Science Reporting

The Washington Post published a lead editorial yesterday that seems to steal a page right out of The New York Times playbook (Darwinian end-run around scientific evidence, on three!). The Post’s first paragraph is shockingly similar to the Times’ opening from just the day before: “With their slick web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy public relations, the proponents of “intelligent design” — a “theory” that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution — are far more sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural process Read More ›

Instapundit is featuring a joke equating the Cobb County evolution sticker with belief in a flat earth.

Glenn Reynolds doesn’t fit neatly into the Republican or Democrat camp. For that reason I’m optimistic he will soon move past the simplistic binary opposition of idiot-Darwinism-doubters-who-only-grudgingly-concede-the-earth-is-round vs. enlightened-secularists-who-understand-that-Darwinism-is-a-given-and-doesn’t-threaten-religion.

Earlier this month, the PBS show Uncommon Knowledge taped a discussion about the controversy over the teaching of evolution and intelligent design. The guests were Darwinists Dr. Massimo Pigliucci of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and CSC Fellow Dr. Jonathan Wells. Uncommon Knowledge host Peter Robinson moderated the discussion.

The 30-minute show will be aired by PBS sometime in the next few months, but in the meantime Dr. Pigliucci has posted his version of what happened on a skeptics’ web site.

We recommend that anyone interested in this controversy watch the actual show when it airs. Since Dr. Pigliucci has chosen to publicize his own version of the discussion beforehand, however, we have asked Dr. Wells to write down his own recollection of it. Here is Dr. Wells’s account.

The New York Times lead editorial Sunday, Jan 23, avoided addressing in any detail the scientific issues in the national debate over how to teach evolution and instead tried to equate the scientific theory of intelligent design with creationism, and proclaimed all critics of Darwinian evolution are Biblical creationists. It reads like a briefing paper from the ACLU, and probably was inspired by one.

Critics of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution become more wily with each passing year. Creationists who believe that God made the world and everything in it pretty much as described in the Bible were frustrated when their efforts to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools or inject the teaching of creationism were judged unconstitutional by the courts. But over the past decade or more a new generation of critics has emerged with a softer, more roundabout approach that they hope can pass constitutional muster.

It is often mistakenly asserted that design theory is merely a recasting of creation science that came about because creationism was tossed out of schools in the late eighties. Actually, the theory of intelligent design finds it starting points well before the famous 1987 supreme court case that banned creation science from public schools. For example, biologist Michael Denton published his famous book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in 1986, and even before that Walter Bradley and others had published works challenging Darwinian evolution and presenting the foundations of intelligent design theory in the early eighties. And, then there is the case of Dean Kenyon, professor emeritus of biology at San Francisco state who in the sixties was one of the world’s leading chemical evolutionists. By the late seventies he was disavowing his own previous evolution textbooks and discussing intelligent design theories in his university courses.

Continuing its dogmatic toeing of the Darwinian line the Times says this about the textbook disclaimer sticker recently struck down in Cobb Co., Georgia:

Albuquerque Tribune columnist Jeffry Gardner is not amused by PBS affiliate KNME’s decision to cancel the intelligent design documentary “Unlocking the Mystery of Life.” His title is the first clue: “The BS in PBS”: We’re shelling out more than $300 million annually in state and federal tax dollars for shows like “Charlie Rose” (name the last conservative you’ve seen yucking it up with Chuck), “Frontline,” “American Experience” and “Nova” – all agenda-less programs, I’m sure. I think that’s why the blatant religious discrimination KNME proudly practices is all the more galling. We’re a nation rooted in religious freedom. Tolerance in the public forum is required. The entire piece is here.

The recent Dover design/intelligent design federal court case (aka Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) just got a little bit more interesting, with the Rutherford Institute filing a motion to intervene on behalf of several parents. If successful, the parents will be made a third party to the ACLU’s lawsuit.

The parents hope to vindicate the rights of students to be able to learn about scientific information concerning the scientific controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, defending the marketplace of ideas from the ACLU’s efforts to suppress all scientific information that call neo-Darwinian theory into question.

Quoting U.S. Supreme Court precedents, Rutherford’s motion makes an important point:

The Constitution protects not just the right to express information and ideas but also the right to receive information and ideas.

Quite so. Our Constitution does not sanction a regime of state-sponsored censorship. Nor does it condone, for that matter, ACLU-driven, state-approved censorhip.

In their press release, Rutherford’s President, John Whitehead goes on to state:

CSC Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells had a letter published in yesterday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Wells responds in brief detail to earlier letters asserting that there is no scientific evidence against Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The York Daily Record is reporting on the first ever reading of a statement about intelligent design to Dover School District ninth graders in biology classes. The story raises the issue of whether or not students are even learning about intelligent design theory, and seems to conclude that they are not.

According to YDR the statement read to students says i part:

“Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s views. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families.”

One has to wonder why the ACLU and others are so upset that someone read a statement saying that there are other viewpoints. Intelligent design is never explained or even defined in the statement. So, then one has to wonder why the school board is so insistent that this statement be read, and then that the issue be ignored for the next 19 days of instruction on Darwinian evolution.

YDR reports:

We’re starting to see occasional occurrences of coherent defenses of design theory popping up on editorial pages of all sorts of newspapers. For instance, Bruce Mclarty has an op-ed piece in The Daily Citizen (Arkansas) that nicely explains the differences between intelligent design and creationism, and correctly points out that creationism is a subset of intelligent design, not the other way around. “While all creationists would believe in intelligent design, the opposite is not true. One could adhere to the idea that nature reflects an intelligent designer without believing in the Bible, the God of the Bible, or the Genesis account of creation.” Mclarty also notes that: “When something appears to defy purely naturalistic explanation, it is attributed to being Read More ›

Expect to see California resident Larry Caldwell’s lawsuit against the Roseville Joint Union High School District to be misreported on a regular basis. Already Sacramento Bee reporter Laurel Rosen mistakenly asserted that Caldwell’s case is anti-evolution. Now, Kimberly Horg of the The Press-Tribune takes it one step further. “The suit was set into motion because, according to Caldwell, his constitutional rights to free speech, equal protection and religious freedom were violated in his efforts to remove the teaching of evolution in the district.” As Cooper pointed out yesterday this is exactly the opposite of what Caldwell has been trying to do. He has never tried to “remove the teaching of evolution.”