Science and Culture Today | Page 1454 | Discovering Design in Nature

Yesterday’s New York Times carried an article about the Kansas evolution hearings. Well, sort of. While the article discoursed at length about the pro-Darwin scientists who did NOT participate in the Kansas hearings, it never actually got around to mentioning any of the people who DID testify.

It looks like Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education isn’t going to be able to get away with her defamation of California parent Larry Caldwell after all. (For the history of the Caldwell case, see here and here and here.) In a press release issued this week, Caldwell states that the California Academy of Sciences (CAS) has agreed to permanently remove Scott’s defamatory article from the world wide web and will be printing a retraction letter by Scott in the next issue of California Wild. In addition, CAS will give Caldwell the opportunity to accurately present his views in his own words in the next issue of the same magazine. Denyse O’Leary has an excellent blog about this latest development, here.

WANTED: A new research assistant for Morton Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call and political commentator extraordinaire. An ability to read original documents and separate fact from fiction preferred. Please reply ASAP in order to spare Mort further embarrassment.

The Kansas State Board of Education is scheduled to take up discussion tomorrow of the proposed revisions to the state’s science standards (although an actual up or down vote might not come until later in the summer).

The Board’s Science Hearings Committee, after hearing testimony from nearly two dozen scientists and scholars last month about how evolution should be presented in the classroom, will apparently recomend the adoption of the draft standards which call for students to learn more about the scientific evidence regarding chemical and biological evolution, including scientific criticisms raised in peer-reviewed science journals. In a one page rationale for their recommendation the committee states that it had “heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory.”

Below is the complete text of their statement, which is available on the Kansas Dept. of Education website as well.

If you’re a graduate student who dares to question Darwinian evolution good luck on defending your dissertation. OSU graduate student, Bryan Leonard, is suffering a vicious attack from Darwinist who seem bent on keeping him from earning his doctoral degree, precisely because he does not adhere to a strictly Darwinian viewpoint. (see here for more details) Fortunately there are some who see these attacks for what they are — threats on academic freedom. Charles Mitchell at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has posted his insightful take on the situation: “First, to my knowledge at least, Leonard’s Ph.D. is not actually on evolution or intelligent design or anything else. It’s about pedagogy, period. Its concern is not scientific analysis Read More ›

CSC Senior Fellow David Berlinski has just sent me an open letter to the Amazing Randi. Randi you may remember led the Darwinist charge of the bright brigade to try and coerce the Smithsonian into deep sixing The Privileged Planet. And Randi was serious because he offered a $20,000 bribe to keep the film from playing. Berlinski, however, has decided to screen the film in Paris. But here’s the thing, Randi. I was sort of planning to screen the film right here in my apartment in Paris. I’ve got a little screening room I call The Smithsonian right between the bathroom and the kitchen, I sort of figured I’d invite some friends over, open a couple cans of suds, sort Read More ›

This past weekend PBS program Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly aired a story about the Kansas board of education’s recent hearings on evolution. The producers tried to cover the whole debate and allowed many of the different points of view to be included. In that regard the program was better than most news stories on the issue.

A: As many as they can build! Apparently having such websites at a multitude of universities, and having all manner of self-elected guardians of Darwin’s holy theory put up such websites, and having every biology professor and graduate student blogging the value of Darwinism isn’t doing much to convince people to believe in the fact of Darwinian evolution. The brights at the National Acadamies are throwing more money into marketing, instead of into new product development. The answer they arrived at is that there aren’t enough websites to convince people, so make more. Here’s a new one. Wired magazine briefly reported this in an obvious attempt to solidify its claim as the hip new mouthpiece of the Darwinian elite. Getting Read More ›

The NCSE has posted a rant against The Privileged Planet by William H Jefferys from University of Texas at Austin. Fortunately, I don’t have to waste time responding to this anti-intellectual diatribe because physicist David Heddle has already responded with a detailed rebuttal, noting that of all The Privileged Planet reviews out there’s he’s never seen “one as comprehensively bad and unthinking as William H Jefferys’s.” If you’re wondering who is Heddle to be trash talking a “scientist” from a state University, well first he has his very own Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University. And hey, he has actually put it to work conducting postdoctoral research at the University of Maryland and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. And, oh Read More ›

Today’s Washington Post has a handful of letters about the dust-up at the Smithsonian over the screening of The Privileged Planet later this month, both good and bad. First the good.