Evolution News & Views

Earlier this month, controversial federal judge Phyllis J. Hamilton in San Francisco dismissed the Caldwell v. Caldwell lawsuit which alleged that the government-funded NCSE/UC Berkeley “Understanding Evolution” website endorses a particular religious view of evolution. However, Judge Hamilton's order dismissing the lawsuit is nothing short of bizarre. It implies that the internet is an Establishment-Clause-Free-Zone where government websites are free to proselytize or establish religion at will. It is difficult to imagine Judge Hamilton's peculiar ruling being upheld on appeal.

According to a Daily Californian article, attorney Larry Caldwell believes that by sponsoring the Understanding Evolution website “the state of California is taking a position on religious issues and advocating certain religious values, which is clearly a violation” of the Establishment Clause. Perhaps the most egregious example of such a violation is the title of a page which states, "Misconception: 'Evolution and religion are incompatible.'"** By labeling this belief a “misconception,” the government is clearly taking sides on what is essentially a religious and not a scientific question: the question of whether religion and evolution are compatible. Religious persons who believe that evolution is incompatible with their religion might feel that this website is forcing them to change their religious beliefs about evolution. The problematic religious graphic accompanying this website was previously discussed here, here, and here.

Yet according to Judge Hamilton, a citizen being personally offended by seeing a religious message from the government on the internet isn't sufficient "injury in fact" to give standing to bring a civil lawsuit. Moreover, Judge Hamilton implied that plaintiff Jeanne Caldwell had suffered merely a “psychological” injury rather than an injury in fact, when in reality there was an injury in fact due to Caldwell’s inability to use the website without facing a religiously offensive message.

Problems with the Ruling
While there were some correctable reasons for the dismissal, the most bizarre aspect of the dismissal order was the holding that state-funded websites are exempt from violations of the Establishment Clause. Judge Hamilton held:

Moreover, the unique nature of the internet cannot be overlooked. It is a vehicle for communication that is not capable of ready analogy to any other. The internet contains millions upon millions of websites and webpages, spanning a limitless number of subjects and target audiences. It is in daily use by millions, all of whom decide on a voluntary basis (for the most part) which websites and webpages to access. Given this massive appeal and impossibly broad spectrum, it is simply inconceivable that the mere viewing of certain webpages that do no more than make plaintiff feel “offended” and like an “outsider” is sufficient to give rise to injury in fact standing. If this were so, then every webpage on the internet could give rise to a claim, simply based on an individual’s negative emotional response to that webpage. This is particularly significant, when one considers that the very nature of certain websites and webpages is to be provocative, and to risk offence [sic].

(Caldwell v. Caldwell, No C 05-4166 PJH, Order Granting Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss (hereafter “Dismissal Order”), pg. 12; note: the British spelling for "offence" was used in the original order.)

Judge Hamilton essentially ruled that no one has standing to challenge a violation of the Establishment Clause that occurs on the internet.

But Hamilton's analysis simply begs the question. Perhaps many provocative pages do exist on the internet, but all internet websites are not in question here--only those sponsored by the U.S. government. Provocative actions which might offend people happen in the world all the time. But we can only prohibit those religiously offensive actions which constitute action by the government, not those by a private group or citizen. Moreover, courts have developed specific tests (i.e. Lemon test, and its flavors, such as the Endorsement test) to perform the very job Hamilton claims cannot be done: discriminating between a mere “negative emotional response” and government action which actually establishes religion, thus causing real injury. There is no rationale, in principle, why government websites on the internet cannot be a legitimate targets of lawsuits alleging violation of the Establishment Clause.

Hamilton’s ruling that the internet is an Establishment-Clause-Free-Zone could lead to many unwanted consequences. Under Judge Hamilton's rationale, the state of California or a federal agency could establish a church on the internet, and no one would have standing to sue to prevent it. Apparently the judge believes there would be no legal basis to prevent any of the following hypothetical actions:

Is this really what Judge Hamilton wants?

In Fact There Was Great Injury
Judge Hamilton also dismissed the suit because supposedly there was no injury in fact. The Dismissal Order explains:

Here, plaintiff alleges that the injury she suffered was in being “offended” by viewing the website, feeling like an “outsider,” and “being exposed to the government endorsed religious messages,” to her harm. See Complaint at ¶ 26. On their face, these allegations fall directly within Valley Forge’s prohibition on standing where a plaintiff alleges only a “psychological consequence” produced “by observation of conduct with which one disagrees.” As such, plaintiff’s allegations state only a generalized grievance against defendants, and are insufficient to confer injury in fact.

(Dismissal Order, pg. 11)

Judge Hamilton misunderstands constitutional law and misinterprets the facts of the Caldwell lawsuit compared to the holding in the Valley Forge case, especially considering how Valley Forge has been interpreted by the Ninth Circuit.

(1) Misunderstanding of Constitutional Law
Hamilton’s putting of the word “outsider” in quotes might make one think that this is not a legally correct term. In reality, considerable precedent shows that alleging that one was made to feel like an “outsider” due to government endorsement of a religious viewpoint is commonly associated with a legally redressible injury. When formulating the endorsement test, Justice O’Connor wrote:

Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite message.

(Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 668 (1984), Justice O’Connor, Concurring (emphasis added).)

According to numerous cases employing the endorsement test, government action which endorses a religious viewpoint such that the plaintiff alleges being made to feel like an “outsider” is the beginning of a valid injury in fact sufficient to bring a lawsuit. For example, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 309-310 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court found it highly relevant that various attendees at a high school commencement ceremony were made to feel like “outsiders” as a result of the passing--but non-enforcement--of a policy to permit a non-sectarian prayer at the ceremony. One such case relying upon this precedent happens to be Kitzmiller v. Dover, where Judge Jones wrote that the Dover Policy was unconstitutional because:

A reasonable observer is presumed to know the social meaning of the theory-not-fact deliberate word choice and would ‘‘perceive the School Board to be aligning itself with proponents of religious theories of origin,’’ thus ‘‘communicat[ing] to those who endorse evolution that they are political outsiders, while … communicat[ing] to the Christian fundamentalists and creationists who pushed for a disclaimer that they are political insiders.’’

(Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 723 (M.D.Pa. 2005) (quoting Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe))

Yet Judge Hamilton's order could be taken to imply that being made to feel an "outsider" by the Understanding Evolution website could not contribute to Jeanne Caldwell's injury.

(2) Misapplying the Facts and Misinterpreting Precedent
To reiterate, Judge Hamilton dismissed the Caldwell case because she claimed plaintiff Jeanne Caldwell had no injury in fact, as “these allegations fall directly within Valley Forge’s prohibition on standing where a plaintiff alleges only a ‘psychological consequence’ produced ‘by observation of conduct with which one disagrees.’” (Dismissal Order, pg. 11).

In Valley Forge, a plaintiff alleged that the federal government violated the Establishment Clause when they learned, via a news release, that the government had transferred federal property to a Christian college. The U.S. Supreme Court held that there was only a “psychological consequence” of this action to the plaintiff, and no real injury in fact. In Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543 (9^th Cir. 2004), the Ninth Circuit distinguished Valley Forge by recognizing that a citizen who cannot use public land without being subjected to an offensive religious message has an injury in fact. In Buono, an Oregonian man was offended by seeing a five to eight foot cross located eleven miles off the interstate and visible for only one hundred yards in a 1.6 million acre federal desert preserve in Southern California had standing to sue the U.S. Department of Interior and require the cross to be removed. The Ninth Circuit held that “Such inhibition constitutes ‘personal injury suffered ... as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error,’ beyond simply ‘the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees.’” (Buono, 371 F.3d at 547)

Similar to Buono, in this Caldwell v. Caldwell lawsuit, it is clear that there is much more than a mere “psychological consequence.” Jeanne Caldwell cannot utilize the Understanding Evolution website without being subjected to an offensive message. As stated in the complaint:

Plaintiff desires to participate as an informed citizen in these elections, public debates and processes, so she makes use of the “Understanding Evolution” website described in paragraph 13 below as a resource, to learn how the University of California recommends that public science teachers teach evolution to K-12 students in California. However, when plaintiff utilizes the “Understanding Evolution,” she is offended by the government’s endorsement in the website of religions and religious denominations that subscribe to the religious doctrine that their religious belief is compatible with evolutionary theory, and the government’s attempt to proselytize citizens such as herself to adopt the government’s preferred religious beliefs about evolution, and plaintiff is offended by the government’s express and implicit disapproval in the website of any irreligious or religion or religious denominations that subscribe to the religious doctrine that their religious belief is incompatible with evolutionary theory.

(Caldwell v. Caldwell complaint, at page 12)

That Jeanne Caldwell had standing to sue can be seen for a number of different reasons:

Many news sources have picked up the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent interview with The Guardian newspaper reporting a couple of minor comments he made about teaching creationism in schools. (For examples, see the Associated Press story or the New York Times story or the Reuters article in the Washington Post.)

With headlines like, “Archbishop Opposed to Teaching Creationism” (Associated Press) “Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism” (NY Times) or “Anglican leader opposes creationism in schools” (Reuters) one would think that the comments about creationism were central to the interview. Moreover, given that all of the articles discussed intelligent design, one would think that ID was relevant to the Archbishop’s comments. But not only did the Archbishop not focus on science curriculum in the interview, the interview never discussed intelligent design. Check for yourself, the entire interview transcript is available from The Guardian, and in more than 12,800 words, a scant 330 are devoted to “creationism;” no where is there any mention of intelligent design. Why, then, would each article talk about intelligent design?

Ironically, much of the interview was dedicated to the Archbishop’s view of his relation to the media and how he thought an Archbishop should not make frequent moral pronouncements to make headlines. The interview was more concerned with topics such as the Archbishop with the media, the state of the Church of England, relations with Moslems, gay clergy, and the Anglican Church in Africa.

Be that as it may, the American media seems to think the interview is newsworthy in relation to the controversy surrounding the teaching of intelligent design. To it’s credit, The New York Times article does mention that the Archbishop’s position on “creationism” is nothing new for Americans, and basically tracks a resolution adopted in 1982 by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.

However, the Associated Press article, which mentioned intelligent design, defined creationism in a way which is clearly different from intelligent design:

“Followers of creationism believe in the literal truth of the Genesis account in the Bible that God created the world in six days.”

Contrast that statement with the NY Times characterization of intelligent design in a 2001 article:

"[E]volutionists find themselves arrayed not against traditional creationism, with its roots in biblical literalism, but against a more sophisticated idea: the intelligent design theory. Proponents of this theory, led by a group of academics and intellectuals and including some biblical creationists, accept that the earth is billions of years old, not the thousands of years suggested by a literal reading of the Bible. But they dispute the idea that natural selection, the force Darwin suggested drove evolution, is enough to explain the complexity of the earth's plants and animals. That complexity, they say, must be the work of an intelligent designer."

(Biologists Face a New Theory of Life’s Origin, The New York Times, April 8, 2001, pg. A1, by James Glanz)

If we are to take these definitions seriously, there is no basis for labeling intelligent design as “creationism,” or habitually mentioning intelligent design in articles that only deal with creationism. It thus seems inappropriately partisan for the Reuters “news” article to editorialize:

"In the battle to bring God into the classroom, Christian conservative supporters of creationism and intelligent design seek to deny or downgrade the importance of evolution."

(Anglican leader opposes creationism in schools, Washington Post, by Paul Majendie)

Finally, given the full context of the interview, it hardly seems headline-worthy that the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks “creationism” (not intelligent design) should not be taught in British schools. Even that summary overstates his position, as the Archbishop left the door open for teaching about creationism, and teaching more than Darwinism:

"And that's different from saying - different from discussing, teaching about what creation means. For that matter, it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is - is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

(Archbishop interview transcript from The Guardian)

The media should avoid conflating “creationism,” as used by the Archbishop, with intelligent design, which he clearly did not address. Perhaps the journalistic impulse to mention intelligent design every time there is a story about "creationism" should also be resisted.

Posted by Michael Francisco at 2:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

I'll say this for administrators at Baylor University in Waco, Texas: They certainly know how to provoke lots of free attention. But it might not be the kind of attention they want. The University's denial of tenure to conservative scholar Francis Beckwith is beginning to generate a buzz on the world wide web. But it's the type of buzz that carries a sting. Commenting on the Beckwith decision yesterday, Joseph Bottum of First Things responded with withering scorn:

Baylor has apparently decided to sink back into its diminished role as a not terribly distinguished regional school. President Sloan is gone, the new high-profile faculty are demoralized and sniffing around for positions at better-known schools, energetic programs like the Intelligent Design institute have been chased away, and the bright young professors are having their academic careers ruined by a school that lured them to campus with the promises of the 2012 plan and now is simply embarrassed by them.

For some of the other web articles commenting on the Beckwith situation, check out:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9583

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=614

http://lufkindailymuse.com/?p=86

http://dallasmorningviews.beloblog.com/archives/2006/03/baylor_wars_aga.html

http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2006/03/beckwith_balks.html

http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2006/03/amazing-outrage-baylor-denies.html

http://ateam.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/3/25/1840047.html

http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2006/03/dallas-morning-news-on-beckwith-tenure.html

http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/618

http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/616

Posted by John West at 12:10 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Last week Baylor University in Texas denied tenure to noted scholar Francis Beckwith. Beckwith is an impeccable scholar with a distinguished publication record, including a forthcoming book from Cambridge University Press. He is also a gentleman in the classic sense of the term, someone who is liked and respected even by his fair-minded opponents.

But Beckwith has a problem: His views are out of sync with the left-wing ideologues who control much of American academia. First, he is a prominent critic of the morality of abortion, and his work on this issue is cited all over the place by other scholars (including in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the topic). Second, Beckwith has defended the the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design. Note: He has not advocated the wisdom of teaching ID, nor has he taken sides on the ultimate rightness or wrongness of ID. He has only defended the constitutionality of presenting the debate. (But this is no doubt too much for Darwin dogmatists.)

That a scholar of Beckwith's stature should be denied tenure at Baylor raises serious questions about the university's commitment to fairness and academic freedom. This is especially the case since it has been reported that Beckwith's annual evaluations leading up to the tenure denial were glowing. He is said to have received the rating "exceeds expectations" each year. Apparently he exceeded expectations too much for some members of Baylor's faculty.

Given Beckwith's exemplary record as a scholar, it seems entirely likely that he was rejected by Baylor because of his viewpoint. If so, it wouldn't be the first time thought-police on Baylor's faculty tried to supress a scholar for harboring views they despised. Several years ago, mathematician William Dembski was accorded similarly raw treatment by some of Baylor's close-minded secular fundamentalists.

If it turns out that Beckwith's views on intelligent design played a role in his rejection at Baylor, then he will have become the latest victim of a campaign by Darwinists to deny academic freedom to any scholar or grad student who disagrees with them. Recall, for example, the recent cases of Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, Caroline Crocker at George Mason University, and Bryan Leonard at Ohio State University.

Darwinists and other ideologues in academia are obviously afraid of scholars like Beckwith. Unable to answer their arguments, they want to silence their right to speak. Such ideologues know they can't win in the freemarketplace of ideas, so they try to hold on to their current monopoly power in academia at all costs.

Posted by John West at 12:03 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

It is frequently claimed by anti-Darwinists that the eugenics movement of 100 years ago was a fluke and not really the product of Darwinian science—even though the science establishment of the time was proud of the Darwinian justification, backed eugenics completely and was ruthlessly dismissive of any other view (sound familiar?).

The Nazi embrace of eugenics discredited it for nearly a half century. But it is re-emerging in our time, as Discovery senior fellow Wesley J. Smith has pointed out repeatedly and does again in the Weekly Standard. Slowly, the awareness dawns.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 3:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A recent poll reported in "Inside Michigan Politics" found that 76% of Michiganites agree with the following statement:

"Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it."

Only 17% of Michigagonians felt that "Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it."

If that poll question sounds familiar to frequent readers of ENV, that's because it's identical to one of the poll questions commissioned by The Discovery Institute earlier in 2006 and reported here.

But there's one major difference between this Michigan poll and the prior poll commissioned by Discovery: The Michigan poll is improperly touting a poll question about teaching both scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism as if it is about teaching alternatives to Darwinism.

To reiterate, the Michigan poll found that 76% of Michiganistas agree that:

"Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it."

"TEACH DARWIN, SURE, BUT TEACH OTHER THEORIES TOO: POLL

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution? Intelligent design? Creationism? Anything else out there? Whatever, teach 'em all, say Michigan voters, who by a 4-1 margin claim they would prefer to see Darwin's theory as well as theories opposed to it all taught, not just Darwin's theory alone."

To illustrate the difference between these two approaches, one can look at vertebrate embryos and recognize that they start developing very differently in a way which challenges the famous "biogenetic law," inspired by the faked 19th century "research" drawings of Ernst Haeckel (below). One can inform students that actual embryological data challenges the notion of common descent without saying anything about intelligent design or other alternatives to Darwinism.

Haeckel's Faked Embryo Drawings:

Conclusion:
Educators, legislators, and the rest of the public need to realize that teaching strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory is different from bringing in a replacement theory for evolution. Traipsing Into Evolution, which I recently co-authored, explains how obfuscating the differences between a "teach criticisms of evolution" and "teach alternative theores like intelligent design" approach has resulted in "[a] chilling effect on open inquiry" (TIE, pg. 77) in places like Ohio and South Carolina where only "strengths and weaknesses" policies should were at stake.

Though Darwinists work hard to obscure the differences, these are different pedagogical approaches, recognized by the courts as such. Educators, legislators, and the public should understand the differences too.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

One of the most publicized debates over teaching evolution in 2005 was the improvement of science standards in Kansas by the state's board of education (SBOE). (See some of our coverage of the Kansas standards debate here, here, and here.)

Thanks to Darwin only lobby groups like Kansas Citizens For Science there has bee a flood of misinformation about the standards in the media. It ws so bad that last year the SBOE published a statement of rationale explaining their decision. This did little to stop the mistaken claim that Kansas had forced intelligent design into the classroom.

