|
« December 2004 |
Main
| February 2005 »
Darrow-Mencken Syndrome: closely associated with delusions of grandeur, this pathology infects many in the media and the advocacy profession by convincing them that they can be as great as Darwinist attorney Clarence Darrow or as brilliant as journalist and religious skeptic H.L. Mencken if they merely cast intelligent design arguments as a recapitulation of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Signs & Symptoms:
Darrow-Mencken Syndrome most often manifests itself in attorneys and reporters and usually prevents them from actually investigating the evidence and arguments of design theorists. One tell-tale symptom of Darrow-Mencken syndrome is the chronic use of simplistic or inaccurate definitions of intelligent design. Many aren't consciously trying to misrepresent intelligent design. They have just been disabled by the delirium often associated with Darrow-Mencken.
Treatment:
The beginning of a cure to Darrow-Mencken syndrome can be had by reading the actual works of intelligent design theorists, which can be had here and here and here.
By Keith Pennock
In this week’s Legal Times of D.C., Dr. Francis J. Beckwith offers an excellent analysis of the recent decision by Judge Clarence Cooper in Selman v. Cobb County School District. The article has the apt title of “Sticker Shock."
Beckwith is the author of Law, Darwinism and Public Education (available here and here), an outstanding book analyzing the constitutionality of presenting intelligent design theory. He has likewise published several articles related to this subject in law reviews and law journals. In this article, he brings his full expertise to bear in discussing the Judge’s rationale in light of U.S. Supreme Court case law, while also focusing upon some of the larger philosophical issues. Notes Beckwith:
While the Cobb County sticker has its problems, what is far more troubling is how the court’s analysis unfairly limits the rights of religious citizens to participate in the political process.
Beckwith blogs regularly at Conservative Philosopher and Southern Appeal.
Further information on this case is available here, and in previous blog posts.
For another solid critique of this case, see attorney Brian Fahling’s op-ed “Is Encouraging Critical Thinking Unconstitutional?” in New Hampshire’s The Union Leader.
In her recent LA Times column, Patt Morrison spent half her essay pummeling a strawman—creationists who think the Smithsonian is hiding Noah’s ark. The other half she spent fear mongering: The creationist “brain snatchers,” the essay warns, “could be in anybody’s backyard tomorrow.”
Like an aging boxer, Darwinism has taken to dodging the real challenger, intelligent design—according to which, certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process like natural selection. Morrison eventually mentions intelligent design, but only to erect another strawman. “ID is a canny tactic,” she explains, “… in which the Bible is an encoded science text.”
Her column attacked the creationist museum but also the ID movement. The newspaper ran a response letter from the museum curator, but not the letter from the Discovery Institute correcting her misrepresentation of intelligent design--again, the aging boxer dodging its strongest opponent.
Morrison presented no scientific evidence against design theory. Instead, she was obsessed with hidden motives and beliefs. Why won’t she attack an actual argument (not the person) of a leading design scientist?
Or why not tell former atheist Antony Flew why he is mistaken in becoming a deist? This British philosopher has long been regarded as arguably the most incisive defender of philosophical materialism. But he changed his mind after considering the question of the simplest, self-reproducing cell, a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors, and digital code.
That’s a problem papered over by most biology curricula. Natural selection can’t build the first self-reproducing organism bit by bit. It needs life first. Nor can the natural outworking of the laws of nature. Let students keep their brains. They can use them to critically analyze a worldview masquerading as science, a philosophy called materialism.
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 of efforts to introduce "Genesis" into science classes across the country. Where? By whom? Certainly not by Discovery Institute or the proponents of intelligent design, despite the Globe's efforts to imply otherwise. In fact, I don't know of any serious effort by anyone to introduce Genesis in science classes. That's not what's happening in places like Ohio, or Minnesota, or even Cobb County, Georgia or Dover, Pennsylvania.
Ironically, the Globe cites approvingly the governing council of a biology journal that condemned publication in its journal of a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design by Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer. Too bad the Globe editorialists didn't read Friday's Wall Street Journal before citing that bit of information. An article there exposed allegations of a vicious campaign of harassment and intimidation against the biology journal editor who allowed the Meyer article to be published. One might think that the even the Globe editorialists would be uncomfortable allying themselves with those who would harass a scientific colleague simply because he favors open debate over the merits of Darwinism. Not that the Globe writers really know anything about the controversy over the Meyer article. It's clear that they didn't read the article--or even look at the biology journal! They refer to the journal as a "biology journal in Washington state," when in fact it is published at the National Museum of Natural History, part of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. Oops.
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:
1. Although a major focus of the story is whether intelligent design is science, Time doesn't bother to quote any scientists who support the theory. It's not because Time didn't interview any of them. Jeffrey Ressner told me that he had interviewed biochemist Michael Behe. But Time didn't quote him. Why not? Perhaps Behe didn't fit the preconceived stereotypes of Time's reporters? Or were they afraid that citing a professor of biological sciences at an American university might undermine their effort to stereotype design as a religious crusade?
2. According to Time:
The intellectual underpinnings of the latest assault on Darwin's theory come not from Bible-wielding Fundamentalists but from well-funded think tanks promoting a theory they call intelligent design, or I.D. for short.
Actually, "the intellectual underpinnings" of intelligent design come not from any think tank, but from the biologists, biochemists, physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers, and other scholars who have developed design theory. When Discovery Institute started its program on intelligent design in 1996, many of the leading scholars supportive of design were already writing and researching in this area. The theory of design predates any involvement by a think tank. Time does its best to obscure the fact that the chief proponents of ID have been academics from a variety of scientific fields.
3. According to Time:
Their basic argument is that the origin of life, the diversity of species and even the structure of organs like the eye are so bewilderingly complex that they can only be the handiwork of a higher intelligence (name and nature unspecified).
No, the basic ID argument is that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected cause such as natural selection and random mutation. And design theory doesn't claim that science can tell you whether that intelligent cause is a "higher intelligence" or not. I discussed these points with Mr. Ressner, and I even sent him a fact sheet providing additional explanations. But it doesn't appear to have mattered. In addition, the underlying argument for design in biology is not that certain things are too complex to be produced by the Darwinian mechanism, but that in our experience of the real world, intelligent causes supply the best explanation for certain kinds of structures. From our own experience, we readily observe that certain kinds of complex and information-rich systems are typically produced by intelligent causes. When we see Mt. Rushmore, for example, we know that an intelligent cause is sufficient to explain its existence, while an unintelligent process of wind and soil erosion probably isn't. Based on our own extensive experience of the natural world, intelligent design argues that certain features of the natural world are best explained as the products of intelligent causation.
4. Time rewrites the history of the Kansas evolution battle in 1999:
Kansas is a key flashpoint in this struggle. Back in 1999, a conservative state school board attempted to downplay the importance of Darwinism by removing from the required statewide science curriculum references to dinosaurs, the geological time line and other central tenets of the theory. Evolution, they argued, is "just a theory" and should not be favored over other theories, such as I.D.
Time inaccurately conflates proponents of design with creationists. The 1999 effort to downplay dinosaurs and geological time by the Kansas Board of Education was organized by supporters of creationism, not proponents of ID. (Indeed, during this first evolution battle in Kansas ID biologist Michael Behe wrote an article critical of the approach adopted by the Kansas Board in the New York Times.) I explained to Time's Jeffery Ressner that ID proponents were not behind the changes proposed in Kansas in 1999, but Time's writers apparently didn't want to let facts get in the way of their pre-scripted story.
5. Moving on to the current controversy in Kansas, Time states:
while a curriculum advisory committee kept the science standards intact, a group of conservative educators is again trying to weaken evolution's place in the classroom.
Time presents the current Kansas debate as a battle between the state's "curriculum advisory committee" and a "group of conservative educators." This is a strange way to describe what is going on. The "conservative educators" referenced by Time are in fact eight members of the same curriculum advisory committee. In other words, the debate over how best to teach evolution is occurring within the curriculum committee itself. Was Time afraid to report this fact lest it seem to legitimize the debate? Notice too Time's lopsided use of ideological labels. The educators favoring teaching scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory are labelled "conservative" while the other members of the same committee are not given any ideological label. Time also says that the educators are trying to "weaken evolution's place in the classroom," but their actual proposals would end up providing students with more information about evolution, not less.
6. Time's version of "fair and balanced" is further on display in its description of Discovery Institute Fellow George Gilder, who is characterized as
a Nixon speechwriter turned technology evangelist (TIME in 1974 called him the U.S.'s "leading male-chauvinist-pig author")
George Gilder has been the best-selling author of highly regarded books on a wide array of topics. His insights and predictions about new technologies are avidly sought after. Yet Time writes dismissively of him as a "Nixon speechwriter" (think crook), a "technology evangelist" (think televangelist), and a "male-chauvinist-pig author." Perhaps Time's reporters thought these putdowns were light-hearted, but when is the last time they described a highly regarded liberal thinker with such one-sided demeaning language? Again, this is Time's idea of an even-handed news report?!
7. Time's slanted reporting continues by distorting what I said...
Putting God in the classroom is clearly illegal, but Discovery Institute strategists believe that even a push for I.D. might run afoul of zealous judges--as it has in Georgia. So the institute advocates that schools should continue teaching evolution but also present what West calls "some of the scientific criticism of major parts of the theory."
The wording here is biased and misleading. Time claims that a concern about "zealous judges" is behind Discovery Institute's opposition to requiring the teaching of intelligent design. This is a serious distortion of what I told Time's reporter. The primary reason we oppose requiring the teaching of intelligent design is because it is a relatively new theory, and we think the focus right now should be on promoting the debate and discussion of ID in the academic community among scientists and other scholars. I made this point very clearly to Mr. Ressner. But Time does not quote it. Instead, it focuses on a minior comment I made responding to a point brought up by Ressner himself. It was Ressner, not me, who suggested that Discovery's position was somehow motivated by a concern about judges. It now appears that Mr. Ressner wanted to get me to provide him with a soundbyte that would confirm what he already planned to have me say. Even so, I did not say that a concern for zealous judges was the reason we didn't want to require the teaching of design. I did say (in response to his question) that although we think intelligent design is perfectly constitutional, who knows how certain judges would rule on the issue. But, again, my main point--which Time ignored and refused to print--was that we think the focus should be on promoting a vigorous debate about design in the academic community.
8. More slanted writing:
Take the eye. I.D. theorists say it could not have evolved bit by bit because a bit of an eye has no survival value; it would never have been passed on. Biologists see it differently. They say, for example, a primitive, light-sensing patch of skin--a forerunner of the retina--could help animals detect the shadows of predators.
Time says the debate over whether the eye could be produced by the Darwinian mechanism is between "ID theorists" and "biologists." That's an interesting distinction, since many of the academic supporters of ID happen to be biologists. In addition, debates over whether the Darwinian mutation/selection mechanism is sufficient to explain complex structures go far beyond supporters of ID. A number of biologists and other scientists who do not support ID are just as critical of the claims made about the creative power of natural selection acting on random mutations. As for whether Darwinists have really explained the origin of complex structures such as the eye, Time's correspondents should read this article.
9. At the end, Time ties everything together in a nice, neat package:
A look at where the Discovery Institute gets much of its money and at the religious beliefs of many scientists who support I.D. makes it reasonable to suspect that Scott's assertion is correct: intelligent design is just a smoke screen for those who think evolution is somehow ungodly.
More of Time's version of "fair and balanced"? Time asserts that "intelligent design is just a smoke screen for those who think evolution is somehow ungodly." The supposed evidence for this view? "[T]he religious beliefs of many scientists who support ID." Religious people support ID, therefore ID must be nothing more than religion. QED. This nonsensical conclusion exposes Time's double standard as well as its shoddy logic. Many of the most vocal defenders of neo-Darwinism are avowedly anti-religious. Does that mean that evolution is simply a "smoke screen for those who think that science disproves the supernatural"? Of course not. Regardless of the anti-religious motives of leading Darwinists, the theory of evolution can be discussed on its own merits as science. But the same holds for intelligent design theory. Just because supporters of design may hold religious beliefs (as do the vast majority of the American public), that does not make intelligent design inherently religious.
Frankly, the most frustrating thing about reporters who parrot the tired line that "ID is religious because religious people believe in it" is their hypocrisy. When discussing critics of neo-Darwinism, these reporters think motives trump everything else. When discussing defenders of Darwin, however, the issue of motives suddenly becomes all but irrelevant. The fact that leading Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Barbara Forrest, and many others are avowedly anti-religious is regarded as a non-issue. As I told Time's Jeff Ressner, I think motives should be irrelevant to this discussion. The focus should be on the science. But if reporters are going to talk about motives, I told him, they ought to be even-handed about it. Of course, they aren't--and that includes reporters at Time. By writing about the perceived metaphysical views of only one side of this debate, Time's reporters have put their own ideological views on display.
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 can be delayed, they cannot be stopped. And if the ideas behind Intelligent Design have merit – and I believe they do – then it is only a matter of time before they gain acceptance. Until that day, though, people like Richard Sternberg, who have the gall to oppose the Darwinian Fundamentalists, will suffer the consequences of being ahead of their time.
See John West’s prior post ( here) for more background information on Klinghoffer’s expose.
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.
Perhaps a fixation on the confusing “evolution is a theory, not a fact…” kind of talk has perpetuated this situation. After all, similar language was at issue in the recent federal court case in Atlanta over the Cobb County School Board’s decision to place stickers into science textbooks that say precisely that. Or, there could be lingering confusion due to Georgia Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox’s since-abandoned attempt to remove the word “evolution” from Georgia Science Standards altogether. (See the above-quoted Meyer and Campbell op-ed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, strongly recommending that “evolution” stay in the standards and that Georgia schools “teach the controversy.”)
It bears repeating: there are an infinite number of wrong ways to approach the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools. Banning the teaching of evolutionary theory or completely eliminating use of the word “evolution” are examples of two wrong ways to approach the issue. The former approach is clearly prohibited under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Epperson v. Arkansas (1967). Another wrong way to approach the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools would be to include creationism or require that it be given equal time in science class. This approach is likewise prohibited under the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). In addition, a wrong way to approach this subject is to dogmatically teach evolutionary theory and prohibit students from learning that a growing minority of scientists have raised scientific challenges to chemical and biological evolutionary theories.
At this time it's anyone’s guess what will happen with the legislation proposed in Georgia. The bill has no co-sponsors, and it remains unsure what the sponsor has in mind. But one thing remains clear: a good policy allows students to be taught about both the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of chemical and biological evolutionary theories.
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, Smithsonian officials allegedly engaged in an extraordinary witch hunt to try to uncover Sternberg's religious and political beliefs--as if belief in God is now tantamount to a crime. According to the article, if you have any religious beliefs at all, the Smithsonian is not a very friendly place to work:
the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization. . . . He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; . . . he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?' " The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."
Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum.
And people wonder why some scientists are afraid to openly express their skepticism of Darwin's theory?
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.
True to form, Jeffrey Ressner reponded to my complaints by trying his best to convince me that Time wasn't like the rest of the newsmedia. Indeed, when I noted how poorly The New York Times had covered this issue during the past year, he sounded positively offended that I would think of equating Time with a newspaper like the Times! His clear implication was that he didn't think much of the Times for unbiased and fair newscoverage. He assured me, however, that Time magazine prided itself on being fair to all parties--on being "fair and balanced," I believe his phrase was. He suggested that if Time wasn't fair and balanced, it would eventually lose its readership.
Jeffrey also commented that one reason there was so much stereotyping on the evolution issue is that it was easier for reporters to fit their stories into a preconceived framework. But of course, he wasn't going to be like that. Of course not... I guess that's why his story parrots the NCSE and reads like a supermarket tabloid.
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 posts on this case here and here. Also see Limbaugh's prior post on this subject here.)
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.
Hewitt shows how blogs can be brought to bear on any important issue. As this blog has noted, Legacy Media has almost unilaterally refused to fairly cover the ongoing scientific debate between proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. In the days following the recent election, a slew of major newspapers suddenly rediscovered this ongoing debate, publishing editorial columns and staff editorials that have co-opted one side of the debate in their effort to simultaneously vent their frustrations about the Presidential election and to attack the side with which they disagree—namely, intelligent design.
As recent posts on this blog by Rob Crowther (here, here and here) and by John West (here and here) have shown, Legacy Media doesn’t like intelligent design. At all. Hewitt himself recently written about the Washington Post’s coverage of a story concerning intelligent design (here).
Intelligent design raises a series of nuanced and complicated scientific issues, making it a difficult concept to attack in a straightforward and accurate manner. Legacy Media has avoided this problem by avoiding accuracy itself, misrepresenting intelligent design and misconstruing the real terms and players in the debate. Rather than discuss the best arguments for intelligent design--such as Dr. Michael Behe’s arguments about the irreducible complexity of the molecular machinery inside living cells--alongside the scientific arguments leveled by its critics, Legacy Media has chosen to focus on its loathing of creationist-fundamentalist-wackos-who-take-the-Bible-literally.
Bravo to Legacy Media for demonstrating their intellectual and moral prowess by defeating these backwater forces through their ex parte publications!!! But is anyone the wiser or more informed about the actual claims made by the leading proponents of intelligent design? Nope. Intelligent design actually involves arguments from Big Bang cosmology, anthropic fine-tuning principles in physics, as well as arguments from specified complexity and irreducible complexity in living systems. And intelligent design does not seek to prove anything about any literal reading of the Bible. But most readers have never heard of these concepts because Legacy Media prefers hyperventilation about their tin-foil hat conspiracies involving the fundamentalist overthrow of all reason and knowledge.
Whether through outright bias, willful ignorance, laziness in the extreme or something else, Legacy Media has repeatedly dropped the ball in covering the ongoing scientific debate between intelligent design and neo-Darwinian evolution. But as Hewitt shows in his new book, those folks don’t own the channels of information any longer. Their bias and poor sense of news judgment won’t cut it in the face of increased consumer choice. There is an intriguing and fascinating scientific debate between intelligent design theory and neo-Darwinian theory—and for the first time a massive number of American citizens will be able to learn about it.
As Hewitt makes clear, one shouldn’t expect Legacy Media to reform itself from the inside. But as Hewitt also shows, the blogosphere has created an information explosion, and as people gain greater access to the facts they will start to pay less attention to the Legacy Media gloss.
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 and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals. Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory." The second paragraph sounds familiar as they opine about Dover, Cobb Co., ID is just religion, and so on. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the Sunday Times.
They even echo the Times' effort to tear down the wall between church and state by calling for design theory --which they believe (mistakenly) to be tantamount to religion-- to be inserted into public school curriculum: "Discussion of religion in a history or philosophy class is legitimate and appropriate."
In their reiteration of the Times' position the Post writes: "In fact, the breadth and extent of the anti-evolutionary movement that has spread almost unnoticed across the country, ..." Unnoticed? Apparently the editors at the Post don't read mainstream news magazines, don't read other newspapers, don't watch network news programs, don't browse the internet, or even watch Boston Legal. How could they have missed the national debate over how to teach evolution?
For my other thoughts on this piece just read my comments on the Times' editorial below.
Instapundit is featuring a joke equating the Cobb County evolution sticker with belief in a flat earth.
Glenn Reynolds doesn't fit neatly into the Republican or Democrat camp. For that reason I'm optimistic he will soon move past the simplistic binary opposition of idiot-Darwinism-doubters-who-only-grudgingly-concede-the-earth-is-round vs. enlightened-secularists-who-understand-that-Darwinism-is-a-given-and-doesn't-threaten-religion.
A first step would be to read this short piece by philosopher of science Stephen Meyer. There, Reynolds would learn that only a certain kind of evolution is certain—namely, change within a species (microevolution). But Darwinists use a bait and switch tactic; they give examples of microevolution, then improperly use that to stand in as evidence for macroevolution.
Microevolution is a fact, but the scientific controversies concerning macroevolution, specifically the notion that a single cell evolved into all of the species around us. There are deep-seated problems with that theory, problems noted in the mainstream scientific literature.
Discovery Institute colleague Keith Pennock comments: "Reynolds' derision is ironic in light of his skepticism about the impact of global warming. Intelligent design, like global warming, is an issue about which scientists disagree, the preponderance of whom have a view that Reynolds thinks is politically motivated. So I find it odd that Reynolds gave global warming doubters a fair hearing (who question the vast bulk of the scientific "mainstream") but has yet to do the same for ID.
Earlier this month, the PBS show Uncommon Knowledge taped a discussion about the controversy over the teaching of evolution and intelligent design. The guests were Darwinists Dr. Massimo Pigliucci of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and CSC Fellow Dr. Jonathan Wells. Uncommon Knowledge host Peter Robinson moderated the discussion.
The 30-minute show will be aired by PBS sometime in the next few months, but in the meantime Dr. Pigliucci has posted his version of what happened on a skeptics' web site.
We recommend that anyone interested in this controversy watch the actual show when it airs. Since Dr. Pigliucci has chosen to publicize his own version of the discussion beforehand, however, we have asked Dr. Wells to write down his own recollection of it. Here is Dr. Wells's account.
******************
January 24, 2005
My videotaped January 14 discussion with Massimo Pigliucci was an interesting experience in the sense that I thought Pigliucci conceded so many points that one would conclude that there is no real reason to debate the issue at all. When pressed (either by me or by the host), Pigliucci admitted that Darwinian evolution doesn't make any positive empirically verifiable prediction (hence, it isn't science by the currently accepted concept of it), and went as far as saying that it should not be taught in public schools, because it is "too outdated a theory."
Just kidding.
It didn't happen that way at all. But the description above (which is essentially Pigliucci's account with "Pigliucci" substituted for "Wells" and "Darwinian evolution" for "ID") is no farther from the truth than the account Pigliucci has posted on salon.com.
So, what really happened? I didn't take notes, and memory can be an unreliable guide, but here's my recollection of the discussion.
Host Peter Robinson started us off by asking what should be taught in public school science classes. As I recall, I answered that Darwinian evolution should definitely be taught, because it is so influential in modern biology, but students should learn the evidence and scientific arguments against it as well as for it. Intelligent design theory should not be required, because it is too new; but if teachers or students want to discuss it they should not be penalized for doing so.
Pigliucci answered (to the best of my recollection) that ID should not be taught in science classes at all, because it is not science. Robinson then asked: "What is intelligent design?"
I replied that the theory of intelligent design holds 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.
Robinson then asked: "What is evolution?" I answered (as I recall) that Darwin's theory of biological evolution is "descent with modification." This includes two aspects: the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestors, and the idea that they have been modified primarily -- though not exclusively -- by natural selection acting on random variations. Robinson came back with a question implying that Darwinian evolution is random, and Pigliucci objected that this is a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory: Variation is random, but natural selection is not. I agreed, and emphasized that Darwinian evolution is not random but is "undirected." It was my impression that Pigliucci nodded in agreement.
At one point I said something to the effect that the Cambrian explosion poses a problem for Darwinian evolution because the relatively sudden appearance of most major animal phyla is inconsistent with the branching-tree pattern predicted by descent from a common ancestor. Pigliucci disagreed, saying that the explosion was merely due to the emergence of hard parts that fossilize easily. I disagreed with this, objecting that we have many soft-bodied fossils from before the Cambrian and that most fossils in the Cambrian explosion itself were soft-bodied.
Robinson asked whether falsifiability isn't the hallmark of science. I said that that was an over-simplification, but that it is true that the essence of science is testing hypotheses against the evidence. Pigliucci agreed.
In the course of the discussion Pigliucci and I disagreed over whether ID is science. I argued that it is, because it relies on evidence to test the hypothesis that a specific feature is designed. Pigliucci argued that ID is not science because it points to a supernatural designer, and science is by its very nature limited to natural explanations. I objected that "science" in this sense was different from science as the testing of hypothesis, but Pigliucci insisted that the two were equivalent.
Obviously, we touched on a lot of issues that deserved to be explored in much more depth than we could do in the limited time we had.
For his final question, Robinson asked us what we thought would be the situation with ID ten years from now. Pigliucci answered that ID would not be taught in science classes unless the U. S. Supreme Court were to decide that it is science rather than religion. I answered that I thought ID would be taught, not because of a court decision but because it would earn the respect of the scientific community. Robinson asked whether I really thought this would happen in ten years, and I hedged a bit: "Well, maybe twenty."
After the TV cameras were turned off, Pigliucci leaned over and thanked me for showing him the error of his ways. Then he asked whether he could add his name to the list of 300-plus scientists who have already signed Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."
Just kidding, again.
Of course, the best way to find out what really happened is to watch "Uncommon Knowledge" on PBS when this segment airs in your area. In my opinion it will provide a balanced overview of some of the major issues in the controversy.
The New York Times lead editorial Sunday, Jan. 23, avoided addressing in any detail the scientific issues in the national debate over how to teach evolution and instead tried to equate the scientific theory of intelligent design with creationism, and proclaimed all critics of Darwinian evolution are Biblical creationists. It reads like a briefing paper from the ACLU, and probably was inspired by one. Critics of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution become more wily with each passing year. Creationists who believe that God made the world and everything in it pretty much as described in the Bible were frustrated when their efforts to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools or inject the teaching of creationism were judged unconstitutional by the courts. But over the past decade or more a new generation of critics has emerged with a softer, more roundabout approach that they hope can pass constitutional muster. It is often mistakenly asserted that design theory is merely a recasting of creation science that came about because creationism was tossed out of schools in the late eighties. Actually, the theory of intelligent design finds it starting points well before the famous 1987 supreme court case that banned creation science from public schools. For example, biologist Michael Denton published his famous book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in 1986, and even before that Walter Bradley and others had published works challenging Darwinian evolution and presenting the foundations of intelligent design theory in the early eighties. And, then there is the case of Dean Kenyon, professor emeritus of biology at San Francisco state who in the sixties was one of the world’s leading chemical evolutionists. By the late seventies he was disavowing his own previous evolution textbooks and discussing intelligent design theories in his university courses.
Continuing its dogmatic toeing of the Darwinian line the Times says this about the textbook disclaimer sticker recently struck down in Cobb Co., Georgia: Every subject in the curriculum should be studied carefully and critically. Indeed, the interpretations taught in history, economics, sociology, political science, literature and other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology . Every subject in the curriculum should be studied carefully and critically, including evolution. But the Times doesn’t really mean that, they mean the exact opposite. Evolution apparently is the only subject that cannot be studied carefully and critically. That raises a few questions. When did evolution become sacrosanct -- completely above criticism? There is no questioning of Darwinian evolution allowed? Because of consensus agreement –and that is a contentious claim itself— we must now stop critically examining evolution? Does science now run on mob rule alone? What about the evidence?
The reason no one puts disclaimer stickers in history or economics textbooks is because diversity of thought is already allowed in those areas (at least more so than biology), and the proclamations of economic institutions are not treated with divine reverence.
Textbook disclaimers are not the most appropriate way to teach evolution, and neither is mandating theories like intelligent design such as was done so gracelessly by the Dover, PA school board recently. (Discovery Institute disagrees with this approach and we have stated our concerns with the Dover efforts here, here and here.)
The Times writes: In particular, the textbook sticker's assertion that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" adopted the latest tactical language used by anti-evolutionists to dilute Darwinism, thereby putting the school board on the side of religious critics of evolution. I wish the Times’ editors had read the recent op-ed from CSC Fellow Mark Hartwig nabout this very debate. Hartwig wrote: If you look in the science journals, you'll see that the use of the word theory often diverges from this definition. There, you can read of such things as tentative theories, failed theories, controversial theories, promising theories, and unconfirmed new theories.
Thus, contrary to the definition championed by Darwin's defenders, scientific theories vary greatly in their trustworthiness. And a school district is fully warranted in singling out such theories, especially when they have been a source of widespread, ongoing controversy - like Darwinism. Amazingly, the Times wraps up by seeming to call for a breach of the wall between church and state: “in districts where evolution is a burning issue, there ought to be some place in school where the religious and cultural criticisms of evolution can be discussed, perhaps in a comparative religion class or a history or current events course.” If the Times editorial board believes design theory to be religion, why would they accept its inclusion in any class in a public school?
The tasteless, over-the-top effort by some Darwinists (especially those at the ACLU) to castigate anyone who disagrees with them on evolution as Nazis or Holocaust deniers continues unabated. In a recent article in the Cleveland Jewish News, Jeffrey Selman, whom the ACLU represented in the Cobb County case, implies that if we allow students to hear about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory we are one step away from putting Jews in the ovens:
When a federal judge in Georgia ruled last week that a local school board's decision to put a small sticker on its science textbooks labeling evolution "a theory, not a fact" was unconstitutional, Jeffrey Selman said it was primarily an American issue.
Still, he said, he could not help but view it through the lens of his Jewishness.
"Look what happened in Germany," said Selman..."The German Jews said, 'We're Germans. We'll be fine.' The next thing you know, they were opening the oven doors for us."
The biting irony of this sort of rhetoric is that Selman is apparently oblivious to the significant role Darwinian theory played in providing a supposedly scientific justification for Nazi ideology. As historian Richard Weikart explains in his meticulously documented recent book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Darwin's theory was an important formative influence on the development of the ideology of National Socialism. Of course, this does not mean that evolutionary theory produced Hitler, or that Nazi ideology was somehow a necessary conclusion from Darwinian theory. Still less does it mean that current defenders of Darwin's theory are responsible for the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis. But it is simply Orwellian for defenders of Darwin to try to suggest that criticism of Darwin's theory can in any way be tied to the Holocaust--especially when critics of Darwin were some of the most vocal opponents of the sort of eugenics policies championed by the Nazis and leading American defenders of Darwin's theory! It is also contemptible that the ACLU, which claims to believe in free speech, would use this tasteless tactic in an effort to shut down and censor legitimate scientific debate over the validity of Darwin's theory.
The Berkshire Eagle newspaper in Massachusetts is running an absurd editorial with the histrionic title, "Ayatollahs in the classroom". To get the full effect, you might want to turn on a CD of some suitably melodramatic music from a horror film before you start reading:
A movement to drag the teaching of science in the United States back into the Dark Ages continues to gain momentum. So far, it's a handful of judges -- "activist judges" in the view of their critics -- who are preventing the spread of Saudi-style religious dogma into more and more of America's public-school classrooms.
According to this Berkshire editorialist, discussing scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory in the classroom is tantamount to turning America into a theocracy like Iran or a totalitarian state like communist China. If the forces promoting such policies succeed, the writer warns ominously, science teachers in America may have to flee for their lives:
This means the state's public-school science teachers will have to choose between being scientists or ayatollahs -- or perhaps abandoning their students and fleeing Kansas, like academic truth-seekers in China in the 1980s or Tehran today.
The most bizzare thing about this article is that the writer appears to have absolutely no clue about who the real dogmatists are in this controversy. Hint: It's not the people who are asking for open discussion and critical analysis of all the evidence relating to neo-Darwinism. If the writer wants to discover the real source of dogmatism in the evolution debate, he might start by looking in the mirror.
Constitutional attorney Brian Fahling has a sensible discussion of the Cobb County decision in the Union-Leader, here. Especially pertinent is his paragraph responding to the charge that it was illegitimate for the school district to single out evolution in its disclaimer. Fahling hits the proverbial nail on the head when he says:
I suspect that evolution was singled out because it is the only scientific theory whose adherents are utterly intolerant of criticism, and it is the only scientific theory taught in public schools as the gospel truth that no reasonable person could question. This is not only troubling for parents whose religion rejects the theory, but it is equally troubling from an academic, scientific, and intellectual perspective for obvious reasons.
Darwinian biologist Ken Miller ventures into the field of constitutional law and flops. In an op-ed in the Boston Globe, Miller mangles a key finding of the judge in the Cobb County case. According to Miller:
The judge simply read the sticker and saw that it served no scientific or educational purpose. Once that was clear, he looked to the reasons for slapping it in the textbooks of thousands of students, and here the record was equally clear. The sticker was inserted to advance a particular set of religious beliefs...
While the ACLU claimed that the Cobb County school board adopted its textbook sticker in order to advance religion, the judge rejected that claim. Instead, the judge found that the school board adopted the sticker to advance a variety of legitimate secular purposes, including "fostering critical thinking" about evolution. The reason that the judge still ruled the sticker unconstitutional was not that the school board actually intended to advance religion, but because the judge surmised that citizens might mistakenly believe that the sticker was designed to advance religion--even though the judge admitted that it wasn't! Basically, the judge concluded that his fellow citizens were too stupid to figure out what he himself was able to realize--that the school board had legitimate secular reasons for adopting the sticker.
Albuquerque Tribune columnist Jeffry Gardner is not amused by PBS affilate KNME's decision to cancel the intelligent design documentary "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." His title is the first clue: "The BS in PBS": We're shelling out more than $300 million annually in state and federal tax dollars for shows like "Charlie Rose" (name the last conservative you've seen yucking it up with Chuck), "Frontline," "American Experience" and "Nova" - all agenda-less programs, I'm sure.
I think that's why the blatant religious discrimination KNME proudly
practices is all the more galling. We're a nation rooted in religious freedom. Tolerance in the public forum is required. The entire piece is here.
Anti-intelligent design gurus Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch have fired a shot across the bow to those in academia who have given intellectual assent to intelligent design theory (ID). The message: don’t count on academic freedom to protect you. Beyond Barbara and Branch’s hackneyed diatribe against ID as a conspiracy theory--like something out of an X-Files caper--the authors call upon others in academia to try to undermine the careers of academics that have pursued research in ID.
Their article reads like an anti-ID hit list, with the authors taking great care to drop the names of many ID proponents between propagandistic, red herring bits involving the author’s slanted discussions of the apparent religious motives of certain ID thinkers. The empirical scientific arguments of ID proponents are conveniently ignored.
One subheading in their article describes the work of ID proponents as “Abuse of Academia.” This is a call for the suspension of the strong protections for academic freedom in higher education. The most vehement anti-ID advocates don’t have to respect the academic freedom of their opponents if they can first create and sustain misperception that their opponents are somehow dishonest. (I.e., we don’t have to respect the rules because the rules don’t apply to you.)
After engaging in wholesale character assassination of many scientists and other scholars favoring ID, the authors try to give themselves some cover through a begrudging acknowledgement that ID scholars deserve “the same degree of academic freedom conferred on the professoriate in general.” But what ID scholar should take this empty platitude seriously, coming at the end of a lengthy hit piece, painting ID proponents in the worst possible light? The authors accuse ID academics of “misleading students,” and then claim that such ID supporters exercise “power without responsibility.” The authors’ claims are precisely the ones people make as a prelude to stripping other persons of such power. If that weren’t enough, Barbara and Branch call on other academics to “resist” the work of ID scholars.
Hopefully, scholars (including AAUP members) will recognize that if academic freedom is to mean anything, it must apply as strongly to scholars you disagree with as it does to scholars you agree with. A pseudo-academic politic of personal destruction and strong-arm tactics are no substitute for genuine debates over ideas and evidence. The freedom to debate is all that ID scholars ask.
The recent Dover design/intelligent design federal court case (aka Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) just got a little bit more interesting, with the Rutherford Institute filing a motion to intervene on behalf of several parents. If successful, the parents will be made a third party to the ACLU’s lawsuit.
The parents hope to vindicate the rights of students to be able to learn about scientific information concerning the scientific controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, defending the marketplace of ideas from the ACLU’s efforts to suppress all scientific information that call neo-Darwinian theory into question.
Quoting U.S. Supreme Court precedents, Rutherford's motion makes an important point: The Constitution protects not just the right to express information and ideas but also the right “to receive information and ideas.”
Quite so. Our Constitution does not sanction a regime of state-sponsored censorship. Nor does it condone, for that matter, ACLU-driven, state-approved censorhip.
In their press release, Rutherford’s President, John Whitehead goes on to state:
Students’ access to knowledge and ideas should not be impeded simply because some persons do not agree with the content of those ideas. As the courts have ruled, students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.
It will be interesting to see how the Judge responds to the motion. In any event, we at CSC have been arguing all along, students should be taught more about controversial scientific topics—so as to learn both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of chemical and biological evolutionary theories. This “teach the controversy” approach was reiterated most recently in an excellent op-ed published in The San Francisco Chronicle, by Doctors Stephen Meyer and John Angus Campbell.
(Also see CSC’s press release concerning the Dover Board policy here.)
CSC Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells had a letter published in yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Wells responds in brief detail to earlier letters asserting that there is no scientific evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution.
The York Daily Record is reporting on the first ever reading of a statement about intelligent design to Dover School District ninth graders in biology classes. The story raises the issue of whether or not students are even learning about intelligent design theory, and seems to conclude that they are not.
According to YDR the statement read to students says i part: "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's views. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families." One has to wonder why the ACLU and others are so upset that someone read a statement saying that there are other viewpoints. Intelligent design is never explained or even defined in the statement. So, then one has to wonder why the school board is so insistent that this statement be read, and then that the issue be ignored for the next 19 days of instruction on Darwinian evolution.
YDR reports: "Dover Area School District's Web site says ninth-grade biology students will spend 19 days studying natural selection, the mechanism of evolution and the origins of biodiversity. According to the instruction guide:
¬? Students will be able to list evidences used to support Darwin's theory of the Origins of Species.
¬? Students will be able to make a timeline that demonstrates evolutionary changes during the history of Earth.
¬? Students will be able to define natural selection and artificial selection and demonstrate the process.
¬? Students will be able to describe how speciation takes place, using Darwin's finches as an example.
¬? Students will be able to list how species change due to reproductive isolation." So, where is it that students actually learn about intelligent design?
Apparently not in the classroom. No discussion of the issue is even allowed, let alone encouraged. "After students heard the statement, they were told that if they had any questions, they should speak to their parents or contact district administrators, students said. They were also told they could refer to one of 60 copies of the book, "Of Pandas and People," kept in the high-school library." In the AP story, Martha Raffaele reports: "Students who sat in the classroom were taught material which is religious in content, not scientific, and I think it's unfortunate that has occurred," said Eric Rothschild, a Philadelphia attorney representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit." Say what? Doesn't seem to me they were taught anything with that statement, religious or otherwise.
Instead of mandating the teaching of intelligent design (never mind that they don't seem to be teaching it at all in Dover), school boards should follow the lead of Ohio and incorporate the critical analysis of evolution into their biology curriculum. The Ohio State Board of Education adopted science standards that require students to "Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Then they adopted a model lesson plan to show teachers how to discuss both the evidence that supports Darwin's theory, as well as some of the scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution.
Instead, in Dover, students will learn how to "list evidences used to support Darwin's theory of the Origins of Species." No wonder they're being sued.
One final note to correct the YDR story. YDR inaccurately states: "While West said Discovery opposes the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, he said if Dover wants to get the concept into the curriculum, then it should be fully discussed as opposed to merely mentioned." I'm absolutely sure that CSC Associate Director John West said that Discovery opposes mandating the teaching of intelligent design. Our position has always been that it is permissable to teach intelligent design theory in public schools, but that we do not believe that government should be forcing it to be taught.
We're starting to see occasional occurences of coherent defenses of design theory popping up on editorial pages of all sorts of newspapers. For instance, Bruce Mclarty has an op-ed piece in The Daily Citizen (Arkansas) that nicely explains the differences between intelligent design and creationism, and correctly points out that creationism is a subset of intelligent design, not the other way around. "While all creationists would believe in intelligent design, the opposite is not true. One could adhere to the idea that nature reflects an intelligent designer without believing in the Bible, the God of the Bible, or the Genesis account of creation." Mclarty also notes that: "When something appears to defy purely naturalistic explanation, it is attributed to being the result of a process we don't understand, but which can certainly not include the activity of an intelligent designer. In other words, accident always trumps design in the game of philosophical materialism."
Expect to see California resident Larry Caldwell's lawsuit against the Roseville Joint Union High School District to be misreported on a regular basis. Already Sacramento Bee reporter Laurel Rosen mistakenly asserted that Caldwell's case is anti-evolution. Now, Kimberly Horg of the The Press-Tribune takes it one step further. "The suit was set into motion because, according to Caldwell, his constitutional rights to free speech, equal protection and religious freedom were violated in his efforts to remove the teaching of evolution in the district." As Cooper pointed out yesterday this is exactly the opposite of what Caldwell has been trying to do. He has never tried to "remove the teaching of evolution."
The lawsuit filed by attorney and parent Larry Caldwell against the Roseville Joint Union High School District for violation of his civil rights has been making waves in the media.
World Net Daily and The Sacramento Bee have stories discussing Caldwell’s suit and the inequities he was subjected to by the District over the course of a whole year.
In the interests of accuracy, note that Sacramento Bee’s Laurel Rosen reports inaccurately when she (mistakenly) asserts that Caldwell tried to introduce “anti-evolution material” in the District. “Anti-evolution” entails the removal of chemical and biological evolutionary theories from curriculum, but what Caldwell sought to do was precisely the opposite: teach students even more about existing scientific theories by requiring them to learn the scientific weaknesses of such theories as well as their scientific strengths. (Caldwell’s proposal did not even call for the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design.)
Caldwell’s 96-page complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (available here) tells of the long train of abuses that Caldwell was subjected to by the District because it disagreed with Caldwell’s position that students should be able to learn about the scientific controversies surrounding biological and chemical evolutionary theories. Caldwell's complaint leaves the District with a lot of explaining to do--particularly its pattern of ignoring its own procedures or making up new ones and applying them only to Caldwell.
For eight long months the Board sought to prevent Caldwell from exercising his rights as a citizen and parent to put his policy proposal on the Board’s agenda. Caldwell’s “Quality Science Education simply states:
Because nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically” and “scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge” (1), teachers in the Roseville Joint Union High School District are expected to help students analyze the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution.
(1) California State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences (1989).
It is still surprising how a policy as simple and as moderate as Caldwell’s would lead a Board and others in the District to resort to Kafkaesque tactics in order to submarine Caldwell’s proposal. (See Caldwell’s timeline here for succinct summary of this.) Certain Board members and District officials resorted to badmouthing Caldwell in the public square, with one Board member even threatening to SUE Caldwell for exercising his rights. After several months of shenanigans, convinced that it has sufficiently attacked his credibility and poisoned the well on this issue, the Board majority felt confident enough to vote (down) on Caldwell’s proposal. Un-deliberative democracy at its worst.
