Sir Peter Vardy

Wikipedia article: Sir Peter Vardy is a successful British businessman from Durham specialising in the automotive retail business. He appeared in the Sunday Times Rich List 2004. He is one of the UK's most generous philantrhopists, via the Vardy Foundation. Vardy took control of the car dealership Reg Vardy plc in 1976, after the death of the founder. Vardy has funded the building of a number of City Academies. The bulk of these form the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, a coalition of Christian schools based in the north of England. These are run as part of the mainstream of England secondary school education, and in some cases were formed by taking over schools that had low performance previously. This is part of a wider trend: church schools have a long track record in the UK of achievement and are usually over-subsribed, and successive governments have encouraged their growth. However in the case of the Emmanuel schools, despite their obvious success, some have voiced concern over the apparent promotion in such schools of doctrines such as creationism.

There have been a number of media reports about this issue - for example ^[2] that Vardy rejects the theory of evolution in favour of creationism. However, in an interview with the BBC Today Program^[3], broadcast 15th April 2006, Sir Peter pointed out that he did not hold fundamental creationist beliefs stating, "I believe that God created the earth and created man in his own image, quite how long it took him I don't know". He claimed to exert no influence over the curriculum of the schools he sponsors beyond insisting on a "chrisitan ethos" and that he would be concerned if creationism was taught as fact in his schools. Vardy complained that a comment made 5 years ago in which he intended to convey only a belief in a "creator God" rather than a literal belief in the bible creation stories, had been mis-interpreted and blown out of proportion by the media.

1. ^ BBC Article announcing Vardy's Honour, 15 June, 2001. [1]
2. ^ The Guardian discusses Vardy's plans to teach creationism in UK schools, 15th January, 2005. [2]
3. ^ Interview (RealAudio stream), BBC Today Program, 15th April 2006. [3]

War on science - Evolution v Intelligent Design

Video on YouTube features David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins...

The Descent of Dissent

to view a larger image go to the clipped from link

clipped from www.swarthmore.edu

Textbook Disclaimer Stickers

Wording for the first disclaimer (top left) is taken verbatim from the sticker designed by the Cobb County School District ("A community with a passion for learning") in Georgia, which actually plagiarized Alabama's evolution disclaimer (view). Really, I'm not making any of this up. The other 14 are mildly educational variants that demonstrate the real meaning of a scientific "theory" as well as the true motivations of the School Board members and their creationist supporters. Ideally, the above stickers will deter other districts from using textbook disclaimers as a way to undermine the teaching of evolution.

clipped from www.swarthmore.edu

UN Intelligent Design

reposted from: gasoline.com via Clipmarks
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

1986 Oxford Union Debate - Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith

The 1986 Oxford Union Debate between evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (Professor of Biology, University of Sussex) and creationists A. E. Wilder-Smith (Professor of Pharmacology and consultant) and Edgar Andrews (Materials Scientist & President of the Biblical Creation Society).

Nine Mp3 downloads totalling 4 hours debate.

reposted from: Richarddawkins.net
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

You can't trust science!

This cartoon parodies the debate between Evolution and Creationism / ID (with a dig at George Bush).

by This Modern World

Reposted from:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22047

Is the Earth sphericated or flaticular?


reposted from: Richarddawkins.net
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

US School Teachers defend Evolution

by Kristen Philipkoski, with Randy Dotinga and Scott Carney

Saturday, 17 February 2007

Awards Show AAAS's Political Focus
Topic: AAAS Meeting,Evolution

In a story earlier this week for Wired News, I wrote about how the AAAS isn't shying away from confrontations over hotly political issues like global warming. Case in point: the AAAS Awards for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility.

The winners -- who will get their awards today -- are all advocates of the teaching of evolution. Eight are science teachers who fought attempts to water down the teaching of evolution in Dover, Pa.

The awardees are Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a prominent pro-evolution advocacy organization, along with Dover High teachers David Taylor, Bertha Spahr, Robert Linker, Leslie Prall, Brian Bahn, Jennifer Miller and Robert Eshbach. Also honored is teacher R. Wesley McCoy, head of science department at North Cobb High School in Kennesaw, Georgia. According to the AAAS, he "took on a public role in opposing a decision by the Cobb County School Board to require stickers on biology textbooks that read, in part: 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.'"

