My old college town paper, the Lawrence Journal-World, reports that two new classes at the University of Kansas will work to discredit the theory of intelligent design. One class, taught by religion professor Paul Mirecki, chairman of KU’s religious studies department, was initially titled Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies. In an e-mail to an atheist listserv, Mirecki wrote: “The fundies [fundamentalists] want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology.”

Mirecki later apologized for the e-mail, noting that he didn't intend for the e-mail to end up in the public square.

Meanwhile,

another class seeking to distinguish science from pseudoscience will be taught not by a philosopher of science or even by a historian of science, but rather by John Hoopes, associate professor of anthropology. Journal-World reporter Sophia Maines writes, "In addition to intelligent design, the class Archaeological Myths and Realities will cover such topics as UFOs, crop circles, extrasensory perception and the ancient pyramids."

I wonder if Hoopes will also cover myths like the eternal, self-existent universe, spontaneous generation, the ubiquity of alien life on earthlike planets throughout the galaxy, or the deep-seated faith that secular humanism and polyester fabrics will one day reign supreme (think Star Trek).

An eternal universe, spontaneous generation, and alien life have all been used to support philosophical materialism, the belief that, to quote that great modern mythmaker Carl Sagan, "The universe is all there is, ever was, or ever will be." After all, one doesn't need to explain the origin of a universe that always existed; and if life springs effortlessly from non-life then the thorny problem of the origin of life evaporates; and if the universe spins out habitable planets, habitable star systems, and habitable galaxies with ease, if the universe is teeming with intelligent life, then our existence is hardly remarkable.

But scientific research has exposed each of these as false. Take the eternal universe model. It was widely accepted among scientists a hundred years ago in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. As Paul Davies explains on page 11 of God and the New Physics, if the universe has had an infinite amount of time to drift into disorder, why is it currently so orderly? It must not be infinitely old. This point was ignored not because any scientific evidence supported the eternal universe model but because the model was needed to support the philosophical beliefs of leading scientists. The model wasn't dispensed with as soon as the evidence turned against it, but only after a good deal of kicking and screaming. As philosopher and Privileged Planet co-author Jay Richards explains here:

The trouble started in the 1920s when astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies was “red-shifted.” It had stretched during the course of its travels. This suggested the universe is expanding. Reversing the process in their minds, scientists were suddenly confronted with a universe that had come into existence in the finite past. Who knew! Hubble’s discovery, confirmed by later evidence, flatly contradicted the earlier picture of an eternal and self-existing cosmos. The universe itself had re-introduced the question of its origin to a community bent on avoiding the question altogether.

For a discussion of spontaneous generation and the origin-of-life problem, see pages 23-4 of Darwin's Black Box. I could also explain how the polyester future fits in here, but it would involve several pages of close cultural analysis of things like leisure suits and the pros and cons of tight-fitting synthetic uniforms on aging Hollywood actors, so I'm not going to go there.

When I taught at KU back in the '90s, I received good teacher evaluations, but I was reprimanded by the coordinator of freshman composition because two students who happened to be earning abysmal grades complained that I was injecting religion into the classroom. How had I done this? When I taught Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown," I explained to the students the religious background of both the author and characters. When I taught Isaac Bashevis Singer, I explained the religious background of the author and characters. When I taught "The Open Boat" by Stephen Crane, I described philosophical materialism, the worldview conveyed in the story. Some students asked me what my own belief system was, and I said I was a Christian. We then moved back into a discussion of the literature. For such behavior I was called into an office and reprimanded.

Fortunately, that was not representative of my experience at KU. What I valued about my time as a graduate student there was the genuine diversity of faculty views. Unlike some universities that talk about diversity but fill all of their faculty positions with anti-Christian and anti-Jewish secular humanists, my academic work at KU brought me into contact with a broad range of worldviews, from atheists to pantheists to conservative and moderate Catholics to professors who weren't sure what they believed.

I fear that this KU of ten years ago may be vanishing. Perhaps it was an accident of timing, a university with an older generation of professors, many of whom held to some form of traditional theism, some of them even politically and religiously conservative or moderate, steadily replaced over the subsequent decade by far left wing secular humanists.

This shouldn't surprise us. The radical left believes that all politics are about power, so why should they, when the balance of power tips in their favor, assiduously cultivate intellectual diversity in the various academic departments The puzzling thing is that the taxpapers, voters, and statesmen of deeply conservative states like Kansas appear unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Are they cowed by the charge that taking action would be infringe upon academic freedom? In truth, action is essential for protecting academic freedom.

Over Thanksgiving my brother-in-law told me about a professor who, a generation ago, was appointed editor of the Dartmouth school newspaper. Shortly thereafter he let it be known that he was a political conservative. For this he was sacked from his position as editor. Dinesh D'Souza tells the story in Letters to a Young Conservative. The question is, when things like this occur openly at public universities, in states heavily populated by conservatives and traditional liberals who value academic freedom, why won't the politicians who represent them stand up and do something? And I don't mean token gestures. I'm talking about strategic and sustained efforts at reform, the sort of bold, shrewd leadership that freed Poland from the grip of Communism. I'm genuinely curious.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 5:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

In the coverage of the debate over evolution CNN has repeatedly (here, here, here just for a few examples) been unable to curb its tendency to misrepresent intelligent design advocates and mislead the public about the nature of the debate over how to teach evolution.

Last week CNN’s Paula Zahn Now tackled the issue of intelligent design. Right off the mark they misframe the issue. Even though we’ve been clear with these very producers, as well as many others at CNN, as to what our position is, guest host Deborah Collins gives a completely misleading description of intelligent design, which she also claims is how its “backers” (in this case us, through Dr. Behe) describe it:

"Backers of that [ID] say life is just too complicated to be explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."

That is not how backers of intelligent design describe it. This is just one way in which intelligent design is improperly defined by the mainstream media, as we'll see below.

Because of the mainstream media’s constant misrepresentations through splice-n-dice editing of taped interviews the CSC adopted a policy of only agreeing to live, or live-to-tape (which in broadcast news means the interview is taped, but it will air at a later time as a continuous "live" piece unedited) interviews.

Too many times CSC Fellows have agreed to taped interviews only to see their answers taken out of context, edited to change the emphasis and meaning, omitted altogether, and even used in different stories unrelated to what the original interview was about.

This artful editing was exemplified over the holidays on Paula Zahn Now. The program included several segments about the debate over evolution. CSC was approached to sit for a taped interview, and per our policy we declined. Zahn’s producers opted to use footage of CSC senior fellow Dr. Michael Behe that CNN obtained when he testified in the Dover v. Kitzmiller intelligent design trial last October. At the last minute they also asked Dr. Stephen Meyer to participate in a live-to-tape discussion with the guest host and Dr. Eugenie Scott from the National Center for Science Education. Believing their assurances that the segment would not be edited, Dr. Meyer agreed.

At Night The Editors Come
Three days later we saw the consequences to agreeing to do a taped interview vs. a live interview. Dr. Meyer’s responses were cut down, or in some cases cut altogether. I don’t know how much, if at all, Dr. Scott’s comments were edited, but I suspect not much.

Any sort of taped interview is ripe for manipulation. In their treatment of Dr. Behe, CNN’s editors used short quotes from Dr. Behe interspersed with factually inaccurate voiceovers to mislead viewers about Dr. Behe’s views on intelligent design. Rather than let Dr. Behe in his own words define intelligent design, and his work related to it, CNN correspondent Delia Gallegher puts words in his mouth wrongly stating:

"Michael Behe is a major player behind intelligent design, the movement that's trying to bring the supernatural into science."

Later, Gallagher again makes this false assertion:

"Behe says you only have to look at the details to recognize they were conceived and arranged by a supernatural power."

Twice isn’t enough for Gallagher as still later in the show she goes for the hat trick and delivers yet another completely false definition of intelligent design:

"Intelligent design holds that life is too complicated to be the result of Darwin's random mutation and natural selection, that some organisms were clearly designed by a supernatural hand, ..."

Dr. Behe has been very clear that he doesn't believe you can infer a supernatural designer from the scientific evidence. He wrote:

"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)

And, testifying under oath as an expert scientific witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial Dr. Behe made his position very clear:

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent
design requires the action of a supernatural creator?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. No, it doesn't. (Behe Testimony, October 17, 2005)

And yet CNN falsely asserts that he thinks that the evidence points to a supernatural designer.

Dr. Behe and other leading design proponents have been very clear that intelligent design does

not

address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer.

Following this “interview” with Dr. Behe, CNN uses one of their favorite tricks, they insert young earth creationists and Biblical adherents into the story and imply that they are the same as intelligent design proponents. In fact, Paula Zahn Now, did exactly this last year on a story about intelligent design. They called us and asked for an interview with an intelligent design advocate and I said we’d prefer to be involved in the live discussion. The producer claimed that it would only be a taped segment, they weren’t doing a live interview, and they really wanted someone to represent intelligent design scientifically. Sensing a trap, I declined. Read the results for yourself. To defend intelligent design they invited a scientist from the creationist organization Answers in Genesis, and he was part of a live discussion.

This time around they included a story about creationists visitng the Denver zoo and explaining to their children about the veracity of God’s word and young earth creationism, and a Darwinist denouncing their views. Then Collins announces:

"In a minute, supporters of both viewpoints will give you even more ammunition to think about."

Wrong, supporters of both viewpoints were not invited. Dr. Eugenie Scott was invited and she supports the Darwinian viewpoint, but Dr. Stephen Meyer does not support the creationist viewpoint put forth in the previous segment. This is another instance of CNN misleading their viewers and completely misrepresenting the views of intelligent design proponents.

To make matters worse, the “live-to-tape” segment featuring Dr. Meyer and Dr. Scott actually wasn’t live-to-tape. It was taped and edited. Dr. Meyer’s answers were cut off –unbeknownst to viewers—and in some cases his responses to Dr. Scott were completely omitted, leaving the viewer to think that he did not have a response. This is one of the more wicked ways of misleading viewers, and CNN is accomplished in their execution.

Where we are talking about science, CNN wants us to talk about the supernatural. When we want to have a civil discourse about science educaiton policy, CNN is only interested in exploring creationism or religion. It is easy to mislead the public with just a few comments which completely change the nature of the debate. And that is exactly what happened here.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, the AP put out a short story on the recent lawsuit filed by California citizens against the National Science Foundation and the University of California at Berkeley for its use of sectarian religious doctrines to promote neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory on a publicly funded website about teaching evolution in public schools. Sadly, this article is diseased: it suffers from inaccuritis and false facts syndrome.

The lawsuit, initiated by Jeanne Caldwell (and blogged about previously, here, and here) challenges the segment of the website that deals specifically with evolution and religion. The site links to certain religious denominations that pronounce neo-Darwinian theory completely compatible with their religious doctrines. But the site does not link to any religious denominations that disagree with that view.

The AP wrongly insinuates that attorney Larry Caldwell is arguing that government funding of a website promoting neo-Darwinian theory is itself unconstitutional. It also falsely insinuates that Caldwell is somehow arguing that teaching neo-Darwinian theory is inherently religious or inherently unconstitutional. In reality, Caldwell’s legal arguments are altogether different, and very precise.

Caldwell is not saying that teaching evolutionary theory is itself religious or unconstitutional. It is perfectly constitutional, as Caldwell acknowledges, to teach scientific arguments for (and against) neo-Darwinian theory. The constitutionality of teaching Neo-Darwinism was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1968 case Epperson v. Arkansas.

Rather, Caldwell is simply arguing that when a publicly funded and operated website for use in public schools delves specifically into the issue of religion and advocates one sectarian viewpoint, the government violates constitutionally-mandated religious neutrality. The website chooses one group of explicitly religious doctrines side in a religious debate based upon those organizations' doctrines and advocates for them. First Amendment jurisprudence does not allow this religious endorsement and thus the lawsuit against NSF & UCB is far more interesting than what the AP story leads one to believe.

Thankfully, there is a cure for articles diseased by such inaccuracies. It's called research.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 5:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The recent actions by the Kansas State Board of Education have given a site like Evolution News and Views, which is dedicated to helping to correct misinformation in the media about the debate over Darwin, an endless supply of material. This time, however, the IDEA Center has also posted some good responses to the San Diego Union Tribune's (SDUT) recent anti-ID editorial chastely titled "Voodoo Science." The SDUT piece makes a number of mistakes about the recent events in Kansas.

Firstly, the piece asserts that intelligent design is being taught in Kansas:

"The decision earlier this month of the Kansas school board to adopt new standards that essentially redefine science – so as to allow the teaching of "intelligent design" in science class – was a triumph of zealotry over rationality."

If Kansas "redefined" science, then the rest of the country is in trouble, because Kansas has simply brought their definition of science into line with how 40 other states defined science. I give the SDUT credit for not claiming that intelligent design has been mandated--but if they are right, then apparently intelligent design is allowed in most states. Why do they just focus on Kansas? Just where, might I ask, did the Kansas State Board of Education inject intelligent design into their curriculum? Of course, this question is never answered in the editorial--it's made as an assertion without a single quotation from the actual standards themselves, which contain a clear disclaimer saying that intelligent design is not mandated for teaching in Kansas schools.

As explained in the IDEA responses, the SDUT also tries to pacify the religious "zealots" by quoting extensively from George Coyne, a Vatican astronomer who opposes ID, while ignoring the fact some other Catholic authorities--including the leading Cardinal Schönborn (see also this link) has been critical of evolution, and the fact that a man who many consider the Pope has at least supported the philosophical notion of design in nature.

The SDUT apparently feels that employing the tactic of "ridicule" is more important than getting their facts straight:

"'Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square," wrote columnist Charles Krauthammer. "But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.' Amen." ("Voodoo Science")

So the SDUT's official position is that people should be publicly ridiculing Kansas. This follows a long entrenched tradition the SDUT has of ignoring the facts in favor of their sarcastic, straw version of this debate.

For example, this past June, their science writer Scott LaFee published an unbalanced article against intelligent design in which he interviewed and apparently provided unedited print-space to 13 San Diego area anti-ID scientists but apparently contacted ZERO pro-ID scientists or organizations (and I know there are a good number of them in my prior residence of San Diego) to offer their perspective.

Having apparently consulted only critics, LaFee then called intelligent design an explanation which says that aspects of life "defy scientific explanation and can only be attributed to the handiwork of an unidentified, supernatural creator." Who wouldn't reject such a non-scientific approach? Of course, his characterization of intelligent design was a pure fabrication for 3 reasons: (1) intelligent design says life can be explained scientifically, via intelligent design, (2) intelligent design is not a negative argument against other scientific theories like evolution, and (3) intelligent design is not an argument in favor of the supernatural. This is all responded to in Inaccurate Discussion: A Response to Scott LaFee's "Intelligent Discussion".

Through the efforts of myself and others, IDEA Center did its best to inform Mr. LaFee of the actual nature of ID after the editorial was printed: we sent free complimentary copies of some ID literature and materials at our own expense. When the President made some pro-ID remarks this past summer, we contacted Mr. LaFee hoping he would take the opportunity to correct some of the prior mis-statements about ID in the SDUT.

Mr. LaFee never responded to my e-mail. But suspiciously, a few days later, Mr. LaFee printed an op-ed where he compared teaching ID to teaching alchemy, graphology, or the flat earth. I suppose that was their way of correcting the record: "ridicule."

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the last week, two anti-ID editorials have been posted on various major media sites. This includes an article by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post entitled, Phony Theory, False Conflict and an article at Tech Central Station by Uriah Kriegel entitled, Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?.

Both articles critique intelligent design, but Krauthammer's misrepresents the theory quite badly. Kriegel makes some interesting arguments about ID and falsification--if only he would understand that ID theory is structured to disallow explanation by natural selection because natural selection is a fundamentally non-intelligent cause, and then apply his Popperian demarcation criteria to evolution as well.

Citing to Unfriendly Authorities
Krauthammer's line of attack is to imply that ID is nothing more than faith-based opposition to Darwinism. He thus tries to convince the religious reader that religious folk need not oppose evolution. He thus provides examples of famous scientists who were religious. Presumably, these great scientists are supposed to convince us to support Darwinism.

