Science and Culture Today | Page 1384 | Discovering Design in Nature

As was expected, earlier today the Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 to adopt dumbed-down science standards that delete any mention of scientific data that might be perceived as critical of Darwinian evolution. But that’s not all. The board also gutted a history of science standard that called on students to study both the abuses and the successes of science in history. The history of science standard had encouraged students to learn about such tragedies as the eugenics movement and the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment. But studying the misuses of science was apparently too much of a downer for the Darwin-only crowd, so they rewrote the standard to ensure that students would be exposed only to the triumphs of Read More ›

ENV editor, Anika Smith, has a delightful column in the SPU Falcon newspaper titled Beware of ‘Darwin Day’. In describing some of the more humorous elements of Darwin Day celebrations (carols, Darwin look-alike contests and even an incredible, edible tree of life) Smith notes the holiday’s familiar trappings. If you’re wondering what a secular humanist does to commemorate such an occasion, it turns out that these particular humanists stand on street corners and hand out leaflets about evolution in an attempt to reach passers-by. In Victoria, B.C., a philosophy of religion professor organized a Darwin Day celebration for his students where they decked the halls with humanist style. Participants decorated an evolution tree, exchanged Darwin cards and even sang evolution Read More ›

The Associated Press is reporting on the Kansas State Board of Education’s proposed deletion of the Tuskegee experiment, eugenics, and other abuses of science from the state’s existing science curriculum standards. The only complaint I have about the article is that it does not make clear that the existing history of science standard, which I favor, asks for students to study the positive achievements of science as well as the abuses of science. The purpose is to give students a balanced understanding of the history of science. It is the supporters of Darwinian evolution who are trying to suppress the coverage of both sides, not intelligent design (ID) proponents. It is interesting to look at the tortured explanations offered by Read More ›

In Monday’s New York Times (“Believing Scriptures but Playing by Science’s Rules”), Cornelia Dean joins Eugenie Scott of the Darwin lobby NCSE (National Center for Science Education) in raising the tantalizing thought that (as “some say”) maybe scientists who have earned legitimate doctorates in scientific fields, but are known to hold private views that question Darwinism, should be denied their professional degrees. Take that in: Perhaps doctoral candidates whose personal views deviate from an ideological party line should be punished professionally. Presumably, if they are in a later stage in their career, you can thwart their application for tenure; or later still, a promotion to full professor.

Darwin Day is upon us at long last. Now for a full week humanists the world over will celebrate the birth of their saint, Charles Darwin. Celebrations come complete with Darwin carols celebrating atheism and sung to Christmas carol tunes; edible trees of life; Darwin look-a-like contests; and lots more revelry. Discovery Institute is honoring Darwin with a short vidcast of their popular ID The Future podcast titled “Darwin Day and the Deification of Charles Darwin.” It features CSC senior fellows Dr. John West and Dr. Jonathan Wells discussing the historical importance of Darwinism and its impact on modern science and society.

Scientists at the University of Edinburgh are busy imitating nature’s design by building nanomachines. Two things to note: First, these new designs are not perfect, and yet they were clearly designed by intelligence. I hope ID critics will finally put to rest the inane charge that if a system has a flaw in any sense — that is, if it is not optimal in every sense (which is impossible) — then that system was not designed. As the scientists note, the nanomachines they are making are not even as good as nature’s nanotechnology. Second, if nature is full of such poorly designed systems, why is it that some of the best scientists in the world keep looking to nature for Read More ›

Now that Darwin Day is finally here, we have cause to reflect on the occasion with two articles out today. John West has a brief history of the anti-religious bias of The Gospel According to Darwin in NRO, where he notes that

Darwin Day celebrations are fascinating because they expose a side of the controversy over evolution in America that is rarely covered by the mainstream media. Although journalists routinely write about the presumed religious motives of anyone critical of unguided evolution, they almost never discuss the anti-religious mindset that motivates many of evolution’s staunchest defenders.

The day after “Darwin Day,” the Kansas State Board of Education plans to vote on whether to delete from its science curriculum standards the study of the abuses of science as well as the successes. This incredible proposal  to sanitize the real history of science shows the lengths to which some will go to promote their dogmatic views. We have just sent a letter to the Board protesting the proposed change. The proposal is part of a package of revisions to the science standards that will also delete any discussion of scientific data critical of Darwinian evolution. Below is the text of the press release describing what is going on: TOPEKA—A national group is urging the Kansas State Board of Read More ›

[Editor’s Note: For a full and comprehensive review and response to Edward Humes’ book, Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, and the Battle for America’s Soul, please see A Partisan Affair: A Response to Edward Humes’ Inaccurate History of Kitzmiller v. Dover and Intelligent Design, “Monkey Girl.] In Part I, I discussed how in the spring of 2006, I was contacted by a reporter named Edwards Humes who was writing a book on the Dover trial. He claimed to be supremely neutral, fair, and non-partisan. (Humes now refuses to grant me permission to directly quote his emails where he made these claims of neutrality.) But I had reasons to be suspicious. Reporters who go out of their way to claim to be Read More ›