Science and Culture Today | Page 1460 | Discovering Design in Nature

Today’s Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article claiming that students are starting to question Darwin in science classes. Imagine that! Students are so interested in the subject they are actually asking teachers questions about it. The article features information about the Coldwater Media video Icons of Evolution, and it even lists the suggested questions to ask biology teachers drafted by biologist Jonathan Wells. Note the stock response of Darwinists in the story who apparently think having students ask questions in class is disruptive (!) and who claim that asking questions about Darwin is tantamount to injecting religion into the classroom. But, as the article clearly shows, the questions being raised about Darwin focus on science, not religion. Are Darwinists Read More ›

If you want to see how bad major media coverage can be, check out this over-the-top story filed by the British news agency Reuters. Titled “Evolution on trial as Kansas debates Adam vs Darwin,” the story starts off with the following gross misrepresentation of the Kansas hearings: More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution. As pointed out previously on this blog, the scientists who will testify in Kansas are not going to argue against the teaching of evolution. They are going to argue for presenting students with scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory as well as the evidence favoring the theory. Contrary to the fanciful reporting Read More ›

The biased record of NPR’s “Science Friday” continues unabated with last week’s

John Hanna of the Associated Press has a very good, balanced and straightforward look at Kansas’ upcoming hearings over evolution and education, in today’s Kansas City Star.

In the article Hanna looks honestly at the debate, identifies the people testifying as predominately supporters of ID, but goes on to explain that they are not calling for ID to be put in the classroom, but instead want to teach more about the scientific criticisms of Darwinism.

National Geographic News is running a fair and balanced article about intelligent design and the debate over how to teach evolution. Unlike many journalists, the author of this piece defines intelligent design correctly:

Intelligent-design theory states that certain features of the natural world are of such complexity that the most plausible explanation is that they are products of an intelligent cause rather than random mutation and natural selection. Supporters of the theory say the nature of the intelligent cause is outside the scope of the theory.

The writer also quotes me correctly and accurately describes Discovery Institute’s position on how evolution should be taught:

The National Center for Science Education has finally acknowledged the libel lawsuit filed against its director Eugenie Scott for statements she made in a recent article about California parent and attorney Larry Caldwell. In a brief posting on its website, the NCSE states that it “believes the lawsuit against Dr. Scott has no merit.” But the NCSE continues to engage in stonewalling by failing to address any of the specifics of Caldwell’s complaint. As first reported on this blog, Scott claimed that Caldwell was trying to inject the teaching of creationism into his school district. To be specific, she stated that he tried to get his school board to adopt two prominent creationist books as part of the school district Read More ›

According to Neo-Darwinism, once the first lusty cell leapt onto the stage of the world, purely impersonal, material processes reigned — a blind watchmaker and less than blind. It was a mindless mechanism. This is quite different from the teleological evolution that some, including the Catholic Church, have considered a possibility. Darwininian evolution possesses no distant goal nor is man the twinkle in the eye of any god.

Below are Dr. William Provine’s comments on the recent debate between himself and CSC’s Dr. Stephen Meyer.

I agree with Rob Crowther’s summary of the debate. Our debate was indeed between evolution and ID explanations for fossil and living organisms. I thought our debate would be between ID evolution and naturalistic evolution, but Steve Meyer championed many young-earth, anti-evolution doctrines. I was frank about the implications of really believing in naturalistic evolution. Steve Meyer refused to reveal religious assumptions that I think relate to his views about the origin of species.

Paul Pardi has an excellent post on his blog discussing the hysterical rhetoric of many critics of intelligent design (ID). Reading Pardi’s comments, one has to wonder why the most vocal critics of ID are so bitter, angry, and defensive. If the evidence for their views is so overwhelming, why are they so insecure?

In a homily at his installation on Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI made his first comment on evolution: We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary. It will be interesting to see if the news media will report about this, given their interest in the last Pope’s statement on evolution.