Evolution News & Views

Today New York Times reporter Kirk Johnson totally misrepresented what I said in his article "Anti-Darwin Bill Fails in Utah." I said that to the extent that the bill supported critical analysis it was a loss, but we really didn’t care about this bill because it amounted to a meaningless disclaimer, and we've never thought disclaimers were a good idea. I totally made it clear that Discovery was NOT keen on this bill. Honestly, I don’t think this reporter was even listening to a word I said.

I never called it purely a “local Utah matter”. What the heck does that mean? A “local Utah matter?” I never said anything like that. He asked if I thought this vote would have any affects outside of Utah, and I said no. I really don't think it will. But, that's not what he printed. He put words in my mouth making it sound as if we were completely dismissive of the legislative and policy issues in Utah -- on the contrary we followed this issue, even though we weren't directly involved. He even admitted as much in an e-mail this morning asking for a correction.

The sad thing here is that it seems that Johnson's preconceived notions about reality affected journalism. He obviously had an agenda to make this about intelligent design, as you can see from how his article was written. I made it clear that we didn’t endorse this bill, and I tried to explain that the issue in Utah wasn't about intelligent design. But, he rushed me off the phone and said he had to go because he was on deadline. That may have been true, but regardless, I’m confident this guy didn’t hear a word I said.

This was a short 5-minute interview that was very rushed and the guy kicked me off the phone before he really understood the situation, or even understood our position on it.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Editor's Note: In the original post we mistakenly identified the newspaper in question as the Orlando Sentinel. It was in fact the Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale. While the identification was incorrect, the links all went to the right articles.

In what was supposed to be a news article, the Sun Sentinel yesterday substituted its own inaccurate definition of intelligent design for the definition actually used by proponents of the theory. In so doing, its editors apparently suppressed a more accurate definition of ID written by the reporter with whom I spoke. In addition to misdefining intelligent design, the Sentinel article engages in blatant editorializing by pejoratively labeling efforts to correct textbook errors as "watering down" the teaching of evolution. Below is the text of the letter I just sent to the Sentinel's reader's representative.

Dear Reader's Representative:

The definition of intelligent design given in Chris Kahn's article, "Broward selects biology text with watered-down passages on evolution" (Feb. 24), bears no resemblance to the definition actually used by the scholars and scientists who have proposed the theory. It also bears no resemblance to the definition I discussed with your reporter. Why is that? Why does the Sentinel refuse to allow the proponents of intelligent design to define their own theory, and instead substitute a highly inaccurate definition of its own?

Contrary to your article, the scientific theory of intelligent design makes no claims about "god" or a "guiding force." Instead, it merely proposes that there is good evidence that some features of nature--like the intricate molecular motors within cells and the finely-tuned laws of physics--are best explained as the products of an intelligent cause, not chance and necessity. Whether this intelligent cause identified through the scientific method is (or is not) "god" cannot be answered by the science alone and is therefore outside the scope of the theory of intelligent design. The issue addressed by intelligent design is a limited one: Is there evidence in nature that many key features are the products of an intelligent (goal-directed) process rather than an undirected process? Put another way, are there empirical indicators for intelligent activity in nature?

Your article also engages in blatant editorializing by insisting that Discovery Institute has tried to "water down" the teaching of evolution. In fact, we want to improve how evolution is taught by making sure students are exposed to the best evidence for and against Darwin's theory. Regarding the textbook changes we have achieved, I fail to see how correcting documented factual errors (like bogus embryo drawings, false statements about peppered moth research, overstatements about origin of life experiments, and inaccurate statements about the fossil record) constitutes "watering down" the coverage evolution--unless one believes that it is good science education to teach students falsehoods. The "watering down" label is pejorative, not impartial, and has no place in what was supposed to be a news story, not an opinion piece.

Sincerely,

John G. West, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Institute
www.discovery.org

Posted by John West at 10:52 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

My previous post exposing how the New York Times changes its definition of who is a biologist depending on whether a scientist supports or opposes Darwin's theory has apparently hit a raw nerve. A Darwinist blogsite calling itself "Hell's Handmaiden" has taken me to task for supposed inaccuracies in my post. But it turns out that it is Hell's Handmaiden who is misrepresenting the facts, not me.

First, Hell's Handmaiden insists I was wrong to say that Patricia Princehouse has a doctorate in the history of science. According to the Handmaiden, Princehouse hasn't actually finished her doctorate. Well, check for yourself. Unless Princehouse and her university are spreading false info., Princehouse does have her Ph.D.--and it's in the history of science, not evolutionary biology, which was precisely my point. Frankly, I don't understand why Hell's Handmaiden is obsessing about whether or not Princehouse has her doctorate yet, because in either case the fact remains she has no graduate degree in evolutionary biology. All the Handmaiden can say to this is that Princehouse has a master's degree in physical anthropology, and that physical anthropology includes a lot of biology. So what? A degree in anthropology is still a degree in... anthropology. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education actually has a doctorate in physical anthropology, but even she doesn't go around calling herself an "evolutionary biologist." If the Times had wanted to be more accurate, it could have called Princehouse an anthropologist, although it still should have noted that Princehouse's university lists her faculty position as one in "philosophy," not anthropology. Utlimately, I don't really care how the Times identifies Princehouse. If the Times wants to call her a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist, that's OK by me. What is not OK is a double-standard that identifies an historian/anthropologist as an "evolutionary biologist" but then claims that scientists critical of Darwin's theory with doctoral degrees in biochemistry somehow don't qualify as biologists--even if they happen to be professors of biology!

It should be pointed out that most of the Handmaiden's post is devoted to changing the subject rather than documenting any inaccuracies in my post. For example, I pointed out that the New York Times refused to tell readers that Darwin critic Stanley Salthe who signed Discovery's Dissent from Darwin statement is an evolutionary biologist. The Handmaiden cannot refute my criticism, because it happens to be true. All she can say is that Salthe doesn't support intelligent design. So what? Discovery Institute never claimed that Salthe supports intelligent design. Our Dissent from Darwin statement is a list of scientists who are skeptical of neo-Darwinism, not a list of scientists who all support intelligent design. In fact, that is precisely our point. Dissent from neo-Darwinism reaches far beyond the scientists who support intelligent design. There are many scientists who are critical of the sufficiency of neo-Darwinism who do not support intelligent design. Salthe is one of these. Far from discrediting Discovery's statement, the existence of Darwin skeptics throughout the scientific community reinforces the truth that there is a significant minority of scientists who doubt neo-Darwinism on scientific grounds. This is why Salthe was willing to sign our statement even though he is a critic of intelligent design, and why he supports exposing students to scientific evidence critical of neo-Darwinism. As he explained in 2003:

Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims

Posted by John West at 12:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Editor's Note: This was sent to us from a former Discovery policy analyst.

Martha Wise is a member of the Ohio Board of Education. She cannot stand anything that is not conclusively and absolutely pro-Darwinian in science education. She is also the chief censor of any scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinian theory. Martha helped to oust the Ohio Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan.

Her op-ed in the Cincinnati Enquirer is a wonderful celebration of Orwellian double-speak in the service of Darwin-only science indoctrination: She's insists she is a creationist, but she opposes creationism. The science standards explicitly disclaim the mandating of ID, but the standards (she claims) mandate ID. In Dover everyone acknowledged they were teaching ID but in OH they are not--except that Martha says that in Ohio they somehow were by stealth, even though the NCSE originally proclaimed victory with the passage of the critical analysis benchmark. "Critical analysis" doesn't mean "critical analysis." People with religious motivations are barred from proposing the lesson plan, but Wise's religious motivations for stopping the lesson plan are in bounds. And feminist philosophers of science count as "evolutionary biologists."

(See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/all_the_news_that_fits_the_nyt.html.)

Also, the public records request by Americans United that she mentions took place a long time ago. If she and the other Darwinists thought there was a snowball's chance in you-know-where, they would've filed a lawsuit way back when. She just banked on scaring the other Board members with an over-expansive extrapolation from Judge Jones' awful opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Unfortunately she succeeded.

Martha claimed in the March '04 Board meeting that she opposed the Ohio Critical Analysis of Evolution (purely optional) lesson plan because she said she realized it was religion and that God was giving her the strength to stop it. I'm not kidding. Her performance at that Board meeting was not only silly but one of the most transparently scripted things I had ever seen. When Florida law professor Steven Gey gave his testimony repeating Barbara Forrest talking points, Martha responded "I have ten questions for this witness." (Most people testifying were asked no questions or one or two at most.) She thought Gey was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Judge that one for yourself: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1864.

The op-ed says she is running for the Ohio Senate. I hope she gets a solid primary challenger. I would like to send a check to her opponent. Attached to my check would be a note asking her opponent, upon election, to propose a Senate resolution calling upon Martha to change her last name to ANYTHING but "Wise."

Posted by Keith Pennock at 11:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

In the Cincinnati Enquirer on February 22, Ohio State Board of Education Member Martha K. Wise has an editorial entitled Conservative Ohio values led to change in evolution policy. I find this editorial intriguing.

Here is how she starts the essay:

"I believe in God the creator. I believe in freedom. I believe in America, and the state of Ohio, and the Republican Party, fiscal conservatism, fairness and honesty.

These values guided me last week to lead the Ohio Board of Education to remove creationism from our state's Science Standards and Model Curriculum."

So clearly Martha Wise is stating that her belief in "God the creator" "guided" her last week to "remove creationism." Whatever--I'm not here to nitpick or question her stated motivations. What I find more intriguing is her later charge that the critical analysis of evolution policy was unconstitutional because supposedly "At least one backer of 'critical analysis' on the board expressed religious motivation."

Ms. Wise claims to believe in "freedom" and "fairness". So to be fair, are religious people allowed to express religious motivations for some political positions (such as those of Martha Wise) but not for others (such as supporting critical analysis of evolution)? Do "creationists" and religious persons have the same political freedoms as non-"creationists"? (See The Ohio Debate and the "No Religious Test" Clause of the U.S. Constitution for further comments or this post for further analysis)

Along these lines, I have prepared a critical analysis lesson plan for use by teachers and students, perhaps even some in Ohio! (See below.)

This lesson plan teaches critical thinking skills by applying critical analysis in the subjects of rhetoric, law, and politics to Martha Wise's editorial. Download the "Critical Analysis of Martha Wise’s Editorial" lesson plan in PDF and use it in your class today! Below is the text of the lesson plan:

Note: this lesson plan has not been approved by the Ohio State Board of Education.

Critical Analysis Lesson Plan for Ohio Students
Subject: Rhetoric, Law, and Politics

Assignment:

The student is to read the following editorial written by Ohio State Board of Education Member Martha K. Wise, published in the Cincinnati Enquirer on Wednesday, February 22, 2006. Wise proposed the amendment which led to the repeal of Ohio’s Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan and indicator on February 14, 2006. In this editorial she explains her reasons for advocating repeal of Ohio’s critical analysis of evolution policy. After reading the editorial, the student should read the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan, previously approved for use by the Ohio State Board of Education. Finally, the student will answer ten questions aiding in critical analysis of Ms. Wise’s arguments.

Part I. Read the Editorial: “Conservative Ohio values led to change in evolution policy”

By Martha Wise
Cincinnati Enquirer
Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Read the full editorial at:
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/EDIT02/602220305/-1/all

Part II. Read the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan formerly approved for use by the Ohio State Board of Education.

Read the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan at:

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/sciencesboe/pdf_setA/L10-H23_Critical_Analysis_of_Evolution_Mar_SBOE_changes.pdf

Part III. Questions for Critical Analysis:

1. Ms. Wise states that “Creationism is religion” and that critical analysis of evolution is “creationism.” Looking at the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan, what religious content is found in the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan?

2. Ms. Wise states that “Until last week, Ohio had its own relabeling program for creationism, using the term ‘critical analysis’ instead of ID.” Read the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan.

(a) How do design proponents define intelligent design?

(b) What aspects of the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan are used to prove intelligent design? Use as much space as necessary to answer this question.

3. Look at the references for student research on pages 9-12 of the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan.

(a) How many references are there in the bibliography?

(b) How many of those references are to religious sources?

(c) How many of those references focus on intelligent design?

(d) How many references are to scholarly sources?

(e) How many are to scientific sources?

(f) How many of those scientific sources are peer reviewed journal articles?

4. The U.S. Supreme Court stated: "In determining the scope of a statute, we look first to its language. If the statutory language is unambiguous, in the absence of a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." (Russello v. U.S., 464 U.S. 16 (1983) internal citations and quotations omitted)

In the “critical analysis” section repealed by the motion proposed by Ms. Wise, the Ohio Science Standards stated that students will: “Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)”

(a) In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s statements about statutory interpretation, how might a federal court interpret that section in Ohio Science Standards with regards to teaching critical analysis of evolution? Would a court find that teaching critical analysis of evolution is required by the standards?

(b) In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s statements about statutory interpretation, how might a federal court interpret that section in Ohio Science Standards with regards to teaching intelligent design? Would a court find that teaching intelligent design is required by the standards?

5. In her editorial, Ms. Wise stated that she wanted “to remove "critical analysis" / "intelligent design" creationism from the standards.” At the February 14, 2006 meeting of the Ohio State Board of Education, Ms. Wise also proposed a motion to repeal the section of the standards which stated “The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.”

Are these two actions consistent? Why or why not?

6. Ms. Wise states in her editorial, “I believe in God the creator. I believe in freedom. I believe in America, and the state of Ohio, and the Republican Party, fiscal conservatism, fairness and honesty. These values guided me last week to lead the Ohio Board of Education to remove creationism from our state's Science Standards and Model Curriculum.”

(a) Does Ms. Wise express religious motivations for her political actions? Why or why not?

(b) Ms. Wise writes that the critical analysis of evolution standard was problematic because “At least one backer of ‘critical analysis’ on the board expressed religious motivation.” If Ms. Wise’s arguments against religious motivations were applied to her own actions, would they become unconstitutional? Why or why not?

7. Ms. Wise states in her editorial that she is a “creationist.” She also states that the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan was unconstitutional because “The science lesson writing committee was packed with creationists.” If Ms. Wise’s arguments against creationist involvement in science writing were applied to her own actions, would they become unconstitutional? Why or why not?

8. According to Ms. Wise’s arguments, would creationists have the same political liberties as non-creationists?

9. Ms. Wise wrote, “The founding fathers came to the conclusion that the only way to protect religion was for the government to keep its nose out of it.”

Dr. Kenneth Miller, the lead expert evolutionist biologist witness in what Ms. Wise called the “Pennsylvania Panda Trial” wrote in two of his biology textbooks:

"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. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. … Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us."

(Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life (D.C. Heath and Co.; 1st ed. 1992, pg. 152; 2nd ed. 1994, p. 161)

(a) Is this quote constitutional for use in a public school biology textbook under Ms. Wise’s understanding of the constitution?

(b) Is this quote consistent or inconsistent with Ms. Wise’s claim that “Atheists who say science disproves God are misrepresenting science”?

10. Ms. Wise states the following:

“Creationists do not all believe exactly the same thing. This may be the best-kept secret in the whole creationist movement. So if we were going to teach creationism or other religious concepts in school, how would we decide whose view to teach?”

(a) What does Ms. Wise imply we should teach when there are multiple views on a subject?

(b) What would happen to the teaching of evolution if we were to apply Ms. Wise’s logic to the teaching of evolution, in light of the following quote?

"There is absolutely no disagreement among professional biologist on the fact that evolution has occurred .... But the theory of how evolution occurs is quite another matter, and is the subject of intense dispute."

(Douglas Futuyma, Evolution as Fact and Theory, 56 Bios 3, (August, 1985))

(c) In 2001, U.S. Congress approved language which stated:

“Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist…”

(Conference Report to No Child Left Behind Act)

What would this language recommend for teaching critical analysis of evolution in schools?

------------------

Download the "Critical Analysis of Martha Wise's Editorial" Lesson Plan

Endnote: If people criticize this post, then I suppose that is just more proof that you can do critical analysis without bringing in any intelligent design.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

In a recent editorial, Gary S. Hurd complains about an apparent misquote on a quote from Bill Gates about the software-qualities of DNA. Hurd devoted a large portion of his editorial to complaining about the fact that apparently I and some others have misplaced a comma and accidentally inserted the word "we've" into the quote when quoting Gates (this did not change the meaning of the quote, in fact it may have lessened its impact if anything). Firstly, I thank Dr. Hurd for alerting me to the fact that there was a misquote. For the future record, here is the accurate quote:

"Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."

(Bill Gates, “The Road Ahead,” pg. 188 (Viking, Penguin Group, 1995))

In his editorial, Dr. Hurd made a big hullabaloo about the misquote, which amounted to a misplaced comma and an extra word "we've." Hurd also semed to imply that we were saying that Gates was himself an adherent of intelligent design--but that also was a misrepresentation of our usage of the quote. The point was simply to say what Gates said: that human DNA has software-like qualities. I think that points towards design, but we never implied that Gates necessarily thought it implied design.

It's fine if Dr. Hurd wants to correct people--but why turn it into some big drama-show? After all, Hurd himself made numerous non-trivial mistakes in print in his appendix to "Why ID Fails." To his credit, Dr. Hurd promised to fixed the mistakes in the future. That Hurd would now nitpick over an extra comma and an inaccurate word in an otherwise compelling quote shows the mindset of many hardcore Darwinists critics of ID: ignore the forest for the twigs.

Regarding the errors he put into print, read “Appendicitis: Corrections to the Appendix of Why Intelligent Design Fails” which is a response to the errors in Gary Hurd’s appendix to the book “Why Intelligent Design Fails.” I wrote that page because there were some serious non-trivial substantive errors. I also contacted Dr. Hurd ahead of posting it, in good faith, and a spirit of cooperative correction, offering to let him know about the errors. Dr. Hurd subsequently posted my e-mail on the internet without my permission, accused me of wanting to play "'cat n’ mouse' games." He also never replied. So much for trying to be nice to Darwinists (though I'll keep trying). Here’s a brief summary of the errors described on that page:

1) Hurd's appendix lists the wrong URL for the IDEA Club (the URL he gives doesn't exist)

2) Hurd inaccurately characterizes the founding of IDURC; possibly mixes it up with another organization.

3) Hurd states the website http://www.godandscience.org/evolution supports intelligent design from a young earth creationist perspective, when it is actually a STAUNCH AND VEHEMENT "old earth" creationist website (and is harshly anti-YEC)--a major mistake on Hurd's part!

4) Hurd lists http://www.evidence.info/design as a separate entry in the appendix when that site is an exact duplicate mirror-site of http://www.godandscience.org/evolution which Hurd also lists in the appendix; Hurd criticizes this site as if it represents the ID movement, when it clearly is not a mainstream ID website.

We've all made mistakes in this debate. I try my best to not misquote people, as is evidenced by my recent immediate correction to a Ken Miller quote, as well as the corrections stated here. This is a great example of a Darwinist going nuts over a miniscule misquote--when he himself has done far worse!

I'm not interested in playing games--I'm interested in playing nice. Any Darwinists out there game?

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

The Darwinist opponents of teaching fully about evolution in Ohio may be engaging in a form of religious discrimination. By lobbying for a repeal of the Ohio State Board of Education standards, not only are Ohio students presented with a dumbed-down version of evolution, but religious supporters of teaching the best science are subject to discrimination.

By focusing on the personal religious views of some supporters, the opponents have engaged in conduct that looks a lot like discrimination against a public official because of his or her religion. Such religious discrimination could be a violation of the often ignored Article VI, No Religious Test clause of the U.S. Constitution, or the parallel Ohio State Constitutional provision.

