Scientific Freedom

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 ›

Mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski has written a thorough response to many of the claims made by plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in their expert reports for the Dover trial. The experts to which he responds are Barbara Forrest, Robert Pennock, John Haught, Kevin Padian, and Kenneth Miller. See: Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses [PDF, 720 kb]

The President of Cornell stirred up a hornets nest when he spoke out against intelligent design last week. While he stopped short of trying ban it from campus science courses as has been tried at University of Idaho and Iowa State University, he definitely struck a blow against academic freedom. The IDEA Club at Cornell was quick to point out that the President really didn’t know what ID is, or was willfully misleading with his characterizations of it.

The IDEA Club at Cornell sent me this today about the anti-ID statements made by Cornell President Hunter Rawlings during his recent state-of-the-campus-address. I first learned about this press release after reading about it in this article in the Cornell Daily Sun. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Hannah Maxson Email: idea@cornell.edu Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, October 22 – The Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club at Cornell is deeply concerned with President Hunter Rawlings’ blatant disregard for the facts concerning Intelligent Design in Friday’s State of the University Address. In a speech usually reserved for current university business, he spent over two thirds of his time blasting the emerging Intelligent Design theory as anti-scientific and religious in an unscrupulous, unknowledgeable manner. Read More ›