There’s no doubt that Nature got an earful for publishing an article in which writer Geoff Brumfiel didn’t adaquately skewer the theory of intelligent design. Nor do the letter writers think he delivered a satisfactorily vicious enough savaging to the theory’s proponents. One letter writer proclaimed: ID creationism is not science, despite the editors’ suggestion that ID “tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature”. Rather, advocates of ID pretend to use scientific methods to support their religious preconceptions. Another was aghast that Nature
World has a good news story on the Kansas science hearings, one that goes well beyond the MSM’s rusty boilerplate about scientists clashing with Bible thumpers: In Kansas, Darwinists won back control of the State Board of Education in 2000 and restored the older standards. But conservatives have now retaken the board, and they are expected to vote this summer to adopt the revisions debated in Topeka. The Darwinist response to such a challenge is no secret. “My strategy at this point is the same as it was in 1999,” wrote Liz Craig of Kansas Citizens For Science on the group’s discussion board in February. “Notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them in the Read More ›
Biologist and Icons of Evolution author Jonathan Wells takes The New York Times and physicist Lawrence Krauss to task here and here for persistent misreporting of the science curricula battles in the state of Kansas.
Associated Press reporter John Hanna’s story about the definition of science currently used in Kansas appeared in papers all across the country over the weekend, and other reporters have touched on this issue as well. And rightly so. This is one of the most important issues before the Kansas state board of education, namely, what is the proper definition of science.
Science writer Denyse O’Leary is bringing her incisive humor to the blogosphere. Post-Darwinist is a must read. An excerpt from her discussion of the Nightline debate between Michael Ruse and William Dembski epitomizes her style: I predicted a few weeks ago that the Darwinists would fundamentally change their strategy and go for the emotional appeal. That is essentially what Ruse was doing on ABC’s Nightline.