News

Friday’s Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal had a great piece: “Under the Microscope: When science and politics become worlds in collision.” Among other things, this piece noted that “This was a banner week for American science.”

It turns out that Celeste Biever isn’t the only writer from New Scientist magazine to engage in impersonation. Last year, Bill Dembski reported on how he was contacted by the New Scientist’s Bob Holmes, who assured him: It seems to me the media coverage of intelligent design has mostly failed to present your case on scientific grounds, and I’d like to remedy that. Of course, Mr. Holmes had no intention of covering the scientific case for design, and his resultant article was little more than your standard anti-ID hack job. So it appears that New Scientist’s reporters are quite used to misrepresenting themselves with the people they interview, especially if the interviewees happen to be proponents of ID.

Celeste Biever, a reporter for the viscerally anti-ID New Scientist magazine, seems to have been caught trying to impersonate a Cornell University student in order to ingratiate herself with pro-ID students there. The fascinating story is recounted here on the blog of Cornell’s IDEA Club. Evolutionist Allen MacNeill, who teaches biology at Cornell, calls Biever’s tactic “Pretty sleazy.”

Today’s BreakPoint commentary features Chuck Colson, a longtime friend of Discovery and an ID proponent, honoring his personal hero Phillip Johnson. Colson asks, “How do you honor a man who started a groundbreaking movement that challenged the scientific establishment and is changing the way the world thinks about the origins of life?” He answers his question by introducing his readers to Darwin’s Nemesis, a collection of essays released earlier this year and highlighted here. In recognizing the Godfather of Intelligent Design, Colson identifies the secret to ID’s success: There’s no doubt that Phil’s willingness to encourage the work of scientists and help create a network for them has allowed the movement to flourish. This book really shows just how far Read More ›

Robert Pollack reviews Francis Collins’s new book The Language of God in the latest issue of Science. In the process he conveniently makes it appear that virtually Collins’ entire case for the existence of God boils down to the moral law in the human heart. But Collins also makes design arguments based on the Big Bang and the fine tuning of the physical constants of nature for life, comparing the design explanation to purely materialistic explanations and building a case that a design inference is the best, the most reasonable option. Pollack mentions these design arguments in only the most vague and glancing terms, giving the impression that Collins offers them not as formal arguments but more on the level of “that’s how the universe feels to me.”

There’s a new player in the United Kingdom in the debate over how best to teach evolution. A new website launched this week, “Truth in Science,” seeks to “promote good science education in the UK.” Because of the different education and policy environment in the UK, versus that of the United States, TiS endorses teaching both the criticisms of evolution and the scientific theory of intelligent design.

We consider that it is time for students to be permitted to adopt a critical approach to Darwinism in science lessons. They should be given fair and accurate presentations of alternative views. … Truth in Science promotes the critical examination of Darwinism in schools, as an important component of science education.

Toady’s story about the Pope’s latest remarks on evolution is very positive. It is based on an appearance before a huge crowd of 300,000 in Regensburg, Germany. The Pope also gave a scholarly address at the University there on Christianity and hellenism that makes some interesting philosophical points that bear further study.

As a member of the Kansas Science Standards writing committee last year, Stephen B. Case adamantly opposed critical thinking in high school biology classes. A Darwinist, Case was furious when the Kansas State School Board decided that students should learn the evidence and scientific arguments both for and against evolutionary theory.

Intelligent design (ID) was not included in the state science standards, but Darwinists feel threatened by it anyway. Case writes:

“One thing is clear: The scientific community has not embraced the explanation of design because it is quite clear that on the basis of the evidence, it is just wrong. Beyond the clarity that design is not science, the smoke is hiding an attack on the religious faith and beliefs of many people.”

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice this week has an excellent segment discussing the legal and policy issues related to evolution and intelligent design in public schools. With a panel of legal experts from the ACLJ, Sekulow’s segment is informative and accurate.