Culture

Update: In my hurry to get this posted I inadvertently left out the fact that it is not from me, but rather are thoughts from a CSC Fellow. Some Darwinists are upset with Ken Chang for his recent New York Times report on the controversy over evolution and intelligent design. It seems that the Darwinists would have preferred a propaganda piece advertising only their side in the debate. Oh, well; they should take comfort in the fact that they managed to slip at least one piece of pro-Darwin propaganda into the article. Chang wrote: “Nowhere has evolution been more powerful than in its prediction that there must be a means to pass on information from one generation to another. Darwin Read More ›

The New York Times editorial page aside, the coverage of the debate over evolution and intelligent design is improving (see (Sunday’s and Monday’s front page stories). Discovery president Bruce Chapman has an insightful analysis of the weekend’s major coverage by the nation’s paper of record.

(Updated) Despite getting plenty of ink, the Darwinists don’t come off looking so well in Kenneth Chang’s story about intelligent design in the Science section of today’s New York Times.

Imagine intelligent design is an elephant in the next room. A cat lies crushed on the floor before us, with the clear mark of an elephant’s toe imprinted on his poor, flat, fuzzy body.

In the Monday New York Times, William Safire discusses the history of the term “intelligent design” and the growing controversy over the theory. Safire concludes with the advice of neuroscientist Leon Cooper, a Nobel laureate at Brown University: If we could all lighten up a bit perhaps, we could have some fun in the classroom discussing the evidence and the proposed explanations — just as we do at scientific conferences. Excellent advice. Now cue up the Darwin-Only tape about how, next thing you know, we’ll have to teach the controversy over the geocentric model of the earth, or give the flat earthers a place at the table. Do the Darwin-Only lobbyists think they’re speaking to anyone but the choir when Read More ›

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).

Yesterday, I blogged about Reuters’ inaccurate news report earlier this week, which wrongly claimed that the new Kansas science standards would remove evolution as part of the standard core curriculum in Kansas. That was before I read the revised and expanded version of Reuters’ report. Someone has now rewritten the original story. But instead of making it better, the writer has veered off into the realm of fabrication. Reuters’ revised report claims that Kansas is actually trying to include intelligent design in its science standards, as well as asserting as fact that intelligent design is “a form of creationism”: