Contest Question 23: YOU rank order the Top Ten ID media stories of the year

The Top Ten Darwin and Design Media News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments on the latter are here.

Note, these are media stories.

But why should ARN do it all? We're not wizards; we just put our heads together once a year.

For a free copy of Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009), the top rated 2009 ID resource, courtesy the Discovery Institute, explain:

1. How would you have rated the stories differently?

Or

2. Are there stories that should have been on the list that are not?

Don't bother with my comments if they may influence your judgement. They won't influence mine. I probably forgot what I said anyway. So much stuff rolls through the system now ...

Let me put it like this: I can remember when ID only ever meant that card teenagers fake up, to buy beer.

In under 400 words. You can link at the comments box, so no need to reproduce swatches of copy if you don't want to use up your word count.

Go here to enter.

Here are the contest rules.

Also, a question I would welcome some help in answering: Why can’t regular media actually grapple with the issues around design? It’s like a nonsensical broken record endlessly replaying a commercial, of which the sponsors are in bankruptcy protection.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Top Ten intelligent design news stories for 2009

I have appended comments to these stories, chosen by a vote among knowledgeable people.

Please note that this year, the stories were divided into science and media and culture, as there was too much happening to keep the two lists together any more.

So I will only comment on the media stories and leave the science stories to others. This version does not include the links, for which you must go here.

Here's #1.

Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #1

1. Texas Requires Critical Analysis of Evolution.

In a huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution, the Texas State Board of Education voted in March 2009 to require students to “critique” and examine “all sides of scientific evidence” and specifically required students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations. "Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned," said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute. The Texas board was influenced by the testimony of multiple Ph.D. scientists and academics who spoke in favor of objective evolution education, including Charles Garner, Ralph Seelke, Stephen Meyer, Ray Bohlin, Donald Ewert, Sara Kolbe Hicks, and others. This debate is not over, as Darwinist textbook publishers are already defiantly declaring that they intend to “abide by the letter, but not the spirit” of the new standards. ARN’s Kevin Wirth documents over forty media stories that offer a multitude of “cultural spins” on this key decision.

For links, you must go here.

[Yeah, really. It has been obvious for a century and a half that Darwinism is the creation story of an atheist cult, first originating in Darwin's fans' X club, and that the only important question is whether a government is prepared to front it using tax money or whether a court can force that outcome. Under the circumstances, considerable cultural confidence is required to just say no. Or, as I like to put it - a religion that cannot responsibly be denied cannot responsibly be believed either.

Make way, however, for the useful idiots who help the Darwin cult along. You know, Cave Guy bopped his squeeze, and that helped evolution. Oh wait, he didn't bop her, and that helped evolution too. Is there no end to the folly that counts as science in this area?

When is an adult going to show up? Oops. I meant "when is an adult going to evolve?" Or maybe I didn't mean that either.

Maybe I really meant ... how about this: Just grow up. Let's be the adults ourselves. Humanity forces moral choices on us. No escape. The right to ask reasonable questions is part of learning to be an adult. That's why the Texas decision is important.]

Here is the #2 story.

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #2

2. Louisiana Implements Academic Freedom Act. The Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) voted unanimously on January 15, 2009 to adopt rules implementing the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), the landmark academic freedom bill passed the previous summer. The Louisiana Darwin-lobby didn’t give up, and it was not until September, 2009 that rules respecting the intent of the law were finally safeguarded. The rules approved by the BESE allow teachers to use supplementary materials to teach controversial scientific theories without threat of recrimination. According to Discovery Institute education policy analyst Casey Luskin, “This is another victory for Louisiana students and teachers academic freedom to learn about scientific controversies over evolution and other topics in the curriculum.” Several Louisiana scientists testified in favor of academic freedom of evolution-education, including biologist Wade Warren, biochemist Brenda Peirson, and chemistry professor Joshua Williams. Meanwhile published protests against the vote exposed the intolerance of some scientists who oppose the use of critical thinking skills on controversial scientific theories such as evolution, the origin of life, global warming, and human cloning in public schools.

For links, you must go here.

[Again, we must ask to what extent science classrooms are used to teach cult membership. I remember reading a textbook, years ago, that assured me that scientists were sure to discover the origin of life because scientists have often discovered things in the past when they really tried. If I were a child, I might have been convinced.. As a middle-aged person, I was on my guard. It all depends on whether the question is even researchable.

What makes this a problem is that many cultural assumptions can be conveniently concealed in minimally researchable or unresearchable questions. In fact, they are the ideal place to conceal them. In this case, the "scientism" was evident. And, as for critical thinking skills, shall we leave them to consumer education alone? So critical thinking only helps us buy a better stove or fridge? What does it say for science if critical thinking skills are not needed there?]

