If you want to see how bad major media coverage can be, check out this over-the-top story filed by the British news agency Reuters. Titled “Evolution on trial as Kansas debates Adam vs Darwin,” the story starts off with the following gross misrepresentation of the Kansas hearings: More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution. As pointed out previously on this blog, the scientists who will testify in Kansas are not going to argue against the teaching of evolution. They are going to argue for presenting students with scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory as well as the evidence favoring the theory. Contrary to the fanciful reporting Read More ›
The biased record of NPR’s “Science Friday” continues unabated with last week’s segment on the Kansas evolution hearings. As might be predicted, host Ira Flatow mangled the definition of intelligent design and asserted that ID is “creationism dressed in new clothing.” He went on to falsely claim that the purpose of the Kansas Board of Education hearings to be held this week is to “listen to arguments pro and con about teaching evolution in science class.” In reality, I don’t know of anyone testifying in Kansas who is going to argue against teaching evolution in science class. Instead, the witnesses are going to argue that in addition to teaching the evidence for modern evolutionary theory, students should also hear about Read More ›
John Hanna of the Associated Press has a very good, balanced and straightforward look at Kansas’ upcoming hearings over evolution and education, in today’s Kansas City Star. In the article Hanna looks honestly at the debate, identifies the people testifying as predominately supporters of ID, but goes on to explain that they are not calling for ID to be put in the classroom, but instead want to teach more about the scientific criticisms of Darwinism.
National Geographic News is running a fair and balanced article about intelligent design and the debate over how to teach evolution. Unlike many journalists, the author of this piece defines intelligent design correctly: Intelligent-design theory states that certain features of the natural world are of such complexity that the most plausible explanation is that they are products of an intelligent cause rather than random mutation and natural selection. Supporters of the theory say the nature of the intelligent cause is outside the scope of the theory. The writer also quotes me correctly and accurately
The National Center for Science Education has finally acknowledged the libel lawsuit filed against its director Eugenie Scott for statements she made in a recent article about California parent and attorney Larry Caldwell. In a brief posting on its website, the NCSE states that it “believes the lawsuit against Dr. Scott has no merit.” But the NCSE continues to engage in stonewalling by failing to address any of the specifics of Caldwell’s complaint. As first reported on this blog, Scott claimed that Caldwell was trying to inject the teaching of creationism into his school district. To be specific, she stated that he tried to get his school board to adopt two prominent creationist books as part of the school district Read More ›