Now the group that helped to revise the standards, Kansas Science Standards 2005, has published a clear and concise brochure answering the most common questions about the standards. You can download it here.

There are many good parts to this FAQ. One section in particular addresses Kansas' definition of science. When the SBOE had hearings last year CSC senior fellow Dr. Jonathan Wells testified about the definition of science and Discovery issued a comprehensive study of all 50 states definitions of science, the conclusion of which was: The definition of science proposed in Kansas 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.

Q: How does the 2005 definition of science differ from the 2001 definition?

A: The 2005 definition replaces a novel definition of science not found in other state standards or the national standards with a traditional and objective definition. The 2005 traditional definition states: “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.” [The definition continues for two more paragraphs that increase, rather than decrease the scientific rigor of this concept.]

Q: Does the 2005 definition redefine science?

A: No. It is a traditional definition that is consistent with other state science standards and the National Science Standards, is rigorously objective and focused on empiricism, derives from the Ohio Academy of Science definition, and is consistent with the definition embraced by the Supreme Court.

Q: Doesn’t the new definition imply that Kansas will now seek supernatural causes?

A: No. By describing science as an open-ended search for more adequate or reliable explanations of the natural world using empirical methods, it implies nothing about the supernatural.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:23 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list continues to grow. Last month we announced the list now had over 500 scientists. Since that time we've had nearly another 100 PhD scientists contact and request to be added to the list. The next public update of the list will undoubtedly see it grow to over 600. One recent scientist added to the Dissent list submitted a letter with his request to be on the list. With his permission you can read it here. Dr. William Hart, PhD. Mathematics, is currently an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

His letter opens:

I am a PhD mathematician who has recently (in the last couple of years) examined carefully the claim that the neo-Darwinian synthesis adequately accounts for the variety of life on earth. I have read countless texts on geology, biology (and cosmology) in a multitude of sub-disciplines and can honestly affirm that I am skeptical that the evidence points toward anything like mutation plus natural selection as being the cause of the variety of life that we see both today and in the fossil record.

Furthermore, I do not find any of the more involved hypotheses to hold water. Many of them are without evidence, or inferred from studies which are chosen specifically to support that particular hypothesis, and even then the fit is poor. Also, individual hypotheses which are cited as being well-supported components of the theory of evolution, in fact contradict one another.

He concludes:

I feel that it is unlikely that my position with regard to evolution will change dramatically in the near future, the state of affairs being so dire. Therefore I see no reason why my name should not be added to the list of PhD. scientists who dissent from the theory of evolution.

Last summer, New York Times reporter Jodi Rudoren was surprised that we had at that time nearly reached 400 signers. She even commented to me that it seemed to her we'd obviously found the majority of scientists who doubted Darwin's theory. Often people are surprised to find out that there are indeed sizable numbers of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution. That's not as surprising to scientists who are familiar with vast numbers of articles in the scientific literature that expose the unresolved problems and challenges to Darwinian evolution.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the April, 2006 issue of First Things, Villanova Law professor Robert T. Miller offers an opinion on “Darwin in Dover, PA.” (available online next month) that brings up several points worth highlighting.

Regarding Kitzmiller, Miller only half agrees with Judge Jones, agreeing that ID is not science as he defines it (which I will comment on more later), but disagreeing that ID is religion. To make his case, Miller’s opinion offers two different “senses” of science, one of which ID satisfies, the other of which he claims ID does not satisfy. Overall, the article focuses on the philosophy and nature of science, and devotes only a scant few paragraphs to the legal issues presented in Kitzmiller.

The Legal Analysis: Only Half Right
Regarding the law, Robert T. Miller argues not only that Judge Jones was bound by Supreme Court Establishment Clause precedent, but also that Jones’s conclusion that ID is religion and not science is only half-right. Though Miller agrees with the Judge that ID is not science, he does not agree that ID is religion. “Design is not science, at least not in the usual sense, but neither is it religion.” Miller goes on to point out that religion involves revealed doctrine and matters of faith. “That’s not what Intelligent Design is at all, and to the extent that he held otherwise in Kitzmiller, Judge Jones is mistaken.”

This places Miller’s apparent approval of the Kitzmiller decision on peculiar grounds. Though he disagrees with Judge Jones on whether ID is religion, he seems to favor the result of the decision—that ID should be expunged from science classrooms:

”So, if Intelligent Design is not science but still not religion, is Kitzmiller rightly decided? I think so. Like Cardinal Schönborn, I think it is unhelpful to get philosophy mixed up with science. . . . We ought not inject a philosophical argument into a science class; this is bad epistemology, and it is likely to create confusion.”

Miller concludes,

“Regardless of how we ought to understand the Establishment Clause, Intelligent Design does not belong in high-school biology classrooms.”

Instead of having parts of intelligent design taught in science class, Miller favors introducing a full class in philosophy which would include intelligent design, Aristotle, Aquinas’s Five Ways, arguments for the existence of God, Hume and even Kant. Miller believes such a philosophy class would alleviate the “atheistic drift” that he believes motivated the school board in Dover.

As one who majored in philosophy in college, I am amenable to proposals for teaching more philosophy in high school. However, Miller’s proposal, and his praise for Jones’s Kitzmiller decision as “rightly decided,” leave me perplexed. Miller agrees with a policy of not teaching ID in science classes (and adding a philosophy class instead), and yet he rejects Judge Jones’s conclusion that ID is religion. Given these two points, I cannot understand how Miller supports Kitzmiller, which decided as a matter of constitutional law that ID should not be taught in science classrooms.

If ID is not religion, then for Establishment Clause purposes, federal courts would have no legal basis for re-writing a school board’s science curriculum by tearing ID out of the science classroom. If it is really true that “[s]tates and local school boards are generally afforded considerable discretion in operating public schools” (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583 (1987).) then courts should remember that “the 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).) Given the many secular purposes for teaching ID in a science classroom, it seems that a school board should not be censured for teaching it in a science classroom, especially given that Miller believes ID is not religion. Given this point, I cannot see how Miller believes Kitzmiller was "rightly decided."