Caldwell succinctly summarizes his treatment by the District in his press release:
I tried to exercise my basic rights as a citizen to propose a new idea and school officials responded by suspending normal procedures, publicly attacking my personal religious beliefs, and even threatening to sue me to stop me from speaking out…
Caldwell goes on to describe the actions of the Board as something one would expect “in a banana republic.” Particularly galling is the Board majority's insistence that Caldwell drop a pending administrative complaint against the Board in exchange for the Board's willingness to place Caldwell's proposed policy on its meeting agenda for May, 2004 meeting. (In a show of good faith, Caldwell assented to this deal, only to have the Board put off a final vote until even later.) The Board had no legal basis for imposing such a condition on Caldwell. His complaint to the Court shows this kind of behavior to be characteristic of certain Board members and District officials on this issue.
For more information, see our press release (here) and John West's recent post on this matter (here).
The York Daily Record on Sunday published a brief opinion piece from a York resident challenging the paper's definition of intelligent design. What is intelligent design? Are our kids being taught to think? Do schools want to give a good education?
The York Daily Record definition says, “ID holds that all living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by an unspecified divine being.” The YDR is not alone in using this description which is actually how critics of design define the theory. Hopefully the YDR will begin using a more accurate description, or at least attribute this one to critics rather than leaving it as if it were the proper, working definition.
Once more, with feeling: "The scientific theory of intelligent design holds 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. Note: Intelligent design theory does not claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a ‘divine being’ or a ‘higher power’ or an ‘all-powerful force.’ All it proposes is that science can identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence.”
Last Sunday’s episode of Boston Legal (“From Whence We Came”) was ripped straight from the headlines in typical David Kelley style. Hotshot young attorney Lori (Monica Potter), with help from Denny Crane (played by William Shatner, and for which he won a Golden Globe the same Sunday night) and Shirley Schmidt (the newest addition to the show, played by Candace Bergen), defends a school superintendent being sued by two science teachers who were fired for refusing to teach creationism.
Kelley’s writing is always sharp and his dialogue is witty, but his take on the evolution issue merely regurgitates the old Inherit The Wind trope of religion vs. science. He never even bothers to really define evolution or intelligent design – which phrase is used interchangeably with creationism.
The actor’s portrayal of the superintendent was almost as if he was playing a televangelist, especially at the end when he says “Go with God.” In his testimony he does mention the intricacy of the cell, and the new evidence in modern biology as the basis for challenging evolution with intelligent design. But, the scientist and science teacher testify that creationism is not science, design is not scientific and that scientists who support creationism/design also believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and that God created the world in six days. Clearly the idea was to conflate young earth creationism with intelligent design.
The “defense,” led by Candace Bergen doesn’t bother to rebut any of that. Instead she focused on defending the inclusion of design as a balance to evolution, and that we should allow both sides to be heard. Kelley certainly knows that recent polls have shown most people support this sort of approach and is obviously writing to the audience here.
Because Kelley attorneys, from Alley McBeal to Alan Shore, are never allowed to lose, the judge ultimately rules that intelligent design should be allowed into the classroom along with evolution, apparently on the basis that there is so much beauty and design in the world it isn’t that far out to think that someone created it. He hints too that our teaching of only evolution is too dogmatic.
With the success of Boston Legal and the ratings it has received this season (it averages 5.0 and occasionally wins its Sunday night timeslot), more people probably heard the phrase intelligent design last night between 10 and 11pm than heard it through all the news coverage of Dover last December. Which is good. But, they also probably came away thinking there is no difference between creationism and intelligent design, which is too bad.
Leave it to the capitalists at Amazon.com and the free market system to captialize on the censorship of UMOL by the Darwinists.
Several months ago UMOL sales were languishing well below 7,000 on Amazon.com's sales ranking system. However, thanks to KNME censorship , the film actually peaked at 2,500 over the weekend. Currently it has slipped a bit to 4,540. Still this shows a serious spike in sales. We've received dozens of requests for the film ourselves.
Nothing spurs sales quite like a good controversy. Had KNME just let well enough alone this whole thing would have blown over by now. But, thanks to their protectionism more and more people are seeing UMOL than otherwise would have been the case.
If you want you can order the film at Amazon.com, or you can call 1-800-643-4102, or you can get it straight from the producers, Illustra Media.
Scrappleface.com has skewered last week's federal court ruling on Cobb Co.'s textbook disclaimers with a clever bit of satire. "U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the old labels could "confuse" public school students, who are not accustomed to thinking critically." Indeed!
The Scrapplers report that the newly evolved stickers now in textbooks read: ""This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a theory, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with childlike trust, accepted obediently and defended vigorously against the attacks of ignorant monotheists."
Read the entire ScrappleFace satire here (and yes, the Cooper quotations are pure fiction).
CSC writer in residence, Jonathan Witt had an op-ed published in the Albuquerque Journal Sunday commenting on PBS affiliate KNME's censorship troubles.
The thing that Witt's op-ed nicely brings to light is the double standard about funding and editorial control that exists at PBS from the top down.
He gives specific examples suggesting that KNME normally follows a very different (and much more sane) test for private funders, one that allows foundations who fund documentaries to have points of view and even worldviews. KNME proclaims that they must not let public get the "perception" that funders of a program "might" have had control over the content. "Indeed, no PBS affiliate consistently follows the smell test laid out by KNME. If only programs with "objective" funding sources were allowed, what would PBS have left to air—cooking shows?" UMOL producers, Illustra Media, repeatedly assured the station management that NO funder of the documentary had ANY say over the content. Witt points out several other popular PBS programs that have aired on KNME, and most PBS stations across the country, despite the funders proclaiming overtly religious agendas.
Of course never mind the PBS series Evolution that was funded by the same man who owns the company that produced it, as covered by writer Josh Gilder back in 2002.
The censorship issue has obviously struck a nerve in New Mexico, as evidenced by this cartoon from Friday's Albuquerque Journal.
Creationism evolves. How original. I think this is only about the 499th time that this has been in a cartoon or headline.
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 proposals, Caldwell alleges that the district repeatedly denied him rights and procedures normally afforded to other citizens in the district, banned parents from speaking in favor of his proposals at a public meeting, publicly attacked his personal religious beliefs, spread false rumors about him, and ev |
