Blogger Ed Brayton is fulminating over my comments about those who wrongly conflate intelligent design theory with religion. Brayton responds with proof-texts supposedly showing that key ID supporters think ID makes religious claims after all. Mr. Brayton doth protest too much. First of all, if he had read the article I referenced in my blog post about why ID is not creationism, he would have known that I never deny that ID can have metaphysical implications. As I wrote in that article:

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program.

I went on to explain that ID in this respect is no different than Darwinism:

Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

The central issue here is not whether ID proponents believe there is a God (many do), or even whether they think the findings of ID are harmonious with a belief in God. The real question is whether design theorists claim that science can determine that the intelligent cause being detected via empirical evidence is God. ID scholars have consistently answered this question in the negative.

Consider the following passage from the early ID textbook Of Pandas and People (the cited passage was co-authored by Mark Hartwig and Stephen Meyer):

Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists and describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source. [Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, second edition, 1993, p. 161]

Or, since Ed Brayton cites Bill Dembski, consider the following statement from Dembski's book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (1999):

Intelligent design is modest in what it attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the remit of science. As Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis remark in their text on intelligent design: "Science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy." Intelligent design as a scientific theory is distinct from a theological doctrine of creation. Creation presupposes a Creator who originates the world and all its materials. Intelligent design attempts only to explain the arrangement of materials within an already given world. Design theorists argue that certain arrangements of matter, especially in biological systems, clearly signal a designing intelligence. [Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Intervarsity Press, 1999, pp. 247-248]

The above book explicitly deals with the relationship between ID and theology (and it's even published by a Christian publisher). Yet Dembski still makes very clear that ID as a scientific theory is limited in what it can show about the intelligent cause. This is a repeated theme in Dembski's work over the past decade. Consider the following similar passage from Dembski's book No Free Lunch (2002):

Paley's approach was closely linked to his prior religious and metaphysical commitments. Mine is not. Paley's designer was nothing short of the triune God of Christianity, a transcendent, personal, moral being with all the perfections commonly attributed to this God. On the other hand, the designer that emerges from a theory of intelligent design is an intelligence capable of originating the complexity and specificty that we find throughout the cosmos and especially in biological system. Persons with theological commitments can co-opt this designer and identify this designer with the object of worship. But this move is strictly optional as far as the actual science of intelligent design is concerned. [Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman and Littlefield, 202, p. xiv-xv] ]

What about Michael Behe, one of the leading ID biologists? Does Behe claim that ID can prove the existence of God? Nope:

the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments. For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That's misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator. ["Design for Living: The Basis for a Design Theory of Origins," The New York Times, Feb. 7, 2005.]

Meyer, Dembski, and Behe are three of the top ID scholars. Anyone who has actually read their work knows that they have been consistent about the limits of what empircal science can show regarding the nature of intelligent causes, and they have consistently distinguished design as a scientific research program from philosophical or metaphysical implications of the theory. A few cherry-picked quotes ripped out of context does nothing to change this fact.

Neither does an out-of-context quote from an old Discovery Institute fundraising proposal, most of which focuses not on ID as a scientific theory but on the cultural context of science and the harmful effects of the pseudo-scientific philosophy of scientific materialism. That document does mention that design theory is "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." So what? "Consonant with" means "harmonious with," not "identical to." Where's the scandal in such a claim? Theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller ardently believe that Darwinian theory is "consonant" with Christianity. In the the PBS "Evolution" series (2001), Miller gave the following statement of faith about the consistency of Darwinism with Christianity (with organ music playing softly in the background!):

not only was Darwin right about about the origin of species, and not only was Darwin right about the mechanisms of evolutionary change, but there’s nothing about those origins or that mechanism of change which goes against religious belief, and therefore I sort of find this absolutely wonderful consistency with what I understand about the universe from science and what I understand about the universe from faith. (emphasis added)

Because Miller finds an "absolutely wonderful consistency" between Darwinism and Christianity, does this mean that Darwinism is simply repackaged Christianity? Of course not.

It seems that some Darwinists can't argue against ID's real position, so they have to invent a straw man. But no amount of proof-texting is going to change the fact that leading ID theorists have consistently maintained that the design inference in science cannot prove the existence of God.

Posted by John West at 12:24 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The World Summit on Evolution just happened earlier this month with less fanfare than one might expect in these days of overhyping Darwin's legacy. It seems that about 200 biologists gathered in Chuck's old stomping grounds in the Galapagos to compare notes on neo-Darwinian evolution and breathe some life back into the aging concept.

One blogging attendee explained why it had to be kept so hush-hush:

"Arrival details were kept under wraps, said one organizer, lest the Creationist community get wind of the fact that so many evolutionary luminaries would be on the same plane to the island."

Shermer delivers a blow by blow account of all the speakers, including his own "entertainment" on ID creationism. Shermer is candid at times about the Darwin doubters in their midst. But, amazingly, amongst all those evolutionary biologists he always manages to find someone to set the record straight after the "skeptic" has finished speaking. (Of course all the "skeptics" proudly assert they are truly Darwinists, lest anyone quote them out of context later.)

Cornell's William Provine apparently delivered a barely intelligible presentation which, according to Shermer "gist of his talk was that we need a new theory of evolution." Shermer dismisses him completely:

"no one else present thought that there was any merit to Provine's challenges to modern evolutionary theory."

"'It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist.' But, she quickly added, 'I am definitely a Darwinist though.'"

"There were no direct challenges to Margulis in the discussion period that followed, so I once again queried a number of the experts in this area after the lecture. The overall impression I received was that Margulis goes too far in her rejection of neo-Darwinism, but because she was right about the role of symbiogenesis in the origin of the first eukaryote cells, they are taking a wait-and-see approach. One scientist added that since Margulis was to receive an honorary doctorate that afternoon, it seemed inappropriate to challenge her in this venue. "

Finally, Shermer wraps up with this conclusion:

"Herein lies science's greatest strength: not only the ability to withstand such buffeting, but to actually grow from it. Creationists and other outsiders contend that science is a cozy and insular club in which meetings are held to enforce agreement with the party line, to circle the wagons against any and all would-be challengers, and to achieve consensus on the most contentious issues. This conclusion is so wrong that it cannot have been made by anyone who has ever attended a scientific conference. The World Summit on Evolution, like most scientific conferences, revealed a science rich in history and tradition, data and theory, as well as controversy and debate. From this I conclude that the theory of evolution has never been stronger."

What's amazing is that he actually believes that this Darwinist love-fest was not "held to enforce agreement with the party line, to circle the wagons against any and all would-be challengers, and to achieve consensus on the most contentious issues." And this right after his debunking of the debunkers -- such as they were.

The Woodstock of evolution is over, the theme of which seems to have been Darwinism is dead, long live Darwinism. What we need now is a Lolapalooza of evolution to really turn it on its head.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:08 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today’s Boston Globe carries an inane editorial attacking intelligent design that demonstrates how a little learning (in this case, very little) can be a dangerous thing. The Globe editorialist no doubt thought he was valiantly defending good science, but instead he simply exposes how uninformed he is. The editorial starts by dismissing Dr. Stephen Meyer's peer-reviewed journal article from the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the Globe:

The trouble started last August when Richard von Sternberg, editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, published an article by Scott C. Meyer, vice president of the Discovery Institute, chief proponent of intelligent design. Meyer contended that the sudden profusion of complex life forms in the Cambrian era, about 500 million years ago, could not be explained by evolution.

The article does not make much of a scientific argument. The ''Cambrian explosion," as it's called, lasted millions of years, plenty of time for evolution to work.

The Globe editorialist confidently assures readers that Dr. Meyer's piece "does not make much of a scientific argument."

How would he know? He appears not to have read Meyer's article.

For one thing, he gets Meyer's name wrong. (Uhh, it's Stephen, not Scott. Maybe the writer had just been speaking by phone with Eugenie Scott, and had a Freudian slip?) More seriously, the Globe writer shows no awareness of the actual content Meyer's journal article, which is backed up by citations to more than 140 other scientific articles and monographs.

Meyer's article makes three major points: (1) The mechanism of neo-Darwinism (natural selection plus random mutation) does not seem capable of accounting for the origin of animal body plans during the Cambrian explosion. (2) Other explanations that have been proposed to shore up the neo-Darwinian mechanism have problems of their own. (3) Intelligent design may offer a promising explanation for the origin of animal body plans for several reasons, including the fact that we know that intelligent causes are capable of producing the kind of complex specified information required to build animal body plans.

Most of Meyer's article is about point #1: the problems of the neo-Darwinist mechanism of natural selection plus random mutations. As Meyer explains in detail, there are lots of scientists who are skeptical of whether the selection/mutation mechanism is sufficient to explain the origin of animal body plans in the 5-10 million years of time available. No problem, says the Globe editorial writer. The Cambrian explosion lasted millions of years, and that's good enough for him. A few million years must be enough time for "evolution" to produce absolutely anything, right? Poof! Presto! Chango! The animal body plans magically assemble through the wondrous process of natural selection and random mutations!

Wow. Why didn't the scientists think of that?

It's bad enough the Globe writer apparently didn't read the article he's pretending to critique. He also doesn't appear to have read anything else about the Cambrian explosion. If he had, he would have realized that the controversy over whether neo-Darwinism can explain the origin of animal body plans happens to be very, very real.

So real that not even Darwin-cheerleader Eugenie Scott claims that the neo-Darwinian mechanism explains the body plans:

"Who knows whether natural selection explains the Cambrian body plans. ... So what?" (Eugenie Scott, quoted in The Seattle Times, March 31, 2005)

The Globe writer is to be congratulated for demonstrating more blind faith in Darwin's theory than Eugenie Scott.

If you want to determine for yourself whether neo-Darwinism can account for the origin of animal body plans, you can always read the article by Stephen Meyer that the Globe editorialist apparently didn't have time for.

Posted by John West at 1:35 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As pointed out in my blog post below, Science magazine is running a bogus news item asserting that the Kansas Board of Education is considering whether to mandate intelligent design. I challenge Science magazine to produce proof of its claim. If it can do so, I am willing to donate $100 to Science's parent organization, the American Association for the Advacement of Science (AAAS), so that it can promote Darwinian evolution.

This challenge is good until 5:00 pm Pacific Time on June 28. The staff of Science are invited to send their evidence to cscinfo@discovery.org. (And no, another false news report from another sloppy news organization, doesn't constitute evidence.)

Posted by John West at 4:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Science Magazine's "Netwatch" for today has an item titled "Standing up for Darwin." I hope the magazine's review process for scientific articles is better than its apparently non-existent fact-checking of news items. In typically histrionic tones, the piece laments:

Evolution is under attack again, as school boards in Kansas and other states consider whether to mandate teaching of "intelligent design"...

As we've reported repeatedly on this blog, Kansas is NOT considering whether to mandate the teaching of intelligent design. The Kansas Board of Education has made this point very clear. Indeed, the latest draft of the science standards under consideration in Kansas contains the following statement:

the Science Curriculum Standards do not include the theory of Intelligent Design. While the testimony presented at the science hearings included both advocates and critics of the theory of Intelligent Design, we do not include it in these curriculum standards. The Board does not take a position on this topic.

Which part of this statement doesn't the news staff at Science understand?

Posted by John West at 4:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

While it's frustrating when critics of intelligent design mischaracterize what ID is about, it's even worse when people billing themselves as friends of ID do the same thing. As the term "intelligent design" has increasingly entered the public discourse, the number of people misusing the term to advance their own agendas by calling it "design" has increased. Take the recent proposal by a Utah legislator for something he calls "divine design," by which he clearly seems to mean creationism. According to a recent article in the Salt Lake City Tribune:

Evolution has not been a big issue in Utah until now. On June 3, Sen. Chris Buttars of West Jordan said he would propose giving equal time to what he called "divine design," that is, that the world was created by a superior being.

"The divine design is a counter to the kids' belief that we all come from monkeys. Because we didn't," the conservative Republican told The Salt Lake Tribune.

If this legislator wants to promote creationism, he should say so plainly. But by invoking the term design, he wrongly conflates creationism with intelligent design. (No, ID and creationism are not the same. For some of the reasons why, read here.) I'd like to give a clear message to those who are trying to hijaack the term design in order to promote something else: Stop! That is essentially what I told the Tribune reporter:

But proponents of intelligent design have a message for Buttars: Don't help us.

"We get very upset when supposed friends are claiming far more than what the scholars are saying," says John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.

For one thing, they oppose requiring the teaching of intelligent design. What they are pushing, West says, is a thorough discussion of Darwinian theories which would include criticism raised by legitimate scientists.

That's what the schools in Ohio and Minnesota have done and what intelligent design advocates hope will happen in Kansas, he says. But they don't support the move in Dover, Pa., to add a statement about intelligent design to the curriculum. And they want nothing to do with Buttars' so-called "divine design."

"We wish [Buttars] would get the name right and not propose something he doesn't understand," West says.

Posted by John West at 12:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The long-awaited screening of The Privileged Planet documentary at the Smithsonian takes place this evening in Washington, D.C. Stay tuned for some first-hand reporting of the event later tonight and on Friday from Rob Crowther.

In the meantime, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to all of the Darwinists who provided free publicity for the screening by denouncing a film they had never even seen. (If they had seen the film, they would have known that it doesn't deal with biological evolution. See Rob Crowther and Bruce Chapman's prior posts, here and here, respectively.)

After tonight's screening, I'm sure we can look forward to still more encores from the pro-Darwin chorus. Keeping in mind that the most vocal critics to this point have neither read the book nor seen the movie, Discovery's Seth Cooper decided to help out by drafting a few form letters critics can send to newspaper editors tomorrow :

Dear Editor, Shame on the Smithsonian for showing the intelligent design film The Privileged Planet! How dare they! NO reputable scientist anywhere dares think that the Earth is either habitable or discoverable--which is why I refused to watch the film at all. Only religious zealots think such things.

(Signed)_____________

Dear Editor, The Smithsonian Institution has lost all credibility for hosting a viewing of the ID film The Privileged Planet. Proponents of the “privileged planet hypothesis” featured in the movie (which I adamantly refuse to ever watch), are committed to the arrogant and gruesome ideology of planetism—they dare think that Earth is more important or special than other planets. Real scientists know that ALL planets are the same.

(Signed)_____________

Dear Editor

America is now a theocratic dictatorship, thanks to the Smithsonian and its decision to allow a showing of the “intelligent design” movie The Privileged Planet. The un-scientific “intelligent design” proponents in the film might have slick Ph.D.s, but they are religious fundamentalists who believe in a literal reading of the Bible. They raise doubts about what all serious scientists believe--namely, that the Earth is a literal, pale blue dot. Like me, I hope no other Americans will consent to watching this movie.

(Signed)_____________

Posted by John West at 1:28 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Since the newsmedia have frequently misreported Discovery Institute's position on the teaching of intelligent design, I thought I would highlight a letter Seth Cooper and I just sent to the Pennsylvania State Legislature opposing a pro-ID bill under discussion there. The Pennsylvania bill would authorize local school boards in the state to require intelligent design as part of their standard curriculum if they so choose. While well-intentioned, we think this proposal is unhelpful for a variety of reasons.

As Seth and I explain,

intelligent design is a relatively new theory, and it is important to allow scientific discussion of the theory to proceed unhampered by political or legal disputes. In our judgment, attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively. We therefore do not think it is appropriate to mandate the theory of intelligent design in public schools.

The full text of our letter can be read here.

