Robert Crowther

Below are Dr. William Provine’s comments on the recent debate between himself and CSC’s Dr. Stephen Meyer.

I agree with Rob Crowther’s summary of the debate. Our debate was indeed between evolution and ID explanations for fossil and living organisms. I thought our debate would be between ID evolution and naturalistic evolution, but Steve Meyer championed many young-earth, anti-evolution doctrines. I was frank about the implications of really believing in naturalistic evolution. Steve Meyer refused to reveal religious assumptions that I think relate to his views about the origin of species.

CSC senior fellow David Berlinski recently sent me the following comments about science writer Dr. Susan Blackmore’s adoration of the inevitability of natural selection.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Press Club was the setting today for a Discovery Institute sponsored and hosted debate about evolution and design. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, CSC director, championed the theory of intelligent design while Dr. William Provine, the Charles Alexander Professor of Biology at Cornell University, stood up for evolution. Of the forty or so people in attendance approximately half were journalists, and the rest of the crowd was comprised of a number of high school students, and various parties interested in the ongoing national debate over evolution. The best parts in my mind were the discussion beforehand between Meyer and Provine, and CSC senior fellow Dr. David Berlinski who attended, and our lunchtime discussion after the event Read More ›

The Darwinists in Kansas have decided to participate in the upcoming hearings on teaching evolution called for by the Kansas State Board of Education. Thw Wichita Eagle is reporting that attorney Pedro Irigonegaray will defend the Darwinists recommendations for state standards and call Darwinists to address the board. “The majority concluded that a response is needed,” he said. “Our witnesses will be called in a timely manner, and they will have relevant and important information,” he added. Currently, the Kansas Science 2005 website lists 24 scientists and scholars who have already agreed to address the board in support of proposed revisions that would require both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution to be presented in science classes.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, director of CSC, gave a standing room only presentation of the case for intelligent design at the Heritage Foundation here in Washington. Dr. Meyer delivered a very thorough presentation in which he presented two key components of the case for design theory: irreducible complexity, and the digital code in DNA molecules. It was an engaging lecture and you can watch it online. The event was streamed live on the Heritage website, and is now available for viewing from their archive at http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/archive.cfm (events are listed chronologically and this one was April 19, 2005). The lecture, including Q&A (which begins at about 1:05 into the event), ran just about an hour and a Read More ›

CSC Fellow John Angus Campbell in a column for today’s Memphis Commercial Appeal argues that teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution has several beneficial outcomes for students including preparing students to be informed citizens and helping them to understand the very nature of science. His appeal is to teach Darwin’s theory the way Darwin would have himself, as an argument. Further, when training in argument is recognized as the center of science education, and science education is seen as an extension of the civic education vital to a democratic and pluralistic culture, we will be able to turn the heat of our longstanding cultural debate over evolution into needed educational light. The opening sentence of the final Read More ›

Let me get this straight, philosophers of biology Dr. Paul Nelson and Dr. Niall Shanks can debate for a live audience about evolution, ID, and public education.

And, Darwinist Dr. William Provine will debate design proponent Dr. Stephen C. Meyer at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

And, Cambridge University can publish an academic work featuring scientists writing about the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design.

And, MSU Press can publish a book featuring scientists debating what exactly should be taught about evolution in public school classrooms.

And, PBS can air a debate between biologists Darwinist Dr. Massimo Pigliucci and Darwin doubter Dr. Jonathan Wells.

And, Darwin defender Michael Shermer can debate design theorist Stephen Meyer.

And, Rev. Barry Lynn will even debate our own Dr. John West.

And, the editor of The Scientist has recently stated twice (here and here) that the debate over Darwinian evolution needs to take place, exhorting his Darwinian colleagues to “get out there and argue!”

And, reporters are starting to embrace aspects of our teach the controversy approach, (for example here and here) which ultimately rests on the idea that there is a scientific debate to be had.

