MSNBC’s Birthday Present to Charles Darwin: Puff-Pieces on Evolution (Part 1)
Casey Luskin
With Darwin’s 200th birthday recently upon us, the media is pushing Darwinism harder than ever. MSNBC, in particular, has recently posted three puff-pieces about the evidence for evolution. My purpose here is not to exhaustively rebut everything these articles say, but to show that for a lot of the evidence they cite in favor of evolution, there’s another side to the story that isn’t being represented. It’s too bad the media is only telling the public one-side of the story.
Fluffy Evidence for the Dino To Bird Transition
The first piece, titled “9 links in the dinosaur-to-bird transition is intended to bolster the theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. The MSNBC piece cites as its primary piece of evidence the fossil Archaeopteryx, about which it says: “Archaeopteryx's feathers and birdlike wishbone – along with reptilian features such as a long bony tail, claws and teeth – are seen as strong evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.” While there is no doubt that Archaeopteryx represents a bird species with a mosaic of some reptilian and many avian traits, these observations are not support for a transition unless the fossil fits a larger, coherent picture of evolution.
200 Years After Darwin -- What Didn't Darwin Know?
Robert Crowther
This was the Darwin Day video podcast from ID The Future yesterday, but I thought it would be good to highlight it for regular ENV visitors as well.
This special video episode of ID the Future celebrates Darwin Day with a look back at the man and his theory by three scientists and scholars who join in the scientific dissent from evolution.
Biologist Jonathan Wells, author and M.D. Geoffrey Simmons, and molecular biologist Douglas Axe shed light on the problems with Darwin's theory as they share what led each of them to their skepticism.
Jonathan Wells first became skeptical of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, but it was in his studies in embryology that he became skeptical of common ancestry. Dr. Wells takes a historical look at the impact of Darwin's theory and discusses how unnecessary it is for modern science.
Geoffrey Simmons, M.D., explains how he became a Darwin skeptic after looking at the evidence and finding the evidence for evolution lacking.
And Molecular biologist Douglas Axe from Biologic Institute explains the problems genetic mutations pose for Darwin's theory.
Listen in to their stories and appreciate again the scientific evidence against Darwin's theory.
Academic Freedom Day Video and Essay Contest Winners
Robert Crowther
We're happy to announce the winners of the 2009 Academic Freedom Day Video and Essay Contest. We had lots of great entries, but the judges have narrowed it down and finally selected a Grand Prize overall winner ($500 award), and a 1st place winner ($250 award) in each category.
Grand Prize Overall Winner: Joshua Owens, Forth Worth, TX (read the essay here).
1st Place Essay Winner: Jaron Daniel Schoone, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (read the essay here).
1st Place Video Winner: David Daudelin, Hackettstown, NJ (watch the video here).
Essay honorable mention: Sarah Horton, Grove City, PA (read the essay here).
Video honorable mention: Brian Miller, Amy Ingermanson, Michael Curtain and Aubrey Burd, Battleground, WA (watch the video here).
The number of fawning pieces about Charles Darwin of late have been overwhelming, to say the least. Likewise the celebrations at biology departments across the country are in full swing today with cake eating contests, Darwin carols, game shows, honorary operas, and even the minting of new money with his likeness in the UK.
But there are some over takes on Darwin and his legacy, including a number of articles we're happy to highlight for your Darwin Day reading pleasure.
Dr. Steven Novella recently took issue with an essay I wrote for Forbes.com. Forbes has a fair survey of differing opinions on Darwin’s theory, which, of course, has angered Darwinists, who realize that the continued viability of Darwin’s theory depends on its insulation from criticism. They censor criticism of Darwinism in schools, and they aren’t happy to see the weaknesses of Darwinism discussed in the public forum, along with its strengths.
In my essay, I reviewed some of the scientific problems with Darwin’s theory, and I pointed out that Darwinism is itself a religious ideology. Darwin’s theory is the creation myth of atheism.
QUESTION: Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
Strongly agree 54%
Somewhat agree 26% Total Agree 80%
Somewhat disagree 6%
Strongly disagree 11% Total Disagree 16%
Not sure 4%
A large majority of respondents (80%) agree that teachers and students should have academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory, with more than half (54%) saying they strongly agree. Only 16% disagree.
Although the media consistently portray support for the freedom to discuss both sides of the evolution debate as coming primarily from conservative Christians, these poll results show something far different and will shatter some preconceptions about who supports letting students hear a balanced presentation on Darwinian evolution. It turns out that:
Darwin Day Poll Elicits Response From Richard Dawkins
Anika Smith
This morning the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog picked up the news about the national Darwin Day poll making waves for teaching evolution, even paying us a nice compliment or two while re-imagining history (for the record, DI's ed policy has always been to teach the controversy). But the really interesting thing is that they wanted an "expert" opinion on the poll (besides the professionals at Zogby) and so they turned to — who else? — Richard Dawkins:
Forbes.com Balances Darwin and Evolution Coverage With Wide Range of Thinkers on Both Sides
Robert Crowther
Over at Forbes.com they've just posted over 20 articles related to Darwin and evolution in advance of next week's hoopla around the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Kudos to editor Hana Alberts for compiling such compelling reading. As she notes in her introduction to the special report:
More questions than we'd like were raised long ago, and remain unanswered. Two of the biggest: If humans are no different than animals, what is the status of free will, of morality borne from the brain, not the body? Can and should we apply ideas about the "survival of the fittest" to economics, to population control, to law, to love?
These gripping uncertainties spring from our common desire to eliminate uncertainty, or the unknowns of the surrounding universe, by subjecting them to knowledge, scrutiny and documentation. And as a result, we gamely hope that we'll stumble into some unequivocal truths about our place in the world, and why we are where we are.
To their credit, Forbes solicited articles from a variety of viewpoints, and the authors include CSC Fellows John West and Jonathan Wells, as well as Darwin skeptics like Michael Egnor and Michael Flannery, along with Darwinists like Michael Ruse, Larry Arnhart, Lionel Tiger and more. Here are a few highlights.
Discovery Institute Honors Charles Darwin With Academic Freedom Day
Robert Crowther
Discovery Institute today announced the launch of Academic Freedom Day in honor of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday on February 12, 2009.
"We’re celebrating Charles Darwin’s birthday by supporting what he supported: academic freedom,” said Robert Crowther, Director of Communications at Discovery Institute. “Like Darwin, we recognize the importance of having an open and honest debate between evolution and intelligent design.”
In his revolutionary On the Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” This quote is the cornerstone of the Institute’s Academic Freedom Day efforts.
The Institute’s Center for Science and Culture is sponsoring Academic Freedom Day, assisting student groups, clubs, and individual students to organize Academic Freedom Day Events centered on Darwin’s birthday and his fair-minded approach to freedom of inquiry.
These events will give students and youth workers a way to express their support for free speech and the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution. In preparation for Academic Freedom Day, the CSC has launched academicfreedomday.com, a website where students and others will be equipped to support academic freedom and fight censorship in tangible ways, like signing the academic freedom petition on evolution, wearing Academic Freedom Day t-shirts, entering the academic freedom on evolution video and essay contest, screening movies like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein and Icons of Evolution, and starting Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) clubs.
“With the release of Expelled last year, we found that many young people want to know what they can do to stand up for academic freedom,” Crowther explained. “Now we’re equipping them to make a difference in science education across the country.”
For more information on Academic Freedom Day, visit www.academicfreedomday.com.
Darwin Defenders Get Ben Stein Expelled from University of Vermont’s Commencement Address
Casey Luskin
The Chronicle of Higher Educationreports that Ben Stein “has withdrawn from an engagement to speak at the University of Vermont’s spring commencement after his invitation drew complaints about his views on biological evolution.” The article reports: “According to the Burlington Free Press, the vast majority of protesters were not affiliated with the University of Vermont; only ‘about a half dozen’ objections came from the campus.” So why did protests about Stein start pouring in from outside the University of Vermont (UVM)? The answer seems clear: Stein’s invitation to speak at UVM was first raised to the Darwinist community in a post by PZ Myers titled, “University of Vermont makes an embarrassing decision.” Given the large following of PZ’s blog, this undoubtedly resulted in readers who were “not affiliated with the University of Vermont” sending e-mails protesting Stein’s involvement.
The Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) voted unanimously to adopt rules today implementing the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), the landmark academic freedom bill passed last summer.
The rules approved by the BESE effectuate the academic freedom bill’s purpose to allow teachers to use supplementary materials to teach controversial scientific theories without threat of recrimination.
A subcommittee of the Board removed a provision prohibiting intelligent design before passing the rules unanimously. The legally redundant provision would have gone beyond the intent of the legislation and was dropped after the subcommittee heard testimony from supporters and opponents of the language.
In adopting these rules, the BESE reiterated its support for academic freedom for teachers to teach controversial scientific theories.
According to Discovery Institute education policy analyst Casey Luskin, “This is another victory for Louisiana students and teachers to have a climate of academic freedom to learn about scientific controversies over evolution and other topics in the curriculum.”
Several Louisiana scientists testified in favor of academic freedom of evolution-education, including biologist Wade Warren, biochemist Brenda Peirson, and chemistry professor Joshua Williams.
Louisiana biology teacher Patsy Peebles testified in favor of the language prohibiting intelligent design. When she falsely claimed that ID had been banned by the U.S. Supreme Court, attorney John Wells corrected her, reminding the BESE that the Supreme Court has not ruled on intelligent design.
Stay tuned to Evolution News & Views for more as the story develops.
We are teaming up with the IDEA Center (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness) to help students in starting IDEA chapters on their campuses. Such campus clubs are a fun and educational way for students to examine all sides of the debate over evolution.
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Clubs are student-initiated clubs that foster academic freedom as students learn about scientific evidence that supports intelligent design and also learn about modern evolutionary theory. IDEA Clubs are a growing network of student-led clubs on university and high school campuses around the United States with thirty new chapters formed to date.
Encouraging Students to Speak Out About Academic Freedom, Evolution and Intelligent Design
Robert Crowther
On Charles Darwin's 200th birthday (February 12, 2009), students everywhere can speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech by defending the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution. Let's turn Darwin Day into Academic Freedom Day.
As regular ENV readers are aware, we just launched the grassroots Academic Freedom Day campaign. Our goal is to transform the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth on Feb. 12, 2009 from an uncritical celebration venerating Darwin to a day that highlights the need for academic freedom to debate the evidence for and against Darwinism. As a follow-up to the release of Expelled this year, we want to continue to raise awareness of efforts by Darwinists to stifle scientific inquiry at all levels, and we want people to sign the Academic Freedom Petition. The centerpiece of our campaign is the website www.academicfreedomday.com.
Announcing the Academic Freedom Video & Essay Contest Darwin once wrote,
A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.
That famous quote will be the touchstone for students to communicate their support for academic freedom to explore the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. The video and essay contest is open to high school and college students and will be judged based on creativity, accuracy, and persuasiveness. One grand-prize winner will be announced and have his or her entry officially unveiled at academicfreedomday.com on Academic Freedom Day, Feb. 12th 2008. For details on entering the contest, go to: www.academicfreedomday.com/actUp.php.
We need your help in promoting the contest to ensure that as many students as possible hear about it and are able to participate.
Here are five things that you can do to help us promote the Academic Freedom Day Video & Essay Contest:
The Catechism Versus the Data: A Reply to John Timmer about Explore Evolution (part 1)
Paul Nelson
This is the first in a series of blog entries replying to John Timmer's online critique of the supplementary biology textbook Explore Evolution, posted by Paul Nelson on behalf of the book's production team.
1. Introduction: Sending Him the Book Didn’t Help
On September 24, 2008, biologist and science writer John Timmer published an online review of the supplementary biology textbook Explore Evolution (EE). Timmer had previously written about EEwithout having read it, so Discovery Institute sent him a copy.
Prominent Atheist Professor of Law and Philosophy Thomas Nagel Calls Intelligent Design Scientific and Constitutional to "Mention" in Science Classes
Edward Sisson
Prof. Thomas Nagel, a self-declared atheist who earned his PhD. in philosophy at Harvard 45 years ago, who has been a professor at U.C. Berkeley, Princeton, and the last 28 years at New York University, and who has published ten books and more than 60 articles, has published an important essay, "Public Education and Intelligent Design," in the Wiley InterScience Journal Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 36, issue 2, on-line at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118493933/home (fee for access US $29.95).
Prof. Nagel's paper is a significant and substantial opening, at America's highest intellectual level, that encourages all intelligent, educated, informed individuals — particularly those whose interest in this issue derives from intellectual curiosity, not the emotional advocacy excitement for any side — that it is legitimate as a matter of data, science, and logic, divorced from all religious texts and doctrines, to consider that intelligent design may be a valid scientific approach to understanding how DNA and the complex chemical systems of life came to attain their present form. Prof. Nagel's article is well worth the price to put it in the library of any inquiring mind.
Hypocrisy on Display at The Des Moines Register: Academic Freedom Protects Bullying Students about Religion, But Not Presenting Evidence for Intelligent Design
John West
Academic freedom doesn't protect a professor's right to talk about the scientific evidence favoring intelligent design. But it does protect a professor's right to belittle his students' fundamentalist religious beliefs. That's the hypocritical view being championed by Des Moines Register columnist Rekha Basu. Unfortunately, her mindset reflects the views of a lot of pro-Darwin apologists in the media.
When astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was being harassed and discriminated against at Iowa State University (ISU) because of his support for intelligent design, Basu actually cheered on the inquisitors. When atheist religion professor Hector Avalos spearheaded a campus petition against intelligent design in 2005, for example, Basu wrote that “it would be would be a serious breach of academic integrity” for universities to hire intelligent design proponents. Basu even demanded that ISU impose a gag order to prevent any professor from defending intelligent design as science in ISU classrooms:
ACLU Says Louisiana Science Education Bill on Evolution and Other Issues Is Fine As Written
John West
After all of the harrumphing by Darwinists that the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) promotes “creationism” and is therefore unconstitutional, the director of the Louisiana ACLU has now conceded that the bill is actually fine as written according to a Louisiana TV station:
ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman said that if the Act is utilized as written, it should be fine....
Of course, Ms. Esman goes on to fret that some people might misuse the bill, and in that case the ACLU might sue. Well, I have news for Ms. Esman: Any law can be disregarded, and so yes, if a teacher wants to willfully ignore what the Louisiana Science Education Act says and try to endorse religion, the teacher no doubt can do so (until the ACLU comes knocking at the door). But in such a case the teacher would be violating the law itself as well as the Constitution, because the LSEA explicitly states that it “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination against religion or non-religion.” Incredibly, Ms. Esman suggests that this wording doesn’t mean what it says, insisting that “It does not say it prohibits the introduction of religion, and there’s a difference.” Actually, the language is even broader than that, prohibiting anything that might be used to promote a religious doctrine or religious discrimination.
In any case, the bottom line is that even the ACLU has had to acknowledge that the LSEA as written is constitutional. I guess the sky isn't falling, after all.
Louisiana One Step Closer to Instituting Evolution Academic Freedom Act
Robert Crowther
In Louisiana, a state legislative committee unanimously has passed to the full state house a bill that will protect the rights of teachers to present scientific evidence both for and against modern evolutionary theory. A slew of local scientists were on hand to support the bill, along with educators and students. It's not hard to understand why when you know what the bill actually says:
"teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught."
The next step is for the House side of the legislature to vote on the bill, which has already passed the Senate with a 35-0 vote, and that could happen as early as next week. Because of a new amendment allowing for the state board of education to have final say on supplemental texts used the bill will still have to go back to the Senate for final ratification.
After the clock ran out in Florida and Alabama, it seems that Louisiana might actually take a big step forward and send an evolution academic freedom act to the governor. Bills are still alive and under consideration in Michigan and South Carolina, as well.
Letter Sets Wall Street Journal Straight on Teaching Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinian Evolution
Robert Crowther
HIgh school biology teacher Doug Cowan has a letter in today's Wall Street Journal responding to a recent article which misreprsented his comments on the debate over how to teach evolution.
Science Looks at All the Evidence
May 17, 2008
Your article "Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools" (Currents, May 2) claims that I would "like a legal guarantee [so I] can teach as I see fit." Actually, I believe in teaching the prescribed curriculum, and I do so. But I don't think a teacher should be penalized for exploring required topics in greater depth, especially in cases where scientists have different views. One should have the freedom to pursue and teach all the evidence even if it leads to disturbing conclusions.
I teach students the evidence both for and against Darwin's theory, with the goal of fostering critical thinking, allowing them to arrive at informed conclusions. The core of evidence I teach that supports evolution is derived from fossil succession, anatomical and molecular homologies, natural selection-mutation, embryology, artificial selection and real-time observations from microbes and sickle-cell disease.
Evolution Academic Freedom Bill Submitted in South Carolina is Sixth this Year
Casey Luskin
South Carolina Senator Mike Fair has submitted an Academic Freedom Bill into the South Carolina State Legislature. This is now the sixth academic freedom bill submitted this legislative session, as other bills have been submitted in Florida, Missouri, Michigan, Alabama, and Louisiana. The text of Senator Fair’s bill would require that, “The State Board of Education, superintendents of public school districts, and public school administrators may not prohibit a teacher in a public school of this State from helping his students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and weaknesses of biological and chemical evolution in an objective manner.”
Meanwhile, like other commentators, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) cannot admit that South Carolina's state science standards require critical analysis of evolution. The NCSE recently reported that Senator Fair lost his push in 2006 to include an indicator requiring critical analysis of evolution into the South Carolina State Science Standards. But in fact he didn’t lose, for the South Carolina Science Standards now state, students will learn to “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” What part of “critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory” does the NCSE thinks doesn’t mean “critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory”?
As Senator Fair stated regarding his present bill, “The very nature of science is to ask questions and to go where the evidence leads.” If the evidence is on the side of evolution, then the NCSE has nothing to fear from this bill.
Criticism of evolution not safe for discussion in Florida schools
Robert Crowther
The Florida state legislature's inability to push through an academic freedom bill highlights the difficulty of passing any legislation, expecially one that has strong opposition. Any legislation dealing with the teaching of evolution is bound to face an uphill battle as Darwinists are effective at organizing groups and people to pressure the legislators. Where does that leave the teachers in Florida?
