Full Article Text
T U E S D A Y , A U G U S T 1 6 , 2 0 0 5USA Today Does Terrible Job On Evolution"Debate"by Michael in New York on
8/16/2005 11:56:00 AMUSA Today devoted its opinion page to the "debate" onevolution (a debate which doesn't exist in the scientificcommunity, of course). It gives one half of the page to thepeople from the Discovery Institute, the group devoted topushing its religious beliefs into our classrooms. The other halfis given to the real scientists. Fine.The problem is the primer provided by USA Today's AlejandroGonzalez getting readers up to speed on the definition of"Neo-Darwinism," "Theory of Evolution," "Intelligent Design"and "Creationism." (You can find it under either link.) The firsttwo are okay as far as they go, though USA Today makes noreference to the 150 years of evidence and studies andexperiments that support them nor the widespread acceptancethey enjoy, how they are bedrocks of modern biology, etc.Apparently out of fear of offending anyone, USA Today simplygives a dictionary definition of "Creationism," as if to say,"Don't blame us for saying it's religious; that's what Webster'ssays."The real problem is USA Today's definition of Intelligent Design.Both Neo-Darwinism and Theory of Evolution are properlytermed theories. And ID?"A new and developing theory that says certain features ofliving systems are best explained by an intelligent cause ratherthan an undirected mechanism...."A new and developing theory? That is simply ridiculous for amajor newspaper to say. ID is not a theory in any sense of theterm as it's used in science. Moreover, it is simply wrong todescribe it as a "new and developing theory" alongsideNeo-Darwinism. It is not a theory because a theory in sciencemust have mountains of evidence and years of study before anidea gets elevated to that level of seriousness. Moreimportantly, ID is not a scientific idea in any way shape orform. It is a religious belief, pure and simple. It cannot and hasnot be proved or disproved by experiment. It cannot and hasnot inspired any experiments or studies. It cannot and has notpredicted certain patterns or behaviors for scientists to look for.After decades of proselytizing, ID remains absolutely outside ofscience for the simple fact that it isn't science.USA Today was not being respectful by describing ID this way.USA Today was lying, pure and simple, or grossly incompetent.They really should run a correction. Any scientists, any sciencefoundations out there, any university professors, please writeto USA Today and correct this error. It's absolutely crucial tothis fight that major newspapers not start to lie to their readersand mislead them out of a fear of retribution from fringegroups.To report corrections and clarifications, contact Reader EditorBrent Jones at 1-800-872-7073 or emailaccuracy@usatoday.comExplain why you think this is an error -- as opposed to an
AmoLatino.comFeedback - Ads by Google
AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth: USA ...http://www.americablog.com/2005/08/usa-today-does-terrible-j...
1 of 17/24/09 6:28 PM
8/16/2005 11:56:00 AMUSA Today devoted its opinion page to the "debate" onevolution (a debate which doesn't exist in the scientificcommunity, of course). It gives one half of the page to thepeople from the Discovery Institute, the group devoted topushing its religious beliefs into our classrooms. The other halfis given to the real scientists. Fine.The problem is the primer provided by USA Today's AlejandroGonzalez getting readers up to speed on the definition of"Neo-Darwinism," "Theory of Evolution," "Intelligent Design"and "Creationism." (You can find it under either link.) The firsttwo are okay as far as they go, though USA Today makes noreference to the 150 years of evidence and studies andexperiments that support them nor the widespread acceptancethey enjoy, how they are bedrocks of modern biology, etc.Apparently out of fear of offending anyone, USA Today simplygives a dictionary definition of "Creationism," as if to say,"Don't blame us for saying it's religious; that's what Webster'ssays."The real problem is USA Today's definition of Intelligent Design.Both Neo-Darwinism and Theory of Evolution are properlytermed theories. And ID?"A new and developing theory that says certain features ofliving systems are best explained by an intelligent cause ratherthan an undirected mechanism...."A new and developing theory? That is simply ridiculous for amajor newspaper to say. ID is not a theory in any sense of theterm as it's used in science. Moreover, it is simply wrong todescribe it as a "new and developing theory" alongsideNeo-Darwinism. It is not a theory because a theory in sciencemust have mountains of evidence and years of study before anidea gets elevated to that level of seriousness. Moreimportantly, ID is not a scientific idea in any way shape orform. It is a religious belief, pure and simple. It cannot and hasnot be proved or disproved by experiment. It cannot and hasnot inspired any experiments or studies. It cannot and has notpredicted certain patterns or behaviors for scientists to look for.After decades of proselytizing, ID remains absolutely outside ofscience for the simple fact that it isn't science.USA Today was not being respectful by describing ID this way.USA Today was lying, pure and simple, or grossly incompetent.They really should run a correction. Any scientists, any sciencefoundations out there, any university professors, please writeto USA Today and correct this error. It's absolutely crucial tothis fight that major newspapers not start to lie to their readersand mislead them out of a fear of retribution from fringegroups.To report corrections and clarifications, contact Reader EditorBrent Jones at 1-800-872-7073 or emailaccuracy@usatoday.comExplain why you think this is an error -- as opposed to an
AmoLatino.comFeedback - Ads by Google
AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth: USA ...http://www.americablog.com/2005/08/usa-today-does-terrible-j...
1 of 17/24/09 6:28 PM