PZ Myers. 2005 Aug 22. NY Times: Thanks, but no thanks. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/ny_times_thanks_but_no_thanks/>. Accessed 2008 Aug 29.

Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Monday, August 22, 2005

NY Times: Thanks, but no thanks

I tried to be a bit restrained in my criticisms of the first NYT story, since there was the promise of more to come. I figured they were laying the groundwork for an exposé of the DI at first, which might excuse the excessive time spent on the Discovery Institute's side of the story. Surely, they'd focus on just the science side in the next story, right?

I was wrong.

This new article is worse than the first (Arthur Silber and Chris Mooney are also unimpressed). The opening is almost a reverential rephrasing of Behe's bogus ideas; it isn't until deeper in the story that he's gradually, ineffectually shown to be full of crap. When Behe says, "if any one of the more than 20 proteins involved in blood clotting is missing or deficient…clots will not form properly", why not point out right there, in that paragraph, that Doolittle says that "scientists had predicted that more primitive animals such as fish would be missing certain blood-clotting proteins", and that Behe was shown to be wrong? As it stands, the reporter just lets falsified arguments hang there…and all too often, replies to absurd claims, like Axe's idea that the odds of penicillin resistance evolving were one in 100,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, are inadequate.

It was plain old tired he-said-she-said journalism, in which the reporter wasn't competent to recognize that he was selling him the Brooklyn bridge, and she was representing the judicious opinion of thousands of competent scientists who were all saying he is a con artist.

Please, New York Times, we don't need your help if all you can do is shuffle credulous journalists with no understanding of the issues through the story. If you aren't going to put someone on the case who understands biology (like Carl Zimmer, for instance), don't bother. All you're accomplishing is to give frauds and charlatans and bible-bleating pseudoscientists respect they do not deserve.

And please, davidm, don't waste my time by pleading about how wonderful the NY Times reporting on science issues has been. Your credibility is at an all-time low. The credibility of the NY Times is sinking fast, too.

Posted by PZ Myers on 08/22 at 02:05 PM
Creationism • 4 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
  1. I had the epiphany that, I guess, most of the readers here had a long time ago.

    The NYT articles don't look bad to me, just... too subtle, maybe. I thought it over, and decided that maybe the NYT is taking the right approach--trying to preach to critical thinking tyros, as opposed to the choir.

    Then I got around to reading the Diane Carman editorial linked here yesterday, and I had my epiphany. That's why we need the PZ Meyerses and Carl Zimmers and Richard Dawkinses of the world; it's possible to be clearly and precisely in opposition to the ID fundies (and anti-intellectualists in general) without giving the think-tanks equal space.

    I'm sorry I doubted, guys. NYT--get off your butts and do this right.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  02:31 PM
  2. Well, the NYCrimes has been going downhill for a while, especially on scientific issues. Their last two op-eds on science have been 1) the Archbishop of Vienna arguing that "overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science" (not sure he knows the meaning of either ideologr or science) and 2) "In Defense of Common Sense," which was just sad, since the author is apparently a science journalist.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  02:33 PM
  3. Yes, I agree that it was a pretty nauseating way to start the morning.
    #: Posted by KathyR  on  08/22  at  02:55 PM
  4. I was appalled by the story today. I'm expecting "balanced" series on phrenology,voodoo, and Lysenkoism in the coming weeks.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  03:08 PM
  5. I think the earlier report today about ignorance was so very true. With even a slight familiarity with scientific (or statistical) methods, it should be obvious that pinning a number on the odds of penicillin evolving is an entirely bogus excercise. Perhaps we should ask for estimates on taxol or Ect-743? Then maybe we could see their heads spin....!
    I was always so pleased with the NY Times' science section.... sad really.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  03:14 PM
  6. The old grey lady is failing fast, as this second article shows.

    My response to the first article was: These ID-ots may be scientific morons, but they are marketing geniuses. They know how to get mega-moolah from fundy donors and from donors like Bill Gates - ostensibly a non-religious person; and they know how to get favorable print space in prestigious newspapers.

    My little town has no secular bookstore, but has three Christian bookstores, each chock full of creationist propaganda targeted ever so appealingly to children of all ages - even pre-school tots. Most dentist offices here have the same crap in waiting rooms.

    The rationalists are not winning the PR part of this war.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  03:15 PM
  7. I'd say the BBC's credibility is at an all time low too for reporting uncritically on things like Bi-Aura mixed in with genuine medicine. Though this didn't really come as a surprise to me. They had already ruined their Horizon programme over the past few years while still (fraudulently in my view) advertising and selling it (abroad or on video/DVD) as their flagship science programme. Once upon a time I think it was run by pretty competent people. Then (in a slow rotting process) they probably hired a bunch of meejah studies people instead of the original engineers etc.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  04:01 PM
  8. What I find particularly frustrating is that the TIMES illustrated a peculiar blind trilobite, AMPYX, in today's story on the jump page which in the SCIENCE TIMES in December 1987 was reported to show gradual evolution in an exceptionally complete set of Ordovician strata in (I believe) some part of Great Britain, which would have been a telling point to make in today's coverage of the I.D. vs. evolution story. Why didn't the reporter, Kenneth Chang, check the archives by a quick terms search?
    I happen to have a number of silicified larval and adult sclerites of AMPYX which I have etched out of the Edinburg limestone of the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia in the Strasburg area. The Virginia fauna does not show the gradual changes cited in the 1987 SCIENCE TIMES article, to the best of my ability to tell, and the analysis is complicated by the fact that the Virginia fauna almost inevitably occurs as isolated sclerites, whereas the fauna profiled in the 1987 SCIENCE TIMES story contained many complete exoskeletons. It was a disappointment for me to see todays's photo and not find any text about my old buddy, AMPYX.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  04:14 PM
  9. Yet another example in the argument for eliminating "journalism" as a college major. Newspapers should hire people who majored in, or have experience in, real subjects.
    #: Posted by decrepitoldfool  on  08/22  at  04:40 PM
  10. Since my excommunication from talk.origins, I don't feel like I play on the evolutionary team. I just throw spitballs from the stands occasionaly. But it looks like the evolution side is getting rolled lately, and you don't seem to understand how bad it is.

    For about 70 years since the Monkey Trial, Creationism wasn't a respectable topic for a paper like the Times. It just wasn't done. There was some snobbery in this, because anyone who read Mencken's accounts knew the Creationists didn't go to good schools. But there was also respect for the Enlightenment idea that there is a single objective reality, discoverable by the methods of science. If the editors in the pre-neocon days had any questions about a scientific matter, they'd consult the best professional opinion.

    The Times has been drifting away from this principle of journalistic integrity for some time. They've run at least one op-ed piece by Behe. Recently, Keller said they would attempt to "engage" evangelical Christians, i.e. increase circulation in the Red States. This strikes me as an excuse for letting neoconservatives dictate their agenda. They want us to think they're whores, when eht truth is worse. As someone pointed out above, there is a relationship with the way they reported, or rather sponsored, the war on Iraq.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  04:52 PM
  11. I emailed chang. maybe he'll show up here and discuss the article.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  05:17 PM
  12. i don't know if the Times piece is good or bad per the big picture. it certainly gives Behe credibility and that can't be good. but it also repeatedly presents ID as a new kind of anthropocentrism, thrusting homo faber out there as the template for the Deity. for embrace of ID is as much a failure of imagination and what i judge to be an excessive adoration of human abilities as anything else.

    what i missed was, one, a classic review of how and why science works the way it does, per classical experimental physics and theories and then, two, holding ID up to those standards.

    i'm not sure it matters how and what the Times says. very many fundamentalist Christians (and some Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, for that matter) don't accept that psychology has anything at all to offer our understanding of ourselves.

    what's an article in a major paper against such reckless ignorance?
    #: Posted by ekzept  on  08/22  at  05:19 PM
  13. should have written:
    many fundamentalist Christians (and some Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, for that matter) don't even accept that psychology has anything at all to offer our understanding of ourselves.
    instead.
    #: Posted by ekzept  on  08/22  at  05:21 PM
  14. Yes, today's NYT installment was a sad excuse of an article. I too was disappointed. The article failed to make clear that Intelligent Design does not have a prima facie case; and that it is easily dismissable without having to do a real deep dive first.
    #: Posted by Arun  on  08/22  at  05:44 PM
  15. The NYT is clearly populated with lazy scientifically-illiterate journalists and editors who don't want to offend their lazy scientifically illiterate readers.

    Remember that strange article about so-called "prayer studies" that danced round and round the fact that scientific evidence for the beneficial effects of distant third prayer DOES NOT EXIST and NEVER HAS EXISTED but U.S. taxpayers are nevertheless paying charlatans to "look for" those effects? (Hint to those scientists: the effects are nestled in my buttcrack, please contact me for a free viewing).

    The only way -- I repeat, the ONLY way -- for this situation to change is if every scientist who is interviewed about the subject of "intelligent design" provides the same response: the charlatans who are peddling this shit to the American people are rotten disgusting liars who don't give a crap about the truth.

    That is the thesis. That is the conclusion. Any facts which do not directly, pungently and incontrovertibly address this thesis are irrelevant and will be spun to the disadvantage of scientists.

    Someday the current crop of weak-lipped self-proclaimed "representatives" of scientists like Nick Matske and Eugenie Scott will figure this out. Hopefully it won't be too late.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  05:52 PM
  16. (Begging everyone's pardon for this off-topic announcement)

    Australian talkback radio tackles ID:

    Monday to Friday at 6pm (4pm in WA), repeated at 3am

    Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In Our Schools
    Tuesday 23 August 2005

    The theory of intelligent design has reignited debate about evolution by challenging Darwin’s theory. US President George Bush wants it taught in schools. And here it’s won the qualified backing of education minister Dr Brendan Nelson. Should intelligent design be taught in our schools?

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/a...s/s1443378.htm)

    For those of you interested in contributing, the contact details are:
    Fax: 07-3377-5171
    Toll-free phone: 1300 22 55 76 - 1300 CALL RN

    (They're Australian numbers, so you may need to add an area code or something.)
    #: Posted by AV  on  08/22  at  07:17 PM
  17. TinyURLed version of link published in previous post:
    http://tinyurl.com/bpgnv

    AV
    #: Posted by AV  on  08/22  at  07:22 PM
  18. Umm.. Let's follow the penicillin resistance question for a bit.

    So, if antibiotic resistance in pathogens is evidence of a creator, isn't also a rather damning indictment of that "intelligence"? What kind of a son of a bitch would act deliberately to enable virulent organisms to attack innocent people? Doesn't this make god a bioterrorist?

    -jcr
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  09:57 PM
  19. The Third Part is up:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html
    #: Posted by coturnix  on  08/22  at  10:10 PM
  20. ...and the third part is not as bad as the second.
    #: Posted by coturnix  on  08/22  at  10:15 PM
  21. Hmmmm. Go look at the lesson plan the NYTimes has on the topic. I'm not impressed: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/lessons/20050823tuesday.html
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  10:52 PM
  22. All I can say about this NY times series is that H.L. Mencken is sorely missed.
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  11:04 PM
  23. Thinking of Carl Zimmer, here's a link to his spot-on post about the current NY Times apologia on "unintelligible design"

    http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/08/21/the_big_picture.php
    #: Posted by  on  08/22  at  11:14 PM
  24. My dream is that every future journalistic mention of ID will start with some version of "Intelligent Design, which virtually the entire scientific community currently views as being somewhere between pet psychics and spoon-bending in terms of credibility . . .

    I was trying to defend the article over in comments at Demski's blog, but geez, there was not a lot to work with!

    (and whatever I write there seems to have a roughly 50% chance of actually appearing in the comments, with no apparent rhyme or reason . . . )

    On the plus side, I ended up finding some neat stuff on cat evolution responding to a fisker who claimed that the crossing of cougars from florida and texas 1) defeated 'Darwinian' expectations with their (mystical?) hybrid vigor (??!) and 2) proved those silly scientists wrong about species, since the two species (!!!!) weren't supposed to be able to have (fertile?) young . . . (unless somebody split Puma concolor into two species when I wasn't looking?)

    Apparently researchers extracted DNA from 13,000 year old North American sabretooth and 'cheetah-like cat' bones and compared 'em to modern cats: turns out that cheetahs didn't evolve in North America and migrate to Africa, like people had been thinking - instead, it seems the 'cheetah-like cat' is actually split off from ancestral pumas - probably when the prairie was expanding, ~3mya - and adapted to life in the fast land in an astonishing display of convergent evolution. Another paper finds low diversity, etc. across all North American cougars, suggesting that previous North American cougar populations got wiped out with the rest of the fun megafauna, with subsequent repopulation from South America. (oh, and jaguarundi split off ~ 4.2 mya - first across the land bridge to South America, maybe?)

    There you go - your early Tuesday morning cat family evolution blogging. Meanwhile, my little Felis is curled up apparently asleep on his 'bed' - a soft carry bag on top of a big box . . . (and while I pretty confident as to the species, besides the nomeclatural juggling (silvestris, now?) we did find him as a stray kitten, and sometimes I'm not entirely sure . . . )

    Little article about the DNA research: http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2004-05/aug/09.shtmlLittle article about the DNA research

    Actual article, for anyone with fulltext ScienceDirect access http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4GTVWB4-B&_coverDate=08%2F09%2F2005&_alid=306310628&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b58bc9b913c2957d0751731bcccd5498

    Genomic ancestry of the American puma (pdf): http://www.coryi.org/Florida_panther/Miscellaneous_Panther_Material/Genomic ancestry of the American puma.pdf
    #: Posted by Dan S.  on  08/23  at  12:14 AM
  25. oh darn.
    that's My dream is that every future journalistic mention of ID will start with some version of "Intelligent Design, which virtually the entire scientific community currently views as being somewhere between pet psychics and spoon-bending in terms of credibility . . .

    I was trying to defend the article over in comments at Demski's blog, but geez, there was not a lot to work with!

    (and whatever I write there seems to have a roughly 50% chance of actually appearing in the comments, with no apparent rhyme or reason . . . )

    On the plus side, I ended up finding some neat stuff on cat evolution responding to a fisker who claimed that the crossing of cougars from florida and texas 1) defeated 'Darwinian' expectations with their (mystical?) hybrid vigor (??!) and 2) proved those silly scientists wrong about species, since the two species (!!!!) weren't supposed to be able to have (fertile?) young . . . (unless somebody split Puma concolor into two species when I wasn't looking?)

    Apparently researchers extracted DNA from 13,000 year old North American sabretooth and 'cheetah-like cat' bones and compared 'em to modern cats: turns out that cheetahs didn't evolve in North America and migrate to Africa, like people had been thinking - instead, it seems the 'cheetah-like cat' is actually split off from ancestral pumas - probably when the prairie was expanding, ~3mya - and adapted to life in the fast land in an astonishing display of convergent evolution. Another paper finds low diversity, etc. across all North American cougars, suggesting that previous North American cougar populations got wiped out with the rest of the fun megafauna, with subsequent repopulation from South America. (oh, and jaguarundi split off ~ 4.2 mya - first across the land bridge to South America, maybe?)

    There you go - your early Tuesday morning cat family evolution blogging. Meanwhile, my little Felis is curled up apparently asleep on his 'bed' - a soft carry bag on top of a big box . . . (and while I pretty confident as to the species, besides the nomeclatural juggling (silvestris, now?) we did find him as a stray kitten, and sometimes I'm not entirely sure . . . )

    Little article about the DNA research: http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2004-05/aug/09.shtm lLittle article about the DNA research

    and I give up with the other ones. Is there anyone out there kind and patient enough to explain both how to link in comments here and how to use tinyurl goodness, again?
    #: Posted by Dan S.  on  08/23  at  12:16 AM
  26. Ahhhghgh!
    I was just trying to repost that link, not the whole comment!
    And it's still messed up.

    I give up. Y'all smart people here - you can find it you want. I better go to bed now. : (
    well - ok
    http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2004-05/aug/09.shtml

    bye now.
    *staggers off*
    #: Posted by Dan S.  on  08/23  at  12:20 AM
  27. yeah, and how do you like their new "some scientists love Teh Jesus and speak out against the eeeevil atheists" article? mmmm, you can really taste the science.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  03:05 AM
  28. Great comment PZ.
    Short and sweet and denying NYT any slack for their reputation.
    The articles are horrors.
    Is it because of the pressure that's generally around now for respected media to provide "balance" in terms of equal time or space - rather than the real balance of careful consideration?
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  03:48 AM
  29. Well, the NYT has kinda made up for it with the following op-ed:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/opinion/23tue3.html

    Still doesn't excuse the first two in the series though.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  05:12 AM
  30. I thought the article was horrible when I first looked at it - because I just looked at the first page. Later I thought it got better.

    I think they missed the opportunity to debunk Demski (who uses mathmatical symbolism to obscure the message as Mark Perakh showed in Unintelligent Design).

    People should write to the New York Times - both to the Public Editor and letters to the editor.
    #: Posted by Eva Young  on  08/23  at  07:05 AM
  31. Couple things I really don't get about this ID crap.

    #1 Why is complexity a sign of god? Don't real engineers usually go for the simplest design possible?

    #2 Supposing God or Angels or something really DID exist, why couldn't science simply go on and explain how THEY work?

    I think it's just a bunch of cynics trying to make an easy political career. I mean look at the money conservatives like the Ahmansons throw at them, it's easy to see why people join their side.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  07:30 AM
  32. I don't know why my credibility should be at an all-time low, PZ, given that I had nothing to do with this article, and even criticized it in the "Politicized Scholars" thread. Actually, it's your credibility that worries me. For example, you ask me not to talk about how good Times reporting on science has been, when you yourself, just before making that request, praised Zimmer, who writes about science for the Times. Moreover, you know as well as I do that when the Times writes about biology, it implicitly assumes the truth of evolutionary theory and makes no mention of ID whatsoever.

    You only offered two substantive criticisms of the article, one dealing with the inadequate response to the Axe claim. I agree, it was inadequate, and said so in the other thread. Your other criticism, of the blood clotting discussion, strikes me as picking a nit of unimaginably small proportions. The reporter did provide the scientific refutation of Behe (and, by extension, the entire irreducible complexity claim), but you're dissatisfied that it came a few paragraphs after Behe's position was outlined, rather than immediately. Can this really be a serious criticism?

    You claim the reporter lets "falsified claims hang there." Well, he certainly didn't let Behe's claim "hang there," he provided the scientific refutation. I'd be interested to know what other claims you think he "let hang there."

    In fact, the article provided the scientific refutations of four main lines of ID attack on evolutionary theory: It refuted irreducible complexity, the argument to gaps in the fossil record, the argument to the Cambrian Explosion and information theory. Some of the refutations might not have been as forceful or thorough as you (or I) might have wished, but they were there.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  08/23  at  07:51 AM
  33. Ed Darell linked to something very interesting in an earlier comment:
    http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/lessons/20050823tuesday.html
    The Lesson overview is:
    In this lesson, students learn about theories of “intelligent design” in evolutionary science. They then research and create dialogues between a Darwinist proponent and an intelligent design proponent.

    There is no theory of "intelligent design" in evolutionary science...
    The objectives are:
    Students will:
    1. Discuss differences between “designed” and “natural” elements.
    2. Learn about current controversies in evolutionary science by reading and discussing the article “In Explaining Life’s Complexities, Darwinists and Doubters Clash.”
    3. In groups, research and write dialogues between proponents of two competing theories on a particular topic of contention.
    4. Individually, write opinion pieces about reconciling beliefs in a higher being with explanations in science.

    The rest of the lesson plan panders precisely to the DI's objectives by teaching students that there indeed exists a controversy in evolutionary science. The controversy they speak of is social and NOT scientific. As a matter of fact, The NYT actually violates the Academic Content Standards it supposedly adheres to.
    From the standards:
    Science Standard 16 - Understands the scientific enterprise. Benchmarks: Understands the ethical traditions associated with the scientific enterprise and that scientists who violate those traditions are censored by their peers; Knows that science and technology are essential social enterprises, but alone they can only indicate what can happen, not what should happen; Knows that creativity, imagination, and a good knowledge base are all required in the work of science and engineering.