Incredibly, Krauthammer first cites to Isaac Newton, noting that he was a scientist and deeply religious. I suppose Krauthammer was not aware that Newton was a strong adherent of a viewpoint similar to intelligent design. Indeed, a popular internet evolutionist website by Ed Babinski is critical of Newton's position that God sometimes intervened in nature. (Babinski rightly notes that "astronomers no longer invoke 'God' to restore orbital perturbation.") But Newton was indeed a supporter of intelligent design. Newton is reported to have said:

"This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

(as described in "The Truth: God or evolution?" Marshall and Sandra Hall)

So I'm pretty sure that Krauthammer was citing the wrong scientist to argue against ID.

Krauthammer also cited Einstein as a scientist we should follow down the eternal path away from ID. I've never heard anything about Einstein's specific views on Darwin's theory, so it isn't clear that he's a good option to cite as a scientist who favored Darwin.

A Straw Definition of ID
Krauthammer then puts forth a very imaginative definition of ID:

“[Intelligent design] is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God.”

What's the reference from an ID proponent for that ID-definition again? Didn't think so.

Apparently Krauthammer could not refute the actual definition of ID so he had to invent one. But how do ID proponents define ID?

“Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. Note that a sign is not the thing signified. … As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence, not intelligence as such.” (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 33)

“Design is simply a purposeful arrangement of parts. … Intelligent design does not require a candidate for the role of the designer.”
(Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 193)

“intelligent design: the theory that certain features of the physical universe and/or biological systems can be best explained by reference to an intelligent cause (that is, the conscious action of an intelligent agent), rather than an undirected natural process or a material mechanism.”
(Definition of intelligent design in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, pg. 33, edited by Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell)

In these actual definitions from ID proponents, 2 things are very different from Krauthammer's straw definition:

(1) ID is based upon positive evidence where we are seeking “signs” that an intelligent agent was at work (i.e. a “purposeful arrangement of parts”) and

(2) intelligent design merely refers to an intelligent cause and does not attempt to name the designer as God or anything else.

Thus, Krauthammer has to invent his own false definition in order to tear down ID. Working under his straw-definition, Krauthammer then poses a straw-question:

“How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur…?”

That’s a good question, because to my knowledge the scientific theory of ID isn’t making the broad theological claim that "God made the Lemur." ID simply says that when we find specified and complex information in the Lemur, we have a valid rationale for inferring that an intelligence was at work. We infer design of that information because intelligent agents produce complex and specified information. Here's how ID works:

ID is based upon positive evidence for design. Intelligent design claims that we can detect in nature biological structures which have the same informational properties we commonly find in objects we know were designed. It’s not just an argument based upon “gaps” in evolution but rather is based upon our positive understanding of the types of systems we have observed that intelligent agents typically make when they design structures. It also doesn’t appeal to non-scientific explanations like God (which we cannot observe) but rather appeals merely to “intelligent causes” (a causal power which we can observe and have much experience with). When we find complex and specified information in nature, we have a valid rationale for inferring that an intelligence was at work. If the Lemur has such information, then we'd infer design for that information.

Kansas: Corrupting Science by Joining 40 other States?
Krauthammer then writes that “Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase "natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.”

Actually, Krauthammer has misconstrued what happened in Kansas. When Kansas passed its new definition, it actually joined the way 40 other states define science, akin to “investigating the natural world through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument.” Kansas was simply returning its definition to the way the vast majority of educators have defined science.

Only one state has hard-coded methodological naturalism into its state standards: that was Kansas when the pro-evolution board took over a few years ago. Taking out the word “natural” doesn’t open the door for supernatural explanations. After all, the standards do not call for the teaching of “supernatural explanations”: (a) the standards do not call for the teaching of intelligent design and (b) intelligent design is not a supernatural explanation.

Thus Krauthammer simply appears to be misconstruing the facts to heap ridicule and insult upon the brave people of Kansas.

Preaching Evolution to the Masses
Krauthammer ends with a short sermon about why we should accept evolution:

“What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule…”

Nevermind that Krauthammer’s religion-friendly description of evolution contrasts starkly with how some biology textbooks have described Darwinism:

“[E]volutionary change occurs without any ‘goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.” (William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, H. Craig Keller, Life: The Science of Biology (2001, 6th Ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co.), pg. 3)

"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
(Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), pg. 5 (this is the evolutionary biology text I used in college!))

"Evolution works without either plan or purpose" … "Evolution is random and undirected”
(Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine’s Biology (4th ed. 1998), pg. 658)

"Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products."
(emphasis in original; Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life (D.C. Heath and Co., 1st ed. 1992 pg. 152; this language was not removed for the 2nd ed. in 1994, p. 161)

Nonetheless, Krauthammer is entitled to his theological views of Darwin's theory. Thus I find it interesting that he is preaching about the emotional appeal and glorious wonders of evolution so that we will bow our theology before Darwin. Krauthammer’s statement is clearly religiously motivated evolutionary activism. It’s funny how this debate often finds the Darwinists preaching more about religion than the ID proponents.

Let’s turn the tables for a moment. Imagine if some ID theorist had said:

“What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet and biosphere designed by an intelligent agent”

(this is a satire of Krauthammer, not an actual statement)

You would hear screams (or at least increased volume of screams) from Darwinists across the internet about how design proponents are simply religiously motivated zealots who care nothing for science.

But I’m not asking you to accept ID because of its theological qualities. In contrast to Krauthammer’s mode of publicly promoting evolution, I promote ID as a scientific theory which should be accepted because of the data. Like the way science is supposed to work, intelligent design is about following the evidence where it leads.

One Point of Agreement
I will agree with Krauthammer on one point: Pat Robertson was WAY OUT-OF-LINE to proclaim doom upon Dover simply because of how they voted in their school board election. After being sued by the ACLU and ridiculed by Darwinists around the country, the good people of Dover have had enough trouble. Perhaps now we can agree that schools should follow the evidence where it leads, not one person’s version of the theology.

Kriegel’s Informed Attack on ID:
I will say from the outset that I liked Kriegel’s article. His definition of ID, although imperfect, wasn’t nearly as bad as Krauthammer’s. Moreover, Kriegel at least appears to be slightly informed about the issues and he puts up some arguments which take the issues seriously. I thus respect him for his viewpoint and respectfully disagree with him that ID is not falsifiable.

In fact, Kriegel makes a point I wish the plaintiff’s in the Dover case would listen to:

Opponents dismiss ID's scientific credentials, claiming that the theory is too implausible to qualify as scientific. But this reasoning is fallacious: a bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory, just as a bad car is still a car. There may be pedagogical reasons to avoid teaching bad scientific theories in our public schools, but there are no legal ones.

The plaintiffs’ experts in the Dover case have been testifying extensively that ID is wrong. All this time and court resources could have been saved if they would just take Kriegel's advice: whether or not ID is a valid scientific theory is not a decision for the courts to decide—this is not a matter of constitutional law. Thus, one Appeals Court observed:

“[T]he wisdom of an educational policy or its efficiency from an educational point of view is not germane to the constitutional issue of whether that policy violates the establishment clause.”

(Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 827 F.2d 684, 694 (11th Cir. 1987))

The point of that holding is that apart from constitutional questions, education is supposed to be in the hands of local control. If a school board believes intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, and if teaching intelligent design doesn’t offend the First Amendment, then offended Darwinists who would otherwise waste judicial resources on debates over the scientific merits ID have no recourse.

Kriegel does, however, believe that ID is actually not a scientific theory, and thus sees the merits of this case turning on whether or not ID fits his definition of the nature of science. Kriegel draws his line in the sand using Popper’s demarcation criterion of falsification.

Strike 1: Problematic Popper
But Kriegel’s proscription for the legal criteria of defining science are problematic. Courts can only construct constitutional rules when they have the ability to do so. But it isn’t clear that there are articulable standards by which a legal rule defining science, particularly using Popperian falsification, could be constructed:

“From Plato to Popper, philosophers have sought to identify those epistemic features which mark off science from other sorts of beliefs and activity. Nonetheless, it seems pretty clear that philosophy has largely failed to deliver the relevant goods. Whatever the specific strengths and deficiencies of the numerous well-known efforts at demarcation . . . it is probably fair to say that there is no demarcation line between science and non-science, or between science and pseudo-science, which would win assent from a majority of philosophers.”

