Robert L. Crowther, II

The Evolution of Urban Myths: Or, How Paul Nelson May Now be Forever Misquoted

We often report on the misreporting about the debate over evolution, and point out the misinformation that is spread not just by our critics, but also by the media itself. How does it happen that urban myths, such as the one claiming that the Kansas state science standards include intelligent design, spread and catch on? Or what about one that is growing right now from an egregious misquote of CSC Fellow Paul Nelson?

Casey Luskin

NCSE and the Pro-Evolution-Science & Theology-Only “Understanding Evolution” Website

I report with great sadness that my friend Wesley Elsberry of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has a publicly stated a strategy of trying to paint ID-proponents as liars: If you want to drive a wedge between an audience of evangelical Christians and the professionals in the ID movement, you need a third approach: show that the ID advocate on stage with you has been lying to his followers. Show misquote after misquote; demonstrate error after checkable error, and make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves. Evangelicals do want to take Christ’s message to the Read More ›

Robert L. Crowther, II

Discovery Institute Statement on the Kansas Science Standards Situation

“The ‘Stand up for Science, Stand Up For Kansas’ educational campaign is intended to defend newly implemented science standards in Kansas from misleading and blatantly false campaigns of misinformation,” said Robert Crowther, director of communications for the Center for Science & Culture in response to criticism of Discovery Institute’s public education campaign. “As we’ve reiterated previously, Discovery Institute does not get involved in electoral campaigns, and we do not endorse candidates,” added Crowther. “Groups such as Kansas Citizens for Science are waging a campaign of misinformation, blatantly misinterpreting the new standards in three major ways,” said John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture. “For instance, they continue to advance the false idea that the teaching Read More ›

Jonathan Witt

Will the Truly Moderate Position on Kansas Evolution Standards Please Stand Up?

Much of the mainstream media’s coverage of the controversy surrounding Kansas’s science standards has repeatedly talked about a “conservative” or “far right” position on the one hand and a “moderate” position on the other. Are those labels accurate? The so-called “conservative” or “far right” position calls for students to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. An overwhelming majority of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, support this approach. In contrast, the so-called “moderate” position insists that students learn only the strengths of modern evolutionary theory–science education as propaganda.

Casey Luskin

Peer-Review, Intelligent Design, and John Derbyshire’s New Bumper Sticker (Part II)

In Part I, I responded to John Derbyshire’s points about ID and peer-review. Part II will rebut some of the false claims on the TalkOrigins webpage cited by Mr. Derbyshire. I will finish this post with Part III later this week. Firstly, the TalkOrigins webpage claims there should be more pro-ID peer-reviewed papers “especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement.” This statement is highly ironic! The money available for ID research is dwarfed by evolution-funding. Tens of millions of dollars in grants are given to evolution research each year. Because Darwinists hold the purse-strings, design theorists have little-to-no chance of obtaining an NSF grant to explicitly investigate ID. Indeed, the NCSE got over $450,000 from the Read More ›