Science and Culture Today | Page 1427 | Discovering Design in Nature

The New York Times today reported on the growing number of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution. Yet the Times has quite predictably, maybe even purposefully, missed the point of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism List. Because reporters and editors at the Times apparently can’t accept the fact that scientists, for scientific reasons, have doubts about Darwinian evolution, they immediately assert that it must be religion that is motivating the growing number of Dissenters. They still don’t get that it is the science that is driving this debate.

Here are some other points missed by the Times article, which was written by science writer Ken Chang:

We’ve learned that Tuesday’s New York Times will carry an article by science writer Ken Chang about Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwin statement, which this week is being updated with more than 500 doctoral scientists who doubt the Darwinian claim that natural selection and random mutation can account for the complexity of life. The statement was first released in 2001 to rebut the contention that all scientists embrace Darwinian evolution. In fact, there are quite a number of Darwin skeptics among scientists, including many who aren’t religious and many who don’t support intelligent design.

The big question is whether Mr. Chang’s article will be a fair-minded examination of the scientific views of these scientists or a cheap shot focusing on irrelevant side issues such as religion.

Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, takes apart Daniel C. Dennett’s new book, “Breaking the Spell,” in Saturday’s New York Times in a way that one wishes the Times’ own editors–and other editors in the MSM–would examine. In the very first line of his trenchant review, Wieseltier reminds — or perhaps informs — the reader that “The question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question.” The attempt to self-define science, as Dennett does, of course, is to turn science into scientism. And scientism (or materialism) is the issue that Darwinists and their media fans are resolutely avoiding in public policy discourse. Dennett’s books serves as a “sorry Read More ›

It’s no secret that critics of intelligent design desperately want to link design theory with religion. The critics know how guilt-by-association will make it much easier to simply ignore and marginalize the actual arguments. A recent AP article in the Hawk Eye about the treatment of Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University highlights two common variants of this guilt-by-religion fallacy.

Gonzalez is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and co-author of book, The Privileged Planet. The AP article highlighted how Gonzalez has been treated with hostility by fellow Iowa State University professors since he became involved with intelligent design. The article presents a good example of the fallacy of characterizing intelligent design as merely religious.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — February 15, 2006. Opponents of Ohio’s Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan convinced the Ohio State Board of Education (OSBE) yesterday to repeal both their benchmark requiring critical analysis of evolution and the approved lesson plan for teaching critical analysis of evolution. The Benchmark in Ohio’s Science Standards stated that students should “Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” It also acknowledged that “The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.” By an 11-4 vote, the OSBE complied with the Darwinists who were urging the OSBE to repeal both the benchmark and the lesson plan. The 11 Board members who supported repealing the policy Read More ›

COLUMBUS, Ohio – February 15, 2006. Yesterday University of Akron biologist Dan Ely testified before the Ohio State Board of Education (OSBE) in favor of Ohio’s Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan. Addressing the OSBE after they had already repealed the lesson plan, Ely stated he was “dismayed how the board has caved in to outside lobbyists,” noting that “it’s amazing how much erroneous information is existing here.” Ely served on the science writing team that helped produce the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan. Ely noted that this lesson does not have intelligent design. “I don’t see where any of you get intelligent design out of the lesson. I teach some intelligent design to our honor students at the Read More ›

COLUMBUS, Ohio — February 15. One Ohio citizen who supported the critical analysis benchmark to the Ohio State Board of Education yesterday was Katie Hess, a senior biology major at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, in Ohio. Hess, who graduated from Ohio public schools, now plans to become a high school biology teacher. She explained her desire to study science. “Part of my motivation to enter the sciences is from my love and openness to the world around us, and some observations of natural beauty that have filled me with an excitement and have left me with questions which have been explored coming to a great understanding of the world around us.” Hess then showed how asking these questions drives Read More ›

“This is a completely outrageous slap in the face to the 69% of Ohioans just polled who said they want students to hear the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory,” said John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Most people want students to learn the evidence critical of Darwinism, as well as the evidence that supports it, rather than just teaching Darwin’s theory as if it were sacred dogma.”

By more than a 3-to-1 margin, Ohio residents strongly support public school teachers presenting both the evidence for evolution, as well as the evidence challenging the theory, according to a new poll by Zogby International released today. (full poll report here)

“Ohioans want Darwin’s theory of evolution fully and completely presented, including the theory’s strengths and weaknesses,” said Robert Crowther, director of communications for Discovery Institute, which commissioned the Zogby poll. “The public is solidly behind the approach to teaching evolution that the Ohio state board of education has already adopted. Those attacking the school board for supporting teaching both the evidence for and against evolution don’t represent the views of the majority of Ohioans.”

Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they agreed with the following statement: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it. Less than 20 percent supported the alternative statement: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.