139 pages of judicial overreach, ignoring important facts, scientific error, and logical fallacy (but other than that, it’s great!–why all the fuss?) have given the blogosphere much material to discuss. Richard Cleary has an extensive review of the Kitzmiller decision at Viewpoint. Cleary clearly highlights a fallacy in the argument ID is creationism repackaged: “The first claim, that ID must be religious, even though it doesn’t appear to be, because it evolved from (forgive me) creationism, is silly. Because one theory emerges from the embers of another doesn’t entail that it necessarily bears all or even many of the traits of the other. Modern theories of the atom are all descendents of Democritus’ belief that such entities exist, but the Read More ›
Mr. VONNEGUT: … Look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.
Viewpoint has a thoughtful, five-part series on Judge John Jones and his opinion in the Dover intelligent design trial.
Bob Murphy at LewRockwell.com, a prominent libertarian website, examines many of the common objections to ID and finds them unpersuasive in Typical Objections to Intelligent Design. Murphy takes the role of argument analyzer and examines the common objections of credibility, lack of peer-reviewed publications, ID as not scientific, and accusations that ID is an argument from ignorance. After analyzing these common arguments, Murphy finds that “the ID people are on to something, while the proponents of Darwinian evolution are missing the point.”
Columbia South Carolina’s The State newspaper had a preview piece this morning about today’s hearing held by the state’s Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to hear from experts about teaching evolution. State reporter Bill Robinson spoke at length with CSC policy analyst Casey Luskin last week in order to get more information on the overall debate, and also to better understand Discovery’s position on the issue. Unfortunately his article doesn’t reflect that. Robinson, through an error of omission, misrepresents Discovery’s science education policy position, which we’ve been consistently clear about. The article, which completely misses the point that the debate in SC has nothing to do with intelligent design, only mentions Discovery once, but like this: “Casey Luskin said Keller and Read More ›