Month: March 2006
Evolution Debate Seems Destined to Continue in South Carolina
This just in, the South Carolina Board of Education has rejected new science standards language that would have called for students to critically analyze evolution in their biology classes. According to the Charlotte Observer: The primary change the EOC had asked for was to add the words in italics to the standard governing the teaching of evolution: “The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life by using data from a variety of scientific sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” Apparently, even modest language like this was opposed by the Darwinian education establishment. Where the South Carolina debate over how to teach evolution is headed now is somewhat unclear, but it Read More ›
South Carolina Reporting on Evolution Has Hits and Misses
Chris Dixon, reporter at the Post and Courier in Charleston, South Carolina gets a hearty thank you from me for his recent reporting on the debate over how to teach evolution. This is in start contrast to the reporting from The State newspaper, which has steadfastly conflated intelligent design with critical analysis of evolution. In fact, The State newspaper reporter Bill Robinson has waged a one-man confusion crusade to make sure that his readers are completely misinformed about what it is that the state board of education is considering in regards to how evolution should be taught in South Carolina. (see here and here) I am especially encouraged to see that Dixon allows proponents of intelligent design to actually define Read More ›
Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows
A new nationwide poll by Zogby International shows that 69 percent of Americans support public school teachers presenting both the evidence for Darwinian evolution, as well as the evidence against it. “This poll shows widespread support for the idea that when biology teachers teach Darwin’s theory of evolution they should present the scientific evidence that supports it as well as the evidence against it,” said Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. By more than two to one, voters say that biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it. Approximately seven in ten (69%) side with this view. In contrast, one in Read More ›
Gems from Father Neuhaus
Richard John Neuhaus, the one-time Lutheran pastor/philosopher who became a Catholic priest (he didn’t just “evolve” into it, however), edits First Things magazine with the kind of scholarship and grace one might hope to find in a particularly sparkling discussion over dinner with an old college friend. His “While we’re at it” column is especially sought out each month for Fr. Neuhaus’ take on topical events. This month he has some tough things to say to the science community that seems to think it is a royal priesthood itself, set above even legitimate criticism. Landing on the fiasco of South Korean cloning claims that were pumped up by those supposedly flawless “peer reviewed science journals” until the story of the Read More ›
Did the New York Times suppress the results of its own investigation into Darwin’s scientific critics in order to promote a stereotype?
New questions are being raised about the accuracy of the New York Times’ article on scientific critics of neo-Darwinism last week, spurred by an amazing admission by Times’ reporter Ken Chang that only a small minority of the scientists he interviewed actually fit his story’s stereotyped description of Darwin’s critics. While Chang’s story conveys the clear impression that scientists who support Discovery’s Dissent from Darwin statement are motivated by religion rather than science, Chang has now admitted in an interview that 75% or more of the scientists he interviewed did not fit this description. In other words, Chang and his editors selectively reported the results of their own investigation to convey the exact opposite of what they found. It turns Read More ›