Here is the #3 story.

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #3

3. Polls Show that Americans Overwhelmingly Support Academic Freedom in Evolution Education.

A nationwide Zogby poll taken in January 2009 indicates that support for the freedom to teach the controversy about Darwinian evolution cuts across religion, party affiliation, political ideology, and educational levels. A large majority of respondents (80%) agree that teachers and students should have academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory, with more than half (54%) saying they strongly agree. Only 16% disagree. Says Dennis Wagner, ARN’s Executive Director, “Although some media consistently portray support for the freedom to discuss both sides of the evolution debate as the view only of conservative Christians, these poll results paint a very different picture. They shatter some preconceptions about who supports letting students hear a balanced presentation on Darwinian evolution – and who doesn’t.” It turns out that: Democrats (82%) support freedom to discuss Darwinism’s “strengths and weaknesses” even more overwhelmingly than Republicans (73%); Self-identified liberals (86%) favor it more than conservatives (72%); College graduates (84%) support it more than those without a college degree. Individuals identifying with no Christian or Jewish denomination support it by nearly 82%.

For links, you must go here.

[I'm not surprised. One of the greater disservices the dying legacy media have done the public in the last few decades is to front the idea that only a crackpot would doubt Darwinism. Doubts about Darwin have been mainstream for many years, including doubts originating with people whose views would hardly qualify as orthodox among Christians or Jews, and people who are not registered Republicans. However, generations of profs have made their living fronting Darwinism's myths and nostrums to students who needed to graduate, and were - in many cases - well aware of the persecution visited on those who threatened to break or bend the profs' Iron Rice Bowls, as the Chinese say.

But all rackets peter out eventually. This is not, in principle, an unusual situation. It happens all the time in education, for example. A completely unworkable idea is shoved down everyone's throat for years, causing more and more parents to take their kids and run to the private sector or to homeschooling, even though they are also forced to pay through their taxes for failed public education at the same time. (E.g., the "classroom without walls" sounds great, doesn't it? Until you realize that a child with a hyperactive disorder can disrupt a whole school, not just a whole class, by ranging freely through his now wall-less environment ... "Kid, you want to learn in peace? Fuggedabouddit. Your job is to understand young Smoth's needs. He has a "disorder," you see, so even though you are only six years old, you are responsible for helping solve his problem, and the administration isn't responsible for helping you learn your times tables in peace and quiet ... " )

The difference with Darwinism is that it isn't just some spaced out education prof's crackpot idea but the linchpin of an atheist cult, fronted by legislators and judges at public expense.]

Here is the #4 story.

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #4

4. The Darwin Bicentennial Bust.

One of the biggest media stories of 2009 was actually a non-story. Apart from the special issues of several science magazines and a couple TV programs celebrating the Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his theory, there was little true public adulation of Darwin. Some of the big planned media events such as the Ida fossil, turned out to be a scientific bust and left Darwin’s theory with a black eye (again). Rumors of revolutions in biology and a post-Darwinian world began to appear in the scientific literature in a year in which we were supposed to be celebrating Darwin’s theory. Even Simon Conway Morris said in the journal Current Biology that some in his contingency were suffering from “Darwin fatigue.”

For links, you must go here.

["True public adulation"? But what was there to adulate? This was a guy who thought black people were closer to gorillas than white people were. And, make no mistake, that was part and parcel of his theory. So I should nominate him for a posthumous Order of Canada? How about, as the Brits say, the Order of the Boot, finally? A right to his materialist opinion about how humans evolved, yes.* Adulation, no! ]

Here's the #5 story.

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.

*As a free speech journalist, I am strongly in favour of people having the right to say what they think without fear. For one thing, if someone hates me, I want to know about it. Might come in handy. Public policy is another matter. But that should be governed by, for example, the Constitution. That is why free societies have constitutions.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #5

5. Discover Magazine Names Forrest Mims to Top 50 Brains in Science List. While Ben Stein and Michael Behe were “expelled” for pursuing intelligent design concepts, Discover Magazine stood by its decision to name ID sympathizer, Forrest Mims III, to its 50 Most Important, Influential, and Promising People in Science list in the December 2008 issue. Known for his work in atmospheric research and publications in 70 magazines and science journals, Mims once lost his columnist job at Scientific American because he was not a Darwin sympathizer. According to Dennis Wagner, ARN Executive Director, “Perhaps this is a sign of progress in the Darwin and Design debate when a scientist is recognized for his achievements, rather than expelled for his opinions.”

