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 ›

“Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. … South Carolina students would be well served to learn about these scientific criticisms as they do their own critical analysis of the evidence that both supports and challenges neo-Darwinian evolution.”

*South Carolina Has Historic Opportunity to Adopt Science Standards Calling for Critical Analysis of Evolution*
The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee will hear testimony from two scientists today who will advise them to recommend language for the state’s science standards that calls for students to critically analyze certain aspects of evolutionary theory.

“New York Times Reports on Differing Opinions on Intelligent Design from Catholic Leaders, Implies that Evolution is a Fact”
Second, the latter half of Dean’s and Fisher’s comment –the part seemingly defining what intelligent design is— simply throws up a strawman caricature of intelligent design that does not accurately represent the theory in part or in whole. Intelligent design theorists do not say “life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source” or a higher power, or a creator, or an alien, or god, or whatever you want to tack on to the end of that particular caricature. Intelligent design theory is NOT an argument based on what we don’t know, but rather an argument from what we DO know.
Read the rest at Evolution News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.