Discovery senior fellow, technology guru and conservative economist George Gilder has a major essay in the new issue of National Review, titled “Evolution and Me: Darwinian Theory has Become an All-Purpose Obstacle to Thought Rather than an Enabler of Scientific Advance.” (subscription required)

---

Recently Discovery President Bruce Chapman sat down for an interview with Discovery senior fellow, author, and technology guru George Gilder. The subject: evolution and intelligent design. Listen to a clip of the interview on the ID The Future Podcast.(MP3 format, 53MB, download only, no streaming)

---

“Everywhere we encounter it,” Gilder writes, “information does not bubble up from a random flux or prebiotic soup. It comes from mind. Taking the hierarchy beyond the word, the central dogma of intelligent design ordains that word is subordinate to mind.
Mind can generate and lend meaning to words but words in themselves cannot generate mind or intelligence.”

Throughout the article Gilder shows how irreducible complexity in mathematics, in logic, in computer science, in physics, all point to a similar irreducible complexity in biological systems as well. He winds through information theory and economics, moving smoothly from quantum physics to mathematics, all the while showing how “Darwinism is a materialist theory that banishes aspirations and ideals from the picture. As an all-purpose tool of reductionism that said whatever survives is, in some way, normative, Darwinism could inspire almost any modern movement, from the eugenic furies of Nazism to the feminist crusades of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.”

You’ll want to read Gilder’s view on why Darwin’s theory of evolution falls down, and why intelligent design is a better explanation, in the new issue of National Review (July 17) available now in bookstores, and to subscribers online.

And you can download the exclusive thirty-minute interview with George Gilder about his views on evolution and intelligent design.
Listen to a short clip of the interview as featured on ID The Future podcast.
Download the full 30 minute interview here.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 11:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Over at Intellectualconservative.com, attorney Steven Laib has a short review of Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision.

All things considered, this is a book worth reading. Anyone who takes an interest in the legal battles over how science is to be taught in the public schools will find it informative and potentially a roadmap to where the next cases in this area will be argued.

“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. We've heard the Darwinist story, and we owe it to ourselves to hear the other side. Traipsing Into Evolution is the other side. …

A disturbing feature of the debate over evolution, especially for those of us who are distantly interested but have no settled conviction on the matter, is the aggressive campaign by many in the scientific and judicial establishments to silence the opposition so that only the Darwinist story will be heard. That campaign was in full force in the recent Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design case, and it was rewarded with a dubious victory in Judge Jones' mammoth, meandering opinion. "Traipsing Into Evolution" is a gallant attempt to present the other side of the story. If you followed the Dover controversy and especially if you managed to wade through all or part of Judge Jones's opinion, you owe it to yourself to read this book.”
Steven D. Smith, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego and author of "Law's Quandary" (Harvard University Press, 2004) and “The Constitution and the Pride of Reason” (Oxford University Press 1998)

“A revolution in evolution education is underway and the Discovery Institute continues to illuminate the path of critical thinking with its penetrating analysis of Judge Jones' opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board case. It's a sad irony that, while Darwin devoted three of the fifteen chapters in Origins of Species to discussing weaknesses associated with his theory of natural selection, America's current crop of science textbooks leave students largely in the dark by failing to address new and vital developments in the area of origins science. In the interests of academic freedom, it's time all Americans - and especially our youth - learn the full story about evolutionism. Discovery Institute's publication of Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision sheds valuable light along that trail.”
Honorable Judge Darrell White (retired), founder and president of the Retired Judges of America

"Traipsing Into Evolution is a timely criticism of judicial overreaching arising out of the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design trial. It gives a thoughtful, yet succinct, analysis of the errors of the Kitzmiller court. This book is a must read for both proponents and critics of intelligent design. Unless critics of intelligent design grapple with the arguments in this book, their criticisms will be as intellectually anemic as that of the court.”
Randall L. Wenger, Esq., Attorney specializing in constitutional law and public policy litigation

“I read Traipsing into Evolution in its entirety … and it is simply excellent.

On December 20th, 2005, Judge Jones was called to make a decision on the educational policy of a Dover school board that had already been ousted. Instead of simply doing this, Jones attempted to rule for perpetuity that Intelligent Design is not science. Traipsing into Evolution is a sharply focused rebuttal to Jones’ decision. The authors show that: (1) the law is not competent to rule on what is science, since the consensus of the relevant experts, philosophers of science, is that there is no satisfactory demarcation criterion between science and non-science; (2) Jones fallaciously argues that science is what most scientists claim is science, which implies that the unpopular theories of Copernicus, Newton and Darwin were not science; (3) Jones’ decision is filled with factual errors about the Intelligent Design movement, many taken verbatim from Barbara Forrest’s unreliable accounts; (4) Jones’ ruling violates the Establishment clause by siding with secular humanists and those followers of revealed religion who think Darwinism is compatible with their faith against anyone who thinks otherwise.

Logically organized, clearly written, and well argued, Traipsing Into Evolution is a point-by-point rebuttal to Judge Jones’ Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision. Anyone who believes in genuine academic freedom and who sees the value of fully disclosing to students all sides of the controversy about neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design will want this helpful volume.”
Angus Menuge, Ph.D., DCA, Author, Agents Under Fire (Rowman and Littlefield, 2004) Professor of Philosophy, Associate Director, The Cranach Institute, Concordia University Wisconsin

If you missed the book publication parties in either Washington --Seattle or DC-- you can watch the Seattle event here, and the DC discussion will be televised in the near future on C-SPAN's Booknotes. As soon as we know a date and time we'll post that information.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 3:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As we reported earlier this week, there were a number of articles equating intelligent design with creationism in the THES recently. Bruce Gordon, research director for Discovery's Center for Science & Culture, has written the following response to the THES, correcting their mistakes and outlining some of the key points of intelligent design theory.

In a spate of articles published on June 23rd in the Times Higher Education Supplement, (here, here, here, here, and here) Jessica Shepherd and Steve Farrar, perhaps unintentionally, have succeeded in spreading the misconception that intelligent design (ID) theory and young earth creationism are so closely allied as to merit being identified with each other. They are not the same. As a logically astute member of the British Cheese Board might tell you, being cheddar is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for being cheese. Similarly, being a young earth creationist is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for being an advocate of intelligent design. Most current ID theorists of consequence not only are not creationists, some of them aren’t even theists.

The reason for this divergence is not far to seek. Young earth creationists are biblical literalists who circumscribe their approach to science by deduction from Holy Writ. Intelligent design theorists are scientists or philosophers of science who derive their conclusions inductively from the empirical study of nature, following the evidence where it leads without regard to antecedent constraints artificially imposed by theodical desiderata or philosophical naturalism. In this latter respect, ID theorists are more thoroughgoing in their scientific approach than, say, Richard Dawkins, who continues to promulgate his misunderstanding of science to the public from his bully pulpit at Oxford University. Dawkins’ presuppositions are evident in his definition of biology as the study of complex living systems that “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” ID theorists prefer not to preclude design as a possible explanation in given instances without first examining the evidence.

What sort of evidence do we have in mind? Consider an example: bacterial cells are propelled by flagellar motors that function as rotary engines spinning at up to 100,000 rpm. These miniscule engines look like they were designed by engineers since they are made of proteins that comprise distinct component structures serving the same mechanical functions as rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts. As the biochemist Michael Behe has pointed out, this flagellar motor depends on the coordinated function of 30 protein parts and it will not work if even one of them is removed – it is, in his terminology, “irreducibly complex.” Since natural selection works (in neo-Darwinian theory) by environmental “selection” of functional advantages manifested in the phenotype that have arisen through random genetic mutations, it can select the motor once it has arisen as a functional whole, but it cannot produce it in the step-by-step fashion required by neo-Darwinism because every stage of lesser complexity is completely nonfunctional.

Our uniform and repeated experience tells us, on the other hand, that there is one and only one cause sufficient to produce irreducible complexity: intelligence. By putting intelligence forward as the causal basis for irreducible complexity in nature, ID theorists are therefore following a standard procedure employed across a spectrum of scientific explanations from particle physics and cosmology to neuropsychology: the postulation of something unobserved (and perhaps in principle never directly observable) as the best explanation for what is observed. Such “inferences to the best explanation” are standard in scientific theorizing and should be no more controversial in this case than elsewhere. Unlike creationism, therefore, ID is an empirically driven inference from biological data.

I could multiply examples, speaking, for instance, of the precisely sequenced nucleotides in DNA that constitute the four-character digital code for the construction of biologically functional proteins, and explaining in principled fashion why no theory of undirected chemical evolution can explain the origin of its informational content, but my point has been adequately made. Why, then, the continued conflation of ID with young earth creationism? Setting aside suspicions that this is a mere rhetorical move designed to discredit without the difficult work of confronting the evidence, perhaps it’s because ID may give scientific aid and comfort to theistic belief – and this despite ancillary issues of dysteleology. To reject the theory on these grounds, however, would be to ignore the evidence because of its implications, something even Dawkins would admit to be an error – and that despite his pathological atheism.

What we are observing with ID is not a novel event in the history of science. Many astrophysicists and cosmologists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to point to the need for a transcendent cause of the universe as a whole, but the scientific community eventually came to accept the theory because the evidence overwhelmingly supported it. A similar prejudice confronts ID today, but this new theory must also be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not prior philosophical prejudice. As the distinguished British philosopher Antony Flew counseled after making world-wide news for repudiating his lifelong atheism in response to the evidence for ID: “we must follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” Just so.

Bruce L. Gordon, Ph.D.
Research Director
Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Institute

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

The noted scholar Ronald Numbers is often cited as an objective authority on the history of the debate over evolution. But when he recently co-authored an article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action," I was surprised that Numbers used invective language and clearly incorrect claims to discredit the theory of intelligent design. My first two pieces on the article are here and here. Now I want to take up three other claims that the article makes: (1) Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument ignores exaptation (co-option); (2) there are no peer-reviewed science articles defending intelligent design; and (3) ID stymies scientific progress.

Inaccuracy # 5: The article states that "Behe assumes that the component parts of irreducibly complex systems never had other functions in older organisms." This false claim, made by the Dover plaintiffs and then repeated by Judge Jones, was refuted by Part I of my April, Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? post, noting that Behe (and others) have devoted much discussion to the inadequate argument that the presence of other functions for a given part of an irreducibly complex system undermines a claim of irreducible complexity.

Inaccuracy # 6: The article also implies that ID has published no studies about how life came about:

However, those studies tell us a great deal about how life came to be as it is and now form the foundation of modern biology. ID, by contrast, has produced nothing.

This common fallacious claim is easily refuted by a listing of peer-reviewed articles and books, some published in highly prestigious venues, supporting ID.

Most importantly, this literature is helping us to understand the natural world. As Stephen Meyer explains in his peer-reviewed article, ID helps us to understand the origin of biological information:

Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities and then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks--almost by definition--are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality--with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation. (Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories by Stephen C. Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004))

And the ID explanation can also yield fruitful insights into biology. Pro-ID biologist Jonathan Wells has suggested in a peer-reviewed ID journal (***) that intelligent design can help us to understand function of Junk-DNA:

Since non-coding regions do not produce proteins, Darwinian biologists have been dismissing them for decades as random evolutionary noise or ‘junk DNA.’ From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk.’” (Jonathan Wells, “Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research,” Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, Vol 3.1, Nov., 2004.)

Wells's approach might have helped us to avoid pitfalls stemming from Neo-Darwinian thought. For example, a widely used college textbook on molecular biology leads students to believe that, under Neo-Darwinian thinking, introns are merely genetic junk:

Unlike the sequence of an exon, the exact nucleotide sequence of an intron seems to be unimportant. Thus introns have accumulated mutations rapidly during evolution, and it is often possible to alter most of an intron’s nucleotide sequence without greatly affecting gene function. This has led to the suggestion that intron sequences have no function at all and are largely genetic “junk”… (Molecular biology of the Cell, 3rd Ed. (1994) by Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and James D. Watson)

That Darwinist statement was written in 1994. In 2003, an article in Scientific American about the functionality of so-called "junk-DNA" called our failure to recognize introns as functional within the cell "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology":

Yet the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes, Mattick says, “were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.”

[...]

About two thirds of the conserved sequences lie in introns, and the rest are scattered among the intergenic “junk” DNA. “I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” (The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk by Wayt T. Gibbs, Scientific American (November, 2003), emphasis added)

Intelligent design leads us to the testable expectation that designers make things for a reason--and thus ID leads us to expect that structures in biology probably have some function. Had scientists considered an ID approach, the mistake Mattlick so passionately identifies could have been avoided.

Conclusion:
The article by Numbers and his co-authors nicely encapsulates the Darwinist metanarrative about ID. A close analysis exposes that this metanarrative--though widely promulgated--is factually bankrupt.

Sadly, the article also uses harsh invectives and polemics to describe ID. These are surprising for an article appearing in a scholarly journal. Given the prestige garnered by co-author Ronald Numbers for his past works on the history of this debate, one cannot help but ask, “Has Numbers given up his role as historian and become a partisan in the debate?” Is Professor Numbers maintaining his neutrality, or is this polemical and factually-challenged article a departure from his position as an academic historian of science?

*** The Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design website states that "[t]he editorial advisory board peer-reviews articles submitted to the society's journal."

Posted by Casey Luskin at 6:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Predictably, as soon as we announced that the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list had topped 600 doctoral scientists, we were flooded with a wave of scientists wanting to add their names to the list. Well, okay, it was a small wave -- 14 in the past four days to be exact -- but a wave none the less.

Over at Post-Darwinist, Denyse O'Leary notes that she could probably heat her home with the energy generated by the Darwinist's voiciferous denunciations of anyone who dares to doubt the veracity of the Darwinian mechanism.

Maybe, as the rage grows, I can offer energy from, like, enormous clusters of Darwinists denouncing specific scientists, in which case I can sign on to an alternative energy provider in Canada, offering "pro-Darwin noise" as an energy source. Goodness knows, given recent American Episcopal Church pronouncements, there is enough of that to turn my modest home - and homes for a six-block radius - into a northern Banana Republic. Hey, if all my neighbours agree to sign up with me for a few evening classes in tropical horticulture (instead of the temperate/near north horticulture we know and love), we could put all our extra bananas and pineapples into the local Food Bank. Cheap at the price, and good citizenship! And at least some use for the Darwinists' rage, too.

O'Leary also notes that there has been pressure in the past to get medical doctors to support Darwinism.

This issue - demands that doctors support Darwinism - came up while I was writing By Design or by Chance?, when Texas student Micah Spradling had problems qualifying for med school because his prof insisted at that time (scroll down) that students profess faith in Darwinism; otherwise, they might make "poor clinical decisions".

In spite of the efforts of Darwinists to keep dissenters silent, each time the list is publicized we receive a surge of interest from scientists who want to sign the list. Here's a few sample comments received just this week. (I'm leaving the names off at this time as we're still in the verification process for each of these.)

• I agree with your "Dissent from Darwinism" statement and aplaud your efforts to bring the growing scientific doubt in this area to the public's attention.
  
• I find neo-Darwinism to be a flawed hypothesis, not a theory.
  
• I completely agree with your statements. When I was in college, questioning evolution was simply unacceptable. This seemed quite hypocritical to me because literally everything else was fair game.
  
• I am an academic in the chemistry area who has long been at odds with unlimited evolution and the way it is projected as incontrovertible fact.I will be most happy to sign the dissent list.
  
• I find that the continual discovery of molecular/genetic evidence that contradicts long established phylogenies derived from morphological and developmental considerations is quite damning to the modern theory of evolution as is the plethora of contradictory trees proposed in almost every phyla of life. Clearly there is also a profound lack of understanding of the interrelationships of the different phyla, something that one would imagine a comprehensive and robust theory of evolution might aim to provide.

I realize I'm not eligible to sign the Dissent List without a doctoral degree. But I at least wanted to send a quick message in support of the program, and to thank you for the encouragement that I and others have in seeing this stand for honest scientific discussion and debate.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Despite the Darwinist community's long-standing campaign to help the public come to the "correct" view that "evolution and religion are compatible," public skepticism of evolution remains high. (See this link for documentation.) This would logically lead one to the conclusion that there are other factors besides religion that drive skepticism of evolution. Perhaps, one might even suggest, for many people the issue has a lot to do with science!

Recently I was told about a 1997 article in Scientific American which reported a study conducted by Brian Alters on students' reasons for rejecting evolution ("What Are They Thinking?: Students’ reasons for rejecting evolution go beyond the Bible," by Rebecca Zacks, Scientific American, October 1997, pg. 34). The study surveyed over 1200 college freshman, and found that large percentages of students who reject evolution stated scientific reasons for holding their views. Alters claims that all their scientific reasons are wrong, and another educator simply believed that students' views could be corrected by telling them what to think, i.e., if "misconceptions are countered with specific evidence."

While some of their reasons may be questionable, some of them are on the right track—i.e., students rejected evolution due to insufficiencies of the mechanism of random mutations or the statistical impossibility of the origin of life. As the article stated, "nearly 40 percent of those skeptical of evolution believe the chance origin of life to be a statistical impossibility"!

These are good reasons to be skeptical of evolution—and this shows that for many people this issue is not a matter of evolution vs. religion, but rather of evolution vs. science.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 3:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Times (London) Higher Education Supplement (THES) confuses intelligent design with young earth creationism in a slew of articles as part of a crusade against ID.

The main article of the four on the subject is stereotypical of the mainstream media's insistence that this is about religion and not science, starting out reporting on a tent revival meeting and going on to focus on religion rather than on any of the serious scientific issues under debate.

In this article the reporters go after creationists, and at the end of the piece there is a short description of intelligent design and how it differs from creationism. However, this article is not available online, and it is the only place where the differences between ID and creationism are cited.

In the only article widely available online, "Intelligent design creeps on to courses", the THES clearly equates ID with creationism. The headline implies the article is about ID, but the people quoted and the groups discussed are all creationists, and are referred to as such in the article. This is clearly misleading the reader to equate the two concepts.

The THES is reporting that courses on intelligent design and creationism now will be compulsory in zoology and genetics classes, as will criticism of the theories.

But there’s a twist: lecturers will present the controversial theories as being incompatible with scientific evidence. “It is essential they (students) understand the historical context and the flaws in the arguments these groups put forward,” says Michael McPherson, of Leeds University.

Despite the clear anti- creationist stance of these lecturers, the move has set warning bells ringing across the UK science community.

In a case of "False Fear Syndrome" going global, the THES also grossly misrepresents the American debates over science education policy as being about biblical creationism. The headline screams out "Cadre of US fundamentalists determined to see biblical tenets added to courses" but gives no evidence of this claim other than quotes by people who "think" this could happen, or "believe" people are doing this. The THES itself only reports that people are concerned when they hear about it, but never give any details of it actually happening.

Each time a US state education board decides that a literal interpretation of Genesis ought to be taught alongside evolution in science lessons, UK academics have voiced their concern while privately feeling relieved at not having to face a similar situation at home.

This is simply a case of poor reporting twisting the facts to force-fit them into an agenda. Some basic research on the part of the THES reporters would have clearly shown that their portrayal is false. Why didn't they investigate this further? We provided them with a lot of information about the state of the debate in the United States which they apparently ignored.

They also ignored any of the real debates over the inadequacies of Darwinian evolution, and the growing number of scientific challenges the theory faces.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Science magazine has issued a correction for incorrectly calling Discovery Institute "creationism's main think tank." (see original post here)

Corrections and Clarifications

News of the Week: "Court revives Georgia sticker case" by C. Holden (2 June, p. 1292). The article incorrectly characterizes the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, as a think tank for the creationist movement. The institute is a public policy organization that operates many different programs, including the Center for Science & Culture, which supports the work of scholars who explore challenges to evolution and promote the concept of intelligent design.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 6:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ronald Numbers is a well-known historian of science, but when he co-authored a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action," I was surprised by the invective language the authors used in comparing peer-reviewed scientific monographs by ID proponents to religious "tracts."

Unfortunately, the flaws of this article go far beyond merely employing inflammatory remarks. Given Numbers’ previously more objective scholarship, I was surprised to find myself reading an article co-authored by him that recycles the standard Darwinist metanarrative, one that repeats false claims about intelligent design and science standards. I describe the metanarrative and rebut two of its claims here. In the current piece, I want to consider the article's claim that ID is simply a negative argument against evolution, one that supposedly makes untestable appeals to the supernatural.

Inaccuracy # 3:The article states that Kansas now includes the supernatural in its state standards' definition of science:

Even the definition of science itself has fallen victim to political attack; the state board of education in Kansas decided that the supernatural may now be taught as science in the classroom.

That is a false statement. The new Kansas science standards simply re-set their definition of science back to how approximately every other state in the country defines science, essentially the way Kansas had defined it until 2001, as a way of knowing that investigates the natural world through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument, and makes only testable hypotheses:

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or observational data and testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation.(2005 Kansas Science Standards, pg. 10, emphasis added)

When the Darwinists took over the Board of Education in 2001 and defined science as "seeking natural explanations," Kansas became the only state in the United States to explicitly advocate for hard-code methodological naturalism into its state science standards. Thus, the new Kansas standards (2006), by removing such language, moves closer to the norm for U.S. science standards.

There is a great irony in the fact that this article criticizing the Kansas science standards was co-authored by Wisconsin State Representative Teresa Berceau (D). Ms. Berceau submitted a bill to the Wisconsin legislature that she thinks outlaws ID because the bill requires that material taught as science be “testable as a scientific hypothesis.” Ignoring for the moment the fact that ID is testable, the article's assertion on this contradicts Berceau’s own logic: she thinks ID is an untestable supernatural explanation, so she submitted a bill that she thinks will outlaw ID because the bill requires that all science taught must be “testable as a scientific hypothesis and describes only natural processes.” Yet in the article discussed here, she claims Kansas’s definition of science includes the supernatural despite the fact that testability is a strong thread throughout Kansas’s definition of science (see emphasized portions above). Berceau making contradictory arguments, and she is doubly wrong: Not only is ID not outlawed by her bill (because ID is indeed testable and doesn't invoke the supernatural) but the Kansas science standards nowhere incorporate the supernatural.

Here's a question I submit to Berceau and all proponents of the false conspiracy theory that Kansas now teaches the supernatural in science classes: if Kansas incorporated the supernatural into its definition of science, then how do you explain the fact that its science standards emphatically require that all science be testable?

...This leads us to the next and perhaps most important inaccuracy in the Berceau/Numbers article:

Inaccuracy # 4: The article makes various false statements that ID postulates a supernatural creator and is untestable: "ID and its progeny rely on supernatural explanations of natural phenomena," and "ID makes no testable predictions. There is nothing in this concept that allows for scientific investigation of the 'designer.' It is simply an argument by default; the failure to explain something is said to lend credence to a supernatural explanation."

These quotations recapitulate the Darwinist metanarrative at its best. Yet the writings of ID proponents make it clear that these statements are completely false:

(1) ID does not require supernatural causation because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.

(2) ID is not merely a negative argument against evolution; and (3) ID makes testable predictions.

Indeed, the very text Of Pandas and People, the supplemental biology textbook Numbers and his co-authors claim demonstrates that ID is creationism, instead makes clear that it does not rely upon supernatural causation and shows that ID makes positive arguments:

If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist. This is no different, really, than if we discovered life did result from natural causes. We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause.

(Of Pandas and People, pg. 7, emphasis added)

Oddly, the article also states that ID proponents "conveniently omi[t] mention of God." Call this the opposite-arguments-regarding-ID-and-the-supernatural fallacy: You cannot critique ID because it requires "rel[ies] upon supernatural explanations" and then on the other hand critique it for allegedly cleverly removing references to the supernatural (i.e., God). Darwinists can’t criticize ID on the one hand because, as they claim, it does identify the designer as supernatural, and then on the other hand because it doesn’t.

What does ID actually do? ID shows appeals to our uniform experience of presently acting causes to show that certain features of the natural world are best explained by reference to intelligent design rather to some purely material cause like Darwinian natural selection. This is a program of inquiry that can be undertaken apart from religious questions about the supernatural.

Contrary to what the articles says, ID proponents do not "conveniently omi[t] mention of God." Consider how Michael Behe has explained that, while he does believe in God, the scientific data from biology do not allow one to tell if the designer is God or even whether the designer is supernatural:

The most important difference [between modern intelligent design theory and Paley's arguments] is that [intelligent design] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. (Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165, emphasis added.)

Thus Behe is open about the fact that he believes that the designer is God. I, too, believe in the same God that Michael Behe believes in. But these are our religious beliefs, which are not derived from the scientific claims of intelligent design. Many ID proponents may share our view that the designer is God (though some do not), but that belief is not derived from ID theory.

Behe's characterization of intelligent design is consistent with what the early pre-publication drafts of Of Pandas and People stated, as well as what the published version stated:

[S]cientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science." (Of Pandas and People, a pro-ID textbook, pg. 126-127, emphasis added)

Ronald Numbers and his colleagues misunderstand intelligent design and are misrepresenting it to the public. I am surprised that a historian such as Numbers would have added his name to this article.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 8:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

A new website, ResearchID.org has just launched and this is the announcement we received.

A new intelligent design website, ResearchID.org has been launched. that will provide high-quality online resources for scientists and scholars researching intelligent design. As a research website, ResearchID.org is an on-line knowledgebase for theoretically, empirically, and technologically exploring intelligent design. This site has no affiliation with Discovery Institute.

Established by ID theorist and author Joseph C. Campana, the site assembles the many separate lines of information, reasoning, and evidence that support ID and melds them into a lucid, unified, and accessible corpus. ResearchID.org will help those who are doing intelligent design researcy by producing and cataloging many types of resources: research proposals, biographical entries, project descriptions, articles on related issues, and a glossary that defines ID jargon.

The website was featured on several blogs and forums for one of its articles, entitled "ID at the Academy," which catalogues university classes around the world covering intelligent design. Campana is currently writing an essay series called "Paradigm Dawning," which touches on many topics related to intelligent design, including scientific curiosity, research criticism, teleology, ID research programs, and technological trends in science.

Additionally, ResearchID.org has initiated a Catalog of Fundamental Facts, which William Dembski and David Berlinski identified as an invaluable resource for the intelligent design community.

The site is a collaborative project where serious users can register free and contribute. With its easy access nature and collaborative features, ResearchID.org is sure to be an asset to the intelligent design community and a thorn in the side of ID critics.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:43 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ronald Numbers is a widely respected historian of science. He is an exceptional scholar who has garnered the respect of people on all sides of this debate. However, a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action," co-authored by, among others, Ronald L. Numbers, Elliot Sober [anti-ID philosopher], and Terese Berceau [anti-ID legislator], gives one pause to wonder if Numbers is shifting his role from commentator, to partisan.

In a twist unexpected from the scholarship of Dr. Numbers, the article launches into polemics using invective language:

"After the Edwards ruling [Edwards vs. Aguillard, 1987], they set about removing references to God and creationism from their tracts." (Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action, emphasis added)

Such emotive language is not commonly found in scholarly journal articles. A "tract" is "A leaflet or pamphlet containing a declaration or appeal, especially one put out by a religious or political group." To compare ID literature, such as William Dembski’s Cambridge University Press The Design Inference, or Stephen Meyer’s paper published in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington to “tracts,” “leaflets,” or “pamphlets” with purely religious or political language is out of character for an article in a scholarly journal, and out of character for Ronald Numbers.

Is William Dembski's peer-reviewed, Cambridge University Press-published, academic monograph The Design Inference a mere religious "tract"? What about Stephen Meyer's peer-reviewed critique of natural selection's ability to create new genetic information, and his closely reasoned argument in the same essay that intelligent design is the only presently acting cause of information and, therefore, the best explanation for the quantum increase in biological information during the Cambrian explosion, an argument that draws heavily on his extensive training in the history and philosophy of science (Ph.D., Cambridge University), and carefully reviews all of the leading materialistic hypotheses for the Cambrian explosion, including structuralist and self-organizational models? Does labeling these two works "tracts" answer the arguments these two scholars put forward? Will other labels work the same rhetorical magic--"garbage," "bilge," "doo doo"? If so, is this why they offered no substantive critique of the central arguments made by Dembski and Meyer? I mean, why bother to engage in close, reasoned debate when a quickie label like "tracts" can make all of your opponent's pesky arguments disappear.

Apart from using polemics, this article recapitulates the standard Darwinist metanarrative about ID, which goes something like this:

"ID is just an evolved version of creationism where creationists got smart and took out the word "God" to avoid a legal decision, but in reality it's just an untestable appeal to the supernatural, which says that if evolution cannot explain some things, then therefore it must have been created by miracles from a supernatural or divine being: that claim isn't testable, and therefore isn't science, and that's why ID has never published any peer-reviewed work supporting its ideas. ID is nothing but religion, and cannot contribute anything to science other than stopping otherwise fruitful research. ID proponents should stop trying to push it into the classroom because ID threatens science education, science, and the security of our future."

But is this metanarrative true, or is it simply another Darwinist creation myth? This response will come in a series of three separate posts that will collectively track how this article makes each claim in the Darwinist metanarrative, and will argue that each claim is false. An elaboration of each inaccuracy will be delivered below, and also in a series of two subsequent posts.

Inaccuracy # 1: The article claims to be inspired by a desire "to address the attempts to undermine science education in Wisconsin." That made me suspicious because I know of no group in Wisconsin that is trying to undermine evolution education, or, as the metanarrative states, to push ID into the classroom. The authors hold such an opinion, but again, such polemics are unexpected in a scholarly journal article. The article claims:

"In 2004, the school board of Grantsburg, Wisconsin, voted to have ID taught as an alternative scientific theory to evolutionary theory." (Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action)

"Students are expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information. 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."

Inaccuracy # 2:The article states that the removal of the phrase "creationism" from the textbook Of Pandas and People implies that ID is just creationism "mutated" over:

"The creationists once again mutated and adapted. After the Edwards ruling, they set about removing references to God and creationism from their tracts. For example, as revealed at the Dover trial (8), the authors of the intelligent design (ID) text Of pandas and people: the central question of biological origins stripped the direct mentions of creationism present in early drafts of the text and systematically substituted the novel term 'intelligent design'" (Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action)

The legislative history therefore reveals that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind. (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 591-592, emphasis added)

Yet pre-publication drafts of Pandas juxtaposed the word "creation" with statements to the exact opposite effect, noting that science cannot scientifically detect a supernatural creator. Consider these important excerpts from pre-publication drafts of Pandas, showing that from the beginning, their project did not do what made traditional "creationism" unconstitutional: it did not delve into supernatural explanations:

---

---

In each of these excerpts from pre-Edwards v. Aguillard drafts of Pandas, it is clear that the idea of "creation" discussed in pre-publication drafts of Pandas was specifically NOT trying to postulate a supernatural creator! The concepts advanced by even pre-publication, pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas were sharply different from what the courts have defined as "creationism." These early drafts were not trying to study the supernatural.

To solidify this point, consider the deposition testimony of Charles Thaxton as to why he started to use the term intelligent design in the Pandas book:

I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there.

(Deposition of Charles Thaxton 52-53, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., July 19, 2005))

Similarly, a 1990 post-publication rebuttal to a critic, written by the Pandas publisher explains:

As a consequence, yes, we are careful not to identify the intelligent cause behind the biological phenomena presented, but not for purposes of stealth, but rather precisely because we think that this is a religious conclusion.

The authors of the article are wrong to say that ID "mutated" to avoid a court decision. ID was formulated in its present form--an empirically based argument that would not stray into the supernatural--before the Edwards case was decided. Thus, even before Edwards v. Aguillard, ID lacked the very quality that caused creationism to be declared unconstitutional: it did not postulate a "supernatural creator." [sentence deleted soon after posting for clarity--please see this post for a full discussion of the similar definitions issue]

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:49 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

SEATTLE — Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org, 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 fastest growing segment of the list is scientists from outside the United States. International scientists now represent just over 12% of all signers, and as a group has seen nearly 40% growth in the past four months.

“I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma,” said Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

“Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all,” added Leguizamon. “Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say. The hold it has in academic circles is not at all due to the empirical evidence that allegedly supports it, but to its philosophical presuppositions and implications, the political correctness of the Darwinian paradigm and the intellectual inertia of academia in general. "

The list of 610 signatories includes member scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.

“Dissent from Darwinism has gone global,” said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman, former US Ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna. “Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding US scientists that disproved that statement. Now we’re finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don’t subscribe to Darwin’s theory.”

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.”

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.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

While the New England Journal of Medicine recently refused to publish a pro-ID letter-to-the-editor commenting on the Kitzmiller ruling, other medical journals are still clearly open to discussion on these matters.

