Intelligent Design

In the most recent news about the controversy about intelligent design in Kentucky, the Lexington Herald-Ledger‘s Political Notebook reports on the nomination of Kentucky’s State Board of Education candidates.

Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher took heat for speaking favorably about teaching intelligent design just before Judge Jones’ Kitzmiller decision was issued. The Governor had mentioned intelligent design in his State of the Commonwealth address in January, 2006 and then in February sent a letter about teaching intelligent design to the Kentucky Academy of Sciences. (The letter was in response to the Academy’s December vote to reject any teaching about intelligent design.)
After the Kitzmiller decision struck down the Dover Area School Board’s intelligent design policy, some states, such as Ohio, began retreating from teaching any skepticism of Darwin, out of false fears that critiquing evolution was the equivalent of teaching intelligent design. (See here and here.) The Kentucky Governor, however, has pressed forward, evidently realizing that Kitzmiller does not spell the end to intelligent design. Apparently some of the oft-repeated misconceptions about intelligent design have failed in the Bluegrass State.

Last September, a blogger with The Scientist used the old Darwinist line that Michael Behe and David W. Snoke’s 2004 article in Protein Science neither supports irreducible complexity nor ID. The blogger did this to challenge my claim that Michael Behe has authored a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal which supports ID. Yet supporting my original claim is an article in the current issue of Science which implies that Behe and Snoke’s arguments are precisely about irreducible complexity, and also ID. In the current issue of Science, Christoph Adami has an article where he concedes that enzyme-substrate interactions can be irreducibly complex (they think they refuted irreducible complexity for one enzyme-substrate system), and that design theorists use this precise Read More ›

Rabia Malik, a leader of the IDEA Club at Cornell University has an insightful letter published in today’s Cornell Daily Sun. Rabia explains clearly how Darwinists resort to stereotypes and ad hominem attacks upon ID proponents. Yet she herself stands as a refutation of these stereotypes, as she explains “For the record – I am neither a Christian, nor a conservative, nor Republican.” Read the letter below! Editorial resorts to stereotypes To the Editor: Re: “Who Is the Dodo?,” Editorial, Feb. 13 It is disappointing to see that the same stereotypes are always resorted to in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate. The Sun has sadly enough fallen to the same tactics to justify their opinions. From a newspaper that Read More ›

Breaking News: False Fear Syndrome has skipped right over Michigan and spread directly from Ohio to Wisconsin. The primary symptom is the spreading of false fears about teaching intelligent design in states that are merely encouraging the critical analysis of evolution. The Syndrome is typically accompanied by paranoia among educators, politicians, and the newsmedia. This epidemic broke out in full force in Kansas last November. More recently it appeared in Ohio and South Carolina. Sadly, today there is a confirmed case in Wisconsin. A press release from Wisconsin Representative Terese Berceau indicates she has introduced a bill into the Wisconsin State Legislature seeking to “to stem the growing tide of intelligent design and other specious science.” This is interesting because Read More ›

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 ›

You know you’re fighting a media war when you jump for joy simply because a news article accurately characterizes your theory. Well, I’m jumping for joy right now because an AP article by Martha Raffaele in the Philadelphia Inquirer has an excellent definition of intelligent design: “U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is expected to rule Tuesday on whether the Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include “intelligent design,” the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause.” (“School district awaits judge’s decision on ‘intelligent design’” by Martha Raffaele, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec 20, 2005) By using the term “intelligent cause,” this article accurately characterizes how ID 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 ›