Casey Luskin

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,

John G. West

Dover in Review: An Analysis of Judge Jones’ Flawed Ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

During the Christmas break, I posted a four-part series analyzing various issues surrounding the Dover intelligent design ruling. In case you missed it, I am reposting the first three parts of the series here in one place. The analysis addresses the following questions: Is Judge Jones an activist judge? Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial? Did Judge Jones accurately describe the content and early versions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People? The fourth part of the series can still be accessed here.

Robert L. Crowther, II

Arizona Republic Columnist Hit the Nail on the Head in His Dover Trial Analysis

*Arizona Arizona Republic Columnist Hit the Nail on the Head in His Dover Trial Analysis*
Far from wanting to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, the ID movement advocates that it be taught. Moreover, it does not support the mandatory teaching of intelligent design as an alternative. Instead, it wants a more circumspect presentation of evolutionary theory as well as acknowledgement of its scientific critiques. Read the rest at Evolution News & Views,

Jonathan Witt

Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions

Among the many, many errors in Judge John Jones’ Dover vs. Kitzmiller opinion is the charge that intelligent design (ID) makes no empirically testable claims (see pp. 66 ff.). Similarly, other ID critics assert that intelligent design makes no testable predictions.1 In fact, intelligent design fulfills both criteria since it makes numerous empirically testable predictions.