Science Reporting

UPDATED 9.29.05/5:38pm (by Rob Crowther): Interestingly, we recently stumbled across this surprisingly prescient interview with Dr. Forrest, and in light of her recent notoriety due to her “expert” testimony for the Dover trial we thought that readers would like to read the transcript.

Two weeks before the Dover trial began, the Judge in the case skewered the “expert” witness report submitted to the Court by Louisiana professor Barbara Forrest, a long-time board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. Forrest’s report is mostly a rehash of the innuendos and conspiracy-mongering found in her book with Paul Gross, “Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” While Forrest’s potpourri of smears and overheated rhetoric is typically accepted uncritically by reporters, Judge John Jones has put the ACLU on notice that significant portions of Prof. Forrest’s expert report may be declared

Scrappleface.com is bravely bucking the trend to stay mum on the shocking opening to the Dover intelligent design trial.

Harrisburg, PA — The plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial are arguing that intelligent design sprang up in the wake of the 1987 Supreme Court decision against creation science, and the National Center for Science Education’s Nick Matzke is repeating the talking point to reporters: “Intelligent design is just a new label for creationism,” Mr. Matzke noted. “It is just the latest legal strategy for creationism. It evolved in 1987 right after the Supreme Court ruled against creationism and said that that was unconstitutional.” The assertion is demonstrably false. The idea of intelligent design reaches back to Socrates and Plato, and the term “intelligent design” as an alternative to blind evolution was used as early as 1897. More recently, Read More ›

Harrisburg, PA – In the second morning of testimony in the ACLU’s lawsuit against a Dover, Pennsylvania school district, Darwinist Kenneth Miller conceded that in one sense he was a creationist, since he attributed the laws of physics and chemistry to an “author of all things, seen and unseen.” He read back a portion of the testimony he gave when he served as a fact witness in the Cobb County, Georgia textbook sticker case, in which he defined creationism in its narrow, contemporary sense as a view arguing for a young earth (6-10,000 years) , six 24-hour days of creation by a supernatural being, and a geological record largely explained by a global flood. In this morning’s testimony, Miller conceded Read More ›

Good Morning America today aired a story by reporter Dan Harris about Discovery Institute and its role in the national debate over evolution. More than a month ago ABC News approached Discovery Institute with a request to sit down and interview CSC Director Stephen Meyer. We were hesitant based on previous run-ins with other ABC News crews, namely Nightline. They’ve done rather poor jobs on reporting about evolution and intelligent design in the recent past. So, we spoke at length with the producers about what sort of story they were doing and what their focus was and what Meyer’s role would be.

HARRISBURG, PA — The first day of testimony in the ACLU’s lawsuit against the Dover, Pennsylvania school district ended today with the defense beginning their cross-examination of leading Darwinist Kenneth Miller.

How long has it been since a leading evolutionist subjected himself to cross-examination on the witness stand? In the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920s, the Darwinist, Clarence Darrow, used a procedural trick to cross examine his opponent while himself avoiding cross-examination. The vast majority of Darwinists routinely duck full and fair exchanges. Kenneth Miller should be applauded for bucking this duck-the-debate tactic.

Harrisburg, PA — A question at the heart of the first day of testimony in Kitzmiller vs. Dover is whether it is illegal to teach intelligent design in the public school science classroom. That’s the question legal expert Francis Beckwith tackles here.

HARRISBURG, PA — The ACLU’s lawsuit against a Dover, Pennsylvania school district began today with biologist and evolutionist Kenneth Miller taking the stand as the first witness. The school district’s policy calls for administrators to read a brief statement to biology students indicating that Darwinism is a theory, and that if students want to learn about a contrary explanation for the origin of living things, they can find a supplementary science textbook, Of Pandas and People, in the school library. The plaintiff is arguing that this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of a religion because intelligent design is merely the creationism that was on trial in the Supreme Court decision, Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987), where the court ruled that Louisiana could not mandate equal-time teaching of biblical creationism.

This week the newsmedia converge on Harrisburg, PA for the opening of the Dover School District intelligent design trial. As readers of this blog know already, the ACLU has sued the Dover School District for notifying students about the existence of the theory of intelligent design (ID). Although Discovery Institute doesn’t favor Dover’s policy (see here for why), we strongly oppose the ACLU’s heavy-handed effort to shut down even voluntary classroom discussions of ID through government censorship. We hope to provide daily coverage and analysis of the trial on this blog, and we’ve dispatched Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Witt to Harrisburg this week to file eyetwitness reports. (For complete background information about the Dover case, check the informational web page we’ve set up here.)

What remains to be seen is how accurately—or not—the major media will cover the trial. As you read the newsmedia reports this week, watch carefully to see how frequently the following myths about intelligent design and the critics of Darwinism are reported as “facts”:

Just in time for Monday’s thought-crime trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, H. Wayne House has an extensive review here of cases in the U.S. dealing with Darwinism and the public schools: “Darwinism and the Law: Can Non-Naturalistic Scientific Theories Survive Constitutional Challenge?” It’s an excellent resource for anyone covering the trial, though I could quibble with a few elements. For instance, if House means to include contemporary design arguments in biology, it would be more precise to say “Non-Materialist Scientific Theories.”