Science Reporting
Weekly Standard Prints West’s Response to Wolfson
The Weekly Standard has run John West’s response to Adam Wolfson’s recent article about intelligent design (which we blogged about here and here.)
Read More ›BBC’s War on Science Looks at Darwinism / Intelligent Design Controversy
Kurt Vonnegut on Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Viewpoint on Dover Intelligent Design Opinion
Murphy’s Law: Any Objections to ID that can go wrong, will go wrong
Bob Murphy at LewRockwell.com, a prominent libertarian website, examines many of the common objections to ID and finds them unpersuasive in Typical Objections to Intelligent Design.
Murphy takes the role of argument analyzer and examines the common objections of credibility, lack of peer-reviewed publications, ID as not scientific, and accusations that ID is an argument from ignorance.
After analyzing these common arguments, Murphy finds that “the ID people are on to something, while the proponents of Darwinian evolution are missing the point.”
Read More ›Reporting on South Carolina Evolution Debate is Wrongly Trying To Make the Debate About Intelligent Design
Columbia South Carolina’s The State newspaper had a preview piece this morning about today’s hearing held by the state’s Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to hear from experts about teaching evolution.
State reporter Bill Robinson spoke at length with CSC policy analyst Casey Luskin last week in order to get more information on the overall debate, and also to better understand Discovery’s position on the issue. Unfortunately his article doesn’t reflect that.
Robinson, through an error of omission, misrepresents Discovery’s science education policy position, which we’ve been consistently clear about. The article, which completely misses the point that the debate in SC has nothing to do with intelligent design, only mentions Discovery once, but like this:
“Casey Luskin said Keller and Sternberg are scientists known to the Institute, which he said takes the position that “intelligent design is a scientific theory that is a good explanation for many aspects of life.”
By not explaining that our position is that we’re opposed to mandating intelligent design Robinson leaves his readers with the impression that is what we’re supporting in SC. Of course, as we’ve made clear, that isn’t true. It remains to be see if The State will do the right thing and issue a clarification. I’ve contacted Robinson but as of yet have not received a reply.
Read More ›