Joined: Jan. 2006
I won't attempt to post it in its entirety, but I thought I should at least go over the highlights.
Title: "A judge seeks to define 'creationism'"
By: Richard N. Ostling
From: The Associated Press
First it claims that Judge Jones' ruling has made the definition of 'creationism' cloudier. It then says that most Americans are creationists, in the sense that they accept 'God' as a creator. It cites a poll, conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, which claims that 42% of Americans hold the belief that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time", 18% think life evolved but was guided by a "Supreme Being", 26% accept natural selection, and 14% are unsure.
It then talks about how the narrower definition of 'creationism' was established in the 60's, and claims that Jones' ruling establishes a third meaning.
It talks about the Dover disclaimer, saying only that it noted that ID differs from Darwinism and that it urged students to keep an open mind. If "students wanted to learn more", it directed them to Pandas, which it says was written by "credentialed biologists".
The next paragraph notes that the Supreme Court has forbidden "creation science" coursework, and says that Jones forbade ID as well. It talks about how Jones discussed ID arising from "Christian fundamentalism" and that ID was "a mere relabeling of creationism" and a "religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory".
The article poses a question: is ID merely creationism disguised slightly?
The paragraph after that asserts that most IDers aren't fundamentalists, that a few are non-religious or non-Christian. It repeats the ID claim that ID is distinguishable from creationism, since it doesn't identify th creator as God.
A paragraph presents statements from Ronald L. Numbers, a science historian from U of Wis, saying that lumping ID and creationism is inaccurate and a way to discredit ID.
The next says two academic responses "indicate things are more complex than Jones acknowledged".
The first: Kent Greenwalt makes a distinction between modern creationism and the "more plausible" ID. He asserts presenting ID and problems with Darwinism is fair, but only if it's not the only presented alternative.
The second: two paragraphs about Michael Ruse, who says this isn't about scientific theory but a religious struggle. He claims ID is about opposition to the "secular relligion of Darwinism", and criticizes its reliance on "blind forces" and materialism.
The final paragraph discusses Cardinal Schonborn's statements.
I found the whole thing to be riddled with pro-ID bias. This is a Pennsylvanian paper, and a significant percentage of the population here is ID-friendly. Am I correct in interpreting this article as blatant pandering to misrepresentations of ID and evolution?