News

Ten years ago, biochemist Michael Behe helped to launch the modern intelligent design movement. when he outlined the theory of irreducible complexity in his book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which dared to question the basic tenets of Darwinism. Simon & Schuster have now published an updated version of Behe’s seminal work with a new afterword by the author reflecting the current debate, which has been substantially buttressed by new scientific research and exposition.

There is a great deal of newsworthy items this week in regards to the debate over evolution and intelligent design. Here are links to a few. Over at the Whitepath.com, muslim science writer Mustafa Akyol takes on — and bests, in my opinion — the NCSE’s Nick Matzke. Check out the ID The Future podcast about academic freedom and the Baylor Tenure Scandal. There’s been much talk about the Pope’s conclave on evolution last weekend. At Darwinia.com, Nemo points out: “The status of science is at risk from the confusions of Darwinists. If they need to be reminded of this by evangelicals, so much the worse for scientists, who should never have let this situation develop from their own obsessive Read More ›

Human Events this week published a review of Jonathan Wells’ new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, by another author from the Politically Incorrect Guide series of books, Tom Bethell. Bethell is a senior editor at the American Spectator, is author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science,” and “The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages.” Bethell writes:

“The story he tells is remarkable. Open-minded readers will surely conclude that the propaganda campaign on behalf of Darwinism has become so furious precisely because the scientific evidence for it is so weak.”

With the approach of Pope Benedict’s informal gathering at his summer palace outside Rome this weekend to discuss Darwinism and intelligent design, an increasing number of public figures have taken to standing up, waving their hands, and saying, “Pope Benedict, please oh please come to such-and-such a conclusion.” It’s all just a little bit silly, but I want to get in on the action. First I want to say that Darwinist Kenneth Miller, a leading hand waver, doesn’t seem to even know what intelligent design is (or at least pretends not to).

The recent Guardian story that the Pope may be about to endorse intelligent design as a scientific theory is way off the mark, I believe. There clearly is more media interest in this weekend’s meeting than the annual reunion of the pope’s former theology students ordinarily would warrant, even given this year’s special topic. But there will be a lively discussion. Various opinions will be heard. And I suppose you can expect a lot of uninformed spin afterwards. But don’t expect some definitive new Vatican declaration on science questions. (Granted, I COULD BE SURPRISED!)

Saturday, August 26th at 7pm EST C-SPAN’s BookTV will air “Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision”, featuring two of the book’s authors, John West and Casey Luskin. The program will air again Sunday, August 27th at 6:30am EST and Monday, August 28 at 12:00am EST. The featured event was held at Discovery Institute’s office in Washington D.C. for Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision, the first book-length critique of Judge John E. Jones’s ruling in the Kitzmiller case, the first court case to assess the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design. The event, held at Discovery Institute’s office in Washington, D.C., was full, (as was a similar one in Seattle at Read More ›

Lawrence Krauss is at it again. His piece in today’s New York Times defends science from the creationists at the gates. How courageous. Krauss berates Steve Abrams, chairman of the Kansas board of education, for Abrams’s supposed creationist beliefs. But let’s take a moment to reflect on this.

As a representative of Discovery Institute, I sent the following letter to The Seattle Times last week. It didn’t appear there, so we’re publishing it here.
Dear editor,