According to an award committee, "each of these individuals has confronted efforts to undermine sound scientific thinking and has defended the integrity of science both locally and nationally."

Posted by Randy Dotinga 10:26 AM

reposted from: http://blog.wired.com/biotech/2007/02/awards_show_aaa.html
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Diminishing deities

Letter from Peter Brooks Los Angeles, California, US03 February 2007

reposted from: New Scientist
my highlights / emphasis / edits

I believe "good science will come" from the Biologic Institute's efforts to find experimental proof of intelligent design, but not in the way that it intends or believes (13 January, p 18).

Starting with a premise or hypothesis, one devises experiments that attempt to negate the hypothesis or premise, demonstrating that it does not hold true for all cases, maybe not even for any. Starting with a bad premise simply means that it will take longer to come to the realisation that it is a false start; the premise must therefore be refined or revised and the process begun again. Thus they are inevitably destined to lose their theistic beliefs.

Imagine replacing all instances of "I don't know the answer yet" with "God did it", and continuing to labour to uncover the facts. Over time, we will inevitably chip away at the mountain of "God did it" assertions - we have been quietly doing so for centuries - but now we will be able to publicly state that what was once thought to be an act of God is now in fact (fill in your own discovery here).

Thus we will gather tangible and mounting evidence of the continued erosion of God's claimed ability. At present, we make no formal note of the fact. I wonder how many believers will be willing to face daily despondency as yet another cherished "God did it" claim perishes before the unstoppable juggernaut of the search for truth.

From issue 2589 of New Scientist magazine, 03 February 2007, page 21

Flock of Dodos: The Evolution - Intelligent Design Circus

By Wired News Staff 12:00 PM Feb, 12, 2007

Today is Darwin Day -- a kind of Christmas for the science-minded.

Instead of observing a religious holiday, today is a celebration of Charles Darwin's birthday and mankind's crowning achievement -- science.

Now in its fourth year, Darwin Day is the brainchild of a group of British and American scientists.

"Our long-term goal is to establish a new international tradition ... an annual secular celebration of Darwin, science and humanity," said Robert Stephens, one of the event's organizers, to MSNBC.

Across the country, universities, schools and libraries are celebrating with talks and lectures about science, evolution and education. Many will premiere Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus, a pro-science documentary by evolutionary-ecologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson.

On Sunday, hundreds of churches around the world took part in Evolution Sunday, which highlighted the connections between Darwin's theory of evolution and religion.

"Evolution Sunday is a day to celebrate the compatibility of science and religion, to recognize that evolution has no incompatibility with the Christian faith," said the Rev. Jim Burklo of California's Sausalito Presbyterian Church in an interview with KCBS.

reposted from: http://www.flockofdodos.com & Wired News
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,535,n,n
my highlights / edits

Will Kansas schools be teaching Flying Spaghetti Monsterism & Intelligent Falling?

by The Onion

Thanks to Mark for the link to this classic Onion piece (It's a joke).

Reposted from:
http://theonion.com

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.


Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism to be taught alongside Evolution & Intelligent Design in schools?

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

reposted from: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

Creationism in British Schools - A History

reposted from: http://theskepticexpress.com/creationism_in_british_schools.php

2003

April 2003: Richard Dawkins attacks plans announced by the Vardy Foundation (on Radio 4’s Today programme on 28/4/03) to open a further six schools teaching a creationist version of the origin of life, in addition to Emmanuel College, Gateshead. Education Guardian

September 2003: King's Academy in Middlesbrough opens its doors. Formed from a partnership between the Department for Education and the Wearside-based Vardy Foundation it is a sister facility to Gateshead's Emmanuel College, which follows a "creationism" curriculum. BBC.

December 2003: The Guardian organises a conference on ‘Creationism: Science versus faith in schools’.

