Kansas

An article in Murfreesboro, Tennessee’s Daily News Journal, ironically titled “American history slips into oblivion,” shows just how dramatic the media’s misconceptions of intelligent design are. Ed Kimbrell writes “look at Kansas and Georgia, where the boards demanded that intelligent design be taught along side evolution.” But neither Kansas nor Georgia taught intelligent design. The text of the Cobb County, Georgia, School Board’s disclaimer, which has nothing to do with intelligent design, may be found here, and it merely states “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Even Judge Cooper’s terrible original ruling, which was vacated by an appellate court, Read More ›

Last week Michael Behe spoke at Kansas University as part of a series of “Difficult Dialogues,” with various speakers on the topic of intelligent design. There is an excellent report on Behe’s talk at Reasonable Kansans Blog which has some highlights worth noting. Behe primarily discussed and critiqued the Kitzmiller ruling. (We will have more news about this and related issues dealing with how Judge Jones wrote his ruling tomorrow, so be sure to check back here.) The Immunology Literature Dump: Misquotes by Judge Jones: (As noted earlier, Discovery Institute will have more news about this and related issues dealing with how Judge Jones wrote his ruling tomorrow, so be sure to check back here.) Media Misquotes on Astrology: Reasonable Read More ›

The Associated Press has a story on the Kansas Science Standards which repeats the rhetoric of Kansas Darwinists. It states, “While Kansas public schools are likely to get their fifth set of science standards in eight years, the officials who want to ditch the anti-evolution ones now in place aren’t planning to act immediately.” But the present standards are not “anti-evolution.” The present standards teach more about evolution than do most statewide science standards and include extensive sections discussing the evidence both for and against evolution. The article also wrongly asserts that the standards have a “tilt toward intelligent design,” and the article mentions intelligent design 7 times. This focus on intelligent design is misleading: as we’ve repeatedly discussed, the Read More ›

Recently Francis Collins, the renowned scientist and harmonizer of Darwin and faith, lectured before a packed auditorium at George Mason University in Virginia. One attendee and avid ENV reader, unimpressed with the harmonization, sent me this report:

An editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post, “Nothing Wrong With Kansas“, contains many inaccurate statements about the Kansas Science Standards and intelligent design. First, it wrongly frames the Kansas issue as being about intelligent design: [T]he conservatives regained the majority in 2004 and moved to promote intelligent design — a challenge to Darwinian theory based not on biblical inerrancy or overt creationism but on purportedly scientific flaws in the theory. (“Nothing Wrong With Kansas,” Washington Post, Sunday, August 6, 2006) But the standards are not about intelligent design. Not only do they clearly state, “the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design” (Kansas Science Standards, pg. ii), but the standards only require teaching about scientific criticisms of Neo-Darwinism in a Read More ›

I appreciate that John Rennie has posted a response to my response to his original post about Kansas on the Scientific American blog. (And I happily forgive the accidental misspelling of my name.) A common tactic in debate is to condescendingly say, “Thanks for proving my point,” when your debate opponent actually refuted all of your points. Other tactics include name-calling, changing the issue at stake, making false accusations, and appealing to authorities as if they are correct simply because they are “authorities.” John Rennie used all of these tactics in his response. Once again, there will be a major difference between my response to Mr. Rennie and his response to me: I will continue to cite scientific literature without Read More ›