Posted by John West at 12:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday's New York Times carried an article about the Kansas evolution hearings. Well, sort of. While the article discoursed at length about the pro-Darwin scientists who did NOT participate in the Kansas hearings, it never actually got around to mentioning any of the people who DID testify.

That's a novel way to cover an event--only talk about the people who did not participate in it.

I was interviewed for the article, and I'd like to commend the reporter for (on the whole) quoting me accurately. In particular, she made clear that Discovery Institute does not oppose the teaching evolution, and it does not favor requiring the teaching of intelligent design.

However, I can't commend the bowlderized version of the Kansas hearings presented in the article, which clearly leaves the impression that no "scientists" testified in Kansas.

What does that make the biology professor from the University of Wisconsin who testified? Or the biochemistry professor at the University of Georgia who testified? Or the Italian geneticist who edits one of the world's oldest still-published biology journals who testified? As I pointed out to the Times reporter, the Darwinian fundamentalists can claim all they want that there are no scientists who criticize modern Darwinian theory, but the biology professors from state universities who showed up in Kansas proved otherwise.

This New York Times article essentially imposes a news blackout on these courageous scientists and on their scientific criticisms of Darwinsm. While I talked at length with the Times reporter about the specific scientific criticisms being raised in Kansas and elsewhere, none of that made it into the article. Perhaps the Times' needs a new motto: "All the News that Fits."

Posted by John West at 12:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It looks like Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education isn't going to be able to get away with her defamation of California parent Larry Caldwell after all. (For the history of the Caldwell case, see here and here and here.) In a press release issued this week, Caldwell states that the California Academy of Sciences (CAS) has agreed to permanently remove Scott's defamatory article from the world wide web and will be printing a retraction letter by Scott in the next issue of California Wild. In addition, CAS will give Caldwell the opportunity to accurately present his views in his own words in the next issue of the same magazine. Denyse O'Leary has an excellent blog about this latest development, here.

It's lucky for Caldwell that he is an attorney. The NCSE and the California Academy of Sciences initially refused to respond to his demand for a correction, perhaps because the NCSE is used to defaming people without being called to account (read about the NCSE's refusal to retract its false claims about Jonathan Wells here). One hopes that the Caldwell case will cause the newsmedia to be a lot more careful about spreading defamatory allegations put out by the NCSE and its spokespersons.

Posted by John West at 12:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

WANTED: A new research assistant for Morton Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call and political commentator extraordinaire. An ability to read original documents and separate fact from fiction preferred. Please reply ASAP in order to spare Mort further embarrassment.

OK, so the ad hasn't appeared yet, but it should. Morton Kondracke, the usually sensible pundit and Fox-News regular, has written an unusually ill-informed article (requires subscription) on intelligent design. The article is so riddled with errors that Mr. Kondracke really should think about hiring a new researcher. The piece starts out with an urban legend:

In about 20 states — most notably, right now, before the Kansas Board of Education — conservative Christians are trying to demand “equal time” for ID and evolution as the explanation for how life developed on earth.

As I've pointed out before, this claim is patently false. Proposals to require ID have been made in only small handful of states, not twenty. These proposals are typically dreamed up by politicians
with little or no input from supporters of intelligent design (indeed, leading proponents of ID oppose attempts to require it). What is happening in most places is not an effort to require ID, but an effort to ensure that students hear about the scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory as well as the evidence favoring the theory.

This is the real issue being debated in Kansas right now. Of course, Kondracke (or his research assistant) thinks otherwise, asserting that

Kansas’ conservative-dominated Board of Education seems to be on the verge of changing its state standards for science education by removing evolution as the preferred concept for students to learn in biology and creating a toss-up with ID.

Advice to Mort: Make sure your researcher reads the relevant documents before you make factual claims in print. If your researcher had done this, he/she would have known that Kansas is NOT considering removing evolution from its science standards, nor is it considering including intelligent design. In fact, under the proposed revisions in Kansas, students actually would learn MORE about biological and chemical evolution, not less. And the current draft of the standards contain the following statement about intelligent design:

the Science Curriculum Standards do not include the theory of Intelligent Design. While the testimony presented at the science hearings included both advocates and critics of the theory of Intelligent Design, we do not include it in these curriculum standards. The Board does not take a position on this topic.

Which part of the above statement is too hard to understand? Of course, it is rather difficult to understand a document you have never read. That's the problem with articles like this one. Based on sloppy research and third-hand accounts, it simply perpetuates misinformation and distortions already in circulation.

There are many more howlers in this article (including a claim that Charles Darwin knew about genetic mutations), but I don't have the time to list them all.

Posted by John West at 11:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Tristan Abbey at the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center has just posted a short and insightful interview with NAS member Dr. Philip Skell, who you might remember recently wrote an open letter to the Kansas board of education encouraging them to adopt policies and standards that would support the teaching of both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Kansas State Board of Education is scheduled to take up discussion tomorrow of the proposed revisions to the state's science standards (although an actual up or down vote might not come until later in the summer).

The Board's Science Hearings Committee, after hearing testimony from nearly two dozen scientists and scholars last month about how evolution should be presented in the classroom, will apparently recomend the adoption of the draft standards which call for students to learn more about the scientific evidence regarding chemical and biological evolution, including scientific criticisms raised in peer-reviewed science journals. In a one page rationale for their recommendation the committee states that it had "heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory."

