Friday, January 13, 2006

Evolutionists Reveal True Agenda in California

For the last several years we have heard the same argument: that evolutionists are not against intelligent design being taught, they just want it taught in a philosophy or religion class--not a science class.

However, in a recent lawsuit unfolding in California, it seems that the evolution lobby possess that alternative agenda that they always accuse intelligent design advocates of having. Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, California was recently sued by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State for offering intelligent design in what type of class? A philosophy class, of course. Not only was it a philosophy class, but a philosophy elective. Naturally, that somehow equates mandating design to be taught in a science class.

So, what exactly is the evolution lobby's real reason for opposing design theory? It is unquestionably a philosophical and religious reason.

Here is the article:,0,4360972.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Ken Miller Shatters Evolution's Top Arguments on the Colbert Report

Dr. Kenneth Miller, Ph.D. , a professor of biology at Brown University and a key witness in the recent Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, was on Colbert Report on Friday, January 12, 2006. While the interview was lighthearted (as everything on the Colbert Report is), Miller made some statements fatal to the evolution movement.

Miller began by claiming during the flu shot shortage of last year, those who received a flu shot should have been asked to sign a form claiming their affirmation of evolutionary theory. His claim was that the flu evolves and if intelligent design were correct, then there would be no need to receive a flu shot every year. Unfortuantely, the flu is still the flu and not some higher level of being, showing his example fruitless.

The second point Miller made was that the greatest problem with intelligent design is that the theory was too simple. Basically, Miller said, if intelligent design were correct, then biology classes wouldn't have enough to teach. So, during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Judge Jones declared science to be determined by one's purpose and now science is determined by how well it can fill class time.

Miller's final point came when Steven Colbert asked him if God (Colbert was assuming God to be the designer) could have designed the universe to make it appear evolved with it actually was not. Miller's response was that he did not believe in a deceptive God. He added that he did not reject such a notion on scientific terms but on theological terms. Yet, that is the argument evolutionists use so often against intelligent design, claiming that design theorists oppose evolution on theological grounds and not scientific grounds. Apparently, they do the same thing and admit it.

Miller's lighthearted interview on the Colbert Report shattered some of the top arguments against intelligent design advocates. I am sure, however, that Miller did not intelligently plan this and it was a mere accident of nature.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Open Plagiarism to Samuel Chen on Dover

An evolutionist decided to respond to my open letter "Intelligent Design, Education, and Liberty: What is Going on in Dover?" Being very knowledgeable, he plagerized over 45% of my initial letter in his response back to me (he also used two quotes from my letter making nearly 55% of his letter mine) and being very courageous, he signed the letter too. Of course, he signed it as "TH Huxley," but he still signed it. The few words of his letter that weren't taken from me showed his lack of understanding concerning the current controversy. Here is the link:

And here is the letter:

Open Letter to Samuel Chen on Dover

Dear Mr. Chen,

As you mentioned, the issue of intelligent design and evolution has continued to escalate in various settings across the United States of America, to the point that I've had to wake up after a century of quiet rest and start communicating these postings from the grave.

The Dover trial has continued for four weeks and as the fifth and final week begins, I, being both a phantasm and a scientist, can no longer stay silent. Adults and even self-declared “experts” surround the debate with scientific jargon and legal lingo, while arguing as to the constitutionality of mandating the a disclaimer that mentions intelligent design and endorses Of Pandas and People in the public school science classroom.

Basically, evolution is a fact.

Consider some eminent scientist-types who've weighed in on the controversy.

Dr. Kenneth Miller, Ph.D. of Brown University wrote in an open letter:

The scientific case for evolution is, indeed, overwhelming, and at the trial I gave several hours of detailed testimony documenting that fact. You are, of course, welcome to claim that there is “not a shred” of evidence for evolution. But had you been present in the courtroom, I suspect you would not make that statement.

Dr. Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D. of Michigan State University testified that (from the York Daily Record):

Intelligent design proponents’ ultimate goal is to create a revolution in science, taking it back to the days when epilepsy was believed to have been caused by divine possession and gravity was thought to be the result of “spooky action at a distance.”

Others, including Dr. Barbra Forrest, Ph.D. of Southeast Louisiana University and Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education are offering their testimonies against the "intelligent design statement" of the Dover Area School District.

Consider also William Dembski, who has consistently claimed that intelligent design can accommodate all the results of evolutionary theory. Where's the beef?

The issue is whether non-science has any place in a science class in any official capacity--whether teachers can be forced to read a statement endorsing a textbook that is explicitly religious, whether there is any demarcation between science and non-science, whether, if Michael Behe is right, astrology is a science, and teachers ought to mention it in a disclaimer before starting the Planets Unit.

Overwhelmed by decades of research advances, science teachers across America teach evolution as a scientific fact. As the National Science Teachers Association states, "There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place." This is a solid and honest science education. Individual teachers are certainly allowed to talk about Intelligent Design, or answer their students' questions--but districts that try to force teachers to promote an "alternative" are not only tyrannical, but silly.

You write,

After reading much on both sides of the debate, I have concluded, as an inquiring student, that evolution is not sufficient enough to explain certain aspects of our current universe. Intelligent design has emerged as the better explanation for the origin of the universe.

Well, sorry, young and vital Mr. Chen, that evolution is inadequate to explain the Big Bang. Not exactly within its purview. Keep inquiring, and someday you'll get it.

We agree on one thing: "However, personal opinions do not matter in this case, the truth does." Your misrepresentation of the facts of the case makes this claim exceedingly ironic. Merely mentioning intelligent design isn't being "banned from schools," just as individual prayer hasn't been "banned from schools." Rather, school-endorsed pseudoscientific religious tracts and school-led prayers are out. Students still have access to a robust science education, and can ask all the questions they want about Intelligent Design.


TH Huxley

Monday, January 09, 2006

Voice of America Radio Broadcast

Voice of America, the overseas broadcast of the United States Government, recently conducted a program on Judge John E. Jones III's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Among those interviewed for the broadcast were Eric Rothschild (Pepper Hamilton LLC attorney that represented the families suing the Dover Area School District), Dr. Kenneth Miller, Ph.D. (Brown University biologist and witness in the Dover trial), Casey Luskin (Discovery Institute Director of Legal Affairs and IDEA Center), Richard Thompson (Thomas More Law Center attorney that represented the Dover Area School District in the trial, Diana Gramley (American Family Association of Pennsylvania), and myself. Below are the links for the article and the radio broadcast, both of which are, unfortuantely, in Chinese only.