Robert Crowther

We’re starting to see occasional occurrences of coherent defenses of design theory popping up on editorial pages of all sorts of newspapers. For instance, Bruce Mclarty has an op-ed piece in The Daily Citizen (Arkansas) that nicely explains the differences between intelligent design and creationism, and correctly points out that creationism is a subset of intelligent design, not the other way around. “While all creationists would believe in intelligent design, the opposite is not true. One could adhere to the idea that nature reflects an intelligent designer without believing in the Bible, the God of the Bible, or the Genesis account of creation.” Mclarty also notes that: “When something appears to defy purely naturalistic explanation, it is attributed to being Read More ›

Expect to see California resident Larry Caldwell’s lawsuit against the Roseville Joint Union High School District to be misreported on a regular basis. Already Sacramento Bee reporter Laurel Rosen mistakenly asserted that Caldwell’s case is anti-evolution. Now, Kimberly Horg of the The Press-Tribune takes it one step further. “The suit was set into motion because, according to Caldwell, his constitutional rights to free speech, equal protection and religious freedom were violated in his efforts to remove the teaching of evolution in the district.” As Cooper pointed out yesterday this is exactly the opposite of what Caldwell has been trying to do. He has never tried to “remove the teaching of evolution.”

The York Daily Record on Sunday published a brief opinion piece from a York resident challenging the paper’s definition of intelligent design. What is intelligent design? Are our kids being taught to think? Do schools want to give a good education? The York Daily Record definition says, “ID holds that all living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by an unspecified divine being.” The YDR is not alone in using this description which is actually how critics of design define the theory. Hopefully the YDR will begin using a more accurate description, or at least attribute this one to critics rather than leaving it as if it were the proper, working definition. Once more, with feeling: Read More ›

Last Sunday’s episode of Boston Legal (“From Whence We Came”) was ripped straight from the headlines in typical David Kelley style. Hotshot young attorney Lori (Monica Potter), with help from Denny Crane (played by William Shatner, and for which he won a Golden Globe the same Sunday night) and Shirley Schmidt (the newest addition to the show, played by Candace Bergen), defends a school superintendent being sued by two science teachers who were fired for refusing to teach creationism.

Kelley’s writing is always sharp and his dialogue is witty, but his take on the evolution issue merely regurgitates the old Inherit The Wind trope of religion vs. science. He never even bothers to really define evolution or intelligent design, which is used interchangeably with creationism.

Leave it to the capitalists at Amazon.com and the free market system to captialize on the censorship of UMOL by the Darwinists. Several months ago UMOL sales were languishing well below 7,000 on Amazon.com’s sales ranking system. However, thanks to KNME censorship , the film actually peaked at 2,500 over the weekend. Currently it has slipped a bit to 4,540. Still this shows a serious spike in sales. We’ve received dozens of requests for the film ourselves. Nothing spurs sales quite like a good controversy. Had KNME just let well enough alone this whole thing would have blown over by now. But, thanks to their protectionism more and more people are seeing UMOL than otherwise would have been the case. Read More ›

Scrappleface.com has skewered last week’s federal court ruling on Cobb Co.’s textbook disclaimers with a clever bit of satire. “U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the old labels could “confuse” public school students, who are not accustomed to thinking critically.” Indeed! The Scrapplers report that the newly evolved stickers now in textbooks read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a theory, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with childlike trust, accepted obediently and defended vigorously against the attacks of ignorant monotheists.” Read the entire ScrappleFace satire here (and yes, the Cooper quotations are pure fiction).

CSC writer in residence, Jonathan Witt had an op-ed published in the Albuquerque Journal Sunday commenting on PBS affiliate KNME’s censorship troubles. The thing that Witt’s op-ed nicely brings to light is the double standard about funding and editorial control that exists at PBS from the top down. He gives specific examples suggesting that KNME normally follows a very different (and much more sane) test for private funders, one that allows foundations who fund documentaries to have points of view and even worldviews. KNME proclaims that they must not let public get the “perception” that funders of a program “might” have had control over the content. “Indeed, no PBS affiliate consistently follows the smell test laid out by KNME. If Read More ›

The censorship issue has obviously struck a nerve in New Mexico, as evidenced by this cartoon from Friday’s Albuquerque Journal. Creationism evolves. How original. I think this is only about the 499th time that this has been in a cartoon or headline.

A federal judge today ruled that the evolution stickers used in the Cobb Co., GA school district’s biology textbooks are unconstitutional. (See our press releases here and here.) In a somewhat bizarre ruling, the judge found that the stickers “fostering critical thinking” about evolution “is a clearly secular purpose.” And, the judge also found that the Cobb County school district had secular, not religious reasons for adopting a textbook sticker dealing with evolution. Yet, he somehow concludes that the “effect” of the sticker would be to advance religion. CSC associate director John West summed it up this way: “The judge rules, and repeatedly states, that there is a clear secular purpose to the sticker, and it has a legitimate secular Read More ›

Last week Post Gazette reporter Bill Toland contacted me and said he was working on a story about the intelligent design issue in the Dover school district. He wrote in an e-mail to me: “I’m trying to avoid the usual pratfalls of science v. religion, ACLU v. Christians.” Later on the phone he reiterated this to me and we discussed the need for reporters to get beyond stereotypes and clichés and look at some of the real scientific differences between intelligent design theory and Darwinian evolution.

Toland said that he would be doing just that in his story and that he saw no need to rehash the same old religion vs. science angle that so often ends up as the main thrust of news reports on intelligent design.

I’m curious to know what Toland considers the “usual pratfalls” that he claimed he wanted to avoid?

His article in the Sunday Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was a hodgepodge of stereotypes and old clichés. Not only did he not avoid pratfalls, he seems to have determinedly sought out and explored every old stereotype and trite simplification of the issue that he could cram into one opinion piece.

Let’s start at the beginning. The lead begins:

“The flap over “intelligent design,” the latest terminology behind the old theory that the universe and its organisms developed at the discretion of a supernatural creator, …”

Rather than report about something interesting — such as the vast difference between how some scientists critical of design theory use this definition and the definition used by scientists who support design theory — Toland merely adopts the definition of the ACLU and others as the defacto proper definition. It is not.

Furthermore, journalistic integrity requires that you attribute a claim such as this to the person or group that made it. Only critics of design claim this is the definition. Design scientists disagree.

Proponents define intelligent design as: “The theory… that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Almost any design theorist Toland could have interviewed would have given him this definition if asked.

William Dembski describes intelligent design this way in his book The Design Revolution (2004):