    They present thoroughly refuted claims that have been censored from mainstream science as bona fide science, calling them theories and controversies in evolution science and then propose to teach according to a standard that is actually well-written! Pricilla Chan and Bridget Anderson are either incompetent science teachers, or on the DI's payroll.
    I suggest that some of us send feedback on this lesson. The link is available at the bottom of the page.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  08:03 AM
  34. Yet another example in the argument for eliminating "journalism" as a college major. Newspapers should hire people who majored in, or have experience in, real subjects.


    Absent journalism majors, they'll pick English majors. In that case, expect to see postmodernism ravaging the media.
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  08/23  at  08:06 AM
  35. An interesting take on evolution/ID can be found in this interview with the philosopher Gonzalo Munévar, a student of Feyerabend, who says this:

    Scientists and other reasonable people are quite right in pointing out that there is no worthwhile science in creationism or in intelligent design. So in that sense they are also quite right in keeping those subjects out of the science classroom. Giving equal time to all points of view in the classroom is one of the aspects of Feyerabend's Science in a Free Society that I criticized most strongly (see my paper in Beyond Reason). Nevertheless, I think that, if it were done right, it would be a terrific idea to pit intelligent design against evolutionary biology. It would be quite interesting for the students too: this is the accusation that creationists either of old or of "intelligent design" garb make against the theory of evolution; this is the reply. Done right it would be a rout in favor of evolution. And we would have American students actually understand biology for the first time in the history of the country. Unfortunately, most Americans, even scientists outside of biology, have little understanding of evolution. The fundamentalists should be careful about what they pray for, since if it is done properly it would give them fits. And they would have only themselves to blame. They often have no idea what the theory actually says. All they can think of is that we don't come from monkeys and God already wrote down for us in the Old Testament when the world began. The rest is a bunch of very confused notions about evolution and science.

    I am afraid that it would not be done right, though. I have this vision of high school teachers parroting Popperian inanities. Still, they could clear up a lot of misconceptions about the fossil record, the evolution of complex organs, and so on.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  08/23  at  08:18 AM
  36. Supposing God or Angels or something really DID exist, why couldn't science simply go on and explain how THEY work?
    yeah, that's a good point, James. what religious and ID explanations are about is defining a limit to scientific inquiry beyond which no questions are possible. otherwise, their program has no purpose because it isn't emotionally satisfying. so, it is the antithesis of knowing, of doing science.
    #: Posted by ekzept  on  08/23  at  08:26 AM
  37. I see you some of you didn't care for my article. Downright hated it. Which is fine.

    I will say, a) I don't see complaints of factual errors or distortions in the actual explanations and b) I think some of you have a mistaken idea of what the news media should be doing.

    The main complaints appear to be
    * How could I give so much space for these people to lay out their arguments?
    and
    * Why wasn't there more done in taking them apart?

    As for why the Times is writing about intelligent design, as opposed to phrenology, voodoo, and Lysenkoism, it's because the I.D. people have convinced a handful of states to include aspects of it in their curriculum standards. That makes it newsworthy, regardless of the science.

    For those of you who are well versed in this debate and know everything that I didn't put in, here is a point I want to make: this article was not for you. That was one of the frustatrating aspects of doing this story. There was a lot that went into the writing and editing of the story, and there was a lot that went out.

    Rather, the intended audience is the many, many people who have passingly heard of Kansas, intelligent design, Christian, something or other, but don't know what I.D. is or even care much about science in general. The idea was to provide these readers with an introduction to the subject at a level that they could comfortably follow from beginning to end. For these people, I don't think the impression that they come away with is that I.D. and evolution are on even footing.

    There's a sentence up high -- "But mainstream scientists say that the claims of intelligent design run counter to a century of research supporting the explanatory and predictive power of Darwinian evolution, and that the design approach suffers from fundamental problems that place it outside the realm of science." -- and then a 475-word section in the middle that lays out what evolution is, how it works and what it has successfully explained. I suggest that some of you glossed over it while reading, because you know it already and it's nothing new.

    As for whether the article succeeds or not, I point to it sitting at #1 on the NYT Web site's "Most E-Mailed Articles" list for most of the past day. That of course just means that people are reading it and telling others about it. Maybe it's you all emailing each other saying, "See a disaster this article is!"

    Or maybe, as you fear, it has sowed confusion where there should be clarity. But you're also assuming the worst about how people are reading it. If you hear people saying, "I read that Times article and now intelligent design seems much more reasonable and there are so many problems with evolution," then I agree with all of your criticisms, because that was not the intended take home message. Again, I honestly think that most readers did not walk away with that impression. I have not gotten any feedback from anyone along those lines, just complaints from people who worry that others will read it that way.

    On the other hand, maybe a lot of people who haven't been paying much attention now have a better sense of both intelligent design and evolution, and I say that would not be a bad thing.

    Feel free to email me and complain in person.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  08:45 AM
  38. Excellent response, Kennth. "This article was not for you" is a point I think is being overlooked.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  08/23  at  08:53 AM
  39. Check out the DI's blog.

    "The New York Times editorial page aside, the coverage of the debate over evolution and intelligent design is improving"

    "Despite getting plenty of ink, the Darwinists don't come off looking so well in Kenneth Chang's story about intelligent design in the Science section of today's New York Times."

    See? Somebody liked it.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  08/23  at  09:55 AM
  40. Kenneth:
    Your response is perfectly on-point. Many of the people that post comments on this and other related sites, including myself, have been following the issue for some time. We've seen travesty upon travesty come from an organization that speaks fraudulently and frequently in the name of science. That same organisation wants our children to learn bogus science solely for the advancement of a purely religious agenda. Please understand our frustration at those that do not come down hard on these snake-oil salesmen.

    I do have one inaccuracy to report:
    You said:
    {Darwin} observed that individuals in a given species varied considerably, variations now known to be caused by mutations in their genetic code.

    This is not correct. Variations within a species are primarily due to homologous DNA recombination (crossover) that occurs during fertilization. Robin Holliday proposed this elegant mechanism in 1964 and his theory was confirmed later by direct observation through X-Ray Crystallography (The Journal of Biological Chemistry; Vol 278; No. 50, pp. 49663-49666). Homologous recombination explains in molecular terms how one's traits are inherited from both parents and how each individual is genetically unique.
    At the rate mutations occur and given the fact that most mutations of the genome aren't manifest in the individual's phenotype (appearance), we'd all look the same if variations were dependant on mutation.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  10:03 AM
  41. Right, Kenneth. I think we have to recognize that you're playing your role, no doubt close to how you should, while PZ Myers has to play his role of pointing up the inadequacies of such "balance".

    You'd sound like an arrogant person unsympathetic to the characters you're covering if you wrote like PZ does, while PZ would sound like a relativistic fool for granting as much credit to Behe as you must. PZ needs to agitate, while that is the opposite of your own role and purpose.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  10:20 AM
  42. Granted, DI says the Chang article came off favorably for ID. Then again, some of the DI folks and/or their hangers-on have worked hard to give the impression that the Smithsonian and the Niels Bohr Institute have also taken a positive view of ID. Caveat lector.
    #: Posted by Mark Nutter  on  08/23  at  10:21 AM
  43. ``That makes it newsworthy, regardless of the science.''

    Well, congratulations, then; you wrote some news, regardless of the science.
    #: Posted by Jonathan Dursi  on  08/23  at  10:32 AM
  44. Kenneth: While I think it's obvious that someone who knows the science will understand that intelligent design is a complete non-starter among actual biologists, I'd be surprised if the folks that you count as your intended audience will come away with that conclusion. Look at how you've framed every point in the article: you give a description of some claim by the ID people and then you follow it up with a paragraph saying something along the lines of "but (some) biologists/mathematicians disagree". There's practically no description of why they disagree nor is it clear that it's not just some random subset of biologists/mathematicians who disagree, but damned near all of them who've looked at the evidence.

    At best, you've got the scientists saying, "well, we've gotta hypothesis that it works this way instead", with no indication that it's anything more than a wild guess, rather than a model based on real data. The way you've phrased most of the article, both sides end up looking like they're equally out of their depth, which is pretty much exactly what the ID people are after.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  10:37 AM
  45. Exactly. So far, I'd rate the Times' work on this as mediocre at best. It really reads like it's trying to assuage readers who might be offended by the idea that the anti-evolutionists are, well, you know, *utterly wrong* about evolution.

    The overriding point that readers need to have hammered into them, is that it isn't about science at all, for the Discovery folks. Behe et al. are just window dressing for a religious movement that wants to 'cast out' the demon materialism. *THAT* is the story.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  10:51 AM
  46. I think for a newspaper that seems to value 'balance' more than it values truth, Ken Chang's defense is perfectly apropriate. This is the paper that let its journalists claim that to report on imaginary uranium centrifuge tubes and nuclear clouds is fine because it presents the 'view of the administration', whether the administration --or the Discovery Institute-- is full of crap, that is not for the most important newspaper in the world to discuss. Their role, we have to understand, is not to separate the moron from the educated, or the dishonest ideologue from the honest realist to better inform us. Their role is to inform them, Mr. Chang tells us, <i>the idiots and the creeps. Keep up the good work!
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  10:55 AM
  47. I take the fact of what the DI claims to be the case of the articles with a grain of salt, but they've been consistently silent about criticism; that they willingly cite this article suggests that, at the very least, they are conscious that its interpretation can be skewed in their favor.

    There is no excuse for that.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  08/23  at  11:04 AM
  48. You see what you have to contend with here, Kenneth. The readership you are trying to inform consists of "idiots and creeps." Why? Well, I guess it's because they're not biologists, or something.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  08/23  at  11:06 AM
  49. Sean,

    I'd be careful with such an argument because ultimately the genetic variation that recombiantion mixes up is due to mutation.
    #: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright  on  08/23  at  11:10 AM
  50. All of following is cut and pasted out of the article. They're pretty straightforward declarative sentences, and if the only meaning the reader draws from them is that I said evolution is nothing more than a "wild guess," then, well, I'm sorry, my writing obviously obfuscated the points I was trying to make. (And a total non sequitir: I really like these biological code words you have to type to post here.)


    But mainstream scientists say that the claims of intelligent design run counter to a century of research supporting the explanatory and predictive power of Darwinian evolution, and that the design approach suffers from fundamental problems that place it outside the realm of science.

    ...

    And in that quest, they say, there is no need to resort to otherworldly explanations. So much evidence has been provided by evolutionary studies that biologists are able to explain even the most complex natural phenomena and to fill in whatever blanks remain with solid theories.

    ...
    ...a vast majority of scientists accept evolution...
    ...

    Nonetheless, many scientists regard intelligent design as little more than creationism dressed up in pseudoscientific clothing. Despite its use of scientific language and the fact that some design advocates are scientists, they say, the design approach has so far offered only philosophical objections to evolution, not any positive evidence for the intervention of a designer.

    ...

    Darwin's theory, in contrast, has over the last century yielded so many solid findings that no mainstream biologist today doubts its basic tenets, though they may argue about particulars.

    The theory has unlocked many of the mysteries of the natural world. For example, by studying the skeletons of whales, evolutionary scientists have been able to trace the history of their descent from small-hoofed land mammals. They made predictions about what the earliest water-dwelling whales might look like. And, in 1994, paleontologists reported discovering two such species, with many of the anatomical features that scientists had predicted.

    Nowhere has evolution been more powerful than in its prediction that there must be a means to pass on information from one generation to another. Darwin did not know the biological mechanism of inheritance, but the theory of evolution required one.

    The discovery of DNA, the sequencing of the human genome, the pinpointing of genetic diseases and the discovery that a continuum of life from a single cell to a human brain can be detected in DNA are all a result of evolutionary theory.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  11:18 AM
  51. One would think that such content hardly offers support for ID or demeans evolutionary theory in the least, but I suppose some people are reading these articles in a parallel universe or something, where every word means the opposite of what it is generally thought to mean.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  08/23  at  11:27 AM
  52. Kenneth, it seems to me that people without a good awareness of science and the state of current research might well come away from the article with some sense of the 'debate,' but not the best feel for how much of a (unsupported) minority position ID is in. You have "mainstream" and "many", which is good, but I don't know if the average reader is going to walk away understanding that virtually the entire scientific community considers ID to be roughly on a par with the most recent Elvis sighting.
    Abnormal Interests says it better: "How many other mathematicians? Which other mathematicians? We are not told. The whole thing makes it sound like a few, perhaps renegade, mathematicians are holding out, when in fact it is just the opposite." (http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2005/08/scientists_or_c.html)

    Normally I'd be impressed at how much you have in such little space, but given the context . .
    Maybe I'm wrong about this. I hope so.
    #: Posted by Dan S.  on  08/23  at  11:35 AM
  53. The problem with the article is that it's written like an article about a dispute within science, when this isn't a dispute within science. This isn't a disagreement between scientists, where each side is intepreting data in different ways, it's a political attack on science. If you render it in the standard statement-refutation, he-said-she-said style of science reporting, it's going to be unconscionably biased. It would be a great article if it was reporting on a dispute within science, but it's not.

    I thought there was interesting tension brought out in the article though. Compare these statements:

    "[M]ainstream scientists, design proponents say, are unwilling to look beyond the material world when it comes to explaining things like the construction of an eye or the spinning motors that propel bacteria."

    "'Call it miracle, call it some other pejorative term, but the fact remains that the materialistic view is a truncated view of reality'."

