Some Darwinists have sometimes argued that if ID were taught in schools, then that would risk opening the science classroom to a floodgate of religious ideas about origins, wreaking havoc upon the classroom and turning it into a platform for religious proseltyzation.
Read More ›It is common that critics of intelligent design misrepresent the nature of intelligent design in order to make it sound unscientific, unconstitutional, and unpalatable to scientists and the public. In the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case last year, Judge Jones even adopted the critics’ false version of intelligent design rather than letting the proponents of ID stake out their own theory, and speak for themselves. This podcast looks at two recent misrepresentations in the media made by ID-critics involved on the legal side of this debate.
Despite the Darwinist community’s long-standing campaign to help the public come to the “correct” view that “evolution and religion are compatible,” public skepticism of evolution remains high. (See this link for documentation.) This would logically lead one to the conclusion that there are other factors besides religion that drive skepticism of evolution. Perhaps, one might even suggest, for many people the issue has a lot to do with science!
Read More ›Critical Analysis of Evolution is Not the Same as Teaching Intelligent Design A favorite Darwinist conspiracy theory is to claim that education policies requiring critical analysis of evolution are simply a guise for teaching intelligent design (ID). Right now anti-science groups in Kansas are claiming that the state’s new science standards are pushing intelligent design. If you agree that children should be fully informed about evolution, join with like-minded citizens and stand up in support of the Kansas state science standards. Go to Standupforscience.com and sign the petition today The Kansas science standards do not include intelligent design. In spreading this falsehood, opponents of the standards ignore the following clear statement by the Kansas Board of Education in the standards. “We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design….” (emphasis added) Which part of “do not include Intelligent Design” can’t opponents of the standards understand? In this podcast Casey Luskin highlights five simple reasons why teaching critical analysis of evolution is very different from teaching about intelligent design. Click here to download a short FAQ about critical analysis of evolution. Questions? E-mail us at cscinfo@discovery.org.
This week on the Intelligent Design The Future podcast CSC program officer for public policy and legal affairs, Casey Luskin, outlines Discovery Institute’s science education policy.
As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community.
Read More ›For more information about the Selman vs. Cobb Co. trial visit our trial resource page here.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has thrown out the trial court decision ruling that evolution disclaimers on science textbooks were unconstitutional.
In a unanimous decision the federal three-judge panel — including both Democratic and Republican appointees — stopped short of deciding the constitutionality of the stickers, and instead sent the case back to the trial court judge with instructions to hold more evidentiary hearings on the issue.
Read More ›“This latest fossil find poses no threat to intelligent design.” So says Discovery Institute’s Casey Luskin. In this short interview about recent fossil finds Luskin explains that intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. And, he shows that with each new fossil find there are more and more questions raised about whether the mechanism for evolution described by Darwin even works.