You know you’re fighting a media war when you jump for joy simply because a news article accurately characterizes your theory. Well, I’m jumping for joy right now because an AP article by Martha Raffaele in the Philadelphia Inquirer has an excellent definition of intelligent design: “U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is expected to rule Tuesday on whether the Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include “intelligent design,” the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause.” (“School district awaits judge’s decision on ‘intelligent design’” by Martha Raffaele, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec 20, 2005) By using the term “intelligent cause,” this article accurately characterizes how ID Read More ›
Here are my very brief, quick and dirty Top 10 problems with the Kitzmiller decision. Some of these will be elaborated more in future posts by various Evolution News & Views posters. 10) It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn’t and even though both pro-ID expert scientists testified it wasn’t (Day 11 PM, pg. 95; Day 20 PM pg. 45, 135). In short, it lets the critics define ID rather than the proponents. 9) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that the nature of science is characterized by methodological naturalism and that intelligent design is not science (pg. 65).** 8) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is compatible with religion (pg. 136).** Read More ›
A “FAQ” for the interested layperson about the current federal lawsuit over the teaching intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board. A decision in the case is now expected on Tuesday, December 20, 2005. By Casey Luskin This article responds to many questions we have received about what happened in the trial over teaching intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania. Many people have wondered what the potential ramifications of this case are for the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design, and have also wondered if the plaintiffs’ arguments in this case were accurate. This is a complex case. This article attempts to address those questions by laying out the case in simple terms, Read More ›
For years Darwinists have been doing their best to remind the world of the good news that evolution and religion can be compatible. Yet skepticism of evolution continues to remain at a very high level in the United States. Why is this? A timeline of random samples of statements and polls: 1982: Polls say that only 9% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes. 1984: The National Academy of Sciences assures the public that science and religion occupy “separate and mutually exclusive realms,” and that religion and science are compatible. (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 1st edition, 1984) 1993: Polls say that only 11% of Americans believe that humans developed Read More ›
Rewriting History: Museum Fails to Disclose Own Role in Social Darwinism
The Museum’s current exhibit glancingly mentions eugenics as an aberration, but this so-called aberration was supported by most of America’s elite universities and scientists for several decades. In 1932, for example, the AMNH itself played official host for a scientific meeting titled the “Third International Congress of Eugenics,” and in conjunction with that meeting the Museum mounted an extensive public exhibition uncritically extolling the “science” of eugenics (much in the same way the current exhibit uncritically extolls neo-Darwinism). Read the rest at Evolution News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.