Robert L. Crowther, II

LA Times on How ID Differs from Creationism

In her story about the President’s remarks concerning the teaching of evolution, Johanna Neuman of the LA Times provided one of the few pieces of reporting the MSM that attempts to differentiated between creationism and intelligent design theory: “Intelligent design, which started to gain notice about 10 years ago, holds that evolution alone does not adequately explain some complex biological mechanisms, suggesting that a plan by an intelligent force is behind changes in species. “Creationism and intelligent design are often confused,” said Jay W. Richards, vice president for research at Discovery Institute, a Seattle research and advocacy group for intelligent design. “Both have in common the idea that the universe exists for a purpose.” Where intelligent design parts company with Read More ›

John G. West

Freudian Slip at The New York Times? The Paper of Record Mangles Quote from DI’s Spokesman, Substituting “Biblical” for “Biological”

Ever think that certain reporters at the so-called “mainstream” media have already determined their story before they have even interviewed anyone? In my many conversations with reporters, I sometimes get the feeling that no matter what I say, the reporter at hand will only hear what he or she wants to hear, even if it’s the exact opposite of what I’m actually saying. Some amusing evidence of this sort of bias in action is apparently on display in today’s print edition of The New York Times. In an article about President Bush’s endorsement on Monday of students learning about different views on evolution, reporter Elisabeth Bumiller completely mangles a quote by Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer. Here is what Steve Meyer Read More ›

Robert L. Crowther, II

CNN’s Use of Trite, Tired Polls on “Creationism”

If you are CNN commentator Bill Schneider you think that intelligent design is just another name for creationism and that creationism is what schools are considering teaching. Now, ID is not creationism and, in any case, schools–with few exceptions–are only considering whether students will be exposed to the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, not whether to teach ID. But mere reality didn’t stop Schneider from warping

Jonathan Witt

(Updated) President Bush on Teaching the Controversy

UPDATE: Stephen Meyer’s O’Reilly interview has been canceled. Due to the unfortunate Air France crash, O’Reilly will not have time for the full ID discussion, so he’s only going to interview the Darwinist. And William Dembski reports that his appearance on Fox has also been canceled. Discovery Institute has now issued a statement about President Bush’s comments on teaching the controversy over Darwinism. And here’s what the AP and other news sources are reporting on the issue:

Robert L. Crowther, II

Blind Eye Toward Intelligent Design

The Washington Post printed Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman’s short op-ed in today’s “Free For All” section of the Post. Blind Eye Toward Intelligent Design There really is a scientific case against Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and another for the alternative of intelligent design, but you will not find them in The Post. Instead, we have Peter Slevin [“Evolution’s Grass-Roots Defender Grows in Va.,” Metro, July 20] regaling us about a group of underemployed 1960s activists who were looking for a cause and picked the defense of Darwin’s theory. On June 3 a Post editorial derided “The Privileged Planet,” a film about cosmology, as “religious” — an untrue description that nonetheless has the apparent merit of ending discussion on Read More ›