Below is the complete text of their statement, which is available on the Kansas Dept. of Education website as well.

Rationale of the State Board for Adopting these Science Curriculum Standards

We believe it is in the best interest of educating Kansas students that all students have a good working knowledge of science: particularly what defines good science, how science move forward, what holds science back, and how to critically analyze the conclusions that scientists make.

Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about area where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory. These curriculum standards reflect the Board’s objective of 1) to help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist on this topic, 2) to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method by encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence, and 3) to ensure that science education in our state is “secular, neutral, and non-ideological.”

From the testimony and submissions we have received, we are aware that the study and discussion of the origin and development of life may raise deep personal and philosophical questions for many people on all sides of the debate. But as interesting as these personal questions may be, the personal questions are not covered by these curriculum standards nor are they the basis for the Board’s actions in this area.

Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. The Board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory. All scientific theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. We therefore think it is important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates and for the Science Curriculum Standards to include information about them. In choosing this approach to science curriculum standards, we are encouraged by the similar approach taken by other states, whose new science standards incorporate scientific criticisms into the science curriculum that describes the scientific case for the theory of evolution.

We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include the theory of Intelligent Design. While the testimony presented at the science hearings included both advocates and critics of the theory of Intelligent Design, we do not include it in these curriculum standards. The Board does not take a position on this topic.

Kansas Science Education Standards Draft 2: June 9, 2005
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/scstdworkingdoc.pdf

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

If you're a graduate student who dares to question Darwinian evolution good luck on defending your dissertation.

OSU graduate student, Bryan Leonard, is suffering a vicious attack from Darwinist who seem bent on keeping him from earning his doctoral degree, precisely because he does not adhere to a strictly Darwinian viewpoint. (see here for more details)

Fortunately there are some who see these attacks for what they are -- threats on academic freedom. Charles Mitchell at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has posted his insightful take on the situation:

"First, to my knowledge at least, Leonard’s Ph.D. is not actually on evolution or intelligent design or anything else. It’s about pedagogy, period. Its concern is not scientific analysis of which theory on the origins of the universe is right, but rather how teaching about the controversy itself affects students’ attitudes. So they’re not really objecting to a dissertation that “question[s] evolution” in any meaningful sense, but rather one by a person who does. By this line of logic, universities don’t have to give degrees to people who hold views (however unrelated to the degree in question) that those in power don’t like. Imagine a communist student, or an anarchist, or an evangelical, or an atheist being denied a graduate degree on the grounds that some hostile professors thought it would “legitimize” such a worldview.

More importantly, though, even if Leonard’s thesis did question evolution, what would be the problem? Shouldn’t the dissertation be judged on its reasoning and analysis, not its point of view?"

Posted by Robert Crowther at 3:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

CSC Senior Fellow David Berlinski has just sent me an open letter to the Amazing Randi. Randi you may remember led the Darwinist charge of the bright brigade to try and coerce the Smithsonian into deep sixing The Privileged Planet. And Randi was serious because he offered a $20,000 bribe to keep the film from playing.

Berlinski, however, has decided to screen the film in Paris.

But here’s the thing, Randi. I was sort of planning to screen the film right here in my apartment in Paris. I’ve got a little screening room I call The Smithsonian right between the bathroom and the kitchen, I sort of figured I’d invite some friends over, open a couple cans of suds, sort of kick back and enjoy. Now you fork over $20,000 to the Smithsonian not to show the film and right away I’m showing the film here in Paris – that’s just not going to work for you, if you catch my drift.

Berlinski also points out:

I write a lot of stuff for Commentary, too. The right price, I don’t have to write anything at all. Think it over. Let me know.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:41 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This past weekend PBS program Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly aired a story about the Kansas board of education's recent hearings on evolution. The producers tried to cover the whole debate and allowed many of the different points of view to be included. In that regard the program was better than most news stories on the issue.

And, they did define Discovery's approach to science education properly in the first half of the program.

The Discovery Institute is leading the challenge to the way science is taught in this country. It favors teaching evolution as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that should not be questioned.

Dr. STEPHEN MEYER (Discovery Institute): The public is starting to catch on that there's more to this debate than the stereotyped view of the enlightened scientist versus the backwoods Bible thumper.

Additionally, the show leaves viewers with the idea that this is primarily a religious issue (of course this is a religious program) and that the Kansas board is considering including intelligent design in science curriculum. This is not the the case, as has been accurately reported by local media and the Associated Press. Still REN makes the claim that that is what's taking place in Kansas. And they manipulate quotes to bolster their mistaken premise:

DE SAM LAZARO: Conservatives on the Kansas Board of Education are not arguing openly against teaching evolution. They want other explanations, such as intelligent design, taught as well. They call this "teaching the controversy."

Ms. MARTIN: Since there is a controversy, we ought to be able to allow students to address that controversy in our public schools. Especially if our parents and the communities are saying, "Hey, you know, we don't like the way this is being taught to our students. It sounds like indoctrination to us."

It would be interesting to know in what context Ms. Martin made the above quote, since she doesn't say specifically that she's calling for intelligent design. And, the board of which she's a member, has said repeatedly that is not their objective in revising the science standards. Later this week when the board reconvenes to discuss the issue again this will undoubtedly be made clear. Let's hope REN is filming that meeting.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:45 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A: As many as they can build!

