Science and Culture Today | Page 1457 | Discovering Design in Nature

A transcript of the Fox News interchange on May 6 between Eugenie Scott and Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer has been posted on the Fox News website. During the segment Eugenie Scott continues her recent effort to defend “evolution” by virtually disowning Darwin in public.

If you don’t think a civilized discussion of the evolution controversy is possible, watch the May 7 edition of C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” which held a low-key and eminently reasonable discussion of the Kansas hearings and the controversy over how best to teach evolution. The program featured Mark Ryland, director of Discovery Institute’s Washington, D.C. office, and Peter Folger of the American Geophysical Union. If only the Darwinists in Kansas were as respectful and dignified as Mr. Folger! You can watch the program on the web by going here and clicking on the program for May 7. The discussion of evolution starts about an hour and twenty-two minutes into the show.

An essay of mine ran in today’s Kansas City Star. It begins:

It seems the Darwinists in Kansas are living in the past. Not the past of, say, the fossil record. The history written there tells of the abrupt appearance of major animal forms, nothing like the gradually branching tree of life that Darwin envisioned. The past that some evolutionists are living in, rather, is the Kansas science curriculum battle of 1999.

Knight-Ridder Newspapers is circulating a false news report after apparently being bamboozled by the Darwinist spin-machine in Kansas. The article claims that the expert witnesses in the Kansas evolution hearings have not read the science standards they are seeking to change. But the charge is false, and the fact that a major news organization would promote such a bogus story makes one wonder about how many reporters have actually read the science standards in question. The article begins:

Topeka, KS – As I’m writing it’s 8:30am of day two of the three most contentious days for science in Kansas, ever. After yesterday’s three-ring circus, complete with highwire acts like William Harris and the antics of sideshow barker Pedro Irigonegaray, today is downright decaffeinated, starting out as if Starbucks had run out of coffee. (Of course if I could find a Starbucks here, I’d know for sure.)

The hearing room is about 1/3 full, a decided difference from yesterday. Amateur videographers are all that remain to tape the proceedings. Several of the key local reporters are in attendance but the national media are largely absent now.

First up is an oceanographer, Dr. Edward Peltzer. Pelzer (http://www.mbari.org/staff/etp3/) is a Senior Research Specialist at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.

This morning’s New York Times article on Kansas has a much improved title, and despite its failure to report on the substance of the science testimony that took place yesterday, the article does drop good hints about what went on, such as:

a parade of Ph.D.’s testified Thursday about the flaws they saw in mainstream science’s explanation of the origins of life. It was one part biology lesson, one part political theater, and the biggest stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design.

TOPEKA, KS — The first of three consecutive days of hearings before Kansas Science Committee concluded today. A number of scientists who are skeptical of chemical evolutionary explanations for the origin of the first life and/or neo-Darwinian evolution testified before the Committee that good science education demands that students learn the scientific weaknesses of these respective theories, in addition to the theories’ strengths.

Yet, after leaving the hearings, I came across a few news stories that read more like science fiction alternate histories than science news stories. The scope of the day’s hearings spanned numerous issues — but NO ONE advocated removing or “diluting” evolution. (For a good discussion of this and a good start on the Kansas Science Subcommittee hearings, see Rob Crowther’s post below.)

Here’s a brief rundown of the day’s testimony…

UPDATE, May 6: The New York Times has published this article under the new, and vastly improved and accurate headline: “In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More”. Topeka, KS — Indeed, Jodi Wilgoren’s lead from her story in The New York Times sums up what the scene was today in Memorial Hall in Topeka, the first day of hearings on how evolution should be taught in Kansas public schools. In the first of three daylong hearings characterized here as the direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a parade of Ph.D.’s testified today about the flaws they find in Darwin’s theory of evolution, transforming a small auditorium into a forum on one of the most controversial questions in Read More ›

Topeka, KS — One wonders if Washington Post reporter Peter Slevin was even in the same room with the AP’s John Hanna, Wichita Eagle’s Josh Funk or Barbara Hollingsworth from the Topeka Capital Journal, or any of the other dozen journalists attending.

For some inexplicable reason, the Washington Post’s reporting on the Kansas debate over evolution is completely out of step with most other major media covering the story (here, here, and here).

Funk reports today that:

The debate centers on proposed changes to Kansas school science standards, designed to encourage a more critical approach to evolution, that the state board will vote on later this summer.

The AP, the Kansas City Star, and the Topeka Capital Journal all basically agree in their reports that this is the issue.

The Washington Times has an excellent editorial this morning outlining the real issue in Kansas. It concludes by faulting Darwinists for not being willing to engage in legitimate scientific debate, quoting Discovery Senior Fellow David Berlinski in the process: “The defense of Darwin’s theory … has fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not,” wrote David Berlinski recently in the Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He continues, “It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in the scientific method.” It also doesn’t help our students.