    "Mainstream scientists say that the scientific method is indeed restricted to the material world, because it is trying to find out how it works."

    The problem here is that there's nothing in scientific practise that restricts science to a "material world" distinct from some larger context. That is a philosophical position and one that, while still accepted by most scientists, has become increasingly hard to defend within philosophy. But the stakes are high here: if we don't keep this form of scepticism, then science really does imply (very strong) atheism. So the counter claim, that science should allow for non-material causes, is a neat way to oppose that, even if it is ridiculous.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  11:36 AM
  54. Has anyone read the third installment yet? What exactly was it's point? It's basically a big hugfest between scientists and religion.

    If they were trying to point out that many believing people are scientists, then fine, I don't have a big problem with that. But they don't really go a long way (other than a nice Dawkins quote) to explain how the practice of science is different from the practice of religion.

    This quote, in reference to Joseph E. Murray, for example:

    ...when he was preparing for the first ever human organ transplant...he and his colleagues consulted a number of religious leaders about whether they were doing the right thing. "It seemed natural," he said...When you are searching for truth you should use every possible avenue, including revelation..."


    WTF? Revelation? Why do we continue to pretend that, just become some idiot aligns himself with religion, that his opinion is the end all, be all of moral or ethical thought?

    There's some discussion of Gould's NOMA concept, which I realise a lot of people (myself included) find lacking, but they then go on to say that science and religion are inextricably linked because of implications science may have for religion, or the way moral questions direct research--which completely misses Gould's point. So why even bring it up?

    Firstly, ethics influence how, or what type of research may be conducted. Not morals. Ethics have diddly to do with religion. Secondly, whatever implications a discovery may have for religion, is religion's problem, not science's (which Gould explained pretty clearly in his book). The point, which the Times failed to make, is that, although believers may be scientists, they do not look to religion to direct or inform actual investigation.

    For all the talk that the NYT isn't adressing the scientifically informed audience, but is simply explicating an issue for the unitiated (and of course, they're sure that nobody will come away with the impression that science and religion are on equal footing), I think it's telling that the third installment ends with this:

    ...some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions - and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?"


    Lame. In the same issue, Verlyn Klinkenborg answers these exact questions in an editorial:

    The essential, but often well-disguised, purpose of intelligent design, is to preserve the myth of a separate, divine creation for humans in the belief that only that can explain who we are. But there is a destructive hubris, a fearful arrogance, in that myth. It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and the moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here. There is a righteousness - a responsibility - in the deep, ancestral origins we share with all of life.


    Klinkenborg also includes this very succint and accurate summing up of the evolution/ID "debate", which doesn't take up a lot of room, and would have greatly benifitted the earlier articles, if they were serious about accurately representing the issue.

    But what we prefer to believe makes no difference....Evolution is a robust theory, in the scientific sense, that has been tested and confirmed again and again. Intelligent design is not a theory at all, as scientists understand the word, but a well-financed political and religious campaign to muddy science. Its basic proposition - the intervention of a designer, a k a God - cannot be tested. It has no evidence to offer, and its assumptions that humans were divinely created are the same as its conclusions. Its objections to evolution are based on syllogistic reasoning and a highly selective treatment of the physical evidence.


    I hope PZ tears into this installment,too.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  11:37 AM
  55. Kenneth,

    I see your point that you were trying to tell a story about this issue and also explain that ID is not accepted. I think the disconnect here is that we scientists have (or should have been) fighting this battle for some time and to us it seems appropriate to state that ID is crap and intelectually bankrupt. But that wouldn't have made an interesting story for the NYT, and it would have alienated many of the readers.

    So from me - I think you did pretty well with a tough issue, but it would be better if you gave less credence to the crackpots in future articles.

    Cheeto
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  11:39 AM
  56. Does Kenneth Chang have any sort of tertiary science qualifications?
    If yes, then the article does his training no justice.
    If no, then a claimed 475-word precis of the central organising concept of modern biology for the the scientifically naive reader is an insult to both them and any scientists reading it.
    I have the minimum recognised biology training of 3 years and there is no way that I could give Kenneth Chang marks for either brevity or clarity in his muddy beat-up of what is essentially a long-buried theory. Paley's been dealt with precisely and buried many times over before the DI dredged it up again.

    The better NYT employee to have over for a comment would be Kenneth Chang's editor; to ask them why set such a confused dog on the rabbit.
    I have not a skerrick of animosity towards Kenneth Chang but the article is a beat-up.

    Here's my take-home message for what it's worth: Kenneth Chang says
    As for whether the article succeeds or not, I point to it sitting at #1 on the NYT Web site's "Most E-Mailed Articles" list for most of the past day. That of course just means that people are reading it and telling others about it. Maybe it's you all emailing each other saying, "See a disaster this article is!"

    Much more likely is that the DI is doing what it does best: rolling its bots into action, using its favourite political pressure tool of highlighting favourable references in respected journals (who doesn't respect the NYT?). "See, the NYT can't be wrong - it says ID is a theory and that there really is a debate!".
    Most readers of Pharyngula wouldn't be inclined to use the clumsy email tracing javascript on sites like the NYT, instead preferring to copy the article's url to use with their own mail client.

    I look forward to a NYT analysis of the Discovery Institute and its funders sometime soon.
    However I'm not holding my breath because, quoting from the first article:

    John Calvert, the managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, based in Kansas, said the institute had the intellectual and financial resources to "lead the movement" but was "more cautious" than he would like. "They want to avoid the discussion of religion because that detracts from the focus on the science," he said.
    Of course they want to avoid the discussion of their central agenda and it seems that the NYT was happy to leave it at that.

    Shame on NYT.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  11:43 AM
  57. Kenneth,

    Take the "they say" out of this, and most of the other sentences you quote, and then you will have made a declarative statement.

    And in that quest, they say, there is no need to resort to otherworldly explanations.


    There is a difference between "It is true that a scientist said this", and "What this scientist said is true".
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  11:49 AM
  58. Kenneth,

    What your article fails to mention - indeed what most articles on the ID/Evolution controversy fail to mention - is that Intelligent Design is merely a euphemism for God creating life.

    Many people have pointed out the delicious irony that creationism has, well, evolved over the last 25 years. Creationsists know that they cannot simply argue for religion being taught in school science classes, so they have had to come up with an indirect, euphemistic approach to promoting their religion. The current approach is called intelligent design.

    By treating the issue as a scientific controversy - even if you correctly state that the bulk of evidence is against ID - you are simply missing the point.

    The real points you should be bringing out are:

    1. ID logically leads to a supernatural creator. If life is too compicated to have evolved on Earth, then it was either designed by God or space aliens. And who designed the space aliens?

    2. The leading lights of the ID movement are funded by an organization devoted to destroying the "naturalistic worldview" which they claim has led America to its current parlous state.

