The Advocate today gives a big hip-hip-hooray for Darwin’s “process.” They worry that the public doesn’t accept Darwinian evolutionary claims to explain the complex diversity of life and the universe. Must be that they just don’t understand. Their solution? Perhaps the “law of evolution” would be more easily understood by the public than the “theory” of evolution. It’s interesting that evolution is so solid, so proven, that it will only survive if it is declared a law. When evolution is the law of the land, what will happen then to those who dissent?
On February 24, an audience of approximately 500 students, journalists, scholars and scientists gathered to hear five speakers present an international perspective on intelligent design in Instanbul’s Cemal Resit Rey Concert Hall. The conference, which was sponsored by the Cultural Affairs Bureau of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, featured speakers from Turkey, Britain, and America. Already recognized as a success by the local leadership, the conference introduced intelligent design to the people of Turkey and was covered by mainstream Turkish media.
On Wednesday, February 28, Bryan Fischer debated Kitzmiller plaintiffs’ attorney of the ACLU, Witold “Vic” Walczak, over teaching intelligent design in schools. The debate was sponsored mostly by the ACLU. Mr. Fischer reports that the pro-ACLU crowd cheered supportively when Fischer read a statement by Darwinist biologist P.Z. Myers advocating academic intolerance towards proponents of ID. Fischer reported: Of course Fischer read aloud P.Z. Myers’ quote with the intention of shocking the “pro-ACLU crowd” because Fischer assumed that they would value academic freedom, tolerance, and civil discourse. Apparently Fischer’s assumption was wrong.
As noted recently, anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler believes that Judge Jones went too far when he tried to address whether ID is science in the Kitzmiller ruling. Wexler also complains that “The Judge Did Not Explain Why He Addressed the “Is it Science?” Issue” and argues that Judge Jones gives “no coherent answer” to that question: “If there is no coherent answer, then Judge Jones’ explanation that consideration of the science issue will be useful to other courts likewise falters.” (Jay D. Wexler, “Kitzmiller and the ‘Is It Science?’ Question,” 5 First Amendment Law Review 90, 108, 109 (2006).) The implication is that Judge Jones’ ruling on whether ID is science, which was largely copied from the ACLU, is Read More ›
A recent law review article by self-described “liberal First Amendment theorist” Arnold H. Loewy argues that it is constitutional to teach intelligent design in public schools. Writing in First Amendment Law Review, Loewy points out that “[t]o allow all ideas about the origin of man that do not presuppose an intelligent designer, but forbid all theories that explore the possibilities of such a designer, expresses hostility, not neutrality, towards religion.” Similar to the position of Discovery Institute, Loewy does not believe that intelligent design should therefore be required in schools. But he does think that it should not be prohibited simply because many will perceive it has having “partial congruence with religion”: I believe that teaching intelligent design in public Read More ›