__edited

SEATTLE — Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The fastest growing segment of the list is scientists from outside the United States. International scientists now represent just over 12% of all signers, and as a group has seen nearly 40% growth in the past four months.

While the New England Journal of Medicine recently refused to publish a pro-ID letter-to-the-editor commenting on the Kitzmiller ruling, other medical journals are still clearly open to discussion on these matters. Michael R. Egnor, professor of Neurosurgery at S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook has published a letter in the Journal of Clinical Investigation entitled Defending Science from Censorship. The letter responds to an anti-ID article published in Journal of Clinical Investigation entitled “Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action,” which had many co-authors, including the notable names Elliot Sober, Ronald Numbers, and Terese Berceau. The original article by Berceau, Sober, & Numbers et al. is surprising for something published in a scholarly journal: it uses uncommonly inflammatory rhetoric to Read More ›

The Scripps Howard News Service is carrying this arresting story by Deroy Murdock:

Most ecologists want to make life easy for butterflies and waterfalls. Who can argue with that? Some environmental extremists, however, think what Earth really needs is fewer people. In some cases, billions fewer.

“We’re no better than bacteria!” University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka recently announced. “Things are gonna get better after the collapse because we won’t be able to decimate the Earth so much,” he added. “And, I actually think the world will be much better when there’s only 10 or 20 percent of us left.”

Pianka dreamed that disease “will control the scourge of humanity.” He celebrated the potential of Ebola Reston, an airborne strain of the killer virus, to make Earth nearly human-free. “We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”
Just five hours after Pianka’s March 3 speech to the Texas Academy of Science, which Forrest

Mims III covered March 31 in The Citizen Scientist, the Academy named Pianka its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. Several hundred scientists gave Pianka a standing ovation, Mims reported.

Pianka is not alone.

On June 2, 2006, I submitted a short, 175-word letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), responding to the incomplete and one-sided discussion of the Kitzmiller ruling they published, “Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom,” by George J. Annas (NEJM, Volume 354 [21]:2277-2281 [May 25, 2006]). Today I learned that they have rejected my letter. I’ve had letters rejected or accepted in various venues before, so that’s fine. The rejection notice stated that “[t]he space available for correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a representative selection of the material received.” NEJM devoted approximately 3,426 words to Mr. Annas’s article, which was completely one-sided and simply Read More ›

Microbiologist Ralph Seelke of the University of Wisconsin, Superior, testified before the Michigan State Legislature in favor of critical analysis of evolution, last week. Dr. Seelke spoke before the Michigan House Education Committee in favor of HB 5251 which would require students to “Use the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theories of global warming and evolution.” Seelke explained why critical analysis is vital to avoiding indoctrination: “Why do I think that having students critically analyze evolution is a good idea? First of all, in any area where there is considerable disagreement, a sound teaching strategy is to teach the controversy: allow the students to examine both the strengths and weaknesses of arguments Read More ›

According to the recent Associated Press story on South Carolina’s new critical analysis of evolution standard, the South Carolina Department of Education does not think critical analysis means teaching alternative theories, like intelligent design (ID): “Education Department spokesman Jim Foster says scientific inquiry is taught at every grade level and in every subject. Foster says the wording does not require students to study alternatives to evolution that are out of the mainstream.” (Education panel approves wording on biology standards) We’ve been agreeing all along that critical analysis of evolution policies do not require teaching about alternative theories like ID! This just shows that the Darwinist claim that critical analysis = ID is just another tired conspiracy theory. So is the Read More ›

Note: It appears that the lead referenced in the original post below has indeed been corrected. And rightly so. Yet another AP lead to the news story about South Carolina’s adoption of science standards calling for critical analysis of evolution. This one is sure to please everyone. (Columbia-AP) June 13, 2006 – The Education Oversight Committee Monday approved high school biology standards that require students to learn. Now who can argue with that!

The Associated Press has corrected the lead paragraph of its story on biology standards adopted yesterday in South Carolina. As Casey Luskin reported last night, the AP’s original story erroneously stated that the new South Carolina standards do not require the critical analysis of evolution. But as of early this morning, the new AP story clearly states that the South Carolina standards do require critical analysis of evolution: COLUMBIA, S.C. – The state Education Oversight Committee approved high school biology standards Monday that require students to “critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” (emphasis added) Kudos to the AP for correcting its earlier inaccurate report.

The Associated Press has an article essentially stating that South Carolina both did and did not approve standards requiring critical analysis of evolution. The article states: “The state Education Oversight Committee approved high school biology standards Monday that do not require students to learn to critically analyze the theory of evolution.” (Education panel approves wording on biology standards) but then goes on to state: “Under the wording approved Monday, students would have to understand how scientists use data to critically analyze the theory.” (Education panel approves wording on biology standards) So which is it? This appears to be contradictory reporting, or slicing the baloney so fine so as to make meaningless statements. What actually happened is that South Carolina ratified Read More ›