    3. The leading lights of the ID movement have made numerous public statements in which they link the Designer with the Christian God, and but go to great lengths to disingenously deny that when pressed. They paper over possibel disputes with young Earth creationists, by disingenuously claiming that they have "no opinion" on the age of the earth, or whether humans and chimps share common ancestry.

    4. Almost all the ID conferences to date have been sponsored or supported by religious organizations.

    5. The strategy of the ID movement is laid out in their Wedge Strategy, which clearly shows how journalists like you are being used as pawns in their game instead of them having to resort to doing actual science. They are, in other words, trying to do an end run round the nromal practice of science, and appeal to the public directly.

    That is the story. Science is not the story. There is no ID science to discuss. So why are you bothering to try?
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  11:49 AM
  59. As a mathematician, I was disappointed by the he-said/she-said presentation of the mathematical arguments presented in Kenneth Chang's article. After carefully explaining pro-ID arguments involving visually intuitive concepts like Mt. Rushmore, Mr. Chang simply reports that other mathematicians disagree, possibly creating the impression of a legitimate scientific or mathematical dispute where there is none.

    It would have been very easy to present within the article the simple counter-argument that eviscerates the ID position. This argument appears, but at the very bottom of the annoyingly titled pop-up "What's Wrong With Evolution?"—"a cell that had the faces of four presidents on it, while other cells did not, would no doubt prompt scientists to look for a designer."

    The problem with ID mathematics is that it is pseudoscientific gibberish used to obfuscate risibly poor arguments like the Mt. Rushmore example, not to quantify and illuminate good ones. ID math is either spectacularly ill-defined and misapplied, or it is flat-out wrong and reveals pathetically shoddy scholarship.

    Look, when the mathematician on which you base your arguments says that your work is "written in jello", this goes above and beyond mathematical disagreement. And when the selfsame disputant says about information theory that
    intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,

    and that he wants to squeeze confessions out of evolution-accepting scientists and posts pictures of a tortured little Charles Darwin doll with his head in a vice, it's time to draw some conclusions, even for an even-handed NYT reporter.

    For anyone interested in the overwhelming support of evolution given by sound mathematics, I suggest quickly reading R.A. Fisher's biography , or consulting a mathematical population geneticist.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  11:50 AM
  60. the Verlyn Klinkenborg editorial quoted by mothworm:
    It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and the moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here. There is a righteousness - a responsibility - in the deep, ancestral origins we share with all of life.
    addresses another part of this matter, that this ID comes from a decidedly WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) perspective, a throwback to notions and the time of manifest destiny and such. in fact, there are many deep religious traditions who believe humankind's role ought to be one of healing nature and the world, not dominating it. those perspectives were missed. i think someone else observed something similar in another Comment on a similar subject.
    #: Posted by ekzept  on  08/23  at  11:51 AM
  61. Reed,
    Sorry but what you said re: homologous DNA recombination doesn't jive with my understanding of the topic. Mutation does not, to my knowledge, initiate or mediate crossover events. I'll send something to your blog email inbox soon.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  11:56 AM
  62. y'know, as a point of comparison, consider the Times treatment of Drosnin's Bible code book. Drosnin had mathematicians and comparable folks on "his side", too, and his book was a best seller.
    #: Posted by ekzept  on  08/23  at  11:57 AM
  63. Mr. Chang, why don't you write an article about people like PZ Myers? Evaluate the veracity, honesty, scientific, and educational skills of the intelligent design peddlers at the Discovery Institute and compare them with PZ Myers' honesty and scientific credentials. Compare the ACCURACY of Mr. Myers' claims about the Discovery Institute and the charlatans who work there with the claims those charlatans have made about the "crisis" in evolutionary biology.

    If you are not interested in writing such an article, could you explain why, Mr. Chang?

    Since when does the job of journalists not include investigating and reporting on the veracity of statements made by proponents of conflicting views?

    The reason people are pissed off and rightfully so is because, to date, the mainstream media including your employer has done a terrible job of reporting on creationist LIES.

    That is the story, Mr. Chang: creationist LIES. People who LIE and sow confusion in order to further their religious beliefs. People who behave HYPOCRITICALLY to further their their religious beliefs.

    That is what PZ Myers does here at his blog. He presents the work of genuine scientists and he presents the work of pseudoscientists.

    Your readers who aren't scientists are NEVER going to understand all of the details of evolutionary biology.

    But they can understand which group -- scientists who aren't associated with the Discovery Institute versus those who are -- includes a far greater proportion of cranks who have contributed NOTHING to the science of evolutionary biology.

    They can understand that, Mr. Chang, if you can educate yourself and find the courage to WRITE THE DAMN SENTENCE.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  12:15 PM
  64. This whole thing stinks of a hoary generational group-think that will hopefully waste away with the next wave of young journalists who will be specifically educated in science writing. I believe that reporters brought-up in the old-school style of political reporting have been indoctrinated to present each side in a fair and balanced format regardless of the validity and verification of either sides arguement; the we report, you decide mentality.
    What we're left with is the politicalization of science.
    That's fine, I suppose, if you're science-minded enough to make the smart decision. But science isn't democratic, and, ideally, the next generation of science writers, free from the shackles of politics, will do more than report the views of each side.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  12:27 PM
  65. Chang has also "buried the lead." It isn't until the ninth paragraph that the biologists get their say. By this time, most readers have moved on to the crossword puzzle and all they have seen is the ID point of view.

    An objective journalist would have led off the article with "Despite a total lack of support by the mainstream scientific community, proponents of intelligent design continue to wage a political battle to get their faith-based belief inserted into public school's science curriculum."

    Note I said "objective," not "balanced." Balance is not, in and of itself, a desirable quality in journalism. Sometimes objectivity demands balance, but often--and especially in articles about science--it does not.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  01:10 PM
  66. The entire framing of this issue has been incompetent within most of the MSM. Why do we hear about the Evolution Wars from Time and the Evolution Debate from the New York Times when no such "wars" or "debate" exist in evolution (that is within the domain of science)? The *real* war and debate is over whether religion (posing as science) is taught in the science classroom of public schools, and nothing more. A better title would be The Theocracy Wars/Debate.

