Seth Cooper

The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State continues to serve in the Ministry of Dis-Information when it comes to intelligent design theory. A dogmatic opponent of intelligent design, the Rev. Lynn recently authored an op-ed that dismisses ID out of hand — not even bothering to take on any of the empirical, scientific claims made by Dr. Michael Behe or any other ID theorists. Comes now Darrick Dean of Science Watch. Dean gives the Rev. Lynn the full-court press in a very noteworthy blog post. Rev. Lynn wishes to continue playing the motives game instead of assessing the scientific arguments for ID. But as Dean argues, the red herring arguments can cut BOTH ways.

Secondhand Smoke is the new weblog operated by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith. His voice is a welcome addition to the blogosphere and his new blog is well worth the visit. An author, attorney and leading voice on many bioethics’ issues, Smith’s work does not involve intelligent design — though he does kindly mention ID and Michael Behe’s recent New York Times op-ed “Design for Living,” in a blog post (here). So while Smith’s work is not the subject of this blog, many readers may be interested in his analysis and commentary on many science-related issues. He has some important and timely articles this week at National Review Online and Daily Standard.

In this week’s Legal Times of D.C., Dr. Francis J. Beckwith offers an excellent analysis of the recent decision by Judge Clarence Cooper in Selman v. Cobb County School District. The article has the apt title of “Sticker Shock.” Beckwith is the author of Law, Darwinism and Public Education (available here and here), an outstanding book analyzing the constitutionality of presenting intelligent design theory. He has likewise published several articles related to this subject in law reviews and law journals. In this article, he brings his full expertise to bear in discussing the Judge’s rationale in light of U.S. Supreme Court case law, while also focusing upon some of the larger philosophical issues. Notes Beckwith: While the Cobb County sticker Read More ›

Expect David Klinghoffer’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal — discussing institutionalized bias at the Smithsonian and the attacks upon scientist Richard Sternberg — to make waves in the blogosphere. One can already read posts with comments discussing the story at Conservative Philosopher and Southern Appeal. Also be sure to check out the comments at IDEA Center. Sense of Soot is skeptical of ID’s claims, but nonetheless makes the important observation that: “the fear of even approaching the issue scientifically can make blind naysayers of critical thinkers . . . and that’s a crying shame.” Coming from a different perspective on ID is Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost, who concludes his lengthy post with a note of optimism: while scientific revolutions Read More ›

There are an infinite number of wrong ways to address the subject of how to teach evolutionary theory in public schools. But before discussing some of those wrong ways, it is best to keep in mind a right way. Namely, teach students the scientific arguments in favor of biological and chemical evolutionary theories, but also allow students to learn about some of the scientific criticisms of those theories. As Stephen Meyer and John Angus Campbell have insisted, “When credible experts disagree about a controversial subject, students should learn about the competing perspectives.”

Comes now Georgia House Bill 179, sponsored by Georgia State Representative Ben Bridges. AP reporter Doug Gross’s story (here) discusses HB 179 as being “designed to prevent the theory of evolution from being taught in Georgia’s classrooms.” At least, that’s how Gross sees it. Yet, a plain reading of the bill’s text is seemingly at odds with the idea that evolutionary theory would be banned from Georgia schools. If enacted as law, the bill would apply “Whenever any theory of the origin of humans or other living things is included in a course of study offered by a local unit of administration.”

At this point, the only thing clear about this is that it is very unclear where Rep. Bridges is coming from on this.

In a blog post entitled “Public Education and Evolution,” David Limbaugh brings attention to the lawsuit that was recently filed by parent and attorney Larry Caldwell against the Roseville Joint Union High School District in California for the violation of his civil rights. Caldwell had sought to improve and enhance his school districts presentation of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories by having students learn a little bit about some of the scientific criticisms of those respective theories, but he was subjected to bullying tactics from those who preferred to censor such information. Discussing Caldwell’s case, Limbaugh makes a great point about the ones who were really avoiding THE EVIDENCE in that case. Be sure to check it out. (See previous Read More ›

The release of Hugh Hewitt’s new book, Blog, could not be better timed, as it coincides with the launch of this very blog, which pays particularly close attention to Legacy Media error-prone portrayals of the scientific controversies surrounding neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and its debate with intelligent design theory.

The emergence of the blogosphere is now challenging the monopoly on the dissemination of information that has long been held by Legacy Media, aka Old Media, aka MSM. Hewitt points out the significance of blogs in empowering the people themselves as popular journalists, distributing and receiving unfiltered news at a faster rate than has ever been seen before. His book describes the who, the what, and the why of blogs. It also provides an engaging and pithy account of blogosphere history and some of the major episodes of that young history, including Trent Lott’s birthday remarks, the New York Times meltdown in the wake of Jayson Blair, the Swift Boat Vets and the Christmas in Cambodia story, as well as Rathergate and the fake memo saga.

Anti-intelligent design gurus Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch have fired a shot across the bow to those in academia who have given intellectual assent to intelligent design theory (ID). The message: don’t count on academic freedom to protect you. Beyond Barbara and Branch’s hackneyed diatribe against ID as a conspiracy theory — like something out of an X-Files caper — the authors call upon others in academia to try to undermine the careers of academics that have pursued research in ID.

Their article reads like an anti-ID hit list, with the authors taking great care to drop the names of many ID proponents between propagandistic, red herring bits involving the author’s slanted discussions of the apparent religious motives of certain ID thinkers. The empirical scientific arguments of ID proponents are conveniently ignored.

The recent Dover design/intelligent design federal court case (aka Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) just got a little bit more interesting, with the Rutherford Institute filing a motion to intervene on behalf of several parents. If successful, the parents will be made a third party to the ACLU’s lawsuit.

The parents hope to vindicate the rights of students to be able to learn about scientific information concerning the scientific controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, defending the marketplace of ideas from the ACLU’s efforts to suppress all scientific information that call neo-Darwinian theory into question.

Quoting U.S. Supreme Court precedents, Rutherford’s motion makes an important point:

The Constitution protects not just the right to express information and ideas but also the right to receive information and ideas.

Quite so. Our Constitution does not sanction a regime of state-sponsored censorship. Nor does it condone, for that matter, ACLU-driven, state-approved censorhip.

In their press release, Rutherford’s President, John Whitehead goes on to state:

The lawsuit filed by attorney and parent Larry Caldwell against the Roseville Joint Union High School District for violation of his civil rights has been making waves in the media.

World Net Daily and The Sacramento Bee have stories discussing Caldwell’s suit and the inequities he was subjected to by the District over the course of a whole year.

In the interests of accuracy, note that Sacramento Bee‘s Laurel Rosen reports inaccurately when she (mistakenly) asserts that Caldwell tried to introduce “anti-evolution material” in the District. “Anti-evolution” entails the removal of chemical and biological evolutionary theories from curriculum, but what Caldwell sought to do was precisely the opposite: teach students even more about existing scientific theories by requiring them to learn the scientific weaknesses of such theories as well as their scientific strengths. (Caldwell’s proposal did not even call for the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design.)

Caldwell’s 96-page complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (available here) tells of the long train of abuses that Caldwell was subjected to by the District because it disagreed with Caldwell’s position that students should be able to learn about the scientific controversies surrounding biological and chemical evolutionary theories. Caldwell’s complaint leaves the District with a lot of explaining to do — particularly its pattern of ignoring its own procedures or making up new ones and applying them only to Caldwell.

For eight long months the Board sought to prevent Caldwell from exercising his rights as a citizen and parent to put his policy proposal on the Board’s agenda. Caldwell’s
“Quality Science Education” simply states: