A post made 2 weeks ago highlighted how in 1981, Constance Holden wrote in Science that emotions, rather than abundant evidence, often rule the field of paleoanthropology and its claims about human evolution. Yesterday, an article by Charles Matthews in the San Jose Mercury News reiterates that same point. Reviewing a book by Ann Gibbons, Matthews notes: “Gibbons, who reports on human evolution for Science magazine, gives a lucid account of the science involved in finding fossils, establishing how old they are, and ascertaining whether they in fact belong to the ancestors of humankind. She also shows how difficult and sometimes dangerous the work of hunting for 7 million-year-old fossils can be. And that, like most humans, anthropologists are subject Read More ›
Legal commentary mentioning the Kitzmiller decision is now starting to appear in legal journals. In the Spring, 2006 issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, one of the most widely circulated law journals, the lead article addresses intelligent design, Kitzmiller, and the establishment clause. Cristi L. Bowman’s article, “Seeing Government Purpose Through the Objective Observer’s Eyes: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Debates,” is available here. Most of the article is about establishment clause jurisprudence, and an argument against part of McCreary County v. ACLU. Bowman argues that the government purpose prong of the Lemon test should return to focusing on “actual intent,” rather than trying to evaluate government purpose with an “objective observer.” Kitzmiller and the evolution-intelligent design controversy Read More ›
Darwinists claim that their theory is the foundation of all science. Indeed, we are often told that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of it. In a news article last November, a Stanford biologist claimed he had been guided in his research by Darwinian evolution: “Researchers at the School of Medicine uncovered obestatin [an appetite-suppressing hormone] by using the principles of evolution to pick clues from data held in the Human Genome Project, as well as the genome sequencing projects for many other organisms, among them yeast, fruit flies and mice. ‘Darwin led us to this new hormone,’ said senior author Aaron Hsueh, an endocrinologist and professor of obstetrics and gynecology.” The Stanford press release continued:
The contention that biochemist Michael Behe’s intelligent design argument of “irreducible complexity” (IC) is not science was undercut in a recent issue of Science magazine which contains a paper purporting to falsify the theory. If it’s not science, why bother to try to falsify it? Further, the hapless case made against Behe’s theory–as Dr. Behe explains in his detailed response–shows that irreducible complexity is also good science. Unintentionally, this paper in Science puts the lie to the whole line used in the Dover trial against Behe and his theory of irreducible complexity. It will be interesting to see whether Science lets Behe reply to the Thornton paper in its pages. If you can’t find it in Science, you can read Read More ›
After scientist and science writer Forrest Mims described University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka’s speech to the Texas Academy of Science in which he expressed a longing for an ebola virus to wipe out 90 percent of the world’s population, Pianka’s defenders quickly went on the attack, claiming that Mims had wantonly misrepresented Pianka. But several lines of evidence suggest that Mims described Pianka’s speech quite accurately.