Science Education

National Geographic News is running a fair and balanced article about intelligent design and the debate over how to teach evolution. Unlike many journalists, the author of this piece defines intelligent design correctly:

Intelligent-design theory states that certain features of the natural world are of such complexity that the most plausible explanation is that they are products of an intelligent cause rather than random mutation and natural selection. Supporters of the theory say the nature of the intelligent cause is outside the scope of the theory.

The writer also quotes me correctly and accurately describes Discovery Institute’s position on how evolution should be taught:

The National Center for Science Education has finally acknowledged the libel lawsuit filed against its director Eugenie Scott for statements she made in a recent article about California parent and attorney Larry Caldwell. In a brief posting on its website, the NCSE states that it “believes the lawsuit against Dr. Scott has no merit.” But the NCSE continues to engage in stonewalling by failing to address any of the specifics of Caldwell’s complaint. As first reported on this blog, Scott claimed that Caldwell was trying to inject the teaching of creationism into his school district. To be specific, she stated that he tried to get his school board to adopt two prominent creationist books as part of the school district Read More ›

After asking Eugenie Scott to stop spreading falsehoods about him but getting no response, parent Larry Caldwell has filed a libel lawsuit against both Scott and her group, the National Center for Science Education. Below is the text of a press release issued today by Caldwell about the suit:

WorldNetDaily has an article about the false smear of California parent Larry Caldwell by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. According to the article, Scott has yet to respond to Caldwell’s request for a retraction: Caldwell asked for a response by 5 p.m. yesterday but has heard nothing from Scott… “It just shows that even after they’ve been told in detail the specific facts, they are not willing to rely on the truth in this debate,” Caldwell said. “It just confirms to me they have a strategy of using misinformation.” As of this morning, the NCSE’s website is still running its link to Scott’s article about Caldwell, which falsely claims that he tried to get his district 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.

California parent and attorney Larry Caldwell is seeking a retraction from Eugenie Scott and the California Academy of Sciences after an Academy magazine published false and potentially defamatory claims about Caldwell’s effort to improve the teaching of evolution in his northern California school district. For more than a year, Caldwell tried to get the Roseville Joint Union High School District to present scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory as well as the evidence favoring the theory. Scott now asserts that Caldwell attempted to get the district to adopt materials advocating Biblical creationism. In particular, she claims he proposed for use in the district

a young-earth creationist book, Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Safarti; and the Jehovah’s Witness book Life: How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation? Thanks to its free distribution, this book is probably the most widely-circulated creation science book in the country.

Caldwell tells me that not only is Scott’s claim patently false, he has never even heard of the books she cites. But that’s not the only problem with Scott’s fanciful account according to Caldwell. In a letter sent to both Scott and the California Academy of Sciences, Caldwell catalogues the various errors in Scott’s hit-piece:

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 ›

Update: Craig Roberts, Editor-in-Chief of Crop Science Society of America, pointed out that the poll noted below was posted for the normal, two-week period of time before giving way to the next two-week Quick Question. The ASA should be commended for leaving the poll up for the full period, and for all of its members who support free scientific inquiry into the question of origins. The post has been updated to incorporate Roberts’ information. As William Dembski notes here, there’s a new fad among professional societies — denouncing intelligent design. Perhaps somebody wanted the American Society of Agronomy to join the new fad; but agronomists, apparently, don’t herd very well. The society conducted an online poll regarding the teaching of 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: