Intelligent Design

Michael Behe’s op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times seems to have hit a nerve. Or two. Or three. Or perhaps all of them, if you’re a Darwinian dogmatist. Here’s a few. ID Hits the Times Op-Ed, Science Tuesday, De-Sign of the Times, ID is a “rival theory”. There were some blogs cheering Behe’s piece as well, most prominently the Evangelical Outpost. EO writes: ID in the NYT — Today’s New York Times presents an editorial by Michael Behe that does what no major media outlet has bothered to do: allow a prominent advocate of the theory to explain what Intelligent Design really is. Behe’s op-ed was the number two most e-mailed article from the Times’ website yesterday. Who says there’s Read More ›

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 ›

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 ›

A California school district has been sued in federal court for allegedly violating a parent’s civil rights during a controversy over how to teach evolution. For more than a year, Larry Caldwell tried to get the Roseville Joint Union High School District outside of Sacramento to consider changing how it taught the theory of evolution in its biology classes. Caldwell, who has three children, says he wanted the district to correct factual errors in its biology textbooks as well as to introduce students to some scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory. Caldwell did not propose that the district teach creationism or alternatives to evolution. The Roseville district ultimately rejected Caldwell’s recommendations. But in the process of trying to scuttle his Read More ›

Last week Post Gazette reporter Bill Toland contacted me and said he was working on a story about the intelligent design issue in the Dover school district. He wrote in an e-mail to me: “I’m trying to avoid the usual pratfalls of science v. religion, ACLU v. Christians.” Later on the phone he reiterated this to me and we discussed the need for reporters to get beyond stereotypes and clichés and look at some of the real scientific differences between intelligent design theory and Darwinian evolution.

Toland said that he would be doing just that in his story and that he saw no need to rehash the same old religion vs. science angle that so often ends up as the main thrust of news reports on intelligent design.

I’m curious to know what Toland considers the “usual pratfalls” that he claimed he wanted to avoid?

His article in the Sunday Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was a hodgepodge of stereotypes and old clichés. Not only did he not avoid pratfalls, he seems to have determinedly sought out and explored every old stereotype and trite simplification of the issue that he could cram into one opinion piece.

Let’s start at the beginning. The lead begins:

“The flap over “intelligent design,” the latest terminology behind the old theory that the universe and its organisms developed at the discretion of a supernatural creator, …”

Rather than report about something interesting — such as the vast difference between how some scientists critical of design theory use this definition and the definition used by scientists who support design theory — Toland merely adopts the definition of the ACLU and others as the defacto proper definition. It is not.

Furthermore, journalistic integrity requires that you attribute a claim such as this to the person or group that made it. Only critics of design claim this is the definition. Design scientists disagree.

Proponents define intelligent design as: “The theory… that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Almost any design theorist Toland could have interviewed would have given him this definition if asked.

William Dembski describes intelligent design this way in his book The Design Revolution (2004):

I enjoy John Derbyshire’s posts on National Review Online &’s Corner when he’s talking within his area of expertise. Unfortunately, intelligent design isn’t that area. Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds today quoted Derbyshire from his criticism of ID yesterday at The Corner:

John Derbyshire’s article from yesterday’s National Review Online, offered another interesting criticism of ID: It is therefore possible that some un-religious scientist might become convinced, on scientific evidence, of the existence of Intelligent Design, while remaining perfectly open minded about any of the truths of religion. When that scientist shows up, I shall begin [sic] to take Intelligent Design seriously. What about Antony Flew, one of the English-speaking world’s most prominent atheists? Flew has recently said that he’s become a minimal theist. More specifically, he’s said that he’s done so on the basis of evidence for intelligent design, and without converting to any religion. He’s very well studied on the relevant issues. He’s been debating related issues for fifty years, Read More ›

When a news reporter doesn’t bother to accurately and fairly report the small issues, is it any wonder when they fail to accurately and fairly report the big issues? Take the recent, un-credited article by an AP reporter entitled “Lawmakers draft bills to address debate over evolution,” concerning two legislative proposals in the state of Montana concerning the teaching of evolutionary theory in their public schools.

AP REPORTER’S PROBLEMS WITH THE FACTS ON DARBY

The AP reporter discusses two legislators from Big Sky Country who are considering two very different legislative approaches to the issue. According to the AP reporter, these respective proposals were

“driven by curriculum changes in Darby schools earlier this year that mandates the discussion of ‘intelligent design’ theory in science classes.”

Seeing as the AP reporter identifies the actions of the Darby school board in 2004 as the impetus for such legislation, one would think the AP reporter would be sure to get the facts right about what happened in Darby. But the AP reporter got the facts wrong.

The Darwin versus design debate has taken center stage on the blogosphere these past couple weeks. Old Media’s dissemination of disinformation has been particularly brutal to intelligent design theory and its proponents, but the facts are now coming to light through the diligent work of bloggers. One lucid and cogent contribution to the discussion is provided by David Limbaugh. “Slamming Intelligent Design” is his recent blog post supporting intelligent design, as he takes Old Media to task for its coverage the current controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian evolution. Limbaugh has the intellectual honesty and discipline to recognize the clear distinctions between intelligent design theory and creationism. (See John West’s Research News article for more on this.) Limbaugh rightly acknowledges the strong objections Read More ›