Author: Anika Smith
Happy Darwin Day
Now that Darwin Day is finally here, we have cause to reflect on the occasion with two articles out today. John West has a brief history of the anti-religious bias of The Gospel According to Darwin in NRO, where he notes that Darwin Day celebrations are fascinating because they expose a side of the controversy over evolution in America that is rarely covered by the mainstream media. Although journalists routinely write about the presumed religious motives of anyone critical of unguided evolution, they almost never discuss the anti-religious mindset that motivates many of evolution’s staunchest defenders.
BreakPoint on Dover
Chuck Colson dedicated a recent BreakPoint commentary to Discovery Institute’s report on Judge Jones’s ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, which found that Judge Jones copied more than 90% of his ruling on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU. He writes, Thus, as the Discovery Institute notes, the central part of the ruling reflects no original, deliberative activity or independent examination of the record on the judge’s part. And that’s not all. The problem when you let somebody else write your decision is that they may make a mistake. And you, then, look silly. This is the point of why Judge Jones’ copying of the ACLU brief undermines the credibility of his decision in Dover. Colson’s response Read More ›
Undeceived and Still Questioning
Forthekids, a blogger who writes regularly at Reasonable Kansans, has been keeping things interesting since August of last year, holding the Kansas media accountable and getting to the truth of the matter, especially in regards to the debate over intelligent design. She had a great post Sunday on the nature of science and how those involved in the debate often are mischaracterized and misunderstood. Forthekids’ response to Jeremy, a commenter who claimed she was “being deceived” by the *ahem* slick army of ID proponents, follows below:
ID Defended as Science in British Newspaper
The Guardian published an editorial by Richard Buggs today which corrects the error, so common in the British media, that intelligent design is not to be seriously evaluated as science but conveniently written off as “religion.”Buggs, who holds a DPhil in plant ecology and evolution from the University of Oxford and sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science, first addresses the claims made by Darwin’s defenders: Darwin made a massive contribution to science, and his ideas still suggest hypotheses today. These provide the starting point for my own research, published in journals of evolution. But despite the brilliance of Darwin’s work, it is overoptimistic to claim that his theory explains the origin of all living things.
Keeping Tabs on the Controversy in the U.K.
If you want to keep tabs on the debate that’s heating up in the U.K., there is no better resource than the News Blog on Truth in Science’s website. Current and concise, Truth in Science does an excellent job compiling all the latest information on the controversy over ID in the government and the media. As today’s update explains, “Truth in Science is faced by growing political opposition as Members of Parliament and Government ministers seek to discourage science teachers from using our resource packs. Forty MPs are calling for a ‘restriction’ on its use and one has suggested a ‘directive’ against it.” In addition to this summary information, TiS provides the play-by-play of what some government officials are doing Read More ›