(Larry Laudan, Beyond Positivism and Relativism (Westview Press, 1996), pg 210)

Kriegel’s first strike is thus to offer Popperian falsification as a legal standard which courts should use to define science. His second strike is to forget that Popper claimed (at one point) that Darwinism failed the falsification standard. His third strike is to conclude that intelligent design fails Popper’s standard.

Strike 2: Does Popper Disqualify Darwin?
Here is how Kriegel lays out a theory which fails Popper’s standard:

"What Popper noticed was that, in both cases, there was no way to prove to proponents of the [Freudian or Marxist] theory that they were wrong. Suppose Jim's parents moved around a lot when Jim was a child. If Jim also moves around a lot as an adult, the Freudian explains that this was predictable given the patterns of behavior Jim grew up with. If Jim never moves, the Freudian explains -- with equal confidence -- that this was predictable as a reaction to Jim's unpleasant experiences of a rootless childhood. Either way the Freudian has a ready-made answer and cannot be refuted. Likewise, however much history seemed to diverge from Marx's model, Marxists would always introduce new modifications and roundabout excuses for their theory, never allowing it to be proven false."

I can think of another scientific claim just like those of Freud and Marx—common descent! "Family Trees" (called "phylogenetic trees") based off of DNA sequences in genes should make conforming trees if common ancestry is true. However, it is well recognized in systematics that very often a phylogenetic tree based upon one gene or protein will lead to one tree, while a tree based upon some other gene or protein will look quite different. (See references 1-7; 9-22 of this link for details.)

One would think this would falsify or at least challenge Neo-Darwinism, but then we are told that if the pattern isn't explained neatly by descent, then we have all kinds of ad hoc explanations like horizontal gene transfer, differing rates of evolution, or even convergent evolution to preserve the theory. (Statistical methods of making trees based upon multiple genes can average out the discrepancies among individual gene-trees, but this makes the overall claim of common descent much less robust and eminently unfalsifiable.) These epicycles are the epitome of "new modifications and roundabout excuses for their theory, never allowing it to be proven false."

In fact, come to think of it, Popper himself once stated that evolution fails his falsifiability criterion (note: Popper later recanted this view):

"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical, and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not testable. One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism, however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what favourable conditions are except that, in their presence, a variety of forms will emerge."

(Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography," Open Court: La Salle Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p.171)

"However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry."

(Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, p.344)

Now I realize that later on Popper changed his view in favor of the testability of evolution, but Popper nonetheless makes some interesting points here: precisely what does natural selection predict? It can explain anything as the result of "selection." And if not selection, then it might be the result of common ancestry, horizontal gene transfer, chance convergence, or genetic drift. Using this grab-bag of explanations, one wonders if there is any set of biological characteristics by which your average Darwinist-on-the-street would stand refuted?

Strike 3: ID can be falsified
Kriegel says therefore that science must make predictions which can be tested. He believes that ID cannot be used to make such predictions:

It is impossible to refute ID, because if an animal shows one characteristic, IDers can explain that the intelligent designer made it this way, and if the animal shows the opposite characteristic, IDers can explain with equal confidence that the designer made it that way. ... For that matter, it is fully consistent with ID that the supreme intelligence designed the world to evolve according to Darwin's laws of natural selection. Given this, there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false.

But design theorists have claimed that design theory detects not the apparent design from natural selection, but ACTUAL design by intelligence. So we have actually staked our claim out clearly: intelligent design means origin by intelligent selection--NOT natural selection! Thus Kriegel apparently misunderstands ID theory. If natural selection and intelligent selection are competing explanations for the origin of biological complexity, then we can indeed test between the two hypotheses:

“Closely matched, irreducibly complex systems not only are tall problem for Darwinism but also are hallmarks of intelligent design.” (Michael Behe, “Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool,” in Mere Creation, pg. 179)

"What natural selection lacks, intelligent selection--purposive or goal-directed design--provides. Rational agents can arrange both matter and symbols with distant goals in mind. In using language, the human mind routinely “finds” or generates highly improbable linguistic sequences to convey an intended or preconceived idea. In the process of thought, functional objectives precede and constrain the selection of words, sounds and symbols to generate functional (and indeed meaningful) sequences from among a vast ensemble of meaningless alternative combinations of sound or symbol (Denton 1986:309-311). Similarly, the construction of complex technological objects and products, such as bridges, circuit boards, engines and software, result from the application of goal-directed constraints (Polanyi 1967, 1968). Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, design engineers or other intelligent agents applied boundary constraints to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences or structures. Rational agents have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to constrain the possible to actualize improbable but initially unrealized future functions. Repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents (minds) uniquely possess such causal powers.

Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities and then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks--almost by definition--are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality--with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation."

("Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Stephen C. Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239. 2004)

By explaining that ID is not natural selection, we can see that a valid argument for natural selection can serve as a mode of falsifying ID. Thus, it is precisely what Darwinism and natural selection lacks that intelligent design provides -- the ability to engage in "intelligent selection" or "purposive or goal-directed design" to produce "[c]losely matched, irreducibly complex systems". Intelligent design is thus eminently falsifiable, for if we fail to find such closely matched, irreducibly complex systems in the cell, then a prediction of design fails, and design can be falsified for that speciific case.

In the end, this issue is debatable, but it is summed up in a compelling way by Stephen Meyer:

“Falsification, for example, in addition to the problems mentioned in part one, seems an especially problematic standard to apply to origins theories. So does prediction. Origins theories must necessarily offer ex post facto reconstructions. They therefore do not make predictions in any strong sense. The somewhat artificial "predictions" that origins theories do make about, for example, what evidence one ought to find if a given theory is true are singularly difficult to falsify since, as evolutionary paleontologists often explain, "the absence of evidence is no evidence of absence." (The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories)

Is Kriegel out of arguments?
Thus, Kriegel can cite Popper against ID all he wants, but he'll have to overcome 3 problems:

1) Popper isn't widely accepted by philosophers of science, and his falsifiability criterion makes a dubious legal standard

2) Popper also claimed at times that evolution fails his falsifiability criterion; though Popper later recanted, some good arguments can still be made.

3) It isn't clear that ID fails as a science given that it provides an observation and experience-based causally adequate explanation for the origin of biological complexity

If only Kriegel would see that design theory has positive value for explaining the origin of biological complexity based upon our present-day cause-and-effect understandings of how intelligent agents operate and the types of information they produce. Kriegel shouldn't bash ID until he's tried to explain the origin of biological information. At that point, he will find natural selection deficient, and will find that the encoded, highly specified and complex information in the cell is a remnant of its actual intelligent design.

[this post was edited a couple times just after being posted]

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Charles Krauthammer's syndicated essay against intelligent design ran opposite mine in today's Seattle Times. The piece is full of problems, which Tom Gilson and Lawrence Seldon explore in loving detail here and here.

Now I would have framed a couple of points in their otherwise fine analysis a little differently. In one place,

Gilson describes agnostic David Berlinski as an ID proponent. It would be more precise to call Berlinski a Darwin skeptic and friendly critic of design theory. Also, Seldon writes that Krauthammer "rants about Dover and Kansas ... writing out of ignorance and knocking down a straw man." To be generous, I would have said that Krauthammer "writes calmly and authoritatively out of ignorance, knocking down a straw man."

I'm rooting for Krauthammer to do his homework and, like British philosopher Antony Flew, change his mind.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 11:41 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A revealing article by Rebecca James in the The Post Standard describes the growth of IDEA clubs on college campuses (the acronym is "Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness"). She concentrates on Cornell, where the acting president, Hunter Rawlings III, gave a speech devoted to anathematizing ID as "dangerous". He doesn't seem to mind at all teaching science-as-atheism, however, since that is the cause that Cornell's top biology professor, Will Provine, proudly asserts. (At least Provine is candid about it.)

Ms. James quotes a couple of Cornell students--not in the IDEA club-- who express the hope that one can accept Darwin's theory and still hold religious views. But she also quotes Provine in response, blowing that hope away. "One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution," quips Provine, "only if the religious view is atheism."

