Science and Culture Today | Page 1406 | Discovering Design in Nature

We recently reported how New Scientist has exhibited an incredible bias against intelligent design and is encouraging scientists to attack ID using “the weapons of sound bytes and emotional arguments… deploy[ing] all the tools that are used to sell cars, [and] diet drugs…” But the best possible proof that the media is biased against intelligent design would be a cover article in one of the nation’s leading media journals instructing editors and reporters to limit and stifle the pro-ID viewpoint when reporting on the ID-evolution debate. Precisely such an article entitled “Undoing Darwin” was co-authored by Chris Mooney as the cover article of the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review just a few weeks before the beginning of the Dover trial in Read More ›

It looks as if the reporting on evolution and intelligent design is even worse in the UK than it is here in the US. I was just forwarded this article from last week’s Independent titled “Does Creationism Have a Place in the Classroom.” Right off the bat the lead of the article makes unsupported assertions, editorializing in a manner that even some of the most agenda-driven reporting in the US has yet to do.

The whole point of independent schools is that they are supposed to be independent! The whole point of the media is to report the news, not distortions. Yet in the story from The Ottawa Citzen (“Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told“), we discover by reading the whole story carefully that the schools under attack do teach evolution. They also teach the scientific evidence against it and they teach intelligent design. And that additional teaching is the state’s real beef.

The NCSE’s Nicholas Matzke wrote last summer, “We don’t need the anti-creationists going and mixing their views on religion into their science. In fact, this is probably the surest path to disaster politically and in the courts. Anyone who wants to do this has the right to do it, but it ain’t helpful or particularly smart.” Richard Dawkins apparently didn’t get Nick’s memo. In a recent BBC News interview, Dawkins said that “America is ready for an attack on religion. … Britain always has been.” He explained that he wrote his book The God Delusion to convince “vaguely religious people” that “[t]he religion of their upbringing is probably nonsense” and explained to viewers that “the living world … comes about Read More ›

[Editor’s Note: A single article combining all ten installments of this response to Barbara Forrest can be found here, at “Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account.” The individual installments may be seen here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10.] In her Kitzmiller account, Barbara Forrest writes that leading ID proponents have “blustering cowardice … who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry.” Ironically, she later attacks Discovery Institute’s critique of the Kitzmiller ruling, claiming it had “nastiness.” In response to her inconsistent argument, Dr. Forrest would likely respond that her attacks are justified based upon the evidence she presents in her article. (I’m not Read More ›

* The estimable cultural commentator Joseph Epstein writes in The Wall Street Journal Thursday about those “Ugly Thorny Things” called facts that have a way of undercutting “velvety and suave” things called ideas. The piece (by subscription only here) makes a fascinating observation about the way that big ideas decay in the presence of factual reality.

“Not only have the past 50 or so years been largely bereft of grand ideas, but much of the best intellectual work of the period has been devoted to eliminating the major ideas, or idea system, of the previous 100 years or so: notably Marxism and Freudianism, with Darwinism perhaps next to tumble.”

The following was posted on the Cornell IDEA Club Blog at Reply From the New Scientist: October 6, 2006 Hello Hannah and thank you for your message. We are aware of this incident and have addressed the matter internally. Celeste Biever is a staff reporter at New Scientist who covers, among other specialties, stories related to the intersection of science and culture on the topic of evolutionary biology. The exchange in question is unique in Celeste’s history with us and not representative of New Scientist reporting. We are not currently pursuing a story about your group and do not intend to publish any part of the communication Celeste initiated with you. I hope this will address any concerns you may Read More ›

From blogger Amy Welborn:

Your readers may be interested in the following… David Quinn, a well known Catholic commentator and journalist here in Ireland debated Richard Dawkins on Irish radio last week on the reasonableness of religious belief. Dawkins is a formidable debater, but David Quinn absolutely embarrassed him — he had Dawkins on the ropes from the outset. It is a rare moment when Dawkins is left speechless and is well worth listening to.

The debate can be downloaded by going here…. The debate starts at 7min 57 seconds into the programme and lasts for about 18 minutes.

Are leading Darwinists succeeding in promoting a religion-friendly image? Prominent evolutionists have used warfare imagery to call upon people to “fight” against intelligent design and other forms of evolution-skepticism, including various religions. In a recent article about a talk on The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins told a crowd in Kansas, “I know you here are in the front-line trench against powerful forces of darkness… Fight the good fight” against the “the ‘rotten logic’ of intelligent design and creationism,” which he claims argue the religious viewpoint that “God did it.” (As noted yesterday, the article is factually challenged, as it repeatedly incorrectly calls Dawkins a “physicist,” when he is actually a zoologist and evolutionary biologist.) In a similar fashion, Gerald Weissmann, Read More ›