Science and Culture Today | Page 1471 | Discovering Design in Nature

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 ›

Sadness is the emotion that ABC’s Nightline tried to inculcate last night with its “War in Dover” episode and, if my reactions are any judge, they succeeded.

First is the sadness one feels for all the good people of Dover who have behaved badly toward one another. John Donvan showed that people in that little town really are afraid to talk to one another, and that everything anyone says has to be filtered through a legal screen (perhaps we need a set of Miranda Rights from now on that will be read to citizens who presume to express themselves on public policy).

Worst of all, Donvan demonstrated that any personal moral suspicion one has of his neighbor in Dover these days is fair game to bring into the combat over evolution. All of this is because of a rather tame and otherwise irrelevant statement about intelligent design. The culture wars have come to this.

So, I congratulate John Donvan and his producers for producing the insight that these evolution fights in localities are enormously divisive, leaving very hurt feelings all around.

The newest Accuracy in Media report takes PBS to task for liberal bias and viewpoint discrimination. The piece is particularly good on PBS’s deeply flawed treatment of the controversy over evolution in the public schools: Then, Moyers turned to another current topic, the ACLU’s lawsuits against school districts that want to “teach an alternative to evolution.” Romero insisted that, “teaching alternatives to evolution is about teaching religion in our public schools. And in a country as diverse as this one, and in a country where religious belief is such a core belief for so many Americans, you want to keep the government as far away as we can from involving itself in our most important and private institutions.” Romero’s statement Read More ›

The rather confusing “[e]volution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things” language proved a primary component in the undoing of the textbook sticker at issue in Selman v. Cobb County School District — decided yesterday in an opinion handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper. Pessimism about the outcome peppered my previous post about this case (see here, where you can also find the sticker’s text). Yet, a genuine understanding of the case requires attention to the details of the Judge’s opinion, and it is important to keep in mind some of the most positive aspects of the ruling. (Important critiques of portions of the Judge’s opinion will follow in a subsequent posting, and strong exceptions to the School District attorney’s defense have been several times.)

In light of Judge Cooper’s decision, it remains constitutional for students to critically analyze aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theories. As has long been maintained by the scientific community challenging aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theories, the academic freedom of teachers and students to be able to learn about such scientific controversies and to critically analyze the evidence supporting those theories is of primary importance. This freedom was put at risk by the arguments made by the ACLU in the Cobb County case, but the judge ultimately rejected many of the ACLU’s most far-reaching claims.

Judge Cooper allowed that, in the context of education in biological and chemical evolutionary theories, there IS a secular purpose in promoting critical thinking. Most Americans are probably unaware that critical thinking is itself a contested issue these days, but the ACLU took exception to such critical thinking as one of its arguments to the Judge. Fortunately, the Judge didn’t take the ACLU up in this regard. In his opinion, the Judge states the following:

Fostering critical thinking is a clearly secular purpose for the Sticker, which the Court finds is not a sham; the Sticker appears to have the purpose of furthering critical thinking because it tells students to approach the material on evolution with an open mind, to study it carefully, and to give it critical consideration. (Judge’s Opinion, page 24.)

It’s hard to argue with that. Not that the ACLU didn’t try. They did. But they didn’t succeed in persuading the Judge.

A federal judge today ruled that the evolution stickers used in the Cobb Co., GA school district’s biology textbooks are unconstitutional. (See our press releases here and here.) In a somewhat bizarre ruling, the judge found that the stickers “fostering critical thinking” about evolution “is a clearly secular purpose.” And, the judge also found that the Cobb County school district had secular, not religious reasons for adopting a textbook sticker dealing with evolution. Yet, he somehow concludes that the “effect” of the sticker would be to advance religion. CSC associate director John West summed it up this way: “The judge rules, and repeatedly states, that there is a clear secular purpose to the sticker, and it has a legitimate secular Read More ›

Beware Evolution Treatment Tonight from ABC News

This is being written before Nightline airs its program tonight (“The Origin of Life: A Battle Between Faith and Science”). I talked last month with the senior producer Jay LaMonica, producer Eliza Rubin and finally, in person, with the reporter, John Donvan, in Washington.

They expressed frustration that none of the scientists affiliated with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture would go on camera for Nightline unless they were presented live. Queried hard, I gave my own explanation: We don’t trust you. Put people on live and they will have a chance to correct reporting errors, but they will be defenseless if taped and merely left to the tender mercies of editors and commentators. It’s that simple. Unfortunately, the major media have earned this skepticism.

I pointed out, further, that Nightline often presents people of different views on their program live, and that the juxtaposition of differing live viewpoints is what makes the program worthwhile, in my opinion as a viewer. There is far too little of that in the media.

Go to Google and type in “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” and see what pops up on the right hand side of the listing that comes up. It has a “Shop PBS Online” link. So apparently PBS pays Google to have this sponsored link. But when you click on the sponsored link, it goes to a page at PBS that says: “This product is temporarily out of stock.” Funny.

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):

With nearly two months since closing arguments in Selman vs. Cobb County School District (North Atlanta, GA), the public awaits the decision of United States District Judge Clarence Cooper.

At issue in the case is the school board’s adoption of the following sticker (drafted by the school district’s attorney):

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

This seemingly innocuous, lawyer-drafted disclaimer may not be a satisfying statement about the scientific controversy over biological evolution and the chemical origin-of-life from a technical standpoint, yet it is bizarre to think that the sticker would amount to an evil and sinister threat to American liberty. But leave it to the ACLU: they sued the school district over it.

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: