The Seattle Weekly Proves There Is Nothing New Under The Sun

Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure. — Charles Darwin, Origin of Species The Seattle Weekly’s Roger Downey has labored and produced a mouse. And, his mouse is a laughable, funhouse-mirror distortion of reality. But what else can you expect when you realize that he didn’t actually do any research, but essentially just cuts and pastes crazy assertions and outrageous claims from our critic’s blogs. Even though in the constellation of Seattle journalism and news publications the Weekly is (generously) seen as a lesser light, this piece demands a response. “The Plot to Kill Darwin” is a rehash of old reports from other publications and blogs. Read More ›

Scientists Show ‘Signs of Intelligence’ in Making the Case for Intelligent Design

In the debate over intelligent design one of the more annoying problems is the media’s predilection to misdefine ID, and to avoid reporting the positive case scientists make for the theory based on scientific evidence. Stephen Meyer, CSC Director, this weekend penned a clear and concise description of the theory that everyone –especially journalists– should read and remember.

“Judge Jones said it, I believe it, that settles it” – The Missing Legal Basis in Kitzmiller

Notorious legal decisions often develop a common-man meaning. The public perception of the Kitzmiller decision is that Judge Jones supposedly settled the issue: intelligent design is not science. As a law student, I have been amazed that this most important of Kitzmiller holdings is unsupported by any legal reasoning. The news coverage of Kitzmiller has encouraged this misperception. CNN.com simplified the entire decision as being about defining science: “U.S. District Judge John Jones concluded in a 139-page decision that intelligent design is not science.” This is absurd to anyone who respects the law. Judges should only be deciding matters of law, not declaring as authoritative his opinion on matters of politics, or philosophy, or science.