John G. West

Rob Crowther blogged earlier about the New York Times article on the upcoming screening of “Privileged Planet” at the Smithsonian. The Times article is pretty fair and balanced, but it starts off with a big blooper in the headline and first sentence: Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution. In fact, Privileged Planet is not about biological evolution. It makes the case for intelligent design in the universe based on astronomy and cosmology. It doesn’t deal at all with the Darwinian account of Read More ›

A transcript of the Fox News interchange on May 6 between Eugenie Scott and Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer has been posted on the Fox News website. During the segment Eugenie Scott continues her recent effort to defend “evolution” by virtually disowning Darwin in public.

If you don’t think a civilized discussion of the evolution controversy is possible, watch the May 7 edition of C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” which held a low-key and eminently reasonable discussion of the Kansas hearings and the controversy over how best to teach evolution. The program featured Mark Ryland, director of Discovery Institute’s Washington, D.C. office, and Peter Folger of the American Geophysical Union. If only the Darwinists in Kansas were as respectful and dignified as Mr. Folger! You can watch the program on the web by going here and clicking on the program for May 7. The discussion of evolution starts about an hour and twenty-two minutes into the show.

Knight-Ridder Newspapers is circulating a false news report after apparently being bamboozled by the Darwinist spin-machine in Kansas. The article claims that the expert witnesses in the Kansas evolution hearings have not read the science standards they are seeking to change. But the charge is false, and the fact that a major news organization would promote such a bogus story makes one wonder about how many reporters have actually read the science standards in question. The article begins:

This morning’s New York Times article on Kansas has a much improved title, and despite its failure to report on the substance of the science testimony that took place yesterday, the article does drop good hints about what went on, such as:

a parade of Ph.D.’s testified Thursday about the flaws they saw in mainstream science’s explanation of the origins of life. It was one part biology lesson, one part political theater, and the biggest stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design.

The Washington Times has an excellent editorial this morning outlining the real issue in Kansas. It concludes by faulting Darwinists for not being willing to engage in legitimate scientific debate, quoting Discovery Senior Fellow David Berlinski in the process: “The defense of Darwin’s theory … has fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not,” wrote David Berlinski recently in the Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He continues, “It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in the scientific method.” It also doesn’t help our students.

Today the Kansas Board of Education opens its hearings on whether students should learn about all of the scientific evidence relating to Darwin’s theory, including the evidence that challenges the theory. The big question is whether journalists will actually report on the substance of the hearings, or will they simply follow the script supplied by the Darwin-only advocates, who have made clear that they want to prevent at all costs any discussion of the science. Darwinists in Kansas have virtually promised to smear and demonize the scientists who will be testifying at the hearings. What they cannot do is make those scientists disappear. After months of claiming that there are no scientific critics of Darwinism, and insisting that the only Read More ›

Washington Post reporter Peter Slevin seems to have become the new press secretary for the pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE). But he apparently hasn’t informed his editors at the Post, who are continuing to publish his stories. At least, that’s the conclusion I’ve come to after reading Slevin’s histrionic piece in yesterday’s Post. While many local reporters in Kansas have been working overtime to accurately and fairly cover both sides of the evolution controversy, Slevin has weighed in with a piece that reads from the first sentence like one of the NCSE’s fundraising letters:

Alarmed by proposals to change how evolution is taught, scientists and teachers are mobilizing to fight back, asserting that educational standards are being threatened by what they consider a stealth campaign to return creationism to public schools.

Earlier this week, the website www.kansasscience2005.com disclosed an incredible internet post from an official with Kansas Citizens for Science, the group trying to prevent the inclusion of scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory in the Kansas Science Standards. On February 10, Liz Craig (identified in this article as “a spokeswoman for Kansas Citizens for Science”) outlined her group’s outrageous disinformation plan for the newsmedia covering the Kansas science standards debate. Rather than talk about science, Ms. Craig described how she plans to use the newsmedia to smear and demonize anyone who opposes her group’s agenda: My strategy at this point is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them Read More ›

Today’s Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article claiming that students are starting to question Darwin in science classes. Imagine that! Students are so interested in the subject they are actually asking teachers questions about it. The article features information about the Coldwater Media video Icons of Evolution, and it even lists the suggested questions to ask biology teachers drafted by biologist Jonathan Wells. Note the stock response of Darwinists in the story who apparently think having students ask questions in class is disruptive (!) and who claim that asking questions about Darwin is tantamount to injecting religion into the classroom. But, as the article clearly shows, the questions being raised about Darwin focus on science, not religion. Are Darwinists Read More ›