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

Washington Post reporter Jay Mathews writes about his recent deluge of e-mail regarding his suggestion that ID be taught alongside of evolution. I blogged about that here, and warned Mathews of the kind of response he could expect. (Mathews goes beyond what the CSC policy is on teaching evolution in calling for inclusion of ID. So, for the record, yet again, we advocate including scientific criticism of evolution in the classroom, not mandating ID or any alternative theory.)

Mathews says he received about 400 e-mails in response to his article, and that the majority of those “said they had the unfortunate duty to tell me that I was an idiot.” I can imagine that many of the responses were not family-friendly fare. Mathews quotes several that he received denouncing him and his idea. But, it was encouraging to see that he did find people who understand why there needs to be more discussion of the evidence for and against evolution at least, if not intelligent design itself.

In a recent news story, Alexandra Witze writes, “Although intelligent design is not scientific …” That’s highly misleading. In a supposedly fair and accurate news story about this growing controversy, Witze presents as fact a key point of contention in the debate.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has an article discussing Discovery Institute and its role in the debate over how to teach evolution, “Evolution debate has new player:

Group treads delicate territory, promotes ‘intelligent design.'” The article is non-hysterical in tone and accurately reports my comments that Discovery does not support trying to require the teaching of intelligent design:

The letters section of today’s Los Angeles Times is titled “Point and Counterpoint on ‘Intelligent Design.’” But if you actually read the five letters posted, there are four letters attacking intelligent design versus one letter defending it. Then I remembered that today was April Fools’ day. Perhaps the Times decided to play a prank on its readers?

Discovery Institute fellow David Berlinski has a delicious response to UC Berkeley Dean Holub’s frantic worrying about the demise of Darwinism amongst his colleagues. Appearing in today’s Berkeley student newspaper, the essay begins, “Wearing pink tasseled slippers and conical hats covered in polka dots, Darwinian biologists are persuaded that a plot is afoot to make them look silly. At Internet web sites such as The Panda’s Thumb or Talk Reason, where various eminences repair to assure one another that all is well, it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin’s theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski.” Read on.

In his fictional Los Angeles Times op-ed, arch ID-hater Michael Shermer asserted that “Nine states have recently proposed legislation that would require” providing “equal time” for intelligent design in public school science classes. This claim has been popping up elsewhere on the internet as well (see here and here.) But the claim is sheer fantasy on the part of hyperactive Darwinists. In the interest of bringing out the truth, I hereby issue Mr. Shermer the following challenge: Provide proof for your outlandish claim. Identify the nine states that are supposedly considering legislation to mandate equal time for intelligent design, and cite the legislative language that would actually do this. If you can prove your claim, I will send you a Read More ›

As Jonathan Witt noted in an earlier post, Michael Shermer in his Los Angeles Times opinion piece pretty much made up the comments he attributes to Stephen Meyer in a recent debate. But that’s only one example of the science fiction in Shermer’s essay. Here are some others.
Consider Shermer’s mangled description of intelligent design (ID):

In a recent LA Times op-ed, Michael Shermer distorts the facts of a recent video-taped debate between him and design theorist Stephen Meyer. Dr. Meyer offers a different view of their conversation here.

The Seattle Times has turned its eye to the CSC, sensing a chance to localize the story on the national debate over how to teach evolution.

It was good to see that reporter Linda Shaw included several things that are often left out or misreported: Specifically I was happy to see that she reported Steve Meyer’s credentials (which rarely happens), portrayed him personally in a positive light, her tone was not histrionic or conspiratorial, she referenced our dissent list, she acknowledged that Darwinists see the Cambrian explosion as a problem (also rarely reported) and distinguished us from young-earth creationists.

The biggest problem I have with the story is that she inaccurately defines the theory of intelligent design. She simply uses the definition that design critics like to use. For them it’s a straw man they put up so they can easily tear it down.

“an opportunity for the Discovery Institute to promote its notion of intelligent design, the controversial idea that parts of life are so complex, they must have been designed by some intelligent agent.”

Never mind the demeaning way she describes it as a “notion” — this definition is just flat out inaccurate. Her description — one commonly used by the ACLU and other such Darwinian groups — treats the theory of intelligent design as if it were an argument from ignorance. Things are so complex, they must have been designed, or so they posit. In actuality, it is a positive and robust scientific theory based on what we do know, that examines the natural world for empirical evidence of design.

Senior Fellow William Dembski put it this way in The Design Revolution: