Science and Culture Today | Page 1492 | Discovering Design in Nature

I have spoken briefly with New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller who penned the story today that included a misquote attributed to CSC director Stephen Meyer that he welcomed Bush’s statement on intelligent design as promoting “free speech on BIBLICAL origins,” when he actually said “biological origins.”

Update, 8:42am, 8.3: The New York Times web desk has corrected the misquote. Now we will see about a correction in the print edition of the newspaper.

Update, 7:25am, 8.3: Contrary to promises issued last night, the web edition of The New York Times has yet to correct the misquote it printed. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to actually get this correction made.

George Keough on the Times night desk has promised that the New York Times will correct an erroneous misquote they printed and attributed to Dr. Stephen Meyer.

In her story about the President’s remarks concerning the teaching of evolution, Johanna Neuman of the LA Times provided one of the few pieces of reporting the MSM that attempts to differentiated between creationism and intelligent design theory: “Intelligent design, which started to gain notice about 10 years ago, holds that evolution alone does not adequately explain some complex biological mechanisms, suggesting that a plan by an intelligent force is behind changes in species. “Creationism and intelligent design are often confused,” said Jay W. Richards, vice president for research at Discovery Institute, a Seattle research and advocacy group for intelligent design. “Both have in common the idea that the universe exists for a purpose.” Where intelligent design parts company with Read More ›

Ever think that certain reporters at the so-called “mainstream” media have already determined their story before they have even interviewed anyone? In my many conversations with reporters, I sometimes get the feeling that no matter what I say, the reporter at hand will only hear what he or she wants to hear, even if it’s the exact opposite of what I’m actually saying. Some amusing evidence of this sort of bias in action is apparently on display in today’s print edition of The New York Times. In an article about President Bush’s endorsement on Monday of students learning about different views on evolution, reporter Elisabeth Bumiller completely mangles a quote by Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer. Here is what Steve Meyer Read More ›

If you are CNN commentator Bill Schneider you think that intelligent design is just another name for creationism and that creationism is what schools are considering teaching. Now, ID is not creationism and, in any case, schools — with few exceptions — are only considering whether students will be exposed to the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, not whether to teach ID. But mere reality didn’t stop Schneider from warping the issue with polls that pit evolution against creationism during his Inside Politics news report on President Bush today.

The Washington Post printed Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman’s short op-ed in today’s “Free For All” section of the Post.

More and more we’re seeing ridiculous charges from Darwinists that CSC scientists, and scientists skeptical of Darwinism in general, are religious zealots and right-wingers with theocratic leanings. It reminded me of Giuseppe Sermonti’s comment about Darwinism being the only politically correct science. So, now you have dogmatic Darwinists seeking to discredit anyone who speaks out against Darwinism in order to protect a politically correct scientific viewpoint.

American Spectator editor George Neumayr has an insightful op-ed titled “The Monkey Wrench” on the efforts by dogmatic Darwinists to stifle any criticism of Darwin’s holy writ.

Treat critics of evolution no more seriously than segregationists, Darwinists urge the media and school boards. Just as segregationists, whose views are manifestly irrational, don’t deserve “equal time” in discussions, the critics of evolution don’t deserve equal time either, Darwinists plead.

In a media forum aired on C-SPAN a while back, Slate ‘s Jacob Weisberg in effect said this to New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, upbraiding him for running stories about a school board controversy in Kansas that had quoted critics of evolution. Why did you give them equal time? Weisberg asked Keller. Would you give segregationists their say? Keller found Weisberg’s criticism too radical and unfair, but assured him that anybody who read the Times ‘s Science section would know that the paper was in the tank for Darwin.

A Darwinist blog is trumpeting a quote by George Gilder in yesterday’s Boston Globe which they have taken out of context in an attempt to make him look bad.

“Intelligent design itself does not have any content.”

First, it would be helpful to see the quote in context of what was being discussed, namely Discovery Institute’s position on education policy.

“I’m not pushing to have [ID] taught as an ‘alternative’ to Darwin, and neither are they,” he says in response to one question about Discovery’s agenda. “What’s being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there’s a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content.”