DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: RIDICULING RELIGION
SUBSECTION: EVOLUTION
Revised 1/8/01

"All positions in the evolution debate are well-represented by the posters on FreeRepublic. Independently of how any one of us feels about the creation/evolution debate, we recognize that the President has used it maliciously as a "wedge issue" to isolate and belittle the fundamentalist Christian community. People of all faiths and understandings should take a dim view of this." - Freeper Physicist 10/15/99

 

"My only enemy is right-wing religious fundamentalism." – Clinton per Marquez (Jerusalem Post 3/28/99)

Washington Post 7/95 Stephen Higgins (Director BATF – WACO) "…The day has long passed when we can afford to ignore the threat that is posed by individuals who believe they are subject only to the laws of their god and not those of our government…. …."

 

Universal Press Syndicate 4/30/99 Joseph Sobran "... Christians in America have been slow to grasp that they live under a regime whose unspoken major premise is that we don't have immortal souls. Liberal indoctrination teaches children that all earthly evils derive from our Christian heritage -- the source of intolerance, superstition and bigotry. "Medieval" has become a liberal devil-word, disparaging the high civilization of the Middle Ages. The chief practical result of the theory of evolution is the belief that human life isn't particularly special or sacred. This belief has found expression in mass murder, in the bombing of cities and in abortion clinics. Today new implications are still being found in it, as witness the career of Dr. Jack Kevorkian...."

The Daily Oklahomon 9/21/99 Cal Thomas "…About what Christians prophetically call "the last days," the Apostle Paul wrote they would be "terrible times. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God ... " (2 Timothy 3:1- 4) Such behavior may be seen in abundance today reported in this newspaper and all around us. Elsewhere, Paul again sees into the future and writes of depraved people: "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil ... They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless." (Romans 1:29-31) Have not these prophecies become current events? We are seeing the progeny of three wasted decades of imposed secularism. If God is only in the mind of the beholder and not at the heart of a people, then why should anyone treat others with respect? Princeton's newest professor, Peter Singer, believes the concept of human life as "sacred" is outmoded, and he would do away with it. His ideological disciple, Larry Gene Ashbrook, merely practiced what Singer teaches. When people learn that life is cheap and 30 million (and counting) abortions prove it; when marriages split up at the first sign of difficulty; when violence oozes from every cultural pore; when younger and younger children regard sex the way another generation thought of recess; when violent video games graphically depict blood and guts; when evolution is taught as fact and humans see themselves as more complex than a cabbage but of no greater moral significance; when any expression of public prayer or faith in God is treated as cursing and contraband used to be, surely this explains why America has run amok. How rich we are in things. How poor we are in the things that matter most…."

CNSNews.com 9/22/99 Thomas Jipping "...Why has this cultural jihad occurred all of a sudden? According to the Associated Press, officials of the pageant organization, which is headquartered in New Jersey, are afraid of violating the state's anti-discrimination law. What judges did to the Boy Scouts they could do to Miss America.... If you think that judges' decisions don't matter, just read the papers and look around your neighborhood. Judges told the people they cannot protect preborn children. Judges told the people they must tolerate pornography flowing through their communities, across their television screens, and even sold on military bases. Judges told school children they could not even look at the Ten Commandments, could not participate in prayer even if they wanted to, could not hear a passage from the Bible, and could not have God's blessing when they graduated. Judges have now told school children they may not pray before football game and told their parents they may not pray before school board meetings. Judges told the people they may not encourage citizen legislatures with term limits and must use their tax dollars for welfare for illegal aliens. Judges told people who do not want to discriminate by race that they must do so. Judges told the people that the only explanation about human origins that may be taught is Darwinian evolution. Judges told the people that men and women are the same and that any other view is an impermissible stereotype. Judges told the people that any moral objection to homosexuality is nothing but hate. And judges are telling the people that the last vestiges of morality, propriety, and tradition are simply exercises in discrimination and have to go as well. Folks, the most damaging cultural, social, economic, and political developments of the last two generations have come not from the statehouse but from the courthouse. Judges are twiddling while our culture is burning. I hope it's not too late....."

ACLJ.ORG 6/01/99 "...The American Center for Law and Justice, a public interest law firm, today filed suit in State District Court in Rice County, Minnesota on behalf of a high school biology teacher who has been barred from teaching biology because of his religious beliefs. "School officials are engaging in a type of 'educational McCarthyism' in this case which cannot go unchallenged," said Francis J. Manion, Senior Regional Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice - Midwest. "Teachers must be able to tell students information they need to make up their minds about issues such as evolution." Manion said that Rod LeVake, who holds a Masters degree in Biology Education, was told in 1998 he could no longer teach biology at Faribault High School in because, according to the school's curriculum director, LeVake has a deep conflict between his religious beliefs and the teaching of evolution. The lawsuit contends that LeVake, who describes himself as a Christian, denies that such a conflict exists and repeatedly has assured school officials that he could and would teach the theory of evolution. The suit contends that LeVake has told his superiors that he is not interested in teaching creationism in biology class, but simply wants his students to be aware that not all scientists accept evolution as an unquestionable fact and that there are numerous, scientific, non-religious critiques of the idea ..."

Washington Post 8/8/99 Hanna Rosin "...In the past two decades, creationists have undergone their own process of evolution. After a series of court decisions from 1968 to 1987 barred the movement's efforts to have biblical creationism taught in the schools, activists changed their strategy. They began to focus instead on attacking evolution as an unproven theory, picking apart such basic building blocks as fossil records and geological dating..... The movement's recent success may in part be a reflection of the fairly widespread sympathy for some of its basic principles. According to Gallup polls, about 44 percent of Americans believe in a biblical creationist view, that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." About 40 percent believe in "theistic evolution," the idea that God oversaw and guided the millions of years of evolution that culminated with humankind. Only one in 10 of those surveyed held a strict, secular evolutionist perspective...."

Washington Post 8/8/99 Hanna Rosin "...Some creationists offer what they consider to be positive scientific evidence for biblical explanations of the origins of life..... To prove Earth's relative youth, they search, for example, for evidence that dinosaurs lived far more recently than the millions of years ago cited by paleontologists. "One of our staff members went to Alaska recently and found dinosaur bones that were not yet fossilized," said Looy, of Answers in Genesis. "If dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago, how could one have been around in the last few hundred years? That matches with what the Bible teaches - that dinosaurs lived recently." .."

MSNBC 8/11/99 Reuters "...The Kansas Board of Education rejected evolution as a scientific principle Wednesday, dealing a victory to religious conservatives who are increasingly challenging science education in U.S. schools. The 10-member board, ignoring pleas by educators and established scientists, voted six to four to embrace new standards for science curricula that eliminate evolution as an underlying principle of biology and other sciences.... "

Wall Street Journal 8/13/99 "...And on the seventh day, He rested. Whoa, no way! "Adam" evolved many millennia ago from a series of random mutations. Whatever. It is not our purpose today to throw in with either the Kansas Board of Education, which voted this week to drop biological evolution from its curriculum guidelines, or with the biologists now screaming that the creationism movement is driving out serious science. We do, however, very much want to discuss driving important things out of public life. Specifically, we have in mind the Supreme Court decisions way back in the early 1960s that led over the years not merely to banning prayer from the schools but to wiping God and religion out of textbooks, graduation ceremonies and anywhere else the ACLU and its ilk could find Him hiding inside a public school. This is what we think is the message these Kansans are sending into the world: "About 35 years ago, you folks banned our religion from the public schools. So we've just voted to drop your religions from the public schools. Now maybe you'd like to sit down and negotiate a deal."..."

Associated Press 8/14/99 "...Gov. Bill Graves and some legislators are talking about abolishing the State Board of Education or stripping it of authority because of its vote to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution. "It's going to be an issue in the legislative session," Mr. Graves, a moderate Republican, said Friday of the board's 6-4 vote this week. On Thursday, Mr. Graves said the decision was "so out of sync with reality" that it minimized the board's credibility. Legislators say the controversy over evolution could create support for changes that have been sought for years by lawmakers in both parties. ..."

Fox News 8/14/99 John Hanna AP "...The American Civil Liberties Union says school districts could face lawsuits if they attempt to teach creationism in wake of the state school board's recent decision to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution. The ACLU, in a letter Friday to school superintendents, warned the districts about adopting "religiously-based standards'' in teaching science. The ACLU also noted U.S. Supreme Court decisions that forbid the teaching of creationism, the belief that a higher power created the universe, because of its religious foundation. People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and States also said they would consider lawsuits if religion-based standards were implemented....."

New York Times 8/15/99 George Johnson "...Whenever setbacks like the one in Kansas occur, scientists leap forth to point out the fallacy of the reationist position: There is no compelling reason to single out the evolution of life or the cosmos as being less than absolute. It would be just as sensible for school boards to affix a warning inside physics books: "No one has directly observed the detailed substructure of matter. Therefore, any statement about it being made of atoms should be considered as theory, not fact." The problem is that the dynamic view of science doesn't come across strongly enough in the classroom. For reasons of expediency, scientific theories are presented as done deals. Little appreciation is conveyed for the intellectual struggle that went into interpreting the data or examining the assumptions -- always open to question -- that lurk behind the experiments. Lost from most explications is the exhilarating possibility that a theory that seems undeniable today could be overturned tomorrow. With science presented almost as though it were received wisdom, it's little wonder that some legislators and school board members confuse it with a competing religion, and misconstrue a religious belief like creationism as an alternate scientific theory. They're encouraged to do so by a new wave of creationists who, in an act of intellectual jujitsu, promote their belief in absolute knowledge by invoking the relativistic arguments of post-modern philosophy: While creationism is built on belief in a caring, all-powerful, constantly intervening creator, who completed his work thousands of years ago, evolution has its own tenets of faith. The most fundamental is the belief that the world consists of insentient matter unfolding on its own over vast eons of time -- eons that can only be inferred from indirect evidence. One is still free to believe in a deity, but it's not a necessary part of the equations..... For something to be called a theory, it has to be falsifiable, capable of being overthrown. Students could also be taught the dangers that come when a scientist mistakes a theory for eternal truth, shoring up flimsy hypotheses by contorting the data. They could learn of cases in which a religion flexibly adjusted its doctrines because of new social realities, allowing, for example, homosexuals into the ministry. But slowly, by giving creationism equal time with evolution, the class would see a powerfully subtle difference. Science is, foremost, a method of interrogating reality: proposing hypotheses that seem true and then testing them -- trying, almost erversely, to negate them, elevating only the handful that survive to the status of a theory. Creationism is a doctrine, whose adherents are interested only in seeking out data that support it. In making sense of the world, one is always free to start from different assumptions. But part of a good education is learning what you are trading off in the bargain...."

Wall Street Journal 8/15/99 Phillip Johnson "...A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin." That point was illustrated last week by the media firestorm that followed the Kansas Board of Education's vote to omit macro-evolution from the list of science topics which all students are expected to master. Frantic scientists and educators warned that Kansas students would no longer be able to succeed in college or graduate school, and that the future of science itself was in danger....The root of the problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving things like careful measurements, repeatable experiments, and especially a skeptical, open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God. Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith. The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe..... All the most prominent Darwinists proclaim naturalistic philosophy when they think it safe to do so. Carl Sagan had nothing but contempt for those who deny that humans and all other species "arose by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime." Richard Dawkins exults that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and Richard Lewontin has written that scientists must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of the evidence, because "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Stephen Jay Gould condescendingly offers to allow religious people to express their subjective opinions about morals, provided they don't interfere with the authority of scientists to determine the "facts" -- one of the facts being that God is merely a comforting myth.....So one reason the science educators panic at the first sign of public rebellion is that they fear exposure of the implicit religious content in what they are teaching. An even more compelling reason for keeping the lid on public discussion is that the official neo-Darwinian theory is having serious trouble with the evidence..... "

National Post (Canada) 8/19/99 Philip Mathias "…I don't believe in evolution. That's why, for a moment, I was pleased the Kansas Board of Education voted last week to delete any mention of evolution from the state's science curriculum. But my delight was only momentary, because I believe even less in creationism, which teaches God created each species by miracle at different stages in the history of the world….That's not for me. But I don't believe in evolution either, for two reasons. The first is that evolution has become a faith, a kind of scientific religion, whose dogmas you must believe if you are to be treated with respect as a thoughtful person. I have tried to debate evolution with many scientists, and their reaction is always the same -- at first the discomfort felt by a believer faced with an unbeliever, and then, when the light dawns, contempt for somebody they believe must be a religious nut. In fact, I graduated some time ago with a degree in chemistry, physics, mathematics and biology (including evolution theory) from London University. ….My second reason for not believing evolution is that, for the most part, it is not proven and is even, at times, nonsensical. At this point in the argument, I must make a careful distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. There's no doubt species do adapt to local conditions. A bird's beak will change to deal with different nuts, and gazelles will run faster to escape cheetahs that are also evolving into faster runners to catch the gazelles. That's micro-evolution. But macro-evolution is another ballgame. The process of natural selection that changes birds and gazelles is gradual. But the fossil record is not continuous, as natural selection would require. The elephant and the whale appear relatively suddenly. Some argue the huge gaps in the fossil record are caused by genetic mutation. An individual in one species is born with a mutation that forms the beginning of quite another species. Nothing in between. The problem with this idea is that mutations are almost always a handicap, and only occur in one individual at a time. Are we to believe the same mutation appeared spontaneously in enough individuals of one species to enable the mutants to form the breeding base for another stable species? That would truly be a miracle. As astronomer Fred Hoyle put it, that's like believing a hurricane could blow through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747. Another popular theory is that species evolved by micro-adaptation, but in rapid bursts, and in places far from the locations where we find fossils. That's why there's no record of the gradual change from one major species to another. That's like saying we know there are people on Mars, but we have no evidence yet….. Science has theories for all these phenomena, but they are just that -- theories, and often poor ones at that. I believe there is a mechanism behind the development of species through the ages that has not yet been discovered. What is it? I have no idea. But logic demands there is something we do not yet know …."

Original Sources (www.originalsources.com) 8/26/99 Mary Mostert "…Yesterday's New York Times lead story was titled "Evolution Struggle Shifts to Kansas School Districts. Earlier this month the Kansas Board of Education deleted any mention of evolution in its state 7th-12th grade science tests…. "'They'll get evolution here,' said Elaine Pardee, who teaches at Washburn Rural High, where the science classroom walls are lined with various animal skeletons that, by their very appearance, testify of the evolutionary theory of a common ancestor among mammals. 'We're not going to cheat our kids.'…. " 'I don't think it's relegated to Sunday School,' Mrs. Mills said. 'If you present the material to students with critical thinking and they come to you with a paper supporting creationism, or arguing against the evolutionary theory from a creationist point of view, you should accept that.'" ….It doesn't bother me that either of them believe what they believe. It DOES bother me that evolutionists claim their belief system is not "religion." They dub it "science" and expect the rest of the world to swallow it hook, line and sinker. And, strangely, much of the world DOES swallow it if it's called "science" regardless of how absurd it actually is on examination….What really bothers me is that so much religion is being taught in school, religion that I once taught as an agnostic humanist in Sunday School. Just because agnostics don't believe in God doesn't mean their beliefs are not "religion." Satanism is a religion and it isn't God that they worship. Atheism is a belief system and, when forced on public school students in the guise of "science" it's still a belief system, it's still a "theory" and not a fact. Agnostic Humanism is a religion and it is rampant in public schools…."

UPI 8/27/99 "…The White House said (Friday) that President Clinton, while generally favoring the right of school boards to set curriculum, accepts the 1987 Supreme Court ruling that schools are not free to teach creationism. White House press secretary Joe Lockhart was asked for Clinton's position one day after Vice President Al Gore refused to take a clear stand on whether public schools should be required to teach evolution rather than creationism…."

Savannah Morning News 8/28/99 Audry McCombs "…Ever questioned the biblical creation account and felt guilty? Bob Lefavi has. When this trained scientist, former competitive bodybuilder and now professor at Armstrong Atlantic State University, began his spiritual journey back to God in 1992, he needed answers to questions. He wondered, did he have to throw out science to believe in God? Could the two co-exist? So, Lefavi began searching for answers. Is belief in the Bible's creation account completely at odds with science's explanation of the origin of the universe and life? Can spirituality affect the body? Why do bad things happen to good people? Would he become a fanatic evangelist if he got "religion?" Lefavi kept detailed notes of his conclusions and the result is his book, "Reasons to Believe." The slim volume of six chapters, published in July by Hope Publishing House in California, has sold approximately 4,000 copies, primarily through the Internet bookseller Amazon.com. ….."The culmination of my journey was the discovery of harmony and reconciliation between matter and spirit," he continues. "This allowed me to overcome the denial of God and my spirituality, enabling me to see reality through eyes of the spirit and truth." Lefavi, who says he no longer needs reasons to believe in God, is pursuing a master of divinity degree at Erskine Seminary in South Carolina. …."

Charlotte Observer 8/25/99 Jesse Rogers "…If supporters of teaching the theory of evolution were intellectually honest, they would not oppose teaching the scientific evidence that refutes it. After the Kansas Board of Education's decision regarding the teaching of evolution, lines are once again being drawn between supporters of evolution and Christianity. As expected, both sides of the debate engage in a war of words, and neither side acknowledges what the war is about. First of all, Christians are not opposed to science. Being neither moral nor immoral, science is definitively amoral. Discovering stars, cures for diseases, uses for chemicals, or devices to simplify tasks has no bearing on morality. Research into these and other areas must carry on and is frequently performed or directly supported by Christians. Further, Christians are not necessarily concerned with the theory of evolution. It is a theory, like many others, that is explored by many scientists…. However, these same scientists quickly state their unwavering belief that natural processes brought about the origin of the species, that God had nothing to do with it, and that God does not exist. This is where Christians get concerned with the teaching of evolution. At this point, evolution moves from a theory of science, supported by evidence, to a doctrine of faith, supported by belief. Based on faith, believers in evolution quickly move from teaching a scientific theory to teaching a naturalistic world view that denies the existence of God. This is what the war is about: conflicting world views…."

Charlotte Observer 8/25/99 Jesse Rogers "…If supporters of teaching the theory of evolution were intellectually honest, they would not oppose teaching the scientific evidence that refutes evolution. The fields of information theory, genetics, probability analysis, physics, chemistry and others offer much evidence to suggest that evolution is impossible. Yet, this evidence is nowhere to be found in the textbooks presented to our children. Why? If honest in their motives, supporters of teaching evolution would remove from science textbooks the many statements that have been proved false. For example, the theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was disproved decades ago and its author discredited for falsifying data. Yet, today's science textbooks present this theory as if it were factual. Why?…"

Charlotte Observer 8/25/99 Jesse Rogers "…Christians conclude this lack of honesty is motivated by the desire of those who control the science education curriculum to indoctrinate children to a naturalistic, God-less world view. The many statements of faith about evolution in a child's textbook and the comments of those responsible for developing science curriculum are evidence supporting this conclusion.…The public school science curriculum is now faith-based rather than fact-based in order to promote a faith that excludes God. This is a clear violation of the laws requiring separation of church and state, and an affront to our faith….. "

The Wanderer Press 8/26/99 Joseph Sobran "…Science took it on the chin this week, and liberals are howling. The Kansas state board of education has dropped the requirement that the theory of evolution be taught in public schools. Even such "conservative" pundits as George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Mona Charen have deplored the board's decision as benighted. Time magazine has already devoted a cover story to reaffirming Darwinism. Not that Kansas has banned Darwin; only that other views of human origins may be discussed in its schools, including so-called creationist theories. Aren't we all in favor of "diversity" in education? Not when it comes to the sacred doctrine of Darwinism! In other words, Darwinism has hitherto enjoyed the status of an established religion. It has been taught as dogma to children in public schools who are incapable of assessing it for themselves. It would be one thing if children were taught the scientific method and shown how it applies to biology. But they are not taught a method; they are taught a conclusion. And the conclusion, not the scientific method, is what stays with them after they leave school. This conclusion is presented as beyond rational doubt, contradicts religious teachings of man's origin, and smuggles into young minds a philosophy of atheistic materialism…."

Edmonton Sun 9/5/99 Ted Byfield "….North America's liberal media enjoyed another orgy of Christian bashing last month after the Kansas Board of Education removed evolution as a required subject in the state science curriculum. We were fed the usual dose of fulmination. How the Kansas board had forbidden the teaching of evolution in schools. (Which it did not.) How Kansas schools were ordered to teach only the biblical account of creation. (Which they were not.) How the change was dictated by "the Christian right." (Which it wasn't.) And how (in the words of the Edmonton Journal) "there is not one credible scientist on the planet who questions the fundamental truth of Darwinian evolution." Which of course tells us far more about ignorance in Edmonton than ignorance in Kansas. For an increasing number of scientists all over the planet are questioning "the fundamental truth of Darwinian evolution." It's a theory whose gaps and deficiencies are becoming so evident that embracing it unreservedly requires the sort of blind, unquestioning faith that only liberal editorialists are capable of….’

Edmonton Sun 9/5/99 Ted Byfield "….Thus by absolute happenstance life evolved from the "simple cell." But there must have been no exterior intelligence causing these changes. If such were shown or implied, said Darwin, "my theory falls." From the start, certain essentials in his theory bothered some scientists. For it to be true, they said, the fossil records would have to show boundless evidence of "transitional species," that is creatures that are, say, half way between lizard and bird. Don't worry they'll turn up, said the Darwinists. They have been frantically searching for 150 years and have found not one that isn't subject to serious doubt. Why is this? ….….There's another problem. A fully developed wing, for example, gives a creature undoubted power. But what is the evolutionary advantage of 1% of a wing, of a bump? There has been no convincing answer to this.

Edmonton Sun 9/5/99 Ted Byfield "….Two years ago came another bombshell. Darwin could speak of the "simple cell," wrote Pennsylvania biochemist Michael J. Behe in his book, Darwin's Black Box, because in his day the cell was like a "black box" that no one could open. Well now it has been opened and it's about as simple as a Boeing jet. There is no chance whatever, he concludes, that it happened by accident. Considerations like these, not the "Christian Right," led the Kansas board to let local school districts decide whether and how to teach evolution. The board was not, in other words, living in the past, but very much in the present. And who knows? Maybe one day that editorial writer will do the same.

Universal Press Syndicate 9/15/99 Joseph Sobran "… I've been watching the reaction to the decision of the Kansas state board of education to make the teaching of evolution optional in public schools. The liberal side has been furious to the verge of hysteria. It attacks the board and the Christian Right as if they had banned the teaching of science. But it doesn't address the merits of Darwinism itself; it merely assumes that Science Has Spoken and that we all have a duty to submit. The conservative side has concentrated on the difficulties posed by the theory: Where is the fossil record of intermediate species? How can a lower form of life beget a higher one? How can mutations -- understood as benign birth defects -- be genetically transmitted, to the point where a line of apes eventually produces a Mozart? The liberals seem less interested in teaching kids to think for themselves than in giving Darwinism a monopoly of authority….. Our liberal overseers have long since decided that religious teachings have no place in public education. While Darwinism is mandatory, religion is not even optional: It's "unconstitutional." …."

Universal Press Syndicate 9/15/99 Joseph Sobran "…But in almost every known society, education has meant initiating the young into the heritage of their ancestors. The Jews taught their young the story of the Chosen People; Christians did the same, adding the story of Jesus; the Chinese taught the wisdom of Confucius; the Greeks and Romans taught the great myths of Olympus. Education has always meant more than instilling knowledge; it has also meant cultivating the moral habits necessary to continue a tradition. One of the marks of tyranny is its desire to cut the young off from their ancestors….. This is why the communists in Russia banned and persecuted Christianity, while rewriting the history books to impart the lesson that communism was the highest stage of history. The Chinese communists not only banned Confucius, but adopted the Roman alphabet so that the young would be unable to read the ancestral wisdom that was preserved in the old ideograms -- in effect making the heirs of an ancient civilization illiterate…..

Universal Press Syndicate 9/15/99 Joseph Sobran "… Our "liberal" regime is not so different from the communist regime….. They share communism's materialist philosophy, its hostility to religion, and its ambition to use the state to transform traditional society. Secularist education is part of the liberal agenda, and Kansas has given it a bloody nose by stripping the theory of evolution of its hitherto privileged position in the curriculum….. Christian parents have correctly intuited the hidden agenda behind so much state education. Their children have been weaned from Christian culture and taught a godless cosmology in the guise of biology. Through sex education, in which aggressive advocacy masquerades as knowledge, the public schools have also undermined Christian morality. They need not attack Christianity frontally; they merely have to keep the young ignorant of their Christian heritage. And they do this very well. …."

Universal Press Syndicate 9/15/99 Joseph Sobran "… The battle over evolution and religion is really a battle between state and parental authority. The obvious way to resolve it is to cut the state out of education, making all schools private. Parents who really wanted their kids to absorb the Darwinian philosophy would be free to have their own schools; Christian parents would have their own schools too. What would be different? Obviously the statists would lose their privileged status and their huge captive audience. They would be forced to compete on equal terms with people they prefer to rule as intellectual serfs. It's odd that Darwinians should be so afraid of competition!…"

The Korea Times 9/22/99 Roger Richards ".... In the wake of racial violence in the U.S. leaving a Korean student and a black university basketball coach dead, I was asked where racism in the U.S. comes from. Why would otherwise perfectly intelligent people decide to hate and harm others because they are a darker shade of brown? The answer, as is often the case with intercultural problems, is rooted in history. It's been blamed on the Bible, but even a cursory review of history shows that is patently false. The concept of race is found no where in the Bible, which instead teaches that "all nations are of one blood". Indeed, biblical Christians in the U K and the U.S. worked tirelessly for slavery's abolition and to get African-Americans recognized as fully human with equal rights..... The idea of race really came in vogue in the 1790s with the then daring (though ancient) idea of evolutionism. It was Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles himself, who helped promulgate the idea of an elite race surviving and overcoming the "savage" races.[3] The results of such thinking were horrendous, just as the results of Charles Darwin's racist ideas were to be. Contrast the description of Tasmanian natives given by a Christian sea captain, Captain Cook, in 1777 with the description of a similar native tribe given by evolutionist, Charles Darwin in 1832 while on his journey around the world in the HMS Beagle..... Contrast this with Charles Darwin's description of a similar tribe, following 3 or 4 decades of evolutionary teaching by his grandfather and others of like mind that not all humans were fully human. They taught that some "savages" were closer to monkeys. On his first view of the people inhabiting Tierra del Fuego, South America, he repeatedly wrote of them as 'miserable degraded savages'. [5] He described them as being much closer to animals than to Europeans.[6] Later, in clear racist derision, he compared this tribe of people to devils he had seen in plays and said that their habits were animal-like. [7] He was shocked to find out that a missionary had gone in afterwards and taught them to read and write and that many had become Christians. .....The Tasmanians were hunted down like wild animals by men who viewed them through Erasmus Darwin's "primitive-savage" ideology. They were treated with unspeakable cruelty only equaled by Hitler's Mengele. Darwin's grandfather was one of the first researchers to dig up an aborigine from the grave to stuff for exhibit. According to Ali Gripper in The Daily Telegraph Mirror, Sydney, the stolen body was the first of up to 10,000 desecrated and it was placed in the Royal College of Surgeons. The purpose of this was "...was to try to prove their racial inferiority" and that they were the "missing" link between stone age men and fully evolved whites. King Hele, Desmond, in his biography of Erasmus Darwin said that "After 1794, statements of the principle of natural selection and evolution came fairly thick and fast". These were used to justify the belief that the black tribes found in Australia and South America were savages and not fully evolved. [8] Tasmanian and aborigine skulls became very popular for evolutionists to collect, driving the market. Bounties were put on Tasmanian heads. Mutilations and rapes were common. Settlers would cut off the sexual organs of the males and watch them run away and bleed to death, while round ups and mass exterminations were common. [9] By the time the Tasmanians were totally wiped out, Darwin had predicted their end in his "Descent of Man". He said 'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world'. Twenty years later this came true in Tasmania, in large measure due to thinking based upon Darwin and his grandfather's own writings.[10] ..."

WorldNetDaily 10/7/99 Craige McMillan "... People of faith often get tangled up in the details when arguing to expand their views outside the four walls of a building. Thus we are led into the opposition's forest, and get lost amongst the trees. We end up about arguing about their details, become entangled in separation doctrine and are silenced by our own First Amendment guarantee of free speech. In the passage above [Romans 1:18-20], God sweeps aside the details and gets right to the point. "In squelching the truth about Me they have conspired to get rid of Me." Perhaps that's the real reason intelligent creation can't be taught in schools alongside evolution? Because if it were -- people might recognize the message? And if they believed it, they might reason that such a Creator was worth listening to -- and maybe even following? The paternalistic, all-wise state has never been keen on competition for its self-appointed position as our god. The people who set up our government had a rather different view. They understood that their government operated at the pleasure of the Divine Sovereign of the Universe. Thus our "rights" didn't come from them; they came from Him. It was simply their job to protect those rights. But for governments that aspire to dominate and control people, God is a major problem. If He exists, then he would have to be listened to and obeyed. And if He had to be obeyed, that would limit the power of the self-appointed elites who had usurped His position. It would mean that in God's eyes, the governing elites were no more important than the people they were governing. It would also mean that they were accountable for their actions. It would, in short, be a disaster! ...."

Reuters 10/5/99 "....A change in Kentucky school curriculum guidelines eliminating the word ``evolution'' has touched off the second uproar over U.S. science education in less than two months. The Louisville Courier-Journal first reported the change in Tuesday's editions, saying the phrase ``change over time'' had been substituted for the word ``evolution'' in guidelines for middle school and high school science courses. The curriculum guidelines were posted on the state Education Department's Internet site. Under the heading ``Diversity and Adaptations of Organisms'' they state, for instance, ``Biological change over time accounts for the diversity of species developed through gradual processes over many generations.'' ..... "

Orlando Sentinel 10/13/99 Charley Reese "….. But the man I quoted as saying that spontaneous generation of a living cell is as improbable as a tornado building a Boeing 747 was Sir Fred Hoyle, a renowned astronomer, mathematician and astrophysicist. I don't think that Sir Fred's math skills are in doubt by anyone smart enough to know the multiplication tables…."

Orlando Sentinel 10/13/99 Charley Reese "…..So, for the fun of it, here are a few more quotes showing that Darwin's theory of evolution is in tatters: "Through the use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated which is not the case." (Italics mine.) Pierre Grasse, page 6, The Evolution of Living Organisms.

Orlando Sentinel 10/13/99 Charley Reese "…..T. Kemp, curator of the University Museum at Oxford, said, "Paleontology is now looking at what it actually finds, not what it is told that it is supposed to find. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly . . . . Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record." "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmological myth of the 20th century. Like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced, and like the creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all-embracing explanation for the origin of the world . . . ." That's Michael Denton, a biologist and physician, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis…."

Orlando Sentinel 10/13/99 Charley Reese "…..David Raup, a paleontologist, stated in an article, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles and so on. Also there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." Now, not one of the scientists quoted above, is a creationist or advocate of the Genesis theory or, so far as I know, even religious. But evolution is a myth. This myth is pushed off on the public in popular articles and textbooks as if it were scientific fact. …."

The Register Guard 10/10/99 James Glanz "….Nearly overlooked in the furor over the Kansas Board of Education's decision in August to remove evolution from its education standards was a decision on the much wider realm governed by the science of the cosmos. Influenced by a handful of scientists whose literal faith in the Bible has helped persuade them that the universe is only a few thousand years old, the board deleted from its standards a description of the Big Bang theory of cosmic origins, the central organizing principle of modern astronomy and cosmology. The Big Bang theory, based on decades of astronomical observations and physics research, suggests that the universe originated in a colossal explosion of matter and radiation some 15 billion years ago. But ``young Earth creationists,'' as they are generally known, have come up with their own theories to explain how cosmic history could be condensed into mere thousands of years. They are making this case in books, pamphlets and lectures, as well as on a number of Web sites. Mainstream scientists consider their theories to be wildly out of line with reality, even though books describing them are often liberally sprinkled with references to authorities such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. As a result, physical scientists now find themselves in a fight in which they have seldom played a public role. They have responded with a mixture of disdain, disbelief and consternation, and the reactions have not been limited to physicists and cosmologists in Kansas…….. But advocates of the creationist view say alarm over their theories is overblown. Steve Abrams, a member of the Kansas board and veterinarian in Arkansas City who was among the leaders of the push to make the changes, said there are legitimate scientific doubts about whether the universe is more than several thousand years old. ``There is sufficient data to lend credibility to the idea that we do not have all the answers for teaching the origin of our universe.'' …… "

The Register Guard 10/10/99 James Glanz "….The biggest problem for the young Earth creationists is explaining the time that has apparently passed since the light we see from distant galaxies was emitted. Given the constancy of the speed of light and estimates of the distance between Earth and faraway galaxies it is difficult to explain how Earth and the cosmos could be young. But D. Russell Humphreys, a nuclear weapons engineer at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M., who is also an adjunct professor at the Institute for Creation Research near San Diego, thinks he has an answer. He said that Einstein's equations of relativity, the basis of the Big Bang theory, could be used to construct a universe in which the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Abrams said that in thinking about the Kansas standards he had been struck by Humphreys' book, ``Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe'' (Master Books, fifth printing in 1998). Humphreys' ideas ``seem to be right there on the cutting edge, so to speak,'' Abrams said. …."

New York Times 10/12/99 Anthony Lewis "…..The creationist position is certainly not a fringe belief nowadays. A Gallup poll taken in June for CNN and USA Today found that 68 percent of those surveyed favored teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools; 40 percent favored dropping evolution altogether and teaching children only the biblical version of creation…….. Of course evolution is a theory. The whole ethos of science is that any explanation for the myriad mysteries in our universe is a theory, subject to challenge and experiment. That is the scientific method. Those who take the biblical account of creation literally reject the scientific method, offering instead a doctrine of faith. There are "creation scientists" who argue that the Bible can be squared with scientific observations of, for example, the age of the universe. But they are not taken seriously by most scientists. The interesting question is why a large body of opinion in the United States supports a view at such odds with contemporary scientific understanding. No other Western country has anything like it. Religious fundamentalists have played an important part in America from the earliest settlements. And religious belief is much stronger in the United States today than in other Western societies. But belief does not usually, elsewhere, lead to opposing the teaching of evolution….."

FOX News.com 10/12/99 David Miles "….Two months after voting to downplay the theory of evolution in its public schools, the Kansas Board of Education is still trying to figure out what its new science curriculum should say. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled more than a decade ago that states cannot teach creationism, the belief that a divine power created the universe. It's no simple task: Three national science groups are refusing to let the board use their copyrighted materials, which are part of the state's current testing standards, because of the board's stance……. Kansas' new standards omit much of evolution as a subject for statewide testing, including the theory that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Although teachers are not required omit evolution teaching in their classrooms, critics fear that many schools will adjust their lesson plans to avoid subjects that won't be part of the new tests, to be given first in spring 2001…… Last month, the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science said the board couldn't use their materials because Kansas' new standards don't reflect their goal of advancing science education. …."

AP Wire 10/12/99 Anjetta McQueen "…..Three state education boards -- in Alabama, Kentucky and Bingman's Kansas -- have clouded the issue by giving school districts the option of introducing creationism into their classrooms alongside evolution. A fourth, Colorado, has dropped questions on evolution from a standardized test it gives students. Such actions could leave science teachers caught in the middle, particularly those in small districts where creationism advocates are better organized to exert more influence over local board decisions. …… But Gish, a biochemist who published ``Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools'' in 1996, argues that teachers should be able to discuss with students the questions that he says evolution can't answer. ``There are a tremendous number of very complex invertebrates that appear abruptly in fossil record and they supposedly had evolved,'' he said. ``There were no human witnesses; our public schools are not the private property of evolutionists or creationists.'' ….."

World Magazine 10/15/99 Lynn Vincent "..... When "Kelly," a woman who claimed to have been an AGF "technician" like Ms. Ying, approached Life Dynamics in 1997, the pro-life group launched an undercover investigation. The probe unearthed grim, hard-copy evidence of the cross-country flow of baby body parts, including detailed dissection orders, a brochure touting "the freshest tissue available," and price lists for whole babies and parts. One 1999 price list from a company called Opening Lines reads like a cannibal's wish list: Skin $100. Limbs (at least 2) $150. Spinal cord $325. Brain $999 (30% discount if significantly fragmented). The evidence confirmed what pro-life bioethicists have long predicted: the nadir-bound plummet of respect for human life-and the ascendancy of death for profit. "It's the inevitable logical progression of a society that, like Darwin, believes we came from nothing," notes Gene Rudd, an obstetrician and member of the Christian Medical and Dental Society's Bioethics Commission. "When we fail to see life as sacred and ordained by God as unique, this is the reasonable conclusion ... taking whatever's available to gratify our own self-interests and taking the weakest of the species first ... like jackals. This is the inevitable slide down the slippery slope." In 1993, President Clinton freshly greased that slope. Following vigorous lobbying by patient advocacy groups, Mr. Clinton signed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act, effectively lifting the ban on federally funded research involving the transplantation of fetal tissue...... But, this being the land of opportunity, fetal-tissue entrepreneurs soon emerged to nip at NIH's well-funded heels. Anatomic Gift Foundation, Opening Lines, and at least two other companies-competition AGF representatives say they know of, but decline to name-joined the pack. Each firm formed relationships with abortion clinics. Each also furnished abortionists with literature and consent forms for use by clinic counselors in making women aware of the option to donate their babies' bodies to medical science. According to AGF executive director Brent Bardsley, aborting mothers are not approached about tissue donation until after they've signed a consent to abort. Ironically, it is the babies themselves that are referred to as "donors," as though they had some say in the matter. Such semantic red flags-and a phalanx of others-have bioethicists hotly debating the issue of fetal-tissue research: Does the use of the bodies of aborted children for medical research amount to further exploitation of those who are already victims? Will the existence of fetal-tissue donation programs persuade more mothers that abortion is an acceptable, even altruistic, option? Since abortion is legal and the human bodies are destined to be discarded anyway, does it all shake out as a kind of ethical offset, mitigating the abortion holocaust with potential good? ...."

The Wall Street Journal 10/15/99 George Sim Johnston ".... author of "Did Darwin Get It Right?" Does God exist? You can answer that question in at least two ways, including, notably, "yes." But how do you argue for that particular answer? A new cottage industry among the religiously minded is the re-articulation of the so-called "cosmological argument" for the existence of God. Its proofs work backward. They start with visible creation and reason that it can only be the work of an uncreated First Cause. Such proofs were once compelling to educated people. Now the average college graduate can do without them. He doesn't know exactly why this is so; he simply believes that Darwin and Stephen Hawking have somehow managed to explain creation without reference to a Creator. Darwin and Hawking, of course, have done no such thing. Science can never answer the question: Why is there something rather than nothing? The Wall Street Journal 10/15/99 George Sim Johnston ".... As one staunchly atheistic 20th-century astronomer put it: "A common sense interpretation of the data suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." How do you get around such a "common sense" interpretation? Darwin supplied the answer: Any "design" in nature is only apparent, the work of blind mechanisms.... Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the Encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces...."

The Wall Street Journal 10/15/99 George Sim Johnston ".... At a recent conference in New York put on by the Wethersfield Institute, "Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe," a number of philosophers and scientists argued that it is time to restate the case for intelligent design. The more science unpacks of material reality, the panelists contended, the harder it is to claim that mechanisms like natural selection can achieve the "irreducible complexity" of, say, the human eye. Much of the afternoon was spent bringing William Paley's classic, 18th-century argument from design into the late 20th century. ...."

The Wall Street Journal 10/15/99 George Sim Johnston ".... William Dembski, a mathematician, began by admitting that "chance and necessity" are clearly at work in nature. If you see a cloud shape itself into the image of a horse, you do not need any more explanation than wind currents. If, however, you see written in the sky, "Yankees Win World Series," you would reasonably infer that some intelligent agent had been at work. The trick is to identify the threshold between chance and necessity, on the one hand, and intelligent design, on the other. The thrust of the conference was that much in nature points to skywriting rather than coincidence.

The Wall Street Journal 10/15/99 George Sim Johnston ".... Michael Behe, a biochemist and the author of "Darwin's Black Box," took a hard look at Darwin's famous assertion that the human eye had evolved at random from a "light sensitive spot." A "light sensitive spot" seemed a simple thing to Darwin; but modern biology shows that the chemical process needed simply to register a photon is extremely complex. Remove one step and it breaks down. In short, whatever biochemical gizmo preceded the "light sensitive spot" would have registered no light at all and so presumably would be rejected by Darwinian selection. So how did nature "build" the eye?

The Wall Street Journal 10/15/99 George Sim Johnston "..... But the admission by scientists like Stuart Kauffman that there are mysteries that elude a Darwinian explanation would seem to leave open the door to intelligent design for anyone interested in such an idea...."

The Wall Street Journal 10/15/99 George Sim Johnston ".... One scientist who is decidedly not interested is Steven Weinberg, who won the Nobel Prize for physics. In the current New York Review of Books, he dismisses talk of a "fine-tuned" universe as a dangerous regression to Greek myths. He also attacks religion, especially Christianity. To keep his view coherent, Mr. Weinberg--and physicists like him--must somehow explain the breathtaking specificity of what followed the Big Bang. Picture a wall with hundreds of dials; each must be at exactly the right setting for carbon-based life to emerge eventually in a suburb of the Milky Way. If the cosmic expansion had been a fraction less intense, the universe would have imploded billions of years ago; a fraction more intense, and the galaxies would not have formed. How to explain this remarkable exactitude? Mr. Weinberg favors the multi-universe theory, in which the Big Bang is just one of innumerable other big bangs. The idea is that if there are billions of universes, then the odds are pretty good that one would finally get it right so that man could dwell in it. This would be "cosmic natural selection" and so there is no need to worry about the appearance of design. The only problem with the notion of a plurality of big bangs is that there is not a shred of evidence to support it. The multi-universe theory also violates elementary logic. All these universes either interact or they don't. If they do, they constitute one universe. If they don't, they are mutually unknowable. Mr. Weinberg, in fact, is guilty of what he accuses religious people of doing: taking refuge in the unobservable....."

The Wall Street Journal 10/15/99 George Sim Johnston "....It is unlikely, of course, that the Wethersfield conference would have won over Mr. Weinberg had he been there. Scientists usually don't see the evidence differently until they change their interpretive framework. And the current framework, for most scientists, is anti-theistic. But for the rest, this new school of intelligent design is appealing and a far cry from the crude polemics of the creationists....."

 

AP 10/16/99 Martha Hodel "…A county school board is considering a proposal to lift a ban on teaching the biblical story of creation, the latest step in a growing national debate. The proposal, introduced by Kanawha County board member Betty Jarvis, was submitted for comment this week to principals and teachers of the 87 schools in the state's largest county. ``We have to present all theories,'' Jarvis told The Charleston Gazette. ``Creationism is a theory. A lot of science books deal only with evolution. Teachers are afraid to stray from the track.'' Jarvis did not return telephone calls from The Associated Press. The county board will vote on the proposal in December. ….. ``The part that really disturbs me is the argument that `this is the other theory,''' said Hilary Chiz, director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. ``Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious idea about human development, and this is simply a transparent scheme to teach religion in our schools,'' she said. Gov. Cecil Underwood, a former teacher, said he does not oppose teaching creationism in public schools. ``I think education is search for the truth. We need to look at all theories to decide what is the truth,'' Underwood said Thursday…."

Fox News Wire/via Drudge Report 10/16/99 AP Julia Lieblich "….Rodney LeVake, science teacher, says believing in evolution is as absurd as thinking the Earth is the center of the universe. …. "I'd like an evolutionist to look me in the eye,'' he says, "and tell me one thing about evolution that is true.'' Though LeVake calls evolution a godless philosophy, he told local school officials that he wanted to teach the subject, anyway, to 10th graders in biology class at Faribault Senior High School. Without conveying his own religious views of creation, he says, he hoped to point out what he calls overwhelming scientific evidence against evolution. …… He was assigned instead to teach freshman science, which does not take up the theory. LeVake felt this was a deliberate move that violated his right to religious freedom, and the American Center for Law and Justice, a religious-rights advocacy group, agreed to represent him in a civil lawsuit against the school district……LeVake sees himself not as a renegade, but as part of a movement of educators skeptical of evolution. …..The courts had made it hard to teach creation science, Scott says, so "If you can't ban evolution, you can present the evidence against evolution.'' The Faribault case, says Scott, is significant because it's the first time "evidence against evolution'' has been directly addressed in a court case. ……In an effort to explain how he would teach evolution, LeVake drew up a six-page document which, he says, relies heavily on biochemist Michael Denton's book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.'' LeVake wrote: "The process of evolution itself is not only impossible from a biochemical, anatomical, and physiological standpoint, but the theory of evolution has no evidence to show it actually occurred.'' …… Scott, of the science education center, calls it bad science. "It's anomaly-mongering. He takes a bunch of observations out of context, and he gets a lot of them wrong. He misstates the implications and uses this as evidence that evolution is all washed up. He completely ignores an enormous number of observations that can be explained only by inference of common ancestry. "If kids get a curriculum like this and think it represents scholarly consensus, they're in for a major shock when they learn that evolution is the organizing principle of biology and at the college level is completely noncontroversial.'' …… "

 

Discovery Institute 10/99 Rob Crowther "….Viewpoint discrimination, academic freedom and free speech will be on center stage Thursday, Nov. 4, when several of the nation's top scientists and legal experts will come face-to-face to discuss the issue of teaching evolution. Discovery Institute Fellows Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Steve Meyer and Dr. David De Wolf have been invited to participate in a special roundtable discussion "Creation, Evolution and The First Amendment," at 7 p.m., Thursday, Nov. 4, in White Concert Hall on the Washburn University campus, in Topeka, Kan. …… "Public schools have no business indoctrinating students in biblical religion," states biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells. "But they also have no business indoctrinating students in a materialistic philosophy that claims to be scientific but ignores contrary evidence. In science classes, students should be taught the essentials of Darwin's theory, the evidence for it, and the evidence against it." ….."Threats from the ACLU in this context are particularly Orwellian," says Jay Richards, program director for the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture. "To threaten teachers and school districts for this is to defend the notion that science teachers can only teach a dogmatic Darwinian orthodoxy. That doesn't sound like civil liberty to me." ….."

The Daily Republic 10/27/99 Dr Jonathan Wells "….Wizard of Oz jokes are in vogue as the news media scramble to ridicule Kansas for downplaying, eliminating, or even banning evolution in its public schools. But the people who are writing such stuff apparently haven't read the Kansas Science Education Standards. The truth is that the August 11 School Board decision actually increased public school emphasis on evolution…. But the 390 words approved by the Board include many of the provisions recommended by the Committee. For example, the Board adopted verbatim the Committee's summary of Darwin's theory: "Natural selection includes the following concepts: 1) Heritable variation exists in every species; 2) some heritable traits are more advantageous to reproduction and/or survival than are others; 3) there is a finite supply of resources available for life; not all progeny survive; 4) individuals with advantageous traits generally survive; 5) the advantageous traits increase in the population through time." It would be difficult to find a better summary of Darwin's theory of natural selection; Kansas students will now be tested on it…….."

The Daily Republic 10/27/99 Dr Jonathan Wells "….Even more interesting than the details, however, was the Committee's bid to inject Darwinian evolution into the very heart of science. According to the 1995 standards, science embodies four general themes: Energy/Matter, Patterns of Change, Systems and Interactions, and Stability and Models. Furthermore, it is the nature of science to "provide a means for producing knowledge," using processes such as "observing, classifying, questioning, inferring,...[and] collecting and recording data." The Science Education Standards Writing Committee proposed to add a fifth general theme, "patterns of cumulative change," an example of which is "the biological theory of evolution." As a biologist myself, I find this strange. Why list a specific theory such as biological evolution among general themes such as "systems and interactions," or basic processes such as "collecting and recording data"? That's like inserting a specific law into a constitution designed to establish a framework for law-making…… The Committee's proposal was a product of recent nationwide efforts by people who believe that Darwinian evolution is indispensable to biological science. A rallying cry for these efforts is Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous maxim, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." But Dobzhansky was mistaken. There are entire areas of biology that have no need for evolutionary theory, and there is evidence that the most sweeping claims of Darwinism are wrong. More importantly, there can be no such thing as an indispensable theory in science. A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence……"

The Daily Republic 10/27/99 Dr Jonathan Wells "….Faced with national pressure to include Darwin's theory in its description of the very nature of science, the Board courageously resisted, stocking the shelves with more evolution but refusing to hand over the store. News commentators who ridicule Kansas for downplaying, eliminating, or even banning evolution from its schools not only misrepresent the truth, but they also miss the real story. Why do Darwinists go ballistic at the thought of high school students questioning their theory? Why do biology textbooks continue to cite evidence for evolution that was long ago discredited? How many qualified scientists have lost their teaching jobs or their research funding just because they dared to criticize Darwinism? How many millions of your tax dollars will be spent this year by Darwinists trying to find evidence for a theory they claim is already proven beyond a reasonable doubt? There's enough here to keep a team of investigative journalists busy for months….."

Insight Magazine 10/27/99 Stephen Goode "….Law professor Phillip Johnson is a legal philosopher whose books on Darwinian speculation have shaken the liberal establishment and embarrassed doctrinaire naturalism……… Johnson accepts microevolution, the changes that take place in living organisms that make possible horse breeding or that cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. But he calls macroevolution the notion that species change over time to become other species (that reptiles developed feathers, becoming birds, for example) pure speculation on the part of scientists. What disturbs Johnson most deeply about current evolutionary theory is that it assumes God isn't necessary to explain existence and that nature alone is sufficient to explain how we (and the universe) came into being. This "naturalistic" approach to scientific knowledge Johnson deems intellectually dishonest because it begins by saying only nature itself can produce natural things and only after it asserts that proposition does it add: Therefore, God isn't necessary to explain how things came into being. Insight sat down with Johnson the morning after his Washington talk……. "

Insight Magazine 10/27/99 Stephen Goode "….Insight: You became seriously interested in Darwinism on a 1987-88 sabbatical in London? Phillip Johnson: I was generally aware of evolutionary science and curious about it. It just so happened that on the way from the bus stop to my office at University College in London was a scientific bookstore and in the window was prominent British Darwinist Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker. It was new at the time, and I gradually picked up one book and then another about evolution. I became fascinated with the whole subject. I saw that it purports to be a scientific theory. It is that, but it's also something that is broader. Evolution is a creation story and as a creation story, it's the main prop of the materialist explanation for our existence. It gives the biological history on how you get life, the part that materialists found unsolvable before Darwin…. Before Darwin, for instance, there were atheists. They were a marginalized group. After the triumph of Darwinism, you have the invention of the word "agnostic" by Darwin's disciple T.H. Huxley, who described the agnostic view as one that says you can get knowledge from science, but you can't get knowledge of God that way, so God is something we inherently can know nothing about so there's no point in talking about the poor fellow. Agnosticism is a more effective dismissal of God than atheism. The atheist raises the issue by saying that God does not exist. But the agnostic very simply has nothing to say on the subject, so you don't discuss it. …."

Insight Magazine 10/27/99 Stephen Goode "….Insight: How did you, a professor of criminal law, master the science necessary to debate the Darwinists? PJ: Naturally, I get asked all the time, "How can you do this when you're not a scientist?" The answer is that it is not mainly about science. It is about a certain way of thinking. The science part of it is easy to learn. It's very repetitive. All the books cite the same examples: the fossil examples, the genetic examples and so on. A relative handful of them is used over and over….."

Insight Magazine 10/27/99 Stephen Goode "….Insight: So they've predetermined the answer by excluding God from the question and requiring an answer that is entirely naturalistic. PJ: So long as there is only the one question on the table, "How does nature do it all alone?," the neoDarwinian answer stands, no matter how much refutation it encounters, because any alternative would have to be fundamentally different and would have to involve a creator or a preexisting intelligence, a life force, something that is involved, a directing intelligence, which would be by definition supernatural and hence unacceptable to the world of scientific naturalism. So there you have the standoff….."

Insight Magazine 10/27/99 Stephen Goode "….Insight: What do you regard as the strongest argument of Darwinism? PJ: Their strongest argument isn't really an argument in the strictest sense. It's authority. These are all the people our culture regards as wise. They're the scientists and engineers we rely upon to make sure our airplanes don't crash and to see that our diseases are cured. So how could they be wrong about something so fundamental? Naturalism is identified with the scientific culture and forms its basis. It's assumed that it's because of their naturalistic assumptions that these wizards are able to work their wizardry. So to undermine their naturalistic assumptions is to try to undermine all science, and all science can't be wrong because it has achieved such wonders….."

Insight Magazine 10/27/99 Stephen Goode "….Insight: You have lived in two very different worlds, that of the highly esteemed university and that of a committed Christian. PJ: There's a great cultural divide here. It is the cultural arrogance of intellectuals that I think is one of their big problems. And it's always the case with the Christian Gospel that it is more attractive to people on the bottom of the ladder than to people on the top of the ladder. Paul says in First Corinthians, "Not many of you are wealthy, not many of you are of high rank, not many of you are wise as the world counts wisdom." That's always been true about Christianity, and that's why the Gospel is often denigrated as slave religion. There's an element of truth in that. It's the slaves who really see this reality, so it is nothing peculiar to me that a person who is intellectually gifted and well rewarded for it would think more highly of himself than he ought to….."

Insight Magazine 10/27/99 Stephen Goode "….Insight: Why is the intellectual world so attracted to naturalism and agnosticism? PJ: It follows along on my own experience of the intellectual arrogance that comes naturally to an academic winner, an academic goldmedal winner such as myself. Scientific naturalism is a thing that's attractive to that sort of people because it says that the secular intellectuals are the people to whom the world should look for all wisdom. The secular intellectuals become the priesthood…"

Answers in Genesis 11/1/99 Storrs Olsen ".... Letter from National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, D. C. 20560 to Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary ..... National Geographic Society Washington, DC 20036 ...... With the publication of "Feathers for T. rex?" by Christopher P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic literature....... Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen "accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon," the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly, National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain scientific matters.......Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that "makes" the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that "we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals" is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned. More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact...... Sincerely, Storrs L. Olson Curator of Birds National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC 20560 ...."

Electronic Telegraph 11/5/99 Ben Fenton "…..Stan Roth, who taught biology to the equivalent of British sixth-formers, had to retire at the age of 64 a few weeks before the Kansas state board of education removed evolution from the obligatory part of the curriculum. Mr Roth said yesterday that his dismissal arose from his treatment of a 16-year-old Christian fundamentalist pupil who asked him in class: "When are we going to learn about creationism?" He said he became exasperated and told her that the subject was not worthy of being taught. Miss Harvey, one of nine children, said: "He told me, 'When are you going to stop believing that crap your parents teach you?'" Mr Roth's former students and other teachers have leapt to his defence, arguing that he was used as a scapegoat to appease a growing religious movement in Kansas….."

Daily Oklahoman 11/18/99 "….Disclaimer text A message from the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee: This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory, which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact. The word evolution may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may evolve into gray moths). This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing into another, such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things. There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life, which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, known as the Cambrian Explosion? Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil record in a long time? Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms in the fossil record? How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body? Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth….."

Daily Oklahoman 11/18/99 "…."By adopting a disclaimer that has serious errors of fact, you're misleading the young people of the state of Oklahoma as to the scientific status of evolution, and we think that's a bad idea," said Ken Miller, a biology professor at Brown University in Rhode Island….. The statements come two days after 675 teachers and church parishioners near Tulsa signed a petition thanking the committee for its "gutsy stand." …… "

AP wire 11/11/99 "….A state committee has voted to require a disclaimer in new biology textbooks saying evolution is a ``controversial theory.'' Last week's decision by the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee makes Oklahoma the latest state to officially challenge the way evolution is taught. This summer the Kansas Board of Education passed new testing standards, minimizing the importance of evolution. And last month, Kentucky's Education Department deleted the word ``evolution'' from its standards, replacing it with ``change over time.'' ….."

Answers In Genesis Jerry Bergman 1999 First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(2):101-111, 1999 "…… Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin's theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler's government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler's administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the 'superior race'. This required at the very least preventing the 'inferior races' from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter's gene pool. The 'superior race' belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin's original 'survival of the fittest' theory. This philosophy culminated in the 'final solution', the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as 'inferior races'. …… Of the many factors that produced the Nazi holocaust and World War II, one of the most important was Darwin's notion that evolutionary progress occurs mainly as a result of the elimination of the weak in the struggle for survival. Although it is no easy task to assess the conflicting motives of Hitler and his supporters, Darwinism-inspired eugenics clearly played a critical role. Darwinism justified and encouraged the Nazi views on both race and war. If the Nazi party had fully embraced and consistently acted on the belief that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve and equal before the creator God, as taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the holocaust would never have occurred….."

London Times 12/12/99 Leake Dennis "…. WE are as good as it gets. The human form has reached evolutionary perfection, according to one of Britain's most respected geneticists, and has nowhere else to go. Research by Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, suggests that Darwin's theory of evolution no longer works in modern society. Natural selection - the process described by Darwin where nature favours society's fittest and weeds out the rest - does not apply now, he says, because the weak reproduce just as efficiently as the strong. "Human evolution is over, at least in the developed western world," he said last week in a lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine. …."

American Spectator 12/99 Dr Michael Behe ".....Michael J. Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and a fellow of the Discovery Institute, is the author of Darwin's Black Box; The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press). ...... In 1995 the National Academy of Sciences, through its National Research Council arm, issued a set of national science education standards calling for "dramatic changes" in the way science is taught in grade schools and high schools. Several years later the Kansas State Board of Education appointed a panel of scientists and academics to advise it on bringing state guidelines into conformity with the national standards. As the time drew nigh for the board to vote on accepting the revised guidelines, however, a problem cropped up. Alerted by concerned parents, the board discovered that the National Academy had aggressively promoted evolution into a central "unifying concept" of science education, on a par with such fundamentals as "evidence" and "measurement." Students were to be told definitively that "Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms." Even in the murkiest areas of biology such as the origin of life, the academy made clear in its pamphlet Science and Creationism (free when you order a copy of the science standards) that skepticism was not to be countenanced. The academy explicitly warned schools that "'biological evolution' cannot be eliminated from the life science standards." Last August the Kansas board balked....."

American Spectator 12/99 Dr Michael Behe ".....What is it about the topic of evolution that drives so many people nuts? Why does a change in a farm state's high school examination policy call forth damning editorials all the way from London, England, and have normally staid editors threatening children? The answer is convoluted, but several tightly intertwined factors can be teased apart. The first, of course, is religion. Some nonbelievers and adherents to minority faiths hold Christianity in contempt, and fight frantically to minimize the public influence of America's majority creed. The second factor is politics. Since activist opponents of evolution are as a rule politically conservative, any move against Darwinism is treated by some overwrought folks as the first step on the path to fascism, with a flat tax and a ban on abortion soon to follow...."

American Spectator 12/99 Dr Michael Behe ".....A final factor is more fundamental than the others, and more fateful. It's a question about knowledge itself a clash over what we think we know and how we think we know it. Although seemingly esoteric, it can spark real trouble. People can get supremely irritated when other folks just won't listen to reason, especially if they think they have the unvarnished facts on their side. One reason for agitation is that a person's self image is often wrapped up in what he thinks he knows about the important questions of life. Richard Dawkins, the prominent Darwinian popularizer, wrote that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and few people give up their intellectual fulfillment quietly. At a more banal level, many manage to feel good about themselves by feeling superior to creationists. While one may not have a clue about the subtleties of the evidence for or problems with Darwinism, he is automatically part of the smart set when he accepts evolution.

American Spectator 12/99 Dr Michael Behe ".....Darwin fleshed out his theory in several hundred pages of The Origin of Species, but the main idea is easily summarized. Darwin saw variation everywhere in lifesome individuals of a species are bigger than others, some faster, some brighter in color. After reading Malthus, Darwin realized that there was not enough food to allow all animals that were born to survive. So he reasoned that those members of a species whose chance variation gave them an edge in the struggle to survive would tend to live to adulthood and reproduce. If the variation could be inherited, then over time the characteristics of the species might change. And over eons, whole new kinds of animals might arise. It was, and remains, an elegant theory....."

American Spectator 12/99 Dr Michael Behe ".....A classic Darwinian problem is the fossil record. In his own day Darwin recognized that it did not square with his expectation of innumerable transitional forms. It still doesn't. Although Darwinism expected anatomical differences between classes of animals to start out small and then get greater with time, the opposite is often true as a rule very different forms of life appear within a brief time, and only later do variations within the deeper categories show up. New forms of life typically appear in the geological record with no obvious precursors, persist essentially unchanged for a time, and then disappear. Stephen Jay Gould once wrote that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Aghast at Gould's bluntness, in Science and Creationism the National Academy made a stab at damage control. It quoted Gould calling persons who cited his remark "dishonest," because he intended " to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not to deny the fact of evolution itself." Yet whatever he personally wanted to affirm or deny, his factual observation of the lack of transitional fossils stands.

American Spectator 12/99 Dr Michael Behe ".....Recently Darwinism has suffered a series of embarrassments as textbook examples of evolution have turned out to be not what they seemed. The most serious reversal was in developmental biology. Based on nineteenth century drawings, the embryos of fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals were thought to look virtually identical. Much was made of the resemblance as evidence for evolution. Probably the majority of American schoolchildren in the past 50 years have seen drawings of the embryos in their biology textbooks. Carl Sagan once wrote in Parade magazine (circulation in the tens of millions) that human embryos have "something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian." And eminent scientists declared that the great similarity only made sense in the light of evolution. But the embryos don't look like that...... In trying to decide what we know about evolution and how we know it, the embryo fiasco is quite instructive. The scientists and textbook authors who touted the nineteenth century drawings with utter confidence are now exposed as clueless. (They include the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, whose textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell prominently cites Haeckel's work.) They assured the public that they had strong evidence for evolution, but they didn't even know what the embryos looked like. Their " facts" didn't come from nature, but from their Darwinian premises....."

American Spectator 12/99 Dr Michael Behe ".....The dry results with plant diseases have implications for a livelier subject sex. It turns out that sex is a big puzzle for Darwinian theory. In fact, a literal interpretation of the theory predicts that sexual reproduction should not exist. Here's the problem. Given two organisms, if both are asexual, both can reproduce. If both are sexual, only one (the female) can bear young. A little math shows that asexual organisms should rapidly outbreed sexual ones and dominate the world. But since sexual species actually dominate, Darwinism has some explaining to do. In the past century dozens of guesses have been made as to why, against straightforward expectations, sex predominates. The current favorite is that sex helps in a putative arms race against parasitic diseases. But if the idea of an arms race is itself in doubt, then sex, the core of Darwinian evolution, remains an enigma. A theory of evolution that predicts most species should be asexual is like a theory of gravity that expects things to fall up....."

American Spectator 12/99 Dr Michael Behe ".....The audacious claim that unguided natural forces organized nonliving matter into cells and then produced the complex biological systems we see today is as solid as Swiss cheese. When treated with even the mildest skepticism, the mighty Darwinian citadel fades into a Potemkin village. No wonder that the National Academy brooks no discussion of the theory's premises premises are just about all it's got. Yet some people are eager to join the Darwinian team, even though that means going well beyond the facts taking a leap of faith. ..... .....Several years ago I argued in Darwin's Black Box that many of the exceedingly complex molecular machines that science has unexpectedly discovered in the cell appear to have been purposely designed, because of the way their parts work together. On the PBS show "ThinkTank," Ben Wattenberg asked Richard Dawkins Mr. Darwinism for his response. With his trademark charm, Dawkins choked that I was being " cowardly" and "lazy" for invoking a designer. Nonetheless, he admitted that since he wasn't a biochemist, he couldn't answer the argument. Yet if he doesn't know how evolution might have made the basic machinery of life, how can he be sure that Darwinism is a complete explanation for life? And if Richard Dawkins doesn't know, who does? And if nobody knows, why teach children that we do? ...."

American Spectator 12/99 Dr Michael Behe ".....Most Americans have long recognized that claims by scientists about global warming, nuclear winter, overpopulation, stem cell research, and so on can't just be taken at face value. Scientists are people too and suffer from the same defects as everyone else, including hubris, self interest, and wishful thinking. This goes for science organizations as well......A Gallup poll taken after the Kansas decision showed only a minority of respondents wanted the teaching of evolution eliminated from schools. A strong majority, however, responded positively when asked if both evolution and creation should be taught. It's likely that the response to the canned poll question translates into an attitude something like "be less dogmatic about teaching evolution; point out problems of the theory and include alternative views." Yet this entirely sensible position is anathema to most evolutionists, who seem to argue both that Darwinism is a compelling explanation and that it has to be shielded from rival ideas......"

American Spectator 12/99 Dr Michael Behe ".....The National Academy of Sciences has a plan to end the conflict over the teaching of evolution. Taking a page from Daniel Dennett's book, they want to put religions in cages. Not abolish them, you understand just make them safe, and stop them from misinforming children about the natural world. The idea is to get anyone who still wants to believe in something to subscribe to " theistic evolution" which to the academy means that whatever some god may or may not have done, it had to have happened before the Big Bang, left no physical traces, and be indistinguishable from the random working of natural law. As the academy encouragingly points out in Science and Creationism, " Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution." Happily, theistic evolution "reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by (science)." Best of all, though, is that "this belief...is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution."...... The most worrisome aspect is that a quasi governmental agency with substantial influence on public policy has gotten heavily into the religion business. Not content to advise the public on mundane matters of how the physical world works, the academy is acting to promote a theology that causes the least trouble to Darwinism. While adults may be able to tell the academy that they will make up their own minds about their religious beliefs, thank you very much, the academy will help make up the minds of schoolchildren. Although not an official part of the national science education standards, the academy's religious philosophy expressed in Science and Creationism will get wide distribution among science teachers and will influence many a lesson plan. Reasoning from the academy's premises, the more consistent students will see that, if God is forbidden to act in history, miracles are out..... Indeed, since the Resurrection itself must be a myth, then as Saint Paul says, their faith is in vain. Better to leave such irrationality far behind. Eventually the fight over teaching evolution will be over....."

The Kansas City Star 1/9/00 Kate Beem "….Presenting the theory of intelligent design in science classes does not necessarily violate the separation of church and state, several lawyers said Saturday. A teacher or school board's intent is key in determining whether teaching the theory violates a First Amendment clause prohibiting government from endorsing or advancing religion, lawyer Jason Sneed said……. Sneed who is trying a First Amendment case in Kansas, said courts had never ruled on intelligent-design theory. But using precedents from other cases, design supporters can determine whether the theory constitutes religion……. "The teacher needs to be very careful that she's not indoctrinating, but educating," Richardson said…… Evolution supporters often charge that intelligent-design theory is religious because it implies a supernatural designer. But design supporters say evolutionary theory is religious, too, because it relies on naturalism, the belief that everything has a natural explanation. That could be interpreted to preclude the existence of a supernatural being such as God. "Our ultimate goal is to develop a level playing field in schools," Calvert said. "At least teachers should be able to show intelligent design as a criticism (of evolution)." …."

Ottawa Sun 1/9/00 R Cort Kirkwood "…. "In my opinion, Cort Kirkwood is a blithering idiot." Thus begins just one letter the Ottawa Sun received after my column on evolution ("Black Box pokes holes in Charles Darwin's theory," Dec. 5), and it proves a point I have made about the theory of evolution both in writing and to my evolutionist friends in casual conversation: Modern scientists and believers in evolution are not receptive to honest questions about it, for Darwin's theory has become hard orthodoxy from which dissent is not permitted. Asking a skeptical question about evolution is akin to asking the witch doctor to explain his medicine. Metaphorically speaking, you might be burned at the stake.…."

Ottawa Sun 1/9/00 R Cort Kirkwood "…. Contrary to what some respondents to my column imply, "creationists" are not responsible for the controversy now raging over evolution. Science is responsible because science cannot prove its theory. And contrary to other objections, the fossil record does not prove the theory of evolution. It suggests some kind of relationship between some animals and plants, but it does not reveal the gradual change of one species to another or the evolution of prokaryotes to human beings.

Ottawa Sun 1/9/00 R Cort Kirkwood "…. But let's suppose the fossil record (which says little about organ structure or the means of reproduction of the fossilized animal, which is another kettle of coelacanths, as one skeptic notes) lends credit to gradual evolution. It remains silent on evolution at a biochemical level. Again, I defer to biochemist Michael Behe. One correspondent says Behe has been "utterly discredited," and like a true Darwinist, offers no proof for the statement. He simply expects me to believe it. Anyway, Behe asks how blood clotting, a complex process he likens to a Rube Goldberg device, could have evolved….. Well, a creature such as a mammal with a circulatory system must have a blood clotting mechanism or it will bleed to death when injured. Yet for the blood clotting mechanism to work, it requires a myriad of components, meaning proteins and enzymes, that are inextricably linked and work in a concatenation of tightly ordered and sequenced events. Remove one of those proteins or enzymes, and blood won't clot……Further, because a biochemical process such as bloodclotting requires not just that first component but many more, the process itself cannot undergo "natural selection" because it is incomplete until all the component parts are present and working. In other words, before the blood clotting mechanism has been perfected, nature has no advantageous process to select……... "

Ottawa Sun 1/9/00 R Cort Kirkwood "….Ask a hard-shell Darwinist to explain the evolution of the avian wing and you'll get quite a discourse on fossils and Archaeopteryx, as I did in two letters about my column. But the Darwinist cannot explain how a transitional species could survive with a limb that hindered walking or grasping because it was turning into a wing, but did not permit flight because hadn't quite become a wing….. So how, exactly, did the feathered wing evolve, considering that natural selection would not preserve a useless or possibly harmful structure apart from the functional whole? The evolutionist can only hypothesize ... and unconvincingly at that. If the wing evolved as a complete structure, what miraculous evolutionary event explains it? Perhaps, as one scientist speculated, a bird hatched from a reptile egg….."

Ottawa Sun 1/9/00 R Cort Kirkwood "….Textbooks propound it. Careers are based upon it. Everything in modern science assumes evolution to be true, but skeptics are not permitted to ask whether it is true. Everything modern science tells us about nature tells us everything in nature evolved. If evolutionists had to admit their "fact" is unproved, their world would implode. Those textbooks would have to be rewritten. Those theories would have to be discarded. Those reputations and careers would suffer. But something more profound would happen, too. The theory of evolution, you see, made it possible to discard from the discussion of our natural world. That, in turn, meant much of what we know as traditional morals and values could be discarded as well, especially those forbidding certain kinds of behaviour between consenting adults. After all, if a man is merely an accident of nature, an intelligent beast with no soul, then morals and values have no meaning for him. Not surprisingly, one of the most prominent evolutionists proclaimed that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." In short, the Theory of Evolution is metaphysical and ideological in nature, and holds profound ramifications far beyond those that it holds for science. Evolution should dispose of religion and God altogether….."

