Science and Culture Today | Page 1473 | Discovering Design in Nature

The Darwin versus design debate has taken center stage on the blogosphere these past couple weeks. Old Media’s dissemination of disinformation has been particularly brutal to intelligent design theory and its proponents, but the facts are now coming to light through the diligent work of bloggers. One lucid and cogent contribution to the discussion is provided by David Limbaugh. “Slamming Intelligent Design” is his recent blog post supporting intelligent design, as he takes Old Media to task for its coverage the current controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian evolution. Limbaugh has the intellectual honesty and discipline to recognize the clear distinctions between intelligent design theory and creationism. (See John West’s Research News article for more on this.) Limbaugh rightly acknowledges the strong objections Read More ›

When will the censorship end? Albuquerque, NM PBS station KNME has pulled the plug at the last minute on a schedule airing of Unlocking the Mystery of Life (UMOL) the documentary detailing pioneering scientific research behind intelligent design theory. Read the full press release here. Apparently KNME doesn’t realize that dozens of PBS stations have already shown UMOL and that PBS national website sells the video. Local scientist Phil Robinson has been urging the station to air UMOL for months. They recently agreed, and yesterday he was surprised to find out by accident that the show had been yanked from the schedule. The show was scheduled and listed in the local TV listings. The station even developed an ad for Read More ›

The York Dispatch has a story about the legal activity ongoing in Dover, PA with regards to the school board’s decision to mandate intelligent design theory. What’s troubling is that so many media outlets continue to incorrectly define intelligent design theory. The Dispatch’s Heidi Bernhard-Bubb puts it this way: intelligent design theory, which attributes the origin of life to an intelligent being. It counters the theory of evolution, which says that people evolved from less complex beings. If reporters are going to use definitions that come from critics of intelligent design they should at least label them that way. This is the kind of definition given out by the NCSE or the ACLU, not by design proponents themselves. This is Read More ›

Photo credit: George Gilliland

Dave Dentel, copy editor of the York Daily Record in Pennsylvania had an insightful, and pleasantly objective, op-ed over the holiday weekend. Dentel makes the point that the ACLU, aided by Darwin-only supporters within the ranks of mainstream scientists, is unlikely to acknowledge any of Darwinian evolutionary theory’s shortcomings. Indeed he points out that the very things they mistakenly claim of intelligent design theory, namely that it isn’t testable, Darwinian evolution itself is truly guilty.

The Washington Post for all its prominence as a national newspaper continues to help spread the idea that design theory is just a new form of creationism. Admittedly the article is better than recent error riddled reports by Post reporter Valerie Strauss, especially since it does give more background on what design theory is, and quotes Mike Behe. However, the article doesn’t provide any quotes from design proponents that explain the distinctions and clear differences between creationism and intelligent design. And this even after the reporter was offered a chance for an e-mail interview and then spoke with Discovery Institute’s John West, who he then mistakenly calls Paul. It’s frustrating when reporters can’t even get names right, how can you Read More ›

Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center has published a column looking at the current court cases involving evolution. While he mistakenly looks at intelligent design theory as just the next step after creationism in the anti-evolutionary chain, he does have some interesting insights into the drawbacks for science of shutting down the debate. “If school board resolutions aren’t the answer, who decides what, if any, critiques of evolution get into the curriculum? The short answer is – or should be – scientists decide. But many in the science establishment worry that teaching the controversy – even conflicts among scientists about some aspects of evolutionary theory – would open the door to creationist or other religious views. That’s why so Read More ›

American Daily has posted an interesting article by writer Robert Myers, “The Face of Evolution,” making the case that neo-Darwinism may be unfit for the classroom as it is a religion itself and that if it is allowed in other theories should be as well. “The first time that I heard the concept of evolution presented as a religion or philosophy, I snickered at the audacity of such a proposition. But the more I have taken notice of how the arguments are made, the more I see the religious aspects of the evolutionary position.” I have to point out — lest we be misquoted — that our position remains that intelligent design theory should NOT be mandated, but that it Read More ›

Senior Fellow Jonathan Witt responded to a frightfully stereotypical attack on ID in general in a recent edition of the The (London) Times with this letter. The Times apparently opted not to use the longer op-ed we had submitted.