    I don't understand why a small group of pseudoscientific theocrats get the privelage of being portrayed as nothing less than a daring minority scientific viewpoint. The major media is helping to manufacture the image of the same phony "debate" that the DI is banking on for their popular political support.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  01:13 PM
  67. Given the teeth-grinding job they're doing now, imagine if the Times does some meta-reportage on the series. Here's my guess for their head:

    "SCIENTISTS ANGERED BY COVERAGE OF COMPETING THEORY"
    Only One View Should Be Reported, They Say
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  01:18 PM
  68. Kenneth,

    Thank you for taking the time to stop by here to defend your article. You didn't have to do that, and I appreciate your effort to address the concerns that were presented. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

    Dave
    #: Posted by Dave Carlson  on  08/23  at  01:51 PM
  69. It should be pointed out that the efforts of the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy to get ID into the public eye have been enormously successful. How many of the general population knew about ID five or even three years ago? Now the President is talking about it. Sorry Kenneth, but articles like yours simply help the DI's media campaign. The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  02:02 PM
  70. Not every opposing point deserves to be taught or given equal time. It is often recognized that one side or the other in many disputes is full of crap. In politics not every whack-job candidate from every “party” gets his or her opinion printed in the paper or staged in the debates.
    There is an argument that the NY Times has an obligation to present both sides in any argument so that the public may decide which of two equally weighted positions to adopt. These sides are not equally weighted and presenting ID as though they are gives credence to voodoo science. Besides, the Times had no problem ignoring the feelings of the Pastafarians.
    The paper needed to decide what the story was going to be: ID versus evolution or the battle over ID and evolution. They are two very different stories and very different approaches would be needed to cover them. ID versus evolution is not a story. ID has no serious rational scientific support.
    The battle over ID and evolution is the story. The attempt was made to cover both angles in one story and a disservice was done to both.
    An editorial decision should have been made that ID is not based on science, verifiable research or testing. The reporter may argue that making such a decision would require the NY Times to take a side. So? When the Flat Earth Society meets do they make an editorial decision or simply report to educate their readers that beyond this point there be dragons?
    Once the decision was made that ID is religion in a lab coat then the fact that several states and Dubya are supporting it does become news, but the story is different. Proponents of ID should be forced to define their specific position citing research. It must also be noted that unanswered questions in evolution are equally unanswered in ID unless you fill in the blank with “God.”
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  02:32 PM
  71. Steve Sullivan

    Your 1:18 post is simultaneously depressingly accurate and truly hilarious.

    What Mr. Chang doesn't understand is that the sort of thing the Discovery Institute is doing has serious consequences if journalists continue to lazily bend over and recite the garbage the DI hands them.

    If Mr. Chang isn't careful, he'll soon find himself facilitating liars who are volunteering for a different conservative think tank with the goal of, e.g., spreading disgusting lies about, e.g., a presidential candidate. By the time the "public" sorts the truth out from Mr. Chang's "balanced" reporting it will be too late.

    That is a truly horrible thing to contemplate happening in the future, isn't it, Mr. Chang?

    Thankfully your newspaper did such an incredible job reporting on 'Whitewater,' the 'invention of the Internet' and the 'Swift Boat' affair that we haven't had to worry about that possibility yet, Mr. Chang.

    How old are you anyway, Mr. Chang? Too old to learn something new?

    I sure fucking hope not.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  02:40 PM
  72. Perhaps Mr. Chang can write an equally informative article about the amazing research being done which proves that the Holocaust never happened, that aliens have visited the earth numerous times and the government knows about it, and that the lunar landing was faked.

    Don't the Times readers deserve to hear both sides of these fascinating controversies, fairly presented and emphasizing the most compelling arguments for each?

    Or is it necessary for a bunch of rich religious bigots to put the proponents of such theories in nice suits and haircuts before the Times is motivated to quote them without explicitly impeaching them first?
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  02:49 PM
  73. This sort of agenda-ignoring drives me a little nuts..especially when the supposedly 'liberal' press does the ignoring. For example, NPR has Cato Institute droids on its talk shows frequently spouting libertarian dogma on a variety of topics, but rarely by way of introduction do the hosts ever do more than name-check the institute. Whereas listeners might have a *much* better idea of where the talker comes from, if they were told what Cato's focus is, its funding, its ideology, and its connections to power.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  02:54 PM
  74. This isn't by any means the first time that there has been a bogus "debate" between science and non-science, and in fairness to journalists, they are always writing for an audience which is poorly equipped to understand, or to judge, the scientific merits of such a debate.

    When I was an undergraduate, back in the sixties, there were still a few hold-outs against special relativity, even among the science faculty. Imagine trying to write an article for lay-people explaining why the famous "twins paradox" isn't really a paradox.

    Fortunately, there are indirect ways for scientists to win a debate, and that is not to debate the theory, but the results. Once it could be shown that time dilation, etc., can be directly observed, the argument was over, not because the public understood relativity any better, but because they do understand the argument "If this theory is wrong, we would not be observing the following".

    Debating the process of evolution in front of a lay audience is a losing game, because they can't tell who's winning the argument. But find concrete observations that are predicted by evolutionary explanations, and are not predicted by ID, and you are on to something.

    And if you think you have already done that, I don't think you have. Att least, not so effectively that a NYT reporter can write "ID says this, but observations X, Y, Z contradict ID"
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  03:09 PM
  75. Chang has also "buried the lead." It isn't until the ninth paragraph that the biologists get their say. By this time, most readers have moved on to the crossword puzzle and all they have seen is the ID point of view.


    Not contemptuous of the public much, are we?

    When speaking of "elitism," the charge of elitism does not lie in suggesting that people who know what they're talking about should be ignored, as one poster said. It lies in stuff like this: a total contempt for the intelligence of ordinary people. What you don't get is that The Times (ironically so often accused of elitism) does not share the contempt for the intelligence of the public that oozes up through this blog, and believes instead that most readers will be able to sort through the competing claims in the ID/evolution article in a reasonable manner. Maybe that belief is wrong. But, if it is, then here is the point: Nothing that the Times wrote on this subject would have made the slightest difference to people's beliefs.

    It's also amusing to watch Arthur Silber babble on about how "reality is real." This is just the sort of juvenile comment that Ayn Randroids kid themselves into believing is profound, like, "things are as they are." Is Silber an Objectivist?
    #: Posted by davidm  on  08/23  at  03:14 PM
  76. davidm: "Burying the lede" is a journalists' term. The whole point of newspaper writing is that you get your article's conclusion right there at the beginning of the article. Why? Because journalists know that most people don't read more than the first paragraphs of a given story, don't read past the first story break, etc. How is it "elitist" to expect someone to follow the conventions of their profession?

    If Mr. Chang really wanted to drive home the point that there's no real scientific controversy here, then why start the story the way he did? Why not start with what he leaves until the fifth paragraph? Why does he treat science's materialism as some sort of ideological quirk rather than the fundamental aspect that allows science to function?

    I understand that this is a thankless sort of assignment and someone's gonna be upset with what he writes regardless, but this is just not a good article.
    #: Posted by  on  08/23  at  03:52 PM
  77. One story that could have been written was, as mentioned above, a tale of a handful of folks, well-funded by money from right-wing/religious donors, try to pull off an astonishing scam (perhaps even convincing themselves!) pushing complete pseudoscience designed to salve religious anxiety into our public school classrooms as part of a plan to overthrow materialistic science. In school boards from Pennsylvania to Kansas, low-level battles rage, whi