Robert Crowther

Penn State’s Center for Infectious Diseases is having a Darwin Day celebration with: THE WORLD’S LARGEST EDIBLE TREE OF LIFE Boy, it seems like Darwin Day comes earlier and earlier every year. It’s only two weeks away and I haven’t even finished my shopping or got my Darwin Day lights put up.

Dr. Jonathan Wells today has a short opinion piece in his alma mater’s newspaper, the Yale Daily News, that encouarges churches not to honor Darwinism on Evolution Sunday because Darwinism as a theory is simply bad science. But experiments have consistently failed to support the hypothesis that variations (including those produced by genetic mutation) and selection (natural or artificial) can produce new species, organs and body plans. And what may have once looked like solid evidence for universal common ancestry (fossils, embryos and molecular comparisons) is now plagued by growing inconsistencies. It is actually the Darwinists who brush aside these awkward facts who “embrace scientific ignorance.” You can read the entire piece here.

The County Press Online newspaper has an insightful editorial pointing out that the debate over evolution has hardly been laid to rest. The 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District decision in our fair state was thought to resolve the debate that Intelligent Design is a religious movement, just a new wrinkle on Creationism. That hasn’t happened largely because Intelligent Design, or I.D., is not.

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. (But I will anyhow — go here, here, and here just to start.)

Here’s his big complaint:

Over at ARN’s ID Update David Tyler is considering the sad situation in science where ID is ruled out a priori and Darwinian explanations are ruled in. More importantly, it is good practice in science to consider multiple hypotheses and to find ways of evaluating them. One often notes arguments by Darwinians making the claim: “an intelligent designer would not do it this way”, always leading to rejection of the intelligent design hypothesis. Here is a case where there are good reasons, supported by a mathematical model, why an intelligent designer would do it that way. When any potential challenge to the Darwinian argument is excluded, are scientists hindered by limiting the scope of their research?

The Scidev Network is run out of the UK and seems to be focused on Latin America, South America, Africa, the Middle-East and Asia.

The Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net) aims to provide reliable and authoritative information about science and technology for the developing world.

The organization “aims to provide reliable and authoritative information about science and technology for the developing world” with their goal being “to help both individuals and organisations in developing countries make informed decisions about how science and technology can improve economic and social development.” They have an interesting section of their website devoted to explaining to scientists and non-journalists how to work with the media and how to communicate their messages to reporters.

We reported a survey last year (“Poll: 60 Percent of Doctors Reject Darwinism“) that showed a surprising percentage of doctors simply don’t agree with Darwinian evolution. While doctors seem to be more apt to doubt Darwin’s theory than biologists, apparently biologists and scientists are more apt to be arrogant than the general public.
In a blog at The Panda’s Thumb, Steve Reuland writes:

It is true of course that doctors are more prone to being creationists than scientists in general and biologists in particular. This is to be fully expected, as it’s unlikely that you’re going to find any one group of people who are more convinced about evolution than biologists and other scientists. But the fact is, we see a steady increase in the acceptance of evolution when we move from the uneducated to the educated, and from those whose educations are irrelevant to evolution towards those who are more relevant.

If you haven’t been keeping up with the ID The Future podcasts, you will want to make doing so one of your new year’s resolutions. IDTF has become quite popular and recently has started producing occasional video podcasts as well. Today there is a short podcast about how to properly define and explain what the theory of intelligent design is. Last Friday IDTF featured a short video clip from Dr. Stephen Meyer’s recent appearance on the PBS program Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg. Previous podcasts have included: These are just a few of the IDTF podcasts from 2006. There is a complete archive of every podcast currently available here.

Over at ID The Future, Casey Luskin has a year-end interview with Access Research Network’s Dennis Wagner who has compiled a list of the top intelligent design stories of the past year. His list spans the globe and includes such highlights as:

The Scientist today is reporting about Smithsonian officials’ campaign of discrimination and harassment of evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg and the Congressional recommendation of more protection for scientist’s free speech rights.