Category: Science
Response to Matzke and Padian’s Revisionist History and Gloat Parade
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 professor responded to question about why he recently chose to join Discovery Institute: “Actually, if you must know, after reading Read More ›
Dogmatic Darwinists Strike Again: Americans United for the Separation of Students and Science
*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.
Microevolution In Action
*Microevolution In Action*
“Similarities could easily be the result of “common design” rather than common descent—where a designer wanted to design organisms on a similar blueprint and thus used similar genes in both organisms. This doesn’t challenge ID.”
Read the rest at Evolution News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.
The “Put Up or Shut Up” Debate
A recent column in USA Today by Cal Thomas and Robert Beckel argued for a debate on intelligent design. Patricia Princehouse, a philosopher at Case Western in Cleveland wrote in to say that she and other Darwinists of her acquaintance would welcome a debate and announced it as January 3 in Cleveland. “Put up or shut up,” was the genteel way she issued the invitation. January 3 was then only a month away, with the holidays coming meanwhile. Further, it was unfortunately clear that Dr. Princehouse planned to establish the debate format and other conditions herself. Bill Dembksi expressed a willingness to debate, but wanted to discuss terms. But the Princehouse terms kept changing through yesterday (11 days before the Read More ›
Philly Inquirer Associated Press Article Has GOOD Definition of Intelligent Design
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 ›