But, no Darwinist will testify to the Kansas board of education. Amazing. Simply amazing.
Why? Because the Darwinian high priests at the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued a sort of scientific papal bull, a gag order to scientists, telling them not to debate the flaws in Darwin’s theory before the Kansas State Board of Education. (Apparently a couple of dozen of scientists and scholars didn’t get the memo, or chose to ignore it, and have agreed to testify in spite of the AAAS gag order.)

The statement is full of misinformation and outright lies such as these:

George Diepenbrock, a reporter with the Southwest Daily Times in Liberal, Kansas hits the nail on the head in his column today when he argues that Darwinists should embrace the opportunity to defend Darwinian evolution and answer the critics who point to scientific flaws within the theory.

What Diepenbrock struggles with is exactly what many in the public, and the media, are struggling with: namely the difference between criticisms of Darwinian evolution and the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design.

Challenges to Darwinian evolution are not the same as proposed solutions, such as intelligent design.

If every ID theorist and proponent fell of the face of the earth today, tomorrow there would still be debates over peppered moths, and Haeackel’s embryo drawing would still be totally wrong.

Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution include unresolved debates amongst scientists over issues such as the peppered moth, the myth of human gill slits, Haeackel’s embryos, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution address problems for which adequate solutions have not been presented. The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent design theory then is an alternative solution to answer problems with Darwinian evolution.

The question in Kansas really is whether or not students should learn all about evolution, including the scientific criticisms, much the way that students in Ohio learn to critically analyze the theory.

Diepenbrock’s assertion that the theory of intelligent design is under consideration for inclusion in Kansas classrooms is simply wrong, and likely through no real fault of his own. Darwinists who oppose teaching students about any of the scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution have loudly proclaimed that anyone skeptical of Darwinian evolution is advancing the theory of intelligent design. Not true.

Groups of diehard Darwinian defenders such as Kansas Citizens for Science, the National Center for Science Education, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science repeatedly make this claim, and the media usually reports it unchallenged, and the public absorbs it as if it were true. It is not true. In the least the media should report that some people claim this, but that others disagree. That is the nature of the debate and both sides should be accurately represented, yet often they are not.

So, it would appear that Diepenbrock — and others in the media — have been suckered by the KCS and others who are falsely claiming that the Kansas state school board wants to include intelligent design in the curriculum. This is not true, there is no one calling for intelligent design to be required in science classes in Kansas.

Earlier this week the Associated Press issued a correction that makes this clear. KCS and other Darwinian activists can make these claims, but they simply are not true.

The CSC’s position has not changed since the last time this debate raged in Kansas six years ago. Diepenbrock quotes from Mike Behe’s 1999 op-ed urging Kansas teachers to teach more about evolution, not less:

Cable station KPAX’s television program, Faith Under Fire, hosted by Lee Strobel features a debate between John West and Barry Lynn, this Saturday, April 9. Check your local listings for time and channel. Teaching EvolutionFor generations of students, evolution has been taught as scientific fact. Yet there are scientists who doubt Darwin’s theory and believe that intelligent design better explains the origins of life. How can this be? And should intelligent design be taught in the same science courses as evolution? Dr. John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and associate director of their Center for Science and Culture, squares off with Rev. Barry Lynn, practicing attorney, ordained minister, and Executive Director of Americans United for Separation Read More ›

Washington Post reporter Jay Mathews writes about his recent deluge of e-mail regarding his suggestion that ID be taught alongside of evolution. I blogged about that here, and warned Mathews of the kind of response he could expect. (Mathews goes beyond what the CSC policy is on teaching evolution in calling for inclusion of ID. So, for the record, yet again, we advocate including scientific criticism of evolution in the classroom, not mandating ID or any alternative theory.)

Mathews says he received about 400 e-mails in response to his article, and that the majority of those “said they had the unfortunate duty to tell me that I was an idiot.” I can imagine that many of the responses were not family-friendly fare. Mathews quotes several that he received denouncing him and his idea. But, it was encouraging to see that he did find people who understand why there needs to be more discussion of the evidence for and against evolution at least, if not intelligent design itself.