Did New York Times report the whole story? You decide.

Here is the e-mail I sent to New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein after she interviewed me last Thursday for her predictable hatchet-job on intelligent design in Sunday’s Times. Decide for yourself whether her story accurately reflected all of the information she was given:

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker? Ignorance on Display in the New York Times

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker? Ignorance on Display in the New York Times
Last Thursday Ms. Goodstein contacted Discovery Institute because she wanted to interview me for a story. Her deadline was later the same day, so she contacted Discovery right before she planned to file the story. When I called her, it was clear she already had written most of her story. All she was looking for was window-dressing. Read the rest on Evolution News & Views at www.evolutionnews.org.

First Things has Great Things to Say on Evolution

We are not alone in observing the sand wash out from under the Darwinists’ feet. The estimable editors of First Things have given readers a fine Christmas present in their December number. Within is an essay by CSC senior fellow Michael Behe on “Scientific Orthodoxies”, and another by senior fellow Wesley J. Smith–in a book review–meditating on John Brown. And there’s a wonderful piece by Richard John Neuhaus mediating on a whole parade of related issues that we care about (such as Leon Kass’ principled leadership on the President’s Council on Bioethics), and, yes, evolution.

We Agree! Let’s Have a Real Debate on Intelligent Design

“We Agree! Let’s Have a Real Debate on Intelligent Design” — Maybe they should introduce into their thinking, if not their meetings, the mere possibility that the reason ID is on so many minds and is causing the AMNH to hold one-sided academic conferences, is that the scientific case against Darwinism and for ID is building by the month–with an increasing articles, books, lab work and more individual scientists deciding to throw in with us (30 in the last month alone). Maybe the reason Harvard is raising money to conduct research in support of Darwin’s theory and Cornell’s president is declaring ID a national threat is that the Darwinists are not confident at all. Why, when I was at Harvard, the evidence for Darwin’s theory was already proven for the ages–supposedly. Are the Darwinists possibly seeing the scientific sand wash out from under their feet? Read the rest at Evolution News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.

By Design, Not By Chance

CSC Director Dr. Stephen Meyer yesterday had a lengthy and informative piece — eloquently making the positive case for intelligent design– published in the National Post in Canada. Often, there are criticisms from the media that the theory of intelligent design is just an argument from ignorance. How many times have you read this tired, old description of ID: “life seems so complex evolution can’t be the answer, must have been a supernatural power.” Meyer’s piece answers this and shows how recent scientific discoveries and standard methods of scientific reasoning guides our inferences about the origins and diversity of the universe and living systems.