Here’s the transcript of the CNN debate that included Discovery Institute senior fellow Jonathan Wells, prominent evolutionist Michael Ruse, and the ICR’s John Morris. Use the search word “Tucker” to scroll down to the evolution segment.
National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell has written an open letter to Kansas urging the state to teach the scientific controversy over Neo-Darwinism. As the letter makes clear, he believes the weaknesses in the theory are substantial and relevant. NAS members are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors accorded a scientist.
Discovery Institute isn’t calling for states to mandate the teaching of intelligent design in the science classes of our public education system, but neither should a biology teacher be forbidden to discuss it if she so chooses. One blogger’s intellectual journey through the writings of Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer offers an engaging explanation of why:
An essay of mine ran in today’s Kansas City Star. It begins: It seems the Darwinists in Kansas are living in the past. Not the past of, say, the fossil record. The history written there tells of the abrupt appearance of major animal forms, nothing like the gradually branching tree of life that Darwin envisioned. The past that some evolutionists are living in, rather,
According to a recent Prentice Hall biology textbook, a few centuries ago ‘very light-skinned’ people, shipwrecked on a tropical island, became “dark-skinned” after “many years under the tropical sun.” But as Pamela R. Winnick at the Weekly Standard explains, this is nonsense, one of many examples of junk science in our high school science textbooks: There’s lots that’s puzzling about the science textbooks used in American classrooms. A sloppy way with facts, a preference for the politically correct over the scientifically sound, and sheer faddism characterize their content. It’s as if their authors had decided above all not to expose students to the intellectual rigor that is the lifeblood of science. She might just as easily have been describing the Read More ›