Michael R. Egnor, professor of Neurosurgery at S.U.N.Y. Stony Brook has published a letter in the Journal of Clinical Investigation entitled Defending Science from Censorship. The letter responds to an anti-ID article published in Journal of Clinical Investigation entitled "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action," which had many co-authors, including the notable names Elliot Sober, Ronald Numbers, and Terese Berceau.

The original article by Berceau, Sober, & Numbers et al. is surprising for something published in a scholarly journal: it uses uncommonly inflammatory rhetoric to call the scholarship of design scientists mere religious "tracts." Does the usage of such language depreciate scholarly value of this article? Moreover, the original article is highly partisan in that it simply recapitulates the "Darwinist metanarrative," a widely-held though mainly fictional account of intelligent design that has little-to-no basis in reality. The many incorrect and ironic statements in the article will be analyzed in a three-part series of posts here at Evolution News & Views in coming days.

In the mean time, Egnor's letter: is worth highlighting because it argues that the "call to action" is actually a call to censorship of non-Darwinian views.

To the Editor:

The essay by Attie et al (‘Defending science education against design: a call to action’) is an odd 'call to action'. Scientists generally consider a ‘call to action’ to be a call for more vigorous discussion and research. Dr Attie’s ‘call to action’ is a call for censorship.

Dr. Attie assembles a philosopher, an historian, a lawyer, and a couple of politicians to coauthor an essay encouraging scientists to lobby for laws that censor criticism of Darwinism in schools. They assert that if you don’t accept Darwinism as an adequate explanation for biological complexity, you’re ‘anti-science’.

The authors’ preference for censorship, rather than debate, is understandable. Poorly thought-out arguments don’t hold up well in open debate. They devote a paragraph to testing (and claiming to refute) Mike Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity. The first sentence of their next paragraph is “ID makes no testable predictions.” They propose a law that mandates that public school students be taught material that ‘describes only natural processes’. That rules out the Big Bang, black holes, multiverses, and much of modern cosmology. Emergence of the universe ex- nihilo, physics in singularities, and the existence of countless other universes are by definition not 'natural processes'. Censor quantum mechanics as well. There’s nothing ‘natural’ about Schrodinger’s cat!

The authors' policies, if taken seriously, would exclude many of the most important advances in 20th century physics. The most interesting and fruitful science challenges dogma, and the most entrenched dogma in modern biology is Darwinism.

The authors express concern that discussion of Darwinism and intelligent design will cripple science education. Yet the United States leads the western world in science and in skepticism about Darwinism. The current American debate about the origin of biological complexity is clear evidence that free inquiry is quite compatible with leadership in science.

Science thrives in an atmosphere of free inquiry. Teach the controversy!

Michael Egnor, M.D.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:48 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Scripps Howard News Service is carrying this arresting story by Deroy Murdock:

Most ecologists want to make life easy for butterflies and waterfalls. Who can argue with that? Some environmental extremists, however, think what Earth really needs is fewer people. In some cases, billions fewer.

"We're no better than bacteria!" University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka recently announced. "Things are gonna get better after the collapse because we won't be able to decimate the Earth so much," he added. "And, I actually think the world will be much better when there's only 10 or 20 percent of us left."

Pianka dreamed that disease "will control the scourge of humanity." He celebrated the potential of Ebola Reston, an airborne strain of the killer virus, to make Earth nearly human-free. "We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that."

Just five hours after Pianka's March 3 speech to the Texas Academy of Science, which Forrest Mims III covered March 31 in The Citizen Scientist, the Academy named Pianka its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. Several hundred scientists gave Pianka a standing ovation, Mims reported.

Pianka is not alone.

Murdock's story adds several new instances of the disturbing sort of thinking noted in previous Evolution News stories on the subject (here, here, and here). What's the tie-in to evolution? Pianka is an ardent defender of modern evolutionary theory and the materialist worldview it underpins. Materialism denies any role for a creative intelligence in the history of life or the universe. Historically, this has also led both materialists and those influenced by materialism to de-emphasize or ignore the crucial role of creativity in human culture. In the arts it has led to an attack on the category of artistic genius, replaced by the idea that claims of artistic authority are little more than a tool of the upper classes to maintain power. In economics, it has led to the zero-sum-game thinking of the hard left, where it's believed that wealthy entrepreneurs do not create new wealth but merely appropriate a disproportionate piece of the pie, to the detriment of the poor laboring class. Like those who go right on believing in Darwinism against the growing tide of evidence, so too do these zero-sum thinkers go right on believing their economic model despite the fact that laborers are consistently better off in free market economies than in countries controlled by zero-sum thinking (e.g., the Soviet Union, East Germany). In ecology, it has led to a similar kind of zero-sum thinking, where it's assumed that individual humans cannot bring anything creatively positive to planet earth.

Or perhaps I'm making this more complicated than it is. If the ecologists are like a lot of us, they fantasize about having a nice place in the country with ready access to unpeopled nature. If humans--as materialism teaches--are no more valuable than a cockroach, then why not fantasize about wiping out roughly 90 times as many people as were killed in the war Hitler started?

I know why our country doesn't lock up people who fantasize about a new holocaust on a scale that would dwarf all others in human history. We're a republic that rightly defends intellectual freedom. What I don't get is why our country--populated overwhelmingly by people who reject the materialistic, nihilistic vision propounded by Pianka and others--nevertheless sets up Ebola holocaust lovers and their nihilistic/materialist cohorts in tenured and taxpayer funded positions at our public universities, not roughly in proportion to their representation among our total population (about 10-12% of us) but in numbers so great that these materialists function as the ideological gatekeepers at these institutions? Maybe when enough socially conservative and moderate Republicans and Democrats begin asking that same question, something will change.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 1:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

On June 2, 2006, I submitted a short, 175-word letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), responding to the incomplete and one-sided discussion of the Kitzmiller ruling they published, "Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom," by George J. Annas (NEJM, Volume 354 [21]:2277-2281 [May 25, 2006]). Today I learned that they have rejected my letter.

I've had letters rejected or accepted in various venues before, so that's fine. The rejection notice stated that "[t]he space available for correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a representative selection of the material received." NEJM devoted approximately 3,426 words to Mr. Annas's article, which was completely one-sided and simply regurgitated the Kitzmiller ruling without any sort of critical analysis. Let us now see if they can devote 175 words to a different viewpoint that is critical of the Kitzmiller ruling.

To my knowledge, NEJM has not yet published a single pro-ID letter in response to "Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom." If you subscribe to The New England Journal of Medicine, keep reading their upcoming issues (and review recent ones) to see if they are willing to publish any letters critical of the Kitzmiller ruling or to see if they do indeed engage in viewpoint censorship and only publish material which is anti-ID.

Here is my letter, which they rejected:

As an attorney and scientist who observed the Dover intelligent design (ID) trial, I can testify that George Annas’s account is incomplete.

Judge John Jones ruled that ID "has not generated peer-reviewed publications." This is demonstrably false.(1) Moreover, the Judge ruled ID hasn't "been the subject of testing and research," ignoring microbiologist Scott Minnich's testimony about his mutagenesis experiments indicating the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex.

The Judge asserted, "ID requires supernatural creation," and therefore isn’t science. This misconstrues ID, for the textbook used in Dover agreed that "intelligence ... can be recognized by uniform sensory experience," but "the supernatural ... cannot." Thus "All [ID] implies is that life had an intelligent source."(2)

Finally, the ruling lambasted ID for having "failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community," ignoring the historical fact that every hypothesis begins as a minority view. A recent poll found that between 34% and 60% of U.S. physicians think intelligence played a role in the origin of humans.(3) How do we settle this scientific controversy? Not by judicial fiat!

Casey Luskin

(1) For one example, see 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.

(2) Dean Kenyon & Percival Davis, Of Pandas and People (2nd ed., 1993), pg. 127, 161.

(3) See HCD Research / Finklestein Research Institute Poll available at http://www.hcdi.net/polls/J5776/.

A complete response to Mr. Annas's article was published here on Evolution News and Views in three parts:

Part I: New England Journal of Medicine Traipses Into the Kitzmiller Decision (Part I)

Part II: New England Journal of Medicine Traipses Into the Kitzmiller Decision (Part II)

Part III: New England Journal of Medicine Traipses Into the Kitzmiller Decision (Part III)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Seattle – According to a report issued by a liberal media resource, FAIR, the Discovery Institute has become one of the most sought after think-tanks in the country, with greater percentage growth in news notice than any other think tank. Discovery, founded in 1990, is a non-partisan public policy center specializing in issues surrounding transportation, technology, and the scientific theory of intelligent design.

The FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting ) study found that among the nation's top think tanks, Discovery attracted the "greatest increase in [media] exposure" in 2005, making it the 20th most cited think tank in news stories. By FAIR’s count, the Institute was cited over 400 times in the national news media throughout 2005, and the Institute’s scientists and scholars participated in153 print interviews, 81 nationally syndicated radio programs, 226 market radio programs and penned 68 OP-ED articles.

Overall the exposure of the top national think tanks fell by 10 percent in the news media from 2004 to 2005, yet exposure for Discovery Institute skyrocketed by nearly 300 percent over the same period.

Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman pointed out that the liberal FAIR classified some think tanks –including Discovery Institute—as conservative, but did not classify any as liberal, but rather described them as either centrist, progressive or center-left.

“There’s a whole group of hard left think tanks FAIR left out of its study,” said Chapman. “They’re called universities. This is more than a joke since conservative think tanks were started, in many cases, as a response to the increasing stranglehold of the left on our universities.”

Many attribute the newfound acclaim of the Discovery Institute to its Center for Science and Culture and its scientists' work on the scientific theory of intelligent design. The New York Times reported in a 2005 front page story that “The Center is pushing a “teach the controversy” approach to evolution, transforming the argument from one between religion and science to one of academic freedom and discussion.”

According to Nature magazine, an international weekly journal of science, “Discovery Institute is the nation’s leading intelligent design think tank” And, Newsweek magazine said, “[Discovery Institute] has almost single-handedly put intelligent design on the map.”

ABC Nightline anchor, Ted Koppel, said in 2005 that Discovery, “has done an absolutely brilliant job of taking a difficult position and in effect infusing the mass culture with it about as effectively as anything I’ve seen in recent years.”

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 affiliated biologists, biochemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, most of whom also have positions with colleges and universities. Over 500 scientists have signed the Institute’s Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement (www.dissentfromdarwin.com).

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Microbiologist Ralph Seelke of the University of Wisconsin, Superior, testified before the Michigan State Legislature in favor of critical analysis of evolution, last week. Dr. Seelke spoke before the Michigan House Education Committee in favor of HB 5251 which would require students to "Use the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theories of global warming and evolution." Seelke explained why critical analysis is vital to avoiding indoctrination:

"Why do I think that having students critically analyze evolution is a good idea? First of all, in any area where there is considerable disagreement, a sound teaching strategy is to teach the controversy: allow the students to examine both the strengths and weaknesses of arguments for both sides, and in so doing make up their own minds about the subject. There is a term used when we only want student to learn one side of a story. It is called indoctrination, not education."

