Science and Culture Today | Page 1468 | Discovering Design in Nature

While the rest of the country worries about terrorists who try to blow up people here and abroad, the editorialists at the Boston Globe worry about an invasion by… American creationists. Today the Globe is running an overwrought editorial with the hysterical title “Creationists at the gate” — conjuring up images of stampeding hordes of vandals and visigoths about to overrun civilized society. It is becoming harder and harder to lampoon the liberal newsmedia on the evolution issue, because their hysteria apparently knows no bounds. If the liberal media want to be taken more seriously by the majority of Americans, they might start by trying to base their opinions on facts rather than fantasies. For example, the Globe repeatedly warns Read More ›

As noted in a previous post, Time’s recent article about intelligent design reads more like an editorial than a news report. Here is an itemized list of some of the ways Time slanted and misreported its story:

Expect David Klinghoffer’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal — discussing institutionalized bias at the Smithsonian and the attacks upon scientist Richard Sternberg — to make waves in the blogosphere. One can already read posts with comments discussing the story at Conservative Philosopher and Southern Appeal. Also be sure to check out the comments at IDEA Center. Sense of Soot is skeptical of ID’s claims, but nonetheless makes the important observation that: “the fear of even approaching the issue scientifically can make blind naysayers of critical thinkers . . . and that’s a crying shame.” Coming from a different perspective on ID is Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost, who concludes his lengthy post with a note of optimism: while scientific revolutions Read More ›

There are an infinite number of wrong ways to address the subject of how to teach evolutionary theory in public schools. But before discussing some of those wrong ways, it is best to keep in mind a right way. Namely, teach students the scientific arguments in favor of biological and chemical evolutionary theories, but also allow students to learn about some of the scientific criticisms of those theories. As Stephen Meyer and John Angus Campbell have insisted, “When credible experts disagree about a controversial subject, students should learn about the competing perspectives.”

Comes now Georgia House Bill 179, sponsored by Georgia State Representative Ben Bridges. AP reporter Doug Gross’s story (here) discusses HB 179 as being “designed to prevent the theory of evolution from being taught in Georgia’s classrooms.” At least, that’s how Gross sees it. Yet, a plain reading of the bill’s text is seemingly at odds with the idea that evolutionary theory would be banned from Georgia schools. If enacted as law, the bill would apply “Whenever any theory of the origin of humans or other living things is included in a course of study offered by a local unit of administration.”

At this point, the only thing clear about this is that it is very unclear where Rep. Bridges is coming from on this.

Today’s Wall Street Journal is running a shocking article reporting on an alleged campaign of harassment and intimidation by Darwinists at the taxpayer-funded Smithsonian Institution. The target? Biologist Richard Sternberg. Sternberg, you may recall, was the biology journal editor who had the courage to allow publication of Discovery Fellow Stephen Meyer’s article supportive of intelligent design after it had been approved through the standard peer-review process. At the time, Sternberg attracted a firestorm of criticism from Darwinists outside the Smithsonian. Now it appears that officials at the Smithsonian have tried to destroy Sternberg’s career and drive him from his position. The federal government’s Office of Special Counsel is currently investigating whether Sternberg’s civil rights have been violated. Among other things, Read More ›

Time magazine demonstrates yet again why fewer and fewer people are turning to the old-guard media for their news. In its Jan. 31 issue, the once venerable news organ is running a hackneyed article on intelligent design as a secret conspiracy (yawn!). Bearing the hysterical title “Stealth Attack on Evolution,” the piece comes with an even more fevered subtitle: “Who is behind the movement to give equal time to Darwin’s critics, and what do they really want?!!!! ” Okay, I added the emphasis and exclamation points. But the title deserves it. It reads like something you’d see in a supermarket tabloid. Time lists three authors for the story: Michael Lemonick, Noah Isakson, and Jeffrey Ressner. But in the interest of full disclosure, the magazine should have listed a fourth: Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and Darwin spin-doctor extraordinaire. Scott is quoted in the article, but she should have been credited as one of the writers, for Time’s reporters simply recycled her spin in their own words. The writers’ effort to attack ID as a sinister secret plot to foist religion on unsuspecting students comes straight out of the NCSE’s playbook.

In a future post, I will catalog some of the more egregious errors and omissions of the Time piece. Here I’d simply like to tell about my encounter with Time reporter Jeffrey Ressner, with whom I had a lengthy phone conversation. After talking with dozens of reporters on the science education issue, I have become rather skeptical of most reporters’ ability to report fairly about the evolution controversy. Usually they have visions of “Inherit the Wind” dancing around in their heads, and they simply recycle stereotypes from the Scopes trial, regardless of the actual facts. Even reporters from places like The Washington Post produce shoddy and inaccurate stories on the subject (see here and here for examples). Because of the pervasively poor reporting of the old-guard media on this issue, I now begin many interviews by listing for reporters some of the most egregious inaccuracies and stereotypes in recent news reports. Usually when I do this, reporters respond that they just want to present the story accurately and fairly. They assure me that they don’t have any preconceived agenda. I’ve learned to be more than a little skeptical of such protestations; indeed, in my experience, reporters who protest too loudly about their fairness sometimes turn out to be the most biased.

In a blog post entitled “Public Education and Evolution,” David Limbaugh brings attention to the lawsuit that was recently filed by parent and attorney Larry Caldwell against the Roseville Joint Union High School District in California for the violation of his civil rights. Caldwell had sought to improve and enhance his school districts presentation of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories by having students learn a little bit about some of the scientific criticisms of those respective theories, but he was subjected to bullying tactics from those who preferred to censor such information. Discussing Caldwell’s case, Limbaugh makes a great point about the ones who were really avoiding THE EVIDENCE in that case. Be sure to check it out. (See previous Read More ›

The release of Hugh Hewitt’s new book, Blog, could not be better timed, as it coincides with the launch of this very blog, which pays particularly close attention to Legacy Media error-prone portrayals of the scientific controversies surrounding neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and its debate with intelligent design theory.

The emergence of the blogosphere is now challenging the monopoly on the dissemination of information that has long been held by Legacy Media, aka Old Media, aka MSM. Hewitt points out the significance of blogs in empowering the people themselves as popular journalists, distributing and receiving unfiltered news at a faster rate than has ever been seen before. His book describes the who, the what, and the why of blogs. It also provides an engaging and pithy account of blogosphere history and some of the major episodes of that young history, including Trent Lott’s birthday remarks, the New York Times meltdown in the wake of Jayson Blair, the Swift Boat Vets and the Christmas in Cambodia story, as well as Rathergate and the fake memo saga.

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 ›