Evolution Academic Freedom Bills Spread to More States: National Movement Grows
Robert Crowther
Five states are currently considering adoption of academic freedom legislation designed to protect teachers who teach both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Introduction of similar legislation is being considered by legislators in several other states, indicating the national scope of this movement.
“Often in this debate the issues at hand get misrepresented, and so our goal is to fully and straightforwardly explain that this is about science and helping prepare the best scientists of the future for our state and for our country,” said Rep. John Moolenaar, sponsor of academic freedom legislation in Michigan. "And a big part of that is enabling them to have the academic freedom to explore and critically examine scientific theories.”
Many of the bills have been adapted from sample legislation developed by Discovery Institute, including a model statute posted online at www.academicfreedompetition.com.
Michigan Becomes Fifth State to Introduce Evolution Academic Freedom Bill
Anika Smith
An Evolution Academic Freedom Bill (HB 6027) was introduced today in Michigan by Rep. John Moolenaar. The bill is similar to academic freedom legislation introduce in several other states earlier this year and, if enacted, will provide public school teachers with academic freedom to present both the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.
“Often in this debate the issues at hand get misrepresented, and so our goal is to fully and straightforwardly explain that this is about science and helping prepare the best scientists of the future for our state and for our country,” said Rep. Moolenaar. “And a big part of that is enabling them to have the academic freedom to explore and critically examine scientific theories.”
Discovery Institute has long supported academic freedom for teachers and scientists to explore and explain the strengths and weaknesses of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“In many states public school teachers, students, and even college professors have faced intimidation and retaliation when they attempt to discuss scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution,” said biologist Jonathan Wells, a research scientist at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture who holds a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley. “In educational institutions that receive taxpayer support, it is entirely appropriate for the government to ensure that teachers and students have the right to discuss freely the evidence and scientific arguments for and against evolutionary theory.”
Opponents of Academic Freedom on Teaching Evolution Using Outlandish Rhetoric
Casey Luskin
A modified version of the Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill moved out of the Louisiana Senate Education Committee on Thursday, following testimony from both proponents and opponents of the bill. I recently predicted that, "For the Darwinists who oppose the bill, this battle is about falsely appealing to people's emotions and fears in order to suppress the teaching of scientific information that challenges evolution." If you don't believe me, consider the latest testimony from Darwinists encouraging legislators to oppose the bill yesterday before the Louisiana Senate Education Committee:
World Mag's Olasky Says Expelled is "Seriously Funny"
Robert Crowther
Marvin Olasky has a great review of Expelled in the new issue of World magazine.
Ben Stein takes on the debate-phobic Darwinian establishment"The shot heard round the world" that started the American Revolution came on April 19, 1775. On April 18 this year, a seriously funny documentary is scheduled to hit 1,000 theaters across America and fire a shot that will go unheard if debate-phobic Darwinists get their way.
The 100-minute documentary, Expelled, is perfect for adults and children of middle-school age or above: It should be rated R not for sex or violence but for being reasonable, radical, risible, and right. (It is rated PG for thematic material, some disturbing images, and brief smoking.) The expelling of Intelligent Design (ID) proponents from universities is not a laughing matter, but star Ben Stein is amusing as he walks, in dark suit and bright running shoes, from interview to interview with scientists and philosophers on both sides of the evolution debate.
Expelled rightly equates Darwinian stifling of free speech with the Communist attempt to enslave millions behind the Berlin Wall. One Expelled scene shows Stein, mathematician David Berlinski (a sophisticated Paris resident), and nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder (wearing a yarmulke), all now ID advocates, discussing the importance of freedom as they visit a remnant of the Wall. All three are Jewish, and they don't look or talk like the hicks portrayed in Inherit the Wind.
Dr. Larry Moran and Censorship of Intelligent Design
Michael Egnor
Commenting on the recommendations by Matt Nesbit and Chris Mooney that Darwinists tone down the venality of their attacks against religious faith and against scientists who support intelligent design, atheist "evolutionist" Dr. Larry Moran, professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto, replied:
I'm opposed to censorship of any kind but I really wish Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney would voluntarily decide to keep their stupid mouths shut for a few years.
Is Dr. Moran genuinely "opposed to censorship of any kind"? Consider his statement a few months ago on the moral dilemma that Darwinists face regarding students who are Christians:
Of course, we all recognize the problem here. How do you distinguish between a good Christian who is lying for Jesus and one who has actually come to understand science? It seems really unfair to flunk the honest students who admit that they still reject science and pass the dishonest ones who hide their true beliefs…As we've seen time and time again on the blogs (and elsewhere), the Christian fundamentalists have erected very strong barriers against learning. It really doesn't matter how much they are exposed to rational thinking and basic scientific evidence. They still refuse to listen…This is one of the reasons why I would flunk them if they took biology and still rejected the core scientific principles. It's not good enough to just be able to mouth the "acceptable" version of the truth that the Professor wants. You actually have to open your mind to the possibility that science is correct and get an education. That's what university is all about. [empahsis mine]
Dr. Moran insists that professors investigate students’ religious beliefs in order to ascertain whether or not Christians who "mouth the acceptable version" (i.e., who pass their exams) genuinely believe "science," which Dr. Moran defines as materialist metaphysics. If they don’t accept Dr. Moran's personal atheist ideology, he "would flunk them," regardless of their grades.
Expelled continues to generate buzz. Earlier today, Ben Stein spoke in support of the Academic Freedom Act introduced this week in the MIssouri state legislature, and both he and the film were praised by Governor Blunt. With all the academic freedom issues coming to a boil the film is receiving more attention than ever.
We get a lot of e-mail asking how people can find out if Expelled will be showing in their local theater. Well, here's where to check. The Expelled website features a theater locator which will tell you the theater closest to you that will be screening the film when it opens on April 18th.
If you don't find a theater near you in the list generated from the locator, or you know of a particular theater that you'd like to see carry the film but currently isn't on that list, here's what to do.
