Ken Miller’s “Random and Undirected” Testimony

Yesterday, Cornelius Hunter critiqued at IDtheFuture some of Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller’s theologically-charged arguments for evolution during the Kitzmiller trial. Miller is a widely promoted theistic evolutionist, and thus served as the plaintiffs leadoff expert witness for biology, evolution, and theistic evolutionism during the Kitzmiller trial. Judge Jones apparently found Miller’s existence so compelling that the Judge ruled that evolution and “belief in the existence of a supreme being” are compatible, and ruled that any belief otherwise is “utterly false.” Yet significant portions of Miller’s testimony about the anti-religious descriptions of evolution contained in his textbooks were factually challenged (i.e. wrong). On the second day of the Kitzmiller trial, Miller was confronted about theologically charged statements about evolution Read More ›

Why Do Students Reject Evolution? It’s the Science!

Despite the Darwinist community’s long-standing campaign to help the public come to the “correct” view that “evolution and religion are compatible,” public skepticism of evolution remains high. (See this link for documentation.) This would logically lead one to the conclusion that there are other factors besides religion that drive skepticism of evolution. Perhaps, one might even suggest, for many people the issue has a lot to do with science! Recently I was told about a 1997 article in Scientific American which reported a study conducted by Brian Alters on students’ reasons for rejecting evolution (“What Are They Thinking?: Students’ reasons for rejecting evolution go beyond the Bible,” by Rebecca Zacks, Scientific American, October 1997, pg. 34). The study surveyed over Read More ›

New England Journal of Medicine Rejects Pro-ID Letter About Kitzmiller Decision

On June 2, 2006, I submitted a short, 175-word letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), responding to the incomplete and one-sided discussion of the Kitzmiller ruling they published, “Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom,” by George J. Annas (NEJM, Volume 354 [21]:2277-2281 [May 25, 2006]). Today I learned that they have rejected my letter. I’ve had letters rejected or accepted in various venues before, so that’s fine. The rejection notice stated that “[t]he space available for correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a representative selection of the material received.” NEJM devoted approximately 3,426 words to Mr. Annas’s article, which was completely one-sided and simply Read More ›

Microbiologist Testifies in Favor of Critical Analysis

Microbiologist Ralph Seelke of the University of Wisconsin, Superior, testified before the Michigan State Legislature in favor of critical analysis of evolution, last week. Dr. Seelke spoke before the Michigan House Education Committee in favor of HB 5251 which would require students to “Use the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theories of global warming and evolution.” Seelke explained why critical analysis is vital to avoiding indoctrination: “Why do I think that having students critically analyze evolution is a good idea? First of all, in any area where there is considerable disagreement, a sound teaching strategy is to teach the controversy: allow the students to examine both the strengths and weaknesses of arguments Read More ›

SC Dept of Education: Critical Analysis does NOT require Teaching ID

According to the recent Associated Press story on South Carolina’s new critical analysis of evolution standard, the South Carolina Department of Education does not think critical analysis means teaching alternative theories, like intelligent design (ID): “Education Department spokesman Jim Foster says scientific inquiry is taught at every grade level and in every subject. Foster says the wording does not require students to study alternatives to evolution that are out of the mainstream.” (Education panel approves wording on biology standards) We’ve been agreeing all along that critical analysis of evolution policies do not require teaching about alternative theories like ID! This just shows that the Darwinist claim that critical analysis = ID is just another tired conspiracy theory. So is the Read More ›