September 2005

Next week the case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board goes to federal court in Harrisburg, PA. Here is a page with links to a number of resources. Also, the Federal court has posted this page with information about the trial.

In my “The Darwinist Misinformation Train,” post from last week, I explain that there are 2 types of Darwinist critics of ID out there who misrepresent ID: Type I Darwinists critics: It starts with these Darwinist critics who correctly understand ID and realize that it respects the limits of science and doesn’t try to identify the designer. Yet, Type I Critics then purposefully misrepresent ID to the public (and particularly to scientists) as an untestable and unscientific appeal to the supernatural. This is despite the fact that ID proponents understand the nature of scientific inquiry and have formulated their theory to respect its boundaries. The dubious tactics of Type I critics are effective because it results in many people thinking Read More ›

On September 8, 2005, Wesley Elsberry wrote a response entitled “Who Operates ‘The Misinformation Train?’” to my prior post on the Evolution News blog entitled “The Darwinist Misinformation Train.” I have now responded to Wesley with a full response posted here. Here is a brief excerpt from the beginning of my full response: Firstly, I’d like to thank Wesley Elsberry for writing a more-or-less gentle and kindly worded response to my “Darwinist Misinformation Train” article on antievolution.org. I’d also like to say that on a personal level, I have met Wesley and I think he’s a nice guy with some very interesting hobbies. Wesley is the only guy I’ve ever met who owns a bird of prey and takes it Read More ›

Author Chris Mooney made a politicized attack in today’s Seattle Post Intelligencer that intelligent design bucks the scientific method. Mooney, who is speaking in Seattle about something he calls the “Republican War on Science,” appears to not understand intelligent design theory. Mooney was quoted saying to the reporter: “Your buddies there at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, for example (an organization that favors “intelligent design” over standard evolutionary science), are not arguing about evidence that can be tested,” Mooney said. “They are attacking the entire scientific method.” (Chris Mooney, quoted in Author says GOP is waging war on scientific inquiry, by Tom Paulson) The funny thing is that whenever I hear this objection made, very rarely does the challenger provide Read More ›

Darwinists are up in arms over the fact that The Guardian had the gall to do an interview with CSC senior fellow, biochemist Michael Behe and then publish it without letting Darwinists attack him. The MSM’s standard operating procedure is to interview a design theorist and then quote a whole slew of Darwinist “rebutting” him in the very same article. Darwinists are rightly upset that the rules were changed and they weren’t informed. By all means they should be kicking and screaming and writing nasty letters to The Guardian for this dispicable display of bias. Imagine letting a pro-design scientist speak for himself. What is the world coming to? On the other hand, you might write your own letter to Read More ›

On Sunday, September 4, 2005, the print edition of the Dallas Morning News featured a prominent interview with the inimitable Dr. David Berlinski (who has a brand new book out by the way), noted science writer and CSC Senior Fellow. (For some odd reason, the interview was not posted to the online edition of the newspaper.)

In the interview, Berlinski said that while he is is not a supporter of intelligent design theory, his “inclinations toward members of the design movement are nonetheless what the French call chaleureux. I wish them well. They are clearly on to something. I agree with their criticism of Darwin’s theories.”

Sports columnist turned news analyst Lloyd Garver normally opines about the morality of the designated hitter in baseball but all too often unsuccessfully attempts to weigh in on weightier matters. Today CBSNews.com published a column that betrays Garver’s complete ignorance about anything to do with the debate over evolution.

Garver claims that those “pushing” intelligent design don’t know what a theory is, and falls back on the tired old complaint that ID proponents think theory means conjecture. Lloyd, we don’t, check it out on the CSC website sometime.

A good friend of mine getting his teaching credential to teach public high school called me this weekend to converse about his professor’s response to a paper he wrote supporting the teaching of ID. Apparently his professor disapproved of teaching ID because he felt that ID was untestable science. The professor’s criticism went something like this: “My main problem with ID is that it purports to not identify the designer when everyone knows it’s really just God. Intelligent design thus shouldn’t be taught because it is essentially creation science repackaged. Thus, it’s just an untestable appeal to the supernatural. However, if I had to choose, I would actually prefer creation science to ID because at least creation scientists are up-front Read More ›

Here is another editorial (registration and payment required) from the Columbus Dispatch in Ohio that shows that editors there — even after several years of trying — cannot seem to get it through their heads that no one is trying to require the teaching of intelligent design in their fair state, that creationism and intelligent design are not the same thing, and that serious critics of Darwin argue on scientific, not religious, grounds. We suspect that they know better, but cannot stand to admit it. The editorial states that “the future of the nation depends on scientifically literate students” and asks, “Just what is there to fear about Darwinian theory”? The question isn’t what there is to fear about Darwinian Read More ›

A recent essay in The Scientist and a second piece newly available here show that Darwinism is not the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. I blogged Philip Skell’s essay from The Scientist on Tuesday. There’s now also available online a paper by Roland Hirsch arguing, as William Dembski explains in the introduction to the book of essays where it’s found, “Roland Hirsch overviews many of the recent advances in molecular biology and biochemistry, showing how Darwinism has failed both to anticipate and to explain them.” The International Society for Complexity, Information and Design website says that Hirsch is the “program manager in the Medical Sciences Division in the Office of Biological and Environmental Research at the DOE, where he is Read More ›