Missouri Becomes Third State to Introduce Academic Freedom Legislation on Teaching of Evolution
Robert Crowther
Following on the heels of Florida and Louisiana, Missouri legislators have now filed an academic freedom act bill, and a companion bill to protect scientists and researchers, along with educators.
Legislators in Louisiana and Missouri have introduced academic freedom bills that would ensure the freedom of teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of theories of biological and chemical evolution. Florida legislators introduced a similar bill recently which passed through its first committee hearing on a 4-1 vote.
In Louisiana, Sen. Ben Nevers introduced SB 561, and in Missouri Rep. Wayne Cooper has introduced HB 2554. Both bills would protect teachers’ academic freedom to teach scientific information that supports or challenges biological and chemical evolution, but expressly do not protect the teaching of religion.
Thursday morning, Ben Stein will be at a press conference in Jefferson City, MO, to throw his support behind the efforts. One state was a breakthrough, two states was great, but three states clearly indicates a growing trend. I know other states have considered such bills in the past, so it will be interesting to see if more states step forward on this issue this year. Read more about the bills here.
Darwinist Objections to Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill Based (Predictably) upon Misinformation
Casey Luskin
An academic freedom bill has been submitted in the state of Louisiana, and Darwinists have been quick to claim that the bill promotes religion. Columnist James Gill followed the Darwinist talking points perfectly in his editorial in The Times-Picayune, using the fear-mongering tactic of claiming that this bill is part of a "creationist attack" and that "[t]he bill is of no conceivable benefit to anyone but Christian proselytizers."
So what exactly does this bill's dangerous "attack" say? The language of the bill simply states that "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." The only people who would find such language threatening are those who would oppose an objective discussion of the scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories like neo-Darwinism.
Darwinist Biologist P.Z. Myers’ “Nice Feedback Mechanism”— “Greater Science Literacy…Is Going to Lead to the Erosion of Religion”
Michael Egnor
The most astonishing thing about Premise Media’s new documentary Expelled is the candor with which prominent Darwinist scientists admit their own ideological agenda in science education. In the film, Darwinists admit that atheist metaphysics is essential to their science. They insist that scientific education should erode their students’ belief in God.
Among the most prominent Darwinists interviewed in the film is Dr. P.Z. Myers, an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota-Morris and author of the science blog Pharyngula. Pharyngula is one of the most popular science blogs, and Myers mixes Darwinist science with unvarnished venom for Christianity. Dr. Myers posted one of his more polite descriptions of Christianity on Easter Day:
This is Easter, the day Christians everywhere set aside to celebrate the day they were hoaxed by a gang of Middle Eastern charlatans into believing a local mystic rose from the dead.
Florida Darwinists Can’t Get Story Straight about Opposition to Academic Freedom Act
John West
Darwinists in Florida are in a tizzy trying to figure out why they oppose the proposed Academic Freedom Act in their state. Sometimes they claim the act isn’t needed because no one who questions Darwin is being denied academic freedom. Other times they insist the act should be rejected because academic freedom is nothing but “smelly crap.” Still other times, they insist the act is bad because it supposedly authorizes the teaching of religion in science class, even though the text of the act clearly says the exact opposite (“This section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.”)
Listen to Ben Stein's Comments at Academic Freedom Act Press Conference
Robert Crowther
(UPDATE: I've updated this post with two smaller MP3s to make downloading easier. Part 1 features a number of speakers including Rep. Hays describing his bill. Part 2 features Casey Luskin and Ben Stein at the end, among others.)
If you'd like to hear for yourself what was said at the press conference in support of Florida's proposed Academic Freedom Act in Tallahassee yesterday you can download an MP3 part 1 here and part 2 here. The speakers at the press conference included CSC's own Casey Luskin, and Ben Stein, among others.
Florida Legislator Cites “Inherit the Wind” as Authority for Opposing Academic Freedom in Evolution Debate
John West
Now we know where some Florida legislators who oppose academic freedom in the evolution debate are getting their ideas about evolution. And it’s not from any science textbook. It’s from the bombastic play Inherit the Wind, long discredited by historians for its fantasy version of the history of the Scopes trial.
Last week, Florida’s Senate Minority Leader Steve Geller cited Inherit the Wind in his attack on the proposed Academic Freedom Act in his state that would prevent teachers from being disciplined or terminated “for objectively presenting scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution.”
The Tallahassee Democrat has just posted an updated article about the Florida Academic Freedom Act press conference earlier today:
Actor and social activist Ben Stein visited Florida's capitol today, urging lawmakers to pass an "academic freedom" bill that would protect teachers and students from questioning evolution under newly adopted science curriculum standards.
Stein also joined John Stemberger, head of the Florida Family Policy Council, and Casey Luskin, a lawyer from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, in defending a private screening of Stein's new film that has been arranged tonight for legislators. They showed a brief preview of the film, in which Stein recounts his meetings with teachers and scientists who have been shunned for questioning evolutionary theory.
Prepared Remarks for Florida Academic Freedom Bill Press Conference
John West
Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin is in Florida today participating in a press conference with sponsors of the proposed Academic Freedom Act there. The press conference also featured actor Ben Stein, who will be screening a pre-release version of the film Expelled for Florida legislators tonight. The press conference just concluded, and so here is the text of Luskin's prepared remarks. (Because of limited time, some parts of these remarks may not have been actually delivered.)
Anti-Freedom Activists Try to Censor Science Education in Florida
Anika Smith
TALLAHASSEE – “Academic freedom is not ‘smelly crap.’ It’s the foundation of a free society,” says science education expert Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute. “That’s why Florida’s proposed Academic Freedom Act on evolution is so important.”
Florida legislators recently introduced SB 2692, the Academic Freedom Act, to protect teachers and students from retaliation for discussing the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory.
Recently Channel One News decided to tackle the evolution debate and focused on the Florida state board of education's decision to revise science standards to proclaim Darwinian evolution as the foundation of biolgoy. If you're not familiar with Channel One it probably means you're not a high school student. Channel One is the self-poroclaimed "news and public affairs content provider to teens" and claims to reach six million students across the country every single day.