2004-2007

More information

Creationism can be taught in RE but not science lessons

The Sunday Times December 31, 2006 Creationism gains foothold in schoolsreposted from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524442_2,00.html Christopher Morgan and Abul Taher

THE government has cleared the way for a form of creationism to be taught in Britain’s schools as part of the religious syllabus. Lord Adonis, an education minister, is to issue guidelines within two months for the teaching of “intelligent design” (ID), a theory being promoted by the religious right in America. NI_MPU('middle'); Until now the government has not approved the teaching of the controversial theory, which contradicts Darwinian evolutionary theory, the basis of modern biology. Adonis said in a parliamentary answer: “Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.” He announced that the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is to hold discussions with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the assessment regulator, and said local advisory councils would decide whether particular schools should teach the theory. Creationists believe in the literal truth of the Biblical account of the creation by God in six days. Intelligent design argues that life and the universe are guided by a “designer”, rather than an undirected process as illustrated by Darwin’s natural selection. The theory has gained a foothold in the American state school system, sparking legal challenges from secular groups seeking to oust it from science teaching. Although Adonis stopped short of permitting the teaching of intelligent design in science lessons, one of the key lobby groups behind the theory, Truth in Science, hailed his statement as a significant breakthrough. So far no schools in Britain teach the theory as part of its religious education syllabus. But Truth in Science believes that the new government guidelines will give the green light to dozens of schools to incorporate ID in the syllabus. Andrew McIntosh, a professor of engineering at Leeds university who heads Truth in Science, said: “We believe that evolutionary theory should be taught in a critical manner, and some space must be given to credible alternative theories, such as intelligent design.” The lobby group says its ultimate aim is to pressure schools to teach ID in science lessons as a challenge to Darwinism. It says it has the support of about 70 heads of science across Britain, who want ID to be introduced in the national curriculum as part of science. Opponents in the Church of England dismiss it as fantasy. Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark, said: “Everything needs to be explored, so that children can ask sensible questions. Though I see no huge difficulty with exploring intelligent design or creationism or flat Earth, they happen to be misguided, foolish and flying in the face of all evidence. I see no problem with Darwinian theory and Christian faith going hand in hand.” Canon Jeremy Davies, Precentor of Salisbury cathedral, said: “I don’t see why religious education should be a dumping ground for fantasies. If it is claimed that this is a scientific theory, why isn’t it explored in science classes? Its validity or otherwise should be tested against the usual criteria.” Others regard it as religious dogma masquerading as science. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said ID was not a science. Dawkins, who holds the chair in the public understanding of science at Oxford, added: “It is creationism by another name. It’s a rebranding exercise to get into schools. I personally think it should not be taught.” In America ID has come under legal attack. There have been more than six recent cases in which local education bodies were sued by groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State for teaching intelligent design as science. NI_MPU('middle'); Robert Boston, a spokesman for the group, warned against the teaching of ID in Britain. He said it “could possibly leave an entire generation of people not capable of meeting the scientific challenges of this century”. Boston also said ID was being pushed by certain religious groups, “to undermine the separation of church and state in schools. It’s an effort by them to subvert Darwin’s theory. And unfortunately, trends in America seem to go to Britain”. It has emerged that 12 prominent academics wrote to Tony Blair and Alan Johnson, the education secretary, last month arguing that ID should be taught as part of science on the national curriculum. They included Antony Flew, formerly professor of philosophy at Reading University; Terry Hamblin, professor of immunohaemotology at Southampton University; and John Walton, professor of chemistry at St Andrews University. In October Truth in Science was criticised for sending education packs to hundreds of schools across Britain explaining ID. The packs — which included books and DVDs — were used by some unwary science teachers as teaching aids. But Truth in Science in turn accuses Dawkins of pressuring ministers into promoting atheism through schools. McIntosh said: “People like Dawkins are pushing atheism through schools, which is a religious view, and not a scientific one. Atheism is not the natural state of a scientist, since there have been scientists who have been theists both before and after Darwin.” Lord Pearson, a Tory peer and supporter of ID, who asked the question that prompted Adonis’s statement, said: “Advances in DNA science show that the DNA molecule is so complicated that it could not have happened by accident. It shows there is a design behind it.”

Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

by Richard Buggs, Guardian

This article is refuted by the many comments here:
Reposted from & add your comments here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,505,n,n
and here:
originally Reposted from & add your comments here: http://www.guardian.co.uk

If Darwinists distinguished between science and their religious beliefs, we'd all be wiser, says Richard Buggs

'It is true that complex things in nature look as if they have been designed. Darwin knew this. But the sublime truth about his theory is that it explains how complex things can come about without design." That was James Randerson arguing that Darwin refuted intelligent design - which, he says, has no place in school science (Here endeth the lesson, December 13).

Darwin made a massive contribution to science, and his ideas still suggest hypotheses today. These provide the starting point for my own research, published in journals of evolution. But despite the brilliance of Darwin's work, it is overoptimistic to claim that his theory explains the origin of all living things.

If Darwin had known what we now know about molecular biology - gigabytes of coded information in DNA, cells rife with tiny machines, the highly specific structures of certain proteins - would he have found his own theory convincing? Randerson thinks that natural selection works fine to explain the origin of molecular machines. But the fact is that we are still unable even to guess Darwinian pathways for the origin of most complex biological structures.

Science has turned lots of corners since Darwin, and many of them have thrown up data quite unpredicted by his theory. Who, on Darwinian premises, would have expected that the patterns of distribution and abundance of species in tropical rainforests could be modelled without taking local adaptation into account? Or that whenever we sequence a new genome we find unique genes, unlike any found in other species? Or that bacteria gain pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) by losing genes?

But, whatever the limitations of Darwinism, isn't the intelligent design alternative an "intellectual dead end"? No. If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry. The pioneers of modern science, who were convinced that nature is designed, consequently held that it could be understood by human intellects. This confidence helped to drive the scientific revolution. More recently, proponents of ID predicted that some "junk" DNA must have a function well before this view became mainstream among Darwinists.

But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID.

Finally, Randerson claims that ID is "pure religion". In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or "Trojan horse", just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.

· Richard Buggs sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science richard.buggs@cantab.net

Creationism creeps into UK schools

"The fact is that creationism, in all its guises, is no longer a quintessentially American problem," says Michael Zimmerman, the architect of The Clergy Letter Project, an alliance of Christians who back evolution.

E O Wilson might want to talk to The Clergy Letter Project. (source: Christopher Govan Street)

IN THE beginning there was the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, the religious think tank that has backed the US "intelligent design" movement. And lo it came to pass that a group called Truth in Science appeared in the land of the Brit-ites.

Now, making what most see as a mockery of its name, Truth in Science has circulated material to UK schools aiming to counter the teaching of evolution in science classes. Some 59 schools in the UK are now using the information packs, which promote the notion that life on Earth was created through intelligent design, a euphemism for the biblical story of creation.

According to The Guardian newspaper in London, the packs include a manual and two DVDs and were sent on 18 September to all the country's secondary schools. "The fact is that creationism, in all its guises, is no longer a quintessentially American problem," says Michael Zimmerman, professor of liberal arts and sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, and the architect of The Clergy Letter Project, an alliance of Christians who back evolution.

“Creationism in all its guises is no longer a quintessentially American problem”

"It is spreading worldwide and has made significant inroads in the UK," says Zimmerman. "The best way to overcome this pernicious situation is for religious leaders and scientists to come together to discuss how religion and science can be compatible - how they use different methodologies to help people understand the world and the human condition," he says.

From issue 2580 of New Scientist magazine, 02 December 2006, page 4

Intelligent Design

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."^[1][2][3] All of its leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9]} They say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.^[10]

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,^[11] as pseudoscience^[12][13] or as junk science.^[14][15] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.^[16]

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.^[17]

Scientific critique of creationism

Since the origins of modern geology in the 18th and 19th centuries, forms of creationism have become increasingly separated from mainstream science. As modern science called into question the literal interpretations of biblical account of creation in Genesis, creationists (especially Young Earth creationists) began to actively oppose the scientific consensus on questions of origins.

There is a fundamental difference between the scientific approach to explaining the natural world and the creationist approach. The scientific approach uses the scientific method as a means of discovering information about nature. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of scientific theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. This is a meritocratic form of systematic enquiry, where the best ideas supported by evidence and positive experimental results survive. In principle, the scientific method does not seek answers that fit a certain pre-determined conclusion, but rather works to construct viable, testable, and provable theories based on a solid evidential foundation. The evidential foundation therefore precludes any reference to revelation.

