Faith & Science

Earlier this month, controversial federal judge Phyllis J. Hamilton in San Francisco dismissed the Caldwell v. Caldwell lawsuit which alleged that the government-funded NCSE/UC Berkeley “Understanding Evolution” website endorses a particular religious view of evolution. However, Judge Hamilton’s order dismissing the lawsuit is nothing short of bizarre. It implies that the internet is an Establishment-Clause-Free-Zone where government websites are free to proselytize or establish religion at will. It is difficult to imagine Judge Hamilton’s peculiar ruling being upheld on appeal. According to a Daily Californian article, attorney Larry Caldwell believes that by sponsoring the Understanding Evolution website “the state of California is taking a position on religious issues and advocating certain religious values, which is clearly a violation” of the Read More ›

Today’s Washington Times’ carries an interesting interview with Carson Holloway, author of the new book, The Right Darwin: Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy. Holloway criticizes efforts to ground morality in Darwinian biology.

New questions are being raised about the accuracy of the New York Times’ article on scientific critics of neo-Darwinism last week, spurred by an amazing admission by Times’ reporter Ken Chang that only a small minority of the scientists he interviewed actually fit his story’s stereotyped description of Darwin’s critics. While Chang’s story conveys the clear impression that scientists who support Discovery’s Dissent from Darwin statement are motivated by religion rather than science, Chang has now admitted in an interview that 75% or more of the scientists he interviewed did not fit this description. In other words, Chang and his editors selectively reported the results of their own investigation to convey the exact opposite of what they found. It turns out I was right to warn before the article’s publication that when it comes to the evolution issue, the Times’ motto should be “all the news that fits”!

Editor’s Note: In the original post we mistakenly identified the newspaper in question as the Orlando Sentinel. It was in fact the Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale. While the identification was incorrect, the links all went to the right articles.

In what was supposed to be a news article, the Sun Sentinel yesterday substituted its own inaccurate definition of intelligent design for the definition actually used by proponents of the theory. In so doing, its editors apparently suppressed a more accurate definition of ID written by the reporter with whom I spoke. In addition to misdefining intelligent design, the Sentinel article engages in blatant editorializing by pejoratively labeling efforts to correct textbook errors as “watering down” the teaching of evolution. Below is the text of the letter I just sent to the Sentinel’s reader’s representative.

We’ve learned that Tuesday’s New York Times will carry an article by science writer Ken Chang about Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwin statement, which this week is being updated with more than 500 doctoral scientists who doubt the Darwinian claim that natural selection and random mutation can account for the complexity of life. The statement was first released in 2001 to rebut the contention that all scientists embrace Darwinian evolution. In fact, there are quite a number of Darwin skeptics among scientists, including many who aren’t religious and many who don’t support intelligent design.

The big question is whether Mr. Chang’s article will be a fair-minded examination of the scientific views of these scientists or a cheap shot focusing on irrelevant side issues such as religion.

Note: This is the fourth part of a multi-part series. You can read the first three installments here and here and here.

Some in the newsmedia have been attempting to portray Judge Jones as a conservative Republican who is devoutly religious. Frankly, I don’t care whether Judge Jones is either conservative or religious. My concern is whether he is fair and accurate as a judge. But I do object to the media’s attempt to reinvent Judge Jones in order to insulate his decision from criticism. The media are cultivating the impression that Judge Jones must have been fair and impartial (his sloppy and biased opinion notwithstanding) because he is a deeply-religious conservative who should have been initially sympathetic to the school board and intelligent design.

In reality, there is very little evidence to suggest that Jones is particularly conservative.

Note: This is the third part of a multi-part series. You can read the first two installments here and here.

In his decision in the Dover intelligent design case, Judge Jones places great weight on the early intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE). According to Judge Jones, early drafts of this textbook supposedly show that intelligent design is merely repackaged creationism. However, Judge Jones seriously misrepresents the facts about Of Pandas and People, and he also misapplies the relevant legal standards.

Before addressing the merits of Judge Jones’ assertions regarding Pandas, something needs to be said about the legal and ethical propriety of Judge Jones placing so much weight on this early textbook in his judicial opinion. Frankly, it is astounding that Judge Jones treats Pandas as central to his decision given that he refused to grant the book’s publisher, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, permission to intervene in the case in order to defend itself.

Note: This is the second part of a multi-part series. You can read the first installment here.

It’s becoming glaringly apparent that Judge Jones was incredibly sloppy with the purported findings of “facts” in his lengthy 139-page judicial opinion. Time and again, Judge Jones makes assertions in his opinion that are unambiguously factually wrong—even though the correct information was a part of the official record before him. It is beginning to look like he didn’t even bother to read or consider the information and arguments submitted by the side he disagreed with.

Here are some of the more egregious examples.

1. Judge Jones wrongly claims there are NO peer-reviewed scientific articles favoring ID.

One of the things that has struck me this past week is just how bitter and angry many defenders of Darwin’s theory have become. This should have been a joyous week for Darwinists. After all, a federal judge in Pennsylvania issued a ruling claiming that teaching intelligent design in science classes is unconstitutional. You would have thought this result would have put Darwinists in a festive mood. But instead, many of them seem (if possible) even more sour and surly than before. Consider some of the following extracts from various pieces of hate mail I’ve received from evolutionists this past week.

It’s getting difficult to parody Darwinists, because their real statements are already so over-the-top. Take P.Z. Myers, the militant Darwinist biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris. A few days ago, Prof. Myers suggested that he regards the Biblical patriarch Abraham — revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims — as worse than Hitler: I think that if I had a time machine, I wouldn’t do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler before he caused all that trouble. I’d go all the way and pick up Abraham. I wouldn’t kill him, oh no-since I’ve got a time machine, I’d just drop him off in the Permian while I was on my grand temporal tour. That’s right: According Read More ›