Darwinist Activists at Florida Citizens for Science Think Academic Freedom Is "Smelly Crap"
Robert Crowther
The media in Florida are all aflutter this week on a bill introduced into the state legislature by state senator Ronda Storms, called the Academic Freedom Bill. Discovery Institute has recommended such legislation in the past. We even maintain a website at www.academicfreedompetition.com that has a model of an academic freedom bill. So we’re happy that Storms has taken the ball and run with it.
Not everyone is happy though, which is clear from reading the newspaper stories on this latest development in the debate over how to teach evolution. Darwinists are downright unhappy, so much so those at Florida Citizens for Science think academic freedom is “smelly crap.”
This academic freedom stuff is merely the next evolutionary step as anti-science folks continue their attempts to shove creationism into the public school classroom. First, there was blatant creationism. Next there was intelligent design. Both failed miserably. Now comes along academic freedom. Same smelly crap, different packaging.
So it shouldn’t be surprising that the media got the story wrong. They’ve been fed some “smelly crap” from FCS.
Expelled and the Argument against Denying the Discussion
Anika Smith
CT Movies reviewer Brett McCracken has seen Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and his thoughtful review is available online. It’s worth noting that McCracken, in his own words, “came into this film very, very skeptical . . . But I was pleasantly surprised with Expelled on a number of levels.”
McCracken seems to get the point of the film, that it’s an argument against censorship.
Indeed, the film hits a nerve in its critique of the contemporary American academy. As a graduate student immersed in academia and all its idiosyncrasies, I can attest to the pervasive and disturbingly hypocritical sense of close-mindedness that stifles the spirit of progressive discourse. It goes beyond the scientific communities in higher education and touches many disciplines. Quite simply: if you are not on the “right” side of the wall (whatever wall it may be), your voice is stifled, your work discredited, and your intelligence questioned. It’s gone beyond political correctness and is now something altogether more militant and sinister. Sadly, the academy today is less about the sharing and discovery of truth as it is about the wielding and protecting of power.
Woodstock of Science Set to Dethrone Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Robert Crowther
At Scoop freelance reporter Suzan Mazur pulls back the veil on one of science's dirty little secrets — Darwinism is dead as a theory of evolution. This won't be surprising to the early adopters here at ENV, but it will come as a surprise to many in the media who have lazily just regurgitated the tired old refrain of the NCSE that Darwinian evolution is the be-all and end-all of modern biology.
Mazur reports on an upcoming conference at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria which she thinks will be the Woodstock of evolution.
What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate "other" new phenomena.
Say what? Sixteen scientists who recognize that the theory of evolution, which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. (Suzan, shhhh, don't tell anyone, there's hundreds more over here.)
Mazur seems a bit surprised to find out something that intelligent design advocates have known for years. It is not safe to doubt Darwin.
Discovery senior fellow David Klinghoffer has an interesting piece just out in the new Townhall Magazine, in which he looks at whether or not scientists really are free to research intelligent design. Of course, ID-critics claim that academic freedom reigns supreme:
I asked leading ID-critics whether Darwin-doubters face any hurdles, beyond the strength or weakness of ID itself, to researching and testing their ideas. Kenneth Miller, a Brown University biologist, emailed me with a withering reply: “The conclusion of ‘Design’ should follow from well-done research on comparative genomics, molecular biology, gene expression, and biochemistry. There is, as you surely know, no barrier to such research.”
Francisco Ayala, a biologist at the University of California, Irvine, was emphatic: “I cannot imagine any serious scientist or academic administrator trying to dissuade anybody else from carrying out any well-designed research project.”
But scientists who've suffered the consequences of challenging Darwinian dogma tell a much different story.
Florida State Board Tricked into Meaningless "Compromise" to Retain Dogmatism and call Evolution "Scientific Theory"
Casey Luskin
Today the Florida State Board of Education voted 4-3 to adopt science standards that call evolution “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.” While it is good that students will learn about evolution, these standards will make for bad science education because they elevate Darwin’s theory to a dogma that cannot be questioned. Even worse, some board members thought that they could rectify the dogmatic tone of the standards by calling evolution a "scientific theory." Some news articles are even calling this a "compromise." Those board members were tricked into a false compromise: inserting the word “scientific theory” before the word "evolution" is a meaningless and impotent change that will do absolutely nothing to actually inform students about the scientific problems with evolution.
Despite the fact that the meaningless words "scientific theory" were inserted into the standards, the standards still retain dogmatic language and reject the excellent suggestions of the Minority Report that would have required that “Students should learn why some scientists give scientific critiques of standard models of neo-Darwinian evolution or models of the chemical origin of life.” If the State Board of Education wanted to do it right, then they should have protected the academic freedom of teachers to teach students about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution.
One good aspect of Florida's new standards is that their section on the Nature of Science states that students should “use critical and logical thinking, and the active consideration of alternative scientific explanations to explain all the data presented.” But as Mr. Fred Cutting, writing-committee member, wrote in the Minority Report, “Somewhat inexplicably, there is no indicator in the proposed standards that applies this philosophy of science education to biological origins.”
Unless Floridans now demand change, Florida’s biology classrooms will follow the dogmatism of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which recently published a booklet, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, similarly proclaiming that “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution” because “no new evidence is likely to alter” it. Contrary to what the NAS and the Florida Science Standards assert, there are fundamental questions among scientists about Darwinian evolution.
La Mirada, Calif. -- Ben Stein, known for his lead role in the film Ferris Bueller’s Day and his Comedy Central show Win Ben Stein’s Money, believes in liberty and truth. In recognition of this, Biola University’s masters in science and religion program will present him with the 2008 Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth on March 27, a month before the release of his major controversial motion picture, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
What They Didn't Tell You about the National Academy of Sciences
Cornelius Hunter
In the recently published booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the National Academy of Sciences claims that science must be limited to naturalistic explanations:
In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. (p. 10)
Evolutionists have always been dogmatic about naturalism. They believe that science must, in principle, be absolutely constrained to naturalistic explanations. This is a philosophical position — there is no scientific evidence that could make evolutionists think twice.
Darwin Day is finally here, which means the second annual Darwin Day broadcast is now available online at ID the Future. The video “Proselytzing for Darwin’s God” presents the outrageous story of evolution activists who are inviting theologians into public schools. After years of accusing Darwin’s critics of trying to bring religion into science class, this willingness to undermine the separation of church and state is hypocritical to the core.
