Category: News Media
In Reporting Hot Button Issues Like Evolution It’s Hard for the Media to Not “Tell You What It Means”
When we launched this website almost exactly one year ago, it was because we were tired of the mainstream media ignoring, mischaracterizing and otherwise misreporting the views of scientists and scholars who dissent from Darwinism, as well as those scientists who also advocate for the theory of intelligent design. The mainstream media has noticed. Read more at Evolution, News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.
“Irreducible Hostility”: Knippenberg Analyzes Dover Judge’s Muddled Thinking on Intelligent Design
Professor Joseph Knippenberg of Oglethorpe Univerity has followed up his fine analysis of the Selman case with an equally insightful analysis of the Dover decision. According to Knippenberg, Judge Jones’s conclusions about the law depend upon a rather unsophisticated understanding of philosophy and theology. If ever there were need for a case study to demonstrate how the practice of law ought to rest on a foundation of liberal learning, Judge Jones’s opinion here would provide it.
Schlafly Criticizes Judge Jones for Judicial Activism
Lawyer Phyllis Schlafly, head of Eagle Forum, has written an article
Medved on Intelligent Design; Sewell Critiques Darwinism at The American Spectator
Michael Medved interviewed Stephen Meyer, program director for the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, for an hour on his national radio program recently…. Also, Granville Sewell, a mathematics professor at Texas A&M University, has a stimulating critique of Neo-Darwinism at The American Spectator.
Dover in Review, pt. 2: Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
Note: This is the second part of a multi-part series. You can read the first installment here. It’s becoming glaringly apparent that Judge Jones was incredibly sloppy with the purported findings of “facts” in his lengthy 139-page judicial opinion. Time and again, Judge Jones makes assertions in his opinion that are unambiguously factually wrong—even though the correct information was a part of the official record before him. It is beginning to look like he didn’t even bother to read or consider the information and arguments submitted by the side he disagreed with. Here are some of the more egregious examples. 1. Judge Jones wrongly claims there are NO peer-reviewed scientific articles favoring ID.