Science and Culture Today | Page 1434 | Discovering Design in Nature

Editor’s Note: This was sent to us from a former Discovery policy analyst.

Martha Wise is a member of the Ohio Board of Education. She cannot stand anything that is not conclusively and absolutely pro-Darwinian in science education. She is also the chief censor of any scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinian theory. Martha helped to oust the Ohio Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan.

Her op-ed in the Cincinnati Enquirer is a wonderful celebration of Orwellian double-speak in the service of Darwin-only science indoctrination: She’s insists she is a creationist, but she opposes creationism. The science standards explicitly disclaim the mandating of ID, but the standards (she claims) mandate ID. In Dover everyone acknowledged they were teaching ID but in OH they are not–except that Martha says that in Ohio they somehow were by stealth, even though the NCSE originally proclaimed victory with the passage of the critical analysis benchmark. “Critical analysis” doesn’t mean “critical analysis.” People with religious motivations are barred from proposing the lesson plan, but Wise’s religious motivations for stopping the lesson plan are in bounds. And feminist philosophers of science count as “evolutionary biologists.”

In the Cincinnati Enquirer on February 22, Ohio State Board of Education Member Martha K. Wise has an editorial entitled Conservative Ohio values led to change in evolution policy. I find this editorial intriguing. Here is how she starts the essay: “I believe in God the creator. I believe in freedom. I believe in America, and the state of Ohio, and the Republican Party, fiscal conservatism, fairness and honesty. These values guided me last week to lead the Ohio Board of Education to remove creationism from our state’s Science Standards and Model Curriculum.” So clearly Martha Wise is stating that her belief in “God the creator” “guided” her last week to “remove creationism.” Whatever–I’m not here to nitpick or question Read More ›

In a recent editorial, Gary S. Hurd complains about an apparent misquote on a quote from Bill Gates about the software-qualities of DNA. Hurd devoted a large portion of his editorial to complaining about the fact that apparently I and some others have misplaced a comma and accidentally inserted the word “we’ve” into the quote when quoting Gates (this did not change the meaning of the quote, in fact it may have lessened its impact if anything). Firstly, I thank Dr. Hurd for alerting me to the fact that there was a misquote. For the future record, here is the accurate quote: “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” (Bill Read More ›

The Darwinist opponents of teaching fully about evolution in Ohio may be engaging in a form of religious discrimination. By lobbying for a repeal of the Ohio State Board of Education standards, not only are Ohio students presented with a dumbed-down version of evolution, but religious supporters of teaching the best science are subject to discrimination.

By focusing on the personal religious views of some supporters, the opponents have engaged in conduct that looks a lot like discrimination against a public official because of his or her religion. Such religious discrimination could be a violation of the often ignored Article VI, No Religious Test clause of the U.S. Constitution, or the parallel Ohio State Constitutional provision.

Rabia Malik, a leader of the IDEA Club at Cornell University has an insightful letter published in today’s Cornell Daily Sun. Rabia explains clearly how Darwinists resort to stereotypes and ad hominem attacks upon ID proponents. Yet she herself stands as a refutation of these stereotypes, as she explains “For the record – I am neither a Christian, nor a conservative, nor Republican.” Read the letter below! Editorial resorts to stereotypes To the Editor: Re: “Who Is the Dodo?,” Editorial, Feb. 13 It is disappointing to see that the same stereotypes are always resorted to in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate. The Sun has sadly enough fallen to the same tactics to justify their opinions. From a newspaper that Read More ›

Who are biologists? The New York Times can’t seem to make up its mind. Last week, the Times described Darwinist Patricia Princehouse at Case Western Reserve University as an “evolutionary biologist.” This was despite the fact that Princehouse’s doctorate is in the history of science — not biology — and her position at her university is “Lecturer in Philosophy & Evolutionary Theory.” When questions were raised about the accuracy of calling an historian of science an “evolutionary biologist,” the Times corrections desk refused to budge, ruling that Princehouse’s credentials were good enough for the Times.

But that was last week. Yesterday, the Times apparently decided that even biochemists shouldn’t be called biologists if they happen to be skeptical of Darwinian evolution.

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 ›