Nick Matzke and Kevin Padian have posted a celebratory rant at the NCSE website against ID and the Discovery Institute. But their rant is so extreme that it gives me reason to leap for joy. If there were any doubts that some people get over emotionally involved with this issue, Padian and Matzke’s gloat-parade makes it clear. With the lights shining brightly this rainy afternoon in Seattle, I offer the following comments: Thanks for Your Support! I’ll start with a short e-mail I received recently from a professor at a large state university, and also a movie quote. Recently a profesor responded to question about why he recently chose to join the Discovery Institute: “Actually, if you must know, after Read More ›
*Dogmatic Darwinists Strike Again: Americans United for the Separation of Students and Science*
We thought the Darwinists were willing to see non-evolutionary ideas considered in non-science courses. Turns out they were lying. Rev. Barry Lynn, who leads Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, apparently doesn’t want ID even in a philosophy course, because it’s too dangerous for young minds to learn about regardless of the venue.
Read the rest at Evolution News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.
During the Christmas break, I posted a four-part series analyzing various issues surrounding the Dover intelligent design ruling. In case you missed it, I am reposting the first three parts of the series here in one place. The analysis addresses the following questions: Is Judge Jones an activist judge? Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial? Did Judge Jones accurately describe the content and early versions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People? The fourth part of the series can still be accessed here.
Lawyer Phyllis Schlafly, head of Eagle Forum, has written an article blasting Judge Jones in the Dover case for judicial activism.
Prof. Joseph Knippenberg of Oglethorpe University has written a wonderfully insightful essay on the Cobb County evolution textbook disclaimer case for the American Enterprise Online. At the end of the essay, Knippenberg concludes: One begins to wonder whether liberal toleration is a sham, offered only to the most docile, and whether liberalism isn’t itself the very sort of orthodoxy it claims to eschew. You can read the essay here.