__edited

Earlier in this series, we indicated the need for Congress and the administration to reaffirm their commitment to our nation’s infrastructure. What should the new shape of this role be, and how should it reflect the changing paradigm of our transportation system? The first component of the solution is crucial: a revamped federal budget policy, beginning with a long-due tax Read More ›

Over the next week or so, I plan to file several posts analyzing issues relating to Judge Jones’ decision in the Dover case. I start today by revisiting the question of whether Judge Jones is an “activist” judge. Some Darwinists are livid that I’ve applied this label to the Judge. Although I’ve explained my reasons for regarding Jones as an Read More ›

This article, published by the Miami New Times, quotes William Dembski of Discovery Institute: Much of Dembski’s talk concentrated on the evidence of design in nature. He offered the classic example of the tiny flagella that bacteria use to propel themselves through their environment. “They can spin at 100,000 rpm,” Dembski marveled. “And then in a quarter-turn, they’re spinning the Read More ›

NOTE: This is the full text of the letter submitted to the New York Times. The Times published only an edited version of the letter here. To the editor: Judge Jones’ ruling on intelligent design is rife with false assertions and mischaracterizations of the theory of intelligent design. Here are just a few: It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation Read More ›

Issuing theological statements isn’t normally thought of as the job of a federal judge. Yet, this week when U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III released the first federal ruling on intelligent design, there was at the core of his written decision an unambiguously theological ruling: that evolution as formulated by Charles Darwin presents no conflict with the God Read More ›

If you are saving money for retirement or to put a child through school, would you be likelier to buy the stock of a company with a reputation for providing a good return to its shareholders or one that prides itself on its “social responsibility”? You may like to do both, but the evidence is companies that change their focus Read More ›

This article, published by The American Spectator, quotes Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Stephen Meyer: Should that evidence be ignored, defined as “not science,” and suppressed through the court system, simply because a materialist worldview cannot accept even the possibility of a designer? In the words of design theorist Stephen Meyer, science “should not be looking for only the best naturalistic Read More ›

“Judge Jones’ decision about teaching intelligent design is legally irrelevant for Ohio’s Critical Analysis of Evolution model science curriculum,” says legal scholar and Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf, in response to calls from critics that the lesson plan should be repealed by the state board of education. “The U.S. Supreme Court laid down the foundation for this body of Read More ›

 Editor’s Note: On December 21st Center Director Stephen Meyer appeared on the Michael Medved Show to discuss the implications of the recent Dover ruling.