Faced with a realization that support for "diversity" at Cornell does not extend to academic viewpoints, some 80 students have organized an IDEA chapter on campus and are educating themselves. Classes are free, unlike what Cornell is charging them for Dr. Provine's instruction.

Discovery Institute contributed neither time nor money to setting up the some 30 IDEA clubs that now exist. Rather, rebellious students did it all on their own. Of course, "rebellion" among the Millenial generation, in contrast to their Boomer parents, means disputing the now-stodgy, old guard position that life is meaningless.

The reactionary view that students are up against, moreover,is not just found in biology, or only at Cornell. "There is no meaning or purpose in the laws of physics," Prof. Vic Mansfield of Colgate assured the Post Standard. The growing list of scientists who question that statement will not be cited in Prof. Mansfield's classroom, one also can be assured.

But old-fossil statements like those of Provine and Mansfield are being exploited by contrarian students who, provoking the indignation of their elders, are taking education into their own, inexperienced hands. What outrageous fad will they adopt next, civility and respect for other people's opinions? It's a Darwinist nightmare: survival of the most responsible. Are we not on a slippery slope to ballroom dancing and Sunday dinner with the folks?

At Discovery, we may not have helped start the IDEA clubs, but we finally did recognize the trend last summer and hired one of IDEA's leaders, Casey Luskin, to come to work for us after he graduated from law school in San Diego. This newly-minted lawyer is now the CSC legal advisor. Where else can a guy who just passed the bar in California get a chance to take on the whole ACLU?

People like Casey, and students in the IDEA clubs, have let the ID genie out of the lamp, and not even Eugenie Scott can put it back in again.

The Post Standard (Syracuse)

Evolution debate grows on college campuses Sunday, November 20,
2005 By Rebecca James Staff writer Hannah Maxson is no
intellectual slouch. She is a double major in chemistry and
math at Cornell University.

She's also an advocate for intelligent design - the notion that
biological systems are too complex to be explained solely by
Darwinian evolution and show evidence of a higher intelligence.

She helped found the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness
club at Cornell after hearing from people, including her
teaching assistant in a biology class, who told her she was the
first person he had met at Cornell who had doubts about Darwin's theory.

What particularly frustrated Maxson was that so many of her
classmates and professors, "still believe that no educated
person - no one except hillbilly fundamentalists - questioned
evolution."

The debate over intelligent design, Darwin and God usually
makes news at the public school level, in high profile cases
like recent ones in Kansas and Pennsylvania. But interest in
tackling intelli gent design is growing at college campuses
nationwide and around Central New York. For instance:

Future science teachers at the State University College at
Oswego discuss how they might have to deal with the subject in
their classrooms one day.

Le Moyne College in Syracuse is planning a lecture for next
year with the premise that religion and evolution are not in conflict.

Cornell's president chose the topic of intelligent design as
the focus of his state-of-the-university speech last month.

Several colleges nationwide have introduced intelligent design
courses or seminars, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Still, few places in American society are more skeptical of
intelligent design than college campuses, according to several
recent surveys.
Scientists, from biologists to economists, are less likely than
other Americans to be religious, the surveys show. While a
majority of Americans advocate teaching creationism along with
evolution, most scientists and educators say that is a bad idea.

Our aching backs

Scientists speaking on campus are almost guaranteed a laugh if
they poke fun at intelligent design. Pulitzer-Prize winning
author Jared Diamond, speaking at Hamilton College Sept. 29,
drew chuckles when he said true intelligent design would not
leave him with an aching back.

"Many of us end up with back problems and hip problems and
shoulder problems," Diamond said. "Why? Because we are walking
upright with a body frame that for about 52 million years,
evolved in order to get us going on all fours."

Intelligent design can be defined in many ways. Some say it is
creationism repackaged. Other advocates, like Maxson, and the
80 members of her club, say they take a scientific approach
that looks for complexities and patterns in nature. They don't
dismiss all of evolution, but say some dramatic leaps in
development don't match a theory dependent on incremental change.

But Hunter Rawlings, the interim president of Cornell,
pointedly joined intelligent design critics in an Oct. 21
speech to say that the concept is not scientific and that the
current effort to require it be mentioned in schools is
dangerous. He did welcome discussion of intelligent design in
nonscientific venues.

After the speech, the president's office received more than 100
e-mails in response and only about 15 opposed his stance, said
Simeon Moss, speaking for Cornell.

The political debate over intelligent design makes the subject
a topic of dinner conversations at Alpha Delta Phi fraternity
at Cornell, said fraternity brother Kevin Barmish.

Barmish was charged with finding a fall semester speaker for a
faculty lecture series and asked his fraternity brothers to
pick from five topics.

"Intelligent design got nearly all the votes," he said.

Classroom conundrum

Those college students with a particular stake in the issue are
those who expect to be leading science classrooms eventually.

Eric Olson, a professor in curriculum and instruction in the
education school at State University College at Oswego, said
his students have always had 7

6 some concerns about handling challenges to evolution in
class. But the subject has come up more often this semester.

"I think that maybe there is a little more urgency, more of a
desire to understand how they're going to want to grapple with
the issue," Olson said.

This month, the issue has seen mixed developments.

The school board race in a Pennsylvania town became
international news on Election Day, when voters in Dover
replaced eight incumbents who supported teaching intelligent
design in the science classroom with eight newcomers who disagreed.

The Dover school board's policy - which required teaching about
gaps in Darwin's theory - was challenged in federal court in a
trial that ended Nov. 4. The judge has said he expects to rule
by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, on Nov. 8, the Kansas Board of Education jumped into
the evolution debate for at least the third time in recent
years. The board approved new standards that encourage teachers
to teach evolution, but urges them to include a discussion of
challenges to the theory.

'No basic contradiction'

Many college leaders who may have thought it made more sense to
ignore the intelligent design debate are now considering
tackling it to make a larger point.

Le Moyne College President Rev. Charles J. Beirne, who said it
is absurd to consider teaching creationism in schools, said
colleges need to encourage people to avoid simplistic thinking.

"We're trying to understand the bigger reality in more
sophisticated ways," Beirne said. "There are ways of
understanding religious experience and scientific experience as
two very valid ways of coming at reality.
There is no basic contradiction."

Le Moyne's Sanzone Center for Catholic Studies and Theological
Reflection is planning a public forum on the subject for this
spring or next fall, said Nancy Ring, the center's interim director.

"The Catholic Church generally has in recent years stood behind
evolution," Ring said. "Part of the purpose of the lecture is
to say a belief in God doesn't require a belief in intelligent design."

But not everyone on campuses agrees that evolution and religion
are compatible.

'Biology breeds atheism'

The speaker that Cornell's Alpha Delta Phi chose to speak Oct.
26 is famous for saying that studying biology breeds atheism.

Will Provine, a Cornell professor of the history of biology,
has said, "One can have a religious view that is compatible
with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable
from atheism."

Scientists and theologians end up at odds when theologians
dwell on finding meaning in life.

As Colgate physicist Vic Mansfield put it at an Oct. 14 Cornell
conference on Buddhism and science: "There is no meaning or
purpose in the laws of physics."

At the quantum level, action is random with no purpose or
structure, Mansfield said.

That idea disturbs even religious leaders who generally support
Darwinian evolution, including the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan
Buddhist leader who recently authored, "The Universe in a
Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality."

The meaning of life

"The Buddhist perspective, the idea of these mutations being
purely random events is deeply unsatisfying for a theory that
purports to explain the origin of life," he wrote.

Pure randomness isn't always a popular idea among young adults either.

"Nineteen- and 20-year-olds are interested in the purpose and
meaning of life," said Joe Hoffmann, a professor of religious
studies and human values at Wells College.

But the tough questions that challenge both science and
religion are the ones that students should be considering, he said.

"The Buddhist perspective, the idea of these mutations being
purely random events is deeply unsatisfying for a theory that
purports to explain the origin of life." The Dalai Lama,

Tibetan Buddhist leader, in "The Universe in a Single Atom: The
Convergence of Science and Spirituality"

"One can have a religious view that is compatible with
evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from
atheism." Will Provine, Cornell professor of history of biology

"There is no meaning or purpose in the laws of physics." Vic Mansfield, Colgate physicist

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 11:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It is hard to trust recent MSM reporting on the evolution debate, as I observed here only two days ago. Most media seemed to ignore the Pope's own words a week ago Wednesday when he embraced "intelligent design" (or "intelligent plan" or "intelligent project", depending on your pick of translations -- see here). Instead, some of them tried to elevate the ID-dissing Dr. George Coyne, Vatican astronomer, to the position of official voice of the Vatican. But maybe that is changing.

