Science and Culture Today | Page 1451 | Discovering Design in Nature

Many proponents of intelligent design (ID) have argued for design of the cosmos based upon the highly improbable fine-tuning of our universe to permit the existence of advanced forms of life. Skeptics of cosmic-design often cite the possibility that there are infinite universes, or “multiverses,” where our universe just happened to win a cosmic lottery and get the right conditions for life. An infinite number of universes, they argue, reduces the odds that ours just “happened to get it right,” because it shows that some universe was just bound to eventually get the right conditions for life. We wouldn’t be here if ours hadn’t won. They argue this rationale provides the probabilistic resources to overcome a design inference based upon Read More ›

SEATTLE– “This book is going to upset defenders of Darwin’s theory, because it exposes just how weak the evidence for it is and how irrational their criticisms of intelligent design really are,” says biologist Jonathan Wells author of the controversial new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The book will be published on August 21st by Regnery as part of their popular series of “Politically Incorrect Guides.”

In clear, non-technical language, Wells explains who is fighting whom, the root of the conflict, and the evidence for and against Darwinism and Intelligent Design. He also explains what is ultimately at stake for liberals and conservatives, Christians and non-Christians, educators, policymakers, and scientists.

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?