Re: [asa] New foray by the DISCOVER Institute

That's says it all. For an organization that wants to put its nonsense
in class rooms, the DI seems to have a hard time presenting its
materials aligned with the facts of the matter.

As a biology professor from Baylor recently observed

<quote>
For example, the Discovery Institute's recent publication Exploring
Evolution: The Arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism, which was
written to facilitate classroom discussions of "weaknesses," is
demonstrably full of factual errors and logical fallacies.
</quote>

Daniel Bolnick in a letter to Robert Scott
http://www.texscience.org/reviews/biology-professor-letter.htm

ID had an opportunity to present ID's response to the PBS program and
instead failed to present anything vaguely relevant to ID and instead
focused on the typical creationist misunderstandings about evolution.

On Dec 22, 2007 9:21 AM, Michael Roberts
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Yawn
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: j burg
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:56 PM
> Subject: [asa] New foray by the DISCOVER Institute
>
>
> Just noted today:
>
>
>
> From the Christian Post:
>
> An intelligent design think tank has launched a new website recounting the
> failures of Darwinism that were left unmentioned by study materials on a PBS
> documentary covering the 2005 Dover trial.
>
>
> Related
> Intelligent Design Group Accuses PBS of Promoting Unconstitutional Teaching
>
> The Discovery Institute plans to post a slide show presentation critiquing
> the online materials from PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on
> Trial" documentary on www.judgingpbs.com.
>
> The presentation, entitled "Darwin's Failed Predictions," challenges an
> assertion made by PBS that evidence "unequivocally supports the theory of
> evolution by natural selection."
>
> "The following slides show that scientists are increasingly skeptical that
> natural selection is the primary agent of evolutionary change," according to
> Anika Smith, a contributor for the group's Center for Science & Culture.
>
> "Moreover, key postulates of Darwin's theory – universal common descent, the
> continuity of life, and transitions in the fossil record – have come under
> intense scientific scrutiny from a diverse array of fields, including
> molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, biochemistry, and
> paleontology," Smith added.
>
> According to the website, some of Darwin's failed predictions include:
>
> • The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary
> explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features
> • The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian
> evolution
> • The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common
> descent
> • The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic
> code
> • The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos
> diverge from the beginning of development.
>
>
>
> Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 22 13:14:56 2007