Robert Crowther

AUSTIN, TX–The Texas State Board of Education today voted to require students to analyze and evaluate common ancestry and natural selection, both key components of modern evolutionary theory. The surprising vote came after the Board failed to reinstate language in the overall science standards explicitly requiring coverage of the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories. “The Texas Board of Education took one step back and two steps forward today,” said Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute. “While we wish they would have retained the strengths and weaknesses language in the overall standards, they did something truly remarkable today. They voted to require students to analyze and evaluate some of the most important and controversial aspects of modern evolutionary theory Read More ›

Looks like David Hillis, the self-proclaimed “world’s leading expert” on tree of life phylogeny didn’t get the memo.Media experts who prepare business leaders, public figures and so on to meet the press always remind their charges to read the newspaper. Never go before the media, or a state board of education, not having at least read the headlines of the day. I’ve seen very accomplished CEO’s literally spill their coffee on themselves at an important press conference when confronted with a late breaking headline they’re not prepared for. It’s too bad that yesterday when Hillis stepped arrogantly to the microphone and artlessly asserted his alleged expertise, that no one presented him with just these two headlines: Charles Darwin’s tree of Read More ›

Darwinists are quick to claim there is no controversy over Darwinian evolution, and indeed often claim there are no weaknesses whatsover with Darwin’s controversial theory. Take the case of Texas firebrand, and Darwinian activist and evolution defender Dr. Steven Schafersman. Schafersman is opposed to students learning about both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. When it comes to weaknesses of evolution, Schafersman has –over time– transitioned his position from one point to another so many times that his tree of evolution looks more like a bush. First there were no weaknesses, then there were only a few certain weaknesses. Of late, he has ended up again defending the position that there are no weaknesses whatsoever. John West outlines how Schafersman Read More ›

If you live in Texas and would like to let the state’s board of education know where you stand on teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, you can do so here. You can support academic freedom by signing this statement: I agree that the current wording of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) that specifies teaching both “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution and other theories, having the effect of both interesting students in the subjects and in developing critical thinking skills, and having withstood TWENTY YEARS of good service in Texas without a single lawsuit, should be retained.

So, Darwinists are admitting that up until Friday, Jan. 16 2009 @ 4:10PM, evolution was “mostly theory.” Interesting. I am now certain that dogs adapt to their environment, too. Last night my dog kept barking and I shook my finger and spoke very firmly to her and made her sit on her bed. She stopped barking. So, at 7:10 pm I had a perfect example of evolution. Or was it adaptation? Or was it bad parenting? Whatever, we now see that dogs evolve, which previously had been believed to be “mostly theory.” My peers, who were there reviewing the moment, are skeptical because they think my dog is asexual. Regardless, this is all speculation — except for poor Kali. She Read More ›

In 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education (SBOE) invited in science experts to testify about teaching both evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. In 2005 it was the Kansas SBOE’s turn. The New York Times reported that the board’s hearing turned into “a forum on one of the most controversial questions in education and politics: How to teach about the origin of life?” The stunning thing about the Kansas SBOE meeting was that Darwinists refused to defend their theory, instead opting not to attend at all. Now it is 2009, and next week the Texas SBOE will host its own meeting on the matter of how best to teach evolution. This time the board will hear testimony from six Read More ›

Texans for Better Science Education just posted an enlightening analysis of the recent push-poll by Darwinists at the far-left advocacy group Texas Freedom Network and the polls of the public’s views on what should be taught in science classes regarding evolution. In a transparent attempt to support their campaign TFN has conducted and has been promoting a clearly biased and misleading survey. TBSE feels it is critical for the public to see how TFN’s “results” compare to other polls across America, which have been conducted by unbiased and nationally recognized pollsters. (In contrast, TFN not only picked their own pollster but they also supplied the list of people to survey!) Read it all here.

Eric Lane, head of the local San Antonio chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, makes bold — and bogus — assertions in the San Antonio Express about the current debate over how to teach evolution, and what he imagines might be the reasons behind it. Not surprisingly, Lane apparently didn’t bother to do a shred of research, instead seeming quite satisfied to let his imagination come up with all sorts ridiculous things. It isn’t as if you can’t read what Discovery’s views are on science education, or even specifically what my own views are (they’re all over this blog after all). So there’s really no excuse to so blatantly misrepresent our position, and what our motivations Read More ›

Here is another hilarious example of a just-so story from Science Daily. (In fact, this one is more just so-so.) Substitute the words “made up” whenever you read characterized. Were they in court, a judge would surely say: “Show me the evidence.”

Science journalist Suzan Mazur has been reporting extensively about scientists’ doubts about Darwinian evolution and a forthcoming paradigm shift — a shift that we are assured by the likes of Eugenie Scott is not coming, does not exist, and is simply a ploy by “creationists.” Scott, and dogmatists like her, continue to insist there is no controversy or disagreement amongst scientists about the mechanisms that Darwin championed, namely natural selection acting on random mutation. Mazur’s interviews underscore what we’ve been saying all along. There is a controversy, and it deserves to be heard.
Mazur and those she interviews and covers are not friendly to the idea of intelligent design. In an interesting twist,