A new Reuters story on Cardinal Schoenborn--based on an interview by Tom Heneghan -- deserves a respectful reading.

Cardinal Schoenborn, as quoted in the Reuters story, is laying out in broad strokes the philosophical issues that must inform the science debate.

This is refreshing because most Darwinists and most MSM don't want to acknowledge that a serious controversy over the philosophy of science is going on. For them, it's simply "science vs. religion." In the interview, the cardinal distinguishes between real science and ideology and charges "evolutionism" with exclusionist ideological claims. He is respectful toward the achievements of Darwin (as Discovery Institute scientists are, too, please note), but not toward Darwinism and the materialism it promotes in science and culture. And he insists that it should be acceptable to debate Darwin's theory in science class.

He avoids commenting on whether ID should be taught in US schools, but thinks the topic at least should be broached in Austrian schools, both public and private. (For reporters, please note once more Discovery Institute's own position: we do not support requiring ID in US public schools, a la Dover, only a fair airing of scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory. We also, of course, do not want discussions of ID by instructors or students to be prohibited, especially in universities.)

One other point: in the Reuters interview Cardinal Schoenborn again appears serene and "good humored" in the knowledge that he has the Pope's support for the direction he has taken. Indeed, the Pope has "inspired" him.

So, one now asks, why are some leading media still touting Dr. Coyne as the voice of "the Vatican"? Don't his other unusual views--for example, the theological contention stated in a recent article that God is not omnipotent or omniscient--suggest he might not be a reliable spokesman for the Pope?

Here is another topic a more enterprising reporter might take up: Do you suppose that Pope Benedict and the churchman he chose as senior editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Schoenborn, might be pleased that partly as a result of the present controversy people in Europe are beginning to notice and discuss the scientific materialism that has played a large role in the demoralization of Europe and much of the West?

Are there no editors out there, at least, who are more interested in reporting what is actually happening than they are in finding means to air as "news" opinions that simply agree with their own?

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 8:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (3)

One reads with astonishment the major stories written by the AP and various news and broadcast outlets the past two days; to wit, "Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design." There is even a ham-fisted attempt by the Lawrence (Kansas) Journal-World to use the anti-ID statement of junior Vatican official Dr. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, to pound the Kansas State Board of Education for their new standards on teaching evolution--standards that don't even require ID.

Soon we'll have editorials and cartoons asserting that the Catholic Church has attacked intelligent design and defended dear old Darwin. The only problem is that this is sheer spin--irresponsible, reckless and untruthful. Dr. Coyne, who resides in America, is an astronomer who has attacked intelligent design (it "belittles God", he declares) repeatedly. He is entitled to his opinion, but the media now have him quoted as "the Vatican".

The story is not just incorrect, it is almost topsy turvy from reality.

The Vatican has tried to correct Darwinist claims like this that seek to put the Catholic Church in league with neo-Darwinism. After several such highly publicized events last spring, Cardinal Schönborn of Austria--former pupil of Dr. Karl Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and the senior editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church--wrote a highly publicized essay for the New York Times, "On Design in Nature." Among other things, Cardinal Schönborn reminded readers that the new Holy Father, upon his recent election and installation as successor to the Throne of St. Peter, stated in his first homily that "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution." The Cardinal, who later told the New York Times that he had been encouraged in his representations by the Pope personally, complained that "neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our Pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist." He also cited a frequently abused and misquoted recent statement of the Vatican Theological Commission that "An unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist.'" He also quoted the late Pope John Paul II and he quoted the Catechism.

Then, last month, when the Cardinal followed up his essay with the first of what are to be nine catechetical lectures in Vienna on evolution and creation, and made a pleasant statement early in his lecture about what a great thinker Darwin was, the English language media tried to spin this as his having "recanted" his earlier critique. So the cardinal put up on his diocesan website a full English translation of his lecture and a droll notice that the English language media didn't seem to understand it in the original German, and assured them that he had not changed his position at all.

"Annotation: It has come to our attention that the content of Cardinal Schönborn's first catechesis has been mis-reported in the English-speaking press as somehow drawing back from his essay in The New York Times. This is inaccurate, as will be apparent from the full text. In order to clear up this misunderstanding, we are posting here an initial draft of an English translation."

In fact, Cardinal Schönborn has been writing critically of Darwinian evolution for at least 18 years, when a paper of his was included in a German language book on the topic, "Evolutionism and Christianity". The foreword to that book was written by Cardinal Ratzinger.

The US media seem serenely uninterested in any of this. Instead, Cardinal Schönborn's New York Times essay, when it wasn't being wished away, was being attacked by lesser figures, such as Dr. Coyne--and of course, those attacks did get coverage. Even anodyne statements about the important value of religion and science talking to one another--the theme of a different cardinal's talk in Rome recently--was blown up in some press accounts to represent a Vatican embrace of Darwin and rejection of design!

That is where the situation stood until last week, when Cardinal Schönborn and the Austrian bishops happened to be in Rome to visit the Pope, and when Pope Benedict just happened to preach on creation--using a text of John Paul II--and when he just happened to end his remarks with a warm tribute to "this intelligent design of the Cosmos". (The full translated text is found in the current National Catholic Register for November 20-26, here.)

It seems obvious to me (and to much of the European press, it appears) that the Pope was showing his support for Cardinal Schönborn and his continuing exposition of the issues of evolution, creation and design. In effect--most gently--he was also separating himself from figures who have presumed to speak on the Vatican's behalf in ways that contradict not only Cardinal Schönborn, but Pope Benedict's own previous statements.

This important endorsement simply was not very newsworthy, you see. Some translated the phrase as "intelligent project", others as "intelligent plan". Some European outlets got it right and saw the significance. (It was clear even if "intelligent project" or "plan" was correct.) But few US media even noticed such a yawner from the Pope.

In one humorous case of a paper that did notice, the Chicago Sun Times ran a story on November 13 under the headline, "Pope Sides with 'Intelligent Design' Advocates." But then the paper turned around on November 16 to comment editorial pages (concerning the Dover, PA school board election) that "many religious leaders" are fully content with evolution. The examples were two Catholic leaders--a Cardinal and a Monsignor, neither of whom really said much on the topic, despite the breathless extrapolations made from their remarks. What did NOT rate notice in the Sun Times editorial was what the POPE had to say on the subject on the paper's own pages three days earlier. After all, who cares what the mere POPE says on Catholic teaching?

Let me be clear. The scientific issues surrounding Darwin's theory, and alternative theories such as intelligent design, are not inherently religious, and religious authorities, even the Pope, can't dictate specific scientific doctrines, and Pope Benedict is not attempting to do so. The Pope, like Cardinal Schönborn, plainly is making a point about the PHILOSOPHY that underlies any scientific proposition, as, for example positivism and materialism undergird most of what is described as neo-Darwinism. Philosophy is treated now as a child of science, but the matter is rather the reverse historically. It is a fascinating subject that deserves extensive discussion, the kind that is going on in First Things magazine right now.

But, the reason this all matters to this blog and blogger, is that Darwinists--and their credulous followers in the mainstream media--seem intent on misrepresenting the Catholic Church in order to isolate and stigmatize the opponents of neo-Darwinism--including ID proponents--and to brand them as "extremists" and "fundamentalists." As Prof. Lawrence Krauss made clear on NPR recently, the purpose of invoking official Catholic backing for neo-Darwinist orthodoxy--even if that backing doesn't exist--is to lull an unparalleled billion believers worldwide. It is a propaganda stunt.

The Pope did not endorse specific intelligent design theories, nor did he say that evolution in all senses is wrong (neither does Discovery Institute, by the way). He did express a traditional Catholic orthodox PHILOSOPHY that should guide science--and plainly does not guide neo-Darwinism. He did speak up for design in nature.

