Month: March 2006
“Teach ’em all?” Michigan Poll Supports Critical Analysis But Misinterprets the Data
A recent poll reported in “Inside Michigan Politics” found that 76% of Michiganites agree with the following statement: “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.“ Only 17% of Michigagonians felt that “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.” If that poll question sounds familiar to frequent readers of ENV, that’s because it’s identical to one of the poll questions commissioned by The Discovery Institute earlier in 2006 and reported here. But there’s one major difference between this Michigan poll and the prior poll commissioned by Discovery: The Michigan poll is improperly touting a poll question about teaching both scientific strengths and weaknesses of Read More ›
New Brochure Clearly Explains Kansas Science Standards on Teaching Evolution
https://www.discovery.org/f/737
Dissenting Scientist Explains Some of His Concerns Over Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list continues to grow. Last month we announced the list now had over 500 scientists. Since that time we’ve had nearly another 100 PhD scientists contact and request to be added to the list. The next public update of the list will undoubtedly see it grow to over 600. One recent scientist added to the Dissent list submitted a letter with his request to be on the list. With his permission you can read it here. Dr. William Hart, PhD. Mathematics, is currently an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
First Things on Dover Decision
In the April, 2006 issue of First Things, Villanova Law professor Robert T. Miller offers an opinion on “Darwin in Dover, PA.” (available online next month) that brings up several points worth highlighting. Regarding Kitzmiller, Miller only half agrees with Judge Jones, agreeing that ID is not science as he defines it (which I will comment on more later), but disagreeing that ID is religion. To make his case, Miller’s opinion offers two different “senses” of science, one of which ID satisfies, the other of which he claims ID does not satisfy. Overall, the article focuses on the philosophy and nature of science, and devotes only a scant few paragraphs to the legal issues presented in Kitzmiller.
Legal Experts Analyze the Impact of the Dover Intelligent Design Trial Decision in the New Book, “Traipsing Into Evolution”
Traipsing Into Evolution is the first published critique of federal Judge John E. Jones’s decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the first trial to squarely address the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys expose how Judge Jones’s Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design.