Science and Culture Today | Page 1420 | Discovering Design in Nature

Access Research Network has some intelligently designed apparel, the best of which features an original by cartoonist Chuck Assay. Why this particular cartoon? ARN puts it this way: A recent book attacking intelligent design (Intelligent Thought: Science vs. the Intelligent Design Movement, ed. John Brockman, Vintage Press, May 2006), , has chapters by most of the big names in evolutionary thought: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Steven Pinker, Lee Smolin, Stuart A. Kauffman and others. In the introduction Brockman summarizes the situation from his perspective: materialistic Darwinism is the only scientific approach to origins, and the “bizarre” claims of “fundamentalists” with “beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages” must be opposed. “The Visigoths are at the gates” of Read More ›

An editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post, “Nothing Wrong With Kansas“, contains many inaccurate statements about the Kansas Science Standards and intelligent design. First, it wrongly frames the Kansas issue as being about intelligent design: [T]he conservatives regained the majority in 2004 and moved to promote intelligent design — a challenge to Darwinian theory based not on biblical inerrancy or overt creationism but on purportedly scientific flaws in the theory. (“Nothing Wrong With Kansas,” Washington Post, Sunday, August 6, 2006) But the standards are not about intelligent design. Not only do they clearly state, “the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design” (Kansas Science Standards, pg. ii), but the standards only require teaching about scientific criticisms of Neo-Darwinism in a Read More ›

Over at The Media Report, Davie Pierre recently nailed the Los Angeles Times for its obvious bias against intelligent design. “As NewsBusters has already reported this year (link), the Los Angeles Times has never published a single article from a leading spokesperson of intelligent design theory.** (Leading spokespeople would include names such as Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards, and acclaimed writer Lee Strobel.) Yet the Times has now published its tenth piece in the last 14 months attacking ID!” Pierre then notes something we’ve pointed out about much of the mainstream media: “Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue? Not even close, folks. The Times is unequivocally disserving Read More ›

Previously I wrote about problems with John Derbyshire’s TalkOrigins webpage, which I discussed here (Part I) and here (Part II). Where’s the Citation? The TalkOrigins webpate asserts that The Design Inference doesn’t count because it was reviewed by “philosophers, not biologists.” Even if correct, why should that matter? The book was reviewed by the relevant experts in the field which relates to theoretical design-detection, the subject of the book. Moreover, where is the citation on the TalkOrigins page so we can verify their claim? And why should one assume that The Design Inference, published as a part of “Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory” and containing many technical mathematical arguments, was not reviewed by mathematicians? Obfuscating the Facts Read More ›

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.