Month: December 2004
ACLU won’t put Darwin on trial.
Dave Dentel, copy editor of the York Daily Record in Pennsylvania had an insightful, and pleasantly objective, op-ed over the holiday weekend. Dentel makes the point that the ACLU, aided by Darwin-only supporters within the ranks of mainstream scientists, is unlikely to acknowledge any of Darwinian evolutionary theory’s shortcomings. Indeed he points out that the very things they mistakenly claim of intelligent design theory, namely that it isn’t testable, Darwinian evolution itself is truly guilty.
Post article “reports” on intelligent design as just more creationism
The Washington Post for all its prominence as a national newspaper continues to help spread the idea that design theory is just a new form of creationism. Admittedly the article is better than recent error riddled reports by Post reporter Valerie Strauss, especially since it does give more background on what design theory is, and quotes Mike Behe. However, the article doesn’t provide any quotes from design proponents that explain the distinctions and clear differences between creationism and intelligent design. And this even after the reporter was offered a chance for an e-mail interview and then spoke with Discovery Institute’s John West, who he then mistakenly calls Paul. It’s frustrating when reporters can’t even get names right, how can you Read More ›
Trying science in the courtroom shuts down scientific debate
Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center has published a column looking at the current court cases involving evolution. While he mistakenly looks at intelligent design theory as just the next step after creationism in the anti-evolutionary chain, he does have some interesting insights into the drawbacks for science of shutting down the debate. “If school board resolutions aren’t the answer, who decides what, if any, critiques of evolution get into the curriculum? The short answer is – or should be – scientists decide. But many in the science establishment worry that teaching the controversy – even conflicts among scientists about some aspects of evolutionary theory – would open the door to creationist or other religious views. That’s why so Read More ›
The not so secular face of evolution
American Daily has posted an interesting article by writer Robert Myers, “The Face of Evolution,” making the case that neo-Darwinism may be unfit for the classroom as it is a religion itself and that if it is allowed in other theories should be as well. “The first time that I heard the concept of evolution presented as a religion or philosophy, I snickered at the audacity of such a proposition. But the more I have taken notice of how the arguments are made, the more I see the religious aspects of the evolutionary position.” I have to point out — lest we be misquoted — that our position remains that intelligent design theory should NOT be mandated, but that it Read More ›
Witt Letter In London Times
Senior Fellow Jonathan Witt responded to a frightfully stereotypical attack on ID in general in a recent edition of the The (London) Times with this letter. The Times apparently opted not to use the longer op-ed we had submitted.