Robert Crowther

Rosenblog has an interesting post on the outrageous response to Ashland, OR’s Daily Tidings published a web-only piece by its editor endorsing the teaching of intelligent design. From the responses you’d think the writer had violated all the rules of human decorum. The reaction is all too typical of the recent rise in attacks on anyone who speaks out against Darwinism. It is exactly these types of public reactions that are fueling the increasing number of attacks on scientists and scholars who critically analyse evolution, or advocate the theory of intelligent design. Academic freedom seems to be okay for those who want to opine on the problems with America, but not for scientists who want to research and discuss the Read More ›

The News Tribune (Tacoma, WA) this weekend ran three pieces about the evolution debate, one by CSC senior fellow Jonathan Witt contesting the idea that evolution is incontestable on any grounds, and two pieces of shrill polemics:

One by UW biologist Peter Ward stating that Darwinian evolution is a fact (and resorts to name calling to prove it), and an opinion piece by Peter Slevin from the Washington Post that has been masquerading in papers around the country as an objective news story for several months now (nothing like new news to keep your publication fresh and your readers up to date).

Yesterday “Hardball with Chris Matthews” featured a short debate between Discovery president Bruce Chapman and NCSE director Eugenie Scott about intelligent design and whether it should be required instruction in science classes.

More interesting than that question though was the debates diversion into the issue of whether or not intelligent design is religion — it’s not — and if it inherently invokes “God.”

Science standards that allow for scientific challenges to Darwinism to be discussed in the classroom moved forward in Kansas today according to AP reports.

It fascinates me that people often assume that if you are an advocate of intelligent design — or even if you merely question Darwinism — you must be a religious zealot of one stripe or another.

UPDATED, 10:48am, 8.10: Gilder vs. Dawkins is no contest. Literally. Dawkins chickened out and refused to debate, instead preferring to go it alone. So, each of them appeared separately on the program which is now available at “On Point’s” website. Today NPR’s “On Point” will feature Discovery senior fellow George Gilder debating Darwin defender Richard Dawkins. The program airs on WBUR live from 10-11am, and on NPR stations across the country at different times today and throughout the week.

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.

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.”