|
Main
| January 2005 »
Dave Dentel, copy editor of the York Daily Record in Pennsylvania had an insightful, and pleasantly objective, op-ed over the holiday weekend. Dentel makes the point that the ACLU, aided by Darwin-only supporters within the ranks of mainstream scientists, is unlikely to acknowledge any of Darwinian evolutionary theory's shortcomings. Indeed he points out that the very things they mistakenly claim of intelligent design theory, namely that it isn't testable, Darwinian evolution itself is truly guilty. Other glaring flaws in Darwinism follow a similar strain. Its adherents can’t produce all the facts they need to bolster their case, so they trot out absurd assertions that they trust can’t really be disproved. So in the end Darwinism draws its strength not from rigid scientific truth, but by offering a rather vague philosophical catch-all. This may seem a rather blatant accusation, but it is echoed even by Darwinists themselves. Dentel finally comes to the conclusion --as Phillip Johnson did over a decade ago-- that science is the modern world's newest priesthood. The science of life, it seems, can’t be taught without making some references to design and purpose — or the lack thereof. And if it’s one particular philosophy that earns teachers their paychecks and gets scientists grant renewal, then there really isn’t much incentive to explore the others — no matter how much religious dissenters might complain. Scientific materialism wins .
The Washington Post for all its prominence as a national newspaper continues to help spread the idea that design theory is just a new form of creationism. Admittedly the article is better than recent error riddled reports by Post reporter Valerie Strauss, especially since it does give more background on what design theory is, and quotes Mike Behe. However, the article doesn't provide any quotes from design proponents that explain the distinctions and clear differences between creationism and intelligent design. And this even after the reporter was offered a chance for an e-mail interview and then spoke with Discovery Institute's John West, who he then mistakenly calls Paul. It's frustrating when reporters can't even get names right, how can you expect them to really understand the issue.
This article, unfortunately, is appearing in newspapers all over the country with titles such as "Evolution Shares a Desk With Intelligent Design," "Creationism evolves into intelligent design in some schools," or "District issues creationism mandate". Since up until now almost all headlines and articles have acknowledge that the Dover, PA district has called what they're instituting intelligent design, it is obvious that this article so conflates the two that headline writers now claim that Dover has mandated creationism. Hopefully future reporters will be more precise with their language, balanced in their approach, and accurate in their desscriptions, but I'm not holding my breath.
Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center has published a column looking at the current court cases involving evolution. While he mistakenly looks at intelligent design theory as just the next step after creationism in the anti-evolutionary chain, he does have some interesting insights into the drawbacks for science of shutting down the debate. "If school board resolutions aren't the answer, who decides what, if any, critiques of evolution get into the curriculum?
The short answer is - or should be - scientists decide. But many in the science establishment worry that teaching the controversy - even conflicts among scientists about some aspects of evolutionary theory - would open the door to creationist or other religious views. That's why so many scientists and science educators oppose any attempt to expose kids to debate over intelligent design or any other challenge to evolution. ... If the aim of science education is scientific literacy, then students must learn the prevailing theories in science. But if we expect them to believe what they hear, they must also learn something about the conflicts and controversies surrounding those theories."
American Daily has posted an interesting article by writer Robert Myers, "The Face of Evolution," making the case that neo-Darwinism may be unfit for the classroom as it is a religion itself and that if it is allowed in other theories should be as well. "The first time that I heard the concept of evolution presented as a religion or philosophy, I snickered at the audacity of such a proposition. But the more I have taken notice of how the arguments are made, the more I see the religious aspects of the evolutionary position." I have to point out --lest we be misquote-- that our position remains that intelligent design theory should NOT be mandated, but that it is allowable for a teacher to discuss any scientific theory, including intelligent design. It is the quetioning and challenging of Darwin's theory from a scientific basis that must be allowed to go on in the classroom.
Senior Fellow Jonathan Witt responded to a frightfully stereotypical attack on ID in general in a recent edition of the The (London) Times with this letter. The Times apparently opted not to use the longer op-ed we had submitted.
The York Daily Record (Dover, PA) ran an article ("Church Backs Dover Board" Sunday, Dec. 20) about a local church that is endorsing the Dover School Board's recent decision to mandate the teaching of intelligent design. Why is it news when 300 church goers weigh in on the issue, but not when 300 scientists make their dissent from Darwin known?
Discovery's Logan Gage sent this letter to the editor to the YDR, which as of yet has not been published: Dear Editor:
I was shocked the other day when The National Center for Health Statistics reported that less than a third of American teens are having sex. Why? Because judging from T.V. I thought otherwise. Similarly, even though hundreds of doctoral scientists reject Darwinism based upon current scientific data, the American public thinks otherwise because newspaper stories focus on religion rather than the growing scientific controversy.
“Church Backs Dover Board” (Dec. 20) only added to this misperception. Why is it that when scientist dissent from Darwinism no one pays attention, but when church-goers do they get whole articles written about them? The “Fundamentalist Christians vs. Science” stereotype is outdated. There is indeed a scientific controversy over Darwinism. You would perform an invaluable public service by writing articles about it.
It will be interesting to see if YDR will balance out some of the --shall we say less scientific--letters they've been running with an informed one such as Logan's.
Accuracy In Media (AIM) just published a story spanking the press for their reluctance to give fair and accurate coverage to challengers of Darwinian evolution. Cliff Kinkaid, editor of the AIM Report writes: But those who believe in intelligent design or find gaping holes in the theory of evolution frequently encounter a hostile press. The Discovery Institute recently provided to Accuracy in Media a thick file of complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the media, especially National Public Radio. The Discovery Institute focuses on the issue of whether there is any evidence of design in nature, rather than whether there is a designer. Still, its representatives tend to be portrayed in religious terms by the media. The media have fallen prey to the misininformation campaign of Darwin-only advocates such as the NCSE and the ACLU, and routinely mischaracterize the issue as religion vs. science. And all without acknowledging the growing scientific debate over the lack of credible evidence for neo-Darwinism.
The Kansas State Board of Education will take up science education when it reviews standards and policies for teaching evolution. A group of scientists and educators, who are members of the science standards writing committee, have submitted proposed revisions that would follow in the footsteps of Ohio, Minnesota and New Mexico and require students to learn both the strengths as well as the weaknesses of Darwin's theory. One can only hope that the media take the time to actually read the proposed revisions, and don't just resort to rehashing the stereotypes that so dominated the media when this was an issue in Kansas in 2000.
The proponents of these proposed revisions have set up their own website: www.kansasscience2005.com.
One pretty clear indicator of newsmedia bias is the amount of space news articles devote to each side of a public policy debate. Does each side of the debate get a similar number of words to describe and articulate their views? Or do reporters only provide one side of the debate space to articulate their position? If recent articles by major American newspapers are any indication, reporters writing about controversies over teaching evolution are engaging in seriously lopsided reporting, outquoting defenders of evolutionary theory by as much as 5 to 1. Moreover, many reporters appear to be censoring or refusing to report information that doesn’t fit their predetermined stereotypes. The following recent stories from The Washington Post, USA Today, and The San Francisco Chronicle provide good examples.
“Fresh Challenges in the Old Debate Over Evolution,” by Valerie Strauss, The Washington Post. (December 7, 2004, p. A14)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40839-2004Dec6.html
More than 50% of the Post article is devoted to comments and explanations by those who are defenders of evolutionary theory. Only 10% of the article is devoted to comments from those who favor greater critical analysis of the theory. In the process of only reporting one side of the debate, The Post simply censored any information that didn't fit the newsmedia's preconceived stereotypes on this issue.
For example, the Post cites in detail a professor from the University of Georgia who favors evolutionary theory, but the Post failed to even mention that nearly a dozen science professors at the University of Georgia (including several from the biological sciences) joined a legal brief in the Cobb County case arguing that there are significant scientific (not religious) controversies over modern evolutionary theory and that students ought to learn about these controversies as part of a good science education. Since the Post reporter was sent the legal brief submitted by these scientists, she knew about the existence of the scientists critical of evolutionary theory. Why, then, did she censor their views? Another example: The Post quotes the critics of intelligent design theory making the claim that it is the same thing as creation science. But the Post does not quote Discovery Institute’s response to this assertion. Not only did I discuss this point with the Post reporter, I e-mailed her a link to an article clearly spelling out why intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism. Whether or not Ms. Strauss agreed with my view, aren’t Post readers entitled to hear both points of view on this question? Isn’t that what fair reporting is supposed to be about?
“School science debate has evolved,” by Laura Parker, USA Today (November 28, 2004)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-11-28-schools-evolution_x.htm
Out of an article of over 1000 words, Parker devotes 87 words to comments from 2 people favoring a critical analysis of evolution, while devoting 282 words to comments from 5 proponents of evolution. Thus, the article devotes more than three times as many words to advocates of one side of the debate than to advocates of the other side. As a result, the article reports a number of assertions made by one side of the debate without allowing readers to hear any of the susbstantive arguments made by the other side of the debate.
