Robert L. Crowther, II

By Refusing to Correct Inaccurate Statements Science Magazine Engages in Unethical Editorializing

Casey Luskin reported last week about Science magazine’s Constance Holden dubbing Discovery Institute “creationism’s main think tank.” The current issue of the journal Science gave us further proof that the AAAS has no interest in being a neutral or fair participant in the debate over ID and evolution. In what purports to be a news article, Constance Holden wrote: It’s “a victory as it throws out the problematic ruling [made by] the trial court,” says Casey Luskin, a lawyer at The Discovery Institute, creationism’s main think tank in Seattle, Washington. (“Court Revives Georgia Sticker Case,” by Constance Holden, Science Vol 312:1292 (June 2, 2006)) By labeling Discovery Institute “creationism’s main think tank,” Holden engages in blatant editorializing and abandons her Read More ›

Jonathan Witt

Letter to Boston Globe: “The Collapse of Reason” Evident in Critique of Intelligent Design

Dear editor, In “The Collapse of Reason,” Cathy Young agrees with leading liberal intellectual Todd Gitlin who believes “the academic left is making itself irrelevant by embracing ideological extremism and trying to purge its ranks of those who are not politically correct.” It’s a shame, then, that Young herself characterizes those who see evidence for intelligent design as religiously motivated right wing nuts, and in her own collapse of reason, provides no evidence for her position.

Bruce Chapman

Biological Design is Not Designed; Of Course It’s Not

One of the benefits of real intelligent design is encouragement of reverse engineering to understand how nature works and how to correct problems in nature (disease, for example)–and to provoke new inventions. (Spare us the argument that because you have a trick knee and an appendix you couldn’t have been designed. You should meet my old Taurus; it was designed, too, and it was still a rattletrap.) Some scientists seem to be making the design connection, as this AP story indicates, but as Bill Dembski “cattily” says, they don’t want to own up to what they are doing. Instead of worrying about a bogus “theological clash” with intelligent design scientists (whose theory definition the AP once again mangles), the folks Read More ›

Casey Luskin

Science Editorializes over Discovery Institute

The current issue of the journal Science gave us further proof that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has no interest in being a neutral or fair participant in the debate over ID and evolution. In what purports to be a news article, Constance Holden wrote: “It’s ‘a victory as it throws out the problematic ruling [made by] the trial court,’ says Casey Luskin, a lawyer at The Discovery Institute, creationism’s main think tank in Seattle, Washington.” (“Court Revives Georgia Sticker Case,” by Constance Holden, Science Vol 312:1292 (June 2, 2006)) By labeling Discovery Institute “creationism’s main think tank,” Holden engages in blatant editorializing and abandons her role as reporter for that of mouthpiece for ID’s critics. Read More ›

Jonathan Witt

Jeff Schwartz, Jeff Schwartz, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, and the Increasingly Byzantine Conspiracy to Establish a Theocracy

I think it was George Patton who said, “If everybody’s thinking the same thing, then nobody’s thinking.” And I believe that’s the problem with this Darwinian thinking that puts all the eggs in one basket. Oh, those ignorant people who criticize Darwinism … this guy’s probably a Christian fundamentalist, right? Determined to ignore science and establish a theocracy.