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

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.

A new nationwide poll by Zogby International shows that 69 percent of Americans support public school teachers presenting both the evidence for Darwinian evolution, as well as the evidence against it.

“This poll shows widespread support for the idea that when biology teachers teach Darwin’s theory of evolution they should present the scientific evidence that supports it as well as the evidence against it,” said Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

By more than two to one, voters say that biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it. Approximately seven in ten (69%) side with this view. In contrast, one in five (21%) feels that Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.

Richard John Neuhaus, the one-time Lutheran pastor/philosopher who became a Catholic priest (he didn’t just “evolve” into it, however), edits First Things magazine with the kind of scholarship and grace one might hope to find in a particularly sparkling discussion over dinner with an old college friend. His “While we’re at it” column is especially sought out each month for Fr. Neuhaus’ take on topical events. This month he has some tough things to say to the science community that seems to think it is a royal priesthood itself, set above even legitimate criticism.

Landing on the fiasco of South Korean cloning claims that were pumped up by those supposedly flawless “peer reviewed science journals” until the story of the scam was made public–from Korea, not the U.S. science world–Neuhaus proceeds to the “blunderbuss verdict” of Judge John E.

Jones in the Dover case. (Regrettably, the March First Things is not online yet; hence, no link. Break down and buy a copy.)

New questions are being raised about the accuracy of the New York Times’ article on scientific critics of neo-Darwinism last week, spurred by an amazing admission by Times’ reporter Ken Chang that only a small minority of the scientists he interviewed actually fit his story’s stereotyped description of Darwin’s critics. While Chang’s story conveys the clear impression that scientists who support Discovery’s Dissent from Darwin statement are motivated by religion rather than science, Chang has now admitted in an interview that 75% or more of the scientists he interviewed did not fit this description. In other words, Chang and his editors selectively reported the results of their own investigation to convey the exact opposite of what they found. It turns out I was right to warn before the article’s publication that when it comes to the evolution issue, the Times’ motto should be “all the news that fits”!

Jack Krebs has kindly posted on Pandas Thumb a response to my challenge that someone provide some kind of evidence supporting the notion that the Kansas Science Standards open the door to teaching ID. I greatly appreciate that Mr. Krebs contacted me personally to inform me of his post and kindly invited me to respond. My initial challenge posed an exceedingly low standard to be met, as I wanted to see what people would say in response. I give Mr. Krebs credit: he has made probably the strongest argument possible in favor of the notion that the Kansas Science Standards (KSS) open the door to teaching ID. If this is the strongest argument possible, then I’m fairly confident that the Read More ›