Finally, Seelke emphasized the benefits of the bill, stating, "I urge your support for this bill. It is constitutional; it is solidly in the tradition of a liberal education; and it will produce a better informed citizenry, and more open-minded scientists." It would be great to see Michigan join the ranks of Kansas, New Mexico, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania as states that presently have science standards requiring critical analysis of evolution. A full transcript of Dr. Seelke's testimony is available at the link below:

Testimony of Ralph W. Seelke, Ph.D., before the Education Committee of the Michigan House of Representatives

Posted by Casey Luskin at 11:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to the recent Associated Press story on South Carolina's new critical analysis of evolution standard, the South Carolina Department of Education does not think critical analysis means teaching alternative theories, like intelligent design (ID):

"Education Department spokesman Jim Foster says scientific inquiry is taught at every grade level and in every subject. Foster says the wording does not require students to study alternatives to evolution that are out of the mainstream."

(Education panel approves wording on biology standards)

We've been agreeing all along that critical analysis of evolution policies do not require teaching about alternative theories like ID! This just shows that the Darwinist claim that critical analysis = ID is just another tired conspiracy theory. So is the South Carolina Department of Education now in on the big conspiracy too?

Teaching students to critically analyze evolution is different from teaching them about ID for a number of reasons:

1) The Educational Approaches are Logically Distinct:

One can critique evolution without discussing "replacement theories" or alternative explanations such as intelligent design. For example, the Kansas Science Standards require students to learn about critiques of arguments for evolution from the fossil record, molecular data, and embryology, without any appeals to any alternative explanations. The standards also critique chemical origin of life scenarios without proposing any alternative hypothesis. ID is not based upon mere refutation of evolution: thus teaching ID requires some positive argument. Mere critical analysis of evolution does not logically lead to the conclusion of ID.

2) Explicit Statements of Intent to Not Require Teaching ID:
Many districts and states which have sanctioned critical analysis of evolution have also included in their policies explicit disclaimers to ensure that teachers, students, and the public understand that the critical analysis policy does not call for teaching ID. For example, Kansas’s State Science Standards, which are presently the strongest standards in the country calling for critical analysis of evolution, state “While the testimony presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement.”

3) Scientific Critique is a Separate Legal Category from Teaching about Alternative Theories:
In Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished between scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories, and teaching alternative viewpoints to evolution. Other courts have followed this example. Critical analysis exists as a separate and already-protected legal category.

4) Critics of Darwin that Don't Support ID:
Some critics of Neo-Darwinism, such as structuralists or self-organization proponents, have explicitly disaffirmed intelligent design. For example, in January, 2006, Dr. Richard von Sternberg testified before the South Carolina Board of Education in favor of critical analysis of evolution, yet Sternberg himself is not an ID-proponent. Other prominent critics of Neo-Darwinism who are also not pro-ID include David Berlinski, Stuart Kauffman, and Lynn Margulis. If critical analysis equals ID then these people apparently do not exist.

5) Final Proof: The Pudding (the Darwinists’ own behavior):
It took the Darwinists less than two months to file a lawsuit to ban ID from Dover, Pa, after their explicitly pro-ID policy was passed. If they really believed that policies calling for critical analysis of evolution during science instruction are the same as teaching ID, lawsuits would have arisen over the past few years over the many critical analysis of evolution policies around the United States. But they haven’t filed such lawsuits, and they won’t, because they know that critical analysis of evolution is different from teaching about ID.

(See Is Critical Analysis of Evolution the Same as Teaching Intelligent Design for more information.)

And as noted elsewhere, teaching students about ID requires some positive argument in favor of ID--mere critique of evolution, as is required by critical analysis of evolution policies, does not imply ID. Darwinists who claim that critical analysis of evolution policies are just secret code for teaching ID imply that various state departments of education are trying to promote some massive undercover conspiracy to teachers. Like many conspiracy theories, this one is false.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 4:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Previously in parts one and two of this critique, I discussed how George Annas's New England Journal of Medicine review of the Kitzmiller decision only told one part of the story.

The prior sections discussed problems with the Kitzmiller ruling's finding that ID is not science. This final section will discuss problems with the claims that ID is creationism, and also the false history of ID promulgated in the ruling, and subsequently into "Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom," by George C. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine Volume 354 (21):2277-2281 (May 25, 2006).

Creationism and Early Drafts of Pandas
Mr. Annas also rehashes arguments made about certain pre-publication drafts of the textbook Of Pandas and People, which he faults for using the term "creationism." Given that this term was never used in the published version of the book, the legal relevance of the point raised by Mr. Annas is murky at best. After all, the book used in the Dover school district was the published version of Pandas, not a pre-publication draft. What is the supposed relevance of a draft manuscript that students never saw let alone read? Even if the pre-publication drafts of Pandas are somehow relevant, they don't show what Mr. Annas thinks.

a. Early Drafts of Pandas Actually Rejected "Creationism" as Defined by the Courts
When certain pre-publication drafts of Pandas used terms such as "creation" and "creationist," they used them in a way that rejected "creationism" as defined by the courts and popular culture. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared creationism to be a religious viewpoint because it required a "supernatural creator":

The legislative history therefore reveals that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind. (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 591-592, emphasis added)

Thus, what the Supreme Court found was religion and therefore unconstitutional was not the word “creationism,” but the teaching that a “supernatural creator” was responsible for life. “Creation science” was how the Louisiana Legislature had used to describe that religious concept.

Yet pre-publication drafts of Pandas juxtaposed the word "creation" with statements to the exact opposite effect, noting that science cannot scientifically detect a supernatural creator. Consider these important excerpts from pre-publication drafts of Pandas making it clear that from the beginning, their project did not advocate what the courts have defined as "creationism" :

---

---

In each of these excerpts from pre-Edwards v. Aguillard drafts of Pandas, it is clear that the idea of "creation" discussed in pre-publication drafts of Pandas was specifically NOT trying to postulate a supernatural creator! The concepts advanced by even pre-publication, pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas were sharply different from what the courts have defined as "creationism." These early drafts were not trying to study the supernatural.

To solidify this point, consider the deposition testimony of Charles Thaxton as to why he started to use the term intelligent design in the Pandas book:

I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there.

(Deposition of Charles Thaxton 52-53, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., July 19, 2005))

Similarly, a 1990 post-publication rebuttal to a critic, written by the Pandas publisher explains:

As a consequence, yes, we are careful not to identify the intelligent cause behind the biological phenomena presented, but not for purposes of stealth, but rather precisely because we think that this is a religious conclusion.

Thus, the limits of what intelligent design can tell us stem not from legal strategies but from an honest effort to limit statements to scientific claims that can be made based upon the empirical data. ID is about respecting the limits of the scientific data--not hiding religion for legal purposes. In other words, even in its pre-publication form Pandas offered a theory that was conceptually distinct from what the courts have defined as "creationism."

b. "Abrupt" Appearance Language Does Not Make ID "Creationism"
According to Mr. Annas, Judge Jones also ruled that " (1) the definition for creation science in the early drafts is identical to the definition of ID." But was Judge Jones right to assert that this makes ID unconstitutional?

To my knowledge, there is only one instance where a definition given for "creationism" in pre-publication drafts was the same as the definition given for ID in the published version. This final definition reads that intelligent design means “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.” Yet this language of “abrupt” appearance of fully-formed biological structures is simply a common observation about the fossil record, not a religious claim. Such claims about abrupt appearance are echoed by many prominent evolutionists, including Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr:

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change . . . transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould, The Return of Hopeful Monsters, 86 Natural History, pg. 22-24 (June-July, 1977) (emphasis added).)

"Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Ernst Mayr, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, pg. 138 (1991) (emphasis added).)

Indeed, the observation that types of organisms appear with their body plans “intact” or "fully formed” is also expounded in an pro-evolution college text, published the same year as the Pandas textbooks used in Dover:

Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, ‘fully formed’ and identifiable as to their phylum in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago. These include such advanced anatomically complex types as trilobites, echinoderms, brachiopods, and mollusks. . . . The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla . . . (R.S.K. Barnes, et al., The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pg. 10-11 (2nd ed. Blackwell Scientific, 1993) (emphasis added).

That the Pandas textbook would dare attribute these common observations of the fossil record to “an intelligent agency” should not render intelligent design the equivalent of “creationism” any more than Gould’s observations should render him or his theory of punctuated equilibrium “creationist.”

It is also worth reiterating that in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court found creationism was religion because it required the “supernatural,” and notions of “abrupt appearance” had no impact upon the majority’s constitutional analysis. Perhaps this was because of the number of mainstream evolutionist paleontologists who recognize the historical fact of the abrupt appearance of “fully-formed” complex biological features in the history of life.

ID was formulated in its present form--an empirically based argument that would not stray into the supernatural--before the Edwards case was decided. Thus, even before Edwards v. Aguillard, ID lacked the very quality that caused creationism to be declared unconstitutional: it did not postulate a "supernatural creator." The similar definition between creationism and ID in pre-publication and published drafts of is based upon common scientific observations of "abrupt appearance" that are completely irrelevant to constitutional analysis under the Edwards v. Aguillard majority ruling. Judge Jones got it wrong. It is most unfortunate that these facts were left out of this article explaining the Kitzmiller decision to medical doctors.

Revisionist History about Discovery's Involvement in Dover
Finally, Mr. Annas claims that it was Discovery Institute who pushed Dover to pass its policy:

The Discovery Institute established its Center for Science and Culture to challenge Darwin's theory and promote the inclusion of intelligent design in school curricula nationwide.

[...]

To determine the purpose of the requirement of teaching intelligent design, the judge examined the statements and actions of the members of the school board, which showed that the members who sponsored the new rule had religious motivations and worked with the Discovery Institute to promote the institute’s agenda of intelligent design, including arranging for science teachers to watch a Discovery Institute film entitled Icons of Evolution.
(Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom)

If Mr. Annas is going to make this claim, it would be accurate to point out, as we did to Judge Jones, that Discovery opposed Dover's attempt to mandate ID. Indeed, Seth Cooper, a Discovery Institute attorney at the time, met with Dover school board members specifically to urge them not to mandate ID (see Statement by Seth L. Cooper Concerning Discovery Institute and the Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board Intelligent Design Case for details). Rather, Discovery encouraged Dover to follow the same policy has long suggested everywhere else: mandate teaching about scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution, but don't mandate the teaching of alternative theories like intelligent design.

So if Discovery was trying to dissuade Dover from mandating ID, then why would it have encouraged people in Dover to watch the Icons video? The answer is simple for those who have watched the video: Icons of Evolution is not about intelligent design. The Icons video, like the book, is about pure critique of evolution without talking about replacement theories like intelligent design. The video covers topics like Haeckel's embryos and Darwin's Tree of Life, and how they don't support Neo-Darwinism. The documentary fits perfectly with a critical analysis of evolution policy, and says nothing about intelligent design.

