Science and Culture Today | Page 1301 | Discovering Design in Nature

Daniel Bolnick, a leader of the pro-Darwin only “Texas 21st Century Science Coalition,” recently published an op-ed in the Waco Tribune which provides some good lessons on how to argue for “evolution” to the public: Be extremely dogmatic and vague about the evidence. Lesson 1: Vaguely Assert Massive Support for “Evolution” From the Scientific LiteratureBolnick writes that in the past decade, “biologists have published more than 30,000 research articles demonstrating that evolution has occurred and how it works,” further stating that “[m]ore than 100,000 published biological research studies demonstrate the fact of evolutionary change.” So just how does Bolnick define “evolution”? He doesn’t, thus introducing equivocation and vagueness into the discussion. “Evolution” can refer to something as simple as minor Read More ›

ENV readers in Texas have the opportunity tomorrow night (Tuesday), to see Dr. William Dembski present a lecture on “Darwin’s Unpaid Debt.” The lecture will be held at Baylor University and is hosted by the American Scientific Affiliation’s Baylor Chapter. According to ASA-Baylor, this is what Dembski will speak on: Natural selection is widely supposed to be an information ratchet that gradually accumulates the information organisms need to acquire novel adaptations. Yet natural selection is nothing of the sort. The Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation is a low-level trial-and-error method for solving routine problems that is unequipped to handle the innovative problems that biological systems have solved in the course of natural history. Darwinism and evolutionary biology Read More ›

A ScienceNOW news release from last Thursday, October 16, states that re-analyses of the products of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey’s famous origin of life experiments from the 1950s have shown that more amino acids were present than were previously thought. Origin of life theorist Robert Hazen is quoted saying the study “highlights how easy it is to make the building blocks of life in plausible prebiotic conditions.” But did the experiments use “plausible prebiotic conditions”? The news release acknowledges that ammonia and methane were “gases presumed at the time to be the main constituents of the atmosphere billions of years ago.” (emphasis added) Even Miller himself admitted that he ASSUMED these atmospheres because they produced the desired result for Read More ›

It looks like the Texas media are already biting on the so-called “controversy” of Explore Evolution authors Meyer and Seelke being included on the state’s Science Standards Review Panel.

Yesterday News 8 Austin, a local CNN affiliate, ran a story, “Intelligent design debate brews controversy in Texas,” where in the first ten seconds of the video, the anchor introducing the story says that “one human rights organization is up in arms over the inclusion of several intelligent design scientists on the state’s curriculum review panel.”

Wow, a human rights organization… that’s impressive. I’m thinking Amnesty International must be all over this issue.
What, you say, the group the news is referring to is actually the Texas Freedom Network? Oh. That’s a bit confusing… I didn’t realize that maintaining ignorance on evolution was a human right. My mistake.

The rest of it is interesting, if a little funny. (“Move over science books, another may be on the way.” Because our bookshelves are too crowded? Should I tell Ken Miller to stop with his 17th edition of Biology?)

AUSTIN, TX — The Chicken Littles at the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) are ranting that the sky is falling because two of the six experts selected to review the state’s science standards co-authored Explore Evolution, a textbook that examines both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution (www.exploreevolution.com).

What the TFN doesn’t reveal is that another of the expert reviewers co-authored a one-sided, Darwin-only textbook! David Hillis, a biology professor at UT Austin co-authored the 2008 edition of Life: The Science of Biology, a textbook whose previous editions have been approved for use in Texas high schools. Hillis also serves as a spokesman for a pro-evolution lobbying group that is trying to remove language in the Texas science standards requiring students to study the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories. Gerald Skoog, another expert reviewer, has signed a statement issued by the same pro-evolution group, and he too has been a science textbook author and has a long history as a pro-Darwin activist.

Late last year, a media firestorm erupted after the resignation of Texas Education Agency (TEA) science curriculum director Christine Comer. Evolution activists and media outlets both suggested that Comer was forced out of the TEA to silence her views supporting evolution after she used her official email account to publicize a propagandistic lecture by anti-ID activist and New Orleans Secular Humanist Association board member Barbara Forrest. Comer subsequently was portrayed as a veritable martyr for the pro-evolution cause, and her case received additional media attention earlier this year when she sued the TEA claiming unjust termination in violation of the Constitution. But now it looks like Comer isn’t a martyr after all. Internal TEA documents released earlier today by Texans Read More ›

[Note: For a comprehensive defense of Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, check out NCSE Exposed at NCSEExposed.org] Follow Ben Stein’s lead and sign the Academic Freedom Petition at www.academicfreedompetition.com today. You can help by signing the Academic Freedom Petition and stand up for free speech and free scientific inquiry.Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed will be released on DVD next week. Pre-order your copy here.

It seems that dogmatic Darwinists will now applaud efforts to consistently suppress scientific criticism of modern evolutionary theory. The winner is a biology professor at University of Minnesota. If you guessed the infamous PZ Myers, guess again, because this year’s most dogmatic Darwinist is Randy Moore.

“The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming and comes from diverse disciplines, such as molecular biology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, ethology, and biochemistry. There is no controversy among biologists about whether evolution occurs, nor are there science-based alternative theories,” states Dr. Moore. “Evolution is a unifying theme in biology; teaching it as such is the best way to show students what biology is about and how they can use evolution as a tool to understand our world. [Evolution] is as important an idea as there is in science — it is a great gift to give to students,” says Dr. Moore.

In accepting his award, Moore manages to make a number of mistakes.

At ID The Future there have been a number of interesting interviews recently broadcast with a wide variety of scientists, scholars, and educators who have their doubts about Darwinian evolution. University of Warwick sociologist Steve Fuller, the author of the recent book, Dissent Over Descent discusses topics from his book and explains the nature and problem of a scientific consensus on controversial topics. Fuller argues that intelligent design is not anti-science (just anti-establishment), as biological study continues to become more like an engineering project, it will be harder for scientists to deny that life is intelligently designed. Listen as Fuller addresses why there is, in fact, dissent over descent. CSC Fellow Ray Bohlin earned his Ph.D. in molecular and cell Read More ›

A news item posted October 7 on EcoWorldly announces:

Scientists Discover Fish in Act of Evolution in Africa’s Greatest Lake.
In a report published in the journal Nature, researchers from Tokyo’s Institute of Technology and the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology have observed the cichlid evolve into a new species better adapted in sighting its prey and predator.

The news item is based on the October 2 issue of Nature, the cover of which proclaims in large letters, “Speciation in Colour: A textbook example of evolution in action.” An article in the same issue (subscription required) claims in its abstract to provide “the most complete demonstration so far of speciation”–the origin of a new species–“without geographical separation.”

But the researchers did not observe the origin of a new species. They did what biologists have been doing for a long time: They analyzed differences in existing species to find evidence to support a particular hypothesis of speciation. Anyone who reads the news report carefully finds this: