Back in September, Fort Worth Weekly published an article on Intelligent Design entitled Devolution in Education. Its author, Laurie Barker James, should win a prize for producing such a choice example of poorly researched biased reporting. Full of misrepresentations and falsities, James’ article is a beautiful demonstration of how to build a straw man. However, James can’t take too much credit for this masterpiece in absurdity; after all, she was only parroting what everyone else in the popular media has been saying. Poorly researched biased reporting has become the hallmark of mainstream reporting on ID. This is a tremendous shame for at least three reasons: (1) It proves that journalists are either being lazy (unwilling to dig deep and be innovative in their reporting on ID) or dishonest (unwilling to report the truth), (2) it suggests that journalists are scared of challenging the status quo (i.e. challenging Darwinism), and (3) it means that millions of people are being misinformed.
To those of you reading this post, shaking your head in disbelief, I issue a challenge. Read James’ article and check her facts. Don’t just take her word for it; go find out for yourself. For instance, she gives a definition of ID in her article. Google it and find out how Design Theorists really define ID. Pick up a copy of Debating Design (published by Cambridge University Press) and do a little bit of reading. Then, next time you read an article like Devolution in Education, write a letter to the editor pointing out all of its mistakes.
You can read Devolution in Education here: http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=7149
You can read my letter to the editor here: http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=7208