Here's a sample:
In an item on the growing popularity of Intelligent Design, John Humphrys interviewed Professor Ken Miller of Brown University in the US who spoke on the subject last evening at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge. Humphrys suggested that Intelligent Design might be considered a kind of middle ground between Darwinism and Creationism. Miller agreed but went further, saying that Intelligent Design was
nothing more than an attempt to repackage good old-fashioned Creationism and make it more palatable.
But this is totally untrue. Miller referred to a landmark US court case in 2005, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, which did indeed uphold the argument that Intelligent Design was a form of Creationism in its ruling that teaching Intelligent Design violated the constitutional ban against teaching religion in public schools. But the court was simply wrong, doubtless because it had heard muddled testimony from the likes of Prof Miller.
The woman is masterful in her lack of research, subject knowledge and even apparent inability to understand what has been quite simply spelled out to her.
I'm also thoroughly amused by her decree that the Court Ruling 'was simply wrong'! The statement makes it abundantly clear that she didn't read up on the case - you know, something one is wont to do, when one is writing about this particular subject - and thus has made her own conclusions apparently based on her own biases.
Wonderful bit of journalism, there!
I left a reply:
April 30th, 2009 10:09pm
Seriously, Melanie, if you plan to write in the public forum about these subjects, at least make some pretense at having researched the topic. ID is and always has been, a trumped up attempt to make Creationism 'scientific'.
It's one of many, many comments that are attempting to set the woman straight. Though there are a few amusing Creationist comments, too - well worth the read, if only for those.