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

“A California parent, Jeanne Caldwell, is filing a federal lawsuit today against officials of the National Science Foundation and the University of California at Berkeley for spending more than $500,000 of federal money on a website that encourages teachers to use religion to promote evolution in violation of the First Amendment,” according to a news release from Quality Science Education for All.”

More than a year ago, CSC associate director John West wrote about the establishment of state-funded Church of Darwin when he reported on the NSF’s funding of a website developed in conjunction with the NCSE that explicitly uses religion to justify teaching Darwinian evolution. So, who is it that keeps bringing up religion? The Darwinists, naturally.

I see that a couple of fascinating new websites have “evolved” on the Internet (and if you think sites really do evolve, there are some web “designers” I’d like you to meet). For reporters and others who imagine that only the likes of Discovery Institute fellows believe that Darwin’s theory is in the process of imploding, go to the new Stephen J. Gould Initiative for Non-Darwinian Evolution site and its companion, Biological Self Organization: Evolution by Mechanical Causation.

There is much to read there. It’s a curiosity, to say the least.

For the latest updated version of this article, see the mirror version at the IDEA Center at: And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller’s Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion (Updated) http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392

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.”