Category: Free Speech
Anti-ID Bias in Journal of the History of Biology
David Sepkoski’s recent literature review (“Worldviews in Collision: Recent Literature on the Creation*Evolution Divide”) in Journal of the History of Biology provides another illustration of the fact that many science journals are biased against intelligent design. He uses pejorative language against ID, claiming its proponents engage in a “guerilla campaign,” calling specified complexity “Dembski’s hobby-horse,” and asserting that Stephen Meyer’s article contains a “confused interpretation of the Cambrian explosion” (though Sepkoski provides no specifics to bolster his point). Given the pejorative language, could the anti-ID bias in the scientific community be any clearer? Sepkoski’s omissions are more interesting than what he includes. He reviews no books by scientific proponents of intelligent design, such as The Privileged Planet, which was published Read More ›
Inside the Mind of the New York Times: My Exchange with Cornelia Dean, Evolution Partisan
A few days ago, I took New York Times reporter Cornelia Dean to task for putting words in the mouth of Ohio Board of Education member Deborah Owens Fink. According to an article by Dean, “Dr. Owens Fink…said the [Ohio] curriculum standards she supported did not advocate teaching intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism.” But as I pointed out, Dr. Owens Fink did not call intelligent design “an ideological cousin of creationism,” even though Dean’s wording makes this appear to be the case. Those words represent Dean’s own editorial evaluation (in what was supposed to be a news article, not an editorial). According to Dr. Owens Fink, “the reporter… put words in the article that may represent her view Read More ›
Who is writing anti-ID articles in the UK?
As we recently discussed here, there was a factually challenged article against intelligent design in a UK newspaper, The Independent. Given the anti-ID motive-mongering in the article, it is not surprising to find that the British Center for Science Education (BCSE) helped put the article together. The BCSE’s Roger Stanyard admits that “[s]ome of you are aware that I helped in putting it together” and gives the URL, saying the article is “based n [sic] material and advice supplied by BCSE.” (see here) So how closely is this “British Center for Science Education” tied to the “National Center for Science Education” (NCSE) based in the United States? It’s not entirely clear, but recently the NCSE’s Nick Matzke explained that “Roger Read More ›
Proof that the Media is Biased Against ID
We recently reported how New Scientist has exhibited an incredible bias against intelligent design and is encouraging scientists to attack ID using “the weapons of sound bytes and emotional arguments… deploy[ing] all the tools that are used to sell cars, [and] diet drugs…” But the best possible proof that the media is biased against intelligent design would be a cover article in one of the nation’s leading media journals instructing editors and reporters to limit and stifle the pro-ID viewpoint when reporting on the ID-evolution debate. Precisely such an article entitled “Undoing Darwin” was co-authored by Chris Mooney as the cover article of the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review just a few weeks before the beginning of the Dover trial in Read More ›
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account Part IX: The Kitzmiller Double-Standard for ID and Evolution on Peer-Review
[Editor’s Note: A single article combining all ten installments of this response to Barbara Forrest can be found here, at “Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account.” The individual installments may be seen here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10.] In her Kitzmiller account, Barbara Forrest writes that leading ID proponents have “blustering cowardice … who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry.” Ironically, she later attacks Discovery Institute’s critique of the Kitzmiller ruling, claiming it had “nastiness.” In response to her inconsistent argument, Dr. Forrest would likely respond that her attacks are justified based upon the evidence she presents in her article. (I’m not Read More ›