Predictably, as soon as we announced that the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list had topped 600 doctoral scientists, we were flooded with a wave of scientists wanting to add their names to the list. Well, okay, it was a small wave — 14 in the past four days to be exact — but a wave none the less. Over at Post-Darwinist, Denyse O’Leary notes that she could probably heat her home with the energy generated by the Darwinist’s voiciferous denunciations of anyone who dares to doubt the veracity of the Darwinian mechanism. Maybe, as the rage grows, I can offer energy from, like, enormous clusters of Darwinists denouncing specific scientists, in which case I can sign on to an alternative Read More ›

The Times (London) Higher Education Supplement (THES) confuses intelligent design with young earth creationism in a slew of articles as part of a crusade against ID.The main article of the four on the subject is stereotypical of the mainstream media’s insistence that this is about religion and not science, starting out reporting on a tent revival meeting and going on to focus on religion rather than on any of the serious scientific issues under debate.In this article the reporters go after creationists, and at the end of the piece there is a short description of intelligent design and how it differs from creationism. However, this article is not available online, and it is the only place where the differences between Read More ›

Science magazine has issued a correction for incorrectly calling Discovery Institute “creationism’s main think tank.” (see original post here) Corrections and ClarificationsNews of the Week: “Court revives Georgia sticker case” by C. Holden (2 June, p. 1292). The article incorrectly characterizes the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, as a think tank for the creationist movement. The institute is a public policy organization that operates many different programs, including the Center for Science & Culture, which supports the work of scholars who explore challenges to evolution and promote the concept of intelligent design. Wnen we originally called for Science to issue the correction it appeared we’d been rebuffed, but now we see that they have corrected the record. It is good Read More ›