Scientific Freedom

The Washington Post today breaks a major story about the federal probe into the persecution and harassment suffered by evolutionary biologist (twice over no less), Dr. Richard Sternberg. What, you might ask, could get scientists so riled up? Well, Sternberg is suffering the equivalent of a 21st century inquisition for having had the courage to buck the Darwinian establishment and publish a pro-intelligent design paper by CSC Director Dr. Stephen Meyer, himself a Cambridge University educated philosopher of science. The firestorm of a pro-ID paper appearing in a peer-reviewed biology journal has been reported elsewhere but I’ll try to recap the situation briefly here to put this in context.

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 ›

David Klinghoffer has a breaking story in the National Review about an investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The independent federal agency has now released a report about the discrimination that biology journal editor Richard Sternberg faced at the Smithsonian Institution for publishing an article arguing for intelligent design: The Smithsonian Institution is a national treasure of which every American can legitimately feel a sense of personal ownership. Considering this, I’d imagine widespread displeasure as more Americans become aware that senior scientists at the publicly funded Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History have reportedly been creating a “hostile work environment” for one of their colleagues merely because he published a controversial idea in a biology journal. The controversial 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).

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.

David Limbaugh has a stellar column out today, discussing the Darwin vs. design debate.

Simply put, Limbaugh’s column gets the facts straight.

Ever think that certain reporters at the so-called “mainstream” media have already determined their story before they have even interviewed anyone? In my many conversations with reporters, I sometimes get the feeling that no matter what I say, the reporter at hand will only hear what he or she wants to hear, even if it’s the exact opposite of what I’m actually saying. Some amusing evidence of this sort of bias in action is apparently on display in today’s print edition of The New York Times. In an article about President Bush’s endorsement on Monday of students learning about different views on evolution, reporter Elisabeth Bumiller completely mangles a quote by Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer. Here is what Steve Meyer Read More ›

American Spectator editor George Neumayr has an insightful op-ed titled “The Monkey Wrench” on the efforts by dogmatic Darwinists to stifle any criticism of Darwin’s holy writ.

Treat critics of evolution no more seriously than segregationists, Darwinists urge the media and school boards. Just as segregationists, whose views are manifestly irrational, don’t deserve “equal time” in discussions, the critics of evolution don’t deserve equal time either, Darwinists plead.

In a media forum aired on C-SPAN a while back, Slate ‘s Jacob Weisberg in effect said this to New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, upbraiding him for running stories about a school board controversy in Kansas that had quoted critics of evolution. Why did you give them equal time? Weisberg asked Keller. Would you give segregationists their say? Keller found Weisberg’s criticism too radical and unfair, but assured him that anybody who read the Times ‘s Science section would know that the paper was in the tank for Darwin.