Science and Culture Today | Page 1462 | Discovering Design in Nature

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.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has an article discussing Discovery Institute and its role in the debate over how to teach evolution, “Evolution debate has new player:

Group treads delicate territory, promotes ‘intelligent design.'” The article is non-hysterical in tone and accurately reports my comments that Discovery does not support trying to require the teaching of intelligent design:

The letters section of today’s Los Angeles Times is titled “Point and Counterpoint on ‘Intelligent Design.’” But if you actually read the five letters posted, there are four letters attacking intelligent design versus one letter defending it. Then I remembered that today was April Fools’ day. Perhaps the Times decided to play a prank on its readers?

Discovery Institute fellow David Berlinski has a delicious response to UC Berkeley Dean Holub’s frantic worrying about the demise of Darwinism amongst his colleagues. Appearing in today’s Berkeley student newspaper, the essay begins, “Wearing pink tasseled slippers and conical hats covered in polka dots, Darwinian biologists are persuaded that a plot is afoot to make them look silly. At Internet web sites such as The Panda’s Thumb or Talk Reason, where various eminences repair to assure one another that all is well, it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin’s theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski.” Read on.