Intelligent Design critic Larry Arnhart has a thoughtful essay in Inside Higher Education encouraging students to learn about the controversy over Darwin by reading Darwin. Arnhart writes: Why not introduce our students to this debate by having them read Darwin’s own writings in their biology classes? We could teach the controversy by teaching Darwin. Arnhart seems to think that his idea won’t be acceptable to either proponents or critics of intelligent design. Yet his proposal is something a number of ID proponents have advocated for some time.

Note: From now on, we will try to properly credit the University of Minnesota, Morris as the employer of Darwinist biologist P.Z. Myers. In a press release earlier this month, we mistakenly stated that P.Z. Myers was a biology professor at the University of Minnesota. We soon received an e-mail from a public relations person at the University of Minnesota, Morris. She wanted to make clear that Dr. Myers was actually employed by the University of Minnesota, Morris. The press release in question highlighted Myers’ bigotry and intolerance, pointing out that he advocated “the public firing and humiliation of some teachers” because they are critical of Darwin, and quoting his complaint that Darwinists “aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or Read More ›

In her new article dumping on intelligent design, New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein presents a fantasy version of the new Kansas science standards, claiming that “in Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design.” Actually, the Board did no such thing. The Kansas science standards encourage students to learn about scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory. They do not ask for the teaching of alternatives to Darwin’s theory such as intelligent design. Indeed, the Board included the following explicit statement in the standards: “We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design….” [emphasis added] This isn’t merely a case of sloppy reporting. When Ms. Read More ›

Here is the e-mail I sent to New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein after she interviewed me last Thursday for her predictable hatchet-job on intelligent design in Sunday’s Times. Decide for yourself whether her story accurately reflected all of the information she was given: