In this second of a two part series, CSC senior fellow, John West, reports that since the Dover ruling Darwinists have bullied some school districts into limiting their teaching of Darwinian evolution, yet some states and localities are continuing to adopt public policies to encourage students to study the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory.
One of the most disturbing revelations of the recent congressional investigation into the Smithsonian’s persecution of Richard Sternberg is the behind-the-scenes role of the pro-Darwin lobbying group the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).Read More ›
A year ago today, Judge John E. Jones issued his 139-page ruling denouncing intelligent design in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. At the time, the ruling was hailed by defenders of Darwin’s theory as a knock-out blow against intelligent design and scientific skepticism of Darwin’s theory.
What a difference a year makes.Read More ›
On this episode of ID The Future Seth Cooper reports about an insightful essay by Eric Cohen, titled “The Human Difference,” in the current issue of Commentary magazine.Read More ›
On this episode of ID The Future we report on the demotion of a well-published evolutionary biologist critical of Darwinian evolution has been found to be religiously and politically motivated, according to a new government report.Read More ›
On this episode of ID The Future we speak with CSC attorney Casey Luskin about the recent report which showed that in last year’s Kitzmiller vs Dover School District intelligent design trial federal Judge John Jones copied the ACLU’s findings of fact nearly verbatim in the section of his ruling dealing with whether or not ID is science. That section was the core of his ruling, in which he said that ID is not science and so should not be allowed for discussion in Dover Area schools. Jones later went on a speaking tour touting his ruling and basking in the accolades of the likes of Time magazine who hailed him as one of the 100 most influential people because of his ruling. In fact, Discovery’s report shows that Jones copied a whopping 90.9% of the ACLU’s findings and pasted them virtually unchanged into his ruling. So, the question is did the judge do anything wrong?
On this special extra of ID The Future, Robert Crowther reports on a new study showing a federal judge copied his ruling from the ACLU.
The key section of the widely-noted court decision on intelligent design issued a year ago on December 20 was copied nearly verbatim from a document written by ACLU lawyers, according to a study released today by scholars affiliated with the Discovery Institute.Read More ›
On this episode of ID The Future, Casey Luskin takes a look at so-called ‘junk DNA.’ Over the years, many (though not all) Darwinists have stated that non-coding DNA is not worth exploring because it is thought to be mere evolutionary junk. In 2003, Scientific American explained that “the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes, Mattick says, ‘were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.’” But, as Luskin reports that fact that ‘junk DNA’ is not junk has emerged not because of evolutionary theory but in spite of it. Perhaps it’s time for a new approach to “junk” DNA.
On this episode of ID The Future, CSC’s Casey Luskin reviews the new book by Dr. Thomas Woodward, Darwin Strikes Back. As Luskin notes, Woodward takes on the response to ID from critics. His book will shake whatever confidence readers may have had left in the overall objectivity of the Darwinian establishment.Read More ›
On this episode of ID The Future we report on the Ouachita Parish School District in Louisiana taking the moderate step of adopting a policy that specifically protects the rights of teachers to teach about evolution objectively. The policy, “Resolution on Teacher Academic Freedom to Teach Scientific Evidence Regarding Controversial Scientific Subject” states in part that “teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.”Read More ›