Article VI No Religious Test Clause
Article VI of the Constitution provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Ohio Constitution Section 1.07 creates a parallel right.

Though the Article IV No Religious Test clause has seldom been addressed by the courts, Francis Beckwith has recently written a scholarly article that examines how this Constitutional provision plays out in the field of teaching about evolution in public schools. As Beckwith’s paper points out, the history of this oft-ignored Constitutional provision was to guarantee that individuals with religious beliefs would not be excluded from political office because of their religion. Religious beliefs cannot be the basis for excluding individuals from the political process. To apply these ideas, Beckwith draws a key distinction between motive and purpose, which courts would do well to take into consideration. Beckwith’s paper argues persuasively that motives are a type of belief, and hence cannot be a basis for excluding individuals from the political process.

Beckwith’s framework, built around Article IV, has clear application to the politics surrounding the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Ohio Motive-Mongering is a Religious Test
As part of a motive-mongering campaign, some opponents of the Ohio standards have engaged in relentless personal attacks upon the drafters, while completely ignoring the peer-reviewed scientific literature cited to support the critical analysis standard. These attacks target personal motives and perceived beliefs of the science educators who worked on drafting the standards. The opponents cry out for appeal based on this attack, which looks a lot like an unconstitutional religious test.

The anti-religious attacks on the Ohio science standards claim that since some of the scientists and education experts who participated in the drafting, or supported, the standards might have motives or beliefs that are religious, the standards must be repealed. This creates a de facto religious test for anyone involved in managing the Ohio science standards. As one example, this discrimination clearly occurred in the attacks upon Dan Ely from Ohio State Board of Education Board Member Martha K. Wise at the February 14, 2006 meeting of the Ohio State Board of Education. According to this logic, those with particular religious beliefs cannot advocate for certain positions.

In this case the Ohio standards included a benchmark requiring students to be able to understand how scientists continue to critically analyze aspects of evolution. Then Ohio standards have secular scientific content and a public purpose to further science education and critical thinking. Compare this to the motive-mongering attacks against supports of the science standards, and the potential Constitutional problem comes out. By ignoring the clear scientific content of the standards and focusing on the personal motives and beliefs of some supporters, the critics have functionally excluded individuals from the policy process solely on the basis of their personal religion. This religious test for participating in politics is suspect.

Posted by Michael Francisco at 7:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (3)

Rabia Malik, a leader of the IDEA Club at Cornell University has an insightful letter published in today's Cornell Daily Sun. Rabia explains clearly how Darwinists resort to stereotypes and ad hominem attacks upon ID proponents. Yet she herself stands as a refutation of these stereotypes, as she explains "For the record - I am neither a Christian, nor a conservative, nor Republican." Read the letter below!

Editorial resorts to stereotypes

To the Editor:

Re: "Who Is the Dodo?," Editorial, Feb. 13

It is disappointing to see that the same stereotypes are always resorted to in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate. The Sun has sadly enough fallen to the same tactics to justify their opinions. From a newspaper that I respect for its many accomplishments, I was surprised to see such a poor code of journalistic ethics and misinformation.

Obviously, thinking is not allowed nor important - dogmatic science must be correct and therefore must be blindly accepted. That The Sun had followed a series of fair essays discussing the issue of intelligent design (I.D.) by stooping to this narrow-minded and inaccurate account leaves me disgusted.

I do agree with you on one point. I.D. should be debated - Darwin himself said he learned best from his critics. But this is a scientific issue and not one of religion. I.D. is based solely on empirical evidence and does not rely on any religious text or authority.

Bravo to the Cornell students who are willing to think critically and step aside from the stereotypes and name labeling - the Bible thumpers, the dodos, the conservative Christians or redneck Republicans. Bravo to the Cornell students who have finally decided to be open minded and to question authority and the status quo. Even the dead can follow the stream, but only few question dogma.

For the record - I am neither a Christian, nor a conservative, nor Republican.

Rabia Malik '07

(Editorial resorts to stereotypes; Re: Who Is the Dodo?," Editorial, Feb. 13 by Rabia Malik)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 6:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Who are biologists? The New York Times can't seem to make up its mind. Last week, the Times described Darwinist Patricia Princehouse at Case Western Reserve University as an "evolutionary biologist." This was despite the fact that Princehouse's doctorate is in the history of science--not biology--and her position at her university is "Lecturer in Philosophy & Evolutionary Theory." When questions were raised about the accuracy of calling an historian of science an "evolutionary biologist," the Times corrections desk refused to budge, ruling that Princehouse's credentials were good enough for the Times.

But that was last week. Yesterday, the Times apparently decided that even biochemists shouldn't be called biologists if they happen to be skeptical of Darwinian evolution.

In his article about Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin statement signed by more than 500 scientists, the Times' Ken Chang stated that "128 biologists" signed the statement along with 26 scientists with degrees in "biochemistry." Huh? Biochemists are no longer considered biologists? The 26 biochemists referenced by Chang include Michael Behe, a Professor of Biological Science at Lehigh University; Russell Carlson, a Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Georgia; Tony Jelsma, an Associate Professor of Biology at Dordt College; and Luman Wing, an Associate Professor of Biology at Azusa Pacific University.

According to the Times, professors of biology (with doctorates in biochemistry, a biological discipline) do not qualify as biologists, but a lecturer in philosophy with a doctorate in history does. Go figure.

But it gets stranger. Apparently even an evolutionary biologist is not entitled to be described as such once he becomes critical of neo-Darwinism. Chang ends his article by citing Darwin critic Stanley Salthe. Salthe is a biologist who authored a textbook on evolutionary biology. But readers wouldn't have known that fact from Chang's story, for Chang merely describes Salthe as a "scientist."

The Times' bias is so brazen--and so predictable--it's hard to get upset about it. In fact, this week I'm feeling pretty kindly toward the Times. Since Chang's article featuring our dissent list on Tuesday, we've been contacted already by more than two dozen new scientists who want to sign our dissent statement. Thank you, New York Times!

Posted by John West at 12:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

The New York Times today reported on the growing number of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution. Yet the Times has quite predictably, maybe even purposefully, missed the point of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism List. Because reporters and editors at the Times apparently can’t accept the fact that scientists, for scientific reasons, have doubts about Darwinian evolution, they immediately assert that it must be religion that is motivating the growing number of Dissenters. They still don’t get that it is the science that is driving this debate.

Here are some other points missed by the Times article, which was written by science writer Ken Chang:

First, the original purpose of our dissent list was not to prove that Darwin critics are in the majority in the scientific community, but to rebut bogus claims by Darwinists that no reputable scientists are skeptical of Darwinism. During the hoopla surrounding PBS's "Evolution" series in 2001, Darwinists insisted there were no scientists at all who disagreed with Darwin. We proved them wrong by producing a list of 100 scientific dissenters, many of them with Ph.D.s from top research universities. Now our list has surpassed 500 and continues to add new signers nearly every day. Darwinists can carp all they want, but they cannot make these scientific dissenters disappear.

Second, it’s apparent from the diversity of scientific fields represented by our dissent list that Darwinian biologists are having an increasingly tough time convincing scientists from other disciplines of the veracity of their theory. They are having trouble persuading chemists, physicists, engineers and others that natural selection and random mutation are actually capable of generating the highly-ordered complexity we see throughout the natural world.

Third, engineers and other scientists have realized that the primary problems facing modern evolutionary theory are engineering problems. How do you build the complex machines found in the cell? How do you engineer the exquisite technology found in the DNA strand? The Times’ mistakenly asserts that no biologists are working on these very issues--but indeed they are. Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho and Michael Behe at Lehigh University, to name two. Amazingly, Times' science writer Ken Chang himself reported last summer about Dr. Doug Axe’s lab work and research on aspects directly related to this debate. And there are other researchers, though they are hesitant to step forward because of the attacks that will be leveled at them.

More and more, modern biology is encountering questions of engineering and design. Engineers recognize this, as do physicists, chemists and a growing number of biologists themselves, as evidenced by their increasing dominance of our list. Speaking of which, the Times’ got that wrong as well.

Chang reports:

And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution.

the proposition that life is so complex that it is best explained as the design of an intelligent being

It isn’t up to Ken Chang, or any other Darwinist, to define intelligent design theory. That’s for intelligent design scientists to do. According to the theory of intelligent design, certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. It is this crucial point that Chang (and the rest of the New York Times’ science writers) refuses to report.

He focuses instead on the fact that design theorists do not think an undirected process such as natural selection can explain the complex molecular machines in cells, or the digital information embedded in DNA. Yet the main part of Discovery Institute’s scientific research program seeks evidence of design in nature, and we argue that such evidence points to intelligent design, based on our historical knowledge of cause and effect. Intelligent design theorists argue in favor of design theory based on the recognition of these very things like the digital information in DNA and the molecular machines in cells. They do so because invariably we know from experience that complex systems possessing such features always arise from intelligent causes. Chang’s definition is a strawman that doesn’t really say what the theory is.

But in reporting on the growing dissent from Darwinism this is irrelevant. Scientists who sign the list are not proclaiming their support for intelligent design--as evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe made quite clear. What they are saying is that the unresolved issues challenging Darwinian evolution need to be dealt with publicly and not glossed over, denied and otherwise hidden away. There is a controversy among scientists about Darwinian evolution and the Dissent list is a living testament to that.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Stanford undergraduate Tristan Abbey has an excellent letter published in today's Stanford Daily entitled The myths surrounding intelligent design.

Abbey blazes past the ad hominems, motivation-mongering, and labels so commonly promulgated by Darwinists to get right to the core issue: there's legitimate scientific dissent from Darwinism, and students deserve to hear about it. Abbey's argument is so simple, and so compelling, that it makes clear-as-day why the efforts of Darwinists must focus so intensely upon making scientific dissent look "illegitimate."

The myths surrounding intelligent design

[read the whole story below!]

The Editorial Board rightly called for an “Intelligent debate of intelligent design” last week (Feb. 17). Framing the discussion as a face-off between reason and religion, however, propagates a misguided mythology that obscures, rather than clarifies, the controversy.

First, criticizing neo-Darwinism is not the same as promoting intelligent design. While microevolutionary mechanisms, such as the coupling of random mutations and natural selection, have clearly been demonstrated, they fail to explain macroevolutionary changes (e.g., morphological novelty). Neo-Darwinists argue there is no difference between the two kinds of evolution, but that claim is vigorously contested by many developmental biologists and paleontologists.

Second, creationism is not the same as intelligent design. Reasons to Believe, a creationist group which accepts that the earth is billions of years old, dismisses intelligent design as “not science.” The Institute for Creation Research, which argues for a literal six-day interpretation of Genesis, similarly criticizes intelligent design for not being biblical.

Third, intelligent design theorists, by and large, do not support the mandating of intelligent design in public schools. The real story out of Wisconsin is not the hypothetical “ban on teaching intelligent design,” but the critical approach to science adopted in 2004 by the town of Grantsburg and to which this “ban” is a reaction. Grantsburg’s policy states: “Students shall be able to explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design.” Who could argue with that?

Sadly, neo-Darwinists do argue with that by stereotyping critics of evolutionary theory as religious zealots, by reducing the debate to the simplistic but familiar terms of science vs. faith, and by persecuting researchers like the Smithsonian’s Rick Sternberg for keeping an open mind. Pernicious caricatures notwithstanding, the signatories to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism now stand at over 500 scientists, including several who earned their doctorates from Stanford. As science advances, why has this number continued to grow?

Tristan Abbey

Sophomore, History

The myths surrounding intelligent design

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series. At the time it was claimed that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.”

“Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list.”

According to West, it was the fast growing number of scientific dissenters which encouraged the Institute to launch a website -- www.dissentfromdarwin.org -- to give the list a permanent home. The website is the Institute’s response to the demand for information and access to the list both by the public, and by scientists who want to add their name to list.

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought,” said Dr. David Berlinski, one of the original signers, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC). “It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”

Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged," then please contact us at cscinfo@discovery.org.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:28 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

We've learned that Tuesday’s New York Times will carry an article by science writer Ken Chang about Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwin statement, which this week is being updated with more than 500 doctoral scientists who doubt the Darwinian claim that natural selection and random mutation can account for the complexity of life. The statement was first released in 2001 to rebut the contention that all scientists embrace Darwinian evolution. In fact, there are quite a number of Darwin skeptics among scientists, including many who aren't religious and many who don't support intelligent design.

The big question is whether Mr. Chang's article will be a fair-minded examination of the scientific views of these scientists or a cheap shot focusing on irrelevant side issues such as religion.

