Scientific Freedom

139 pages of judicial overreach, ignoring important facts, scientific error, and logical fallacy (but other than that, it’s great!–why all the fuss?) have given the blogosphere much material to discuss. Richard Cleary has an extensive review of the Kitzmiller decision at Viewpoint. Cleary clearly highlights a fallacy in the argument ID is creationism repackaged: “The first claim, that ID must be religious, even though it doesn’t appear to be, because it evolved from (forgive me) creationism, is silly. Because one theory emerges from the embers of another doesn’t entail that it necessarily bears all or even many of the traits of the other. Modern theories of the atom are all descendents of Democritus’ belief that such entities exist, but the Read More ›

Nick Matzke and Kevin Padian have posted a celebratory rant at the NCSE website against ID and Discovery Institute. But their rant is so extreme that it gives me reason to leap for joy. If there were any doubts that some people get over emotionally involved with this issue, Padian and Matzke’s gloat-parade makes it clear. With the lights shining brightly this rainy afternoon in Seattle, I offer the following comments: Thanks for Your Support! I’ll start with a short e-mail I received recently from a professor at a large state university, and also a movie quote. Recently a professor responded to question about why he recently chose to join Discovery Institute: “Actually, if you must know, after reading Judge Read More ›

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 ›