Science and Culture Today | Page 1411 | Discovering Design in Nature

What happened in the Kansas school board primaries earlier this week, where supporters of the current science standards apparently lost control of the board, is something that lots of people are asking. It’s not a difficult question to answer. Darwinists mounted a massive, and effective, misinformation campaign.

They fed to the media and public three false facts. First, that the Kansas science standards include intelligent design. They do not. Second, that the Kansas board redefined science to include the supernatural. It did not. And third, that the Kansas standards do not teach students the consensus view of science and include criticisms of evolution rejected by mainstream science. Also not true. We answered these false claims many times, but most succinctly here.

David Klinghoffer spells out perfectly what happened in his article at National Review Online today, “What’s The Matter With Kansas?“

We often report on the misreporting about the debate over evolution, and point out the misinformation that is spread not just by our critics, but also by the media itself.

How does it happen that urban myths, such as the one claiming that the Kansas state science standards include intelligent design, spread and catch on? Or what about one that is growing right now from an egregious misquote of CSC Fellow Paul Nelson?

I report with great sadness that my friend Wesley Elsberry of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has a publicly stated a strategy of trying to paint ID-proponents as liars: If you want to drive a wedge between an audience of evangelical Christians and the professionals in the ID movement, you need a third approach: show that the ID advocate on stage with you has been lying to his followers. Show misquote after misquote; demonstrate error after checkable error, and make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves. Evangelicals do want to take Christ’s message to the Read More ›

“The ‘Stand up for Science, Stand Up For Kansas’ educational campaign is intended to defend newly implemented science standards in Kansas from misleading and blatantly false campaigns of misinformation,” said Robert Crowther, director of communications for the Center for Science & Culture in response to criticism of Discovery Institute’s public education campaign. “As we’ve reiterated previously, Discovery Institute does not get involved in electoral campaigns, and we do not endorse candidates,” added Crowther. “Groups such as Kansas Citizens for Science are waging a campaign of misinformation, blatantly misinterpreting the new standards in three major ways,” said John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture. “For instance, they continue to advance the false idea that the teaching Read More ›

Much of the mainstream media’s coverage of the controversy surrounding Kansas’s science standards has repeatedly talked about a “conservative” or “far right” position on the one hand and a “moderate” position on the other. Are those labels accurate? The so-called “conservative” or “far right” position calls for students to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. An overwhelming majority of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, support this approach.

In contrast, the so-called “moderate” position insists that students learn only the strengths of modern evolutionary theory–science education as propaganda.

In Part I, I responded to John Derbyshire’s points about ID and peer-review. Part II will rebut some of the false claims on the TalkOrigins webpage cited by Mr. Derbyshire. I will finish this post with Part III later this week. Firstly, the TalkOrigins webpage claims there should be more pro-ID peer-reviewed papers “especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement.” This statement is highly ironic! The money available for ID research is dwarfed by evolution-funding. Tens of millions of dollars in grants are given to evolution research each year. Because Darwinists hold the purse-strings, design theorists have little-to-no chance of obtaining an NSF grant to explicitly investigate ID. Indeed, the NCSE got over $450,000 from the Read More ›

Having spent a lot of time in the Spanish-speaking world and with those in the Spanish-speaking community in the U.S., I’m very excited to announce an excellent new website, Ciencia-Alternativa.org, which is providing resources on intelligent design in Spanish. Headed by Mr. Mario Lopez, with collaborating scientists from around the world, the site boasts many ID-resources in Spanish. While some aspects of the site are still being developed, they already have extensive resources, including: Here’s a blurb about the site, from their website: Ciencia Alternativa es una organización nueva en la que los científicos introducen un paradigma alternativo a los presupuestos materialistas de la teoría de la evolución. La alternativa que proponemos no es una ciencia nueva, sino simplemente revolucionaria. Read More ›

I appreciate that John Rennie has posted a response to my response to his original post about Kansas on the Scientific American blog. (And I happily forgive the accidental misspelling of my name.) A common tactic in debate is to condescendingly say, “Thanks for proving my point,” when your debate opponent actually refuted all of your points. Other tactics include name-calling, changing the issue at stake, making false accusations, and appealing to authorities as if they are correct simply because they are “authorities.” John Rennie used all of these tactics in his response. Once again, there will be a major difference between my response to Mr. Rennie and his response to me: I will continue to cite scientific literature without Read More ›

The Talk Origins Bumper Sticker John Derbyshire gave a brief review of Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision at National Review Online. Unfortunately, Mr. Derbyshire misses our point about peer-review and ID, and repeats typical Darwinist goalpost-changing tactics on the issue of peer-review.Regarding peer-review, Derbyshire claims that “Judge Jones has way the better of the argument.” Let’s see exactly what Judge Jones says regarding ID and peer-review: “It has not generated peer-reviewed publications” (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp. 707, 735 (M.D. Pa. 2005) “A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory.” (Id. at 744) “The evidence presented in this case demonstrates Read More ›