Apparently having such websites at a multitude of universities, and having all manner of self-elected guardians of Darwin's holy theory put up such websites, and having every biology professor and graduate student blogging the value of Darwinism isn't doing much to convince people to believe in the fact of Darwinian evolution.

The brights at the National Acadamies are throwing more money into marketing, instead of into new product development. The answer they arrived at is that there aren't enough websites to convince people, so make more. Here's a new one.

Wired magazine briefly reported this in an obvious attempt to solidify its claim as the hip new mouthpiece of the Darwinian elite. Getting in good with the higher ups in the churc, they reiterate the new definition of science as Darwinian evolution:

"The National Academies and other scientific organizations have long said that intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it counters many scientific observations about biology and the origins of life." (emphasis mine)

"The National Academies is a collection of private, nonprofit organizations that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The NCSE has posted a rant against The Privileged Planet by William H Jefferys from University of Texas at Austin. Fortunately, I don't have to waste time responding to this anti-intellectual diatribe because physicist David Heddle has already responded with a detailed rebuttal, noting that of all The Privileged Planet reviews out there's he's never seen "one as comprehensively bad and unthinking as William H Jefferys's."

If you're wondering who is Heddle to be trash talking a "scientist" from a state University, well first he has his very own Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University. And hey, he has actually put it to work conducting postdoctoral research at the University of Maryland and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. And, oh yeah, he was an Associate Professor of Physics at Christopher Newport University, an Adjunct Professor at Daniel Webster College, and a staff member at The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News, Virginia. So, he's one of those "ID scientists" who isn't really supposed to exist.

(If that isn't good enough for you, his website notes that he owns a labrador retriever. Enough said.)

Heddle tears Jefferys' "arguments" limb from limb, and even seems to enjoy having to have read this drivel. In the end Heddle concludes:

"Jefferys presents no actual arguments against the hypothesis presented in The Privileged Planet. In particular, Gonzalez and Richards present ways to falsify their theory, viz.

-- To find a distant environment that was hostile to life and yet a better place than earth for making scientific observations.
--Find complex life where they claim you won't find it—say on a gas giant, or near a x-ray emitting star in the galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night, etc.
--Find complex life on a planet that does not have a large moon (that produces good solar eclipses.)
--Find non-Carbon based life

Jefferys should address these points and make evolution's or cosmology's prediction for each of them."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today's Washington Post has a handful of letters about the dust-up at the Smithsonian over the screening of The Privileged Planet later this month, both good and bad. First the good.

CSC Fellow Jonathan Witt's letter leads off making this point:

"The editorial said, "While 'The Privileged Planet' is an extremely sophisticated religious film, it is a religious film nevertheless. It uses scientific information . . . to answer, affirmatively, the philosophical question of whether life on Earth was part of a grand design."

Notice that The Post granted that the film explored scientific information. It is the film's conclusion that The Post and the Smithsonian find inappropriate. Curiously, the museum has no problem sponsoring events that advance the opposite conclusion. "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be," Carl Sagan regularly intoned in his PBS series "Cosmos." Yet the Smithsonian sponsored "Cosmos Revisited: A Series Presented in the Memory of Carl Sagan" in 1997."

"I accept that because the Smithsonian depends on federal funds, it should not promote religion. But should it discriminate against an idea?

Intelligent design is an intellectual starting point. People should decide for themselves if the intelligence needs a capital "I."

"The Smithsonian should consider sponsoring a program on cosmology and evolution featuring reputable, mainstream scientists."

This last letter should earn its author and intellectual Darwin Award:

"The logical pursuit of scientific facts has been plagued by religious dogma for centuries. In the case of evolution, the plague began after publication of "The Origin of Species" in 1859. As Benjamin Dann Walsh, a correspondent of Charles Darwin's and a Smithsonian associate, wrote in The Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia in 1866, "Surely, therefore, upon general principles, a hypothesis, which accounts clearly and satisfactorily for a great mass of phenomena, is more likely to be a correct one, than a hypothesis which accounts for nothing, and, while it mercifully spares our Reasoning powers, draws most largely and exorbitantly upon our Faith."

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory that explains how evolution takes place."

What's worse is that the Washington Post knows full well what the film is about -- columnists and reporters wokring there claim to have seen it -- and yet chose this letter to represent the view of the letters they presumably received.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post today publishes an editorial prepared by Anne Applebaum ("Dissing Darwin") that uses the term "intelligent creator" three times to describe the concept of intelligent design. The writer knows better, but apparently believes that if she can lodge the word "creator" (as in "creationist") in people's minds, it will reside there forever. The key to understanding such writing: the proponents of intelligent design must never be allowed to speak for themselves or define their own ideas. Instead they must only be spoken about and accept definitions of their terms that are offered by their foes.

The editorial also twice describes the film The Privileged Planet as "religious", though the writer admits it doesn't mention the word God. (It also never mentions Darwin, since Darwin's theory isn't the topic of the film, though it is in the title of the Post editorial.) It escapes her, for example, that the "fine tuning" case made in the film is not exactly a staple of Sunday School fare, but is rather a widely accepted position in the scientific community, while not the consensus view.

The editorial also knowingly hides the fact that the Smithsonian did "co-sponsor" the Discovery film event. The writer had seen a copy of the letter from the Smithsonian declaring its co-sponsorship and she knew from several sources that the co-sponsorship was not sought by Discovery, but actually was required by the Smithsonian. That the Museum withdrew a gift that was never requested fails to draw her interest at all.

And the editorial wholly ignores the fact that the Smithsonian still intends to screen the film at the National Museum of Natural History on June 23, which was all we ever did request.

I suppose we should be appreciative that Post editorials keep using the word "sophisticated" to describe proponents of intelligent design. I think that means that the only way for them to answer us is to misrepresent the content of our views. That is not very sophisticated at all.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 8:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Telic Thoughts and Post-Darwinist are among the many blogs talking about The Privileged Planet premiere at the Smithsonian that has so outraged Darwinian bloggers. (For all the real juicy details see our previous blog here.)

The Washington Post reports today:

In its statement yesterday, the Smithsonian said it will honor the agreement to screen the film June 23, but that it does not endorse the film and will not accept the agreed-upon fee offered for the auditorium.

Telic Thoughts notes:

"it’s funny that the critics chose to fight this battle. As others have pointed out, the film isn’t about evolution, but about fine-tuning of the cosmological constants and the settings of the solar system (distance of Earth from the Sun, size of the Moon, etc.). Physicists like Paul Davies have for years pointed to cosmological fine-tuning, and that there’s something special about our solar system has also been argued before, most notably in Ward and Brownlee’s Rare Earth and in chapter 5 of Simon Conway Morris’ Life’s Solution. These authors can’t be considered ID proponents by a long stretch – are their views also 'not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution’s scientific research'"?

"Keep in mind that these droves of Darwinists not only have never seen the film, but they probably make a merit out of that fact, as in 'I would never lower myself to see such a film!'".

Stay tuned as there is likely to be more media coverage of this brouhaha.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Discovery Institute advocates teaching students the controversy over Neo-Darwinism. The rebuttal is simplicity itself: "Medievalists! Naughty Luddites! Are you going teach the strengths and weaknesses of gravity? Heliocentrism? Evolution is ... A ... FACT!"

Change over time is a fact, but modern evolutionary theory claims a good deal more than this. Sixty percent of medical doctors do not doubt the theory of gravity. Sixty percent of doctors are not agitating against heliocentrism. Sixty percent of doctors do apparently doubt Darwin's idea of undirected evolution from amoeba to man.

An eminent psychiatrist is among them. Another two also have their doubts, and more than doubts. They begin their Newsmax essay: "If you believe you are just a blob of cellular tissue, please raise your right protoplasm. Does your own doctor treat you like a human being, or just an accidental collection of chemicals, haphazardly arranged by dumb chance?" Their full examination is here.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 4:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post has a story related to the showing of the film "The Privileged Planet" June 23 at the National Museum of Natural History. It will be interesting to see how the story is covered given the hysterical tone in evidence on certain ultra-Darwinian blogs in recent days. Once invitations got out and the New York Times ran a story over Memorial Day weekend(with its unfortunately misleading headline tying the film to the evolution debate, which is not its subject), the Museum apparently was flooded with calls and emails from angry Darwinists demanding that the event be cancelled. None of these would-be film-burners has seen the film, or read the book, of course.

RELATED DOCUMENTS:
PDF of recommended invitations provided by SI to DI
PDF of invitation sent out by DI
PDF of e-mail from SI saying The Privileged Planet had been reviewed and approved
PDF of letter received from Smithsonian by Dsicovery June 1

The event has not been cancelled. However a “Director’s Message” referencing supposed “consultation with the Secretary” (!) was circulated on the web Wednesday, and it purported to come from the Museum Director, Cristian Samper. The trouble is, Lucy Dorrick (director of development and special events) of the Smithsonian, who called us back when we telephoned Director Samper, knew nothing about it and seemed surprised to hear our report of it. She asked in turn if we had received a different, shorter message from her, on the museum’s behalf. We had not. She obligingly sent a copy to us and we sent her a copy of the questionable “Director’s Message.”

Addressed to Mark Ryland, Vice President of Discovery Institute and director of the institute’s Washington, DC office, the letter sent today to Discovery says,

“Dear Mr. Ryland:

As you know, the National Museum of Natural History recently approved your request to hold a private, invitation-only screening and reception at the Museum on June 23 for the film, “The Privileged Planet.” Upon further review, the Museum has determined that the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution’s scientific research. Due to this fact, we will, of course, honor the commitment made to provide space for the event to the Discovery Institute, but the museum will not participate or accept a donation for the event.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Lucy Dorrick, Associate Director for Development and Special Events”

Ms. Dorrick said that the Museum is still “happy to have you have the event” at the Museum, but, “obviously, our two organizations are very different programmatically.”

But what were the criteria for the Museum’s very recent “further review”? Did anyone else screen the film, for example? Ms. Dorrick did not know? Did Director Cristian Samper see the film? (Ms. Dorrick thought perhaps not.) Had Ms Dorrick? “No.” So what exactly was the basis of the “further review”? “It was an internal review,” Ms Dorrick stated.

(NOTE: Discovery Institute followed exactly the requests of the Smithsonian Institution in preparing the invitations. The SI sent recommendations of past invitations for Discovery to copy in follow in designing an invite. You'll note that we did so when you peruse the samples provided by the SI and then review the final invitations mailed out.)

So, while it is financially invigorating to think that Discovery Institute will not have to make a requisite “donation” to the Smithsonian in order to show The Privileged Planet to a distinguished group of Washingtonians, it seems strange to learn that suddenly the film is in some way "not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution’s scientific research.”

Would it be unfair to suggest that perhaps the Smithsonian caved in to organized pressure from Darwinists who cannot imagine any ideas coming from the Discovery Institute that warrant a fair hearing? -- and this despite the fact that the film itself says absolutely nothing about biological evolution. Darwinists will hoot and stamp their feet at that question, but other people might ponder what is going on here.

Please note: Discovery Institute started out looking for a place to showcase a terrific new film based on a highly praised book by Discovery fellows Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez (an astronomer at Iowa State) and Dr. Jay Richards (philosopher and CSC senior fellow). Constitution Hall was too big, the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum lacked an appropriate theater. The National Museum of Natural History was a natural, if third, choice. That’s where we applied.

We sought nothing other than permission to show the film. The Museum staff said that permission would follow a vetting of the film. We had the impression that several people, and not just administrative staff, then reviewed and approved it. They indicated that they liked it. We also were told that Discovery would be expected to "donate" $16,000 to the Smithsonian in exchange for which we would be given the right to hold our event, which was agreeable. Further, if approved, we were advised that the event would have to be co-sponsored by the Smithsonian and the Director’s title would have to appear on the front of the invitation. To be sure these terms were met, the Smithsonian required that the invitations would follow its own template and that the specific design would be approved before the invitations could be printed and mailed. As Ms Dorrick acknowledged in our Wednesday phone call, Discovery followed all the rules completely.

So now we will have the event (and they are “happy” to have us , Ms Dorrick says). We even get the hall gratis. But the event comes burdened with this peculiar statement of disassociation that critics are sure to use against us. It would seem a wholly bizarre turnabout if we had not heard about the way the Darwinian lobby attacked the Museum in recent days and agitated the staff members there.

We suggested (and still suggest) that the public relations end of this could have been handled better by the Smithsonian if the top management had only talked with us.

That leaves two items of business, in any case. First, was the “Directors Message” that has been spread hither and yon authentic, or some protestor’s “first draft” recommendation to the Director, or, worse, sheer malicious invention? The possibly apocryphal message is close to the language of the letter sent to Discovery today, except it goes on to deny what had never been claimed; namely, that the Smithsonian “supports and endorses the Discovery Institute (and) the film ‘The Privileged Planet.’” And it even implies the involvement of Smithsonian Secretary Small in the whole matter.

Second, what about the famous film itself, if one is permitted to ask? Why are news stories about the process and not the product? Is science not a fit subject for a story about the screening of a science film? Here we have the spectacle of dozens, maybe hundreds, of fulminating “scientists” and Darinist groupies who have protested the showing of a film none of them has seen. Our Institute has asked all reporters on this topic, therefore, to have the wisdom as well as fairness to view The Privileged Planet before allowing ignorant critics to misrepresent it. We are all busy, but this only requires one hour.

Of course, the film is getting its national premiere in Washington precisely to let serious critics and other interested parties see for themselves. That is the lasting cure for mischievous distortions.

Note also that the book upon which the film is based has been out for over a year. It has a record. There is, for example, an excellent and balanced review of it in Astronomy (see “Do We Live on a Privileged Planet”, though the reviewer, Amy Coombs, will probably now be pilloried for saying good things about it). It concludes, “This ambitious, multi-disciplinary approach paints an inspiring portrait of the delicate balance needed to sustain life. At the very least, the book’s poetic praise of Earth’s pristine measurability will leave readers much to ponder.”

In California Wild: The Magazine of the California Academy of Sciences, reviewer Robert Irion (see “Just Lucky, I Guess,”) said the book is “entertaining” and yet commendable also to “serious readers.”

A June, 2004 review in Nature, “Bright Blue Dot,” by Douglas A. Vakoch of the SETI Institute, is a sober, sensible critique that cautions that the authors cannot know much about habitability in other planets until such planets, and universes, are explored, and yet takes very seriously the Gonzalez-Richards scholarship and insights.

All these reviewers can find points of criticism of the book, and so they might of the film. But they also find much to praise, as does a host of world-famous scientists whose blurbs grace the book’s jacket. Simon Conway-Morris of Cambridge finds it “a book of magnificent sweep and daring. Let the debate begin; it is a question that involves us all.” Owen Gingerich of Harvard and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory finds it a “thoughtful, delightfully contrarian book” with “carefully documented analysis.” Michael J. Crowe of Notre Dame lauds the authors for an abundance of evidence and…a cautiousness of statement.” Dr. Crowe says “The Privileged Planet deserves very careful attention.” (For more and more, see www.privilegedplanet.com.)

So what’s the matter with the Smithsonian?

Is this film really so out of bounds in the Smithsonian culture? Is it truly the oddest or most controversial topic the Smithsonian has ever presented to the public? (Someone, quick, do some research!)

We invite the thought: Certain apparently very incurious scientists and bureaucrats at the Smithsonian are over-reacting to a challenging idea that truly does deserve “further review”. Maybe they should extend the “further review” even to the concept of intellectual liberty and robust scientific inquiry. Doesn’t science thrive on that?

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)