Quinean Science and Strict Science?
The heart of Miller’s article is his proposal that we understand science in two different senses. He also notes that ID, as he understands it, has two parts, a negative challenge to neo-Darwinism and a related positive case that intelligent design best explains the data.

Drawing from W.V. Quine’s seminal Two Dogma’s of Empiricism, Miller notes that for one sense of science “we posit things unseen in order to explain and predict what we observe.” This “Quinean sense” of science offers an explanation for observable phenomena. Miller believes that intelligent design easily fits under this sense of science.

However, he goes on to offer a much stricter definition of science:

“There is a more robust sense of science in which we require not only that a theory explain and predict phenomena but also that it appeal to lawlike generalizations—to statements that purport to be not only true but necessarily true.”

For this lawlike sense of science, Miller believes that science must only work with explanations that are necessarily true, or “true in every case there ever could be.” He further explains that the lawlikeness of scientific laws make them predictive, and allow them to be falsified by appropriate experiments. This more strict sense of science is what Miller believes scientists usually have in mind.

From this, Miller argues that the positive argument of intelligent design can never count as science, because “a designer would operate not by lawlike necessity but by intelligence and free choice.” The intelligence of a designer, according to Miller, disqualifies the explanation from strict science. Intelligent agents “are not scientific in the sense that physics and chemistry and biology are scientific.” However, there are many aspects of intelligent design which are empirical and testable (see here), which cut against Miller’s argument.

I have two major problems with Miller’s argument that intelligent design cannot be science, as he strictly defines it. First, Miller has reintroduced the demarcation problem that philosophers of science have long critiqued. Alvin Plantinga recently noted the problem of relying on falsification for demarcating science (here). Second, Miller fails to apply his “robust,” strict limitation on science to the theory of neo-Darwinism. There is a peculiar double-standard employed where the positive explanation of intelligent design is not science, as chemistry is science, yet Miller does not explain how neo-Darwinism is itself falsifiable science, like chemistry.

For example, applying Miller’s “strict sense” of science to his own discussion of neo-Darwinism produces a peculiar result. Miller invokes exadapation as the evolutionists answer to Behe’s irreducible complexity. Of all the things that can be said about the evolutionary ‘mechanism’ of exadapation, surely “necessarily true” by a lawlike rule is not one of them. I believe that his own account of neo-Darwinism falls outside his narrow view of science. This is not an isolated case of neo-Darwinian explanation falling short of logical necessity (see here and here for more examples).

Furthermore, Miller’s stricter understanding of science would rule out much of what is currently discussed in high-school sciences classes. While lawlike rules of nature are indeed part of science, there is much that does not derive from axiomatic laws of nature. Evolutionary “explanations” for how things evolved are not even lawlike, let alone necessarily true. How did the wing evolve? How did the supposed "RNA world" turn into the current DNA / protein-based cell? These “explanations” are necessarily un-lawlike, based upon historical contingencies, and are typically rife with speculation. For Miller’s case against teaching ID in science to stand, one must justify his very narrow definition of science (which bears many similarities to methodological naturalism), and one must explain how the neo-Darwinian explanation for an organism meets this definition in a more substantial way than the intelligent design explanation.

Posted by Michael Francisco at 8:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision (DI Press 2006) is the first book to critique federal Judge John E. Jones' decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the first trial to address the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys expose how Judge Jones' decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Jones' protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism.

“The Dover trial was hardly the final word in the debate over evolution,” says attorney Casey Luskin, a co-author of the new book. “Mark Twain once allegedly refuted his own obituary by proclaiming that ‘the report of my death was an exaggeration.' Traipsing Into Evolution disproves similar exaggerated reports from Darwinists about intelligent design in the wake of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.”

The authors conclude that because of Judge Jones' ruling “teachers seeking to ‘teach the controversy’ over Darwinian evolution in today’s climate will likely be met with false warnings that it is unconstitutional to say anything negative about Darwinian evolution.”

“Even students who ask critical questions about Darwinism may now be censored by nervous school administrators,” said Luskin. “There already has been a chilling effect on open inquiry in places such as Ohio and South Carolina. Judge Jones’ message is clear: give Darwin only praise, or else face the wrath of the judiciary.”

The book is priced at $14.95 and is available at bookstores throughout the country and online at Amazon.com. It also can be ordered directly by calling 800-643-4102. A limited number of copies are available by contacting the publisher at cscinfo@discovery.org.

“The mainstream science establishment and the courts tell us, in censorious tones that sometimes sound a bit desperate, that intelligent design is just a lot of fundamentalist cant. It's not,” said Steven D. Smith, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego and author of Law's Quandary (Harvard University Press, 2004). “We've heard the Darwinist story, and we owe it to ourselves to hear the other side. Traipsing Into Evolution is that other side.”

Traipsing Into Evolution is part of a series published by Discovery Institute Press. Previous books include Are We Spiritual Machines?: Ray Kurzweil vs. The Critics of Strong A.I. by Jay W.Richards et. al., Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer’s Guide to PBS’s Evolution by the Discovery Institute, and Why Is a Fly Not a Horse? by Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, published in 2005.

Chapters in Traipsing Into Evolution look at: Kitzmiller’s Partisan History of Intelligent Design; Kitzmiller’s Unpersuasive Case Against the Scientific Status of Intelligent Design; Kitzmiller’s Failure to Treat Religion in a Neutral Manner; Kitzmiller’s Limited Value as Precedent; and The Need for Academic Freedom.

The book also includes a lengthy response to the ruling from Dr. Michael Behe, entitled “Whether ID is Science: Michael Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller v. Dover.” Dr. Behe was the lead expert witness for the defense at the trial.

###

Posted by Robert Crowther at 1:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today's Washington Times' carries an interesting interview with Carson Holloway, author of the new book, The Right Darwin: Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy. Holloway criticizes efforts to ground morality in Darwinian biology.

