Author: John G. West
Did the New York Times suppress the results of its own investigation into Darwin’s scientific critics in order to promote a stereotype?
New questions are being raised about the accuracy of the New York Times’ article on scientific critics of neo-Darwinism last week, spurred by an amazing admission by Times’ reporter Ken Chang that only a small minority of the scientists he interviewed actually fit his story’s stereotyped description of Darwin’s critics. While Chang’s story conveys the clear impression that scientists who support Discovery’s Dissent from Darwin statement are motivated by religion rather than science, Chang has now admitted in an interview that 75% or more of the scientists he interviewed did not fit this description. In other words, Chang and his editors selectively reported the results of their own investigation to convey the exact opposite of what they found. It turns Read More ›
UPDATE: Sun Sentinel Suppresses Accurate Definition of Intelligent Design
Editor’s Note: In the original post we mistakenly identified the newspaper in question as the Orlando Sentinel. It was in fact the Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale. While the identification was incorrect, the links all went to the right articles. In what was supposed to be a news article, the Sun Sentinel yesterday substituted its own inaccurate definition of intelligent design for the definition actually used by proponents of the theory. In so doing, its editors apparently suppressed a more accurate definition of ID written by the reporter with whom I spoke. In addition to misdefining intelligent design, the Sentinel article engages in blatant editorializing by pejoratively labeling efforts to correct textbook errors as “watering down” the teaching of evolution. Read More ›
Exposure of NYT’s Evolving Definition of “Biologist” Hits Nerve
My previous post exposing how the New York Times changes its definition of who is a biologist depending on whether a scientist supports or opposes Darwin’s theory has apparently hit a raw nerve. A Darwinist blogsite calling itself “Hell’s Handmaiden” has taken me to task for supposed inaccuracies in my post. But it turns out that it is Hell’s Handmaiden who is misrepresenting the facts, not me.
All the News that Fits: The NYT’s Evolving Definition of “Biologist”
Who are biologists? The New York Times can’t seem to make up its mind. Last week, the Times described Darwinist Patricia Princehouse at Case Western Reserve University as an “evolutionary biologist.” This was despite the fact that Princehouse’s doctorate is in the history of science — not biology — and her position at her university is “Lecturer in Philosophy & Evolutionary Theory.” When questions were raised about the accuracy of calling an historian of science an “evolutionary biologist,” the Times corrections desk refused to budge, ruling that Princehouse’s credentials were good enough for the Times. But that was last week. Yesterday, the Times apparently decided that even biochemists shouldn’t be called biologists if they happen to be skeptical of Darwinian Read More ›
Fair Story or Cheap Shot? NYT to Look at Discovery’s Dissent from Darwin Statement on Tuesday
We’ve learned that Tuesday’s New York Times will carry an article by science writer Ken Chang about Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwin statement, which this week is being updated with more than 500 doctoral scientists who doubt the Darwinian claim that natural selection and random mutation can account for the complexity of life. The statement was first released in 2001 to rebut the contention that all scientists embrace Darwinian evolution. In fact, there are quite a number of Darwin skeptics among scientists, including many who aren’t religious and many who don’t support intelligent design. The big question is whether Mr. Chang’s article will be a fair-minded examination of the scientific views of these scientists or a cheap shot focusing on Read More ›