John G. West

In his fictional Los Angeles Times op-ed, arch ID-hater Michael Shermer asserted that “Nine states have recently proposed legislation that would require” providing “equal time” for intelligent design in public school science classes. This claim has been popping up elsewhere on the internet as well (see here and here.) But the claim is sheer fantasy on the part of hyperactive Darwinists. In the interest of bringing out the truth, I hereby issue Mr. Shermer the following challenge: Provide proof for your outlandish claim. Identify the nine states that are supposedly considering legislation to mandate equal time for intelligent design, and cite the legislative language that would actually do this. If you can prove your claim, I will send you a Read More ›

As Jonathan Witt noted in an earlier post, Michael Shermer in his Los Angeles Times opinion piece pretty much made up the comments he attributes to Stephen Meyer in a recent debate. But that’s only one example of the science fiction in Shermer’s essay. Here are some others.
Consider Shermer’s mangled description of intelligent design (ID):

In a blog post a couple of weeks ago, I wondered aloud whether the Washington Post’s Peter Slevin would fairly report on our lengthy conversation about public policy battles over evolution. Well, Slevin’s article is out, and now I know. In my previous post, I listed six main points from our interview and asked whether Slevin would accurately convey the points. Slevin basically ignored most of what I told him (in fact, I’m not even quoted in the story). Instead, he misleadingly stitched together some quotes from my colleague Steve Meyer all the while ignoring most of what Steve told him as well. (See here for a discussion of how Slevin mischaracterized Steve’s comments.) As I indicated earlier, I liked Slevin. He seemed like a nice guy. But I don’t like his one-sided reporting. True, he does make clear that Discovery Institute is NOT trying to require the teaching of intelligent design. But that’s about the only good thing in his lopsided potpourri of stereotypes that completely ignores the substance of the science education controversy and only delves into motives and funding on one side of the debate. If you want to see just how slanted Slevin’s report is, please read my previous blog post. Here I want to focus just on one point, because it relates to the central claim of Slevin’s piece.

Slevin tries to assert that the the evolution issue is gaining traction now because of the forces of the so-called religious right. He takes this talking point straight from the mouth of Eugenie Scott at the NCSE, whom he quotes in his article. What Slevin neglects to report is Discovery Institute’s response to Scott’s assertion. When Slevin asked me about this, I pointed out that the religious right has been around for a long time, so that really doesn’t explain why scientific criticisms of evolution finally seem to be gaining traction. What is different from the past is that today there are growing numbers of scientists at American academic institutions who are challenging evolution for scientific reasons. As I explained in more detail in my previous blog:

The Associated Press (AP) in Kansas must have hired the National Center for Science Education to edit news reports on that state’s evolution controversy. Why else would the Kansas AP continue to pass off the following biased and inaccurate definition of intelligent design theory as an impartial description of the differences between design and Darwinian evolution:

Evolution says species change in response to environmental and genetic factors over the course of many generations. Intelligent design, a form of creationism, holds there’s evidence of an intelligent design behind the origin of the universe, the formation of the Earth and biological change.

There are at least two things egregiously wrong with the above paragraph. First and foremost, intelligent design is NOT “a form of creationism.” While some Darwinists certainly try to categorize design theory in this way, intelligent design proponents vigrously disagree. (For some of the reasons why, read my article here.) By presenting the Darwinists’ biased assertion about ID being a form of creationism as a fact (and ignoring what the proponents of design say about their own theory!), the Kansas AP has left the realm of impartial reporting and entered spin zone of the NCSE.

Portsmouth, NH columnist D. Allan Kerr favors evolutionary theory and equates intelligent design with creationism. So you might think Darwin’s defenders would be pleased as punch with him. Think again. Mr. Kerr is being taken to task by the Darwinist thought-police. His crime? He had the audacity to suggest that students might actually benefit from hearing about intelligent design. Kerr was amazed by the swift reaction his proposal provoked from Darwinists:

A college newspaper in Massachusetts reports on a talk by Darwinist biologist Kenneth Miller and rewrites history in the process: In 2002, Miller joined a debate in Ohio, where the theory of “intelligent design” was almost incorporated into education. As a result of the efforts of Miller and other scientists, the school board voted 15 to 0 in favor of prohibiting the teaching of “intelligent design.” If Prof. Miller supplied the information for the above statement, he appears to have entered some kind of alternative universe. Members of the Ohio State Board of Education did not ban the teaching of intelligent design in 2002. Instead, they adopted the following benchmark for student learning: “Describe how scientists continue to investigate and Read More ›

If Kansas Darwinists continue to be shy about defending their theory in open public hearings, the Kansas State Board of Education can always consider advertising for witnesses to defend evolution. Here is a possible ad: WANTED: State Board of Education urgently seeks Darwinists unafraid to present the “overwhelming evidence” for their theory in a fair and balanced public hearing. Applicants who regard the democratic process as stupid need not apply. Ditto for those who think open debate in a free society is pointless Essential Qualification: enough self-confidence to engage one’s opponents in a public forum that is not completely stacked in one’s favor. Preferred Qualifications: an ability to rationally present evidence without resorting to conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks; Read More ›

Talk about insecurity. A pro-Darwin columnist for the Johnson County Sun in Kansas has revealed his definition of a fair public hearing on evolution: 10,000 Darwinists vs. 1 supporter of intelligent design. Anything else in his view would be a “stacked-deck” against Darwinists. The columnist urges evolutionists to boycott such events: Evolutionists should stop appearing at stacked-deck public “hearings” put on to trap evolutionists. By merely bringing “intelligent design” to a level playing field with evolutionary science, the ID proponents have managed to upgrade their faith-based theory to a quasi-scientific theory, and they have knocked the science of evolution down to the same level as faith. Furthermore, by presenting these as one-on-one debates, there is a gross misrepresentation. To be Read More ›

A few days ago Washington Post reporter Peter Slevin came to Seattle to interview me and Steve Meyer for an upcoming article about evolution, intelligent design, and politics. I suspect his story will appear soon. After the Post’s recent track record editorializing and reporting on the evolution issue, I must admit I was somewhat skeptical about talking with another Post reporter. As the interview started, I made a point of going into detail about the false and misleading statements in previous Post coverage. I also explained how the Post’s ombudsman (unlike the ombudsman at the Boston Globe) didn’t even bother to respond to a detailed complaint we sent about inaccuracies in one of the Post’s articles.

Like most reporters, Mr. Slevin appeared mild-mannered, fair, and genuinely interested in hearing our side of the debate. Despite his impeccable manners, however, some of his comments raised concerns. He mentioned he had read Time’s tabloid-style article about intelligent design, but he indicated he was disappointed because the article didn’t deliver on its promise to expose the “real” motives behind the design movement. He further said he had interviewed a minister in Kansas who thinks that attacking evolution is a way to win the culture war about gay marriage and presumably a host of other social issues. These comments made me wonder whether his report will ignore the substance of the policy debate over evolution and simply recapitulate the hackneyed Red State v. Blue State storyline being pressed ad nauseum by much of the major newsmedia. At one point, Mr. Slevin even wanted to know whether Discovery Institute is funded by the Unification Church! (We aren’t.)

Defenders of Darwin’s theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not. The Kansas State Board of Education has proposed ten days of hearings featuring scientists who embrace evolutionary theory along with scientific critics of neo-Darwinism, but according to this article in the Lawrence Journal-World, evolutionists are crying foul:

some evolution proponents are suggesting that scientists shouldn’t participate in what they say will be an unfair hearing. “The deck is completely stacked,” said Liz Craig, a spokeswoman for Kansas Citizens for Science. “I don’t believe anybody’s going to participate… because it’s just ridiculous.”

Darwinists have a rather peculiar definition of an “unfair” and “stacked” hearing, however. The Kansas Board has asked for an equal number of scientists (10) to testify on each side. Scientists favoring evolution would be selected by professor Steve Case, chair of the state committee drafting revised science standards for Kansas and an ardent evolutionist. Scientists critical of evolutionary theory would be chosen by biochemistry professor Bill Harris, another member of the same science standards committee, and a supporter of intelligent design. Case would be allowed to cross-examine scientists critical of evolutionary theory, and Harris would be allowed to cross-examine scientists who defend evolutionary theory. In other words, the ground rules proposed are scrupulously fair and even-handed to both sides of the debate.