Science and Culture Today | Page 1471 | Discovering Design in Nature

It appears that evolution is not as popular as many would expect in Darwin’s home country. The BBC reports, Britons unconvinced on evolution. Less than half responded that evolution best described their view on the origin of life. Furthermore, more than 40 percent believe that intelligent design should be included in science lessons.

While not directly relevant to the debate over intelligent design in the United States, the results are interesting, and came as a surprise to many scientists in Briton, including the President of the Royal Society.

In a 7700 word article, Shankar Vedantam writes in the Washington Post about Caroline Crocker’s treatment at George Mason University. Some Darwinists I’ve known — who have never experienced what it is like to be a scientific minority in today’s climate — argue that she was not fired from her job. “Her contract was simply not renewed for reasons unrelated to ID” they claim. True: her contract was not renewed, and technically speaking, she was not “fired.” But from information I have heard, the non-renewal of her contract had much to do with her views and the fact that she mentioned ID in a biology classroom. It seems to me that Crocker’s account in the Washington Post is very accurate. Read More ›

Congressman John A. Boehner of Ohio, who was instrumental in assuring that the report language of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 contained a strong recommendation that scientific evidence for biological evolution–and also scientific evidence against evolution — should be taught in science class, was elected Majority Leader of the U.S. House today. Boehner, as chairman of the House Education Committee and co-chairman of the Conference Committee that completed work on the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, fended off efforts to remove the so-called “Santorum language” from the final report. The Act’s report provides that “Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range Read More ›

Last week Stephen Meyer had a piece published in the Daily Telegraph in London, “Intelligent design is not creationism.” As sometimes happens with the appearance of a an article advocating intelligent design, there was a flurry of anti-ID letters. However, there were also two letters worth noting.

Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure. — Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

The Seattle Weekly’s Roger Downey has labored and produced a mouse. And, his mouse is a laughable, funhouse-mirror distortion of reality. But what else can you expect when you realize that he didn’t actually do any research, but essentially just cuts and pastes crazy assertions and outrageous claims from our critic’s blogs. Even though in the constellation of Seattle journalism and news publications the Weekly is (generously) seen as a lesser light, this piece demands a response.
“The Plot to Kill Darwin” is a rehash of old reports from other publications and blogs. There is nothing new, or original, in this article. Even the title and cover art seem to be ripped off from Wired magazine’s more sophisticated yarn of 2004. Most of the “news” reporting here is actually Downey just regurgitating oft repeated charges fringe Darwinists have lobbed at us for years. We’ve responded to all of this in the past.

The Weekly Standard has run John West’s response to Adam Wolfson’s recent article about intelligent design (which we blogged about here and here.)

Notorious legal decisions often develop a common-man meaning. The public perception of the Kitzmiller decision is that Judge Jones supposedly settled the issue: intelligent design is not science. As a law student, I have been amazed that this most important of Kitzmiller holdings is unsupported by any legal reasoning.

The news coverage of Kitzmiller has encouraged this misperception. CNN.com simplified the entire decision as being about defining science: “U.S. District Judge John Jones concluded in a 139-page decision that intelligent design is not science.” This is absurd to anyone who respects the law. Judges should only be deciding matters of law, not declaring as authoritative his opinion on matters of politics, or philosophy, or science.