Darwin Day and the New Campaign to Inject Religion into Public Schools
John West
As schools and museums celebrate the 199th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday today, a new push is being made to inject religion into the nation’s science classrooms.
But it’s not coming from those you might think.
After years of accusing Darwin’s critics of trying to insert religion into biology classes on the sly, leading defenders of evolution are now campaigning to incorporate religion explicitly into classroom lessons on evolution.
In Florida Evolution Debate, We See More Turning Non-Issues into Issues
Robert Crowther
Every so often there's a report about teachers who are under pressure not to teach evolution. With Darwin's day nearly upon us (have you finished all your shopping?) and the debate over how to teach evolution at a tipping point in Florida, here it comes again.
This article makes many, many assertions without ever giving any real hard data to support the claims that 1) teachers don’t teach evolution, and 2) they skip it because they are afraid.
The closest they come up with are NSTA polls from 2005, which I reported about then. Then, like now, the results are cleverly communicated with misplaced emphasis to imply that teachers are under overwhelming pressure to not teach evolution. It just isn't so. Here they report that, according to the poll, 31% feel pressured to avoid teaching evolution or to include other theories. What they don’t report is that the vast majority, more than 2-to-1, 69% don't feel pressured to teach other theories.
Protect the Rights of Teachers and Students to Question Darwinism
Robert Crowther
Should scientists who believe the universe is the product of intelligent design be fired? Should science teachers who tell students about evidence that challenges Darwin’s theory of evolution be reprimanded? Should students who want to explore both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution be discouraged from doing so? If you answered no to these questions, click here and sign the Academic Freedom Petition.
If you answered yes, then keep reading and hopefully you will change your mind.
Stellar Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez Denied Fair Hearing by Iowa State Board of Regents
Anika Smith
The Board of Regents of the State of Iowa has denied the tenure appeal of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University (ISU). Dr. Gonzalez’s appeal has been ongoing since the summer of 2007, when he was first denied tenure by ISU.
“We are extremely disappointed that the Board of Regents refused to give Dr. Gonzalez a fair hearing in his appeal,” said Gonzalez’s attorney Chuck Hurley. “They say in Iowa that academic freedom is supposed to be the ‘foundation of the university.’ That foundation is cracked.”
ISU has consistently maintained that Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure denial has nothing to do with intelligent design (ID). But secret e-mails exchanged by ISU faculty who voted against his tenure and statements in Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure file showed that intelligent design was the overriding factor in his tenure denial. The Board of Regents refused to admit much of this evidence into the record in Dr. Gonzalez’s appeal.
“The Board of Regents would not allow into the record extensive e-mail documentation showing that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure not due to his academic record, but because he supports intelligent design,” said Casey Luskin, Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, where Gonzalez is a senior fellow. “Then the Board refused to grant Dr. Gonzalez the right to be heard through oral arguments. Does it come as any surprise that now they denied his appeal?”
“They’ve denied his due process rights throughout this entire appeal,” Luskin continued. “This kangaroo court decided its verdict long before today’s deliberations even began.”
“The most disheartening part of this appeal is that they refused Dr. Gonzalez the opportunity to present his case fully to the Board and to have face-to-face contact with the Board through oral arguments,” said Chuck Hurley.
“The Board of Regents had an opportunity to give justice to an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field,” Luskin concluded. “Instead, they caved in to political pressure and threw academic freedom to the wind.”
Florida Voices Fear of "Sub-Standard Science Standards"
Anika Smith
As the debate over the science standards in Florida gets interesting, the Florida Baptist Witness just published an editorial by James A. Smith Sr. which sees the situation for what it is:
In spite of growing concern and opposition, Florida education leaders are on the brink of requiring an evolution-as-dogma approach to teaching origins in public schools in the Sunshine State.
Florida State Board of Education Receives Minority Report That Covers Evolution Objectively
Casey Luskin
Rob Crowther recently discussed the fact that the proposed Florida Science Standards take an extremely dogmatic approach towards evolution education. The proposed standards assert that evolution is “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology,” and they claim that it “is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence.” There are no mention of any scientific problems with neo-Darwinism anywhere in Florida’s proposed standards. Notwithstanding the extremely well-organized efforts of the Darwin-only contingent in Florida, Fred Cutting, a member of the Framing Committee for Florida’s science standards, has written and submitted a Minority Report to the State Board of Education that would introduce objectivity into the evolution curriculum.
In Florida the Debate over How to Teach Evolution Is One of Science
Robert Crowther
The Florida state board of education is expected to adopt science standards later this month that will finally include the word evolution. The standards also include language calling for students to learn the argumentation of science and to examine all the data presented in order to learn critical thinking skills. This, too, is a good thing. But what if all the date isn't presented? What if only one side of the issue is presented? Then instead of students learning to critically analyze, they are simply getting a one-sided view of the subject. This is what happens all too often when biological evolution is presented. Students learn about evidence supporting Darwinian evolution, but seldom learn about any of the evidence that challenges it.
Interestingly, in Florida Darwinian activists have crowed long and loud about attempts to insert intelligent design into the state science standards and to teach the theory in science classes. Although no one has proposed teaching intelligent design, and no one has suggested inserting anything about intelligent design into the standards, the Darwinists continue to falsely claim this is what is going on. (Not unlike Texas — do we see a new strategy developing?)
Today the Tallahassee Democrat published a short op-ed by one of the members of the committee that developed the new state standards, who is now submitting a minority report. He makes it very clear that intelligent design is not what is at issue, but rather teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.
As a member of the Framers' Committee, I am submitting a minority report suggesting that the following language be adopted into Florida's science standards:
"Students should learn why some scientists give scientific critiques of standard models of neo-Darwinian evolution or models of the chemical origin of life."
And he makes clear that for him this is a scientific debate, not a religious one.
I oppose including religion in the science classroom, and this proposal in no way brings religion into the science classroom. There are serious scientific critiques of neo-Darwinism that deserve to be heard by students. This is a scientific debate, not a religious one.