Touchstone 7-8/1999 William Dembski "….. Intelligent design examines the distinction between three modes of explanation: necessity, chance, and design. In our workaday lives we find it important to distinguish between these modes of explanation. Did she fall or was she pushed? And if she fell, was it simply bad luck or was her fall unavoidable? …..

…..But was science right to repudiate design? My aim in The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998) is to rehabilitate design. I argue that design is a legitimate and fundamental mode of scientific explanation on a par with chance and necessity. since my aim is to rehabilitate design, it will help to review why design was removed from science in the first place. Design, in the form of Aristotle's formal and final causes, had after all once occupied a perfectly legitimate role within natural philosophy, or what we now call science. With the rise of modern science, however, these causes fell into disrepute.

….. If design is so readily detectable outside science, and if its detectability is one of the key factors keeping scientists honest, why should design be barred from the actual content of science? There's a worry here. The worry is that when we leave the constricted domain of human artifacts and enter the unbounded domain f scientific inquiry, the distinction between design and non-design cannot be reliably drawn. Consider, for instance, the following remark by Darwin in the concluding chapter of his Origin of Species:

Several eminent naturalists have of late published their belief that a multitude of reputed species in each genus are not real species; but that other species are real, that is, have been independently created . . . . Nevertheless they do not pretend that they can define, or even conjecture, which are the created forms of life, and which are those produced by secondary laws. They admit variation as a vera causa in once case, they arbitrarily reject it in another, without assigning any distinction in the two cases.

It's this worry of falsely attributing something to design (here construed as creation) only to have it overturned later that has prevented design from entering science proper.

This worry, though perhaps understandable in the past, can no longer be justified. there does in fact exist a rigorous criterion for discriminating intelligently from unintelligently caused objects. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pretheoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestial Intelligence,[SETI]). In The Design Inference I identify and make precise this criterion. I call it the complexity-specification criterion. When intelligent agents act, they leave behind a characteristic trademark or signature-what I call specified complexity. the complexity-specification criterion detects design by identifying this trademark of designed objects….."

Scripps Howard News Service via Albuquerque Tribune 1/00/00 Lawrence Spohn "....Rape is not typically the crime of male domination as it has been portrayed by sociologists and feminists in recent years, says a University of New Mexico biology professor. Instead, UNM's Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer have developed a new theory that rape is a complex sexual crime with strong roots in human evolution. Moreover, contend Thornhill and Palmer, rape "prevention efforts will founder until they are based on the understanding that rape evolved as a form of male reproductive behavior." "We have to get real about rape," Thornhill said in a recent interview. The two scientists have co-authored an article entitled "Why Men Rape" in the current issue of the journal The Sciences..... In the article, Thornhill and Palmer take aim at the prevailing societal notion that rape isn't about sex but about male power and is "a symptom of an unhealthy society in which men fear and disrespect women." ...... But they do not equate "natural" as good and agree that their public mission is to make rape extinct as a trait in human beings...... In an interview, Palmer said the article aims to convince "those who accept evolution but don't see it as applying to the brain and behavior and particularly the behavior of rape....... The two scientists contend that current thinking about what causes rape is so bankrupt that it ignores the reality that by definition rape requires sexual arousal of the rapist....... "Nothing in our approach means that rape is inevitable just because it's biological," Thornhill said. "In no way does it imply that (rape) is morally correct or acceptable....."

FOX News 1/21/2000 Elaine Kurtenbach "…Xu Xing, an eminent paleontologist in Beijing, said he has found fossils that prove the fossilized turkey-sized creature unveiled last year may not be the evolutionary link some thought it was. Xu's claim has forced paleontology circles, which greeted the find with some fanfare, to take a second look. And the controversy has highlighted the pitfalls of international research projects involving fossils that are often smuggled out of China and sold overseas……. Now National Geographic magazine plans to publish a note in its March issue saying that CT scans of the fossil appeared to confirm Xu's observations and had "revealed anomalies" in the reconstruction, said National Geographic Society spokeswoman Barbara Moffet. She added that more information was needed. …… Xu contends the Archaeoraptor is a combination of two fossils: one of the body and head of a birdlike creature and the other of the tail of a different dinosaur. He said he has found another fossil, in a private collection in China, that contains the mirror image of the supposed tail of the Archaeoraptor. Fossils often break in two when the rocks containing them are split in excavation. ….. "

Saturday Oklahoman 1/20/2000 Professors Jeff Harwell, Bob Reed and Michael Scaperlanda "….Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson reports of a Chinese paleontologist who has traveled the world presenting fossil discoveries that contradict the standard theory of evolution: new species appear suddenly without evolving from common ancestors. When this upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin." Our Chinese colleague is perceptive: In 1988, Scientific American withdrew a job offer to science writer Forrest Mims after discovering he was an evangelical Christian. When exposed by the Houston Chronicle, the journal admitted it feared embarrassment over Mims' beliefs. Such bigotry chagrins most working scientists….."

Saturday Oklahoman 1/20/2000 Professors Jeff Harwell, Bob Reed and Michael Scaperlanda "….Science progresses by challenging existing theories, no matter how well established. Should evolution be treated differently? Some argue it should. Zoologist Richard Dawkins says that naturalistic evolution would be true even if there were no supporting evidence because the only viable alternative requires God and science by definition excludes God. We know most scientists disagree. Science should be an objective, systematic, observation based approach to finding the truth. Period. Consequently, we were disappointed that our colleagues at OU publicly protested the evolution disclaimer of the textbook committee without addressing how evolution should be presented or proposing any productive discussion. After all, the textbook committee did not call for a ban on teaching evolution. We believe that teaching evolution in the public schools is necessary and that no educated person should be ignorant of this theory. There is no reason to think that the committee does not share this belief. Instead, the committee wants evolution taught not as a dogma but as a scientific theory, able to explain some data, not yet able to explain other data. Our Chinese colleague knows that contrary data exist, as do most scientists. This doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. It simply highlights that evolution is a work in progress, like most other major scientific theories. This is a very reasonable request……"

Access to Energy 12/99 Dr Arthur Robinson "…..Norman Podhoretz, in his excellent lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal, December 30, 1999, p A12, entitled "Science Hasn't Killed God"' answers this question. Podhoretz traces, with scholarly thoroughness, the historical development of this issue from antiquity to the present - and provides a good explanation of the apparent (but not real) paradox that most of the greatest scien-tists of the second millennium were also deeply religious men……. Great progress in science began when scholars with more humility (Podhoretz identifies Galileo as one of the first of these) recognized that they were capable of making progress on the how - but not on the why and where, issues that they relegated to their personal faiths. The greatest of these (and clearly the greatest of all physical scientists) was Isaac Newton, who laid the basis of physics for the next three centuries, and yet devoted about half of his time throughout a long life to the study of the Scriptures. He wrote three books - two about physics and the other about the Biblical prophecies. This book is still in print because we publish an exact replica of Thomas Jefferson's personal copy ($19.95 postage paid from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, P0 1279, Cave Junction, OR 97523). How could Newton, a deeply devout Christian during his entire life, reconcile the Bible with his science? The reason was simple - he approached science with humility. He knew that his brain was capa-ble of understanding only limited aspects of how things worked. He demanded complete rigor and absolute honesty. He only published the truth. His certainty that his science was true depended upon strict adherence to the scientific experimental method - which allowed him to correctly describe the how because it requires that every hypothesis be tested with experimentally observable facts.

Newton wrote, as did Francis Bacon, that science could actually reinforce religious faith because it revealed to man more clearly the wonderful beauty of the universe that the Lord had created. ……"

Access to Energy 12/99 Dr Arthur Robinson "…..As the list of successes in basic and applied science grew, the egos of many men grew as well. They for-got the limiting conditions of the scientific method' and pretended to know much more. They even invented vast overreaching "sciences" where very lit-tle real science could be done - such as the so-called "social sci-ences." These efforts produced the "science" behind Communism and Nazism - with disastrous effects. Above all, they pretended to now know the why and where from of the universe -basing their claims on the fact that they were "scientists" rather than upon the experiment requiring scientific method. ……. We entered an era, however, in which many mediocre "scien-tists" loudly proclaimed that they now understood the origins of the universe and the origins of life. Never mind that their hypotheses were entirely beyond the reach of experimental verification. They be-gan to worship reason, themselves, and their own minds. As Linus Pauling, one of the most famous of these, stated (nearing the end of a life that began in excellence and ended in mediocrity), "I don't need to do experiments. People believe me because of who I am." …….Humanity has been treated to the sorry spectacle of "scientists" pretending to understand the universe and "theologians" pretending to understand science...."

Access to Energy 12/99 Dr Arthur Robinson "…..Podhoretz points out that, after 200 years of difficulties, there has arisen a sort of uneasy truce between physical scientists who are atheists and scientists of faith. Noted exceptions, however, are those very mediocre scientists (about whom we often write in Access to Energy), who are now trying to misuse science in support of their enviro religion - a human aberration involving the worship of plants and animals and the vilification of man that dates back thousands of years.

No such truce exists, however, with the new crop of know-it-alls in the biological sciences…… So now we have biologists (who usually, but not always, are soft scientists of less rigor) using this progress as the basis for claims that they understand the why and the where - and are themselves become as new Gods who will change the nature of life itself They claim that scientists are now equal to the task of deciding who shall live and who shall die - and, moreover, of designing new men in accordance with their own superior specifications. Humility is definitely not the "in" thing in the fields of genetics and molecular biology…."

Yahoo Science 2/1/2000 Reuters ".....The U.S. Interior Department said on Tuesday it would try to carry out DNA analysis on a 9,300-year-old skeleton unearthed in Washington state, risking the wrath of American Indian tribes who claim the remains are the sacred bones of an ancestor. The department, which worried that any testing of ''Kennewick Man'' could offend local tribes and yield useless results, said such analysis could help it figure out to whom the ancient resident is related. ``We believe that DNA analysis will help determine the biological and genetic racial ancestry of the remains. This has been the subject of controversy in this case from the beginning,'' Frank McManamon, chief archeologist for the National Park Service, said in a statement. ....."

 

Anti-Defamation League website 2/10/00 "….."Creationism" -- the belief that humankind was created by a divine being according to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis -- is a pseudoscientific collection of religious ideas based on varying interpretations of the Bible. Any attempt to supplant or supplement the teaching of evolution in public schools in order to promote creationism would have a religious purpose…… The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing any particular religious belief. This prohibition ensures that our public schools remain places in which students of all faiths -- or no faith -- may learn in an atmosphere free from divisive theological debates and sectarianism. In banning organized prayer in the public schools in 1962, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court said that "[w]hen the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain." Our public schools must fulfill the First Amendment's mandate of separation of church and state and remain free from the influence of religious dogma in order for students of all faiths to attend school without fear of coercion. …..In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court held unambiguously that it is unconstitutional to restrict a public school teacher's right to teach evolution. More recently, in Aguillard v. Edwards, 482 U.S. 595 (1987), the high court decisively held that it is unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution to also teach creationism. These two important rulings form the basis for a fair and sensible approach to the teaching of science in our public schools……"

Anti-Defamation League website 2/10/00 "….Since any attempt to ban evolution or to include creationism in a school curriculum would run counter to the Supreme Court's rulings, creationists have developed new tactics to promote their goal of undermining the way biology is taught in the public schools. For example, in 1999 the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee mandated that publishers doing business with the state be required to place a disclaimer in all biology books. The disclaimer states, among other things, that evolution is "a controversial theory which some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans." It goes on to say that evolution is "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things." Although couched in the language of scientific skepticism, the disclaimer is plainly designed to encourage students to doubt the evidence underlying the process of evolution -- for religious reasons. Indeed, some supporters of the disclaimer have openly stated that its purpose is to give creationism an equal chance in the schools. ….."

Reuters 2/4/00 "…..A requirement by Oklahoma's textbook committee that state science textbooks include a disclaimer against evolution has been thrown out, a spokesman for the state's attorney general said on Thursday. Attorney General Drew Edmondson ruled that the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee had overstepped its bounds in trying to dictate the content of textbooks and violated Oklahoma's open meeting laws by failing to notify the public that it was taking the action, spokesman Gerald Adams said. "It will be up to the district attorney (in Oklahoma City) to determine if they violated the law," Adams said. …."

TrueOrigin.com 2/3/00 Gary Achtemeier PhD "…. Scientists, professionals, and academics appealed to the Board on behalf of modern science that removing an important concept like evolution from life sciences and biology would intellectually cripple students. Nothing in biology, it was claimed, makes sense except in light of evolution. On the other side were mostly parents who were concerned with what their children were being taught. As soon as the decision was cast, the propaganda war began. Darwinists have discovered that the best way to silence those who question evolution is to marginalize them through ridicule and character assassination. They characterized those who supported the new guidelines, including parents, as bible-thumping fundamentalists, dangerous pseudo-scientists, flat earthers, etc. Unfortunately, much of the stereotyping was done by journalists who did not stop for an instant to find out what the issues were, who the parties were or what they believed. The Chicago Tribune chanted, "intellectual chicanery." The Boston Globe saw "evolving creationist" fundamentalists. The Washington Post decried "literal belief in biblical creation stories."

TrueOrigin.com 2/3/00 Gary Achtemeier PhD "…. The issues discussed at Kansas, however, go beyond disagreements with church doctrines to concern for the safety of children. After the Littleton massacre, parents testifying before a congressional subcommittee on the matter claimed that removal from the classroom of prayer, the Ten Commandments, and other biblical teachings on human behavior created a climate favorable for murderous behavior. That may be true, but I believe it is not the whole story. The congressional testimony did not adequately explore the thought systems that have replaced the abolished biblical doctrines. Science, real science-the work that ferrets out empirical facts about the nature that surrounds us-has been co-opted by an ancient philosophical/religious doctrine the origins of which can be traced back to at least 400-700 years before Christ. Known today variously as scientism, evolutionism, metaphysical naturalism, and Darwinism, this doctrine has been so effectively interlaced with science that it is often difficult for the scientist, much less the layperson, to separate the two.

TrueOrigin.com 2/3/00 Gary Achtemeier PhD "…. Many religious leaders have bought the ruse. However, as is so often the case, those with the most the lose are usually the ones who take the effort to become the best informed. Conservative Christians have discovered that while science may be neutral on religious issues, Darwinism is not. The real conflict is between two equally religious belief systems. Darwinists, however, with assistance from misguided media, have been astonishingly successful at painting the issue as one of a small group of ignorant fundamentalists pitting their outdated biblical myths against the studied results of empirical science. Thus, by making it appear to be nonreligious, Darwinism can appear to be no threat to religion and by making it appear to most churchgoers that there exists no conflict between Christianity and evolution, Darwinists have effectively mollified the opposition and have been free to rob the store. ….."

TrueOrigin.com 2/3/00 Gary Achtemeier PhD "…. Though the date of the Kansas Board of Education's rather insignificant decision still rings loudly through the propaganda mills of the media, another date, June 25, 1999, will eventually ring louder, I believe. Writing an editorial in the magazine Science, the frontispiece of the prestigious National Association for the Advancement of Science, Stephen Jay Gould launched a direct attack on religion thereby exposing the true religious nature of Darwinism. After quoting Psalm 8 "Thou has made him a little lower than the angels...thou madest him to have dominion...thou has put all things under his feet." Gould went on to state, "Darwin removed this keystone of false comfort more than a century ago, but many people still believe that they cannot navigate this vale of tears without such a crutch." Ending the article, Gould admonished his readers, "Let us praise this evolutionary nexus, a far more stately mansion for the human soul than any pretty or parochial comfort ever conjured by our swollen neurology to obscure the source of our physical being, or to deny the natural substrate for our separate and complementary spiritual quest." Here Gould has gone much farther than the occasional witty jabs of fellow high priest, Richard Dawkins ("Evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist") or the late Carl Sagan, who, writing in the introduction of Stephen Hawkings book, A Brief History of Time, claimed naturalistic evolution leaves "nothing for a creator to do." Gould has proposed to substitute for Christianity and other religions, "a far more stately mansion for the human soul...." …."

TrueOrigin.com 2/3/00 Gary Achtemeier PhD "…. The question that confronts us and is the focus of the remainder of this essay is: Why did Professor Gould choose this hour to break with Darwinism's tenuous accommodation with religion? …….. One reason why Gould may have departed from the ruse of accommodation with religion is Darwinists' perceived loss of control of the scientific and educational world. Three events have come together lately to make this possible. First, deep from within the biological sciences there has arisen a group of scientists who are promoting intelligent design (ID), the concept that a intelligent agency was involved in some stages of life's origin and dispersal. Drawing from recent advances in molecular biology and information theory, the ID theorists have come to recognize that purely naturalistic evolution cannot possibly explain every step in the emergence of living organisms. The discovery of minimum irreducible complexity in bio-molecular structures utterly falsifies the foundational premise of Darwin's theory, namely that biological organisms arise through gradual accumulation of small mutational changes. Furthermore, there is no known source of information apart from intelligent design. Darwinists have been unable to imagine how the immense information content of the highly specified DNA genetic code might have arisen by chance, let alone design a scientific experiment and collect data to explain it……..So far, the ID scientists have resisted attempts by Darwinists to silence them. Vilification has not worked. Marginalization has not worked because many of the IDers are biological scientists who actually do the research. Attempts to stereotype them as fundamentalists seeking to promote biblical creation stories, which may play well with the media and others predisposed to Darwinism, have served to radicalize the ID scientists. ………….Second, with the breakup of the iron curtain and the parting of the bamboo curtain, the biological sciences are enjoying a global renaissance of sorts. Biological scientists in Asia, particularly China, do not hold blind allegiance to Darwin as do their colleagues in the West. They seem disposed to requiring the theory to fit the data rather than making the data fit the theory. Hostilities with American Darwinists during a recent biological conference held in China prompted one Chinese scientist to remark, "In China we can question Darwin but we can't question the government; in America, you can question the government but you can't question Darwin." ……….Third, though they nearly completely control educational institutions from kindergarten through graduate school and virtually monopolize all forms of the media, Darwinists have discovered through recent polls that fewer than ten percent of Americans believe in the totally random, unsupervised, impersonal, godless origin-of-life story promoted by the Darwinists. Many more Americans believe in some form of evolution directed by a supernatural agency. Fully half of Americans don't believe in macro-evolution at all. Seven of ten Americans think evolution should be taught along with the scientific evidence that does not support evolution. Obviously attempts to indoctrinate American school children into a Darwinistic view of life have not been as successful as was hoped.

TrueOrigin.com 2/3/00 Gary Achtemeier PhD "…. Another reason why professor Gould may have departed from the Darwinist ruse of accommodation with religion is a growing suspicion of the underlying source of violence in our schools and our society. The lure of Darwinism is in its promise of unfettered licentiousness but its curse is purposelessness. Darwinists claim there is no God (therefore there is no accountability for our actions) and we are an accidental coming together of molecules on an insignificant planet near a minor star in just another galaxy (life has no purpose). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the volatility of the mixture. Combining licentiousness with purposelessness for the disturbed mind is like touching an open flame to gasoline. In his Science editorial, Pastor Gould wrote, "Evolution liberates the human spirit." With no accountability for our actions, evolution liberates the totalitarian, the despot, the "dog-eat-dog" capitalist, the child molester, and others who find their liberties in exploiting the weak. …….. The perpetrators were troubled, yes, but bright-that is, bright enough to make the connect. If there is no purpose, if there is no accountability, if there is no way out of the pain and emptiness of life, then why not maximize the license and exit in a towering ball of flame. The Littleton killers committed suicide. A Gallop poll of teenagers who had considered or tried to commit suicide found that almost half (41 percent) cited depression or feeling worthless as the reason. …….

TrueOrigin.com 2/3/00 Gary Achtemeier PhD "….Memories of Milwaukee serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who not only killed but ate his victims, are now fading. However, in a Dateline NBC program that aired in 1994, Dahmer's father had this to say. "If you don't-if a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then-then what's-what's the point of-of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we-when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing....." Men hunt and kill animals for food. If the younger Dahmer had followed his father's footsteps and had convinced himself that man is just another animal then what's wrong with hunting and killing men for food?

TrueOrigin.com 2/3/00 Gary Achtemeier PhD "…. Stephen Gould claims Darwinism would "liberate the human spirit." Historically, the survival of the fittest message of Darwinism has provided rationale for some of the most outrageously uncivilized actions by "liberated believers." One notorious practitioner of Darwinism wrote, "He who would live must fight; he who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist." His book was Mein Kampf; his name was Adolf Hitler. Both Lenin and Stalin praised Darwin for liberating them from encumbering theology. Karl Marx wished to dedicate his book to Darwin. Darwinian philosophy has been foundational for moving abortion from crime to respectability. It is estimated that in this century somewhere between 100 million and 150 million human beings have met with untimely death at the hands of those who appealed to Darwin in some manner to justify their actions. Darwinists of the first half century openly taught that blacks were being selected out of the human race. In that view, the infamous Tuskegee Experiment made sense. Darwinists taught that women were inferior to men since men were competing with animals and each other while women were staying home with children. The killers and bigots of the first half century have been replaced by the killers and bigots of the last half century. The players are different but the script is the same. ….."

 

World Magazine 2/18/00 Lynn Vincent "……WORLD talked to four "Intelligent Design" revolutionaries who are fighting Darwinists on their own terms ……..

PHILIP JOHNSON

….. In 1987, when UC Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson asked God what he should do with the rest of his life, he didn't know he'd wind up playing Toto to the ersatz wizards of Darwinism. But a fateful trip by a London bookstore hooked Mr. Johnson on a comparative study of evolutionary theory. And by 1993, Mr. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial had begun peeling back the thin curtain of science that shielded evolution to reveal what lay behind: Darwinian philosophers churning out a powerful scientific mirage.

…… Darwin on Trial was the result of Mr. Johnson's years-long, lawyerly dissection of arguments for evolution. The forensic strategies of prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould reminded Mr. Johnson of courtroom sleight-of-hand: Their materialist definition of terms decided the debate before opening arguments could begin. "I could see," he said, "that evolution was not so much science as a philosophy that Darwinists had adopted in the teeth of the facts." …… Once evolutionists read his book, they were eager to sink their teeth into Mr. Johnson, whom they saw as a middle-aged, Harvard-educated dilettante sticking his unscientific nose where it didn't belong. Critics lined up to debate him. But once engaged, his adversaries found him to be both ruthlessly intelligent and maddeningly congenial..

…..The "we" is the cadre of intelligent design (ID) proponents for whom Mr. Johnson acted as an early fulcrum. In the early 1990s, as formidable scientists and theoreticians like Michael Behe, William Dembski, and others emerged in support of design theory, Mr. Johnson made contact, exchanged flurries of email, and arranged personal meetings. He frames these alliances as a "wedge strategy," with himself as lead blocker and ID scientists carrying the ball in behind him. "We're unifying the divided people and dividing the unified people," he said, adding that the "unified people" refers to Darwinists who at present occupy increasingly dissonant camps. The debate, he argues, is being successfully reformulated in a way that changes the balance of influence and "puts the right questions on the table."

…….Evidence of an influence shift comes in varied forms: For example, Paul Nelson, a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Chicago, was able to get approval for a Ph.D. dissertation arguing against the theory of common ancestry-a mighty feat at a liberal, secular university. (Mr. Nelson's book on the same topic will be published this year.) And Baylor mathematician William Dembski is spearheading a conference in April at which heavy-hitting secular academics will present papers on both sides of the evolutionary argument. Such double-edged debates delight Mr. Johnson. "The whole 'wedge' philosophy isn't that you present answers and people listen. It's that you get people debating the right questions, like 'How can you tell reason from rationalization?' and 'Can natural processes create genetic information?'" This summer, Mr. Johnson will publish a new book, The Wedge of Truth, a volume that frames fundamental questions he feels people ought to be debating in the controversy over origins.

MICHAEL BEHE

………The reeducation of Michael Behe began in a green recliner. On a chill fall night in the same year Mr. Johnson was seeking direction from God, Mr. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, sat at home in that recliner, transfixed by a book that shook the very foundations of his own understanding of science. It was three in the morning before he finished Michael Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, and turned out the lights. Nine years later, Mr. Behe himself published a book that began turning out the lights on the theory of evolution. ……… "Although I had pretty much believed evolution, because that's what I was taught, I always had an uneasy feeling and questions in my mind," said Mr. Behe, a Roman Catholic who grew up in a family of eight children in Harrisburg, Penn. "After reading Denton's book, and seeing his rational, scientific approach to the problem, I decided I had signed on to something that just was not well-supported. And, since evolution is such a strong component of many people's view of how the world works, I started to wonder: What else have I been told that is unsupported, or not true? It was a very intense, intellectual time."

……..That intensity ultimately gelled into Darwin's Black Box (Free Press 1996), a book that hit secular scientists like an atom bomb. Charles Darwin himself had already provided a pass-fail test for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Mr. Behe's book (now in its 16th printing) was the first to administer Mr. Darwin's own test at the molecular level. Using simple yet scientifically bulletproof analyses, Mr. Behe showed that even at the cellular level many structures are "irreducibly complex," meaning that all parts of a structure have to be present in order for the structure to function at all. Thus, the slow, gradual changes proposed by Darwin were as likely to have led to the spontaneous formation of complex structures as are flour, sugar, eggs, and milk likely to gradually coalesce into a wedding cake. Mr. Behe wrote: "Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory has 'absolutely broken down.'"

……. Most of Mr. Behe's secular critics did not, of course, agree. His work has been the target of both scholarly rebuttal and brainless invective. But on the whole, Darwin's Black Box received surprisingly respectful treatment. Not only did many Christian groups name it one of the most important books of the 20th century, but reporters from the mainstream press also flocked to Bethlehem, Penn., to see what made Mr. Behe tick. Secular universities slated him for speaking engagements. The venerable New York Times even shocked Mr. Behe by inviting him to submit an article explaining the main thesis of his book. ……

WILLIAM DEMBSKI

…….. A mathematician with two Ph.D.s and director of Baylor University's Polyani Center, an information theory research group, Mr. Dembski is a long string-bean of a man who would rather listen than speak. But swirling behind his glasses and thin, angular face is an intellect that helped vault intelligent design theory from the realm of the possible to the province of the probable. His book, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press 1998), set secular scientists' skirts afire by crafting for the first time a scientifically rigorous "explanatory filter" for detecting design…….. "In the scientific community, there is always the worry that when we make an attribution of design, that natural causes will end up explaining it," said Mr. Dembski, who is also a Discovery Institute senior fellow and the man whom author George Gilder once called "God's mathematician." "There's the sense that we 'can't do science' with design because we can't get a handle on it, or do it reliably. My work is aimed at refuting that view and showing that we can have a reliable criterion for detecting design and distinguishing it from other modes of explanations" of origins.

…….[Mr. Dembski] "Although I would personally identify God as the designer on theological grounds, the Bible is not entering into these discussions. Intelligent design theorists are trying to make it a fully rigorous, scientific enterprise." ...... As a result, Mr. Dembski sees not only a growing acceptance of ID theory among scientific faculty at Christian colleges, but also an emerging community of theistic academics at secular universities. But Massimo Pigliucci isn't one of them. A biologist, Mr. Pigliucci's sputtering, angry review of The Design Inference published in the journal BioScience called Mr. Dembski's work "trivial," "nonsensical," and "part of a large, well-planned movement whose object ... is nothing less than the destruction of modern science." Mr. Dembski loved it. "If the worst humiliation is not to be taken seriously, at least we're being taken seriously," adding that even fellow Darwinists panned Mr. Pigliucci's intemperate reaction to Mr. Dembski's book. "If we're generating such strong, visceral responses, we must be doing something right."

STEVE MEYER

"…….. "I've found that most people, even scientists, don't mind having ideas made clear," said Mr. Meyer, a philosopher of science and a professor at Whitworth College in Spokane. "In intelligent design, making ideas clear is all to our advantage because the case for Darwinism really depends a lot on obfuscation. So, if [Darwinists] can conceal that with lots of difficult jargon and technical terminology, they can keep everybody but the experts out." It's Mr. Meyer's aim to let the non-experts in. Tall, intense, and personable, he calls himself a "shameless popularizer" and is the acknowledged PR-guy for the design movement. Speaking to a mixed group of scientists, philosophers, and journalists at a recent intelligent design conference in L.A., he blew up balloons and slapped magnetic letters on a child-sized whiteboard to simplify explanations of evidence for design in DNA. When he was through, the philosophers and journalists actually understood what he was talking about.

…….Mr. Meyer arrived at his own understanding of life's origins between shifts at Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) oilfields in Dallas. After graduating from Whitworth in 1980, Mr. Meyer went to work for ARCO as a geophysicist. In 1985, a conference convened in Dallas that brought together top philosophers, cosmologists, and biologists to discuss the interrelationship of recent scientific findings and religion. Mr. Meyer, who basically wandered in off the street to listen in, found his own vaguely held notions of theistic evolution dismantled by former big-gun Darwinists who had themselves concluded that scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent designer of the universe. "For me, it was a seminal event, a turning point," Mr. Meyers said. "I saw that there was an exciting, intellectual program here worth pursuing." It was a turning point that would lead him to Cambridge University where, in 1991, he earned his doctorate in the history and philosophy of science for a dissertation on origin-of-life biology.

…… Now, Mr. Meyer divides his time between Whitworth and his position as director of the Seattle-based Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. The center, says its mission statement, "seeks to challenge materialism on specifically scientific grounds." Mr. Meyer said the center was founded as an academic end-run around secular university research departments held hostage by Darwinists. With its corps of 40 research fellows in disciplines ranging from genetics to biology to artificial intelligence, he contends the center has the academic firepower to engineer a profound shift in the naturalistic paradigm that now dominates the culture………Of course, his critics publish op-eds of their own. He, like his ID colleagues, is regularly slammed as "anti-scientific" and "anti-intellectual." "The gatekeepers of evolutionary theory are very worried about the design movement," Mr. Meyer said. "It's got a huge appeal with students, it's framed in a way that makes their position very unattractive, and the evidence supports it. When it was religion versus science, evolutionists won that debate every time." Now, it's science versus science, he said. And the debate evolutionists had thought was settled has only just begun. ….."

Nature, 2000, 403:689-690 2/17/00 Rex Dalton "……The US palaeontology community has been rocked by a Chinese 'bird' fossil that may be a new species, but that many suspect to be be a composite of more than one fossil that was smuggled illegally out of China……. And, in a move which has left the magazine deeply embarrassed, some palaeontologists are also saying that the fossil's tail may come from another specimen. "This is a disaster for science," says Xu Xing, a graduate student at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, who collaborated on a paper describing the fossil and has been involved in repatriation negotiations. ……. An article in the November 1999 issue of National Geographic claims that the specimen is one of the "missing links in dinosaur evolution". But computerized tomography tests have shown that the fossil's tail may have been added in a bid to increase its black-market value. The magazine is to publish a note in its March issue stating that the specimen is "a composite", and that tests have "revealed anomalies in the fossil's construction". In the November article, the magazine gave the specimen a name -- Archaeoraptor liaoningensis -- even though it had not been formally described in a peer-reviewed journal. This angered scientists such as Storrs Olson, curator of birds at the US National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, who has described the move as "the worst nightmare of many zoologists". Magazine officials say that the publication of the name and details of the fossil was a "mistake" that resulted from marketing efforts leapfrogging an unsuccessful bid for scientific publication -- one of several miscues during the fossil's journey through America……… Czerkas convinced patrons of the Dinosaur Museum, including trustee Dale Slade, to put up $80,000 to buy the specimen. Slade, a businessman who provides material for semiconductors, says that documents exist showing that the fossil is part of a museum exchange programme and was not smuggled; but he declined to make such records available to Nature……..Although he does not hold a university degree, Czerkas says that he is widely respected in the scientific community for helping major museums create dinosaur displays……. According to Rowe, by early August his laboratory had found problems with the fossil -- in particular the added tail and questions relating to reconstructed leg bones. Rowe described the problems to Czerkas and Currie at a meeting in his laboratory……."

[Note from Alamo-Girl: In the discussion of creation v macro evolution - the subject of the inerrancy of Scriptures surfaces repeatedly. A secular scientific case has been made mathematically that the book of Genesis accurately records people, dates or events thousands of years in advance:]

http://biblemysteries.com/library/codes2/ Statistical Science 1994, Vol. 9, No. 3, 429-438 (abridged)

Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg

"....Abstract. It has been noted that when the Book of Genesis is written as two-dimensional arrays, equidistant letter sequences spelling words with related meanings often appear in close proximity. Quantitative tools for measuring this phenomenon are developed. Randomization analysis shows that the effect is significant at the level of 0.00002...."

http://www.torahcodes.co.il/gal-eng.htm Doron Witztum '98 (debunking an attempt to debunk their findings)

"......The assertion of the authors of the critique that our success derived solely from the "level of flexibility" in Prof. Havlin's guidelines - has not been demonstrated. Yet we must thank psychologist Prof. Maya Bar-Hillel and her colleagues for the tremendous efforts they have invested in their attempts to invalidate our research, because there is a great deal we can learn precisely from their total failure. First of all, it serves as solid evidence against their assertion that within the established guidelines there is "enough choice to generate comparable significance levels in War and Peace."

…..Furthermore: A detailed analysis of the very "choices" which they point to shows that the original research was conducted without any bias and in an a priori manner……..Strangest of all was their decision to use parody as their method of attack. Parody is incapable of answering the question: Does there exist a hidden code in the book of Genesis or not. On the other hand, they chose not to use a more appropriate scientific methodology to test their claim - that is to allow an independent authority to prepare a new list of names and appellations for the 32 personalities on the second list, using Prof. Havlin's guidelines! - This is what we suggested a year ago, and to this day we would be very happy to discuss the necessary procedures......"

http://www.torahcodes.co.il/persi4e.htm "….In the article "CONCERNING THE STATISTICAL TEST THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN OUR PAPER IN STATISTICAL SCIENCE"….. I pointed out the false assertion published by McKay et al. concerning the origins of this test. The false assertion is included in their paper "Solving the Bible Code Puzzle", published in the May '99 issue of Statistical Science…. In response McKay et al. published an article on the internet called "The origin of the permutation test", where they unsuccessfully attempted to conceal the fact that they had been caught red handed. But, as I will prove later, their arguments only strengthen my case. We will find McKay's et al. description of this issue very creative and imaginative but far away from reality. We will learn that such fairy tales are sometimes based on falsehoods and concealing of relevant data….."

Access Research Network 1996 Stephen Meyer, PhD The Intercollegiate Review 31, no. 2 (spring 1996) "….During the last forty years, molecular biology has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems…….. The molecular biology of the cell raises the possibility that "no materialism" will survive the revolution beginning to take root in science. While established journals and institutions continue to propagate the orthodoxies of a generation ago, many scientists, philosophers of science and mathematicians have begun to challenge these views and to formulate alternative approaches. Recent work in probability theory has defined information more precisely and articulated clear mathematical criteria for the identification of intelligently designed systems, thus providing a theoretical framework for a new science based upon the reality of design. A new book on the "irreducible complexity" of biochemical systems explains why gradual undirected evolution cannot produce such systems, and suggests intelligent design as the most viable scientific alternative. ... Other work promises to reshape our conception, not only of living things but of our science and ourselves. If the simplest life owes its origin to an intelligent Creator, then perhaps man is not the "cosmic orphan" that twentieth century scientific materialism has taught. Perhaps then, during the twenty first century, the traditional moral and spiritual foundations of the West will find support from the very sciences that once seemed to undermine them……."

Phillip Johnson 11/97 "….. In a retrospective essay on Carl Sagan in the January 9, 1997 New York Review of Books, Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin tells how he first met Sagan at a public debate in Arkansas in 1964. The two young scientists had been coaxed by senior colleagues to go to Little Rock to debate the affirmative side of the question: "RESOLVED, that the theory of evolution is as proved as is the fact that the earth goes around the sun." Their main opponent was a biology professor from a fundamentalist college, with a Ph.D. from the University of Texas in Zoology. Lewontin reports no details from the debate, except to say that "despite our absolutely compelling arguments, the audience unaccountably voted for the opposition." ………Of course, Lewontin and Sagan attributed the vote to the audience's prejudice in favor of creationism. The resolution was framed in such a way, however, that the affirmative side should have lost even if the jury had been composed of Ivy League philosophy professors. How could the theory of evolution even conceivably be "proved" to the same degree as "the fact that the earth goes around the sun"? The latter is an observable feature of present-day reality, whereas the former deals primarily with non-repeatable events of the very distant past. The appropriate comparison would be between the theory of evolution and the accepted theory of the origin of the solar system. ………I have seen people, previously inclined to believe whatever "science says," become skeptical when they realize that the scientists actually do seem to think that variations in finch beaks or peppered moths, or the mere existence of fossils, proves all the vast claims of "evolution." It is as though the scientists, so confident in their answers, simply do not understand the question…."

WorldNetDaily 3/3/00 Julie Foster "….Two Northwest educators continue to battle school board members, colleagues and the ACLU over whether or not they have the right to criticize the theory of evolution in their classrooms. Roger DeHart, a Washington high school teacher, has been teaching evolution to his ninth- and tenth-grade students since he was hired by the Burlington-Edison School District in 1987. Because of controversy surrounding evolution, DeHart believed it intellectually honest to present scientific criticism of the theory to his students. For 10 years, DeHart never received any complaint until a summer student filed one in 1997….. the Washington State chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union involved itself in March 1998 and filed a complaint against the biology teacher……..As a result, what once was a classroom where lively debate ensued over the scientific evidences of evolution versus intelligent design has now become a near-one-sided lecture in which Darwin's conclusions may be questioned, but his theory must have the last word. DeHart believes the best way to teach is to discuss existing controversy. "We were talking strictly about scientific discovery and what the current research is finding," DeHart said in a WorldNetDaily interview. For example, DeHart asked his students, "Do molecules have in them the ability to create life?" "There's no empirical evidence that says they can," said DeHart. "Students need to know that. They need to know what's happening in current science." ……The veteran teacher is suspicious of the scientific community's apparent reverence for Darwinism. "If something in science suddenly becomes so sacrosanct that you can't question it, then it ceases to be science," he said. "And I really think that's what's become of Darwinism." ……"

WorldNetDaily 3/3/00 Julie Foster "….Similarly, community college instructor Kevin Haley in Oregon has been criticized by other faculty for questioning human evolution. Haley, who has been teaching biology for non-majors for more than three years, told WorldNetDaily new biology textbooks read like "sales pitches" for the theory, rather than presenting a discussion of facts. Evolution is a mandated curriculum in public colleges, and Haley says he teaches the subject thoroughly, including "the parts that are true and the parts that are not." ….. Haley's classes find Brussel sprouts to share the genetic pattern of cabbage, as do cauliflower and broccoli. Through the experiments, they learn that "evolution" can happen quickly and can be observed. But animal life is not as simple, teaches Haley……… He noted one textbook's statement in reference to the similarity of animal-human skeletal structure. "The book says 'God wouldn't do something like that'" unless evolution were true. "When a science book talks about God, I point out the departure [from the rule]," he said. Pointing out the scientific community's hypocrisy had landed Haley in the spotlight just as his tenure approaches, which, if granted, would make firing Haley much more difficult for college administrators. English major Rebecca Bradford filed a complaint against Haley, saying she felt shortchanged by his class despite his skill as a teacher. She said Haley subtly undermines the theory of evolution by downplaying information that supports it and emphasizing information that challenges it......."

WorldNetDaily 3/3/00 Julie Foster "….NCSE, which asks scientists and pro-evolution activists to "encourage professional and community organizations (like the PTA) to give public support to evolution education," claims most Christian denominations have accepted evolution as fact and says creationism "attempts to retain a theology that has been abandoned by mainline Christianity."….. In the past, pro-evolution activists argued that creationism, and now intelligent design, cannot be taught in public schools because such teachings would be a violation of the separation of church and state. However, the activists are now attempting to stop even criticism of Darwin's theory in educational environments……. "

WorldNetDaily 3/3/00 Julie Foster "…."It may not be a matter of church-state separation, but it is definitely a matter of professional competency," said Scott, who told "The Oregonian" any biologist who leads students to discount the theory of evolution is doing a disservice to them. But the college science department's former chairman, Bruce McClelland, wrote a letter recommending Haley be promoted from assistant to associate instructor last month….. Despite the recommendation, Haley was given written complaints Monday that were filed by other faculty. Vice President of Instruction Bart Queary gave the letters to Haley saying they represent a "serious and persistent issue." "If this is such a 'serious and persistent issue,' why haven't I heard anything about it before now," asks Haley. Queary also told the professor he had complaints of his own, but did not formalize them in writing. According to Haley, Queary suspects the teacher of racism as a result of an educational video Haley showed in class. The video relates an African folk tale explaining the origin of the leopard's spots as the fingerprints of an Ethiopian. Haley says the complaint is unfounded since Danny Glover, a black actor, narrated the tale. ……... Queary said the college is investigating complaints from three students and five women faculty members that Haley tends to belittle women by questioning their intelligence. Haley denies the charges and points to his record as evidence. He taught for seven years at the College of St. Mary in Omaha, an all-girls school. While there, Haley was selected by the pupils to receive the Student Senate award. "They've been trying to get me for three years for teaching creationism and couldn't, so they then came up with this women thing," Haley said……"

New York Times 3/11/00 James Glanz "……An overwhelming majority of Americans think that creationism should be taught along with Darwin's theory of evolution in the public schools, according to a new national survey. Some scientists characterized the seemingly contradictory findings as a quixotic effort by the public to accommodate incompatible world views. But in some ways, even as Americans continue to argue over what students should be taught about human origins, the poll offers encouragement to both sides in the debate……. In results emphasized by the foundation, the survey found that 83 percent of Americans generally supported the teaching of evolution in public schools. But the poll, which had a statistical margin of error of 2.6 percentage points, also found that 79 percent of Americans thought creationism had a place in the public school curriculum -- though respondents often said the topic should be discussed as a belief rather than as a competing scientific theory. As for evolution, almost half the respondents agreed that the theory "is far from being proven scientifically." And 68 percent said it was possible to believe in evolution while also believing that God created humans and guided their development. ….."

www.zogby.com 3/9/00 "……New Zogby "American Values Polls" reveals: Creationism & evolution should be taught equally; Tougher gun law enforcement preferred over more laws; Juveniles who use guns should be tried as adults; Internet sales should be taxed An overwhelming number of Americans believe creationism should be taught equally in public schools along with evolution, a new Zogby's "American Values Poll" reveals. The February survey of 1,028 adults throughout the nation showed that 63.7% of those surveyed agreed that creationism needs to be part of the regular public school curriculum, including 38.9% who strongly agreed. The survey showed that just three in 10 of the respondents (32.2%) disagreed with the notion of creationism being taught in public schools. Zogby's "American Values" Polls are conducted quarterly to probe more deeply into what values Americans hold and what values will ultimately influence their behavior. This is the second poll in a continuing series. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.2%….."

WorldNetDaily 3/7/00 Al Simmons "…..It takes a greater leap of faith today to be an atheist than to believe that the universe and life were created by God, a Texas scientist said Monday in a lecture at Montana State University. Walter Bradley, 56, professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at Texas A&M University, said science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. "Everybody chooses to believe something based on partial data," Bradley said at his noon lecture, attended by about 200 MSU students and professors. It was sponsored by the MSU Science & Religion Lecture Forum and Campus Crusade for Christ. Bradley argued it's simply not rational to conclude that such a complex system as life was created by random chance. Scientists have been trying to prove that for decades, some working in labs and some using computer simulations, without convincing success. It's true that molecules can spontaneously organize themselves as, for example, when water forms snowflakes or minerals form crystals. But those are simple molecules -- far simpler than complex sequences of amino acids, which when put together just right form proteins, the building blocks of life. ..."

WorldNetDaily 3/7/00 Al Simmons "…..But, he said, since modern physicists developed the big bang theory, which holds the universe began at a single moment and is still expanding, that has created big problems for atheists. He compared a protein molecule to a car engine. If you look at how the parts of a car engine work -- the pistons, electrical system, fuel system -- everything follows the laws of nature. But you cannot explain how the complicated car engine came to exist without somebody intelligent who designed it and assembled it. In the same way, Bradley said, the creation of protein is most easily explained by an intelligent creator. Fifty years ago, he said, scientists were pretty confident of finding a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. But after decades of struggling to prove life started on its own, many are concluding that for all the conditions to have been just right requires amazing coincidences, to the point of being a miracle. ......"

COSMIC CODES Hidden Messages from the Edge of Eternity 1999 Chuck Missler "……. Even the assumption that there is such a thing as a "simple cell" turns out to be a myth. As Michael Denton highlighted: "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."608 ……… The assumption of self-organization violates the entropy laws. Order requires the external input of information. Furthermore, complex assemblies of subsystems require that all subsystems must be functional for the survival of the total system. This precludes any such subsystems evolving "on their own" by chance or random events. To accept the premises of our current evolutionary myths seriously is analogous to believing that a tornado passing through a junkyard could create and leave behind a fully functional Boeing 747 aircraft.......... Consider a model of a "simple" cell. Let's imagine a model 1,000 million times larger than actual size. Each atom would be about the size of a tennis ball. We will need ten million million atoms (10x13), and our model would have to be over ten miles in diameter! If we counted the atoms at one per minute, it would take 50 million years to complete the count. This "simple" cell turns out to be of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. It is filled with automated factories and assembly plants with processing units connected to a central memory bank. Hundreds of thousands of specific types of robot machines (protein molecules) are everywhere, each composed of over 3,000 parts in three-dimensional configurations…………. These automated factories employ digital languages and decoding systems, using memory banks for information storage. We find elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, exploiting prefabrication and modular construction. We even discover error-correcting fail-safe coding and proof-reading devices for quality control. The technology we find there is unequaled in any factory on earth. What is even more staggering, it proves capable of replicating its own entire structure within a matter of a few hours! This is the "simple cell" that just happened by unaided chance alone? If you really believe that, I have some property I'd like to sell you. ......"

The American Spectator 1/1999 Tom Bethell "…….. The Evolution Wars are beginning to get interesting. The public has long been skeptical, of course. It's one of those areas where the experts don't encounter automatic assent. Now we are beginning to see a serious intellectual challenge to Darwinism. It is not a matter of "religion versus science," although the media do try to frame it that way. The new critics, including Behe, Dembski, and Meyer, make the claim that the science on which evolutionist claims are made has been sloppy, misleading, and in some cases downright deceptive………… I have long taken an interest in this subject. An early dissenter from evolutionism, a Los Angeles lawyer by the name of Norman Macbeth, was a friend of mine, and on several occasions took me with him to meet the curators at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In private, some of them would allow that we don't know much about evolution. We can look back into the fossil record and determine that creatures that once existed no longer do. But how that change of dramatis personae took place, we don't know. Gary Nelson, the curator of ichthyology in the 1980's, would say that we know virtually nothing about the evolution of fishes, for example. Not that these people were creationists, I hasten to add. They just wanted to insist that the origin of species was treated with scientific rigor……….Two others, not present, should also be mentioned (also Discovery fellows). The first is Paul Nelson, whose Ph.D. thesis for the University of Chicago, " On Common Descent," is just now being published in that university's Evolutionary Monograph series. He asks at the outset; If Darwin's theory of common descent were false, how would we know? "That question turns out to be remarkably difficult to answer," says Nelson. "It is important to see how common descent might be tested. But when the theory's predictions failed, as happened for instance with the discovery of the nonuniversality of the genetic code, or the divergence of animal development, common descent emerged unscathed. It is privileged by evolutionary biologists. Any theory that cannot be challenged by contrary evidence, however, risks becoming a dogma."……"

Reason Magazine 7/97 Ronald Bailey "…… Darwinism is on the way out. At least, that's what Irving Kristol announced to a gathering at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington not long ago. Darwinian evolution, according to the godfather of neoconservatism, "is really no longer accepted so easily by [many] biologists and scientists." Why? Because, Kristol explained, scientifically minded Darwin doubters are once again focusing on "the old-fashioned argument from design." That is to say, life in all its apparently ordered complexity cannot be understood in terms of chance mutation and the competition for survival. There must, after all, be a designer. So, exit Darwin; enter--or re-enter--God…………. This may seem to some readers to be a personal quirk of Kristol's. Perhaps as he approaches Eternity (he's 77), he may want some grand company there. But Kristol's friend and colleague Robert Bork is claiming the same thing: Charles Darwin and his theories are finished. In his new work, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Bork pins his own anti-evolutionary attack on Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, a recent book by biochemist Michael Behe. Bork declares that Behe "has shown that Darwinism cannot explain life as we know it." He adds approvingly that the book "may be read as the modern, scientific version of the argument from design to the existence of a designer." Bork triumphantly concludes: "Religion will no longer have to fight scientific atheism with unsupported faith. The presumption has shifted, and naturalist atheism and secular humanism are on the defensive." …….. "

Reason Magazine 7/97 Ronald Bailey "…… What's going on here? Opponents of Darwin traditionally have been led by biblical literalists, whose "arguments" on the subject have been generated mostly by the Book of Genesis. Now their camp includes some of the most prominent thinkers in the conservative intellectual movement. ……. But something deeper seems to be going on, and the key to it can be found in Bork's assertion in his book that religious "belief is probably essential to a civilized future." ......"

Breakpoint 3/14/00 Chuck Colson "….. Descended from the Apes? Most American Still Disagree Ever since the Scopes trial, 75 years ago, public schools have adopted a rigid orthodoxy. Evolution has been taught as scientific fact. We were not created by God but descended from apes and evolved through an unsupervised process. Over the years, literally millions of children have seen the film Inherit the Wind, which falsely portrays Christians as unthinking censors. Try arguing with most biology teachers and you'll soon discover that they are rigidly doctrinaire. Science is science, creation is just religion, and it has no place in the classroom. Last year's debates in Kansas sent the media into spasms of Christian bashing. We were called all sorts of things for suggesting that the flaws in evolution ought to be taught alongside the arguments for it. But what has all this fury and doctrinaire evolutionism produced? Well, a new poll from the Yankelovich group, reported in Saturday's New York Times, shows that 79% of Americans believe creationism does have a place in public school curriculum, after all. Half the respondents said evolution is "far from being proven scientifically," and 68 percent said it's possible to believe in evolution while also believing in God's agency in creation......."

World Magazine 3/17/00 Nancy Pearcey "….You always knew that evolutionists had ambitions of being more than scientists-of being prophets of a total evolutionary worldview. The latest evidence of such intellectual imperialism comes from a new book, A Natural History of Rape, which claims that natural selection explains all human behavior-even the crime of rape. Authors Randy Thornhill of the University of New Mexico and Craig Palmer of the University of Colorado advance the startling thesis that rape is not a pathology but an evolutionary adaptation-a strategy for maximizing reproductive success. The book has ignited a firestorm of protest on talk shows and op-ed pages. But the authors say they are merely applying "evolutionary psychology" (a new moniker for sociobiology), which claims that natural selection produced not only the human body but also human behavior. Any behavior that survives must have been preserved by natural selection because it conferred some evolutionary advantage. ……"

Chemical and Engineering News 3/14/00 Rebecca Rawls "….. "By looking at the way a repair enzyme holds on to DNA, researchers think they may be catching a glimpse of how enzymes coordinate with one another to carry out chemical transformations too complex to be done in a single step. ……. The work "encourages us to think in the direction of a level of coordination in this repair pathway that we haven't yet appreciated," says Samuel H. Wilson, a principal investigator in the laboratory of structural biology at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Wilson studies another enzyme, Beta-polymerase, involved in a later step in this same DNA repair pathway, and work from his lab is among the anecdotal information Lloyd refers to as pointing to communication between enzymes involved at different steps in the pathway. The new structure is "consistent with the notion of a coordinated pathway," Wilson says, but "that notion is still speculative." He adds that the new work "helps us appreciate the importance of structural approaches toward understanding these complex biochemical pathways. That's a very important insight." APE1 catalyzes one step in a key pathway in humans and other higher organisms-the base excision repair pathway-that repairs oxidative damage to DNA. DNA receives this kind of damage continually in cells, both as a result of normal metabolism and from the effects of environmental mutagens and ionizing radiation. Repairing such damage swiftly and accurately is critical to the survival of the organism. Several enzymes recognize damaged DNA bases and detach them from the polymer's sugar-phosphate backbone. The DNA is next processed by APE1, which cleaves the DNA backbone near the site of the missing base. Other enzymes then remove a section of the backbone, replace it with new nucleic acid units, and finally rejoin the backbone to make repaired DNA. Tainer says, "What's exciting is that we are getting hints or glimpses at how the regulation of this pathway might work." At issue is the question of how-or even whether-enzymes that catalyze individual steps in a biochemical reaction pathway cooperate with one another in ways that make the entire pathway more efficient. "I guess my prejudice is that the cell can't possibly work like a test tube, with things just stochastically bumping into each other," Tainer says. "If that were the case, the efficiency for any reaction pathway would be horrible." ….."The emerging view from this work," Tainer explains, "is that the individual chemical steps controlling genetic integrity are integrated like a dance where partner exchanges, steps, and timing are carefully choreographed." ….."

 

AP 3/28/00 "……Researchers compared DNA from a Neanderthal skeleton found in Russia to an older sample tested in 1997. While the two Neanderthal samples turned out to be just 3.5 percent different from one another, they were roughly 7 percent different from DNA in modern humans. Scientists consider that to be a substantial gap. ''It all points away from the Neanderthal,'' said one of the researchers, William Goodwin, a molecular biologist at the Human Identification Center in Glasgow, Scotland. The findings are being published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. The researchers challenge the theory that modern humans evolved at least partly from Neanderthals, which some believe mated in large numbers with modern Europeans before disappearing 25,00 0 years ago. If that had happened, some argue, today's Europeans would show stronger genetic similarities to Neanderthals than other humans do. Yet the latest DNA analysis shows Neanderthal DNA to be no closer to Europeans than to other modern humans. Neanderthals were burly, primitive creatures with a prominent brow, thick jaw and short, powerful limbs. Originating in Africa, they appeared in Europe and Asia perhaps 100,000 years ago or longer. The 29,000-year-old Neanderthal DNA, which was recovered from a rib bone in a baby's skeleton found in Russia's Caucasus Mountains, was in better condition than the roughly 40,000-year-old Neanderthal DNA from Germany analyzed in 1997, the researchers said.

AP 3/28/00 "……Molecular biologist Matthias Hoss, an expert in ancient remains now working at the Swiss Institute for Cancer Research, said the research appears to support the theory that Neanderthals were an evolutionary dead end. ''This adds quite a lot of confidence that the Neanderthal didn't contribute to modern populations,'' he said. The study does support an opposing theory known as ''out-of-Africa,'' the research team said. This theory says modern humans descended from the true Homo sapiens, who originated in Africa and came to replace other early humans worldwide without great mixing. Homo sapiens would have arrived in Europe perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, scientists believe. ……"

The Oregonian 3/38/00 Gordon Gregory "……A Central Oregon Community College biology instructor who was pleased when his skeptical treatment of evolution led his students to question the theory and possibly turn to God won't have a job next term. The school's administration is recommending that the contract for assistant instructor Kevin Haley not be renewed after the spring term. Haley said the college's board will act on the recommendation later this spring, but that the board always concurs with the administration on hiring matters. "I don't have a contract for next year. I don't have a job," said Haley, who will finish teaching the spring term. ……… In a Nov. 30, 1999, memo to Bruce Emerson, chairman of the science department, Queary wrote that several students and five faculty members had complained that Haley often brought his religious views into the classroom and that he also belittled women. Haley said his dismissal after almost four years of teaching was unjust, but not unexpected. He said the complaints about his attitude toward women were fabricated because no one could say he was not a good teacher. He said if he ever said anything that seemed to demean women, it was unintentional or misunderstood. ……..

The Oregonian 3/38/00 Gordon Gregory "…… Several students have complained to the college that Haley consistently undermined the theory of evolution while promoting the belief that life was created by God. Haley is a devout Christian who doesn't believe that life sprang from organic molecules billions of years ago or that natural selection is responsible for the diversity of species. Although he thinks mutations change species over time, he said God created all basic forms of life through processes that cannot be explained. He acknowledges he is pleased when his teachings lead students to doubt evolution because, he says, they are then more likely to find God. Rebecca Walker-Sands, who teaches the physiology of psychology and other courses at Central Oregon Community College, said students suffer if instructors mix science and religion. Evolution, she said, is a theory and will be refined as science advances. Creationism, however, is rooted in faith and is not affected by new discoveries or insights, she said. "The tenet of creationism is that God made the world. It is not science. It's theology, and they're not equal," she said. ….."

Guang Ming Daily 12/1/99 Lu Chuan Zhang Nan "…….[DOT] reviews the publications of major Darwinists and their viewpoints; by doing so it also reveals the major problems in Darwinism.

1. Darwinism often employs tautology. Take "survival of the fittest" in natural selection for example. According to the definition of Darwinism, those which leave the most progeny are fit; however Darwinism also predicts that those who are fit will have the most progeny. Therefore, Darwinian thesis is a statement revealing nothing at all.

2. Darwinism is a conclusion of logic. This is to say that natural selection and evolution are merely expressions of logical deduction; it is an exercise of logic. In fact, biological changes do not necessary follow the deductions of this logic.

3. Darwinian natural selection is only a scientific hypothesis. Darwin proved that the evidence supporting his theory lacked convincing power; he could only explain certain extraordinary phenomena. From the hypothesis based on special cases, he then extended it to the theory of evolution in general. Truly, Darwinian theory is not convincing at all. If living organisms really did originate by evolving from one species to another, then there must be intermediate forms. Why is it that we can hardly find any such evidence in the fossil record? If biological evolution did happen slowly and gradually, then how did all the disparate and complex animal phyla came from a single cell? How could such disparate combinations of genomes evolve from a single common ancestor? Why did almost all animal phyla appear simultaneously in the geological strata about 600 million years ago in the Cambrian Period?

Darwin could not explain any of these, yet his theory has been considered as truth. [DOT] points out the reason why: Darwinism was a necessity required by philosophy. The outstanding contribution of Darwin was to provide a relatively believable mechanism, by which people could explain the process of biological change without a god or a mysterious living force. Nor would it require a force that cannot be discerned in the physical world. This is just what was needed in philosophy to fight against the requirement of classical theology. According to Creationism, different species were created directly by God, which was actually "objective idealism." In order to fight Creationism at its roots, waving the big flag of materialism provided an excellent choice, and that was evolution. As soon as people accepted evolution, they started to depend on it-- as a result, they changed evolutionary science into a religion. Elevated into a kind of belief system in philosophy, evolution has turned into something widely accepted by the general public. They could look at the pitfalls of evolution without seeing them. "For that reason, scientific organizations are devoted to protecting Darwinism rather than testing it, and the rules of scientific investigation have been shaped to help them succeed." (Page 153 in the original English version.)

Just because of its opposition against Creationism, Darwinism became a kind of philosophical belief, and it has brought us grave danger. "Darwinism is the story of humanity's liberation from the delusion that its destiny is controlled by a power higher than itself. Lacking scientific knowledge, humans at first attribute natural events like weather and disease to supernatural beings. As they learn to predict or control natural forces they put aside the lesser spirits, but a more highly evolved religion retains the notion of a rational Creator who rules the universe." (p. 131 in original text) Thus, modern humans learn that they are the product of a blind natural process that has no goal. Further, the goalless nature becomes an irrational force that controls the world. Everything in it is determined, and all is irrational, so people lose their choice and control. What meaning, if any, is left in a world such as this? "The continual efforts to base a religion or ethical system upon evolution are not an aberration" (p. 131 in original text) It established another religion, supported another way of life. Basically, people have not escaped the fate of determinism. They simply walked from creationism into evolutionism; the controlling force merely changed from God to nature. Both of these forces were outside of and different from their own……."

Olathe Daily News 4/17/00 AP "……When Linda Holloway was a little girl, her father told her she could accomplish anything she wanted. But Holloway never dreamed she would be center stage on an issue that placed Kansas under a national and international spotlight. That happened to her last August, when she was chairwoman of the Kansas Board of Education that made a landmark decision on the teaching of evolution in school. ''This was not in the career plan,'' Holloway joked to an enthusiastic crowd of supporters at a rally Saturday to officially begin her campaign for a second term on the board. ''But I'm not sorry for this latest rebel cause. I'm not sorry for the stand I took.'' Holloway, the current vice chair of the board, told 200 supporters attending the rally that she's got plenty of fight left. …….. The new standards include natural selection, the idea that advantageous traits increase in a population over time. However, the standards exclude ''macroevolution,'' the theory that different species can have common ancestors. The standards, which are curriculum guidelines for school districts, also do not mention the age of the earth or the big-bang theory of the universe's origin. …….. Holloway, who gave up a 20-year teaching career to run in 1996, said the fiery debate over evolution standards is not a battle between God and Darwin's theory of evolution, though she acknowledged some supporters see it that way. ''I want good science, and honesty,'' she said in an interview after the rally. ''The truth is nobody knows how life started because none of us was there. What (the board) did not want was a narrow, dogmatic statement that said evolution is the unifying concept of all science.'' The standards are only suggestions, and local schools now decide for themselves whether to teach the theory. ……."

Probe Ministries 4/5/00 Dr Raymon Bohlin "…….. Since 1983, homeotic genes have been the rage in evolutionary developmental biology. First discovered in fruit flies, these genes appear to act as switches to turn on a series of genes important for sequential levels of development. Of interest to evolutionists, is the fact that many of the same genes found in fruit flies are also found in almost every other animal group, all acting as developmental switches. They are even frequently found on the same chromosome and in the same order from species to species. Such evidence seems quite a compelling argument for all life forms evolving from a common ancestor. ……….. But Wells quickly points out that these genes do not control the same body structures from species to species, so an evolutionary explanation does not fit so well. "If the same gene can 'determine' structures as radically different as a fruit fly's leg and a mouse's brain or an insect's eyes and the eyes of humans and squids, then that gene is not determining much of anything."{4} There is no current mechanism to understand how a homeotic-switching gene can change from coding for one function to another in different organisms. Suddenly, this new great evidence of evolution is yet another problem for evolutionary biology. Wells goes on to point out that intelligent design has no trouble incorporating similar switches in different organisms just as an engineer understands the use of similar ignition switches in different kinds of vehicles.............Wells concludes that, "A design paradigm can nurture the sort of formal and teleological thinking that will enable biologists to discover the laws of development that have so far eluded them."{5} The reason for the elusion is the shackles of Darwinism......."

Probe Ministries 4/5/00 Dr Raymon Bohlin "…….. Meyer summarizes the extreme problems origin of life research has encountered in the last thirty years, highlighting along the way the important work by Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley.{11} Following the euphoria of the famous experiment by Miller and Urey in 1953, the origin of life community has suffered setback after setback. Miller and Urey demonstrated that a mixture of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen could be induced to produce, among many other organic compounds, a few amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Subsequent work showed that this hypothetical atmosphere was pure mythology. So was the notion of a prebiotic soup of biochemical building blocks.{12}……… Beyond the purely biochemical difficulties of origin of life research looms the immense problem of accounting for the origin of complex specified information contained in biomolecules, and specifically in DNA and the genetic code. In the computer age we are often amazed at the speed and storage capacity of modern personal computers, particularly the laptop variety with their 12 gig hard drives and 500 MHz speeds. We seldom realize, however, that "the information storage density of DNA, thanks largely to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of the most advanced computer chips."{13} So not only is there real information stored in DNA, but it is stored at a density on a molecular level, we can't even approach with our best computers. So just where did this information come from?...... Attempts to account for the origin of biological information by natural biochemical means have utterly failed. The odds of achieving even a small 100 amino acid protein are less than 1 in 10 125. Events of that small a probability just don't happen. Not only that, but researchers now realize that natural forces are incapable of achieving the formation of bio-information by any process. At first, some thought that maybe the amino acids and nucleotides had some natural affinity for each other to help account for the specific sequences of proteins and DNA. When that turned into a dead end, some hoped that some sort of natural selection of molecules might help. But natural selection requires reproducing cells. So-called "self-organization" processes only provide low level order, like ripples in the sand, not informational messages like "JOHN LOVES MARY" written in the sand…….."

First Things 3/00 Brian Harvey "……. Syndicated editorial writer Anthony Lewis, for example, takes to task the members of the board for being enslaved to archaic ideas and institutions, and thus "locked in rigid certainties and shibboleths." Lewis predictably lays the blame for this decision solely at the feet of a religious fundamentalism that would substitute "creation science" for the standards of modern biology and physics. Lewis is not alone in making religious fundamentalism the scapegoat. The recent "Humanist Manifesto: A Call for a New Planetary Humanism" (Free Inquiry, Fall 1999) also takes aim at "the emergence of shrill fundamentalist voices and the persistence of bigotry and intolerance" which all too often inculcate "unrealistic, escapist, otherworldly approaches to social problems, . . . a disrespect for science, and . . . archaic social institutions." What seems particularly troublesome to these critics is the fact that the reaction against modern scientific method is not limited to a few misguided lunatics at the fringes of society. Lewis cites a Gallup poll taken in June 1999 which indicated that a rather large majority of Americans favored the teaching of both evolution and so-called creation science, and that a substantial minority (40 percent) supported eliminating evolutionary theory altogether and teaching creationism alone. He reluctantly concludes that "most of us" were wrong to think that antipathy towards the teaching of evolution had been defeated several decades ago at the Scopes trial. How can it be, Lewis asks, that such a large body of opinion in the United States holds to a view so at odds with standard science, particularly when no other Western country has anything like it? ......"

First Things 3/00 Brian Harvey "……. I would submit that Lewis unwittingly supplies the answer to his own question. The pervasive "rejection" of the scientific method that has him so concerned represents the next logical step in the evolution of American culture-the democratization of science. Just as American citizens have been free to choose those religious beliefs that best suit their personal tastes, they are now declaring that they are free to select whatever form of scientific belief they prefer. If the Gallup poll is a reliable indication, the fact that these preferences run counter to the scientific establishment really does not concern most people a great deal……… There is a risk that comes with participating in this conversation, which some scientists may intuitively recognize and thus resist. Such discussion will invariably open up the methods and aims of scientific research to critical scrutiny of a sort that most practicing scientists have avoided for the greater part of this century. They have shunned it for any number of reasons, including simply pragmatic considerations in a profession that already makes incredible demands on their time. Some scientists, however, rightly suspect that engaging in such dialogue means surrendering the epistemic privilege that the Enlightenment uncritically accorded their disciplines and discourses. The spirited disputation that would likely ensue is indeed daunting, especially for those unaccustomed to working on an intellectual frontier where there are few if any unquestioned protocols and procedures. The only alternative, I fear, is continued guerrilla warfare, with every young farmer, tradesman, and professional choosing for himself which beliefs to accord the exalted title of "science." ……"

World Net Daily 4/2/00 Geoff Metcalf "…..The book examines the growing body of scientific evidence that validates the beliefs of the majority of Americans who, polls claim, do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Among the issues he tackles are: the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, the impossibility of mutations serving as evolutionary building blocks, the lack of evidence for "ape-men" and the mathematic impossibility of life beginning by itself. So persuasive is Perloff's book that actor Jack Lemmon, who played the legendary pro-evolution attorney Clarence Darrow in the 1999 TV-movie "Inherit the Wind," said, "My congratulations to Mr. Perloff for an outstanding piece of work." Perloff was interviewed by WND reporter Geoff Metcalf………

Q: This isn't just a creationist rebuttal of Darwinism. I learned a great many things reading your book. The fossil record does not support Darwinism does it?
A: No.

Q: You quote this zoologist who defrauded generations by actually forging drawings. I remember seeing those drawings in high school.
A: Right. Ernst Haeckel was the man who created those drawings. Most of us have seen those drawings in biology textbooks in school. They show developing human embryos next to developing animal embryos, and the human embryos and the animal embryos look virtually indistinguishable. This was said to prove we share a common ancestry with those animals.
Well, what most people don't know is, those pictures were fakes. At Jena University, which is where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors, and was convicted by a university court for making those pictures. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in a book called "Haeckel's Frauds and Forgery," published way back in 1915.
They quoted many leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel of Freiburg University said, "It clearly appears Haeckel freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations of others in a substantially changed form." In spite of conviction for fraud, and in spite of his exposure, Western educators continued to show these pictures in biology textbooks as proof of the theory of evolution.
This matter was finally resolved by Dr. Michael Richardson. He's an embryologist at Saint George's Medical school in London. He found there is no record that anyone ever actually checked Haeckel's claims by systematically comparing human and other fetuses during development. So he assembled a scientific team that did just that. They photographed the growing embryos of 39 different species.

Q: What did Richardson find?
A: He said, "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It is shocking to find that someone once thought to be a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. What Haeckel did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't! These are fakes."

Q: We have all seen these pictures of evolution -- ape to ape to Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon man to homo sapiens. You have some observations and state there is a shocking lack of evidence regarding the ape-man theory.
A: First of all, the amount of physical evidence is lacking. Lyall Watson wrote in Science Digest that "... the fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce, there are more scientists than specimens. ..." And he writes, "The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin."

 

Q: What about all the work that Leakey did?
A: My book discusses australopithecines, but probably a good place to begin discussing apemen is with the Piltdown Man, which was evolution's greatest showcase for 40 years.
What it consisted of, Geoff, was just an orangutan jaw that someone stained to look old. They filed down the teeth on it to make it more human looking. It succeeded in fooling Britains' leading scientists, Arthur Smith Woodward, the British Museum geologist, to Arthur Keith, the anatomist, to Grafton Eliot Smith, neurologist. They were led by evolutionary preconceptions into believing this was an ape-man.
Or take the case of Nebraska man, which was a single tooth shown to Henry Fairfield Osborn, director of the American Museum of Natural History. He said it belonged to an ape-man. He showed it to two specialists on teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, and they confirmed it was from an ape-man. Many others did the same. But it turned out when they did further digging at the site in Nebraska, that it actually came from a peccary, which is a relative of the pig. This happened again and again in the study of fossils. People were proved to be wrong when led by preconceptions.

Q: Was this an effort to manufacture evidence to support their preconceived theory?
A: Whoever made the Piltdown man fraud was certainly trying to do that. A lot of these people were, I think, just honestly led by their misconceptions. …….

Q: One of the key things you note, regarding the assumption there is a natural progression from ape to man, is that the evidence is lacking.
A: The whole fossil record itself of animal life does not support Darwin's theory. He recognized this himself in his own time. Here's what he said: "The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great if this theory be true."
Now, he didn't find those fossils in his own day, and he assumed they would show up, but they haven't. Steven J. Gould of Harvard, certainly a leading evolutionist, went on record a few years ago as saying the absence of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology. Colin Patterson, the director of the British Museum of Natural History says, "Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied myself with the problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. I will lay it on the line: There is not one such fossil for which one can make a watertight argument."
What should be seen out there in the fossil record are animals progressing through their various stages of development. We just don't see it. It doesn't matter if we're talking about fish, which suddenly appear in the fossil record. You have invertebrates, and you have vertebrates; you have no intermediate transitional fossils between them. And actually, since all animals appear complete when first seen in the fossil record, and they are not in transitional stages, then the Bible is right -- animals were created by God whole. ….."

deutche presse 4/19/00 "......All Europeans can be traced back to just seven women who founded seven clans at different times during the past 45,000 years, according to research by a genetics professor at Oxford University. The genetic signature of the women can be traced to millions of Europeans living today, says Bryan Sykes, Professor of human genetics at Oxford University. Professor Sykes' findings were drawn from a study of mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down intact from mother to child. Only random mutations, one on average every 10,000 years, alter the letters of the genetic alphabet in this form of DNA. ......His study, entitled The Seven Daughters of Eve, names the women as Ursula, Xenia, Tara, Helene, Katrine, Valda and Jasmine. The research further showed that the seven clans appeared to have been descended from one of three clans that exist today in Africa. ......"

NY Times 5/2/00 Nicholas Wade "…… The book of Genesis mentions three of Adam and Eve's children: Cain, Abel and Seth. But geneticists, by tracing the DNA patterns found in people throughout the world, have now identified lineages descended from 10 sons of a genetic Adam and 18 daughters of Eve. The human genome is turning out to be a rich new archive for historians and prehistorians, one whose range extends from recent times to the dawn of human existence. ………. Delvers in the DNA archive have recently found evidence for a prehistoric human migration from Western Asia to North America; identified the people who seem closest to the ancestral human population; and given substantial weight to the whispers, long dismissed by historians, that Thomas Jefferson fathered a family with his slave Sally Hemings. A new history of Britain and Ireland by Norman Davies, "The Isles," (Oxford University Press) begins with an account of Cheddar man, an 8,980-year-old skeleton from which mitochondrial DNA was recently extracted. ……"

NY Times 5/2/00 Nicholas Wade "……The DNA turned out to match that of Adrian Targett, a teacher in a Cheddar Village school, proving a genetic continuity that, despite numerous invasions, had endured through nine millenniums. ………Though DNA can bear on historical questions, often by acting as a long-range paternity test, its most spectacular use has been in prehistory, where it has added a new dimension to the bare framework provided by archaeology. ……A counterpart tree for men, based on analysis of the Y chromosome, has been prepared by Dr. Peter A. Underhill and Dr. Peter J. Oefner of Stanford University. …… Population geneticists believe that the ancestral human population was very small -- a mere 2,000 breeding individuals, according to a calculation published last December. But the family tree based on human mitochondrial DNA does not trace back to the thousand women in this ancestral population. The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct. ……"

NY Times 5/2/00 Nicholas Wade "…… This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches. ………. Mitochondria, which live inside human cells but outside the nucleus, escape the shuffling of genes that occurs between generations and are passed unchanged from mother to children. In principle, all people should have the same string of DNA letters in their mitochondria. In practice, mitochondrial DNA has steadily accumulated changes over the centuries because of copying errors and radiation damage. Because women were steadily spreading across the globe when many of these changes occurred, some changes are found only in particular regions and continents. ……."

NY Times 5/2/00 Nicholas Wade "…… Dr. Wallace discovered that almost all American Indians have mitochondria that belong to lineages he named A, B, C and D. Europeans belong to a different set of lineages, which he designated H through K and T through X. The split between the two main branches in the European tree suggests that modern humans reached Europe 39,000 to 51,000 years ago, Dr. Wallace calculates, a time that corresponds with the archaeological date of at least 35,000 years ago. In Asia there is an ancestral lineage known as M, with descendant branches E, F and G as well as the A through D lineages also found in the Americas. In Africa there is a single main lineage, known as L, which is divided into three branches. L3, the youngest branch, is common in East Africa and is believed to be the source of both the Asian and European lineages. …….. Dr. Wallace's mitochondrial DNA lineages are known technically as "haplogroups" but more colloquially as "daughters of Eve," because all are branches of the trunk that stems from the mitochondrial Eve.

NY Times 5/2/00 Nicholas Wade "…… The Y chromosome tree has not yet been published by the Stanford researchers, but in a book that came out in March, "Genes, People and Languages," a colleague at the university, Dr. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, sketched a preview of the findings. The tree is rooted in a single Y chromosomal Adam, and has 10 principal branches, Dr. Cavalli-Sforza reports. …… Of these sons of Adam, the first three (designated I, II and III) are found almost exclusively in Africa. Son III's lineage migrated to Asia and begat sons IV-X, who spread through the rest of the world -- to the Sea of Japan (son IV), northern India (son V) and the South Caspian (sons VI and IX)………. Dr. Cavalli-Sforza believes these Y chromosome lineages may be associated with the major language groups of the world. The South Caspian population, for example, may have spoken Eurasian, the ancestral tongue of Indo-European (to which English belongs) and most of the continent's other major language families. ……"

NY Times 5/2/00 Nicholas Wade "…… One of the most vexed issues in human prehistory is the timing and number of migrations into the Americas. Dr. Joseph Greenberg, a linguist at Stanford University, has proposed three migrations, corresponding to the three language groups of the Americas, known as Amerind, Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut. Dr. Wallace's mitochondrial DNA data broadly support this general thesis, though the arrival of the Amerind-speakers seems more complex than a single migration. Of the A through D lineages found in American Indians, A, C and D also occur in Siberian peoples, suggesting that their ancestors were the principal source of the Amerind-speakers' migration. But the B lineage, though it is found elsewhere in Asia, has not turned up in Siberia, a hint that the B people may have taken a sea route to the Americas and then merged there with their A- , C- and D-carrying cousins.

NY Times 5/2/00 Nicholas Wade "…… In 1998, Dr. Wallace and his colleagues discovered the X pattern, a rare European lineage, among the northern Native Americans such as the Ojibwa and Sioux. At first they assumed it came from intermarriage with modern Europeans. But the American X lineage turned out to be pre-Columbian and its owners would have arrived in America either 15,000 or 30,000 years ago, depending on certain genetic assumptions. The European X lineage seems to have originated in Western Asia around 40,000 years ago. Dr. Wallace suggests a part of this group may have made their way to America via Siberia, even though no traces of the X-lineage have yet turned up in eastern Asia. A trans-Atlantic route is a possible alternative.

NY Times 5/2/00 Nicholas Wade "…… When modern humans first started to leave Africa, about 50,000 years ago by present reckoning, they probably consisted of small groups of hunter-gatherers a few hundred strong…... The biologist Edward O. Wilson, in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, mused that a new basis for spiritual values might be found -- not in the usual religious sources but in what he sees as the inspiring story of human origins and history. ……… Many of the biologists who are reconstructing the human past certainly believe their work has a value that transcends genetics. …….Although their lineage trees are based on genetic differences, most of these differences lie in the regions of DNA that do not code for genes and have no effect on the body. ……."We are all Africans at the Y chromosome level and we are really all brothers," Dr. Underhill said. ……."

NY Times 5/2/00 Nicholas Wade "…… Dr. Wallace remarked that since he started working on mitochondrial DNA in the late 1970's: "What I have found astounding is that it clearly shows we are all one human family. The phylogeny in Africa goes back to the origins of our species, but the fingers of L3 are touching Europe and Asia, saying that we are all closely related." Whether or not genetic prehistory is suitable material for a modern origin myth, it is about to be made available to a wider public. …….. Last month a company called Oxford Ancestors set up business with the offer to tell customers which of the seven daughters of Eve they are descended from. (Almost all Europeans belong to only seven of the nine mitochondrial lineages found in Europe). The test (see www.oxfordancestors.com) requires sending in a sample of cells brushed from the inside of the cheek. For a mere $180, anyone of European ancestry can establish the start of a genealogy far senior to Charlemagne's.

NY Times 5/2/00 Nicholas Wade "…… The company's founder is Dr. Bryan Sykes, a human geneticist at the University of Oxford in England. On the reasonable basis that the founders of Dr. Wallace's mitochondrial DNA lineages were real women, Dr. Sykes gave them names and sketched in details of their likely dates and origin. Thus people found to belong to haplogroup U will be told they are descended from Ursula, who lived about 45,000 years ago in Northern Greece. Ancestor of the X's is Xenia, who lived 25,000 years ago in the Caucasus mountains. As if fulfilling Dr. Wilson's suggestion, Dr. Sykes said he had "worked out a mythological framework for these seven women," in respect of the arduous times in which they must have lived and the triumph of spreading their mitochondrial DNA to almost all the inhabitants of Europe. He is now working on tests to identify other lineages around the world, including 14 in Africa, and 16 in Eurasia and the Americas. "I don't think this stuff should be confined to academics," he said.

Charleston Gazette 6/16/00 Eric Eyre "……Kanawha County school board members refuse to use taxpayer money to buy copies of an anti-evolution textbook, "Of Pandas and People." But outgoing board member Betty Jarvis plans to pay for at least 14 copies out of her own pocket. She promised Thursday night to donate the books to middle and junior high school libraries. "I'm going to make the purchases, " Jarvis said after board members voted 3-2 against buying copies for all middle and high school science teachers. "I'll take care of the junior highs and middle schools."……..The book advocates a theory called "intelligent design," which pokes holes in evolution theory. Several national science teacher groups oppose the book, calling it "bad science." Jarvis wanted the school board to pay $624 to buy 48 copies of the book and put them in science classrooms. "Some of the top scientists in the world praise this," she said…….School board member Pete Thaw said he read "Of Pandas and People" and had "no problem" with it. But he predicted the purchase might prompt book requests from other groups. ….."

World Net Daily.Com 7/10/00 James Perloff "…..Author James Perloff's latest book, "Tornado in a Junkyard," argues that no solid evidence exists for macroevolution -- the conversion of one animal type into another. The book examines the growing body of scientific evidence that validates the beliefs of the majority of Americans who, polls claim, do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. ……… In this exclusive WorldNetDaily interview, Perloff discusses the landmark Scopes "monkey" trial on its 75th anniversary. Ironically, actor Jack Lemmon, who played the legendary pro-evolution attorney Clarence Darrow in the 1999 TV-movie "Inherit the Wind," later praised "Tornado in a Junkyard" as "an outstanding piece of work."
QUESTION: Today, July 10, 2000, marks the 75th anniversary of the start of the Scopes trial. What was the significance of that trial?
ANSWER: With the possible exception of the O.J. Simpson case, I doubt that any trial in the 20th century received more notice. Even in China, 27 newspapers were publishing telegraphed reports of each day's proceedings.
Q: Why did this event capture the world's attention?
A: For two reasons. First, it dealt with a question that concerns everyone: Are we here by chance, or are we created by God? The second factor was that this trial pitted two great orators against each other. Clarence Darrow, the most famous trial attorney of that time, was defending John Scopes and taking the evolutionary position. William Jennings Bryan, who was three times the Democratic Party's candidate for president, was assisting the prosecution and standing for the biblical position. Everyone likes a good fight, and this was a chance to see two heavyweights go at it. ……
Q: What's an example of distortion in the film?
A: Let's take it from the top. The movie begins with the town preacher and these grim town officials gathering. They march to the high school where we see the Scopes character forthrightly teaching evolution. They have him arrested and thrown in jail. Later on, a mob of Christian fundamentalists gathers outside the jail, burning him in effigy. They chuck a rock through the jail window, which injures him. He's portrayed as a persecuted martyr. ………..The truth is, John Scopes never spent one second in jail. Violating the Butler Act was not a jailable offense. It was punishable only by fine, which Scopes never had to pay. In fact, John Scopes apparently never even taught evolution. Let me quote his autobiography, "Center of the Storm": "To tell the truth, I wasn't sure I had taught evolution. ... Darrow had been afraid for me to go on the stand. Darrow realized that I was not a science teacher and he was afraid that if I were put on the stand I would be asked if I actually taught biology. ... If the boys had got their review of evolution from me, I was unaware of it. I didn't remember teaching it." ……..
Q: So how did Scopes wind up on trial?
A: This trial was not instigated by Christian fundamentalists. It was instigated by the ACLU, which was trying to recruit a Tennessee teacher to challenge the Butler Act. Scopes agreed to say he taught evolution and be served with a warrant. Everything was done with his consent. ……..
Q: What about the movie's presentation of the trial itself?
A: It's a litany of falsehoods. For example, the defense tries to introduce Darwin's works as evidence. The prosecution objects, and the judge, who's also portrayed as a bigot, agrees and excludes the books as irrelevant. Bryan is depicted as never having read Darwin's works. So the Darrow character -- Spencer Tracy -- says: "How in perdition have you got the gall to whoop up this holy war about something that you don't know anything about?" But in real life, not only did the judge allow Darwin's books as evidence, but it was Bryan himself who introduced them. He was quite familiar with Darwin's works and frequently quoted Darwin, both in the courtroom and in his writings.
Q: Wasn't the most famous part of the trial Darrow's interrogation of Bryan on the Bible?
A: Yes, and a general impression has been created that Darrow whipped Bryan and thus scored a powerful blow for evolution over biblical Christianity. In the movie, he reduces Bryan to rubble, and in the end, Bryan cracks up -- all he can do is pathetically shout the names of the books of the Bible.
Q: How did it really come off?
A: Bryan held his own, and of course, he never went berserk. If you read the transcript, it's fair to say that Darrow won by a small margin, but that's because the deck was stacked in his favor.
Q: Why do you say that?
A: You have to understand that this was not a debate -- it was an interrogation. When you're called as a trial witness, you can't ask questions, you can only answer them. Darrow got to choose all the questions, so he totally controlled the exchange. Also, Darrow knew exactly what subjects were going to be covered. He had long yearned to debate Bryan, and, as an agnostic, he had been developing these questions for years. The night before the grilling, he rehearsed it with a dummy witness. Bryan, on the other hand, didn't know what question was coming next. He had to be totally off the cuff. With all these advantages, it's not surprising that Darrow came out a little on top. In fact, let me put it this way. Suppose you were running for office, and the League of Women Voters invites you to a debate. But they say to you, "At tonight's debate, we will only discuss issues that your opponent wants to discuss. Furthermore, although your opponent will be allowed to ask you questions, you won't be allowed to ask your opponent questions." Those were the circumstances Bryan was up against. ……..
Q: What was the other reason?
A: Bryan fully expected that after Darrow grilled him on the Bible, he was going to grill Darrow on evolution. Darrow let him have that understanding. For example, at one point, when Darrow was getting rough with Bryan, the prosecution objected, but Bryan said: "I want him to have all the latitude he wants. For I am going to have some latitude when he gets through." Darrow assured him: "You can have latitude and longitude." Bryan was very interested in putting Darrow on the stand, so he could ask him questions like, "Where are all the missing links?"
Q: But history doesn't record any interrogation of Darrow by Bryan.
A: That's right. Because the next day, Darrow changed Scopes's plea from "not guilty" to "guilty," which ended the trial. He thus kept himself off the witness stand and prevented Bryan from reciprocating.
Q: Darrow declared Scopes guilty? But that's not what happens in the movie.
A: No, in the movie, Darrow valiantly fights to the end for Scopes, but he's found guilty by a jury of religious bigots. ……..The trial had never been about Scopes' guilt or innocence. Remember, he never even taught evolution. The purpose of the trial, from Darrow's viewpoint, was to create a media event that would promote evolution and assault biblical Christianity. Scopes was essentially there as a token defendant. ……..I suppose we could credit Darrow with being a great tactician. I liken it to a football game. In essence, he told Bryan, "Let me go on offense first." So he goes on offense, pushes Bryan downfield in a bitter struggle and, finally, kicks a field goal. Then Bryan is standing on his own goal line, waiting for a return kickoff. But Darrow simply declares that the game is over, which makes him the winner. ……
Q: Is Darwinism faring any better today?
A: It's on the retreat. Books by scientists have been coming out in recent years. The molecular biologist Michael Denton has demonstrated that there is no evidence of an evolutionary sequence -- fish to man -- on a cellular level. Biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University has shown that there are biochemical systems too complex to have evolved step-by-step. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory at John Hopkins University, has demonstrated that mutations cause losses of genetic information, not gains. ……"

US Supreme Court Denial Order Dissent Opinions 6/19/00 "……. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TANGIPAHOA PARISH BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. HERB FREILER ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1625. Decided June 19, 2000 ……On April 19, 1994, the Tangipahoa Parish, Louisi-ana, Board of Education (Board) passed the following resolution: "Whenever, in classes of elementary or high school, the scientific theory of evolution is to be presented, whether from textbook, workbook, pamphlet, other written material, or oral presentation the following statement shall be quoted immediately before the unit of study begins as a disclaimer from endorsement of such theory. .....

"It is hereby recognized by the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, that the lesson to be presented, regarding the origin of life and matter, is known as the Scientific Theory of Evolution and should be pre-sented to inform students of the scientific concept and not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical ver-sion of Creation or any other concept. …….

"It is further recognized by the Board of Education that it is the basic right and privilege of each student to form his/her own opinion or maintain beliefs taught by parents on this very important matter of the origin of life and matter. Students are urged to exercise critical thinking and gather all information possible and closely examine each alternative toward forming an opinion." Pet. for Cert. 2. ……

They brought a facial challenge to the disclaimer contained in the last two paragraphs of the resolution, claiming that it violated the coextensive Establishment Clauses of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. The District Court ruled in favor of respondents. 975 F. Supp. 819 (1997). It concluded that the disclaimer lacked a secular purpose, and thus failed the first prong of the three-prong test outlined in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), because the Board' s articulated purpose--that it adopted the disclaimer to promote critical thinking by students on the subject of the origin of life--was a sham. See 975 F. Supp., at 829. It therefore held the disclaimer unconsti-tutional under both the Federal and the Louisiana Consti-tutions. See id., at 830. .........The Fifth Circuit affirmed. …..

In denying the petition for rehearing, the Fifth Circuit panel took another tack: "In denying rehearing, we em-phasize that we do not decide that a state-mandated statement violates the Constitution simply because it disclaims any intent to communicate to students that the theory of evolution is the only accepted explanation of the origin of life, informs students of their right to follow their. religious principles, and encourages students to evaluate all explanations of life' s origins, including those taught outside the classroom. We decide only that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the statement of the Tan-gipahoa Parish School Board is not sufficiently neutral to prevent it from violating the Establishment Clause." 201 F. 3d, at 603. Inasmuch as what the disclaimer contains is nothing more than what this statement purports to allow, the explanation is incoherent. Reference to unnamed "facts and circumstances of this case" is not a substitute for judicial reasoning. The only aspect of the disclaimer that could conceivably be regarded as going beyond what the rehearing statement purports to approve is the explicit mention--as an example--of "the Biblical version of Crea-tion." To think that this reference to (and plainly not endorsement of) a reality of religious literature--and this use of an example that is not a contrived one, but to the contrary the example most likely to come into play-- somehow converts the otherwise innocuous disclaimer into an establishment of religion is quite simply absurd. In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97 (1968), we invali-dated a statute that forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools; in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 (1987), we invalidated a statute that required the teaching of creationism whenever evolution was also taught; today we permit a Court of Appeals to push the much beloved secular legend of the Monkey Trial one step further. We stand by in silence while a deeply divided Fifth Circuit bars a school district from even suggesting to students that other theories besides evolution--including, but not limited to, the Biblical theory of creation--are worthy of their consideration. ………I dissent. ……."

Richard Carelli 6/19/00 "……The Supreme Court refused to let a public school district require that the teaching of evolution be accompanied by a disclaimer mentioning "the biblical version of creation" and other teachings on life's origin. The justices, by a 6-3 vote Monday, let stand rulings that struck down a Louisiana school board's disclaimer policy as a violation of the constitutionally required separation of government and religion. …….. Monday's action was not a precedent-setting decision but only a denial of review. ……. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted to hear arguments in the case. ......... In the appeal acted on Monday, lawyers for the school board argued that "the mere mention of the biblical version of creation by way of illustration does not present a significant risk of perceived endorsement of Bible-based religion." The appeal said reasonable high school or elementary students would not interpret the disclaimer as a pro-religion message. …….. "The central message of the disclaimer resolution is that there are no outsiders or insiders, no one who is favored or disfavored, on the issue of life's origin but persons of all viewpoints are full members in the school community." …….. Lawyers for those who challenged the disclaimer disagreed. "By disclaiming only evolution - the one element of the school curriculum that generates religious controversy - the school board has violated both the constitutional mandate of neutrality toward religion and its obligation to provide its students with secular educations free from religious indoctrination or partisanship," they said. ……. Writing for the court's three dissenters Monday, Scalia criticized the court for standing by while an appeals court "bars a school district from even suggesting to students that other theories besides evolution - including but not limited to, the biblical theory of creation - are worthy of their consideration." ........."

Associated Press 6/19/00 Richard Carelli "……The Supreme Court refused to let a public school district require that the teaching of evolution be accompanied by a disclaimer mentioning ''the biblical version of creation'' and other teachings on life's origin. The justices, by a 6-3 vote Monday, let stand rulings that struck down a Louisiana school board's disclaimer policy as a violation of the constitutionally required separation of government and religion. Monday's action was not a precedent-setting decision but only a denial of review. …….Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted to hear arguments in the case. …….. The Tangipahoa Parish school board in 1994 voted to require teachers to tell students about to study the theory of evolution that is ''presented to inform students of the scientific concept and not intended to influence or dissuade the biblical version of creation or any other concept.'' ……."

London Telegraph 6/20/00 Roger Highfield "….. OUR ancestors left Africa to colonise the world some 50,000 years ago, much more recently than previously thought, an international team reports today. The rough draft of the entire human genetic code is about to be published and a study of the way it varies among populations will shed new light on human origins. The study of genetic code in 70 men worldwide, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confirms earlier genetic analyses which show that humans came from Africa. ……. The team, including Jonathan Pritchard of Oxford University, concludes that the most recent common ancestor of all living men is remarkably recent, perhaps as recent as 50,000 years. Studies of other genes suggested that the common ancestor lived between 150,000 and 800,000 years ago, so the new date "is striking", said Dr Pritchard. ……"

 

[U.K.] Telegraph 7/14/00 Ben Fenton "…….. Politics in America sometimes avoids fundamental issues, but

not in Kansas. As election season looms, very basic questions are being batted back and forth: who are we, where did we come from and what role, if any, was played by God? From the central prairies of the state they call the Heart of America, where a constant hot wind riffles wheat fields, to the clipped-lawn affluence of Shawnee Mission on the outskirts of Kansas City, normally staid political contests have been imbued with the fervour of the pulpit. The state splits five to three in support of scientific orthodoxy but the size of that minority of Christian social conservatives makes this meeting and dozens like it far more than a theoretical discourse: they are part of election campaigns being fought fervently across the state. Controversy sprang up last year when the Kansas State Board of Education, an elected body that controls every aspect of schooling, ordained new "standards" for science teaching that critics say wrote Darwin out of the curriculum. ………. That triumph of Christian conservatives over the curriculum provoked liberals and centrist members of the Republican party, which dominates the state. Now, with a Republican primary due on Aug 1 for one of four Kansas seats in Congress, Darwin, Adam and Eve are key political players. The campaign has split the party, pitting supporters of evolution against religious conservatives. ...... Greg Musil, campaigning for the liberal wing, says the board embarrassed the state and could harm its economy. ……Phill Kline, a conservative candidate endorsed by the same creation scientists who advised the board, avoids talking about evolution at all, except to criticise Mr Musil for treating the voters as "country bumpkins". ……In the middle, hoping to sweep up moderates alienated by both sides, is Gary Morsch, a GP who believes in the theory of "intelligent design", which accepts an evolutionary process but says God originated and guided it. ….."

