Science and Culture Today | Page 1334 | Discovering Design in Nature

Should scientists who believe the universe is the product of intelligent design be fired? Should science teachers who tell students about evidence that challenges Darwin’s theory of evolution be reprimanded? Should students who want to explore both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution be discouraged from doing so? If you answered no to these questions, click here and sign the Academic Freedom Petition.

If you answered yes, then keep reading and hopefully you will change your mind.

The Board of Regents of the State of Iowa has denied the tenure appeal of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University (ISU). Dr. Gonzalez’s appeal has been ongoing since the summer of 2007, when he was first denied tenure by ISU. “We are extremely disappointed that the Board of Regents refused to give Dr. Gonzalez a fair hearing in his appeal,” said Gonzalez’s attorney Chuck Hurley. “They say in Iowa that academic freedom is supposed to be the ‘foundation of the university.’ That foundation is cracked.” ISU has consistently maintained that Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure denial has nothing to do with intelligent design (ID). But secret e-mails exchanged by ISU faculty who voted against his tenure Read More ›

Ed: Dr. Simmons sent us the post below, asking us to publish it in response to ongoing discussions of his recent debate with Dr. Myers. Against Stupidity, God Himself Is Helpless — Old Jewish Proverb Before the recent KKMS (MN radio) debate, Dr. P.Z. Myers blogged on Pharyngula that he would decimate me. Within minutes of the show’s conclusion, he blogged that he accomplished his goal, never conceding a single point from an hour long show. It is worth one’s while to read his blogs and those that follow as they readily speak to the character of these folks, much moreso than I could ever do. Richard Dawkins was also quick to compliment the professor and add to the feeding Read More ›

In Part 1 I discussed the eminent and late origin of life theorist Leslie Orgel’s criticisms of theories that self-sustaining metabolic pathways could spontaneously come into existence on the early earth and evolve into life. Orgel’s was skeptical that this could occur because “the chance of a full set of such catalysts occurring at a single locality on the primitive Earth in the absence of catalysts for disruptive side reactions seems remote in the extreme.” Indeed, according to Orgel, the type of complexity we normally find in the metabolic pathways of life require “a skilled synthetic chemist.” But what if we assume that such pathways could come into existence? Even if such pathways existed, they would still be far from Read More ›

As the debate over the science standards in Florida gets interesting, the Florida Baptist Witness just published an editorial by James A. Smith Sr. which sees the situation for what it is: In spite of growing concern and opposition, Florida education leaders are on the brink of requiring an evolution-as-dogma approach to teaching origins in public schools in the Sunshine State. Read the rest here.

Rob Crowther recently discussed the fact that the proposed Florida Science Standards take an extremely dogmatic approach towards evolution education. The proposed standards assert that evolution is “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology,” and they claim that it “is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence.” There are no mention of any scientific problems with neo-Darwinism anywhere in Florida’s proposed standards. Notwithstanding the extremely well-organized efforts of the Darwin-only contingent in Florida, Fred Cutting, a member of the Framing Committee for Florida’s science standards, has written and submitted a Minority Report to the State Board of Education that would introduce objectivity into the evolution curriculum. Some time ago, Mr. Cutting inquired with us for information about solid evolution education, Read More ›

The Florida state board of education is expected to adopt science standards later this month that will finally include the word evolution. The standards also include language calling for students to learn the argumentation of science and to examine all the data presented in order to learn critical thinking skills. This, too, is a good thing. But what if all the date isn’t presented? What if only one side of the issue is presented? Then instead of students learning to critically analyze, they are simply getting a one-sided view of the subject. This is what happens all too often when biological evolution is presented. Students learn about evidence supporting Darwinian evolution, but seldom learn about any of the evidence that Read More ›

Last year I blogged about Robert Shapiro’s excellent article in Scientific American that gave cogent critiques of many standard models of the chemical origin of life. Shapiro critiqued the view that a primordial soup existed on the early earth that ultimately gave birth to a self-replicating molecule, which eventually evolved into RNA and then DNA. After critiquing this standard model, Shapiro gave his alternative explanation, proposing that life evolved from metabolic pathways that naturally occurred on the early earth. As I wrote at that time, Shapiro “gives scant explanation for how these life-like metabolic networks can come into existence naturally, and he gives no details as to how these thermodynamic states produce real life–life as we know it today.” Now Read More ›

A roundtable symposium was recently held at by John Brockman entitled, “Life: What A Concept!” discussing how life arose. Participants included some huge names in origin of life research and genomics, such as Freeman Dyson, J. Craig Venter, George Church, Robert Shapiro, Dimitar Sasselov, and Seth Lloyd. None of the participants are favorable towards intelligent design, but the transcript of their conversations suggested that the ribosome may exhibit “irreducible complexity” (their words). It’s clear that these anti-ID scientists don’t even understand exactly how life works, much less do they know how it arose naturally, but that they are nonetheless taking an evolution-of-the-gaps approach, assuming that complex micromolecular machines like the ribosome will (despite their present appearances) indeed turn out to Read More ›

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is a religious theory in the sense that it is based on powerful theological claims. Over the past four centuries these beliefs have influenced and even dominated science, and if anything have grown even stronger since Darwin. They form the foundation and ultimate justification for today’s theory of evolution. As evolutionist Ken Miller rhetorically asked, would God “really want to take credit for the mosquito?” Evolution, in one form or another, must be true.

But theists are not the only ones using religion to mandate this rigid form of naturalism. Ironically, religious skeptics are just as capable of making God-wouldn’t-create-the-species type arguments. David Hume is a well known historical example, though many of his ideas trace back to English skeptics from earlier in his century. Today, the likes of Richard Dawkins continue the tradition of atheists proclaiming theological truths in the name of science.