There are lots of people expressing lots of opinions about how evolution should be handled, on both sides of the issue. But there is only one proposal being considered, that put forward by the Framers Committee. Instead of worrying about what is being talked up and down in letters to the editor, attention should be paid to what is really going on. Here is the only serious attempt to improve the proposed standards, and Floridians should consider it carefully.
Like rain dancers, Darwinists in Texas are busily engaging in political cloud seeding, trying to whip up a storm of controversy about science education. As usual they mistakenly equate creationism with intelligent design, knowing full well that the two are very different.
The drum beat of these evolutionary rain makers started up last summer when the Dallas Morning News published a thumb-sucker of a story about the majority of the state board of education’s oppostion to inserting ID into Texas science classes. Even though it was clear that no one was proposing inserting ID into the curriculum, all of sudden Darwinists began chanting that the sky was falling. Throughout the fall they picked up the tempo, constantly, falsely claiming that there was an effort to revise Texas science standards to include ID. (And not just in Texas, they're dancing their pants off in Florida as well.)
Attacks on Intelligent Design Enabled by Biased Media
Robert Crowther
The issue of how to teach evolution in Florida has almost nothing to do with intelligent design. Indeed, the proposed standards are not recommending intelligent design. Instead, they seek to include evolution, thankfully. Students need to learn more about evolution, not less, which has always been our position. Unfortunately, the draft Florida standards don't call for teaching students the full story about evolution, which is a shame. The best solution to that problem would be to add more about the scientific weaknesses of evolution, not mandate intelligent design. Never mind, that hasn't kept Darwinists from trying to make intelligent design an issue.
Still, it is interesting that intelligent design even comes up in Florida. But it does.
Dallas TV Report on Teaching Evolution and Intelligent Design
Robert Crowther
This CBS News report falls immediately into the hole of stereotyping the debate over
evolution as simply a religious issue. The reporter ominously opines: "How did life begin? The question often divides faith and science." This is an all too familiar setup for an Inherit the Wind style treatment of the issue — as if the only questions about Darwinism are religious ones. Not so. There are a lot of scientific questions at play in this debate — indeed, all of the serious questions about the evidence are scientific.
Yet, as the report goes on, it manages to climb out of that hole to give a better, fuller look at the overall debate. This story shows that while there may be philosophical or religious implications to the science, it is the science that is at the heart of the debate. It's an interesting clip, and the reporter has an insightful commentary at the end, where he says:
If we as adults keep our minds open, and are willing to explore all possibilities, that is one of the most important lessons we can possibly pass along to our children.
Discovery Institute Announces 2nd Annual Darwin Day Celebration
Anika Smith
Supporters of Darwin's theory have claimed to oppose teaching religion in the nation's science classrooms for years. Now, just in time for Darwin Day 2008, leading evolution proponents (including the National Academy of Sciences, the Public Broadcasting Service, and the National Center for Science Education) are cynically promoting religious instruction in schools as a way of defusing opposition to Darwinian evolution.
On February 6, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Dr. John West, author of Darwin Day in America (ISI Books), will present a tale of hypocrisy and hubris on the part of leading Darwinists. Join Dr. West at Discovery Institute in Seattle as he examines how these organizations are willing to undermine the First Amendment's Establishment Clause in order to promote their views. This event will be taped for online viewing as part of the ID the Future Darwin Day broadcast on Darwin Day, February 12.
Darwin's Failed Predictions, Slide 14: "What would Darwin do?" (from JudgingPBS.com)
Casey Luskin
[Editor's Note: This is slide 14 in a series of 14 slides available at JudgingPBS.com, a new website featuring "Darwin's Failed Predictions," a response to PBS-NOVA's online materials for their "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary.]
PBS presents a thoroughly pro-Darwin only account of the debate over evolution. In fact, there are many reasons why we should teach the controversy over Darwinian evolution:
(1) Congress supports such a policy:
"The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."1
(2) The United States Supreme Court has sanctioned such a policy:
“We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.”2
(3) Darwin himself supports such a policy:
In Origin of Species, Darwin stated, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”3
PBS's propaganda doesn't even employ the approach that Darwin himself purportedly recommends. Viewers of PBS’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” documentary will do well to learn about both sides of this debate.
Letter Responding to Editorial Praising NAS Efforts to Suppress Scientific Criticisms of Darwinian Evolution
Robert Crowther
CSC senior fellow John West had the following letter to the editor published by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer today, responding to a short editorial they published earlier this week.
EVOLUTION
The P-I Editorial Board applauds efforts by National Academy of Science officials to suppress scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution in classrooms across the country. Such criticisms, we are told, are a sham.
But some of the academy's own eminent scientists such as Dr. Philip Skell strongly disagree. The Evan Pugh Professor (emeritus) at Penn State University, Skell argues that "scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these."
Skell is not alone. More than 700 Ph.D. scientists have adopted a statement expressing skepticism of the core mechanism of modern Darwinian theory and urging a careful examination of the evidence (dissentfromdarwin.org). Those scientists include members of the national academy of sciences in several countries, as well as professors at Princeton, MIT, Tulane, UCLA, Ohio State, and the University of Michigan. They include molecular biologists, microbiologists, biochemists, ecologists, physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, engineers, and many others.
Contrary to the P-I's editorial, those of us at Discovery Institute do not support teaching "religious" criticisms of evolution in science classrooms. Instead, like the scientists above, we advocate teaching the scientific evidence critical of modern Darwinism along with the best scientific evidence that supports the theory. This approach can be found modeled in the new textbook Explore Evolution (exploreevolution.com).
John G. West, Ph. D.
Vice president for public policy and legal affairs
Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Institute
Seattle
An 
(UPDATE: I've updated this post with two smaller MP3s to make downloading easier. Part 1 features a number of speakers including Rep. Hays describing his bill. Part 2 features Casey Luskin and Ben Stein at the end, among others.)
Like rain dancers, Darwinists in Texas are busily engaging in political cloud seeding, trying to whip up a storm of controversy about science education. As usual they 
PBS presents a thoroughly pro-Darwin only account of the debate over evolution. In fact, there are many reasons why we should teach the controversy over Darwinian evolution:
