The Center for Science and Culture

Archives

Responding to Opposition to Teaching Evolution Fully

The Center for Science and Culture
October 11, 2007
Discussions about how evolution should be covered in school curricula should focus on science and evidence, not on personal attacks. Unfortunately, when you try to improve the teaching of evolution in your school district, groups opposed to teaching any criticisms of evolutionary theory may attack your motives, your sources, and your honesty. They may also seek to smear the personal characters of leading scientists who are skeptical of neo-Darwinism. Here are some resources for responding to some of most common attacks you may encounter: Truth Sheet: The Real Truth about Jonathan Wells Truth Sheet: Alan Gishlick and the National Center for Science Education Misrepresent Jonathan Wells’s Science Credentials Truth Sheet: How the NCSE Uses False Charges of …

Introduction and Responses to Criticism of Irreducible Complexity

Responding to Darwinists Claiming to Have Explained Away the Challenge of Irreducible Complexity
The Center for Science and Culture
February 20, 2006
Modern biology has discovered that cells are like miniaturized factories that function using micromolecular machines. In Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe proposed that many of these molecular machines exhibit irreducible complexity and therefore could not have been produced by an undirected Darwinian process. Instead, they appear to be the product of intelligent design. Behe’s book initiated a firestorm of controversy both inside and outside of the scientific community, and the debate continues to rage. As the responses below demonstrate, Behe’s arguments have not been refuted. Indeed, the case for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum and other molecular machines has continued to grow. Introduction to Molecular Machines …

Ohio Activists Chided for Trying to Dumb Down Evolution Education and Censor Science

The Center for Science and Culture
January 1, 2006
SEATTLE – “Ohio critics of intelligent design now want to dumb down the teaching of evolution by censoring out scientific evidence challenging Darwinism and that is bad for students and bad for science education,” said Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “A lot of evidence surrounding evolution isn’t typically covered in biology courses. Students need to learn more about evolution, not less.” In the wake of a judge’s ruling banning intelligent design from the Dover, Pennsylvania school district, special interest groups opposed to teaching the controversy about Darwinian evolution are trying to pressure the Ohio State Board of Education to repeal …

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

The Center for Science and Culture
April 5, 2005
Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude 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. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. On this page you can download an annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific articles supporting, applying, or arising from the theory of intelligent design. You also can read a description of the intelligent design research community and its aims.

Kansas Debates Evolution: Stephen C. Meyer, Eugenie Scott

The Center for Science and Culture
February 23, 2005
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you’re going to resort to evidence on one side, you can resort to it on the other. And, for me, that’s all intelligent design does. It says the evidence we see points to design.UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bias that they’re referring to is the fact that science seeks natural explanations. This is — that is what has been defined science for over 500 years. (END VIDEO CLIP) JOHN GIBSON, HOST: Well, a battle in Kansas over evolution again, the state board of education holding hearings on what students should be taught about the origins of man, in fact, all life, and talk about political science, Darwin defenders on one site outraged, calling it simply a platform for the so-called intelligent design. But others say they’re questioning the …

Bibliography of Supplementary Resources For Science Instruction

The Center for Science and Culture
January 1, 2004
NOTE: On Monday, 11 March 2002, Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute submitted the following Bibliography of Supplementary Resources to the Ohio State Board of Education. These 44 scientific publications represent important lines of evidence and puzzles that any theory of evolution must confront, and that science teachers and students should be allowed to discuss when studying evolution. The publications are not presented either as support for the theory of intelligent design, or as indicating that the authors cited doubt evolution. Discovery Institute has made every effort to ensure that the annotated summaries accurately reflect the central arguments of the publications. The following scientific articles, papers, and monographs are drawn from leading journals …

Cobb County (Georgia) School Board Promotes Academic Freedom, Not Religion

The Center for Science and Culture
September 26, 2002
Praising the adoption Thursday night of a policy encouraging the “discussion of disputed views” about evolution in Cobb County, Georgia schools, Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman called the decision “a victory for academic freedom and good science education” and faulted critics of the policy for “trying to mischaracterize the controversy as a battle over religion.” “The policy adopted by the Cobb County School Board is clearly about science, not religion,” said Chapman, who commended the board for choosing “the sensible middle path” in the controversy. “The board declined to promote either the Bible or the dogmatic presentation of Darwinism in science class. Instead, it encouraged allowing students to study …

Latest fossil find: no proof of ape-like ancestry, Wells says

The Center for Science and Culture
July 17, 2002
A chimpanzee-like skull in size and shape, a large brow akin to a gorilla and some human-like teeth — all features of the latest archaeological find, named “Toumai” — do not enhance the cause of Darwinian evolution. Jonathan Wells, one of the leading thinkers in the intelligent design movement, remains as doubtful of evolution as ever. “Proponents of Darwinian evolution simply ASSUME on theoretical grounds that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, then they plug fossil finds into their theoretical framework,” Wells said in comments to Baptist Press. “It is precisely the scarcity of the evidence that gets Darwinists so excited when something — anything! — turns up. The result is the exuberant hype that now accompanies Toumai.” Set of …

Media Advisory on Evolution Controversies

The Center for Science and Culture
April 27, 2002
Contact: Rob Crowther, 206-292-0401 x 107 rob@discovery.org As you report on controversies over evolution and intelligent design, here are some facts you might find useful: 1. There is a growing scientific controversy over Darwinian evolution. a) Today there are critics of Darwinian evolution within the scientific community, including biologists at mainstream American universities. In 2001, more than 100 scientists including scholars at such institutions as Yale, Princeton, MIT, and the Smithsonian signed a public statement announcing that they were “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” b) Because of the …

Reply To Kenneth Miller On The Genetic Code

The Center for Science and Culture
November 1, 2000
On Tuesday, September 25, 2001, Professor Kenneth Miller of Brown University issued a press release entitled “A ‘Dying Theory’ Fails Again,” available here: www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3071_km-3.pdf In this document, Miller claims that the Discovery Institute (DI) tried to “smear” PBS’s Evolution series when the DI charged that program with making a false statement about the universality of the genetic code. Miller also claims that the DI failed to tell the public that “the very discoveries they cite provide elegant and unexpected support for Darwin’s theories.” These claims are false. Miller’s press release, however, provides an excellent teaching opportunity for the DI, not only to show why Miller’s claims are false, but …

Open Letter to Paul R. Gross, “Politicizing Science Education”

The Center for Science and Culture
June 1, 1997
Dear Mr. Gross: Your article, “Politicizing Science Education,” (available at http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=43) recently came to our attention. While we share your concern for what you call “the maladies of contemporary education,” we think you have gravely misrepresented several of the key issues. Science education in this country cannot be repaired without candor and accuracy. Yet candor and accuracy are woefully lacking in your generally dismissive article, where the issues of the teaching of evolution and the intelligent design community are concerned. Let us turn to the evidence. Your statements, drawn both from the main text and notes of your article, appear in bold; our responses follow as plain …