A case in point: The article quotes the proponents of evolution at least four times asserting that there is no scientific justification for criticisms of evolution. In their view, the dispute is all about religion. Yet the USA Today reporter knew that the other side of the debate vigorously disputes these claims. At her request, I sent her a legal brief filed in the Cobb County case by 30 scientists--many of them professors at Georgia's leading research universities. Those scientists argue that there are in fact valid scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory, and that students ought to hear about them. This brief was filled with detailed citations to the relevant scientific literature. I sent the reporter another legal brief that provided even more citations, including the description of a list of more than 300 prominent scientists (from institutions like Yale, the Smithsonian, and Princeton) who dispute one of the central tenets of the modern theory of evolution (known as "neo-Darwinism"). Ms. Parker not only failed to report the existence of these scientists, she didn't even report our side's response to the claim that there is no scientific challenge to modern evolutionary theory. Why? Don't USA Today readers deserve to hear what both sides of the debate are saying?
Finally, the USA Today story contains a significant error of fact. It claims that the Ohio Board of Education enacted a measure encouraging the teaching of intelligent design. In reality, the measure in question does not do this. In 2002 the Ohio Board adopted the following benchmark in its science standards: "Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)" The focus of the benchmark was teaching students about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory, not presenting alternatives to evolutionary theory such as intelligent design.
“Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools; Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism,” by Anna Badkhen, San Francisco Chronicle (November 30, 2004)
How many stereotypes can you fit into one article? If you want to find out, read this editorial masquerading as a news article by Anna Badkhen. Badkhen devotes almost the entire article to complaints and perspectives raised by the defenders of evolution, and she effectively censors most of the responses of the other side. For example, Badkhen repeats again and again (and again) the assertion that criticism of evolution is just about religion. But she provides virtually no response from the other side of the debate. While she is intent on exposing what she regards as the religious motives of one side of the debate, she refused to quote any of the comments I made to her pointing out the anti-religious motives of leaders on the other side of the debate. As I told Badkhen during our interview, I think this debate should be about the substantive arguments, not about motives. But if reporters are intent of describing motives, they need to do so fairly for those on both sides. Out of a 1527 word article, Badkhen spends nearly 40% of her words to allowing defenders of evolution to make and explain their major points. She only devotes about 23% of her words to evolution's critics, and that's a generous calculation, since some of the quotes from evolution critics are clearly designed to make the major points of evolution's defenders. The only thing that puzzles me is why Badkhen interviewed me at all, since she quoted virtually nothing of what I said, and indeed, part of her supposed quote from me (the term "evolution follies") was something she made up--I'm not even sure what that term is supposed to mean.
These articles treat the debate over the teaching of evolution like it is a monologue--only reporting the arguments and assertions of one side. As a result, the articles perpetuate a lot of old stereotypes. They present the current debate as a stick-figure battle between credulous religious fundamentalists and the enlightened champions of science. But this is a gross caricature. There are many more voices to the debate. In particular, there are a growing number of voices within science and academia that are calling for a more thoughtful and critical presentation of the evidence for evolutionary theory (witness the science faculty from the University of Georgia who have publicly defended the Cobb County School District; or the state university biology professors in Ohio who helped craft that state's model lesson plan on evolution). By refusing even to mention these more nuanced voices--and by trying to lump everyone into the "religion v. science" framework--the newsmedia are seriously distorting the real policy debate over evolution education. The egregious stereotyping and caricatures promoted by many reporters on this issue would never be tolerated in reporting about gays or blacks. Reporters need to think seriously about whether they are allowing their own prejudices to taint their reporting on this issue.
A local paper in Dover County, Pennsylvania has outperformed The Washington Post and much of the rest of the national newsmedia. In a recent story, reporter Lauri Lebo of the York Daily Record (“Some allies question Dover board’s policy,” 12/19/04) discusses Discovery Institute’s disagreement with the policy on intelligent design recently adopted by the Dover school board. While there are some errors in Lebo’s story (especially in the way she describes intelligent design theory), Lebo does what many national news reporters have thus far failed to do: Correctly report that Discovery Institute does not favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design, and that it has urged the Dover school board to withdraw its current policy. If you are surprised to learn about Discovery’s position opposing the requiring of intelligent design, you can thank the major newsmedia, which have been doing their best not to report our position. We have consistently told reporters that we don’t favor requiring the teaching of intelligent design, and that we do not favor the Dover policy. But the reporters who interview us often refuse to disclose this fact to readers.
