Creationism - Better Right Than Happy

Am I a Darwin Devotee? Taking the Dembski Quiz

*William A. Dembski (Source:* *The Discovery Institute*)

This blog has been lying fallow for a while, I realize. I do have some new content upcoming. But in the meantime, my attention has been drawn to a quiz called the “Darwin Devotion Detector”. This was posted by Intelligent Design Creationist William Dembski on the Discovery Institute’s website, “Evolution News” (which almost never has any actual news about evolution). Dembski writes that he created this questionnaire a few years ago for an “educational website”, which later removed it “to appease the search engines.” (ID Creationists rarely miss an opportunity to claim victimhood status.)

What Causes Mass Shootings? The Discovery Institute Thinks It Knows

To find the answer, read my latest article at Panda’s Thumb. (Spoiler alert: It’s Darwin.)

Live debate this weekend

I’ll be doing a live debate on August 1, 2021, at 3:00 PM ET (7:00 PM GMT) with Ahmed Abdelsattar, a computer engineer who is also an Islamic apologist and frequently makes videos about why he does not accept the theory of evolution. Hope some of you will be able to watch!

Bill Dembski has thoughts about COVID-19

I have a new article up at The Panda’s Thumb, about intelligent design founder William Dembski and what his opinions regarding COVID-19 reveal about the ID movement. An excerpt:

His rather detached attitude to the question of the virus’s origin is curious given his self-proclaimed status as one of the world’s leading experts in detecting “design” in nature. It would seem if he really believed his own promotional material, he would be volunteering his services and expertise to help answer a question that has been at the forefront of the single gravest issue facing humanity at this moment: Where did SARS-CoV-2 come from? Surely Bill Dembski can delay his quest to become a cryptocurrency billionaire for just a few days while he helps save the human race, no? Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark do it all the time.

Ken Miller, Genie Scott & Barbara Forrest: 15 Years After Dover

*Courtroom Sketch of Ken Miller testifying at the Dover trial*

I have been discussing the the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial which ended exactly 15 years ago last Sunday . Three of the key figures who supported the plaintiffs recently sat down for interviews with S. Joshua Swamidass and (on two of the interviews) Nathan Lents for the Peaceful Science blog. Videos of the interviews can be found at the bottom of the page.

Michael Behe: 15 Years After Dover

This month marks fifteen years since the conclusion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial which ruled that Intelligent Design (ID) is a form of creationism and, therefore, could not be taught as a scientific theory in American public schools. Recently, several of the people involved in the trial have given interviews about it, among them biochemist Michael Behe, the most prominent proponent of ID to testify at the trial.

Kitzmiller v. Dover 15 Years Later

This month marks the fifteenth anniversary of the conclusion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, a significant event in the history of the conflict between creationism and science. In 2004, Young Earth Creationist members of Pennsylvania’s Dover Area School District were engaged in efforts to alter the school curriculum to suggest that there were serious weaknesses to the theory of evolution and that creationism was a legitimate alternative. Their efforts eventually culminated in the board passing a resolution that required biology teachers to read a statement to their class that said, in part:

Is teaching natural selection “a mass-mind tool of financial interests”?

(The following is a slightly edited version of an article that appeared previously on The Panda’s Thumb.)

Have a look at this article from the Khan Academy, in particular the section entitled Natural Selection:

Darwin, evolution, & natural selection

What do you think? Is it a reasonably accurate and informative, if perhaps a bit bland and prosaic, summary of some of the key elements of the theory of evolution, suitable for the average high school student?

What if someone was to tell you that it is, instead, a “mass-mind tool of financial interests”, designed to indoctrinate unwitting students into accepting an outdated concept that is no longer accepted by modern science? That is the view of Suzan Mazur, who has written a scathing response to this seemingly benign article on her blog.

Nathan Lents on our imperfect body

Nathan Lents, professor of biology at John Jay College, has written a book which describes some of the imperfections of the human body. Beyond being entertaining bits of medical trivia, these are also part of what prompted Charles Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution. The idea that much of our biology demonstrates what can only be considered “stupid design” not only serves as an effective counterargument to the claims of creationism. It also helps correct the misunderstandings of many people who accept evolution, but view it as primarily driven by natural selection and constantly seeking the best possible design for an organism. The truth is that evolution largely proceeds by accident and luck, both good and bad, and rarely if ever arrives at a solution of the sort that would be found by careful advanced planning.

The Discovery Institute gives advice on scientific integrity.

Thanks to S. Joshua Swamidass at Peaceful Science, I’ve been made aware of a recent post by David Klinghoffer on the Discovery Institute’s website “Evolution News” (which generally has very little news about evolution) discussing some recent shake ups at the BioLogos Foundation. Those who are already familiar with the history of these two organizations can skip to the next paragraph, but for the benefit of those who are not: Both the DI and BioLogos were created to promote particular ideas regarding the relationship between religion and science (particularly the theory of evolution). While the DI promotes creationism in the guise of “Intelligent Design”, members of BioLogos accept the scientific consensus regarding the theory of evolution, and argue that this is compatible with belief in God. Not surprisingly, there has been a generally antagonistic attitude between the two groups, and the DI, which had previously focused mostly on atheism and secularism, has increasingly been taking shots at the theistic evolutionism that is endorsed by BioLogos.