Evolution News & Views

Robert Pollack reviews Francis Collins's new book The Language of God in the latest issue of Science. In the process he conveniently makes it appear that virtually Collins' entire case for the existence of God boils down to the moral law in the human heart. But Collins also makes design arguments based on the Big Bang and the fine tuning of the physical constants of nature for life, comparing the design explanation to purely materialistic explanations and building a case that a design inference is the best, the most reasonable option. Pollack mentions these design arguments in only the most vague and glancing terms, giving the impression that Collins offers them not as formal arguments but more on the level of "that's how the universe feels to me."

Think about the definition of ID. The theory of intelligent design holds that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain features of the natural world. Collins, the head of the human genome project and a committed Darwinist, is careful to distance himself from intelligent design in parts of his book, but it's as plain as the emperor's birthday suit that Collins makes intelligent design arguments in chapter three, "The Origins of the Universe." And it doesn't take a genome scientist to figure out why the monolithically anti-ID editors at Science magazine would want to hush up that part of Collins's book.

Collins has been attacked for his design arguments:

Collins is in the pseudo-rationalist branch of liberal Christianity. That's fine, he's welcome to dither about in there…but seriously, it has no credibility and no greater rational foundation than the raving mad branches of fundamentalism. I oppose it. I think the only purpose of this kind of crap is to provide a smiling mask of benign ineffectuality to insanity ...

He has been ignored for these (at least this part of his argument).

We celebrate his willingness to follow the evidence where it leads in physics and cosmology, and hope that his example will lead to a similar openness to the evidence of design in biology.

For a fine review of The Language of God, one that doesn't ignore Collins's design arguments, see Logan Gage's piece in the October issue of The American Spectator.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 8:58 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Tomorrow night in Florida it will be Darwin vs. Design. Three of the leading intelligent design scientists in the country will speak at a conference at University of South Florida Sun Dome in Tampa, Florida, hosted by Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity.

Speakers will include:

• Dr. Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, professor of biology at Lehigh University
  
• Dr. Jonathan Wells, biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
  
• Dr. Ralph Seelke, professor of biology at University of Wisconsin, Superior
  
• Emceed by Dr. Tom Woodward, author of the forthcoming Darwin Strikes Back

If you can’t attend in person, you can listen to the conference online Friday night, September 29th, 7pm EST at www.860wgul.com, thanks to the C.S. Lewis Society.

Each of the scientists has recently been interviewed on the ID The Future podcast. Click on their names to listen to their interviews: Dr. Ralph Seelke, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Michael Behe. Visit the podcast homepage at intelligentdesign.podomatic.com and listen to any of the past podcasts archived there free of charge.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

We have reported about last year's scandalous denial of tenure to Discovery Institute Fellow and noted legal scholar Francis Beckwith. (See here, here, here and here) Now we are glad to report that in a second look at the situation with the appeal process, Baylor President John Lilley has granted Beckwith tenure. World Magazine blog reports the same here. It is welcome news that academic freedom prevailed and Beckwith received what he is due.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

An exciting find was recently reported as scientists discovered what may be the most complete australopithecine fossil specimen ever found. It is reported to be a toddler. Unfortunately, the media is misrepresenting this fossil as if it closely mimics humans. Consider the diagram below which comes from the Seattle Times (“Scientists Find Fossil Child from 3.3 Million Years Ago,” Thursday Sept. 21, 2006, pg. A2):

Does Australopithecus afarensis really look so similar to humans? This diagram is extremely misleading. Consider a diagram from an actual scientific paper which reveals the stark differences between Australopithecus (right) and the earliest members of our genus, Homo (left):

(From http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html covering the Hawks et al. paper)

The media is calling this baby fossil "a mixture of ape-like and human-like features," yet that description obscures the real picture. A recent study in the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution found that Homo and Australopithecus differ dramatically:

We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens [H. erectus and H. ergaster] was significantly and dramatically different from … australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.

(J. Hawks et. al, "Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Evolution," Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17(1):2-22 (2000).)

Noting these many changes, the study called the evolutionary origin of humans, "a real acceleration of evolutionary change from the more slowly changing pace of australopithecine evolution" and noted that this transformation must have included radical changes:

The anatomy of the earliest H. sapiens [H. erectus and H. ergaster] sample indicates significant modifications of the ancestral genome and is not simply an extension of evolutionary trends in an earlier australopithecine lineage throughout the Pliocene. In fact, its combination of features never appears earlier...

These rapid, unique, and genetically significant changes are termed "a genetic revolution" where "no australopithecine species is obviously transitional." One commentator proposed this evidence implies a "big bang theory" of human evolution. Now that “Homo” habilis is best recognized as an australopithecine due to its ape-like skeletal structure (see "The Human Genus," Science, 284:65-71), it is no wonder an article in Nature last year recognized the lack of a clear-cut immediate ancestor for our genus Homo:

H. ergaster marks such a radical departure from previous forms of Homo (such as H. habilis) in its height, reduced sexual dimorphism, long limbs and modern body proportions that it is hard at present to identify its immediate ancestry in east Africa. Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin “without an ancestor, without a clear past”

(Robin Dennell & Wil Roebroeks, "An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa," Nature Vol 438: 1099-1104 (Dec. 22/29, 2005) (internal citations removed) (emphasis added))

This new baby Australopithecine find is surely exciting and will expand our knowledge of the extinct genus of Australopithecine apes (Australopithecus literally means “Southern Ape”). But don’t let misleading diagrams in the media make you think that these apes were clear-cut similar ancestors of our genus Homo.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 6:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (3)

Dr. Francis Collins will, of course, be remembered as the man who mapped the human genome. In his latest book, a best-seller, the medical geneticist tackles some weighty subjects, namely the relationship between faith and science and the issue of evolution as the backdrop to his entire work. Logan Gage has a thoughtful review in the October issue of American Spectator, in which he says Collins "gives an excellent lay treatment of the argument for design in physics and cosmology," but later "gets hung up on a common misperception about ID in biology." Click here to read the entire review.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 8:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Scientific American is carrying a new piece by Michael Shermer on "Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution." Shermer is a libertarian, agnostic Darwinist, so it is curious that he would make this argument. It reminds one of Eugenie Scott's lectures in churches. (Recall that they are both original signatories of Humanist Manifesto III.) But perhaps this is all the more reason to hear Shermer's argument. After all, if ID advocates and their detractors merely speak to their natural constituencies, this controversy-that-does-not-exist will go nowhere. Shermer makes six quick arguments.