Conclusion
Mr. Annas claims that "critical analysis" policies are based upon a "controversy ... largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design." If there's no controversy, then why have over 500 scientists signed a public statement of dissent from Neo-Darwinism? Why does the peer-reviewed literature contain much reason for the critique of Neo-Darwinism--including some criticisms that cut to the core of the theory, such as the ability of mutation and selection to produce the complexity of life! Since Mr. Annas's article was published in a leading medical journal, it seems relevent to ask, "if there’s no controversy then why do 34% - 60% of doctors agree that there was a guiding intelligence behind life?" (Medical doctors are also beginning to sign a new list of doctors dissenting from Darwinism?)

That sounds just like a scientific controversy to me, and it is most unfortunate that readers of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine are not being given the full set of facts regarding the accuracy of the Kitzmiller ruling.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Note: It appears that the lead referenced in the original post below has indeed been corrected. And rightly so.

Yet another AP lead to the news story about South Carolina's adoption of science standards calling for critical analysis of evolution. This one is sure to please everyone.

(Columbia-AP) June 13, 2006 - The Education Oversight Committee Monday approved high school biology standards that require students to learn.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 1:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Associated Press has corrected the lead paragraph of its story on biology standards adopted yesterday in South Carolina. As Casey Luskin reported last night, the AP's original story erroneously stated that the new South Carolina standards do not require the critical analysis of evolution. But as of early this morning, the new AP story clearly states that the South Carolina standards do require critical analysis of evolution:

COLUMBIA, S.C. - The state Education Oversight Committee approved high school biology standards Monday that require students to "critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." (emphasis added)

Kudos to the AP for correcting its earlier inaccurate report.

Posted by John West at 12:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Associated Press has an article essentially stating that South Carolina both did and did not approve standards requiring critical analysis of evolution. The article states:

"The state Education Oversight Committee approved high school biology standards Monday that do not require students to learn to critically analyze the theory of evolution." (Education panel approves wording on biology standards)

but then goes on to state:

"Under the wording approved Monday, students would have to understand how scientists use data to critically analyze the theory." (Education panel approves wording on biology standards)

So which is it? This appears to be contradictory reporting, or slicing the baloney so fine so as to make meaningless statements. What actually happened is that South Carolina ratified the following language:

"Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

That sure sounds like "requir[ing] students to learn to critically analyze the theory of evolution" to me, despite the fact that the AP states otherwise. It also sounds like a victory for students and science education!

Posted by Casey Luskin at 6:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Columbia, SC –- After months of debate, today the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee unanimously ratified high school biology standards requiring students to understand why "scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The South Carolina State Board of Education adopted the standards unanimously last month, and submitted them to the EOC for approval. South Carolina’s new evolution standard does not require teaching the theory of intelligent design.

The biology standard approved requires students to be able to, “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” This falls under the overall biology standard which says that “The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life.”

“This victory is an important milestone towards improving the quality of science education, by ensuring that students learn the full range of relevant scientific evidence, including the scientific criticisms of evolution,” said Casey Luskin an attorney and public policy analyst with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “South Carolina is the fifth current state to require students to learn about scientific criticisms of evolution and this policy helps remedy the problem that most biology textbooks today largely ignore scientific challenges to Darwinism.”

South Carolina State Senator Mike Fair, a member of the Education Oversight Committee, and Terrye Campsen Seckinger, a member of the South Carolina Board of Education, issued a statement applauding the approval of the new high school biology standards: “It is impossible to meet this standard without the discussion of the meaning of critical analysis as it applies to evolutionary science. This is a great improvement over our 2000 standards. Students will now have the opportunity to wholly learn about the theory of evolution. This means that students will have the opportunity to fully discuss all aspects of evolutionary theory instead of limiting discussion to only evidence that might support it.”

Discovery Institute is a non-profit, public policy center that studies issues from transportation to technology to science. In science education, it supports a "teach the controversy" approach to Darwinian evolution and believes that students should have the opportunity to study both the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. At the same time, the Institute opposes any attempt to mandate the teaching of alternative theories such as intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

On Thursday I posted Part I of my online response to Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom (by George C. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine Volume 354 (21):2277-2281 (May 25, 2006)). Today I post Part II of three total parts.

To reiterate, Mr. Annas praises Judge Jones' ruling as follows:

Judge Jones summarized the expert testimony in more than 25 pages, concluding that it demonstrated to him that intelligent design is "an interesting theological argument" but is not science for many reasons: it invokes a supernatural cause; it relies on the same flawed arguments as creationism; its attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community; it has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community; it has not generated any peer-reviewed publications; and it has not been the subject of testing or research.

I previously discussed whether ID requires the supernatural and whether ID uses the "Failed Arguments of Creationism." This section will discuss how ID has been treated by the scientific community, and whether the Kitzmiller ruling used accurate claims and relevant arguments in concluding that ID wasn't science.

[3] ID is refuted by the scientific community?
The evidence upon which Judge Jones relied to claim that ID has been "refuted by the scientific community" is also highly questionable: consider Ken Miller's false definition of irreducible complexity and the straw-man tests he gave that never refuted it. The phrase "refuted by the scientific community" is also condescending because many ID proponents are well-credentialed scientists employed by the same university science departments as Darwinists. To claim that the entire scientific community rejects and has "refuted" ID is to falsely imply that the scientific community includes no ID proponents. Michael Behe has also responded to the scientific claims.

[4] ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community?
The central holding of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), was the rejection of the “Frye Rule” requiring “general acceptance” for admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE):

Nothing in the text of this Rule establishes "general acceptance" as an absolute prerequisite to admissibility. Nor does respondent present any clear indication that Rule 702 or the Rules as a whole were intended to incorporate a "general acceptance" standard. The drafting history makes no mention of Frye, and a rigid "general acceptance" requirement would be at odds with the "liberal thrust" of the Federal Rules and their "general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to 'opinion' testimony. The Rules were designed to depend primarily upon lawyer-adversaries and sensible triers of fact to evaluate conflicts. Given the Rules' permissive backdrop and their inclusion of a specific rule on expert testimony that does not mention "general acceptance," the assertion that the Rules somehow assimilated Frye is unconvincing. Frye made "general acceptance" the exclusive test for admitting expert scientific testimony. That austere standard, absent from, and incompatible with, the Federal Rules of Evidence, should not be applied in federal trials. (Daubert at 588-589, internal citations and quotations omitted for ease of reading)

The Court did note that “general acceptance” can be used as one factor to consider in a determination of whether something is admissible as scientific evidence under the FRE, but it is not the dispositive factor. (Of course the Kitzmiller case was not dealing with questions of admissibility under the FRE, but it is relevant to note that the even the Supreme Court has nonetheless observed, in conjunction with rulings about the FRE, that something can be legitimate science even if it doesn't enjoy widespread acceptance.)

Since when does general acceptance determine if an idea is science? As Stephen Jay Gould co-wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Daubert case, unpublished or minority viewpoints should not be excluded from being science because that would stifle scientific progress:

Judgments based on scientific evidence, whether made in a laboratory or a courtroom, are undermined by a categorical refusal even to consider research or views that contradict someone's notion of the prevailing “consensus” of scientific opinion. . . . Automatically rejecting dissenting views that challenge the conventional wisdom is a dangerous fallacy, for almost every generally accepted view was once deemed eccentric or heretical. Perpetuating the reign of a supposed scientific orthodoxy in this way, whether in a research laboratory or in a courtroom, is profoundly inimical to the search for truth. A categorical refusal even to examine and consider scientific evidence that conflicts with some ill-defined notion of majority opinion is a recipe for error in any forum. . . . The quality of a scientific approach or opinion depends on the strength of its factual premises and on the depth and consistency of its reasoning, not on its appearance in a particular journal or on its popularity among other scientists.

(Brief Amici Curiae of Ronald Bayer, Stephen Jay Gould, Gerald Holton, Peter Infante, Philip Landrigan, Everett Mendelsohn, Robert Morris, Herbert Needleman, Dorothy Nelkin, William Nicholson, Kathleen Joy Propert, and David Rosner, in support of petitioners, Daubert, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (No. 92-102).)

Unless Judge Jones wanted to be a science stopper, he should have not have rejected Gould's argument that dissenting or even unpopular views can most certainly be science, and even be very valuable to science.

[5] ID has not generated any peer-reviewed publications?
Various peer-reviewed articles which support ID were documented to Judge Jones. Yet he claimed that ID has not generated any peer-reviewed publications. This is a simple question that Judge Jones got flat wrong.

[6] ID has not been the subject of testing or research?
The best way to refute this claim is to let Scott Minnich speak for himself. Minnich is a microbiologist who testified as follows on the next-to-last-day of the trial about his own research and experimentation into intelligent design:

Q. Do you know employ principles and concepts from intelligent design in your work?

A. I do.

Q. And I'd like for you to explain that further. I know you're prepared several slides to do that.

[...]

A. Sure. All right. I work on the bacterial flagellum, understanding the function of the bacterial flagellum for example by exposing cells to mutagenic compounds or agents, and then scoring for cells that have attenuated or lost motility. This is our phenotype. The cells can swim or they can't. We mutagenize the cells, if we hit a gene that's involved in function of the flagellum, they can't swim, which is a scorable phenotype that we use. Reverse engineering is then employed to identify all these genes. We couple this with biochemistry to essentially rebuild the structure and understand what the function of each individual part is. Summary, it is the process more akin to design that propelled biology from a mere descriptive science to an experimental science in terms of employing these techniques.

Q. Do you have some examples employing this particular concept of the flagella?

A. I do, in the next slide. Hopefully this will cut to the chase and show you what we're talking about. This is an organism that my students and I work on. This is a petri dish about 15 millimeters size, filled with this soft auger food source for the organism. It's soft in the sense the organisms can swim in it, but it has some rigidity that they just don't slosh around. Now, each one of these areas showing growth were inoculated with a toothpick of cells, the wild type parent here. So this is yersinia enterocolitica, a good pathogen, double bucket disease if you ingest it.

Q. That's the center?

A. Yeah, that's the center, okay? So it can swim. So it was inoculated right here, and over about twelve hours it's radiated out from that point of inoculant. Here is this same derived from that same parental clone, but we have a transposon, a jumping gene inserted into a rod protein, part of the drive shaft for the flagellum. It can't swim. It's stuck, all right? This one is a mutation in the U joint. Same phenotype. So we collect cells that have been mutagenized, we stick them in soft auger, we can screen a couple of thousand very easily with a few undergraduates, you know, in a day and look for whether or not they can swim.

Q. I'm sorry, just so we're clear on the record, the two you're talking about on the bottom left, the first one was the bottom left and the second one was the bottom right?

A. Right.

Q. Where you took away a portion of the flagella?

A. We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they can't swim. Now, to confirm that that's the only part that we've affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene. One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.

(Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-–CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., Nov. 3, 2005))

This testimony from Scott Minnich shows slides documenting his own research experiments which tested intelligent design and found that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Yet Judge Jones had to ignore all of this testimony to claim that "ID has not been the subject of testing or research." Was that finding supported by the evidence?

