Peter Clarke claims that I was “clearly fearmongering,” but then admits, “this depiction is fairly accurate.” Okay, then.
In a previous article I described the evidence that cooption faces insurmountable mathematical challenges in explaining the origins of such complex molecular machines as the bacterial flagellum.
An article in Murfreesboro, Tennessee’s Daily News Journal, ironically titled “American history slips into oblivion,” shows just how dramatic the media’s misconceptions of intelligent design are. Ed Kimbrell writes “look at Kansas and Georgia, where the boards demanded that intelligent design be taught along side evolution.” But neither Kansas nor Georgia taught intelligent design. The text of the Cobb County, Georgia, School Board’s disclaimer, which has nothing to do with intelligent design, may be found here, and it merely states “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Even Judge Cooper’s terrible original ruling, which was vacated by an appellate court, Read More ›
Last week Michael Behe spoke at Kansas University as part of a series of “Difficult Dialogues,” with various speakers on the topic of intelligent design. There is an excellent report on Behe’s talk at Reasonable Kansans Blog which has some highlights worth noting. Behe primarily discussed and critiqued the Kitzmiller ruling. (We will have more news about this and related issues dealing with how Judge Jones wrote his ruling tomorrow, so be sure to check back here.) The Immunology Literature Dump: “As far as the ‘stack of books and articles’ presented at the trial, Behe took it as bad courtroom theatre. … Behe said that current studies do not provide evidence that the immune system has been explained by evolutionary Read More ›
The Associated Press has a story on the Kansas Science Standards which repeats the rhetoric of Kansas Darwinists. It states, “While Kansas public schools are likely to get their fifth set of science standards in eight years, the officials who want to ditch the anti-evolution ones now in place aren’t planning to act immediately.” But the present standards are not “anti-evolution.” The present standards teach more about evolution than do most statewide science standards and include extensive sections discussing the evidence both for and against evolution. The article also wrongly asserts that the standards have a “tilt toward intelligent design,” and the article mentions intelligent design 7 times. This focus on intelligent design is misleading: as we’ve repeatedly discussed, the Read More ›