2006

Friday’s Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal had a great piece: “Under the Microscope: When science and politics become worlds in collision.” Among other things, this piece noted that “This was a banner week for American science.”

Yesterday we reported how New Scientist writer Celeste Biever has used a fake identity to contact people for a story on intelligent design (ID). (As documented here, Biever falsely identified herself as “a student at Cornell” named “Maria” to the Cornell IDEA Club.) Apart from her latest tactics, Biever has a history of extremely inaccurate and biased reporting when it comes to the issues of evolution and intelligent design: (1) Kansas Science Standards. In an article that reads like a Kansas Citizens for Science press release, Biever falsely claimed that the 2006 Kansas State Primary elections “ousted two radical conservative school board members” and reported that the current board “opposes the teaching of evolution.” Ignoring the “radical conservative” invective, there Read More ›

It turns out that Celeste Biever isn’t the only writer from New Scientist magazine to engage in impersonation. Last year, Bill Dembski reported on how he was contacted by the New Scientist’s Bob Holmes, who assured him: It seems to me the media coverage of intelligent design has mostly failed to present your case on scientific grounds, and I’d like to remedy that. Of course, Mr. Holmes had no intention of covering the scientific case for design, and his resultant article was little more than your standard anti-ID hack job. So it appears that New Scientist’s reporters are quite used to misrepresenting themselves with the people they interview, especially if the interviewees happen to be proponents of ID.

Celeste Biever, a reporter for the viscerally anti-ID New Scientist magazine, seems to have been caught trying to impersonate a Cornell University student in order to ingratiate herself with pro-ID students there. The fascinating story is recounted here on the blog of Cornell’s IDEA Club. Evolutionist Allen MacNeill, who teaches biology at Cornell, calls Biever’s tactic “Pretty sleazy.”

Discovery Institute launched the Center for Science and Culture in 1996, recognizing the need for an institutional home for the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design. Even though the nascent theory of intelligent design was already being discussed by individual scientists around the world, it was not until the Center for Science and Culture was established that scientists were given the resources to research what has become the most exciting scientific story since the Big Bang.

John Derbyshire continues to insult social conservatives (and skeptics of Darwinism both liberal and conservative) at NRO‘s The Corner. He uses the high rate of skepticism toward Darwinism in Turkey to demonstrate that intelligent design represents a dangerous attack on modern biology. Since it’s a fallacious guilt by association argument, and one that flies in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, he leaves out key parts of his argument. Let’s coax a few of his connecting links into the clear light of day.

Today’s BreakPoint commentary features Chuck Colson, a longtime friend of Discovery and an ID proponent, honoring his personal hero Phillip Johnson. Colson asks, “How do you honor a man who started a groundbreaking movement that challenged the scientific establishment and is changing the way the world thinks about the origins of life?” He answers his question by introducing his readers to Darwin’s Nemesis, a collection of essays released earlier this year and highlighted here. In recognizing the Godfather of Intelligent Design, Colson identifies the secret to ID’s success: There’s no doubt that Phil’s willingness to encourage the work of scientists and help create a network for them has allowed the movement to flourish. This book really shows just how far Read More ›

The current issue of Time features a cover story preaching evolution to the skeptical public and editorializing that humans and chimps are related. Though the cover graphic (below) shows half-human, half-chimp iconography, University of North Carolina, Charlotte anthropologist Jonathan Marks warns us against “exhibit[ing] the same old fallacies: … humanizing apes and ape-ifying humans” (What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee, pg. xv [2002]). The cover-graphic commits both fallacies: The article also claims that it’s easy to see “how closely the great apes — gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans — resemble us,” but then observes in a contradictory fashion that “agriculture, language, art, music, technology and philosophy” are “achievements that make us profoundly different from chimpanzees.” Perhaps Michael Ruse was Read More ›

Over 3,600 Floridians were treated to a unique presentation of intelligent design as a scientific theory challenging the reigning Darwinian evolutionary paradigm last Friday night. The Sun Dome at USF in Tampa Bay was the locale for Darwin or Design, featuring three noted ID scientists: Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Jonathan Wells and Dr. Ralph Seelke.

I keep getting asked about the scientific research projects underway that relate to Darwinism and intelligent design. So why aren’t we talking more about them publicly? For several good reasons:

The most important is that the Darwinist establishment would like nothing better than to “out” research programs before they are finished. The idea is to shut down damaging evidence as early as possible. Strangle the infant in the crib. Demand answers now to questions still being explored.