Phylogenetic inferences are premised on the inheritance of ancestral characteristics, and on the existence of an evolutionary history defined by changes in these characteristics.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and naturalselection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of theevidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
According to a number of leading proponents of Darwin’s theory, “junk DNA” — the non-protein coding portion of DNA — provides decisive evidence for Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design, since an intelligent designer would presumably not have filled our genome with so much garbage. But in this provocative book, biologist Jonathan Wells exposes the claim that most of the …
The Discovering Intelligent Design textbook is part of a comprehensive curriculum that presents both the biological and cosmological evidence in support of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Developed for middle-school-age students to adults, the curriculum also includes a workbook with learning activities and a DVD with video clips keyed to the content of the textbook. Produced by Discovery Institute in conjunction with Illustra Media, the curriculum is intended for use by homeschools and private schools. The curriculum is divided into six modules that explore topics such as the origin and development of the universe, the origin of biological complexity, the fossil record’s evidence (or lack thereof) for universal common descent, and the broader cultural debate over intelligent design. More information can be obtained by visiting the curriculum’s website, http://discoveringid.org.Read More ›
Until now, there has been little empirical data to quantify the impact of evolutionary ideas on the religious and ethical beliefs of the general population. While previous surveys have asked about people’s belief in evolution or their beliefs about other scientific ideas, most have not asked questions about how science has shaped a person’s religious beliefs or worldview. In order to gain insights into the impact of specific scientific ideas on popular beliefs about God and ethics, Discovery Institute conducted a nationwide survey of a representative sample of 3,664 American adults.Read More ›
Evidence for a purely Darwinian account of human origins is supposed to be overwhelming. But is it? In this provocative book, three scientists challenge the claim that undirected natural selection is capable of building a human being, critically assess fossil and genetic evidence that human beings share a common ancestor with apes, and debunk recent claims that the human race could not have started from an original couple.Read More ›
In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the United States Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Louisiana statute (the Balanced-Treatment Act) that required the state’s public schools to teach Creationism if evolution was taught and to teach evolution if Creationism was taught.’ That decision was the culmination of a series of court battles and cultural conflicts that can be traced back to the famous Scopes Trial of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee.2 Although many thought, and continue to think, that Edwards Read More ›
“There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution” said Eugenie Scott, the de facto head of the Darwin lobby. She was speaking to the media in response to the Texas State Board of Education’s 2009 vote to require students to learn about both the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution. For those who follow the debate over origins, Dr. Scott’s words are as unsurprising as they are familiar. But is it true that there are “no weaknesses” in evolutionary theory? Are those who express doubts about Darwinism displaying courage, or are they fools that want to take us back to the dark ages and era of the flat Earth? Thankfully, it’s very easy to test these questions: all one must do is examine the technical scientific literature and inquire whether there are legitimate scientific challenges to chemical and biological evolution.Read More ›
This bonus chapter addresses the Dover Trial of 2005— a time when the idea of Intelligent Design (or ID) was at the center of a media and political frenzy. The glimpse the chapter provides of the intense feelings that ID can generate makes clear why everyone has to do their own homework on controversial issues and make up their own mind.Read More ›
On December 20, 2005 Judge John Jones issued his opinion in the matter of Kitzmiller, in which I was the lead witness for the defense. There are many statements of the Court scattered throughout the opinion with which I disagree. However, here I will remark only on section E-4, “Whether ID is Science.”
The Court finds that intelligent design (ID) is not science. In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: “science” is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word “science” belongs to that community and to no one else. Thus, in the Court’s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science. Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood.
On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: “science” is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science. Thus there is a disconnect between the two views of what “science” is. Although the two views rarely conflict at all, the dissonance grows acute when the topic turns to the most fundamental matters, such as the origins of the universe, life, and mind.
Below I proceed sequentially through section E-4. Statements from the opinion are in italics, followed by my comments.Read More ›