Science Reporting

Michael Behe’s op-ed “Design for Living” from today’s New York Times is the third most e-mailed article from today’s Times.

CSC Senior Fellow Dr. Michael Behe has an opinon piece in today’s New York Times briefly laying out key aspects of the theory intelligent design. To date the MSM has been sadlly deficient in reporting what intelligent design theory is, and what it is not. This piece marks one of the first times that a major news outlet has let design advocates explain the theory in their own words. Hopefully other media will follow suit and instead of just regurgitating definitions from elsewhere they will accurately describe the theory itself. Let’s roll the highlight reel: “the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their Read More ›

Unjust criticisms of Dr. Richard Sternberg have been flying around the internet since the story of his harassment by Darwinists became public when David Klinghoffer wrote about it in The Wall Street Journal little more than a week ago. Sternberg you will remember is the former biology journal editor under attack for publishing a pro-ID paper by CSC Director Steve Meyer. CSC Senior Fellow and Gonzaga law professor David DeWolf has written a response correcting the campaign of misinformation now being waged against Sternberg.

In “Shooting the Messenger Indeed,” and the resulting followup, Balta argues that the treatment of Rick Sternberg as described by David Klinghoffer in the WSJ article is much ado about nothing. If anything, Balta argues, it is Sternberg who violated the canons of science rather than those who attacked him. Balta’s points can be summarized in the form of questions:

Recall that Richard Sternberg, former editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, permitted the publication of an essay by Stephen Meyer arguing that intelligent design was the best explanation for the Cambrian Explosion of animal forms. When it appeared, major science journals and media outlets launched a smear campaign against Sternberg, questioning his motives and claiming he violated the journal’s procedures. Sternberg, a man with two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology and a distinguished record of scientific publication and achievement, eventually felt so much heat that he hired an attorney. Happily, one major media outlet, The Wall Street Journal, broke ranks by publishing an op-ed last week laying out Sternberg’s side of the story. In it, Sternberg’s supervisor, Read More ›

The Intelligent Design Network’s John Calvert has provided us with this first-hand account of Tuesday’s meeting where the public could share their opinions with the Kansas SBOE on proposed revisions to the state’s science standards.

Report on a public debate about evolution

Last night I went to the public meeting at Schlagel High in Kansas City, Kansas. It focused on the Kansas Science Standards and Proposals by the Harris group to increase their objectivity in the area of origins.

I thought there would be a crowd, but not 400. The place was packed. Even if I wanted to speak, the line that had been open for speakers was closed well before my arrival. They cut off the list at 60 but allowed time for only 45 or 50.

Canadian science journalist Denyse O’Leary (author of By Design or By Chance) has a short blog about the Church of Darwin’s continued haranguing of besieged Smithsonian scientist Richard Sternberg. Pondering Sternberg’s blacklisting at the Smithsonian O’Leary wonders: “How many Americans who would never under any circumstances condone behaviour like that pay taxes to support it?” O’Leary also has been doing a periodic series of fine rebuttals of National Geographic’s recent homage to Darwin.

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.