Although I hope for a fair and accurate article, I'm not placing any bets. As I told Chang on Friday, we’ve heard from some of the scientists he interviewed, and they expressed concern that he seemed more interested in their religious beliefs than their scientific views. After Chang admitted he had asked signers of our statement about their religious views, I insisted he quote me objecting to this one-sided examination of religion. I told him it was stunning hypocrisy for the New York Times to investigate the religious views of scientific critics of Darwinism while ignoring the anti-religious views of leading defenders of Darwinism. I pointed out that Scientific American had published a survey during the late 1990s indicating that 94.4% of biologists in the National Academy of Sciences identify themselves as atheists or agnostics. But to my knowledge the New York Times has never bothered to ask these supporters of Darwinism about their religious views. That's because the Times rightly recognizes that the religious views of Darwinists are irrelevant to a discussion of their scientific views. But the same ought to be true for the scientific critics of Darwin. Chang said he would try to quote my "stunning hypocrisy" response in his article. I will be interested to see whether the editors of the "newspaper of record" allow it, or if they censor my response. I will also be interested to see how much of Chang's article focuses on religon rather than science.

During our conversation, Chang asked me how I would respond to Darwinists who say the scientists who have signed the Dissent from Darwin statement aren't qualified to speak about evolution because many of them aren't biologists. As it happens, many of them are biologists. I think Chang was surprised to learn that biologists are now the single largest group of signers of our Dissent Statement (154 of the 514 signers).

Of course, the list also includes many scientists specializing in chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics/statistics, and related disciplines. But since Darwinists continually assert that their theory has implications for many other scientific fields, why shouldn't scientists from these other fields have the right to speak out? Moreover, it's remarkably cheeky for Darwinists to claim that only biologists have the right to express views about evolution when many of Darwinism's leading public defenders in America aren't biologists. For example, Lawrence Krauss of Ohio (who the New York Times deems qualified to defend evolution on its op-ed page) is a physicist, not a biologist. And Eugenie Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education, has a degree in anthropology, not biology. If Chang raises this bogus argument in his article, I hope he also quotes my response.

I made several other points in my interview with Chang, and we will see whether they are quoted or suppressed. I emphasized how the Dissent from Darwin statement was attracting increasingly prominent signers from the scientific community, including a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian Institution, and a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. I further informed Chang that the signing rate actually increased after the Dover decision last year. I told Chang that the willingness of scientists to publicly express their scientific doubts about Darwinism was a huge act of courage given the vitriolic campaign waged by Darwinists to smear and persecute any scientist who breaks ranks with them. (By the way, if you are a doctoral scientist who wants to add your name to the growing Dissent from Darwin statement, e-mail us at cscinfo@discovery.org.)

Chang published a story last year in the Times examining the science behind intelligent design. Although somehwat skewed toward the Darwinist side of the argument, the article was more fair and thorough than many stories about ID in the major media. The article was particularly notable for allowing some of the pro-ID scientists to articulate their views in their own words. Of course, for trying to be fair, Mr. Chang was thrashed by the Darwinian Fundamentalists. I hope Chang's new piece about the Dissent from Darwin statement will be at least as fair as his earlier article, rather than an effort to win kudos from the Darwinian Fundamentalists.

Posted by John West at 12:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (3)

Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, takes apart Daniel C. Dennett’s new book, “Breaking the Spell,” in Saturday’s New York Times in a way that one wishes the Times’ own editors—and other editors in the MSM—would examine.

In the very first line of his trenchant review, Wieseltier reminds—or perhaps informs—the reader that “The question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question.” The attempt to self-define science, as Dennett does, of course, is to turn science into scientism. And scientism (or materialism) is the issue that Darwinists and their media fans are resolutely avoiding in public policy discourse.

Dennett’s books serves as a “sorry instance of present-day scientism,” says Weseltier. It’s a “shallow and self-congratulatory book.” Shamelessly, Dennett says he is in danger of personal attack because of his views; which concern Weseltier mocks. Maybe Dennett fears that he will be assaulted by all the Darwin critics that have been admitted to the Tufts faculty lately.

No, Dennett is looked to as a respectable scholar and made welcome at the most prestigious scientific gatherings. Watching him, you might start to think that Darwinism itself is shot-through with the kind of religious motivation (anti-religious, in this case) that is lodged as a telling dismissal when applied to Darwin critics.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 7:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

It’s no secret that critics of intelligent design desperately want to link design theory with religion. The critics know how guilt-by-association will make it much easier to simply ignore and marginalize the actual arguments. A recent AP article in the Hawk Eye about the treatment of Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University highlights two common variants of this guilt-by-religion fallacy.

Gonzalez is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and co-author of book, The Privileged Planet. The AP article highlighted how Gonzalez has been treated with hostility by fellow Iowa State University professors since he became involved with intelligent design. The article presents a good example of the fallacy of characterizing intelligent design as merely religious.

Fallacy #1 - Scientists Fighting Religion?
The article quoted Lawrence Krauss, a long time critic of intelligent design, as saying, “It's a cop–out to say design theory is not religious." Apparently Krauss considers intelligent design to be religious, with the clear implication being that intelligent design is not science. As the article puts it, “Krauss and others acknowledge professors have a right to their personal beliefs.” Clearly, Krauss considers intelligent design to be religious.

Interestingly, at the end of the article Krauss is again quoted, this time saying:

“The standard reaction of scientists on stuff like this that goes over the edge is to roll your eyes and ignore it," Krauss said. "And that's an unfortunate reaction, however, because in the public domain you have to go out and fight those ideas."

Now Krauss wants scientists to go out and fight the ideas of intelligent design? Scientists are evidently to fight against the ideas that Krauss early said were religious. Not only that, according to Krauss it would be a “cop-out” for anybody to deny that the ideas are religious. I thought the critics of ID want religion to stay out of science, and scientists to out of religion?

Fallacy #2 - Personal Views for ID proponents, not Darwinists

Because the critics of intelligent design work overtime to try and slander design theory as being merely the product of religious advocates, many people, including the media, become one sided in their focus on religion.

In the AP article about Gonzales, the author was careful to point out that Gonzalez “identifies himself only as a Protestant,” making the personal religious viewpoint of the design theorist apparently relevant. However, the same author made no mention of Lawrence Krauss’s religious identification. Anti-religious views of leading Darwinists have been well-documented, but are typically ignored by the media, courts, and of course, the Darwinists.

This double standard subtly stacks the deck against intelligent design by only paying attention to the personal religious views of intelligent design friends while completely ignoring the religious views of intelligent design foes.

Refuting the Fallacies:
One need go no further than the rest of the article for a solid refutation of both fallacies.

The AP article reports Gonzalez's observation that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”

The debate about intelligent design should focus on the merits of the arguments, on the science at issue, not on the personal religious views of various adherents. But then, that would make the task much more difficult for the critics of ID.

Posted by Michael Francisco at 12:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- February 15, 2006.