Creationism, on the other hand, works by taking theologically conservative interpretations of scripture as the primary or only source of information about origins. Creationists believe that since the Creator created everything and also revealed scriptures, the scriptures have pre-eminence as a kind of evidence. Consistency with their interpretations of scripture is the measure by which they judge all other evidence. They then accept or reject scientific accounts based on whether or not they agree with their beliefs, discounting that which contradicts their understanding of scriptural revelation. This perspective can be seen as a type of luddism or anti-modernism since any seemingly opposing ideas are either ignored or dismissed. Those who oppose creationism point out that such positions are fundamentally unscientific and a hallmark of pseudoscience. Additionally, aspects of the scriptures which are not subject to scientific examination are not considered as reliable evidence to scientists.

Certain adherents to creationism have declared that there exist versions of creationism (namely creation science) that are based on the scientific method. It was such claims that were the basis for the legal arguments that creationism deserved equal-time in the science classroom. Skeptical critics charge that creation science is not a theory that has come about through a systematic and scientific accumulation of evidence. It is predominantly based on the assumption of a literal interpretation of religious scripture and the emphasis of the authority of scripture over other sources of knowledge is evident in creation science literature.

All scientific theories are falsifiable; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid and is either modified to be consistent with all the evidence or is discarded. Scientific theories can be (and often are) found to be incorrect or incomplete. Since creationism rests on an article of faith, its construction assumes that the narrative accounts of origins can never be shown falsified, no matter how strong the evidence is to the contrary.

Evolutionary modern synthesis is the theory that fits all known biological and genetic evidence while being backed up by overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. Contrary to frequent claims by many opponents of the theory of evolution, transitional fossils exist which show a gradual change from one species to another. Moreover, evolutionary selection has been observed in living species (for a macroscopic instance, “tuskless elephants,” see elephant).

In the last ten years, DNA analysis techniques applied to many organisms have demonstrated the genetic relationship between all forms of known life (humans share 50% of their DNA with yeast, 96 with chimpanzees). Even if the theory of evolution was disproved, this would not imply separate human creation, which is the main feature of creationism in the Abrahamic religions. It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the U.S.) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution continues.

Defining intelligent design as science

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design."^[88] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:

• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
• Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
• Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
• Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
• Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,^[89] violates the principle of parsimony,^[90] is not falsifiable,^[91] is not empirically testable,^[92] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.^[93]

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."^[94] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."^[95]

Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

• The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
• The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
• There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
• The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on 20 December 2005, Judge John E. Jones III agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Peer review

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design's being considered valid science.^[96] To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.^[96][9]

Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, nonsupernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to "journal standards" and that the merit of their articles is overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a conspiracy theory.^[97] The issue that the supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design could be accepted by the broader scientific community.

The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review."^[98]

The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.^[99] Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in August 2004. The article was literature review, which means that it did not present any new research but, rather, culled quotations and claims from other papers to argue that the Cambrian explosion could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter (see Sternberg peer review controversy). Dembski has written that "perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program."^[100] In a 2001 interview, Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.^[101]

In the Dover trial, the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.^[102] There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke, which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.^[102] But in sworn testimony, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."^[103] As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory."^[96]

Despite this, the Discovery Institute continues to insist that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,^[104] including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor,^[105] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.^[106]

Evolution should be taught as fact

Friday April 21, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

Children should be taught from the age of 11 that Darwin's theory of evolution is a fact, an eminent scientist said today.

Richard Pike, the chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said that references to it being a "theory" should be abandoned.

His comments came the week before prominent creationist speaker John Mackay, a former science teacher from Queensland, is due to tour halls and chapels in the UK attacking Darwin's ideas, claiming that Genesis is literally true and that the Earth is a few thousands of years old, not millions.

Teachers' union conferences this Easter debated the dangers of creationism and "intelligent design" being taught in faith schools and academies.

Dr Pike said: "Above all, we should no longer talk of the theory of evolution as though it is 'just an idea'. So well-established is it, that it now warrants the designation of an immutable scientific law, (Christopher Govan Street: Law of Science - maybe Evolution should be described by Darwins Law?) and should be taught as such. It is on this basis that further dialogue should begin."

He added: "A wider understanding of the scientific basis of our existence will position all of us to address more effectively the major issues facing our planet.

"In this there is no role for 'creationism' or 'intelligent design', and religious education must recognise the allegorical nature of much of its source material."

Earlier this month leading scientists from the Royal Society warned against the teaching of Christian theories such as creationism in school biology lessons.