A prime example is The Washington Post. In the article "Fresh Challenges in the Old Debate over Evolution" (December 7, p. A-14), Post reporter Valerie Strauss writes at length about supposed efforts around the nation to impose the teaching of intelligent design. Strauss cites Discovery Institute in her story, but fails to disclose Discovery’s opposition to mandating the teaching of design. As I told Ms. Strauss in our interview, Discovery Institute does not favor mandating the teaching of design. We merely recommend that schools teach evolution more critically--exposing students to some of the peer-reviewed scientific (not religious) criticisms of modern evolutionary theory along with the scientific evidence favoring evolutionary theory. We have advocated this approach in a number of states, including Ohio and Minnesota. I told Ms. Strauss that the model lesson plan on the critical analysis of evolution adopted by the State Board of Education in Ohio is a good example of what we favor. That model lesson plan does not teach intelligent design or any other alternative to evolutionary theory. Yet nowhere in the Post article is Discovery Institute's real view presented. Instead we are misleadingly cited as part of a movement to insert intelligent design into school curricula across the nation. While we support academic research and writing on intelligent design, we do not advocate requiring intelligent design to be taught in public schools. Why did the Post essentially suppress our real viewpoint from the story? Don’t readers have the right to know our real view rather than a caricature of it?
After wrongly reporting on 11/16/04 that Discovery Institute is “active in opposing the teaching of evolution in schools around the country,” The Boston Globe to its credit has issued a correction. As we pointed out to The Globe’s ombudsman, Discovery Institute actually favors the teaching of evolution, and has publicly denounced efforts to de-emphasize or remove evolution from school curricula (see here for an example). Our gripe is not that students learn about evolution, but that they don’t learn enough about it. We think they should study not only the scientific evidence in favor of Darwin’s theory, but also the scientific evidence that raises problems for the theory. In other words, we think students need to learn more about evolution. I told the Boston Globe reporter about our view in my interview with him, but he apparently wasn’t paying attention. On 11/27, The Globe admitted that its story “wrongly characterized the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. It supports school curriculums that deal with controversies about evolution but does not oppose the teaching of evolution.” (p. A2) The Globe and its ombudsman are to be commended for correcting this error.
On 12/19/04, The Baltimore Sun published a ridiculously misinformed article that attempted to conflate intelligent design (ID) with biblical creationism. In “Evolution or Design?” reporters Larry Carson and Larry Williams used the Institute for Creation Research rather than Discovery Institute as a spokesman for intelligent design theory. They also implied that ID teaches that “God created the Earth and its creatures less than 10,000 years ago.” In reality, the Institute for Creation Research is a supporter of biblical creationism, and it has criticized design theory because it is not biblically-based. It is not a spokesman for intelligent design. Moreover, most of the scientists and scholars who support and write about intelligent design theory accept the standard scientific dating of the earth. Indeed, many design theorists have highlighted the importance of the Big Bang to the design argument, as well as discussing the importance of the “Cambrian Explosion” of life more than 500 million years ago. What makes The Sun’s misreporting on this issue so bizarre is that Mr. Carson in fact called Discovery Institute to get our comments, and I talked with him at length about what design theory is and is not. I even sent him a statement about why we don’t support the intelligent design policy adopted by the Dover School District, as well as a fact sheet about intelligent design that refuted some of the very misconceptions contained in his article (such as the idea that design teaches a young earth). Why, then, did the Sun get its description of ID so wrong? In a follow-up phone conversation, Mr. Carson insisted that he had not intentionally misreported the story. He told me that he simply had not understood the difference between ID and creationism. Well, why not? I talked to him about the differences, and the fact sheet I sent him specifically addressed the misconceptions he spread in his article. Did he even read the fact sheet? When I pressed him on this point, he sheepishly admitted that “I didn’t look at it carefully” and “I didn’t read all of it.” Since the fact sheet was only a couple of pages in length, why didn’t he read all of it? Mr. Carson finally said he was sorry if he misrepresented our position. Nice of him to apologize, but readers of the Sun deserve more accurate information.
Stanford neurology prof Robert Sapolsky squared off against CSC Director Stephen Meyer and CSC senior fellow John Campbell on the pages of the San Franscisco Chronicle, Friday, Dec. 10. Sapolsky dodged the real scientific controversies and instead spewed stereotypes and politically motivated ad hominem attacks, such as calling intelligent design supporters "Jed Clampetts."
Contrast that with the serious issues raised by Meyer and Campbell, who delve into real issues such as micro vs. macro evolution. Click here to read both and judge for yourself.
|
 |
