Science and Culture Today | Page 1485 | Discovering Design in Nature

Jodi Wilgoren’s wry account of her two successive boat trips down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon last summer-first with a group of creationists, then with Eugenie Scott’s Darwinists–must qualify as one of the more inventive and evocative ways to convey differences on origins issues, as well as a reason to nominate the writer for some kind of federal fitness award. I’m sure I was not the only one amused by the delicious contrast in styles in the two passenger manifests, though each congregation came off as religious in its own ways. A creationist wore a Jesus fish symbol, a Darwinist the Darwin amphibian symbol that mocks the Jesus fish. The creationists were earnest, the Darwinistas ironic. The creationists sang hymns, the Darwinists a ditty for evolution.

AP reporter John Miller broke the story of University of Idaho President Timothy White’s edict banning “views that differ from evolution” in any “life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula” as inappropriate for the university. (see our original post here)

Nowhere does the statement say what a differing view on evolution might be. And differing from what exactly? Darwinism? Intelligent design? Structuralism? Self-organization? What is appropriate for UI science classes? Can a professor present research critical of any of these theories or only critical of some? What about evidence that supports these theories can that be discussed with students?

In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dubbed the “Wedge Document,” this proposal soon took on a life of its own, popping up in all sorts of places and eventually spawning what can only be called a giant urban legend. Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy.

“I hope that the media will critically analyze Forrest’s testimony and get our response to her allegations,” said John West. “I would warn them to take what she says not with just a grain of salt, but with a shaker-full.”

Today, Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest testified in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial that it is her opinion that intelligent design and creationism are essentially one in the same.

Michael Balter is a Paris-based correspondent for the AAAS and the journal Science. In an opinion piece titled “Let ‘intelligent design’ and science rumble” in last Sunday’s LA Times, Balter argued that public acceptance of evolution was suffering because of the Darwinian monopoly on public education.

SEATTLE – “Every educator should be alarmed when an institution’s administrator issues an order preventing faculty from teaching `differing views’ about the subject they teach.” said David DeWolf, professor at Gonzaga University Law School. “Yet that is precisely what the President of the University of Idaho did when he issued a letter informing faculty, staff and students that it was “inappropriate” for anyone to teach “views that differ from evolution” in any “life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.”

Larry Caldwell is a parent in Sacramento who has fought to improve the teaching of biology in his children’s high school. We’ve reported on his efforts (here, here, and here) and their consequences (here, here, and here) in the past.

Now the Sacramento Bee has a very good profile on Caldwell. It opens with an excellent summary of Caldwell’s approach to the debate over teaching evolution.”

One of the most rhetorically effective portions of evolutionist Kenneth Miller’s testimony in the Dover trial was his PowerPoint discussion of pseudogenes. As Ted Davis describes it here, “For evolution, he gave several such examples, esp. the recent discovery of pseudogenes in identical locations for humans and some other primates–a “fact” that favors the “theory” of evolution over a theory of a common design plan, since the genes have no known functions and thus a designer would have no reason to give them to all of these organisms.”

The Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial has generated much talk on the internet about Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design, some of it trenchant, much of it stimulating. The American Scientific Affiliation is discussing it here.

One ASA member, Ted Davis, a friendly critic of intelligent design interested in more open debate on the question of origins, provides a favorable review of evolutionist Kenneth Miller’s expert testimony, describing it as “superb testimony … on all counts.” He also provides intriguing if less flattering analysis of Friday’s expert testimony here: