Nick Matzke and Kevin Padian have posted a celebratory rant at the NCSE website against ID and the Discovery Institute. But their rant is so extreme that it gives me reason to leap for joy. If there were any doubts that some people get over emotionally involved with this issue, Padian and Matzke’s gloat-parade makes it clear. With the lights shining brightly this rainy afternoon in Seattle, I offer the following comments: Thanks for Your Support! I’ll start with a short e-mail I received recently from a professor at a large state university, and also a movie quote. Recently a profesor responded to question about why he recently chose to join the Discovery Institute: “Actually, if you must know, after Read More ›
*Dogmatic Darwinists Strike Again: Americans United for the Separation of Students and Science*
We thought the Darwinists were willing to see non-evolutionary ideas considered in non-science courses. Turns out they were lying. Rev. Barry Lynn, who leads Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, apparently doesn’t want ID even in a philosophy course, because it’s too dangerous for young minds to learn about regardless of the venue.
Read the rest at Evolution News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.
Harrisburg, PA — Yesterday I sat in the Federal Courthouse observing the Kitzmiller trial where the ACLU is trying to ban intelligent design from the science classroom. Many of the plaintiffs’ closing arguments sounded like they were taken directly from Pandamonium (click “Pandas Gallery” to hear the “objections” without playing the game). I’m actually serious: this silly, satirical game captures nearly all of the central arguments of the NCSE-assisted plaintiffs in this case. First, Some Compliments: But before I delve into critique, I want to say some kind things about the “opposing side” in this case. While in Harrisburg this week, I interacted with a number of very nice people from the ACLU, NCSE, and even plaintiffs’ counsel and staff Read More ›
In the end, very few of Mr. Harvey’s questions had any bearing on constitutional issues, apart from the fact that he helped Minnich further demonstrate that ID is based upon empirical evidence and does not try to answer religious questions.
Today CSC Director Dr. Stephen Meyer debated Dr. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE on MSNBC. Dr. Scott claimed that there have been no peer-reviewed science articles which support intelligent design. This claim has also been made by plaintiffs’ expert witnesses at the Dover trial. MSNBC host Dan Abrams had also been misled into believing this false claim. Meyer, who authored a peer-reviewed science article supporting intelligent design, made a clear rebuttal. Yet Scott persisted in saying that his article did not support intelligent design. Meyer should know–he wrote the article. Judge for yourself. Here is what Meyer’s article actually says: “An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate–and Read More ›