__nedited

Below is a review of Jonathan Wells’s new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design I posted at Amazon.com: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design was a fun, quick read. I should state upfront that I work at the Discovery Institute, where the author Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow. I’m not getting paid extra to write this review — in fact it’s late, I’m hungry, and I want to leave the office and go home as I write this. Nonetheless, I feel it’s only fair for the sake of disclosure and honesty that I say who I am as a reviewer. Jonathan Wells will get called a lot of names for writing this Read More ›

[Editor’s Note: The three individual installments of this series can be seen here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. The final complete article, What’s Up with Ronald Numbers? An Analysis of the Darwinist Metanarrative in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, can be found here.] Ronald Numbers is a widely respected historian of science. He is an exceptional scholar who has garnered the respect of people on all sides of this debate. However, a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, “Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action,” co-authored by, among others, Ronald L. Numbers, Elliot Sober [anti-ID philosopher], and Terese Berceau [anti-ID legislator], gives one pause to wonder if Numbers is shifting his role from commentator, Read More ›

[Editor’s Note: The three individual installments of this series can be seen here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. The final complete article, New England Journal of Medicine Traipses Into the Kitzmiller Decision, can be found here.] Previously in parts one and two of this critique, I discussed how George Annas’s New England Journal of Medicine review of the Kitzmiller decision only told one part of the story. The prior sections discussed problems with the Kitzmiller ruling’s finding that ID is not science. This final section will discuss problems with the claims that ID is creationism, and also the false history of ID promulgated in the ruling, and subsequently into “Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom,” Read More ›

On June 12, 2006, South Carolina will likely become the fifth state to adopt science standards requiring critical analysis of evolution. Four other states whose science standards require full disclosure of the scientific evidence about evolution include New Mexico, Minnesota, Kansas, and Pennsylvania. Previously Ohio also had standards calling for critical analysis of evolution. On May 31, 2006, the South Carolina Board of Education unanimously approved science standards which require students to “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” On June 12 the standards will go to South Carolina’s Education Oversight Committee for final approval. Common Questions Q. What is the standard that has been adopted by Read More ›

The Alabama Academic Freedom Act was originally proposed by Senator Wendell Mitchell (Democrat) in the Alabama State Legislature in 2004 to protect the rights of teachers and students to present scientific views and hold positions regardless of their views on biological evolution. It was re-proposed this year. This legislation is needed in light of the threat to teacher academic freedom to present scientific evidence that might challenge evolution, prohibited by Judge Jones in his Kitzmiller ruling. Sadly, it looks like the bill will not pass this year because Alabama State Senator Jim Preuitt (Democrat) pulled an unfair political power-play and demanded that the bill have its application to the K-12 grade levels removed if he were to permit it to Read More ›