None of reasons given by Judge Jones for why ID is not science are both true and relevant.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

On June 12, 2006, South Carolina will likely become the fifth state to adopt science standards requiring critical analysis of evolution. Four other states whose science standards require full disclosure of the scientific evidence about evolution include New Mexico, Minnesota, Kansas, and Pennsylvania. Previously Ohio also had standards calling for critical analysis of evolution.

On May 31, 2006, the South Carolina Board of Education unanimously approved science standards which require students to “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” On June 12 the standards will go to South Carolina’s Education Oversight Committee for final approval.

Common Questions:

Q. What is the standard that has been adopted by the South Carolina State Board of Education?
A. The standard requires students to: “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”

Q. Do the standards weaken or water down the teaching of evolution?
A. No. The standards actually increase the coverage of evolution by requiring students to learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution rather than a dogmatic and one-sided pro-Darwin-only curriculum.

Q. What is the importance of allowing for critical analysis?
A. Critical analysis allows students to gain critical thinking skills as they are taught a more accurate understanding of the evidence by learning both the scientific evidence which supports evolution, and also the evidence which challenges evolution.

Q. Do South Carolina’s science standards include intelligent design?
A. No. The standards simply require students to learn about scientific strengths and weaknesses of Neo-Darwinism without calling for any discussion or mention of alternative “replacement concepts” for evolution.

Q. What is the difference between a scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution and the theory of intelligent design?
A. Challenges to Darwinian evolution are not the same as proposed solutions, such as the scientific theory of intelligent design.

Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution include unresolved debates amongst scientists over issues such as the peppered moth, the myth of human gill slits, Haeackel's embryos, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution address problems for which adequate solutions have not been presented.

The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent design theory then is an alternative solution to answer problems with Darwinian evolution.

Q. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who challenge Darwinian evolution on a scientific basis?
A. Yes. Various tenets of Darwinian evolution, and the evidence put forth to support it, has been scientifically challenged by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. Over 500 scientists have signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwin statement since it originated in 2001. These scholars include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

Q. What is the "Scientific Dissent from Darwin" list?
A. Since Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 500 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution. The full 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." Prominent scientists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others. To view the list along with other information about it go to: www.dissentfromdarwin.org.

Q. Does the public support this kind of policy?
A. Yes. Polls consistently show that about 70% of Americans want both evidence for and against Darwin’s theory taught.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:45 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Judge John Jones world tour continues on with no sign of the Judge slowing down. This Knight-Ridder story appeared in Kansas today and one wonders if the Judge can be far behind. By his own count he's done ten speaking gigs just recently, many of them commencement speeches. None in Dover though.

Judge Jones knew full well that the eyes of the world were upon him during the Dover case, and so chose that moment to deliver a "civics lesson."

Jones said he had no agenda regarding intelligent design but, rather, was taking advantage of the worldwide interest in the case to talk about constitutional issues important to him.
"I've found a message that resonates," he said. "It's a bit of a civics lesson, but it's a point that needs to be made: that judges don't act according to bias or political agenda."

Previously the Judge commented that his liberal arts education "provided me with the best ability to handle the rather monumental task of deciding the Dover case."Monumental? Did anyone tell him that legally the case only deals with the middle district of Pennsylvania? What's monumental is the Judge's hubris, which isn't helped by a fawning media.

Earlier this year Jones was named to Time's list of 100 most important people, and most recently the science-fiction proponents at Wired magazine named him one of their Renegades of the Year.

All of this for a Judge who didn't listen to the evidence provided to him (as recounted in detail in "Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision"), revised history, and was an activist judge. He anticipated that he'd be called an activist in his ruling, because he knew full well that he was acting as such when he wrote the decision.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 8:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In a New England Journal of Medicine article entitled "Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom," George J. Annas lavishes the Kitzmiller decision with praise. Ironically, Mr. Annas lauds some statements by Judge Jones which others have viewed as undermining the Judge's credibility.

For instance, Mr. Annas applauds the following proclamation of judicial superiority by Judge Jones:

After a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentation, the court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area [and] . . . in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.

(Judge Jones, quoted in Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom, New England Journal of Medicine, by George J. Annas; emphasis added)

This is one of my favorite quotes from the Kitzmiller ruling--but probably for different reasons than those of Mr. Annas. The definition of "traipse" is "To walk about idly or intrusively." (American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd college ed.) This is exactly what Judge Jones did in the Kitzmiller decision, which is why the book I co-authored on the case is titled Traipsing Into Evolution. Many legal scholars with whom I have spoken have similarly found this statement by Judge Jones to be an incredible overreach for a district court judge.

The reason America has a tiered federal court system is so multiple courts can examine the same issue, just in case one court incorrectly decides some matter of law. Lower courts often arrive at opposite conclusions on complex legal issues, and then a panel of more judges ruling from a higher court must sort them out, and hopefully "get it right." But according to Judge Jones, his Kitzmiller decision should settle the issue of whether ID is science for all courts.

Judge Jones is trying to behave like the U.S. Supreme Court—the highest court in the land—and the only one that is supposed to decide an issue for all other courts. Jones' statement that "a subsequent trial" need not attempt to address these issues—because he apparently figured them all out—strains the overall credibility of his ruling and would not be appreciated by other judges who feel themselves judicially competent to investigate these issues and rule on them.

As will be documented over a series of this, and two upcoming posts, the facts also strain the credibility of the Kitzmiller ruling and many of the questionable claims repeated in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Mr. Annas goes on to praise Judge Jones for his findings that ID isn't science. The problem is that each finding was based upon non-existent facts or irrelevant arguments. Mr. Annas recapitulates the ruling:

Judge Jones summarized the expert testimony in more than 25 pages, concluding that it demonstrated to him that intelligent design is "an interesting theological argument" but is not science for many reasons: it invokes a supernatural cause; it relies on the same flawed arguments as creationism; its attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community; it has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community; it has not generated any peer-reviewed publications; and it has not been the subject of testing or research.

That all sounds fine, but unfortunately each of these statements is either patently untrue or largely irrelevant to a determination of whether ID is science.

[1] ID requires the supernatural?
Judge Jones asserted that ID requires supernatural causation. In doing so, he ignored extensive evidence showing precisely the opposite. ID does not claim science can detect supernatural causes. Instead, it claims that science can detect intelligent causes. Whether the intelligent causes detected by science are inside or outside of nature is beyond the scope of ID as a scientific theory. (See this link for the extensive documentation on this point given to Judge Jones).

Pro-ID biologist Scott Minnich addressed this issue in a statement during the trial which Judge Jones apparently chose to ignore:

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator?

A. I do.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. It does not.

[...]

Q. Does intelligent design require the action of a supernatural creator acting outside the laws of nature?

A. No.

(Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 45-46, 135, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-
–CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., Nov. 3, 2005)

One would think that Judge Jones would permit the proponents of intelligent design to define their own theory. Rather, Judge Jones let evolutionist Ken Miller define ID. Miller misconstrued ID as follows:

intelligent design is somewhat less scientific in terms of the prediction it makes than scientific creationism, but it shares that core belief, and that is that design can be attributed to a supernatural designer or creator. (Transcript of Testimony of Kenneth R. Miller pg. 46, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-–CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., Sept. 26, 2005))

Miller, a critic, doesn't speak for ID. This is especially true when the literature by ID theorists has made it clear that ID is not a supernatural explanation. Why didn't Judge Jones let ID proponents define their own position rather than simply accepting the straw-man definition put forth by the Darwinists?

[2] ID using Failed Arguments of Creationism?
What are these "failed arguments of creationism” that Mr. Annas refers to? What Judge Jones actually said is that ID employs "the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's.” What Judge Jones means is that ID is simply a negative argument against evolution, which supposedly says that evidence against evolution therefore counts in favor of ID. Again, Judge Jones simply adopts Ken Miller's false version of ID, which says it's just a negative argument against evolution:

It is what a philosopher might call the argument from ignorance, which is to say that, because we don't understand something, we assume we never will, and therefore we can invoke a cause outside of nature, a supernatural creator or supernatural designer.

[...]

The only thing that they have left is an untestable assertion, and that assertion is that the living things on this planet are too complex to have been explained by evolution and, therefore, they must be the work of a supernatural designer creator.
(Transcript of Testimony of Kenneth R. Miller pg. 36, 46, Kitzmiller, No. 4:04-–CV-2688 (M.D. Pa., Setp. 26, 2005); emphasis added)

I emphasized the “therefores” to show that Ken Miller misconstrues ID to claim that the inference to design is directly dependent upon a falsification of evolution. As we all know, evidence against one theory does not therefore, in-and-of-itself constitute evidence for another theory. There has to be a positive argument for the scientific explanation in question. ID proponents recognize this fact and they have defined their theory in a completely different way than Ken Miller defines it.

Judge Jones and Ken Miller ignore the fact that ID is based upon a positive argument that is not a mere “refutation of Darwinism, therefore ID.” Consider the positive explanation for design that expert witness Scott Minnich wrote with Stephen Meyer:

“Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system. Given that neither standard neo-Darwinism, nor co-option has adequately accounted for the origin of these machines, or the appearance of design that they manifest, one might now consider the design hypothesis as the best explanation for the origin of irreducibly complex systems in living organisms. That we have encountered systems that tax our own capacities as design engineers, justifiably lead us to question whether these systems are the product of undirected, un-purposed, chance and necessity. Indeed, in any other context we would immediately recognize such systems as the product of very intelligent engineering. Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation [21, 22], given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes. We know that intelligent designers can and do produce irreducibly complex systems. We find such systems within living organisms. (Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, Genetic Analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria)

According to Minnich and Meyer, ID is not "an argument from ignorance", but is rather based upon "what we know about the powers of intelligent [causes].” As Minnich and Meyer write, "In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system." Thus, we have a positive argument for design that is not merely based upon the refutation of evolution, and is not an argument from ignorance. There is no question that Ken Miller is misconstruing the way ID proponents have defined their theory. Unfortunately, Judge Jones bought Ken Miller’s misconstruals of ID.

Again, why didn't Judge Jones let the ID proponents define their own theory?

Posted by Casey Luskin at 6:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Columbia, SC – The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee (EOC) will vote Monday, June 12, on whether to give final approval to science standards for biology that require students to summarize how scientists “investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” The standards were approved unanimously by the South Carolina Board of Education on May 31. Four other states (Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and New Mexico) already have science education standards encouraging critical analysis of evolution.

"Darwin’s theory should be taught as a theory open to scientific scrutiny, not as an orthodoxy that cannot be questioned,” said Casey Luskin, Program Officer for Public Policy & Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute. "South Carolina’s new biology standards, if adopted, will improve science education by encouraging full disclosure of all the relevant scientific evidence, including evidence critical of Darwin’s theory.”