First, he argues that "Evolution fits well with good theology." Shermer argues that Christians should not be overly concerned with when God created but merely with the fact that he did so. I'm not a biblical scholar, so I will take a pass on that one, though I heartily recommend C. John Collins's Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? Shermer is probably right that when God created is probably not the most important question for Christians as compared to the question of whether he acted in natural history at all. Phillip Johnson always said as much. But the devil, pardon the phrase, is in the details. Shermer asks, "And what difference does it make how God created life--spoken word or natural forces?" Now I'm no expert on Christian theology. As I understand it, the Christian tradition has always had room for God using natural forces and for direct divine action. But the problem here is not one for theologians; rather it is for logicians. It is all well and good to say "God used evolution," until we get to defining those terms. Serious neo-Darwinists have always claimed that "evolution" happens by random gene mutations natural selection. As should be clear, if God is "using" random mutations, they are not random; and if he is selecting which mutations stay in the gene pool, we have intelligent selection, not natural selection. As one friendly philosopher suggested to me (in jest) yesterday, "It's really simple, you know: God is just directing an undirected process. He does this right after he squares a circle and moves an immovable object."

Second, Shermer says that ID is bad theology because it makes God out to be a watchmaker or "garage tinkerer." Here Shermer follows something Fr. George Coyne said not long ago in a lecture here in D.C. at the AAAS. Coyne claimed that ID belittles God, since he/she is not primarily a designer but a lover. This analogy seems silly to me. One could just as well say that Coyne's quasi-Deism makes God out to be a deadbeat Dad who abandons his creation the moment after birth. This gets us nowhere.

Third and fourth, according to Shermer "Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature," and not only that but "family values," too. Now that is a bold claim. I will leave the doctrine of original sin to the theologians. My guess is they think that humanity was created good and then chose to sin, rather than Shermer's version, which seems to suggest that humanity has always been good and bad. Once again, my problem is with the use of logic. If, as Shermer writes, "As a social primate species, we evolved morality to enhance the survival of both family and community. . . [and] Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures," then morality is a social construction rather than a real fact of the universe. But if the Christian story is true, or even if the mythology of most ancient civilizations were true, then morality is real and not constructed. Religious people everywhere, not merely Christians, would take issue with Shermer here, I believe.

Fifth:

Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts. Much of Christian morality has to do with human relationships, most notably truth telling and marital fidelity, because the violation of these principles causes a severe breakdown in trust, which is the foundation of family and community. Evolution describes how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. Likewise, truth telling is vital for trust in our society, so lying is a sin.

It is starting to seem that evolution can account for anything. One question: How is it that our "selfish genes" which desire nothing more than to procreate also account for marital fidelity? Would not natural selection favor those who copulate and reproduce offspring like rabbits? I suppose one could say that the offspring are more likely to survive if the parents are faithful to each other, etc. But the problem here is that evolution explains too much. It explains both why we aren't faithful and why we are. These are just-so stories.

Sixth, "Evolution explains conservative free-market economics" since, as Adam Smith showed, complexity can arise spontaneously out of competition. As I wrote in a letter to the libertarian publication The New Individualist last year, this is really an example of intelligent design.

Order does emerge in a free market. But why? Because intelligent agents are at work—engaged in buying, selling, trading, and producing products. This was George Gilder’s fundamental insight in Wealth & Poverty. The supply-side revolution was ushered in partly because Gilder and others recognized that man is more than matter. He is mind. And mind is the source of all innovation, and hence mind is the resource that creates wealth where there was none before. Order and complexity can emerge “spontaneously”—from intelligent, creative beings, anyway.

Finally, for those of you in the D.C. area, do not forget to check out Michael Shermer and Jonathan Wells at the CATO Institute October 12. They will be discussing Shermer's new book.

Posted by Logan Gage at 8:12 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Sept. 23-30 is “Banned Books Week,” sponsored by the American Library Association. In commemoration of this annual event, I’d like to submit my nomination for the top banned book of the past year: Of Pandas and People, published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics.

An early pro-intelligent design textbook, Pandas was at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the hapless school district in Dover, Pennsylvania. The Dover school board wanted teachers to tell students that if they desired information about intelligent design they could go to the school library and read Of Pandas and People. What an outlandish idea: A school district actually wanted to encourage students to consult a book for more information!

According to the ACLU, this proposal was tantamount to imposing “theocracy.” While I did not favor the Dover policy, the idea that it was an affront to the First Amendment to make Of Pandas and People available to students on a voluntary basis is simply Orwellian. In fact, it was the ACLU that was offending the First Amendment by engaging in book banning. Unfortunately, ACLU attorneys were able to convince federal judge John E. Jones to go along with their efforts.

Evolutionists used to pride themselves on supporting academic freedom. No more. Now they are out to censor any expression of ideas they don’t like.

They’re not just banning books. They are banning curriculum and even people. Earlier this year, Darwin-only activists bullied the Ohio State Board of Education into repealing a model lesson plan encouraging students to critically analyze key evidences used to support Darwin’s theory. Now Darwinists are trying to unseat members of the Kansas State Board of Education because they also encouraged students to study the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory. If you happen to be a teacher or college professor who is skeptical of Darwin, watch out, because Darwinists are trying to ban you too!

At George Mason University, biology professor Caroline Crocker made the mistake of favorably discussing intelligent design in her cell biology class. She was suspended from teaching the class, and then her contract was not renewed.

At the Mississippi University for Women, chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was removed as head of the division of natural sciences in 2003 after merely presenting scientific criticisms of biological and chemical evolution to a seminar of honors students.

In Minnesota, high school teacher Rodney LeVake was removed from teaching biology after expressing doubts about Darwin’s theory. LeVake, who holds a master’s degree in biology, agreed to teach evolution as required in the district’s curriculum, but said he wanted to “accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory."

In Washington state, high school teacher Roger DeHart was driven out of two school districts by Darwin-only activists incensed that he wanted to inform students of some of the scientific weaknesses with Darwin’s theory. (Part of DeHart’s story is told in the Icons of Evolution DVD.)

But it’s not only books and teachers who Darwinists have targeted for reprisals, it is also students.

In 2005, Ohio State University doctoral candidate Bryan Leonard had his dissertation defense placed on hold after three pro-Darwin professors filed a bogus complaint attacking Leonard’s dissertation research as “unethical human subject experimentation.” Leonard’s dissertation project looked at how student beliefs changed after students were taught scientific evidence for and against modern evolutionary theory. The complaining professors admitted that they had not actually read Leonard's dissertation. But they were sure it must be unethical. Why? According to the professors, there is no valid evidence against evolutionary theory. Thus—by definition—Leonard’s research must be tantamount to child abuse.

Of course, the ultimate goal here is to ban ideas. Darwinists want to prevent anyone from hearing criticisms of Darwin’s theory or learning about alternatives to Darwinism such as intelligent design. Indeed, left-wing writer Chris Mooney has tried to convince journalists that they have a duty to censor expressions by ID proponents in the newsmedia.

For all of their rhetoric about the supposedly “overwhelming evidence” in favor of Darwin’s theory, many evolutionists act as if they are extremely insecure. Open debate seems to terrify them. Perhaps they recognize that the scientific evidence for their position isn’t so overwhelming after all.

It is a measure of Darwinists’ insularity that most don’t seem to understand what a losing strategy they’ve adopted. If they truly believe they can stop intelligent design or criticism of Darwin through censorship, persecution, and book banning, they are living in another universe. Most Americans don’t like to be told there are some ideas too dangerous for them to hear. The more Darwinists try to impose their views through coercion, the more they are going to lose in the court of public opinion.

Posted by John West at 9:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to Wikipedia, a classic example of the "Correlation implies causation" logical fallacy might assert, "Sleeping with one's shoes on is strongly correlated with waking up with a headache. Therefore, sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache." The way to refute this argument is to point out that it is based upon a logical fallacy which proves causation via correlation, and explain how a third explanation better accounts for the observed data than the mere "correlation." As Wikipedia suggests, "A more plausible explanation is that both are caused by a third factor, in this case alcohol intoxication, which thereby gives rise to a correlation." If the person arguing this logical fallacy still is not convinced, one can simply find people who slept with their shoes on and didn't wake up with headaches. This is the same correction I provide to analyze Barbara Forrest’s rhetoric and expose the logical fallacy of her “correlation equals causation” arguments in her Kitzmiller account.

Philosopher Barbara Forrest uses "correlation = causation" arguments prolifically. In her Kitzmiller response she argued that because (1) five years ago, William Dembski apparently used the phrase "Internet stalkers" in reference to Wesley Elsberry and Richard Wein, and (2) Discovery Institute (DI) apparently called Dr. Forrest a "conspiracy theorist" in a response to her book, that when (3) Thomas More Legal Center (TMLC) wrote a brief using the words “stalker” and “conspiracy theorist,” this proved DI helped TMLC write the brief. She therefore asserts a "correlation = causation" argument regarding a motion made by TMLC before the trial to exclude her as an expert witness:

DI and TMLC had apparently overcome their differences long enough to collaborate on the accompanying brief because it contained clear evidence of DI’s input. Although I was not called as a scientific expert, the defense argued that I should be excluded because I had no scientific expertise and because I am, in their words, “little more than a conspiracy theorist and a web-surfing, ‘cyber-stalker’ of the Discovery Institute . . . and its supporters and allies.”

People who overuse "correlation = causation" arguments are sometimes called conspiracy theorists. Dr. Forrest should therefore realize that (1) different groups might independently observe that she overuses "correlation = causation" arguments in conspiracy theorist fashion, and (2) the fact is that Discovery Institute gave absolutely zero input on this brief from TMLC.

This episode illustrates the bankruptcy of Barbara Forrest's "correlation = causation" arguments. Her arguments that the religious affiliations of ID-proponents make ID religious are similarly fallacious and bankrupt. According to Dr. Forrest, if there's a correlation between ID proponents and religion, then religion must be the only thing causing ID. Her arguments have already been logically refuted in earlier parts of this ten-part response-series, showing that religious beliefs of ID-proponents don't matter when assessing whether ID is science (Part II and Part III) and that motives of ID-proponents don't matter (Part IV) when assessing whether ID is science.

When assessing whether a given claim is scientific, all that matters is that an empirically-based scientific methodology of knowing is given to back the claim. Alleging that a claim is religious and unscientific because of (a) the larger philosophical implications of the claim, (b) the religious beliefs of the claimant, (c) the motives of the claimant, or (d) some historical relationship between certain types of religious persons and that claim uses an irrelevant argument. Evolutionists should consider this carefully because intelligent design and evolution are methodologically equivalent: Any argument invoking (a) through (d) to disqualify intelligent design from being science would similarly disqualify evolution from being science, if the facts and the argument were applied fairly.

But if Barbara Forrest still isn't convinced, a clearer way to refute her argument may be to ask, "What religious reason did the atheist Antony Flew have to say, '[i]t now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design'?" The answer is none, because intelligent design is an empirical argument that anyone can take seriously regardless of their religious beliefs. This demonstrates adherence to intelligent design without any correlation to religion, unambiguously refuting her argument. The actual cause for support of intelligent design must therefore be something other than mere religion: the cause is the scientific data of biological complexity.

Sadly, Dr. Forrest's "correlation = causation" arguments were foundational to the plaintiffs’ case in Kitzmiller. Not only did they use her arguments about the religious beliefs of ID-proponents, but in one egregious instance, plaintiffs attacked Scott Minnich during cross-examination because a diagram from a creationist publication had long ago made arguments about the unevolvability of the bacterial flagellum, and also contained a flagellum diagram similar to the one Minnich used in court. Minnich simply replied that he'd never seen the creationist publication, and explained where he got his diagram: "Right, and again this [my diagram] is, this picture is out of a biochemistry textbook, Voet and Voet." Thus, I reported:

Voet and Voet of course is a widely used secular textbook in biochemistry. So, if the plaintiffs’ insinuations have any constitutional meaning then the implication that if a creationist document says something, and then you say the same thing, then what you have said is therefore religious and unconstitutional. Teachers who use Voet and Voet should watch out for the ACLU – you might be next!

These fallacious "correlation = causation" arguments need to be put to rest, so that the teaching of evolution and other science, like Voet and Voet, does not come under threat.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:03 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It used to be that when politicians spoke up against censorship and in support of academic freedom they were applauded. Not anymore, at least in Michigan. Now if you express support for academic freedom and speak out against censorship and dogmatism, you get attacked by rabid Darwinists and their knee-jerk supporters in the mainstream media.

Michigan finds itself the latest ground zero for the debate over evolution and intelligent design thanks in part to a comment from gubernatorial candidate Dick Devos and the state school board’s adoption of new science standards.

First, when legislators modestly proposed that high school biology students should be told that Darwinism may or may not be supported by the evidence, Darwinian activists threw a fit because this didn’t fit their dogmatic “Darwinism only and no questions” approach to science education.

The State Board of Education is about to adopt new science standards. Three state legislators asked the Board to hold off until their next meeting. The three were in a meeting of the House Education Committee and they put a question to the Board as to why some guidelines in state standards which require critical analysis are not applied to evolution. They said the Board was proposing to study evolution dogmatically.

The legislators have merely suggested that the guidelines include language which says the evidence “may or may not” support evolution. Immediately the ACLU and the media jumped all over the legislators with the absurd allegation that they were trying to inject religion into the classroom.

There is nothing religious about acknowledging the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution. The scientific literature is rife with challenges to Darwin’s theory that are based on science, not Sunday school.

The second thing that happened was that Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos made the following comment to an AP reporter in an interview earlier this week:

"I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design—that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory—that that theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less."

"Lots of intelligent people can disagree about the origins of life. In the end, I believe in our system of local control," he said in a news release Wednesday afternoon. "Local school boards should have the opportunity to offer evolution and intelligent design in their curriculums."

Just as it was with the proposal by the legislators, the media tried to turn this into a discussion of religion. The Lansing Journal pontificated that intelligent design is not science but instead “is an attempt to forge the trappings of scientific inquiry around a fundamental structure of beliefs.” This simply isn’t true (see here for just one response to charges like this).

CSC Senior Fellow Stephen Meyer wrote in the Daily Telegraph (UK) earlier this year:

Contrary to media reports, ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins. … ID holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

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

There’s a new player in the United Kingdom in the debate over how best to teach evolution. A new website launched this week, “Truth in Science,” seeks to “promote good science education in the UK.” Because of the different education and policy environment in the UK, versus that of the United States, TiS endorses teaching both the criticisms of evolution and the scientific theory of intelligent design.

We consider that it is time for students to be permitted to adopt a critical approach to Darwinism in science lessons. They should be given fair and accurate presentations of alternative views. … Truth in Science promotes the critical examination of Darwinism in schools, as an important component of science education.

In addition to their educational goals, which are clearly outlined on the website and put into context with the educational policies and guidelines of the UK, the site includes examples of lesson plans, as well as insightful examinations of some alleged proofs of evolution – key Icons of evolution, such as the development of biological resistance, the Peppered Moth, horse evolution, Darwin's finches, the Miller-Urey experiment, and homology in vertebrate limbs.

The directors and advisors to TiS include a number of educators and scientists with credentials from places such as Oxford University, University of Leeds, Bristol University and Cambridge University.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 1:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ken Miller recently presented at the University of Kansas against intelligent design, discussing Kansas evolution education and promoting theology as he promoted his theistic evolutionist viewpoint. Indeed, P.Z. Myers has been attacking Ken Miller for promoting his theistic evolutionist views during the talk. For another critical view of Miller's talk, I'd like to share an e-mail recently sent to me by an ID-friendly attendee who saw Miller's lecture:

E-mail report sent to me by a friendly attendee of Miller's talk:

The thing that bothered me the most about Miller’s presentation was that he repeatedly stated that "In ‘99, the Kansas Board of Education took evolution out of the standards”. He even said at one point that they were planning to “take evolution out of the curriculum”. That is blatantly untrue.

I am very familiar with how the ‘99 fiasco went down. I’ve read portions of the ’99 standards, the standards prior to ‘99, and the new standards. Before ‘99, evolution was only mentioned in approximately two lines of the standards. No one “took evolution out of the standards” in ‘99 because prior to ‘99 it had never been included. That certainly didn’t mean that evolution was not taught in Kansas!!

Both the board and the standards committee recommended a set of standards. The standards committee added all kinds of macroevolutionary statements to the set of standards they recommended, but the board preferred to let the districts handle how those issues would be addressed so they did not include as much evolutionary content in the set of standards that they recommended. But, certainly, no one proposed to “take evolution out of the curriculum”. That is a blatantly false accusation. Obviously, that would be a big deal to Miller if it actually occurred because he is the guy writing the textbooks!

Miller made it sound as though ID is a done deal now that Judge Jones has declared ID creationism. He was very clever in how he presented his case to the college crowd. He worked them just right, with lots of humor and derogatory comments about DI fellows. He poked fun of Johnson, Dembski, Behe, and others ~at length~. This seemed like bragging and gloating, and was most uncollegelial.

He also said that the bacterial flagellum has been determined to have arisen through evolutionary processes. He proclaimed that Behe’s book is outdated because of this fact. This is sheer nonsense, as I’ve read the responses from the DI regarding this bogus claim.

In the last 20 minutes, Miller finally confronted the difficult question. How does one accept Darwinism and hold to a particular religious faith? He gave Dawkins rave reviews and declared his science to be impeccable and his books outstanding.

But.... Miller tells us.... the difference between he and Dawkins is that Dawkins believes the universe is a singularly random and meaningless place which arose without the aid of a designer, and Miller holds the opposing view. That was pretty much it. No explanation whatsoever as to why he believes a designer exists, especially in light of the fact that he does not acknowledge that we can observe design in nature.

So essentially, both Dawkins and Miller see no evidence of design, and their philosophy as to how evolution works is the same, yet Dawkins follows that evidence and declares the world is without a designer and Miller claims to believe there is a designer. Bizarre. So Miller apparently, like most TE’s, holds to his religious beliefs on faith ~alone~. That’s the problems with TE’s - they can give you no reason whatsoever as to why they believe what they do in regard to their religious beliefs other than they take it all on faith.

Keep up the good work...

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Darwinists continue to promote theology (as long as it is pro-Darwin-only):

The book, “The Evolution Dialogues,” was written with the input of both scientists and theologians. Meant specifically for use in Christian adult education programs, it offers a concise description of the natural world, as explained by evolution, and the Christian response, both in Charles Darwin’s time and in contemporary America. It has a glossary of terms from both science and religion, with “bacteria” and “Biblical infallibility” defined on the same page.

(Press release on The Evolution Dialogues, emphasis added)

The AAAS's attempt to tell religious people how to view evolution reminds me of quotes from famous Darwinists about "true religion:"

Of course there are some beliefs still current, labelled as religious and involved in religious emotions, that are flatly incompatible with evolution and are therefore intellectually untenable in spite of their emotional appeal. Nevertheless, I take it now as self-evident, requiring no further special discussion, that evolution and true religion are compatible.

(George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, pg. 5, 1949, 1950 Reprint, Yale University Press, emphasis in original)

And another one by Judge Jones:

The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state. As I hope that you can see, these precepts and beliefs, grounded in my liberal arts education, guide me each day as a federal trial judge.

(Judge John E. Jones III, Dickinson College Commencement Address, May 19-21, 2006) (emphasis added))

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It appears the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Toledo Blade have both joined the ranks of Ohio papers in need of correction, like the Akron Beacon Journal. Both the Plain Dealer and the Blade ran stories misrepresenting intelligent design and Discovery Institute, and neither chose to publish my letters to the editor, which follow.

Dear Editor,

In his September 7 article, Scott Stephens wrote that the Discovery Institute “promotes the teaching of intelligent design.” In fact, as our website clearly states, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Instead, we think students should learn more about evolution, and that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

In contrast, Campaign to Defend the Constitution wants to insure that evolution is taught as an incontrovertible truth, something that students should accept without further thought or consideration. Censorship is a poor way to teach students science, where the controversy over Darwin’s theory is very real and, more important for engaging young minds, very exciting.

Here’s a suggestion for Lawrence Krauss and his friends at Campaign to Defend the Constitution. Since they are fighting so hard to silence critical analysis in the classroom, perhaps they should try a new name: the Campaign to Protect Fragile Ideas by Censoring Challenging Ones.

Anika Smith
Discovery Institute

While the Plain Dealer misrepresented Discovery Institute’s education policy, the Blade misdefined intelligent design in the familiar tradition of straw-man characterizations.

Dear Editor,

In Ignazio Messina’s September 7 article, he writes that “[i]ntelligent design generally holds that the creation of life on Earth was too complex to have occurred by happenstance.” This may be how our opponents misconstrue our arguments, but that doesn’t excuse Messina from doing his homework. As we have clearly stated on our website, 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.

Unfortunately for your readers, while critics of ID were quoted time and again, filling the page with inaccurate mischaracterizations of intelligent design theory and attacking the straw-man argument which slopping reporting helps them perpetuate, Messina didn’t seem to care what supporters of ID might have to say on the subject.

Intelligent design is not creationism, but that isn’t even the issue in Ohio. The Ohio School Board is asking students to critically analyze the evidence they are presented. And for allowing students to learn by engaging them in scientific arguments, Patricia Princehouse calls the Board members “extremists.”

What is perhaps more accurate to label extreme is the group that calls itself the Campaign to Defend the Constitution. Instead standing up for scientific inquiry and students’ freedom to think for themselves, the Campaign is working to silence debate and stifle scientific inquiry. Maybe Patricia Princehouse and her friends should try a new name: the Campaign to Protect Fragile Ideas by Censoring Challenging Ones.

Anika Smith
Discovery Institute

Posted by Anika Smith at 9:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Jay Wexler is one of the most published anti-ID legal scholars, but apparently he would agree with our arguments in Traipsing Into Evolution and in our amicus briefs that Judge Jones should not have extended the judicial arm into areas inappropriate for the judicial branch by finding that ID is not science. While I disagree with much of what Wexler argues, I agree with the emboldened portions listed below in the abstract for Wexler's upcoming lecture at Boston University School of Law:

When Judge John E. Jones, III, a United States District Court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that a Pennsylvania school board's intelligent design (ID) policy violated the First Amendment, supporters of teaching evolution were ecstatic. They had good reason to be. The opinion, which ran to 139 pages in length, was a comprehensive and complete victory for ID opponents. To be sure, the opinion is well-written, painstakingly documented, and mostly right. It is not, however, flawless. The opinion's main problem lies in the conclusion that most evolution supporters were particularly pleased with-namely, the judge's finding that ID is not science. The problem is not that ID is science. Maybe it is science, and maybe it isn't. The question is whether judges should be deciding in their written opinions that ID is or is not science-a question that sounds in philosophy of science-as a matter of law. On this question, the answer is "no," particularly when the overall question posed to the Court is whether teaching ID endorses religion, not whether it is or is not science. The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion. The judge's determination that ID endorses religion should have been sufficient to rule the policy unconstitutional.

(emphasis added)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 11:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Barbara Forrest has posted an article documenting her Kitzmiller experience here. In it, she does a lot of namecalling, saying ID-proponents are "creationists," "legal mincemeat," "jaw-droppingly stupid," “evangelical scholars,” "part of the Religious Right," "mean-spirited," having "contempt for the judicial system," promoting "warmed-over creationism," having "cocksure confidence," using "nastiness," because "they make things up and/or slander their opposition," using "long-discredited pro-ID arguments," reduced to "peddling ID" and "riding the coattails of conservative pundit Ann Coulter," while arguing using "standard creationist canards," which "highlight the bankruptcy of ID and the blustering cowardice of its leaders, who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry." The previous four parts of this ten-part response discussed her arguments about the religious beliefs of ID-proponents (Part II and Part III), motives and "wedge document" (Part IV), and the origins of intelligent design (Part V). This next section discusses a particular portion of her article which puts forth three contradictory theories about why some ID-proponents did not testify during the Kitzmiller trial.

Which of Forrest's Three Contradictory Theories are We Supposed to Believe?
Barbara Forrest offers three contradictory theories (two of which are conspiracy theories) for why some ID proponents did not testify as expert witnesses in Kitzmiller, yet she writes as if they are all true. It’s not my fault that her arguments are confusing; I’m just going to make her respective arguments separately and explain why none of them really make sense. The reader will see that it is impossible for each theory to be true.

Conspiracy Theory #1: They were scared off by my great arguments

Dr. Forrest praises herself writing:

Dembski, Meyer, and Campbell’s exodus is explained by their fear of cross-examination. The public shredding that Irigonegaray had given ID creationists in Kansas one month earlier was still fresh [17]. Moreover, Dembski, Meyer, and Campbell knew what the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses would say in court because they had our reports. DI must have known that our case would be devastating to the defense —and thus to ID— if it was argued before a judge who respected the truth and the Constitution.

[…]

"It probably wasn’t difficult for DI and TMLC to figure out that, armed with my work and that of the other witnesses for the plaintiffs, halfway decent attorneys would make legal mincemeat of them."

So Dr. Forrest accuses Dembski, Meyer and Campbell from not testifying because they were afraid of being proven wrong by attorneys "armed" with her "work." Yet Dembski easily dealt with the claims of the Darwinist Experts in his Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses. If Dembski couldn't handle the arguments in court, then why did he write this rebuttal? I purposefully spent the first five sections of this response dealing with Dr. Forrest's in-court arguments to show that they cite irrelevant evidence to propose rules which, if applied fairly, would threaten the teaching of evolution. Her arguments aren't hard to deal with at all.

Moreover, if Discovery Institute fellows were all scared of the arguments from the plaintiffs, then why did two DI Senior Fellows -- Michael Behe and Scott Minnich -- remain on as expert witnesses for the trial? Dr. Forrest's "DI was scared off by my arguments" theory might make her feel smart, but it is betrayed by the facts. Conspiracy theory #1 is wrong.

But her claim here is even more amazing: She claims that Pedro Irigonegaray gave a "public shredding" of Darwin-skeptics in Kansas, and that ID proponents didn't show up in Kitzmiller--because they feared a "public shredding." Yet in Kansas, the Darwinists did not show up for the Kansas State Board of Education hearings on evolution. She claims at length that the Darwinists didn’t show up because they “boycotted the hearings.” (The only Darwinist who chose to show up was the attorney Pedro Irigonegaray.) Perhaps that's true, but perhaps the reasons some ID-proponents didn't testify in Kitzmiller also had nothing to do with being "afraid" of a "public shredding."

Were I to use Dr. Forrest's style, I would easily argue that the Darwinists were afraid of a “public shredding” in Kansas. But I won’t make that argument about the Darwinists in Kansas because that would be what Dr. Forrest is doing: making false conspiracy theories designed to boost your own ego.

In the end, it's no wonder that Dr. Forrest praises Irigonegaray's methods as “shredding” the ID-proponents: his primary tactic was to interrogate the scientists testifying at the Kansas hearings about their religious beliefs. That's Barbara Forrest's favorite line of argumentation.

Theory #2: They were fired by Thomas More Legal Center
Ironically, Forrest's own words betray her conspiracy theory #1 about why Campbell didn't participate:

Everything was proceeding on schedule until only minutes before the deposition was to begin, when defense attorney Patrick Gillen announced that TMLC would “no longer retain” Campbell as a witness because Campbell had “retained counsel through Discovery Institute” and had “discussed matters [with DI] to which I am not privy.”

But wait—I thought Campbell didn’t testify because he was scared of a “public shredding” by lawyers "armed" with Forrest’s arguments from Creationism’s Trojan Horse (see conspiracy theory #1 above)? But now we learn that Campbell didn’t testify because Thomas More fired him, and it had nothing to do with fear of Forrest.

This theory appears to be true, which is why I haven’t called it a “conspiracy theory.”

So in one breath Dr. Forrest would boast that Campbell withdrew because DI was scared of a "devastating" case that would come from lawyers who read Creationism's Trojan Horse, and in the other breath acknowledges that it was TMLC that fired Campbell. Perhaps, as Pat Gillen stated, Campbell's withdrawal had nothing to do with "fear" but because TMLC was angry that one of their witnesses talked to a group they didn't like (Discovery Institute).

Both theories can't be true, and if Barbara Forrest thinks that Discovery Institute was scared of her arguments, then she hasn't been reading the extensive responses to her on Evolution News (and responses from other ID-proponents).

Conspiracy Theory #3: ID proponents didn’t testify because Kitzmiller was a poor test case
Dr. Forrest writes:

The problem, however, was that DI did not want this case because the Dover board, urged on by TMLC [15], had explicitly crafted its policy to promote “intelligent design.” Having come to view that term as a legal liability after encountering opposition in Ohio, Kansas, and elsewhere, DI tried unsuccessfully to persuade the board to either restate the ID policy in sanitized language or withdraw it [16]. They were scared to death of a case they had not initiated and could not control.

I will give Forrest credit for correctly stating that Discovery did not initiate the policy in this case, as it was started by TMLC. Unfortunately, Judge Jones and the plaintiffs “superb” attorneys disagree with her on this point who stated in closing arguments, “[t]his is the Discovery Institute that advised both William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell before the board voted to change the biology curriculum.” (Day 21 Pm, pg. 28) Judge Jones accepted the plaintiffs’ argument and canonized into legal cannons the false history that Discovery Institute initiated Dover’s policy by writing, "The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC."

Thus commentators on this issue have [wrongly] stated that Discovery Institute helped Dover pass its policy and that Dover “worked with the Discovery Institute to promote the institute’s agenda of intelligent design”:

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)

But of course the Icons of Evolution video is not about ID at all, but simply provides scientific critique of evolution. Former Discovery Institute employee Seth Cooper, mentioned by Judge Jones in the opinion, explained what really happened:

To be clear, prior to the filing of the lawsuit I never advised the members of the Dover Board in a privileged, attorney-client capacity. Further, I never advised members of the Dover Board to mandate the teaching of the theory of intelligent design or to adopt the ID policy at issue in the case. Rather, I strongly urged members of the Dover Board to either drop entirely the issue of alternatives to the teaching of evolution, or to only present scientific arguments both supporting and challenging the contemporary version of Darwin's theory and the chemical evolutionary theories for the origin of the first life. The Dover Board had their own legal counsel in their Solicitor and the public-interest law firm that they later hired. Members of the Dover Board who adopted the ID policy acted completely contrary to my strongest suggestions.

