With some local reporters in Kansas striving to cover the science standards controversy there with fairness and accuracy, it’s disappointing to see the Associated Press reporter in Kansas writing science fiction in the guise of news reports. According to the latest salvo from AP’s Bill Draper:
Some conservative members of the state board have questioned whether the committee has properly considered views about creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution.
A minority of members on Case’s committee have said it’s not fair to teach evolution as an explanation of the origin of life without also including the possibility that life was formed by an intelligent being.
Contrary to Draper, there is no debate on the Kansas Board of Education over whether to teach creationism, and there is no debate on the Kansas science standards committee about whether to teach intelligent design. What minority members on the science standards committee have called for is teaching about scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory as well as the evidence favoring evolutionary theory. They have not called for the teaching of intelligent design. Has Mr. Draper even read the minority report issued by members of the science standards committee?
Intelligent design is a secular form of creationism that argues the Earth was created by a series of events caused by some intelligent force, not random chance. Evolution says that species change in response to environmental and genetic factors over the course of many generations.
This is editorializing, not reporting. Intelligent design is not “a secular form of creationism.” It is not a form of creationism, period. Draper is taking a tendentious assertion of opinion by evolutionists and reporting it as a “fact.” Some defenders of evolution assert that intelligent design is “a secular form of creationism,” but proponents of design strongly disagree. Draper simply takes the disputed opinion of ID opponents and presents it as an unquestioned fact. He also seems to misunderstand what intelligent design actually entails. He implies that ID is incompatible with a belief that “species change in response to environmental and genetic factors over the course of many generations,” when it isn’t. It might help if Mr. Draper read the Top Questions and Answers about Intelligent Design Theory. Tip for Mr. Draper and the AP: In covering a controversial issue, it’s usually a good idea to talk to people on both sides of the debate. And it’s usually a very poor idea to describe one side of a debate using the talking points of the other side.