Uncategorized

South Dakota state senators are expected to vote today on a bill that would ban most abortions. The bill has already passed the house, the republicans hold a majority in the senate, and the republican governor, Michael Rounds, is an abortion opponent. Supporters of the bill are hoping for a court challenge if it passes, which opponents have promised. Given the new appointments on the Supreme Court, supporters hope to have a challenge case that would provide the court with the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade, and deny all American women the right to safe, legal, reproductive health services.

“I’m convinced that the timing is right for this,” said state Rep. Roger Hunt, a Republican who has sponsored the bill, noting the appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the court.

“The strong possibility of a third appointee sometime soon makes this all very real and very viable,” Hunt added, a reference to conjecture that Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, might soon retire. “I think it will all culminate at the right time.”¹

–
¹South Dakota lawmakers mull outlawing abortion

The defense gets its turn today in the Dover Intelligent Design trial, and first up will be Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University. His involvement in the ID movement (he testified in the Kansas School Board Debate also) have prompted the faculty of his department to release the following statement:

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.¹

–
¹ Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”

Monday, a group of 85 scientists filed a “friends of the court” brief with Judge Jones, asking that he refuse to rule in the case on the grounds that:

1) The nature of science is not something to be decided by the courts.

Maybe not, but the Supreme Court has already weighed in on what is NOT science. In the 1987 decision in Aguillard vs. Edwards, the court ruled that creationism should not be given equal time in science classes because it is fundamentally a religious principle.

These same historic and contemporaneous antagonisms between the teachings of certain religious denominations and the teaching of evolution are present in this case. The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind. The term “creation science” was defined as embracing this particular religious doctrine by those responsible for the passage of the Creationism Act. Senator Keith’s leading expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux, testified at the legislative hearings that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator. Senator Keith also cited testimony from other experts to support the creation-science view that “a creator [was] responsible for the universe and everything in it.” The legislative history therefore reveals that the term “creation science,” as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind. ¹

Read the rest of this entry »

The Dover, PA School Board appeared in federal court today to defend their decision that students in 9th grade biology class be read the following disclaimer before learning about evolution:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

At court today, defense lawyer Patrick Gillen stated, “This case is about free inquiry and education, not about a religious agenda,” while board president Sheila Harkins insisted, “The whole thought behind it was to encourage critical thinking” and the notion that board members were motivated by personal religious beliefs was “not true at all” (See full story here – subscription required).

Read the rest of this entry »

Emboldened by success with the KBOE, anti-evolutionists are taking the battle to natural history museums.

increasingly…guides find themselves face-to-face with patrons angry that the museum’s exhibits use evolution to explain the history of dinosaurs and fossils.

Read the full story here.

An official at KU’s Museum of Natural History responds:

“It’s like with any information. It’s up to a well-educated citizenry to make good use for it, and museums are no different. We can’t force visitors to think a certain way.”

I think well-educated is the key here, and in that vein, KU, in conjunction with other midwestern museums, has developed the Exploring Evolution traveling exhibit to showcase current research on evolution. If it’s coming to a museum near you, you should check it out.