Opponents of Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan convinced the Ohio State Board of Education (OSBE) yesterday to repeal both their benchmark requiring critical analysis of evolution and the approved lesson plan for teaching critical analysis of evolution. The Benchmark in Ohio’s Science Standards stated that students should “Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” It also acknowledged that “The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.”

By an 11-4 vote, the OSBE complied with the Darwinists who were urging the OSBE to repeal both the benchmark and the lesson plan. The 11 Board members who supported repealing the policy were apparently unmoved by the fact that recent polls indicated that 68.8 percent of Ohioans believe that “[b]iology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.” While the policy was repealed, the vote drew support from pro-critical analysis Board members because of an amendment sending the lesson plan and benchmark to an OSBE subcommittee for further review, followed by recommendation to the Board.

Vote Took Place Without Board's Attorney's Legal Opinion, Public Input and Three Key Board Members
The vote took place before the OSBE gave the public any opportunity to speak before the Board on this issue. Moreover, multiple Board members spoke about the Board’s imprudence of deleting the carefully considered critical analysis of evolution benchmark – previously supported by a unanimous vote of the OSBE – without first obtaining a legal opinion from the Board's attorney. Some Board members indicated the rapid push to repeal the critical analysis policy yesterday was the result of the fact that three key pro-critical analysis Board members were absent from yesterday's meeting.

The motion to repeal the lesson plan and the critical analysis benchmark was proposed Board Member Martha K. Wise, who alleged that the lesson brought intelligent design into the classroom. Yet Board Member Deborah Owens-Fink stated "There was no intelligent design in that lesson. The areas that are covered in that lesson ... are covered in every single biology textbook."

Owens-Fink also found it ironic that "the same people that are saying delete the lesson because of litigation" did not support the motion to get an opinion from the attorney general.

“If the issue is truly about whether this lesson is constitutional or not constitutional” she said, then they "would have supported the motion," she said. Some Board members claim to be afraid that this includes intelligent design, but she charged that "If this was truly your concern then you would want a legal opinion."

Owens-Fink says the real issue for some Board members is pure opposition to critical analysis of evolution. She said, "I find that wrong. I find that very poor pedagogy. And I find that very inconsistent with what Ohians in this great state want, and it's very inconsistent with the notion of the third frontier project that we're gonna try to create citizens that can think critically, that can innovate, and can solve ocmplex problems for the next century."

Owens-Fink explained that the "reality is" that they do not want the lesson because they believe that "anything that does not unquestionably support evolution is somehow inconsistent with good education."

"This Board has very patiently dealt with this issue," said Owens-Fink, as "the decision that we came to was to teach students an awful lot about evolution." "It is not an issue of whether we're going to teach evolution or not evolution. Or even whether we're going to teach it as fact--we are teaching it as fact. The issue at hand has been, and continues to be, are we going to allow students to hear debates from the scientific community on this issue?"

Owens-Fink highlighted prestigious scientists who had written letters to the OSBE in support of critical analysis of evolution, as well as a biologist who was to testify before the Board supporting critical analysis. She also noted the widespread popular support for this policy, and supported the policy because it is "is intellectually honest." She also rebutted the charge that she was singling out evolution by noting that she would like to see students benefit from critical analysis in many areas of the curriculum.

Owens-Fink also noted that there are 10 other lessons on evolution but only 2 on the critical analysis benchmark.

Rundown of How the Decision Happened:
During the period for miscellaneous business, Board Member Colleen Grady motioned that the OSBE should not take any action on this matter until the OSBE had received a legal opinion on the constitutionality of its policy from the Board’s legal counsel, Ohio’s Attorney General Jim Petro. Grady was “concerned about circumventing a process which had been used by the Board.” She stated that “as a member of the Board of education, I want to make sure that I have made a decision as part of an informed process." At this time, however, a legal opinion is “one of the pieces that was missing.” Board member Carl Wick—who ultimately voted to delete the policy—also acknowledged that a legal opinion from the attorney general was vital for his own decision on this matter.

Earlier last week, Ohio Governor Bob Taft had called for Attorney General Petro to issue a statement on the constitutionality of the standards. Taft had stated that although he's convinced the state's 10th-grade biology teaching standards do not include intelligent design, there should be a legal review of lesson plan to ensure Ohio is not vulnerable to a lawsuit. (See Taft may re-ignite fuss over intelligent design by Mark Niquette, The Columbus Dispatch, Friday, February 3, 2006)

Then Board Member Martha K. Wise proposed an amendment to the motion which would immediately repeal both the critical analysis of evolution benchmark and OSBE-approved lesson plan on critical analysis of evolution. Wise’s amendment would also have incorporated the Ohio Academy of Science’s definition of science as “while not 'believed in' through faith may be accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence.”

Wise based her amendment upon the recent Dover ruling. She stated that the policy inappropriately “singled out” evolution, an approach rejected in the Dover ruling. Wise did not mention that the opposite outcome was reached in the Selman vs. Cobb County ruling where federal district court Judge Cooper found that the “singling out" of evolution was constitutionally acceptable because of the controversy evolution often caused in the community and the curriculum. (Judge Cooper ultimately found the Cobb County disclaimer unconstitutional on other grounds.) The Board disregarded the split in federal courts on this point and decided to move forward without hearing any legal opinion from their attorney, the Ohio Attorney General.

Finally, Board Member Eric C. Okerson proposed an additional amendment. Okerson’s amendment, which ultimately passed, rejected incorporation of the Ohio Academy of Science’s definition of science. Okerson’s amendment, however, still immediately repealed the critical analysis of evolution lesson plan and benchmark, pending review and recommendation from a subcommittee on the critical analysis policy. Okerson’s amendment sent the lesson plan and the benchmark to the OSBE Achievement subcommittee, co-chaired by Okerson and Board member Michael Cochrane. The achievement committee would review the lesson plan and benchmark, make any modifications, and make a recommendation to the Board for adoption.

Okerson’s proposal ultimately passed by a vote of 11-4.

Okerson's amendment, though it repealed the lesson plan and indicator, was apparently viewed as a compromise as it garnished the vote of at least 2 Board members who had supported the critical analysis lesson plan at the January Board Meeting. As noted, three Board members who supported the critical analysis lesson were absent from the meeting.

Board member Jane Sonenshein supported Okerson's amendment, but had previously urged repealing the lesson plan and indicator so the Board could be done with this issue and move on to other things.

But clearly this issue is not over under Okerson's amendment. Okerson's amendment sends the repealed lesson plan and benchmark to the Achievement Committee which is, co-chaired by a supporter, and an opponent of the critical analysis policy. The committee was charged with reviewing the repealed lesson plan and indicator, making any desired modifications, and making a recommendation to the entire Board for further action.

