John Derbyshire keeps reburying the design argument over at The Corner, with evidence he assures us is elsewhere. By assembling a host of misconceptions about design theory into a single, compact essay (generally unencumbered by supporting evidence), Derbyshire has done us a great service, providing us a forum to respond to each misconception in a series of posts over the next several days. I’ve never met John Derbyshire. I love his name. It makes me think of England and Middle Earth. I imagine him wearing a stylish derby and living in a tasteful shire somewhere, an articulate conservative with strong opinions–but who just might stop and take a second look at a position with a much older pedigree than Darwinism, Read More ›
Kansas is busy reviewing, and proposing revisions to, the standards by which it will measure what students know or don’t know about science. Regardless of the tin-ear reporting of some journalists, students in Kansas will continue to learn about evolution. The question is will they know ALL about evolution including the scientific evidence against it? Or, will they learn only about the evidence that supports it? Reporting on the issue has run the gamut from good, to bad, to ugly. We remarked on the good previously, an article by Diane Carroll of the Kansas City Star. And, there was today another good article, by Elaine Bessier in the Johnson County Sun. In fact, Bessier’s article was more than good, it Read More ›
Remember Calvin Ball? Calvin and Hobbes played a ball game where the victor was the one who could most nimbly change the rules to assure victory. Well, they’re playing Calvin Ball over at USA Today again. Gerald L. Zelizer writes: Can intelligent design and evolution reside in the same school building? Yes. In the same curriculum? No. Intelligent design belongs in history or social science class. Evolution belongs in science class. If one merely defines the scientific evidence against Darwinism as not-science, then, presto, you’ve cleared the field of all those stubborn, uncooperative facts that are better explained as the product of intelligent cause. Science writer Denyse O’Leary wrote USA Today, commenting thus: Regarding Rabbi Zelizer’s comments (February 6, 2005), Read More ›
Michael Behe’s op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times seems to have hit a nerve. Or two. Or three. Or perhaps all of them, if you’re a Darwinian dogmatist. Here’s a few. ID Hits the Times Op-Ed, Science Tuesday, De-Sign of the Times, ID is a “rival theory”. There were some blogs cheering Behe’s piece as well, most prominently the Evangelical Outpost. EO writes: ID in the NYT — Today’s New York Times presents an editorial by Michael Behe that does what no major media outlet has bothered to do: allow a prominent advocate of the theory to explain what Intelligent Design really is. Behe’s op-ed was the number two most e-mailed article from the Times’ website yesterday. Who says there’s Read More ›
Michael Behe’s op-ed “Design for Living” from today’s New York Times is the third most e-mailed article from today’s Times.