For links, you must go here.

[I would have put this story higher, myself, because I think it signals a focus in science on real achievement, rather than touching one's cap to approved public nonsense. I had some correspondence on the choice with the editors. I pointed out in passing at Uncommon Descent that the problem with political correctness is as follows: Let's say, we remove ten scientists from the top 50 because they have politically incorrect opinions (as Darwin certainly did). With whom will we replace them? Ten scientists we had formerly thought to be lesser achievers. This is the classic recipe for the mediocrity in which all politically correct systems crash land.]

Here's the # 6 story.

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #6

6. California Science Center Sued over Cancellation of Darwin’s Dilemma Film Showing.

Amid allegations that they were pressured by colleagues at the Smithsonian Institution, the University of Southern California, the Huntington Library and elsewhere, California Science Center cancelled the October 25th IMAX showing of Darwin’s Dilemma, then refused to disclose public documents in the matter. In November 2009 the American Freedom Alliance, a non-profit group, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles against a state science museum for cancelling the event exploring topics of evolution and intelligent design. The group says its free speech rights were violated when the CSC abruptly reversed its decision to allow the showing of the pro-intelligent design documentary, Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record. The program was also scheduled to screen a pro-evolution film but, the lawsuit alleges, museum officials feared discussion of intelligent design in any context. A second lawsuit filed in December by the Discovery Institute claims the California Science Center unlawfully refused to disclose public documents regarding the decision that were sought under the California Public Records Act.

At issue is the fact that the California Science Center is a government agency, not a private organization. As a part of California state government, the Science Center is required to abide by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. “Unlike private groups or individuals, a government agency is obliged to treat all citizens equally regardless of their viewpoint,” says Casey Luskin, an attorney at Discovery Institute. “In this case, once the California Science Center decided to rent its auditorium to the public, it couldn’t discriminate against groups whose viewpoints it might not favor. The Science Center’s refusal to grant pro-ID groups equal access to its facilities is viewpoint discrimination, and a clear violation of the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment” concluded Luskin.

For links, you must go here.

[Good luck getting that across at Arrogance Central, Luskin. You might as well try asking Marie Antoinette to serve cake to her "let them eat cake" public. That wasn't supposed to be the point of her wisecrack, right? I keep saying this - and will keep saying it until people get it - Darwinism is now a publicly funded cult, so the Darwinist flips the bird at you or me or anyone else forced to fund him. He has the support of legacy media, including legacy science media, science museum curators, curriculum writers, and all sorts of people best described as all huff and no curiosity, in my experience.]

Here's story #7.

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #7

7. Michael Behe Expelled from Bloggingheads.

On August 26, 2009, an interview between John McWhorter and Michael Behe about Behe's recent book Edge of Evolution [- which discussed limits to Darwinian evolution -] appeared on bloggingheads.tv. Within hours the interview disappeared with this message "from" McWhorter posted by the administrator: "John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found it’s airing objectionable.” A public outcry resulted, due to the seemingly open-minded editorial policy of the organization (“We pride ourselves on having a diversity of views in our diavlogs and an accordingly diverse comments section, where thoughtful disagreement is expressed in civil terms.”)

Cooler heads prevailed at Bloggingheads and the Behe interview was reinstated with an apology. Michael Behe reported on the experience one day before the interview reappeared.

Journalist Denyse O’Leary, who covers intelligent design and other controversial issues, comments, “The central issue here is that media are not public relations agencies. If a person agrees to discuss a controversial topic in public, they have no business demanding that the medium scrub whatever they said or did later just because it generated some heat. Wouldn’t every politician in the country want that? Congratulations to Bloggingheads for rethinking their position and taking a stand now.”

Go here for story # 8.

For links, you must go here.

[Not much more to say here than this: If McWhorter said it, he said it, whatever it was. And he should just live with that. Media get special privileges in society for the specific reason that we are NOT a public relations agency. I can flash my press card and get to the head of the line. But the fact that some guy doesn't think a particular interview did him any good is not a reason you shouldn't hear my story. Maybe the opposite.]

Here is the #8 story .

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #8

8. Federal Court Dismisses Evolutionist Lawsuit in Texas.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on March 31, 2009 by a former Texas state science curriculum director, Chris Comer, who alleged that she was illegally fired for sending out an e-mail about a lecture criticizing those who want to teach alternatives to evolution in science classes. While National Center for Science Education and national media saw the matter as evidence of discrimination against evolutionists, Internal Texas Education Agency (TEA) documents obtained by Texans for Better Science Education (TBSE) under the Texas public information act reveal that Comer had a long history of “insubordination” and “misconduct.” Comer had been disciplined for at least eight separate incidents, seven of which had nothing to do with evolution. As Mark Ramsey of TBSE observed in an earlier press release “It appears that Ms. Comer was not fired, but resigned after a history of disciplinary issues. If Darwinists want to create a scandal and invent a martyr for their cause, they appear to have picked the wrong case.”

