Is it just me, or is this Washington Post “article on the intelligent design trial”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/17/AR2005101701579.html completely lacking in journalistic rigor? It sounds more like a press release for Michael J. Behe, the pseudoscientist who testified yesterday. It’s not so much bias as an apathy toward really determining how the scientific community views intelligent design.
4 thoughts on “intelligent design and sloppy journalism”
Comments are closed.
Correct — they should have included a reference to “the following”:http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm :
Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of ìintelligent design.î While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Or how about simply holding Professor Behe to this quote:
” Intelligent design, he argued, must succeed or fail as a scientific theory.”
What IS the evidence for intelligent design? Is there any? I’d certainly love to measure it *as a theory*.
Holes in Darwinian theory do not prove intelligent design.
Hear, hear, Bawruss and Valerie. If comment posters on a B-list blog can come up with strong evidence of contrary opinions, why can’t a writer for the Washington Post?
BTW, I edited Bawruss’ post slightly to make the link a link.