John G. West

With some local reporters in Kansas striving to cover the science standards controversy there with fairness and accuracy, it’s disappointing to see the Associated Press reporter in Kansas writing science fiction in the guise of news reports. According to the latest salvo from AP’s Bill Draper:

Some conservative members of the state board have questioned whether the committee has properly considered views about creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution.

A minority of members on Case’s committee have said it’s not fair to teach evolution as an explanation of the origin of life without also including the possibility that life was formed by an intelligent being.

Contrary to Draper, there is no debate on the Kansas Board of Education over whether to teach creationism, and there is no debate on the Kansas science standards committee about whether to teach intelligent design. What minority members on the science standards committee have called for is teaching about scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory as well as the evidence favoring evolutionary theory. They have not called for the teaching of intelligent design. Has Mr. Draper even read the minority report issued by members of the science standards committee?

A writer for the newspaper of record in Liberal, Kansas (yes, there is a town with that name in Kansas) endorses the truly liberal policy of teaching the scientific controversy over evolution. He argues: (opponents of teaching the controversy) should come up with a good argument on why teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the state education science mission statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions. Presenting only one life science theory in classes without alternatives breeds ignorance and violates the mission statement. The author of the essay is wrong to suggest that the Kansas Board of Education is considering adding intelligent design to the Kansas state science standards. In Read More ›

After our blog highlighted errors in a news article about Larry Caldwell’s civil rights suit, so many people contacted the newspaper in question (the Press-Tribune) that the paper responded by contacting Caldwell. “As a testament to the power and value of your evolution blog,” Caldwell recently told us, “the Press-Tribune was getting so many complaints from around the country about the errors in their reporting that they contacted me and asked if I wanted them to correct any errors. The editor then invited me to write this letter.” Larry’s letter can now be read online, here. Kudos to the readers of this blog!

The Feb. 7 issue of Newsweek carries a long article about intelligent design titled “Doubting Darwin.” Although I don’t agree with the article in every particular, Newsweek’s Jerry Adler is to be commended for far outclassing Newsweek’s competitor, Time magazine, in his coverage of the growing debate over evolution. Compared to Time’s histrionic article a few days ago, Newsweek’s story is a serious attempt to report on what is actually happening. Among other things, Newsweek clearly distinguishes intelligent design from biblical creationism, and it avoids the conspiracy-mongering promoted by leading Darwinists. (FYI, the print edition of Newsweek carries a nice full-color photo of Steve Meyer and myself at the Discovery Institute office. If you look closely at the photo, you will be able to see a small bronze bust of Teddy Roosevelt on the bookshelf behind us.)

Despite the fact that Newsweek’s article is a credible effort, I would offer a few critical observations:

Since this blog devotes a lot of space to exposing what happens when journalists don’t report fairly or accurately on the evolution issue, I’d also like to highlight articles written by reporters who have tried hard to be impartial and who have done their homework. Two examples occurred this past weekend, when the Kansas City Star and the Arizona Republic ran feature stories about the evolution debate that allowed both sides to make their points. The Star article is here, and the Arizona Republic piece is here. The reporters and editors of these papers deserve credit for producing thoughtful stories that treat all sides of the debate with fairness and respect.

While the rest of the country worries about terrorists who try to blow up people here and abroad, the editorialists at the Boston Globe worry about an invasion by… American creationists. Today the Globe is running an overwrought editorial with the hysterical title “Creationists at the gate” — conjuring up images of stampeding hordes of vandals and visigoths about to overrun civilized society. It is becoming harder and harder to lampoon the liberal newsmedia on the evolution issue, because their hysteria apparently knows no bounds. If the liberal media want to be taken more seriously by the majority of Americans, they might start by trying to base their opinions on facts rather than fantasies. For example, the Globe repeatedly warns Read More ›

As noted in a previous post, Time’s recent article about intelligent design reads more like an editorial than a news report. Here is an itemized list of some of the ways Time slanted and misreported its story:

Today’s Wall Street Journal is running a shocking article reporting on an alleged campaign of harassment and intimidation by Darwinists at the taxpayer-funded Smithsonian Institution. The target? Biologist Richard Sternberg. Sternberg, you may recall, was the biology journal editor who had the courage to allow publication of Discovery Fellow Stephen Meyer’s article supportive of intelligent design after it had been approved through the standard peer-review process. At the time, Sternberg attracted a firestorm of criticism from Darwinists outside the Smithsonian. Now it appears that officials at the Smithsonian have tried to destroy Sternberg’s career and drive him from his position. The federal government’s Office of Special Counsel is currently investigating whether Sternberg’s civil rights have been violated. Among other things, Read More ›

Time magazine demonstrates yet again why fewer and fewer people are turning to the old-guard media for their news. In its Jan. 31 issue, the once venerable news organ is running a hackneyed article on intelligent design as a secret conspiracy (yawn!). Bearing the hysterical title “Stealth Attack on Evolution,” the piece comes with an even more fevered subtitle: “Who is behind the movement to give equal time to Darwin’s critics, and what do they really want?!!!! ” Okay, I added the emphasis and exclamation points. But the title deserves it. It reads like something you’d see in a supermarket tabloid. Time lists three authors for the story: Michael Lemonick, Noah Isakson, and Jeffrey Ressner. But in the interest of full disclosure, the magazine should have listed a fourth: Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and Darwin spin-doctor extraordinaire. Scott is quoted in the article, but she should have been credited as one of the writers, for Time’s reporters simply recycled her spin in their own words. The writers’ effort to attack ID as a sinister secret plot to foist religion on unsuspecting students comes straight out of the NCSE’s playbook.

In a future post, I will catalog some of the more egregious errors and omissions of the Time piece. Here I’d simply like to tell about my encounter with Time reporter Jeffrey Ressner, with whom I had a lengthy phone conversation. After talking with dozens of reporters on the science education issue, I have become rather skeptical of most reporters’ ability to report fairly about the evolution controversy. Usually they have visions of “Inherit the Wind” dancing around in their heads, and they simply recycle stereotypes from the Scopes trial, regardless of the actual facts. Even reporters from places like The Washington Post produce shoddy and inaccurate stories on the subject (see here and here for examples). Because of the pervasively poor reporting of the old-guard media on this issue, I now begin many interviews by listing for reporters some of the most egregious inaccuracies and stereotypes in recent news reports. Usually when I do this, reporters respond that they just want to present the story accurately and fairly. They assure me that they don’t have any preconceived agenda. I’ve learned to be more than a little skeptical of such protestations; indeed, in my experience, reporters who protest too loudly about their fairness sometimes turn out to be the most biased.