(Statement by Seth L. Cooper Concerning Discovery Institute and the Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board Intelligent Design Case)

But Forrest's statement here shows that the Dover Board did not rely upon the advice of Discovery Institute. Perhaps Judge Jones was wrong and Forrest was right (more on Judge Jones misstatements of facts in the next sections).

But what about the conspiracy theory here? Forrest thinks that Discovery Institute feels that ID is unconstitutional and that it is a "legal liability" so we abandoned the case. But the reasons we recommend not requiring the teaching of ID are distinct from concerns over "legal liability" because they are policy related. This is explained in Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy:

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

Nonetheless, we make it clear that, "Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom."

We don't think ID is unconstitutional, but we do think it should not be required because the political climate makes it dangerous to pro-ID scientists when ID is mandated.

For example, when Scott Minnich testified as an expert witness at trial, he immediately faced harsh attacks at his home university--the University of Idaho. An evolution-only speech-code was imposed by the university president, threatening his academic freedom, and Eugenie Scott was brought in by the science faculty to single out Minnich and make him feel uncomfortable during a public lecture. All this occurred despite the fact that Minnich had never even taught his students about ID. Incidents like this threaten the research and careers of pro-ID scientists and validate our claim that the political climate makes it unsafe for school boards to mandate ID and turn it into a political debate, rather a scientific one.

But what of Dr. Forrest's intimation that Discovery feels ID has legal problems? We submitted an extensive amicus brief arguing that ID is constitutional, and two of DI senior fellows still participated. We don't think ID is unconstitutional.

Dr. Forrest is right that from the beginning, Discovery Institute realized that this case was a bad set of facts for teaching intelligent design: it started with a school board that didn't even understand the theory and railroaded an unwise policy past protesting science teachers while having clear religious, and not scientific motives, for passing their ID policy. These are not the kind of cool-headed school board members who genuinely care about science education that we typically encounter. But this conspiracy theory also fails.

The truth
If Forrest wanted to know what really happened and why some witnesses chose not to testify, all she had to do was ask, or look at Discovery’s plain explanation on our website:

Setting the Record Straight about Discovery Institute's Role in the Dover School District Case:

Mr. Thompson blames Discovery Institute for the non-participation of Discovery Institute Fellows Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and John Angus Campbell as expert witnesses on behalf of the Dover board. However, the non-participation of these scholars was due to Thomas More, which discharged them.

Meyer, Dembski and Campbell were all willing to testify as expert witnesses. They simply requested that they have their own counsel present at their depositions in order to protect their rights. Yet Thomas More would not permit this. Mr. Thompson has been quoted in media accounts as stating that to permit independent counsel to assert the witnesses' rights would create a "conflict of interest"--a claim for which he can offer no legal justification. When the witnesses refused to proceed without legal counsel to protect them, Thomas More cancelled the deposition of Prof. Campbell and effectively fired all three expert witnesses. After dismissing its own witnesses, Thomas More made an 11th-hour offer to Dr. Meyer alone to allow him to have counsel after all. But Meyer declined the offer because the previous actions of Thomas More had undermined his confidence in their legal judgment.

Since Meyer, Dembski, and Campbell were discharged, it has been reported that two other expert witnesses for the school board have withdrawn from the case. These two witnesses are not affiliated with Discovery Institute, and Discovery Institute had nothing to do with any decisions surrounding their withdrawal.

Final Charges of Abandonment
Finally, Dr. Forrest writes that “like Dembski, Meyer, and Campbell, neither DeWolf nor Cooper was anywhere in sight when they had a chance to defend ID in court.” Is this a fair charge? Firstly, as an attorney of record for Discovery Institute, David DeWolf submitted over 80 pages of amicus briefs to Judge Jones; it seems that David DeWolf was indeed quite busy during this case. Secondly, given that Dr. Forrest admits that there was a falling out between Discovery and TMLC, one would not expect a Discovery lawyer to work on the case with TMLC in the courtroom. Thirdly, Seth Cooper was not even working at Discovery Institute during the time of the trial, as he had accepted a new job wherein he would not have been able to attend the trial, even if he had wanted. Even if Discovery was assisting TMLC in the courtroom (which they were not), Cooper would not have been there because he was no longer employed by Discovery Institute at the time the trial started.

Apart from her accurate intimation that TMLC fired John Angus Campbell, Dr. Forrest's theories are bankrupt. They contradict one-another, betray the facts, and make unfair allegations of abandonment against people like Seth Cooper who was not even working at Discovery Institute at the time of the trial. One of her theories claims that DI fellows didn't testify because they were scared of attorneys "armed with my work." Her theories seem like an exercise in ego-boosting rather than anything relating to reality.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:02 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“It’s official, men have higher IQs than women.” Incredibly, that was an actual headline last week. Some others were a bit more objective, but make no mistake: the latest study by white nationalist J. Philippe Rushton (a fellow of the AAAS) will be used (as he perhaps intended) to “prove” male superiority via Darwinism. Today’s story in the Daily Mail trumpeted the “battle of the sexes” and quoted Rushton making the ridiculous claim that men are smarter than women:

He claims the ‘glass ceiling’ phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence, rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity.

According to Rushton, evolution holds the key to explaining the differences he sees between men and women:

It is thought the difference may date back to the Stone Age, with women seeking out men who are more intelligent than them in a bid to pass on the best genes to their children.

"Some people have suggested it evolved because women prefer men who are more intelligent than they are for husbands," said the professor.

Because of Rushton’s blatant and unapologetic chauvinism, many will dismiss him as an outlier, an aberration who misuses the authority of Darwin’s theory in order to support his agenda.

In fact, this is only the most recent example of a long tradition of Darwinists who claim that science supports their sexism, a lineage that goes back to Darwin himself.

For Darwin, it was a mistaken view of genetics which lead him to claim in The Descent of Man that “the characters thus gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring.” It’s an interesting story, but one without any scientific credence. Darwin never understood how genetic traits are inherited. We still don’t understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise.

The lack of data supporting his theory of sexual selection didn’t stop Darwin’s imagination, or his own sexism, from running ahead of the science. The very next sentence declares it outright:

Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman.

Hopefully, the recent misogyny of Darwinists like Rushton will alert women to the past misogyny of Darwin himself. If there were ever a time or a reason for women to reject Darwin, it's now.