For links, you must go here.

[Yes, I think they did indeed pick the wrong case. It can be difficult for a civil servant to acknowledge the fact that civil service often means that one cannot just run the joint whatever (legal) way one likes, in the same way that a private contractor would run her business. A contractor's policies make sense or not, and she makes money or not - but civil service involves rules worked out over centuries, and taxpayers are required by law to fund it. I am glad that this case put a limit to Darwinian arrogance. Either Comer was of use to TEA or she was not. Perhaps, she will do better in the private sector, but learning to listen would be a really good start.]

Here is story #9.

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #9

9. Ben Stein Expelled from the University of Vermont.

Actor, TV host, and economist Ben Stein, who hosted the 2008 film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, learned firsthand in February 2009 what it feels like to be “expelled.” Apologizing for inviting gifted actor and writer Ben Stein to be commencement speaker at the University of Vermont, President Daniel Fogel has highlighted what he called Stein’s “highly controversial views” about “evolutionary theory, intelligent design, and the role of science in the Holocaust.” Fogel attempted to make penance for inviting Stein by claiming that “Commencement should be a time when our community gathers inclusively, not divisively.”

Some critics have noted that inclusivity must have a special meaning because in 2007 Fogel chose as commencement speaker Democratic congressman John Lewis, who in 1995 compared Republicans to Nazis. For Lewis, this was not an incidental lapse in taste. Last year Lewis compared John McCain and Sarah Palin to segregationist George Wallace and racist church bombers. Fogel’s 2006 commencement speaker was Gustavo Esteva, a far-left activist and advisor to the radical Zapatista National Liberation Army in Mexico. Says Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, “In today’s academic double-speak, invitations to far-left revolutionaries and race-baiting Congressmen are apparently “inclusive,” while inviting a speaker who favors free speech on the issue of evolution is beyond the pale.” According to reports, Stein withdrew “voluntarily,” after he received a phone call from Dr. Fogel, which many believe, made clear he was no longer welcome.

For links, you must go here.

[Okay, another one from Arrogance Central. Lots more people probably wanted to hear Ben Stein than hear the leftists helping people stay poor in the United States or Mexico. In general, I am not very political, but I must say that far leftists have a poor record for helping poor people solve their key problem: Stop being poor. Look, I am a Canadian: Picture North America as a jug with two handles. The US is in the middle. Canada is one handle; Mexico the other. We're not poor; they are. We could argue all day about the causes. But, so far as I can see, far leftism has never contributed anything to helping people stop being poor. It tends to focus on grievances, which produce nothing but resentment, instead of goods and services, which is what poor people need.]

Here's #10.

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Access Research Network's top ten media-related intelligent design stories for 2009 #10

I have here appended comments to these stories, chosen by a vote among knowledgeable people. I am doing them in order from 10 to 1. The science stories are here, and comprise a different list.
10. Evolutionary Psychology Finally Comes Under Media Attack. In an effort to make the science press sound a bit less like the National Enquirer, Sharon Begley for Newsweek and David Brooks for the New York Times start to question some of the absurd theories fostered upon the public in the name of “evolutionary psychology.” Many thoughtful people are beginning to express concern about the attention given to speculation about human psychology based on what our remote ancestors supposedly did. For the most part, we don't know what they did, because they did not write anything down. The criticism is that evolutionary psychology dwells on unfalsifiable and often trivial concepts such as “Why men are big spenders” or “Why women love to shop”, which reflect only the popular beliefs of our own culture today.

[I'd voted for this one, and wished it had placed higher, but never mind. I don't think evolution is - in principle - a waste of time as a study, but it desperately needs to be brought under control as a science discipline, not just an excuse for people to act out. This could be done if evolutionary biologists severed their links with "evolutionary" psychologists. But it won't happen, and I predict they will go down together.

The difference? Oh, that's easy: Tyrannosaurus rex - even if he is dead - is a subject. The Cave Man is generally a figure onto which people project their opinions and prejudices.]

Here are the previous three years' top ten stories:

2008 Darwin and design

2007 Darwin and design

2006 Darwin and design

ARN also offers "top ten" resources that are worth checking out if you follow the controversy.