Posted by John West at 9:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Last night, the Board of Trustees of the Lancaster School District in southern California voted unanimously to adopt a "Science Philosophy" policy permitting teachers to present scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution. The policy had been supported by the groups Integrity in Academics and Quality Science Education for All.

The new policy states that Darwin’s theory should not be taught as "unalterable fact" and states that "Discussions that question the theory may be appropriate as long as they do not stray from current criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis and theory." The policy further allows the use of supplemental materials by teachers in teaching about science.

"This is an innovative effort by the Lancaster School District to propel science education out of the nineteenth century and into the twenty-first century, " said Alex Branning, President of Integrity in Academics, which organized support for the new policy.

Attorney Larry Caldwell, President of Quality Science Education for All, also praised the policy. "It is refreshing to see school officials willing to stand up against Darwinian fundamentalists to give their students a science education rather than a science indoctrination," he said. "After all, effective science education is all about teaching students to ask meaningful questions and follow the evidence wherever it leads."

A press release from Integrity in Academics, which includes the full text of the policy, is available here.

Posted by John West at 9:12 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

Bob Brustman had an intriguing and thoughtful piece recently in the Harvard University Gazette entitled "Evolving Ideas" which investigates why many people are skeptical of evolution.

He starts off describing a simple but ultimately inadequate argument from Richard Lewontin:

"If you believe in atomic energy, he said, then you believe in rates of decay. If you believe in rates of decay, then you believe in radiation dating. If you believe in radiation dating, then you believe that we can identify strata of rock from different times.

Those strata of rock contain fossil evidence of plants and animals. Different strata of rock contain different types of fossils, yet each fossilized plant or animal had parents. Therefore, at some point, a parent life form must have given birth to progeny that were different from the parent. If you accept all of this, then, voila! You believe in evolution."

I have no objections to any of that logic. But the question is, what do we mean by "evolution" when we arrive at it as our conclusion?

Typically, "evolution" can have one of three possible meanings:

(1) Change over time

(2) All organisms share a common ancestor

(3) Random mutation coupled with blind natural selection was the primary agent of that change with common descent.

Eugenie Scott seems to concur with this view as she outlines the meanings of evolution in her Declaration in the Hurst v. Newman case:

“Evolution,” broadly defined, is “a cumulative change through time.” It refers to the fact that the universe has had a history — that if we were able to go back in time, we would find different stars, galaxies, and planets, and different forms of life on Earth.

[...]

In biology, evolution is the claim that living things share common ancestors and have, in Darwin’s words, “descended with modification” from these ancestors. The main — but not the only — mechanism of biological evolution is natural selection.

(Hurst v. Newman, Declaration of Eugenie C. Scott in Support of Plaintiffs...)

It is the third definition -- as Scott puts it "The main — but not the only — mechanism of biological evolution is natural selection" -- that educators are aiming for. Brustman quotes Harvard professor Richard Wrangham stating that this should be an easy sell if one's mind is "open:"

"The case for evolution by natural selection is so strong that if you have people with open minds, it's easy."

Apparently the more than 500 scientists who agree with this statement simply don't have "open minds":

"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."

And perhaps eminent biologist Lynn Margulis, a deeply committed evolutionist who believes that symbiogenesis drove much evolutionary change and that natural selection does not generate real novelty, also has a closed mind. Margulis and Sagan write:

“We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being? How do cauliflowers descend from tiny, wild Mediterranean cabbagelike plants, or pigs from wild boars?”

(Lynn Margulis, Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, pg. 29 (Basic Books, 2003))

A final intriguing quote in the article comes from Professor Wrangham on how the successful teaching of evolution is dependent upon showing people how evolution and religion are compatible:

"Wrangham admitted that religion and the teaching of evolution sometimes bumped heads. He said, "The reason so many people do not believe in evolution is surely because they had very strong religious beliefs first ... and if we are going to teach evolution successfully, we have to find a way to marry those two things."

In Wrangham's analysis, we simply have to open people's minds to evolution by natural selection by changing their religious beliefs about evolution, and then all the skepticism will disappear. Let's reiterate: Wrangham said, "if we are going to teach evolution successfully, we have to find a way to marry [evolution and religion]." At least now it is out-in-the-open: these evolutionists have an agenda to "find a way" to change people's religious beliefs about evolution.

Will they be successful in erasing skepticism? Evolutionists have been trying to modify people's religious beliefs about evolution for decades, but the public remains skeptical.

Perhaps there's more in the objections to evolution than mere religion.

Ultimately, it seems that growing scientific skepticism over evolution by natural selection means that Wrangham will have to "find a way to marry" evolution (3rd definition), and the empirical data. Meanwhile, some of us who have been following this debate for a while may feel justified in giving up on waiting for the wedding invitation.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 6:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

In 1897 Mark Twain reportedly sent a cable from London to the Associated Press in New York, saying "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." after a mistaken obituary announcement appeared in a newspaper. The mistaken announcement is not unlike Robert Pennock's article of March 6th in Science & Theology News which also greatly exaggerates the significance of Dover for the ID movment.

Robert Pennock has made a career of critiquing ID; thus it comes as no surprise that he is now trumpeting the Dover decision. But Ph.D. though he may be, there are so many logical fallacies in his article that it is ripe fodder for Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic. Robert Pennock may be a third, or perhaps a fourth rate philosopher, but a first rate critique of his kind of reasoning along with Judge Jones’s by a top tier philosopher is available on the very same website by no less than Alvin Plantinga. Rather than repeat Plantinga’s devastating riposte, allow me to critique Robert Pennock and by extension Jones on slightly different grounds.

It is true that Judge Jones said:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.

A second fallacy is that of an “appeal to illegitimate authority.” Robert Pennock gloats over the supposed claim that “The judge seriously considered the ID claim that it is not religion but real science, but he found the arguments completely unconvincing.” Judge Jones may be versed in law but arbiter of what is and is not science he certainly is not. Besides Jones couldn’t even get basic factual points correct. Let’s take one simple issue and assess if Judge Jones was correct.