Many in the media may not like that, but it is time to be honest about it.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 7:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (5)

The New York Times report that Kansas state has redefined science is in fact false and the reporting misleads the public in regards to how science is defined by most states across the country.

In a Science Times article echoing other mainstream media's misreports, the New York Times today reports that Kansas has "redefined science," stating:

In the course of revising the state's science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself.

This is not accurate, the state did not adopt a "new definition of science." In fact, the standard now in place in Kansas realigns the state with all other states in the nation that define science in their standards.

Kansas reinstated a traditional definition of science which reads: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." This is nearly identical to the definition of science adhered to in 40 states across the country (nine states do not define science at all). Kansas is the only state that did not have a traditional definition of science.

In May of this year Discovery Institute issued a study examining the definitions of science used by all states in the nation which found that:

The definition of science ... is fully consistent with definitions used by all other states in the U.S. By contrast, the definition of science currently used in the Kansas standards ... is idiosyncratic and out of step with current educational practice.

The Discovery Institute study was conducted by biologist, Dr. Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow with the Institute's Center for Science & Culture, and later sent to the Kansas State Board of Education. The complete text of the study is published below so that readers can see for themselves what the definitions of science are like in all states.

Definitions of Science in State Standards
Research by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D

Summary

The definition of science proposed in the Minority Report [note: the minority report is what the Kansas state board of education adopted as its new science standards] is fully consistent with definitions used by all other states in the U.S. By contrast, the definition of science currently used in the Kansas standards and defended by the Majority is idiosyncratic and out of step with current educational practice.

Reviewers Dennison and Miller claim that the Minority Report proposes a radical re-definition of science. Yet a comprehensive survey of state science standards (attached below) shows that all other states in the union that define science in their standards define it in a way similar to the Minority.

Dennison and Miller, along with reviewers Heppert and Theobald, also claim that the revised definition would open the door to supernatural explanations in science. This is simply false: No one is proposing that supernatural explanations should be included in science.

The definition of science in the current Kansas science standards is unlike any other in the U.S. By defining science first and foremost as "seeking natural explanations," the current standards subtly shift the emphasis in science education from the investigative process to the end result. This shift is out of step with modern science education, which gives priority to the activity of formulating and testing hypotheses. The Minority's definition is consistent with science as an open-ended inquiry that follows the evidence wherever it leads. The Majority's definition, by contrast, shortcircuits this process of inquiry and encourages premature answers to scientific questions -- the sort of "just-so stories" criticized by scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould.

The only other state in the U.S. that explicitly limits science to naturalistic explanations is Massachusetts. In the Massachusetts science standards, however, this limitation comes at the end of a detailed description of the scientific enterprise that begins by defining science more generally as "attempts to give good accounts of the patterns in nature." Only Kansas currently defines science primarily as "seeking natural explanations." As the comprehensive survey attached below shows, the Minority's proposed revision would bring the Kansas science standards back into the mainstream of the U.S. science education community.

A Comprehensive Survey of State Science Standards
Of the fifty states, nine include no definition of science or explicit description of scientific inquiry in standards accessible through the Internet. The standards of forty states include a definition of science or explicit description of scientific inquiry that is consistent with the one proposed in the Minority Report. Only Kansas defines science as "seeking natural explanations."

Here is a sampler of science definitions used by other states:

Arizona: "Science is a process of gathering and evaluating information, looking for patterns, and then devising and testing possible explanations."

Arkansas: "Science is a way of knowing that is characterized by empirical criteria, logical argument, and skeptical review."

Connecticut: "Scientific inquiry is a thoughtful and coordinated attempt to search out, describe, explain and predict natural phenomena."

Idaho: "Science is a human endeavor that seeks to understand the universe by observation, experimentation, and rational interpretation of observations."

Louisiana: "Science is a way of thinking and a system of knowledge that uses reason, observation, experimentation, and imagination."

Montana: "Science is an inquiry process used to investigate natural phenomena, resulting in the formation of theories verified by direct observations."

Nevada: "Scientific inquiry is the process by which humans systematically examine the natural world."

New Hampshire: "Science is, above all, a problem-solving activity that seeks answers to questions by collecting and analyzing data in an attempt to offer a rational explanation of naturally-occurring events."

Ohio: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

South Dakota: "Science is a process of gathering and evaluating information, looking for patterns, and then devising and testing possible explanations."

Utah: "Science is a way of knowing, a process for gaining knowledge and understanding of the natural world."

DEFINITIONS OF SCIENCE IN STATE STANDARDS
No definition or explicit description found on the Internet.
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Iowa
Missouri
South Carolina
Vermont
Wyoming

Science investigates the natural world through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument.
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Science seeks natural explanations through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument.
Kansas

Details by State, with URLs

Alabama
http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/section_detail.asp?section=54

Alaska
http://www.educ.state.ak.us/tls/frameworks/mathsci/ms3cntn3.htm

"The processes of science [include] observing, classifying, measuring, interpreting data, inferring, communicating, controlling variables, developing models and theories, hypothesizing, predicting and experimenting… Scientific inquiry often involves different ways of thinking, curiosity and the exploration of multiple paths."

Arizona
http://www.ade.state.az.us/standards/science/rationale.asp

"Science is a process of gathering and evaluating information, looking for patterns, and then devising and testing possible explanations."

Arkansas
http://bob.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/2.html#perspectives

"Science is a way of knowing that is characterized by empirical criteria, logical argument, and skeptical review… Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work… The goal of science is to understand the natural world." (National Science Education Standards, 1995.)

California
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/sci-stnd.pdf

"Science is an organized body of knowledge and a method of proceeding to an extension of this knowledge by hypothesis and experiment… Students will formulate explanations by using logic and evidence."

Colorado
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/standards/pdf/science.pdf

"Science presumes that the things and events in the universe occur in consistent patterns that are comprehensible through careful, systematic study. Scientists believe that through the use of the intellect, and with the aid of instruments that extend the senses, people can discover patterns in all nature. Science is a process for producing knowledge. Change in scientific knowledge is inevitable because new observations may challenge prevailing theories. In science, the testing and improving and occasional discarding of theories, whether new or old, go on all the time." (AAAS, Science for All Americans, 1990)

Connecticut
http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/curriculum/currsci.htm

"Scientific inquiry is a thoughtful and coordinated attempt to search out, describe, explain and predict natural phenomena. Scientific inquiry progresses through a continuous process of questioning, data collection, analysis and interpretation. Scientific inquiry requires the sharing of findings and ideas for critical review by colleagues and other scientists."

Delaware
http://www.doe.state.de.us/Standards/Science/science_toc.html

"Scientists’ curiosity about the natural world leads them to ask questions about how things work… Scientific investigations in many cases follow no fixed set of steps. However, there are certain features of a valid scientific investigation that are essential and result in evidence that can be used to construct explanations… The close examination of evidence is necessary to construct logical scientific explanations and present arguments which defend proposed explanations."

Florida
http://www.firn.edu/doe/curric/prek12/pdf/science9.pdf

Georgia
http://www.georgiastandards.org/science.asp

Hawaii
http://www.pgd.hawaii.edu/kaams/standards/nstatable.htm#G2

"Scientists formulate and test their explanations of nature using observation, experiments, and theoretical and mathematical models. Although all scientific ideas are tentative and subject to change and improvement in principle, for most major ideas in science, there is much experimental and observational confirmation. Those ideas are not likely to change greatly in the future. Scientists do and have changed their ideas about nature when they encounter new experimental evidence that does not match their existing explanations."

Idaho
http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa08/0203.pdf

"Science is a human endeavor that seeks to understand the universe by observation, experimentation, and rational interpretation of observations. At its core, science is a method of asking questions, a method that may be extended to problem solving in many areas of life. An observation leads to a hypothesis. The hypothesis suggests experiments that might be done to further understand the phenomena. These observations and hypotheses are published in scientific literature whereupon they may be replicated, extended, or disproved by others. Hypotheses that prove capable of explaining observations and making predictions about additional phenomena are retained while those that fail this test are discarded. Only those hypotheses that have proven to be successful over considerable periods of time are referred to as 'theories,' and even these theories may be supplanted should they prove incapable of explaining new observations."

