Scientific Freedom

During the Christmas break, I posted a four-part series analyzing various issues surrounding the Dover intelligent design ruling. In case you missed it, I am reposting the first three parts of the series here in one place. The analysis addresses the following questions:

1. Is Judge Jones an activist judge?
2. Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
3. Did Judge Jones accurately describe the content and early versions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People?
   The fourth part of the series can still be accessed here.

I. Is Judge Jones an activist judge?

Lawyer Phyllis Schlafly, head of Eagle Forum, has written an article Read More ›

Prof. Joseph Knippenberg of Oglethorpe University has written a wonderfully insightful essay on the Cobb County evolution textbook disclaimer case for the American Enterprise Online. At the end of the essay, Knippenberg concludes: One begins to wonder whether liberal toleration is a sham, offered only to the most docile, and whether liberalism isn’t itself the very sort of orthodoxy it claims to eschew. You can read the essay here.

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.

A recent column in USA Today by Cal Thomas and Robert Beckel argued for a debate on intelligent design. Patricia Princehouse, a philosopher at Case Western in Cleveland wrote in to say that she and other Darwinists of her acquaintance would welcome a debate and announced it as January 3 in Cleveland. “Put up or shut up,” was the genteel way she issued the invitation. January 3 was then only a month away, with the holidays coming meanwhile. Further, it was unfortunately clear that Dr. Princehouse planned to establish the debate format and other conditions herself. Bill Dembksi expressed a willingness to debate, but wanted to discuss terms. But the Princehouse terms kept changing through yesterday (11 days before the Read More ›

Here are my very brief, quick and dirty Top 10 problems with the Kitzmiller decision. Some of these will be elaborated more in future posts by various Evolution News & Views posters. 10) It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn’t and even though both pro-ID expert scientists testified it wasn’t (Day 11 PM, pg. 95; Day 20 PM pg. 45, 135). In short, it lets the critics define ID rather than the proponents. 9) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that the nature of science is characterized by methodological naturalism and that intelligent design is not science (pg. 65).** 8) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is compatible with religion (pg. 136).** Read More ›

A “FAQ” for the interested layperson about the current federal lawsuit over the teaching intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board. A decision in the case is now expected on Tuesday, December 20, 2005. This article responds to many questions we have received about what happened in the trial over teaching intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania. Many people have wondered what the potential ramifications of this case are for the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design, and have also wondered if the plaintiffs’ arguments in this case were accurate. This is a complex case. This article attempts to address those questions by laying out the case in simple terms, and by explaining Read More ›

In the November-December edition of Harvard Magazine in an article titled “Forum: Intelligent Evolution” E.O. Wilson recites the long debunked mantra of Darwinists accusing ID of merely being “God-of-the-Gaps”. In Wilson’s own words:

Many who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on religious grounds, accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose implicit in natural selection. They support the alternative explanation of intelligent design. The reasoning they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: There are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (and most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work.

This statement is pretty ironic given the prefatory statement to the piece which said:

At a moment when discussion of evolution and “intelligent design” preoccupies American political discourse to a surprising degree, shedding more heat than light on the nature of life and life science, Wilson invites the serious public to do what far too few of us have done: to read what Darwin wrote.

Harrisburg, PA — Yesterday I sat in the Federal Courthouse observing the Kitzmiller trial where the ACLU is trying to ban intelligent design from the science classroom. Many of the plaintiffs’ closing arguments sounded like they were taken directly from Pandamonium (click “Pandas Gallery” to hear the “objections” without playing the game). I’m actually serious: this silly, satirical game captures nearly all of the central arguments of the NCSE-assisted plaintiffs in this case. First, Some Compliments But before I delve into critique, I want to say some kind things about the “opposing side” in this case. While in Harrisburg this week, I interacted with a number of very nice people from the ACLU, NCSE, and even plaintiffs’ counsel and staff Read More ›