In no fewer than six different location, in his decision, Judge Jones stated that ID proponents have published no peer-reviewed science literature supporting their views. Let’s hold off on the critique of how lousy a criterion this is for delimiting science from religion and deal with the factual nature of the claim. In one of those six instances, Judge Jones wrote:

“we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals” (pg. 89)

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (August, 2004):213-239.

And since it takes but one to negate a universal generalization Judge Jone’s assertion stands refuted.This is a fairly black-and-white issue, which would be difficult to get wrong and yet Judge Jones did.

A claim is only as good as the citation which backs it up. Robert Pennock cites Jones to back up his claim that ID isn’t science. But Jones was guided by Robert Pennock in his decision. And neither offer a trustworthy account of ID. Never mind how out of their league both Jones and Robert Pennock clearly are in understanding the current nature of the debate over the demarcation criteria of science. I would recommend both Jones & Robert Pennock start with Gary Ferngren’s History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition. If I might be so bold as to suggest a starting place, turn to page 17 and read the essay titled “The Demarcation of Science and Religion” by Stephen C. Meyer to get caught up on that current debate over demarcation criteria. One will find that the falsification delimiter that Jones and Pennock are so fond of would suffer the death of a thousand qualifications because it would rule out many disciplines that we consider science such the historical sciences like archaeology.The additional irony is that several contemporary design arguments nevertheless meet the falsifiability criteria. See here for a list.

A final example of fallacious reasoning is that of an irrelevant conclusion. Robert Pennock along with Barbara Forrest use an argument much like this: "the wedge document" exists demonstrating that many design theorists want to renew Western culture by overthrowing Darwinism; therefore peppered moths do in fact rest on tree trunks (Go here to see why the fact that they don’t spells trouble for Darwinism). Sorry Robert but this mode of argument with all of its motive-mongering simply shows you have no case apart from your tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.

Outside of these fallacies are the simple errors of fact. Far from what Robert Pennock would have you believe ID did not field its "A" game in Dover, not even close. Nor did we want to Two excellent ID scientists provided expert testimony on their areas of expertise, but that’s hardly a full team or a full court press. Several of our top scholars did not participate, and our legal advice was ignored. Robert Pennock would have you believe things that he wasn't even there for or privy to. Robert Pennock's wasn't there when we urged the Dover School Board to drop their deeply flawed policy, but my colleague Seth Cooper was (see his letter explaining how he tried to persuade the Dover School Board to not adopt their policy requiring ID).

Thus Robert Pennock is attempting to rewrite history. He states that “For years, the Discovery Institute had been pushing ID by lobbying elected officials; publishing legal guides, op-eds and videos; and offering legal advice.” This is a lie wrapped in a tissue of truths. We have been promoting our ideas through op-eds and science documentaries (as well as in peer-reviewed and peer-edited books and articles). But as documented to Judge Jones in Discovery’s Amicus Reply Brief in the Dover Case, Discovery has not advocated that ID be pushed into schools. Rather, as our policy has been for years, we think that ID should not be mandated in schools, but that rather teachers should have the academic freedom to teach ID if they choose to do so at their personal discretion. Thus, our public advice for education policy is as follows:

As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.(Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy)

I also proposed a compromise involving three main provisions:

(1) First, I urged Ohio school board members not to require students to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the theory of intelligent design.

(2) Instead, I proposed that Ohio teachers teach the scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution. Teachers should teach students about the main scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory. And Ohio should test students for their understanding of those arguments, not for their assent to a point of view.

(3) Finally, I argued that the state board should permit, but not require, teachers to tell students about the arguments of scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who advocate the competing theory of intelligent design.
(Teach the Controversy, by Stephen C. Meyer, (Cincinnati Enquirer March 30, 2002)

Is the game really up?

The genie is out of the bottle and ID is gaining interest worldwide. The supreme irony in all of this will be if the Darwinists succeed in their power-play here in the United State to stifle the academic freedom to teach and discuss intelligent design in the classroom; while students in former Soviet satellites like the Czech Republic and Romania will have free access to the scientific evidence for design. But even if this was true, not all would be lost for as Churchill once observed, were England to fall, the banner of freedom could still be carried forth from the dominions. It would be ironic indeed if former Soviet satellites had to give us a lesson in intellectual freedom.

Posted by Keith Pennock at 10:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The critical response to Judge Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller case continues to build. Renowned philosopher Alvin Plantinga has recently written a short article analyzing part of Judge Jones’s reasoning. Having Plantinga’s analytic expertise and philosophic understanding come down against the Kitzmiller decision does not bode well for the intellectual vitality Judge Jones may have hoped his opinion would achieve.

For those who may not know, Alvin Plantinga is a highly respected philosopher who has written extensively on such topics as epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of religion. As one of the worlds leading thinkers about the ‘science of knowledge,’ epistemology, Plantinga has published a seminal trilogy centering on warrant. He is highly respected in the philosophy community and has served as the president of the American Philosophical Association. All this makes Plantinga’s analysis of the reasoning employed in Kitzmiller highly relevant.

Though Kitzmiller has been the subject of extensive commentary and news, one section of the case in particular, where Judge Jones claims to resolve for the entire country that “Intelligent Design is not science,” has been subjected to relentless criticism. The far-reaching claims of the “ID is Not Science” section (p.64-89) have been criticized for legal reasoning (here), understanding of science (here), factual and other concerns (here, here and here), and now Plantinga has provided a more formal philosophic criticism of the argument.

Plantinga has concerns about a judge attempting to settle disputes by “judicial declaration” or “judicial fiat.” Plantinga then goes on to analyze some of the reasoning Judge Jones used to support his overly-bold claims. I’ll highlight just a few of the more interesting parts of Plantinga’s article. Keying off page 64 of the opinion, Plantinga identifies two claims: “First, he [Judge Jones] said that ID is not science by virtue of its “invoking and permitting supernatural causation.” Second, and connected with the first, he said that ID isn’t science because the claims IDers make are not testable — that is verifiable or falsifiable.” Plantinga finds major problems with both these arguments.

Plantinga first recalls how difficult it has been for philosophers to come up with a decent definition and analysis of falsification or verification (concepts that Judge Jones assumes to be true for his argument). Plantinga brackets this problem and argues that “propositions about supernatural beings not being verifiable or falsifiable isn’t true at all.” He explains:

For example, the statement “God has designed 800-pound rabbits that live in Cleveland” is clearly testable, clearly falsifiable and indeed clearly false. Testability can’t be taken as a criterion for distinguishing scientific from nonscientific statements. That is because in the typical case individual statements are not verifiable or falsifiable.

As another example, the statement “There is at least one electron” is surely scientific, but it isn’t by itself verifiable or falsifiable. What is verifiable or falsifiable are whole theories involving electrons. These theories make verifiable or falsifiable predictions, but the sole statement “There is at least one electron” does not. In the same way, whole theories involving intelligent designers also make verifiable or falsifiable predictions, even if the bare statement that life has been intelligently designed does not.

These examples show how absurd it was for Judge Jones to categorically assert that ID is not falsifiable. Not only does ID make testable claims, the standard of falsification does not apply universally for theories that Judge Jones would consider scientific. (See this link or this link for more on the positive predictions of ID theory.)

Plantinga also points out that Judge Jones not only relied on concepts of falsification, which intelligent design can “pass” as well as other scientific theories, but he relied on methodological naturalism to define ID out of science. “But what is the reason — if any — for accepting methodological naturalism? Apparently, the judge thinks it is just a matter of definition — of the word “science,” presumably.” Along this same line of analysis, Plantinga points out the problem of Judge Jones’s attempt to define ID out of science while demonstrating his trademark analytic skill lightened with a touch of humor:

Suppose I claim all Democrats belong in jail. One might ask: Could I advance the discussion by just defining the word “Democrat” to mean “convicted felon”? If you defined “Republican” to mean “unmitigated scoundrel,” should Republicans everywhere hang their heads in shame?

So this definition of “science” the judge appeals to is incorrect as a matter of fact because that is not how the word is ordinarily used. But even if the word “science” were ordinarily used in such a way that its definition included methodological naturalism, that still wouldn’t come close to settling the issue. The question is whether ID is science. That is not a merely verbal question about how a certain word is ordinarily used.

While ID does not even conclude or mandate the action of the supernatural, Plantinga nicely addresses the problems with Judge Jones’s sweeping assertions about the nature of science and the status of ID. The decision relies on semantically defining ID out of the picture rather than a reasoned defense. Plantinga’s article catalogues a number of other proposed constraints on the definition of science; all of which make the point that science being constrained by methodological naturalism (as Jones did in Kitzmiller) is anything but a self-evident truth.

In the end, Plantinga points out just a few of the problems with the proposed limitation on science from methodological naturalists. Plantinga’s article does not purport to be a comprehensive review of Kitzmiller, nor of all the claims made in the “ID is Not Science” section. It does, however, neatly respond to several of the essential propositions relied upon for that section.

As someone with a lot more experience in the debate about the philosophy of science, and methodological naturalism specifically, Plantinga easily runs circles around the astoundingly weak reasoning from Judge Jones’s Kitzmiller decision.

Posted by Michael Francisco at 11:23 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

The New York Times recently ran an article that highlighted microevolution, without ever defining it as such, "Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story." Basically, the article explains how over time humans have adapted to their surroundings, "evolved" into the human species we recognize today, and may still be "adapting".

"Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny. "

Chuck Colson's Breakpoint today is right on point on the New York Times crusade to prop up neo-Darwinism and attack Darwinian critics and tear down intelligent design theory.

What this does not mean is that one species ever evolved into another. As Dr. Jay Richards of the Acton Institute explains, “All we’re talking about here is the action of natural selection on an already existing population. . . . There’s nothing in this story about the emergence of new genes via a mutation merely under selection pressure. . . . At most,” says Richards, “it would refer to a tweaking of an already existing gene under selection pressure, which isn’t inherently problematic.”

To sum up, there’s nothing here that is new or exciting.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 8:12 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Scotsman Alistair Donald recently engaged Peter Jones concerning intelligent design and the age of reason, and came off sounding both intelligent and reasonable. His first letter:

One of the principles of the Enlightenment was the careful examination of evidence before reaching conclusions. It is, therefore, startling that Peter Jones (Opinion, 7 February) should conclude that Islamic extremism and the theory of intelligent design are both manifestations of irrational, anti-Enlightenment thinking.

ID is not a religiously-based idea but an evidence-based theory about life's origins. A seminal text, William Dembski's The Design Inference, was published by Cambridge University Press, not usually thought of as a fundamentalist publishing house.

It is true that many have found that ID provides support for theism, but that is not grounds for dismissing it. To do so is to confuse the evidence for a theory with its possible implications.

Significantly, it was the evidence for design in cell DNA, as expounded by ID theorists, that persuaded the philosopher Antony Flew to renounce atheism some months ago. His words are instructive: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

This prompted some silly responses, citing Judge Jones of Dover fame as the last word on the history and philosophy of science, and denying that intelligent design theory played a role in philosopher Antony Flew’s change of mind. Donald responded thus:

In response to Alistair McBay (Letters, 16 February), defining what is and is not science has proved notoriously difficult for philosophers of science to agree on. Is it seriously to be maintained that the decision of one American district court can be the last word on the matter?

The use of authority to try to circumscribe scientific inquiry does not have a noble history. In the past, some inconvenient findings were suppressed by religious authorities, but the truth came out in the end. In a neat reversal, it is today's widely-accepted dogma that we are the product of blind and purposeless processes that is now being increasingly questioned, on the basis of the scientific evidence itself.

Contrary to A Guthrie Stewart (Letters, 17 February), Antony Flew did cite the arguments of design theorists in his renunciation of atheism, when he said: "Investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved."

Donald has a doctorate in environmental science, worked in acid rain research and other pollution control work, and this May will be doing a seminar in scientific apologetics at a conference in Hungary.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 12:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Lawrence Selden analyzes a recent Zogby poll asking whether public high school students should learn only the scientific evidence for Darwinism or the evidence both for and against the theory:

Here are the results of a new poll by Zogby measuring the public's views on Teaching the Controversy v. Darwinian