Monday’s vote comes after months of debate over the recommended inclusion of indicators requiring students to critically analyze different parts of evolutionary theory. Recently the state board of education and the EOC came to a compromise to retain the “critical analysis” language in indicator B-5.6: “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”

Earlier this year, two scientists testified in support of strengthening the science standards and allowing students to learn about some of the scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution. Dr. Richard Sternberg, who holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology fields, and Dr. Rebecca Keller, who holds a PhD in biophysical chemistry and is an expert on science curriculum development, both encouraged South Carolina to teach students both the strengths and weaknesses regarding evolution (as did National Academy of Sciences member Dr. Phil Skell.).

Dr. Sternberg told the State Board: “While Darwinian theory should be taught in the science classroom, as rigorously and fully as is appropriate, to present the theory as complete and sufficient for understanding evolution is inaccurate—and thus misleading.” He testified that critical analysis is important in stimulating student’s interest in science, and will increase students’ knowledge and understanding of evolution overall.

Discovery Institute is the nation's leading think tank dealing with scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution. It believes that students should have the opportunity to study both the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. At the same time, the Institute opposes any attempt to mandate the teaching of alternative theories such as intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education.

To schedule an interview with a Discovery Institute representative contact Robert Crowther at 206-292-0401 x107, or e-mail rob@discovery.org.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 1:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the old television series The Incredible Hulk, an accidental overdose of gamma radiation turned brainy, restrained research scientist David Banner into an ultra-powerful, musclebound maniac. Now in a mirror-image scenario mapped out by astronomers Aden and Marjorie Meinel in today's San Diego Union-Tribune, radiation turns the savage into the scientist: they argue that a spike in cosmic radiation well may have contributed to the evolution of modern humans by accelerating the rate of genetic mutations.

In this piece, Iowa State University astrobiologist and Discovery Institute senior fellow Guillermo Gonzalez discusses why such a notion is scientifically untenable.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 6:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Casey Luskin reported last week about Science magazine's Constance Holden dubbing Discovery Institute "creationism's main think tank."

The current issue of the journal Science gave us further proof that the AAAS has no interest in being a neutral or fair participant in the debate over ID and evolution. In what purports to be a news article, Constance Holden wrote:

It’s "a victory as it throws out the problematic ruling [made by] the trial court," says Casey Luskin, a lawyer at The Discovery Institute, creationism’s main think tank in Seattle, Washington.
("Court Revives Georgia Sticker Case," by Constance Holden, Science Vol 312:1292 (June 2, 2006))

By labeling Discovery Institute "creationism’s main think tank," Holden engages in blatant editorializing and abandons her role as reporter for that of mouthpiece for ID's critics.

>>> "Robert Crowther" 6/2/2006 5:50:55 PM >>> Constance,

In your article, TEACHING EVOLUTION: Court Revives Georgia Sticker Case, (Science 312, 2 June 2006) you write: "Both sides seem pleased with the decision. It's "a victory as it throws out the problematic ruling [made by] the trial court," says Casey Luskin, a lawyer at The Discovery Institute, creationism's main think tank in Seattle, Washington."

This is simply false. Discovery Institute is NOT a creationist think tank, and we do not advocate creationism. As you know Discovery Institute is a public policy think-tank that has many different programs, of which the Center for Science & Culture (which deals with the controversy over evolution) is just one of those programs.

I am asking that Science issue a clarification that sets the record straight on this point. If there is someone else there that I need to address this issue to please let me know. This needs to be corrected.

Thank you,

Her response:

Dear Rob,

I have fowarded this to the letters editor. I guess it depends on the
degree to which ID is regarded as a version of Creationism.

Best, Constance

>>> "Robert Crowther" 6/5/2006 12:58:01 PM >>> Constance, There is no "degree" of creationism involved. Discovery Institute simply is NOT a creationist think tank. To claim otherwise to the readers of science is misleading, and to not correct such an error after it's brought to your attention is dishonest.

Regardless of what one might think about either intelligent design or creationism, the fact of the matter is that Discovery Institute is a public policy center that deals with dozens of issues, only one of which has anything to do with this topic.

When we are sometimes referred to by other reporters as a transportation think tank --because of the work of the largest program of the Institute, the Cascadia Center, which deals solely with transportation issues in the pacific northwest-- I make the same request to them to properly identify the Institute.

I would think that as a news publication, Science magazine would want to make sure that all stories are accurate. Identifying Discovery Institute as a creationist think tank is completely inaccurate and I really think that a correction is required.

Robert

Posted by Robert Crowther at 6:34 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dear editor,

In “The Collapse of Reason,” Cathy Young agrees with leading liberal intellectual Todd Gitlin who believes “the academic left is making itself irrelevant by embracing ideological extremism and trying to purge its ranks of those who are not politically correct.” It’s a shame, then, that Young herself characterizes those who see evidence for intelligent design as religiously motivated right wing nuts, and in her own collapse of reason, provides no evidence for her position.

The situation is more complex than she realizes. For instance, the response to question seven of a recent poll by the decidedly non-evangelical Finkelstein Institute found that 32% of Jewish doctors, 78% of Catholic doctors, 54% of Hindu doctors, 43% of Buddhist doctors, and 48% of doctors who characterized themselves as "Spiritual but no organized religion" favored an explanation for human origins that involved intelligent design over the Darwinian model of evolution without intelligent guidance. The poll merely confirms what most people consider obvious, a truth the mandarins of political correctness on the left have assiduously denied—highly educated people across the political and religious spectrum, from the Enlightenment to the present, see strong evidence for intelligent design in the natural world.

Jonathan Witt

Fact-checking information: Here is the link to the Finkelstein poll. Click on Q7 in the left-hand margin: "What are your views on the origin and development of human beings?" The third answer represents the Darwinian view of undirected evolution by natural selection. The other two answers each involve creative input from an intelligent designer. For instance, the second answer, “God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings” represents the position of leading intelligent design proponent and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, author Darwin’s Black Box, a person who is clearly not a neo-Darwinist.

The poll's first question pitted generic evolution against intelligent design and still came up with 34% of doctors rejecting modern evolutionary theory. In question 7, where doctors were allowed to distinguish between undirected evolution (as in the case of neo-Darwinian evolution) and intelligently guided evolution, it becomes clear that a distinct majority of doctors reject neo-Darwinism's story of human origins by mindless evolution.

To join the list of medical doctors skeptical of neo-Darwinism, go here.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 3:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

One of the benefits of real intelligent design is encouragement of reverse engineering to understand how nature works and how to correct problems in nature (disease, for example)--and to provoke new inventions. (Spare us the argument that because you have a trick knee and an appendix you couldn’t have been designed. You should meet my old Taurus; it was designed, too, and it was still a rattletrap.)

Some scientists seem to be making the design connection, as this AP story indicates, but as Bill Dembski “cattily” says, they don’t want to own up to what they are doing. Instead of worrying about a bogus “theological clash” with intelligent design scientists (whose theory definition the AP once again mangles), the folks at Georgia Tech should sit down and talk to them. It seems to be too much to expect wire service reporters to try to understand what ID theorists are really saying (as opposed to what their adversaries assert that they are saying), but that shouldn’t be the case with real scientists, Darwinists or not. At some point they can see whether they get better leads from an evolutionary model or an ID model.

“Every organism is designed to solve a problem,” Dr. Weissburg says. Good, now let’s test that claim in more than one way.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 11:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The current issue of the journal Science gave us further proof that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has no interest in being a neutral or fair participant in the debate over ID and evolution. In what purports to be a news article, Constance Holden wrote:

"It’s 'a victory as it throws out the problematic ruling [made by] the trial court,' says Casey Luskin, a lawyer at The Discovery Institute, creationism’s main think tank in Seattle, Washington."

("Court Revives Georgia Sticker Case," by Constance Holden, Science Vol 312:1292 (June 2, 2006))

By labeling Discovery Institute "creationism’s main think tank," Holden engages in blatant editorializing and abandons her role as reporter for that of mouthpiece for ID's critics.

Despite Holden's editorializing, ID is not creationism because creationism always postulates a supernatural creator, and/or is focused on proving some religious scripture. But intelligent design does neither. As a passage from the early pro-ID textbook Of Pandas and People explains, there is “intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot.… All [ID] implies is that life had an intelligent source.” (Pandas, 2nd ed., pgs. 127, 161). ID does not postulate a supernatural creator, and it is not focused on proving any kind of religious scripture. (See Appendix A to Discovery's Amicus Brief in the Dover Trial for extensive documentation.)

Of course the AAAS, which publishes the journal Science, has repeatedly shown that it is primarily an anti-ID political partisan in the debate over ID. In September, 2002 they issued a press release condemning ID. Are scientific organizations acting like scientists when they issue a citation-less press release against an idea? Then in 2002, Constance Holden again showed the flippant attitude of the AAAS towards ID by finding it newsworthy to approvingly quote Eugenie Scott mocking the name of Discovery’s Center for Science and Culture, saying "There is still a superfluous word in the center's name: 'Science.''" (Design’s Evolving Image by Constance Holden, Science, Vol 297:1991 (Sept. 20, 2002)).

Even the ardent Darwinist philosopher of science Michael Ruse has noted that there is an anti-ID political bias from the AAAS:

“[ID] is opposed, often bitterly, by the scientific establishment. Journals such as Science and Nature would as soon publish an article using or favourable to Intelligent Design as they would an article favourable to phrenology or mesmerism – or, to use an analogy to the claims of the Mormons about Joseph Smith and the tablets of gold, or favourable to the scientific creationists’ claims about the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. Recently, indeed, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the organization that publishes Science) has declared officially that in its opinion Intelligent Design is not so much bad science as no science at all and accordingly has no legitimate place in the science classrooms of the United States.”

(Michael Ruse and William Dembski in General Introduction to Debating Design, pg. 3-4 (Cambridge University Press, 2004))

So Science, often via Constance Holden, has a history of a sarcastic, mocking, anti-scientific attitude when it talks about ID. Why should we take what Contance Holden says about Discovery being “creationism’s main think tank” as anything other than another clear example of Science playing politics? One can call contemporary design arguments "creationism" or "fundamentalism" but none of these labels do anything to address the physical evidence or arguments put forward by design scientists.

(And neither did the Bridgham et al. paper, which Science claimed helped to "solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument.")

Posted by Casey Luskin at 3:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

I think it was George Patton who said, "If everybody's thinking the same thing, then nobody's thinking." And I believe that's the problem with this Darwinian thinking that puts all the eggs in one basket.

No. Jeffrey Schwartz is a noted anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh. Moreover,

In criticizing Darwin, Dr. Schwartz does not dispute his theory that humans, animals and plants evolved from other species. In fact, one of his books, "The Red Ape," argues that orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest evolutionary relatives of human beings.

He does take issue with two key parts of traditional Darwinian thinking, though -- gradualism and adaptation.

The full article about Schwartz's alternative theory is here.

And no, this isn't Jeffrey Schwartz the neuroscientist. That Schwartz is a professor at UCLA and a proponent of intelligent design. And a Buddhist.

I know, it's confusing. The fundamentalist Christian conspiracy to challenge Darwinism (Schwartz) and promote intelligent design (Schwartz) just gets more complicated every day.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 2:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)