Science and Culture Today | Page 1461 | Discovering Design in Nature

George Diepenbrock, a reporter with the Southwest Daily Times in Liberal, Kansas hits the nail on the head in his column today when he argues that Darwinists should embrace the opportunity to defend Darwinian evolution and answer the critics who point to scientific flaws within the theory.

What Diepenbrock struggles with is exactly what many in the public, and the media, are struggling with: namely the difference between criticisms of Darwinian evolution and the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design.

Challenges to Darwinian evolution are not the same as proposed solutions, such as intelligent design.

If every ID theorist and proponent fell of the face of the earth today, tomorrow there would still be debates over peppered moths, and Haeackel’s embryo drawing would still be totally wrong.

Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution include unresolved debates amongst scientists over issues such as the peppered moth, the myth of human gill slits, Haeackel’s embryos, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution address problems for which adequate solutions have not been presented. The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent design theory then is an alternative solution to answer problems with Darwinian evolution.

The question in Kansas really is whether or not students should learn all about evolution, including the scientific criticisms, much the way that students in Ohio learn to critically analyze the theory.

Diepenbrock’s assertion that the theory of intelligent design is under consideration for inclusion in Kansas classrooms is simply wrong, and likely through no real fault of his own. Darwinists who oppose teaching students about any of the scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution have loudly proclaimed that anyone skeptical of Darwinian evolution is advancing the theory of intelligent design. Not true.

Groups of diehard Darwinian defenders such as Kansas Citizens for Science, the National Center for Science Education, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science repeatedly make this claim, and the media usually reports it unchallenged, and the public absorbs it as if it were true. It is not true. In the least the media should report that some people claim this, but that others disagree. That is the nature of the debate and both sides should be accurately represented, yet often they are not.

So, it would appear that Diepenbrock — and others in the media — have been suckered by the KCS and others who are falsely claiming that the Kansas state school board wants to include intelligent design in the curriculum. This is not true, there is no one calling for intelligent design to be required in science classes in Kansas.

Earlier this week the Associated Press issued a correction that makes this clear. KCS and other Darwinian activists can make these claims, but they simply are not true.

The CSC’s position has not changed since the last time this debate raged in Kansas six years ago. Diepenbrock quotes from Mike Behe’s 1999 op-ed urging Kansas teachers to teach more about evolution, not less:

The PBS debate between biologists Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Wells is now available online in both streaming video and as a transcript on the website for “Uncommon Knowledge.” During the exchange, Jonathan Wells effectively articulates what is at stake in the growing public debate over science education: I absolutely think science students should be taught Darwin’s theory of evolution and the modern version of it because it’s so important and so influential in modern biology. But I also think they should be taught scientific evidence and arguments against it as well as for it. And if you question whether there’s a controversy, you have here two biologists and you’ve heard the controversy, at least a little snippet of it. So Read More ›

After wrongly reporting that upcoming Kansas evolution hearings would feature witnesses advocating the teaching of intelligent design, the Associated Press has issued a correction admitting that it got its facts wrong: The Associated Press State & Local Wire April 12, 2005, Tuesday, BC cycle HEADLINE: Correction: Evolution Debate story DATELINE: TOPEKA, Kan. In an April 8 story about Kansas science standards, The Associated Press reported erroneously that public hearings next month will feature witnesses who advocate teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public school classrooms. Instead, the witnesses are expected to advocate exposing students to more criticism of evolution, not teaching alternatives to it. The AP is to be congratulated for correcting the record. Let’s hope other news organizations take Read More ›

The latest Wichita Eagle story on the upcoming Kansas science hearings does a solid job of explaining that the 23 scientists are coming to testify about the weaknesses in Neo-Darwinism, not to push for public school teaching of intelligent design. The story is mostly balanced, giving the Darwinists against balanced classroom coverage of their theory plenty of rope to hang their argument. As one reads the story, their reasoning becomes all to clear. Boiled down it works something like this:

An AP story on the upcoming hearings on Kansas science standards contains a crucial error. According to the lead, the hearings “will have as many as 23 witnesses speaking in support of teaching public school children intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution.” In fact, few if any of the featured scientists are pushing for design theory in the curriculum. That’s not even on the table in the science standards. Indeed, some of those speaking, like Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, aren’t even design theorists. They’re simply calling for students to learn the strengths and weaknesses in Darwin’s theory of evolution, rather than the air-brushed presentation of evolutionary theory they currently get. Why are some Darwinists so keen to obscure this Read More ›

Earlier this week, NY Times’ Paul Krugman published a column that, among other things, sounded alarm bells about a supposed invasion of creationism in college classrooms. This column has reprinted in papers across the country, and the editorial writers at smaller publications are now voicing fears about this highly unlikely scenario.

In “The Goldberg File,” National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg takes on Krugman in a recent article intitled “BullKrug.” Specifically addressing science education and academic freedom at universities, Goldberg says the following:

Phil Magers’ recent UPI story about evolution in the classroom (“Teachers feel pressure”) conveys a growing problem for biology teachers: more and more students refuse to uncritically accept Darwinism.

How horrible!

Magers’ pro-Darwin analysis is simplistic, even misleading. This is fitting, for so too is the presentation of evolution in the typical classroom. When students aren’t being fed bogus evidence for Darwin’s theory (like Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings), they’re being led to believe the theory is without important weaknesses.

Cable station KPAX’s television program, Faith Under Fire, hosted by Lee Strobel features a debate between John West and Barry Lynn, this Saturday, April 9. Check your local listings for time and channel. Teaching EvolutionFor generations of students, evolution has been taught as scientific fact. Yet there are scientists who doubt Darwin’s theory and believe that intelligent design better explains the origins of life. How can this be? And should intelligent design be taught in the same science courses as evolution? Dr. John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and associate director of their Center for Science and Culture, squares off with Rev. Barry Lynn, practicing attorney, ordained minister, and Executive Director of Americans United for Separation Read More ›

Washington Post reporter Jay Mathews writes about his recent deluge of e-mail regarding his suggestion that ID be taught alongside of evolution. I blogged about that here, and warned Mathews of the kind of response he could expect. (Mathews goes beyond what the CSC policy is on teaching evolution in calling for inclusion of ID. So, for the record, yet again, we advocate including scientific criticism of evolution in the classroom, not mandating ID or any alternative theory.)

Mathews says he received about 400 e-mails in response to his article, and that the majority of those “said they had the unfortunate duty to tell me that I was an idiot.” I can imagine that many of the responses were not family-friendly fare. Mathews quotes several that he received denouncing him and his idea. But, it was encouraging to see that he did find people who understand why there needs to be more discussion of the evidence for and against evolution at least, if not intelligent design itself.

In a recent news story, Alexandra Witze writes, “Although intelligent design is not scientific …” That’s highly misleading. In a supposedly fair and accurate news story about this growing controversy, Witze presents as fact a key point of contention in the debate.