Board member Carl Wick asked Mr. Okerson to clarify the meaning of his amendment, as Mr. Wick indicated that the "good and valid" aspects of the lesson plan could be retained. Okerson stated that "the only thing I believe the achievement committee could not bring back would be the identical model lesson plan and benchmark," because "the Board would have already ruled on that." But Okerson made it clear that under his amendment, "If they [the Achievement Committee] brought back for the full Board's consideration a modification to the existing model lesson or some other revision, I don't say that they can't include anything that's in that."

The OSBE will clearly revisit this issue in the future and take some form of further action.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 11:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (4)

COLUMBUS, Ohio - February 15, 2006.

Yesterday University of Akron biologist Dan Ely testified before the Ohio State Board of Education (OSBE) in favor of Ohio’s Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan.

Addressing the OSBE after they had already repealed the lesson plan, Ely stated he was “dismayed how the board has caved in to outside lobbyists,” noting that “it’s amazing how much erroneous information is existing here.” Ely served on the science writing team that helped produce the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan.

Ely noted that this lesson does not have intelligent design. “I don’t see where any of you get intelligent design out of the lesson. I teach some intelligent design to our honor students at the university. This is not intelligent design.” Ely continued, “In this lesson we don’t have intelligent design. But, you say there is.”

Ely also emphasized that, in contrast to the statements of Board Member Martha K. Wise, that he was not “co-author” of the critical analysis of evolution lesson plan. The entire writing team wrote the lesson plan, which went through many revisions. Ely also stressed the rigorous writing process used by the science writing team, in that they met numerous times, field tested the lesson plan, and trimmed down the lesson plan from many possible discussion items down to a final five aspects of evolution.

Ely described the process which produced the lesson plan in great detail. Firstly, members of the science writing team were randomly assigned to help produce various lessons on evolution. Ely was not assigned to write initial drafts of the critical analysis lesson plan. The writing team then critiqued and revised the initial drafts over several weeks and months. The Ohio Department of Education then revised the lesson plans. They were then sent out for field testing to teachers and scientists, who included additional revisions.

Regarding the critical analysis of evolution lesson plan, Ely stated, “Each lesson went through the same scrutiny. I wouldn’t say the critical analysis lesson went through any more or less scrutiny than any of the other lessons did. There was good debate on each of them in terms of input.”

Ely also emphasized that many articles and references were cut out “on both sides of the question” in order to ensure accuracy and legality. Many people looked at the resources—and the idea was to “keep a balance on both sides of the question.”

“When I testified before, I said I was very skeptical of the process [of drafting the lesson plan], and I wasn’t sure if it would work,” said Ely. “Then I testified a second time and I was so happy that there was good discussion.” However, after the board meeting yesterday which repealed the lesson plan, Ely stated “Now I’m skeptical again. I really don’t think the process has worked.”

Ely Responds to “Creationist” Allegations
When advocating that the Board repeal the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan, Board Member Martha K. Wise repeatedly emphasized the claim that authors of the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan were creationists. Wise alleged that during the Kansas hearings, Dan Ely testified that he was "struggling with the age of the earth" and stated “He [Ely] thinks the earth is only Five-thousand years old. That’s not just ID. That’s young earth creationism.”

Ely's testimony fully rebutted Wise's misrepresentation of Ely’s viewpoint. Ely said that in Kansas, many of the witnesses were asked about their views on the age of the earth. "My answer was ‘We heard today anywhere from five-thousand years to five million years or five billion years,” and everybody laughed, “And most of the evidence looks like it's very old.” Ely called Martha Wise’s alleged explanation of Ely’s views on the age of the earth “totally erroneous.”

Incidentally, Wise openly identified herself as a creationist, stating “"Remember, I'm a creationist myself. I believe in God and I believe that God created the heavens and the earth.” Yet Wise felt it important to state that Dan Ely is a “known creationist” who she even alleged is a young earth creationist. Because she believes that Ely is a creationist and helped author the critical analysis of evolution lesson plan, she listed this as the third reason that the lesson plan must be rejected. Thus according to Wise, it is permissible for creationists to advocate against critical analysis of evolution without promoting religion. But when creationists do advocate for critical analysis of evolution, they are necessarily pushing their religious views. This is despite the fact that non-creationists, such as Dr. Rick Sternberg in South Carolina, have advocated for teaching students about scientific challenges to evolution. The implication according to Wise is that creationists have fewer political rights than do non-creationists.

Similarly, Board Member Hovis stated that he wanted to see more religion in the lives of teenagers. Hovis was one of the strongest opponents of the critical analysis lesson plan. This raises the question of whether a double standard would prevent pro-critical analysis of evolution Board members from making such statements.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:34 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (3)

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- February 15. One Ohio citizen who supported the critical analysis benchmark to the Ohio State Board of Education yesterday was Katie Hess, a senior biology major at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, in Ohio.

Hess, who graduated from Ohio public schools, now plans to become a high school biology teacher. She explained her desire to study science. “Part of my motivation to enter the sciences is from my love and openness to the world around us, and some observations of natural beauty that have filled me with an excitement and have left me with questions which have been explored coming to a great understanding of the world around us.” Hess then showed how asking these questions drives her desire to be a teacher as,“it’s this type of excitement which I hope to enliven in my students, providing them with the facts and resources which will enable them to excel in the sciences.”

Hess supported the critical analysis lesson plan and the indicator because “I see that it does not advocate intelligent design.” She hoped that critical analysis and intelligent design would be “considered separately.”

Hess also supported the teaching of evolution because it is a “very influential theory.” Yet she sees many “reasonable scientific criticisms of Neo-Darwinism” and “these are criticisms which our students need to hear.”

As a future educator, Hess expressed her desires for education. “I just hope that we can open the door of sciences to our students, giving them the foundations of the modern evolutionary theory and yet demonstrating the way this debate is ongoing, and enabling them to critically analyze the critiques that are out there.”

Speaking favorably of critical analysis, Hess noted, “That is how we will raise a generation that can go forth and become new scientists.”

She encouraged the Ohio State Board of Education to consider these points as they review policies on critical analysis of evolution.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 6:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“This is a completely outrageous slap in the face to the 69% of Ohioans just polled who said they want students to hear the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory,” said John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “Most people want students to learn the evidence critical of Darwinism, as well as the evidence that supports it, rather than just teaching Darwin’s theory as if it were sacred dogma.”

According to early reports, Ohio’s state board of education today asked a sub-committee to craft new language for the state’s science standards, replacing the requirement that students learn “how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”

“Darwin-only activists are dumbing down the teaching of evolution and stopping science learning,” said Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute. “This is nothing more than a gag order on science, a dogmat