Science and Culture Today | Page 1209 | Discovering Design in Nature

Still searching for some rhetorical crowbar to remove the “Four Nails in Darwin’s Coffin,” Mark A. Chancey claims ID “originated within certain religious circles and has credibility only within those same circles — mostly theologically conservative Christian groups that find aspects of evolutionary theory threatening.” Readers may find his complete comments at SMU Daily Campus, but whatever else may be said of his characterizations, the statement above is surely bad history and not an accurate reflection of the development of modern ID. Here is why.

On Thursday, October 28 the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History will host a panel discussion exploring the impact of Darwin’s theory on eugenics and scientific racism: Darwin’s Legacy: Scientific Breakthrough or Breakdown? Currently the museum is exhibiting LUCY: The Story of Human Origins, which explores the use of anthropologic findings and fossil casts, and The Genographic Project Exhibition that explores the use of genetic/DNA scientific techniques in understanding the origins of humankind. The Wright Museum describes itself as the world’s largest institution dedicated to the African American experience. So, because the exhibit pays homage to Darwinian evolution, it shouldn’t be surprising that they would want to also look at the impact Darwin’s theory has had over the Read More ›

In a prior post, I noted that California Science Center (CSC) vice president Christina Sion wrote regarding the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) that “the main problem is that it is an anti-Darwin/creationist group.” This is clear evidence of viewpoint discrimination by the CSC in its decision to cancel the AFA’s screening of Darwin’s Dilemma. More evidence comes in an e-mail from Joe DeAmicis, CSC’s vice president of marketing, to CSC curator Ken Phillips. DeAmicis implies that had the museum known of “the nature of the groups,” they might have acted differently: This screening event was booked through the Events Dept., and they were unaware of the nature of the groups involved. It has come to Jeff’s attention and he is Read More ›

As discussed in previous posts, the $1,990,459 taxpayer funded Evolution Readiness Project recommends reading to fourth graders a book called Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution. The book gives a misleading picture of the development of biological thought when it comes to common ancestry. It says that when “scientists were creating systems to organize living things by placing them into groups,” the same “scientists thought, many different plants and animals had come from the same ancestors and had changed over time.” The problem is that this omits the glaring fact that the father of taxonomy himself, Carl Linnaeus, was not an evolutionist and in fact believed in the fixity of species. While no one–including Darwin critics–would endorse in the Read More ›

Let’s set the record straight; things have changed a lot since “then.”

When Darwin first ventured to propose an explanation for the origin of species, he didn’t really try to address the question of the origin of life. No one, at that point, had any good idea of what even really needed to be explained.

When early optical microscopy gave us our first images of cells, what we saw was puzzling, but not particularly awe-inspiring. As microscopy advanced, in conjunction with advances in physics and chemistry, what came clearer into focus was that cellular structure, function and metabolism, and thus biochemistry as a whole, was a universe awaiting new discoveries of its own.

Who could have guessed that the micro-world would dwarf in complexity and organization the macro-cosmos we had only recently come to more fully appreciate? Or that additional discoveries on all orders of scale would point more cogently to deliberative design than ever?

A parable might help. Two people are walking down the beach; one is a philosopher, the other a geologist. As they walk along, they take in the view, and appreciate the beauty of the scene. The geologist explains the visible coastal rock formations, the action of plate tectonics, erosion and sedimentation, and — wait; what is that?

A news article published yesterday on haaretz.com reported that the Israeli Education Minister has dismissed their chief scientist, Dr Gavriel Avital, over — wait for it — questioning particular elements of two theories, specifically those pertaining to Darwinian evolution and global warming.
The article reports,

Dr. Gavriel Avital has generated controversy in the past for his statements questioning the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution. He has also challenged conventional theory on pollution’s effects on global warming. “Someone who holds the opinions of Avital cannot serve as chief scientist of the Education Ministry,” said a ministry official. [emphasis mine]

What was Dr Avital’s crime? Let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth:

In my prior post, I noted that John Wise’s online response to Discovery Institute used invented quotes from Michael Behe’s Dover testimony. In one case, this was understandable since Wise was simply copying a misquote from Judge Jones (who copied it from the ACLU). But there’s another invented misquote from Behe’s Dover testimony whose origin is more puzzling. Wise stated: During the Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education trial, Prof. Michael Behe – a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, stated under oath that “under the broad definition of science that ID proponents prefer, astrology also qualifies as science”. I tried finding the words attributed to Behe in the Dover trial transcript, but could not. The quote Wise attributed to Behe Read More ›

Discovery Senior Fellow Bruce Gordon was recently published in The Washington Times calling Stephen Hawking’s message that God is not necessary to create the universe “a matter more of fiery sentiment than of coolheaded logic“: Mr. Hawking asserts that “as recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” But “spontaneous creation” minus any cause illustrates the lack of an explanation rather than scientific comprehension. It also runs counter to a question Mr. Hawking Read More ›

Can you believe in God and Darwinian evolution at the same time? Scientists and scholars have an answer that may surprise the audience as they explore this and related questions at the God & Evolution conference on Saturday, October 16, 2010 at Biola University in La Mirada, California.

The conference will focus on the conflict between neo-Darwinism and traditional theological views of Protestants, Catholics and Jews.

What is “theistic” evolution, and how consistent is it with traditional theism?

What challenges does Darwin’s theory pose for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews?

Is it “anti-science” to question Darwinian Theory?