Illinois
http://www.isbe.net/ils/science/standards.htm

"Science is a creative endeavor of the human mind. It offers a special perspective of the natural world in terms of understanding and interaction."

Indiana
http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/standards/standards2000_science.html

Iowa
http://www.state.ia.us/educate/index.html

Kansas

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestdsintro.pdf
"Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes."

Kentucky
http://www.education.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/embzghscyi2tfsxvfhcwo424g2nhaew3x2tjpos3iy3gt32dathwbvxqgn7l3exuyxn57w5ckyvgybnern6gzbqef3f/sciencecc30.pdf

"Scientific knowledge comes from empirical standards, logical arguments, and skepticism, and is subject to change as new evidence becomes available."

Louisiana
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/2911.pdf

"Science is a way of thinking and a system of knowledge that uses reason, observation, experimentation, and imagination. The goal of science is to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena and processes. Science shares some characteristics with other forms of scholarly inquiry, but it is unique in several important ways. Science attempts to meet the criteria of testability, objectivity, and consistency. Scientific information is continuously open to review and modification; science is not a static body of knowledge."

Maine
http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/st.htm

"Science includes processes and a body of knowledge. Processes are the ways scientists investigate and communicate about the natural world. The body of knowledge includes concepts, principles, facts, laws, and theories."

Maryland
http://www.aacps.org/aacps/boe/INSTR/CURR/scien/mscs.html

"Science is a body of knowledge developed through the process of investigating that is combined with thoughtful reflections guided by critical thinking skills."

Massachusetts
http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2001/0501.pdf

"Science may be described as attempts to give good accounts of the patterns in nature. The result of scientific investigation is an understanding of natural processes. Scientific explanations are always subject to change in the face of new evidence. Ideas with the most durable explanatory power become established theories or are codified as laws of nature. Overall, the key criterion of science is that it provides a clear, rational, and succinct account of a pattern in nature. This account must be based on data gathering and analysis and other evidence obtained through direct observations or experiments, reflect inferences that are broadly shared and communicated, and be accompanied by a model that offers a naturalistic explanation expressed in conceptual, mathematical, and/or mechanistic terms."

Michigan
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Updated_Science_Benchmarks_27030_7.pdf

"Science is a way of making sense of the natural world. Science seeks to describe its complexity, to explain its systems and events, and to find patterns that allow for predictions… Scientific questions can be answered by gathering and analyzing evidence about the world…The process of scientific investigations [includes] test, fair test, hypothesis, theory, evidence, observations, measurements, data, conclusion."

Minnesota
http://education.state.mn.us/content/072583.pdf

"Scientific knowledge must meet certain criteria including that it: be consistent with experimental, observational and inferential evidence about nature; follow rules of logic and reporting both methods and procedures; and, be falsifiable and open to criticism."

Mississippi
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/acad/id/curriculum/Science/science_curr.htm

"Scientific inquiry involves making observations; posing questions; examining sources of information for facts; planning investigations; reviewing experimental evidence gathered by the student; using tools; proposing answers, explanations and predictions; and communicating results."

Missouri
http://dese.mo.gov/standards/science.html

Montana
http://www.opi.state.mt.us/pdf/Standards/ContStds-Science.pdf

"Science is an inquiry process used to investigate natural phenomena, resulting in the formation of theories verified by direct observations. These theories are challengeable and changeable. Data used to support or contradict them must be reproducible. Although science as a body of knowledge is ever changing, the processes of science are constant. In scientific inquiry, a problem is identified, pertinent data is gathered, hypothesis is formulated, experiments are performed, the results are interpreted, and conclusions are drawn."

Nebraska
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ndestandards/sciencedrft.htm

"By the end of twelfth grade, students will develop an understanding of science as a human endeavor… [and] recognize science as one way of answering questions and explaining the natural world… Students will develop an understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge: demonstrate the use of empirical standards, logical arguments, and skepticism in science; create scientific explanations consistent with experimental and observational evidence; make accurate predictions; strive to be logical; respect the rules of evidence; accept criticism; report methods and procedures; and make knowledge public; [and] understand that all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available."

Nevada
http://www.doe.nv.gov/sca/standards/standardsfiles/science/DraftDec10.pdf

"Scientific inquiry is the process by which humans systematically examine the natural world. Scientific inquiry is a human endeavor and involves observation, reasoning, insight, energy, skill and creativity. Scientific inquiry is used to formulate and test explanations of nature through observation , experiments and theoretical or mathematical models. Scientific explanations and evidence are constantly reviewed and examined by others. Questioning, response to criticism and open communication are integral to the process of science."

New Hampshire
http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/doe/organization/curriculum/Assessment/Science.htm

"Science is, above all, a problem-solving activity that seeks answers to questions by collecting and analyzing data in an attempt to offer a rational explanation of naturally-occurring events… Students will perceive that scientific knowledge is the result of the cumulative efforts of people, past and present, who have attempted to explain the world through an objective, peer-tested, rational approach to understanding natural phenomena and occurrences…Inquiry in science follows no single pathway. It involves imagination, inventiveness, experimenting, and the use of logic and evidence to support results."

New Jersey
http://www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/s5_science.pdf

"Science is not merely a collection of facts and theories but a process, a way of thinking about and investigating the world in which we live… [Science students will] raise question about the world around them and be willing to seek answers through making careful observations and experimentation."

New Mexico
http://www.nmlites.org/standards/science/glossary_5.htm

"Science is both a body of knowledge and a set of processes for advancing that knowledge. More specifically, science is mankind's interconnected, internally consistent, growing body of knowledge about natural and man-made objects and phenomena of the past, present, and future; a body of knowledge that is based on repeatable experimentation with, or observation of, these natural and man-made objects and phenomena, that is organized and extended using logic and mathematics, and that is validated by the testing of hypotheses."

New York
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/pub/intersci.pdf

"The central purpose of scientific inquiry is to develop explanations of natural phenomena in a continuing, creative process… Beyond the use of reasoning and consensus, scientific inquiry involves the testing of proposed explanations involving the use of conventional techniques and procedures and usually requiring considerable ingenuity… The observations made while testing explanations, when analyzed using conventional and invented methods, provide new insights into phenomena."

North Carolina
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/science/standard/downloads/science.pdf

There "are different ways to define science. A lay person might see it as a body of information, a scientist might define it as a set of procedures by which hypotheses are tested, and a philosopher might regard it as a way to question the truth of what we know. Each of these views is a valid, but only partial, definition of science… Science is a way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those that can be inferred from confirmable data -- the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists (NAS). When observations of a phenomenon have been confirmed or can be repeated, they are regarded as a fact. Any scientific confirmation is, however, tentative, because it is always possible that the results occurred by chance."

North Dakota
http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/standard/content/science.pdf

"Science: (1) a process which attempts to understand the order in nature and which uses that knowledge to make predictions about what might happen in nature; (2) knowledge resulting from scientific investigations… [Students will understand] characteristics of scientific knowledge (e.g., consistent and repeatable data, best explanation for natural phenomena, shared methods and results, open to question and reexamination, probability greater than chance, logical, often allows predictions)."

Ohio
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/ScienceContentStd/PDF/SCIENCE.pdf

"Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

Oklahoma
http://www.sde.state.ok.us/acrob/pass/science.pdf

Scientific inquiry "can be defined as the skills necessary to carry out the process of scientific or systematic thinking. In order for inquiry to occur, students must have the opportunity to ask a question …; use systematic observations, make accurate measurements, and identify and control variables; use technology to gather data and analyze results of investigations; review data, summarize data, and form logical conclusions; [and] formulate and evaluate explanations proposed by examining and comparing evidence, pointing out statements that go beyond evidence, and suggesting alternative explanations."

Oregon
http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/specialty/pre-post/sci-tlss200405.pdf

"Science is a human endeavor practiced by individuals from many different cultures. Understand that scientific knowledge is subject to change based on new findings and result of scientific observation and experimentation. Understand that scientific knowledge distinguishes itself through the use of empirical standards, logical arguments, and skepticism."

Pennsylvania
http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/lib/k12/scitech.pdf

Science is "the search for understanding the natural world and facts, principles, theories and laws that have been verified by the scientific community and are used to explain and predict natural phenomena and events."

Rhode Island
http://www.ridoe.net/