Authors
CSC associate director John West has a nice op-ed in today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
In “Intelligent design is sorely misunderstood” West makes the point that the ID scientific research program is sometimes highjacked by people who have little or no understanding of what the theory is about.
Read More ›
Intelligent Design (ID) has made it to the cover of Time magazine this week, and I’m delighted to say that the cover story is for the most part respecftul and fair. It’s certainly a far-cry from Time’s inaccurate and conspiracy-mongering tirade a few months ago. The cover story even gives a mostly correct definition of ID (adapted from the definition on Discovery Institute’s website). Time says that intelligent design is “the proposition that some aspects of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to natural selection.” A number of ID scientists were interviewed for the article, and Time assigned at least a dozen reporters to work on the story.
Still, there are some misleading or erroneous statements in the Time story that ought to be corrected. Here are three of the most important:
Read More ›It’s been interesting to watch this past week as media pundits have weighed-in on the debate over intelligent design in the wake of President Bush’s pro-ID comments. Most of the pundits denouncing intelligent design have simply demonstrated how little they actually know about ID and what it proposes. A good example is Jonathan Alter’s snooty anti-ID column in this week’s Newsweek. Alter says a lot of ignorant and inaccurate things, but I will focus on just one:
Read More ›
Following up on President Bush’s remarks about teaching evolution earlier this week, The Lehrer Newshour tackled the subject of intelligent design this evening with a debate between CSC Fellow biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, and Case Western physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss. The clear advantage of the Newshour over most news programs is that it can devote the time necessary to truly discuss an issue in-depth. This segment showed that it helps to have enough time to really get anywhere with the debate over evolution beyond the six second soundbites normally allowed. I think that Jeffrey Brown did a good job of moderating the discussion. Really the Newshour’s only mistake came early on when Brown reported that: This summer, the Kansas State Read More ›
David Limbaugh has a stellar column out today, discussing the Darwin vs. design debate.
Simply put, Limbaugh’s column gets the facts straight.
Read More ›Something called “intelligent design” is the “number one” discussed topic on the internet today (August 4, ’05), according to the web and blog watch group Technocrati.com. But what do people mean by the topic? Forget the old fashioned question — what do the scientists propounding ID mean by the term? This is the post-modern age. What do YOU want ID to mean?
Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922) invented the famous Rorschach test that long was used to see what different meanings people would project onto a series of abstract inkblots. I see a butterfly, you see a porter carrying water, the man down the hall sees a spy plane. Supposedly, it was a key to understanding personality.
Intelligent design, I am afraid, is in danger of becoming a contemporary Rorschach test. Everyone in the media and all those bloggers seems to have his own interpretation of ID and each and every opiner thinks he really knows exactly what he is talking about.
Read More ›Update, 10:02am, 8.4: Technorati now shows intelligent design as the number one search term, and the number of bloggers weighing in is growing. The issue indeed has reached a new, fevered, pitch. It doesn’t hurt to have the leader of the free world asked what he thinks of your research. The recent comments by President Bush about teaching evolution have made ‘intelligent design’ all but a household phrase. Technorati.com is reporting that there are currently over 17,000 blog posts about intelligent design, making it the #7 most popular search term on their site at the moment. Media coverage of the debate over evolution is certain to escalate in the near future.
I have spoken briefly with New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller who penned the story today that included a misquote attributed to CSC director Stephen Meyer that he welcomed Bush’s statement on intelligent design as promoting “free speech on BIBLICAL origins,” when he actually said “biological origins.”
Read More ›Update, 8:42am, 8.3: The New York Times web desk has corrected the misquote. Now we will see about a correction in the print edition of the newspaper.
Update, 7:25am, 8.3: Contrary to promises issued last night, the web edition of The New York Times has yet to correct the misquote it printed. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to actually get this correction made.
George Keough on the Times night desk has promised that the New York Times will correct an erroneous misquote they printed and attributed to Dr. Stephen Meyer.
Read More ›In her story about the President’s remarks concerning the teaching of evolution, Johanna Neuman of the LA Times provided one of the few pieces of reporting the MSM that attempts to differentiated between creationism and intelligent design theory: “Intelligent design, which started to gain notice about 10 years ago, holds that evolution alone does not adequately explain some complex biological mechanisms, suggesting that a plan by an intelligent force is behind changes in species. “Creationism and intelligent design are often confused,” said Jay W. Richards, vice president for research at Discovery Institute, a Seattle research and advocacy group for intelligent design. “Both have in common the idea that the universe exists for a purpose.” Where intelligent design parts company with Read More ›