hire a successor who believed in teaching intelligent design in public schools.

Steve Paulson, of Salon, interviews Dr. Ronald Numbers.

Numbers, a former Seventh-day Adventist and author of the definitive history of creationism, discusses his break with the church, whether creationists are less intelligent and why Galileo wasn't really a martyr.

Perhaps because of his background, Numbers is one of the few scholars in the battle of worldviews who remain respected by both Darwinists and IDers/creationists.

Kazmer Ujvarosy, in the American Chronicle, does a survey of ID, and interviews Mike Keas who teaches in the Master of Arts program in Science and Religion (MASR) at Biola University.

Ujvarosy seems very adamant about specifically identifying the designer, which ID proponent says is beyond the scope of science.

The fundamental essence of reality boils down to either a necessary, eternal being, or the cosmos springing from something outside of itself, or ultimately nothing. Science cannot address this, but philosophy and theology can.

Annie Hall, of the Cincinnati Enquirer, reports that a little-known West Chester mom who'd never won elected public office knocked off an incumbent.

Susan Haverkos, who spent $3,500 of her own money on her campaign, defeated school board member Tom Gunlock and two other opponents. Gunlock and the other candidates each spent three times as much, according to the Secretary of State's Office.

Haverkos emphasized support for teaching intelligent design in 10th-grade science classes - an issue over which the 19-member board has clashed.

Erika Niedowski, of the Baltimore Sun, writes that Russia's first-ever lawsuit on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution began with a biology textbook, a bunch of bananas and a man dressed in a monkey suit.

The case revolves around 16-year-old Mariya Shraiber, who says her biology text presents a one-sided version of life's origins based on Darwin's theory. The lawsuit challenges Darwin's theory as anti-religious, atheistic and unproven.

In Evolution News & Views, a report is posted on a review of Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion.

H. Allen Orr complains on the issue related to the scientific theory of intelligent design - namely, Dawkins' extensive reliance upon the "who designed the designer" objection. Why, says Orr, is Dawkins so untroubled by his own (large) assumption that both matter and the laws of nature can be viewed as a given? Isn't that question-begging?

Orr concludes "I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur."

As reported in the Sunday London Times, twelve senior academics have written to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science.

The group was lead by Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen's University of Belfast and included Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University and a distinguished supporter of humanism.

A recent essay, written by Wade Schauer, addresses "Junk DNA" and human uniqueness.

Tatiana Hamboyan Harrison explains in this Newsweek Online Commentary how all her stereotype images of creationists went out the window when she married one.