Don’t Bash it ‘Til You’ve Tried It: A response to Krauthammer and Kriegel

In the last week, two anti-ID editorials have been posted on various major media sites. This includes an article by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post entitled, Phony Theory, False Conflict and an article at Tech Central Station by Uriah Kriegel entitled, Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?. Both articles critique intelligent design, but Krauthammer’s misrepresents the theory quite badly. Kriegel makes some interesting arguments about ID and falsification–if only he would understand that ID theory is structured to disallow explanation by natural selection because natural selection is a fundamentally non-intelligent cause, and then apply his Popperian demarcation criteria to evolution as well. Citing to Unfriendly Authorities Krauthammer’s line of attack is to imply that Read More ›

Dirty Politics: Soil Science Society of America and other Aggie Organizations Unwittingly Expose Political Opposition to ID

Is opposition to ID based upon science or politics? Lisa Anderson recently reported that: Every major scientific organization in the United States has issued a statement opposing intelligent design as non-scientific and denying any debate over the validity of evolution. (Kansas school board approves changes to science standards) Anderson is a well-established reporter, so it’s safe to assume her facts are correct. So, I could end this blog post right here and just say “enough said,” the answer to the question posed above is “YES!” Against what other theory do science organizations release condemning press edicts? This is completely political and unscientific behavior for these “scientific” organizations. In particular, what business does the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society Read More ›

Closing arguments: Dover Plaintiffs’ Counsel Speaks Loudly, Carries Small Stick

Harrisburg, PA — Yesterday I sat in the Federal Courthouse observing the Kitzmiller trial where the ACLU is trying to ban intelligent design from the science classroom. Many of the plaintiffs’ closing arguments sounded like they were taken directly from Pandamonium (click “Pandas Gallery” to hear the “objections” without playing the game). I’m actually serious: this silly, satirical game captures nearly all of the central arguments of the NCSE-assisted plaintiffs in this case. First, Some Compliments: But before I delve into critique, I want to say some kind things about the “opposing side” in this case. While in Harrisburg this week, I interacted with a number of very nice people from the ACLU, NCSE, and even plaintiffs’ counsel and staff Read More ›