Wall Street Journal 8/8/00 Gregg Easterbrook "..... If John Scopes were alive today, he might be arrested for speaking against evolution in a public school, rather than in favor of it. ........ Scopes stood trial in Dayton, Tenn., 75 years ago this summer for using "Hunter's Civic Biology," a textbook containing a paragraph on Charles Darwin, in violation of a state law prohibiting the teaching of natural selection. The Tennessee law was embarrassingly wrong-headed. Evolution unquestionably occurs and is essential to understanding biology. ..... But today the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, with everyone from the Supreme Court to establishment media holding that students should hear only Darwin's side of the debate. This situation is just as preposterous as the situation in Tennessee in 1925 -- and just as bad for freedom of thought. Once you weren't supposed to question God. Now you're not supposed to question the head of the biology department. ....... These concerns intersect at the evolving new theory of "intelligent design." Unlike creationism, intelligent-design theory acknowledges that the universe is immensely old and that all living things are descended from earlier forms. But the theory goes on to contend that organic biology is so phenomenally complex that it is illogical to assume that life created itself. There must have been some force providing guidance. ....... Intelligent design is a sophisticated theory now being argued out in the nation's top universities. And though this idea assumes existence must have some higher component, it is not religious doctrine under the 1986 Supreme Court definition. Intelligent-design thinking does not propound any specific faith or even say that the higher power is divine. It simply holds that there must be an unseen intellect imbedded in the cosmos. ........The intelligent design theory may or may not be correct, but it's a rich, absorbing hypothesis -- the sort of thing that is fascinating to debate, and might get students excited about biology class to boot. But most kids won't know the idea unless they are taught it, and in the aftermath of the Kansas votes, pro-evolution dogma continues to suggest that any alternative to natural selection must be kept quiet. ........But then, just as in 1925 opposition to natural selection was not really about the theory but about sustaining a status quo in which people were not supposed to question clergy, so today's evolutionary fundamentalism is not so much about the theory but about sustaining a new status quo in which people are not supposed to question scientists. Yet this discourages students from engaging in one of the most fascinating -- if not the most fascinating -- of questions: Why are we here? ....... The obvious solution is to teach the controversy. Present students with the arguments for and against natural and supernatural explanations of life, and then let them enter into this engaging, fertile debate. Yet many school systems are steering away from teaching intelligent design, believing it to be an impermissible idea under the Supreme Court ruling. Editorials and columnists prefer not to mention the new theory, hoping to tar all non-Darwinian ideas as mere creationism. This isn't freedom of thought -- it's the reverse. Where is the new Scopes who will expose the new dogma as being just as bad as the old? ......." Yale will be holding a three day symposium on Intelligent Design, November 2-4. For more information, see: FreeRepublic.com/forum/a397860017d13.htm or www.discovery.org

Christian Science Monitor 8/7/00 "……The Republicans in Philadelphia managed to close ranks despite the divisive issue of abortion. Not so the Republicans of Kansas concerning another issue charged with emotion and religious fervor: the teaching of evolution in public schools. ……. In primary elections held Aug. 1, voters chose who would run for five school-board slots on November's ballot. On the Republican side, moderate candidates who want to change the new guidelines challenged anti-evolution incumbents. They were largely successful, making it likely last year's action will be reversed. ...... That's probably good for Kansas' schoolchildren. Evolution is the standard explanation of how biological life developed on earth. Biology classes can't ignore its central place in the field and claim academic rigor. But the political debate - and the broader intellectual discussion - won't end with a new education board in Kansas. The creationists won't give up, though their theory of a 6,000-year-old earth is so contrary to geologic evidence it will have a hard time finding a place in any mainstream science curriculum. ……"

New York Times 7/29/00 Pam Belluck "…It is just a Kansas school board election, a primary election at that. But no one in Kansas or anywhere else is taking this race for granted. Tens of thousands of dollars have been raised, some from out of state, whereas previous board candidates raised only a few hundred dollars. Candidates are taking the unusual step of running television commercials and are printing up leaflets and yard signs by the thousands. ……. Democrats are switching their party affiliation just to vote for school board candidates in the Republican primary. And in what political observers consider extraordinary, Kansas's highest-ranking Republicans -- the governor and a United States senator -- have not only weighed in on the race, but have also endorsed opposing candidates in their own party. "When was the last time you were even aware who was running for your state board of education?" asked Michael Davis, a law professor at the University of Kansas. ......"

WORLD magazine 7/29/00 Nancy Pearcey "……. Phillip Johnson has developed what is called the "Intelligent Design" movement, which contends that time plus chance (the mechanism for change in Darwinism) could not bring about the complex order of life around us. Mr. Johnson is a Berkeley law professor who, spurred by the crisis of a failed marriage, converted to Christianity in midlife. He has written many books including, most recently, The Wedge of Truth. ………
Q: The crucial prop for naturalism is Darwinism. What's the cutting-edge issue in evolution today?
A: The debate centers on one fundamental issue: Are natural forces information-creating? Any text, whether a book or the DNA code, requires a complex, non-repeating arrangement of letters. Can that kind of order be produced by chance or law? The answer is no. Chance produces randomness, while physical law produces simple, repetitive order (like using a macro on your computer to print a phrase over and over). The only thing that produces complex, non-repeating, specified order is an intelligent agent.
Q: What happens when Darwinism is applied outside science itself-to social life and morality?
A: The field of evolutionary psychology applies Darwinism to human behavior, and the results are grim. The logical conclusion of Darwinism is that all our actions are the results of brain states produced by some combination of chance and physical law-which undermines the very notion of moral choice. So arch-Darwinian Richard Dawkins says we are merely "robots" programmed by DNA to make more DNA.
Q: What does Darwinism imply for the science of the mind?
A: Consistent Darwinists say there is no single, central "self," residing somehow within the body, that makes decisions, holds opinions, loves, and hates. That's dismissed as old-fashioned dualism. In the currently popular "computational" theory, the mind is a set of computers that solve specific problems forwarded by the senses. For example, Steven Pinker of MIT says the idea of a unified self is merely a useful illusion, selected by evolution because our body needs to be able to go one direction at a time.
Q: Computers function without consciousness. If the mind is a computer, why are we conscious beings?
A: Some neuroscientists say we aren't-that consciousness is an illusion. Philosopher Paul Churchland says mental states do not exist, and suggests that we replace language about beliefs and desires with statements about the nervous system's physical mechanisms-the activation of neurons and so on.
This conclusion is so contrary to ordinary experience that many neuroscientists search for some cut-off point where the logic of Darwinism does not apply. But, of course, any stopping point is completely arbitrary. John Searle, my famous colleague here at Berkeley, accepts naturalistic evolution while insisting that it cannot explain the human mind. Critics say he simply jumps ship, and they're right. ……"

Reuters 9/9/00 Amy Norton "…..Strictly speaking, fairness looks irrational. In a survival-of-the-fittest scheme of life, it would seem that the best tactic for each person would be to grab up all the resources he or she could, and then refuse to share. So why do we so often choose to play fair? Because sharing helps to boost an individual's reputation, so it is also self-serving, scientists explain. Using a series of games, researchers have figured out how fairness may fit into the Darwinian concept of evolution. They suggest that people who demand their fair share of the goods boost their reputation in society. This reputation then encourages others to offer them a fair cut of whatever is at stake. During evolution, these people were the survivors, and the concept of fairness survived with them……. That is the theory researchers offer in the September 8th issue of Science. Investigators led by Martin A. Nowak of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, devised a numerical scheme that sheds light on the human concept of fair play…….. Evolution, according to Nowak, appears to have favored fairness and cooperation over the more reasonable choice of selfishness. ``Reputation based on commitment and communication plays an essential role in the natural history of economic life,'' the researchers also note…….."

World on the Web 9/2/00 Nancy Pearcey "…… Pick a universe, any universe. How many hypothetical universes would support life?……… Possibly only one, say the authors of a new study. Published in the July issue of Science, the report says that if the physical forces within stars were only slightly different, our universe would be almost devoid of carbon and oxygen, and life would not exist………. The findings bring scientists face to face with the question of design. "I am not a religious person, but I could say this universe is designed very well for the existence of life," said Heinz Oberhummer, astrophysicist at the University of Vienna, Austria………. Mr. Oberhummer and his colleagues used computers to simulate the process by which helium burns to produce carbon and oxygen during the red-giant stage of a star's life. They found that even slight changes in either the strong or weak nuclear force would destroy nearly all the carbon or oxygen inside stars-making life impossible. "The basic forces in the universe are tailor-made for the production of ... carbon-based life," Mr. Oberhummer told Space.com…….. It's a new day when scientists who are not "religious persons" are compelled to use the language of design. Mr. Oberhummer's discovery adds to the enormous number of "cosmic coincidences" uncovered by cosmology-intricate balances among the universe's fundamental forces. For example, if the force of gravity were only slightly stronger, all stars would be red dwarfs, too cold to support life. If it were slightly weaker, all stars would be blue giants, burning too briefly for life to develop. In the atom, the mass of the neutron is delicately balanced with that of the proton; otherwise, protons would decay into neutrons, making life impossible…………As Mr. Oberhummer put it, "we have no idea why the strengths of the forces are fine-tuned" to support life. The reasonable answer seems to be that someone intended it that way. To avoid that surprising conclusion, cosmologists are scrambling to craft alternative explanations. Some adopt the "many worlds" hypothesis, suggesting that there exist an infinite number of universes. Most would be dark and lifeless, but by sheer probability a few might be suitable for life-and we happen to live in one………."

Edmonton Sun 10/8/00 Ted Byfield "…… If parents check the science textbooks used in Canadian schools they'll see some familiar illustrations, familiar because much the same art appeared in their textbooks. There's the "evolution of man" illustration, starting with an ape-like creature on the left, then progressing to the slightly more erect figure with arms stretching to the ground, then to a less hairy individual, finally to a modern human. ……… Note that there are three points being made here. One is that an amazing assortment of species have existed over time. The second is that the more elaborate species were the offspring after many generations of earlier less complex species. The third is that these changes occurred through natural circumstances. There was no "mind" or plan or design behind them, no God. It was all pure chance. …….. When most scientists speak of "evolution" they do not mean the first, nor even the first and the second. They mean all three, that there was no designer, that change happens through "natural selection." Freak differences occurred in individual members of a species conferring a natural advantage on the offspring of those individuals. These went on living, where those without the advantage petered out, the "survival of the fittest." ………… "

Edmonton Sun 10/8/00 Ted Byfield "…… This fall there has appeared a scientifically authoritative book casting grave doubt on the whole basis of these confident illustrations. Dr. Jonathan Wells, a molecular and cell biologist from the University of California at Berkeley who is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, in his Icons of Evolution does more than cast doubt. He takes 10 so-called "proofs" of evolution offered in current textbooks and shows where not one of them is in a fact a proof of anything, and several are actually frauds. The speckled moths were actually pasted on the trees, not found there. And while there may be rare instances of species that seem part ape, part human, there is no evidence the one came from the other. Why, you wonder, do scientists ascribe credibility to these proofs? ……… Because, says Dr. Wells, every scientist specializes. He may be aware the particular "proof" offered in his own area of expertise is fundamentally flawed, but he assumes those in all the other areas are not. In fact, he says, they all are. ......

Edmonton Sun 10/8/00 Ted Byfield "…… Wells's book is the second in two years to challenge the natural selection theory. The last one was Darwin's Black Box by the biochemist Michael Behe. He examines the blob atop the tree illustration. ...,,In Darwin's day the simple cell was a "black box" that could not be opened. Now, says Behe, we have opened the box; we can see how the cell is constructed. It's about as simple as a jet engine. It is a masterpiece of design. There is no possibility, none whatever, he says, that it could have come about by mere happenstance. ......, Both these books follow an earlier one by Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson whose Darwin On Trial put the theory of natural selection before a make-believe jury, and gave the evidence for it as it would be presented in court. He shows how the supposed evidence, all of it, fails to vindicate the theory. ......"

U. of Chicago Med. Center news release 9/27/00 Jean Galatzer-Levy "…… Prions, abnormally folded proteins associated with several bizarre human diseases, may hold the key to a major mystery in evolution-how survival skills that require multiple genetic changes arise all at once when each genetic change by itself would be unsuccessful and even harmful. In a study in the September 28, 2000, issue of Nature researchers at the Howard Hughes Institute at the University of Chicago describe a prion-dependent mechanism that seems perfectly suited to solving this dilemma, at least for yeast. It allows yeast to stockpile an arsenal of genetic variation and then release it to express a host of novel characteristics, including the ability to grow well in altered environments……."

AP 9/26/00 Paul Recer "…….In a new chapter of a long-running argument that pits science against religion, a national organization of scientists gives schools in 19 states poor or failing grades for teaching evolution. The report, commissioned by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and released Tuesday at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, grades 49 states and the District of Columbia on the basis of how well evolution is included in the state science education standards. …….. California, Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina and Rhode Island received the highest rank. Kansas, whose standards were described as "disgraceful," got the lowest grade. …… Linda Holloway, former chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education, said the report was deceptive and "very unfair." "Clearly they have an ax to grind about evolution," she said in a telephone interview. ………. Teaching of evolution has been opposed by people who believe that the universe, the Earth and its creatures were created abruptly by God. Some proponents of divine creation have organized a concept, called creationism, that they proposed be taught along with evolution. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court barred states from requiring the teaching of creationism. Now some of the same proponents support other concepts, such as "abrupt appearance" or "intelligent design," that are linked to divine creation. ………. Lawrence S. Lerner, who compiled the report for the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, said that the conflict "is not really about science, but about religion and politics." He calls creationism "a pseudoscientific rival to evolution that the courts have repeatedly held to be thinly veiled religion." …….Warren Nord, a member of a panel assembled by AAAS to comment on the report, spoke in favor of education standards that would include religious concepts of creation along with concepts of evolution. But Nord, director of the Program on Humanities and Human Values at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the report failed to evaluate the completeness of science education. "A good science education should not limit itself to what scientists think, but should also explore the cultural context in which scientific claims are made," said Nord, noting that the report "doesn't address that." ..."

Toogood Reports 9/21/00 Charles A Morse "…….. Where Darwin plunged into a fantastic leap of speculation and sheer faith was his assertion that this isolated development applied to the entire planet with all animals and plants as having evolved from a single ancestor. Because the species of finch had undergone slight evolution from a single ancestor, over time, and in response to challenges in its environment, therefore, Darwin hypothesized, all plants and animals, including man, had evolved from a single ancestor, over eons, as a response to the environment. In other words, man, over eons, had evolved from a primordial soup………. Author James Perloff, in his new book "Tornado in a Junkyard : The Relentless Myth of Darwinism" thoroughly debunks the evolution myth. He documents the hoaxes perpetrated by scientists over time to buttress this specious theory. There has, simply, never been an example presented, fossil or otherwise, that one species transformed itself into another species. Birds did not turn into reptiles, which, did not then turn into mammals, which, in turn, did not turn into man. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, a leading spokesmen for evolution, acknowledged as much in an article entitled "Evolution´s Erratic Pace"(1977) ………. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils". …….. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate evolution. There is, simply, no scientific reason to believe the theory of evolution unless and until evidence is presented. The presentation of evolution as science is disingenuous, baseless, and bad science. The "missing link" remains just that, missing……"

Toogood Reports 9/21/00 Charles Morse "…… Its been 141 years since Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking book, The Origin of Species, 1859, and there is still not a single shred of evidence to back up it´s fantastic claims. While traveling in the Galapagos Islands off the west coast of South America, Darwin accurately observed slight differentiation within the species of finch on different islands. On one island, the finches would have a larger beak or more tail feathers than on another island. Darwin concluded, again accurately, that the finches had adapted, over time and as a result of natural selection, to the unique environments of each respective island………Author James Perloff, in his new book "Tornado in a Junkyard : The Relentless Myth of Darwinism" thoroughly debunks the evolution myth. He documents the hoaxes perpetrated by scientists over time to buttress this specious theory. There has, simply, never been an example presented, fossil or otherwise, that one species transformed itself into another species. Birds did not turn into reptiles, which, did not then turn into mammals, which, in turn, did not turn into man. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, a leading spokesmen for evolution, acknowledged as much in an article entitled "Evolution´s Erratic Pace"(1977) ……… "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils". ……."

Toogood Reports 9/21/00 Charles Morse "…… The theory of Evolution provides the moral justification for the modern Socialist movements which include Nazi, Communist, and Humanist. The socialists believe that the purpose of government is to transform man, ultimately, into a perfect, evolved state over time. This utopian view is rooted in the idea that man can be evolved and the socialist feels a moral calling to conduct that evolution "for the common good". The National Socialist, Nazi, theory of evolution is biologically based. The Nazi socialist would use governmental power to eliminate races and ethnicity deemed "impure" thus evolving man toward this perfected state they call the "ubermensch". ……….. The International Socialist or Communist theory of evolution is politically and socially based. The Communist would use governmental power to eliminate classes and private property owners thus evolving man toward this perfected state they call the "collective". Lenin added the category "politically incorrect" to the pantheon of those who must be "liquidated" to achieve the Communist evolved, or "progressive" world. Rather than the transformed man being a Nazi, racial superman, the Communist ideal was man with no individual identity at all, but existing collectively, sort of like ants in an ant farm………"

Teachers in Focus 9/00 Mark Hartwig "……. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is keeping its eye on biology teacher Roger DeHart. His offense? Teaching his students a theory called "intelligent design." For more than 10 years DeHart has taught a two-week segment on evolution in his biology classes at Burlington-Edison High School in Burlington, Wash. At the end of the segment he would spend a class period discussing problems with naturalistic evolution and presenting the view that living organisms arose not from blind natural processes, but from an intelligent source…….. When a student complained anonymously to the ACLU of Washington State, the group filed a complaint with DeHart's district accusing him of "presenting the discredited and illegal theory of creationism." It also alleged that DeHart "worked hard to persuade the students that a religious-based theory was a 'better explanation' than the scientific theory of human evolution presented in the district-approved textbook."……..A district investigation, including interviews with students, found nothing to substantiate the allegations. But the ACLU pressed its complaint and went to the media, sparking a local furor. A group of citizens opposed to DeHart placed a full-page ad in the local paper warning that the "religious right" was using "intelligent design" to circumvent the law and teach creationism in the classroom.......... In response to the pressure, the district forbade DeHart from teaching intelligent design and required him to obtain district approval before teaching anything critical of evolution. The district even rejected his request to distribute articles from such mainstream journals as Nature, Natural History and The American Biology Teacher…….."

Kansas City Star 10/16/00 Stephen Meyer ".....When writing in scientific journals, leading biologists candidly discuss many scientific difficulties facing contemporary versions of Darwin's theory. Yet when these same scientists take on the public defense of Darwinism--in educational policy statements and textbooks--that candor disappears behind a rhetorical curtain. "There's a feeling in biology that scientists should keep their dirty laundry hidden," says biologist Danny Hillis, adding that "there's a strong school of thought in biology that one should never question Darwin in public." ....... Recently, the Fordham Foundation, a private educational think tank, released a report in conjunction with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "grading" the science standards of various states. Their sole criterion for assessment: "full instruction" in Darwinian evolution. ......."

Kansas City Star 10/16/00 Stephen Meyer ".....The report refused to allow any critical discussion of scientific difficulties associated with Darwinism. Indeed, it denied that any exist. As biologist Paul Gross said in the report, "no evidentiary claim against 'Darwinism' has so far withstood testing while the evidence in favor of natural selection grows exponentially." The report concluded reassuringly that "no controversy about Darwinism exists at the university level." ......... Technical journals across the subdisciplines of biology now document numerous problems with neo-Darwinism. Though few biologists dispute the power of natural selection to produce small-scale "micro-evolutionary" changes (such as those in the size and shape of Darwin's famous finch beaks), many now doubt that the Darwinian mechanism can explain the large-scale "macro-evolutionary" innovations necessary to build new organisms (such as birds) in the first place. As biologists Gilbert, Opitz and Raff put it, "natural selection explains the survival but not the arrival of the fittest." ...... Yet the Fordham report rejects the distinction between micro and macro-evolution "as creationist jargon" and chastises states such as Kansas that have tried to make it in their curricular standards. Indeed, the report fails to make any distinction between separate meanings of "evolution"--a term that can refer to anything from trivial change to the creation of life by strictly mindless, material forces. Yet many biology texts treat evidence of evolution in the former trivial sense as proof of 1the latter philosophically-laden sense--an egregious fallacy that the Fordham report ignores, despite its stated concern for good science education. ....."

Kansas City Star 10/16/00 Stephen Meyer ".....Fossil finds have repeatedly confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance and prolonged stability in living forms--not the gradual step-by-step change predicted by neo-Darwinism. Yet, neither basal biology texts, nor the Fordham report, discuss the challenge that Cambrian fossils pose to neo-Darwinism. ......To compound matters, many textbooks support Darwinian claims by misrepresenting facts. For example, many biology texts continue to use misleading drawings of embryos to support Darwin's common ancestry thesis. These diagrams, first published by the German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in the 19th century, allegedly demonstrate the similarity of the early embryological development of fish, chickens, pigs and humans. .......Yet, biologists have long known that different classes of vertebrates do not strongly resemble each other during early development. Earlier this year, Harvard professor Stephen Gould characterized these drawings as "fraudulent." ..... The public has a right to know a good deal more than the science education establishment has been willing to tell. ....."

UPI via VNY 12/21/00 Uwe Siemon-Netto ".....Professor William A. Dembski, 40, does not show his face at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., all that often anymore....... "That's a very hostile environment over there," he told United Press International. "I go to the library and use the athletic facilities, but I work from home."...... Baylor calls itself the world's largest Baptist university with 18,000 students. So why would this eminent scholar feel unwelcome in this Christian school? Why is he an exile within his own four walls?..... Well, Dembski entertains the hypothesis that the universe is the product of mindful planning rather than a random set of circumstances. Though an evangelical Christian, this scholar with doctorates in mathematics and philosophy does not name the designer, at least not in his work....... Still, his ideas do not sit well with Baylor professors stuck in methodological naturalism. This stricture obliges scientists to be provisional atheists in their work, even if their research surfaces evidence to the contrary....... They denounced Dembski's theories as "stealth creationism," as though he had promoted the notion that God made this world in six days, exactly as the Bible says......."

UPI via VNY 12/21/00 Uwe Siemon-Netto "..... Buoyed by this report, Dembski sent out an e-mail: "Dogmatic opponents of design have who demanded the center be shut down have met their Waterloo." Said Dembski, "I did not reckon with the faculty's lack of a sense of humor." Two days later, with Sloan's accord, Dembski was fired from his position as director of the center....... Baylor spokesman Brumley mused on Thursday that "a lot that some bridge-building has to be done within the faculty" for Dembski's work to go forward. Meanwhile, Dembski works in his house determined not to let his foes relish their success......... "I have offers from some Christian colleges," he said, "but to go there would mean handing a victory to my opponents here. My contract with Baylor runs for another four years."....."