Posted by Anika Smith at 3:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today NPR covered an exciting archeological find. It appears to be the oldest writing known in the Americas. Although archeologists do not know the meaning of the symbols on this newly found stone block in Mexico, they are certain it is designed and not the product of, say, wind and erosion. How do they know this?

"When I saw the block, as did the rest of us, we knew we were in the presence of something very special…. It had completely unknown signs, but they were arranged in these long sequences we felt just had to be a new form of writing…. It's not just a set of symbols that might be placed together the way you might see on, let's say, a medieval French or English painting," Houston [an archaeologist from Brown University] says. "Rather, they are arranged in a sequence that is meant to reflect a language with grammatical elements and with a word order that makes sense."

So not only is it obvious to common sense that these glyphs are designed, but it is actually objective, empirically detectable factors like gramatical structure which cry out for a design inference—even if we do not know who, why, or exactly when the glyphs were made.

Once again, these sorts of examples serve to show that detection of design is an empirical matter, and all the hand waving about “who designed the designer?” and “science can’t study the supernatural” do nothing to dismiss this point.

Posted by Logan Gage at 9:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I just returned from hearing Chris Mooney speak at The Elliott Bay Book Company in downtown Seattle (which is a very cool place!). As discussed in this press release, tomorrow I will be posting live my complete response to Mr. Mooney's chapter in The Republican War on Science against intelligent design. I'd like to give a brief account of the talk and commentary on my exchange with Chris Mooney.

I was impressed by Chris Mooney. He's clearly intelligent, articulate, and has spent a lot of time immersed in the issues he writes about. As will be documented tomorrow, his attacks against intelligent design unfortunately are based upon a straw-man version of the theory. Much of Mr. Mooney's talk was about preventing misinformation: I wish he would consider whether he needs to amend his chapter in order to prevent doing that himself (see below).

After the talk, I felt that it would be kindest if I introduced myself to Mr. Mooney. I was cordial, and so was he. While I was dialoguing with another attendee, he soon sharply attacked me for a question I asked in the press release:

Why do so many people eagerly listen to a journalist with neither scientific nor legal training discuss a complex scientific and legal issue like intelligent design?

Chris Mooney asked me if a person has to have a degree in a subject in order to write a book about it. After thinking about it more, I firmly convinced the answer is no. If Chris Mooney so desires, he can write a book about whatever he wants. I even praised him in our personal dialogue, saying that he clearly is an intelligent person and I was extremely impressed with the broad range of issues and topics he writes about. I also conceded that he probably knows much more about some of these subjects than I do. (Yet as I will document in my response, his characterization of intelligent design is completely flawed.)

But this isn't about an attack upon Chris, and the question I asked in the press release was not aimed at Chris. It was aimed at those who listen to him. The interesting point has nothing to do with Chris Mooney. The interesting point has to do with the scientific community, academia, the intelligentsia, and many in the media who have overwhelmingly embraced him and his words about intelligent design.

Chris Mooney has every right to write a book and talk about whatever he wants. That's what journalists do, and that's not an interesting point. The interesting point is how many academics and well-credentialed members of the intelligentsia crave his words about intelligent design, despite the fact that he has no formal credentials in neither science nor law. As a sneak preview of what is in my rebuttal to Chris, I answer that question posed above with another question:

Is it perhaps because Mr. Mooney tells ID-critics in academia exactly what they want to hear, even if it isn’t true?

[Later note: this entire section about people listening to Mooney was removed in version 1.5 of my response]

If Mr. Mooney wants to critique ID, that is fine and he has every right to do so. But he should critique the actual theory of ID, and not promote the false, straw-man version described in his book. Mr. Mooney is urged to either retract or rewrite his chapter on intelligent design so it does not promote a false, straw-man mischaracterization of intelligent design which is only put forward in argument by critics, but never the scientific proponents of ID. Fairness would also suggest he should recognize that the real travesty in the intelligent design debate is the attack upon the academic freedom of pro-intelligent design scientists and scholars.

In closing, Chris: you're a smart, articulate guy who knows a lot of stuff and you can write about whatever you want, and I'm sure you believe everything you say--all that should be obvious enough. But this isn't about you, for it is the adoration which academia and the intelligentsia heap upon you that intrigues me the most.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Two of the leading skeptics of Darwin's theory of evolution will be appearing at a major event in Florida on September 29.

Jonathan Wells, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, explains who is fighting whom, the root of the conflict, and the evidence for and against Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, shows how intricate machines inside living cells have presented a challenge to Darwinian evolution. Both are Discovery Institute senior fellows.

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity invite you to hear Behe and Wells discuss "Darwin or Design?" at the USF Sun Dome, Friday night, September 29th, at 7 PM. After the presentations there will be a Q&A session with priority given to professors and students.

High school and college students and teachers are free; all others are just $5. Each student will receive a free copy of the DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

Tickets may be purchased now at the Sun Dome box office from Monday through Friday, 9AM – 6 PM, or by calling (727) 736-4662.

For more information visit the PSSI website here.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 1:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Every American should be troubled by this statement by a federal judge:

I think that some of the cross-examination was absolutely fabulous," said Jones. "It will endure, and I think it will be excerpted for advocacy classes. ... I would say, in particular, Eric Rothschild's cross-examination of Professor [Michael] Behe -- the intelligent design proponent -- that might be as good a cross-examination of an expert witness as I have ever seen. It was textbook. (quoted in Pennsylvania Lawyer, July/August, 2006)

This statement was made, of course, by Judge John Jones who presided over Dover v. Kitzmiller. And if Rothschild's cross-examination was indeed "textbook," then legal textbooks must be as filled with moral error as most high school biology textbooks are with errors of fact.

I was there. The cross examination was pure sophistry. Rothschild did nothing more than twist Behe's words. He then proceeded to do a theatrical literature dump on Behe--piling up the papers and books before the professor--and act as though because many scientific papers had the words "evolution" and "immune system" in the title then evolution by natural selection must have built the immune system. This was not an argument refuting Behe's work. This was a stunt. As one thoughtful ENV reader noted, this stunt reminds him of the scene in Miracle on 34th Street where the judge rules that Kris Kringle really is Santa Claus after piles and piles of letters are brought into the courtroom. After all, the letters addressed to Santa were delivered to Kris. So even the federal government (USPS) accepts that Kris is Santa!

To this stunt Behe responded appropriately:

Eric Rothschild, a lawy