News

Alan Leshner, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is describing the proposed Academic Freedom Act in Oklahoma as “code language … to promote a narrow religious agenda.” Lawrence Selden responds: So I raise this question: Is “encourag[ing] critical thinking by exposing students to all sides of the scientific debate about evolution” really just “code language” for “promot[ing] a narrow religious agenda”? It seems to me that looking at the alleged “code language” that is being “injected” into Oklahoma law is the best way to decide. Selden’s full response is here.

We have made it well known that we wish the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania had taken our advice. This has been reiterated countless times — before, during and after the litigation and decision. (WE even recently published an entire book about the Dover decision, Traipsing Into Evolution.) Our long-standing policy has been to urge a more robust treatment of evolution in public schools, so that students might learn both the scientific weaknesses and strength’s of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and chemical origin-of-life scenarios. But this is NOT the path that was taken in Dover. This too has been communicated all throughout the Kitzmiller saga. But an article from two weeks ago in the York Daily Record shows that some folks. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

There were three kinds of stories that could have developed from the news that Science magazine released a paper by professors at the University of Oregon’s Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology that supposedly falsifies Michael Behe’s theory of irreducible complexity (as an indication of intelligent design). That Science accompanied the paper with an interpretive piece by Christoph Adami of Claremont, underscores the coup Science hoped it had accomplished. What, studying the paper and commentary, should be done with this news?

The first possible story was the one that Science hoped: that finally someone in the science world had done actual research to refute Behe’s theory. Hence, intelligent design could be dismissed conclusively as bad science.

Trouble was, in preparing this first story line, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal science writers contacted us and asked for our scientists’ reaction. Mike Behe did answer and conclusively. So did Steve Meyer. There was no way thereafter to say that Thornton et al had made a conclusive case.

“This latest fossil find poses no threat to intelligent design.” So says Discovery Institute senior fellow and leading intelligent design theorist Dr. William Dembski, adding:

“Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes–as opposed to intelligence–can create biological complexity and diversity.”

The journal Nature is making news by publishing a report today that a group of researchers claim to have uncovered the skeleton of a 375-million-year-old fish in the Canadian Arctic that they believe is a missing link in the evolution of some fishes to becoming land walking vertebrates. The fish has been named Tiktaalik roseae, meaning “large shallow water fish.”

Even though this find does not challenge intelligent design, there may be good reasons to be skeptical about it.

After several years of claiming that there is no debate about the theory of intelligent design (ID) researchers have published an article bringing the debate to the pages of the latest issue of Science. Three researchers, Jamie Bridgham, Sean Carroll and Joe Thornton claim to have shown how an irreducibly complex system, such as that described by Discovery senior fellow Michael Behe, might have arisen as the result of gene duplication and a few point mutational changes. “This continues the venerable Darwinian tradition of making grandiose claims based on piddling results,” said biochemist Michael Behe, who developed the theory of irreducible complexity in his best-selling book Darwin’s Black Box. “There is nothing in the paper that an ID proponent would Read More ›