Science and Culture Today | Page 1424 | Discovering Design in Nature

Bob Brustman had an intriguing and thoughtful piece recently in the Harvard University Gazette entitled “Evolving Ideas” which investigates why many people are skeptical of evolution. He starts off describing a simple but ultimately inadequate argument from Richard Lewontin: “If you believe in atomic energy, he said, then you believe in rates of decay. If you believe in rates of decay, then you believe in radiation dating. If you believe in radiation dating, then you believe that we can identify strata of rock from different times. Those strata of rock contain fossil evidence of plants and animals. Different strata of rock contain different types of fossils, yet each fossilized plant or animal had parents. Therefore, at some point, a parent Read More ›

In 1897 Mark Twain reportedly sent a cable from London to the Associated Press in New York, saying “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” after a mistaken obituary announcement appeared in a newspaper. The mistaken announcement is not unlike Robert Pennock’s article of March 6th in Science & Theology News which also greatly exaggerates the significance of Dover for the ID movment.

Robert Pennock has made a career of critiquing ID; thus it comes as no surprise that he is now trumpeting the Dover decision. But Ph.D. though he may be, there are so many logical fallacies in his article that it is ripe fodder for Irving Copi’s Introduction to Logic. Robert Pennock may be a third, or perhaps a fourth rate philosopher, but a first rate critique of his kind of reasoning along with Judge Jones’s by a top tier philosopher is available on the very same website by no less than Alvin Plantinga. Rather than repeat Plantinga’s devastating riposte, allow me to critique Robert Pennock and by extension Jones on slightly different grounds.

It is true that Judge Jones said:

The New York Times recently ran an article that highlighted microevolution, without ever defining it as such, “Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story.” Basically, the article explains how over time humans have adapted to their surroundings, “evolved” into the human species we recognize today, and may still be “adapting”. “Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny. “ There is nothing very newsworthy here, since this is not something we didn’t already know, nor is it anything that most scientists disagree with. Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint today is right on point on the New York Times crusade to prop up neo-Darwinism and attack Darwinian critics and tear down intelligent design theory. Read More ›

Alvin Plantinga, one of the world’s leading philosophers, asks: Suppose I claim all Democrats belong in jail. One might ask: Could I advance the discussion by just defining the word “Democrat” to mean “convicted felon”? If you defined “Republican” to mean “unmitigated scoundrel,” should Republicans everywhere hang their heads in shame? What’s his point? Ultimately, that while Judge Jones gave two arguments for concluding that ID is not science (in the Dover trial), neither argument is sound. The full article is here at Science and Theology News.

A recent story by Richard Monastersky in the Chronicle of Higher Education presents a decidedly biased take on the growing scientific controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian theory and the chemical origin of life. But the article goes beyond editorializing to clear misrepresentation in describing the evolution policy adopted by the Grantsburg (WI) School Board in late 2004. According to the Chronicle’s alternate reality, one Michael Zimmerman (a Dean at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh) was drawn into the “fight” surrounding the teaching evolution “when he learned that the town of Grantsburg, Wis., passed a law in 2004 restricting the teaching of evolution.” In reality, the town of Grantsburg NEVER passed any kind of city ordinance, regulation or law on the subject Read More ›

This just in, the South Carolina Board of Education has rejected new science standards language that would have called for students to critically analyze evolution in their biology classes. According to the Charlotte Observer: The primary change the EOC had asked for was to add the words in italics to the standard governing the teaching of evolution: “The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life by using data from a variety of scientific sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” Apparently, even modest language like this was opposed by the Darwinian education establishment. Where the South Carolina debate over how to teach evolution is headed now is somewhat unclear, but it Read More ›

Chris Dixon, reporter at the Post and Courier in Charleston, South Carolina gets a hearty thank you from me for his recent reporting on the debate over how to teach evolution. This is in start contrast to the reporting from The State newspaper, which has steadfastly conflated intelligent design with critical analysis of evolution. In fact, The State newspaper reporter Bill Robinson has waged a one-man confusion crusade to make sure that his readers are completely misinformed about what it is that the state board of education is considering in regards to how evolution should be taught in South Carolina. (see here and here)

I am especially encouraged to see that Dixon allows proponents of intelligent design to actually define the theory of intelligent design themselves — as opposed to just reporting what critics and non-ID proponents claim it is.

In a debate filled with loaded terms, defining “intelligent design” is fraught with peril. In a 2002 article on an Ohio evolution debate, a New York Times reporter wrote: “In contrast to the biblical literalism of creationists, proponents of intelligent design acknowledge that the earth is billions of years old and that organisms evolve over time. But they dispute that natural selection is the sole force of evolution, arguing that life is so complex that only some sort of intelligent designer, whether called God or something else, must be involved.”

Although most intelligent design proponents agree that the universe is billions of years old, Crowther said there is not universal agreement on the source of the intelligence or the level of design.

“Intelligent design theorists argue in favor of design theory based on the recognition of things like the digital information in DNA and the complex molecular machines found in cells,” he said. “They do so because invariably we know from experience that complex systems possessing such features always arise from intelligent causes.”

While this is a big step in the right direction, and Dixon’s story is pretty fair overall, there are some factual errors in the story the do need to be cleared up. These first two are the most important.