Kansas City Press Club's "Intelligent Design, Intelligent Media: Is Coverage Accurate?"

I was privileged to attend the meeting described in the heading yesterday evening at the Carlsen Center, JCCC, from 7 PM to about 8:40 PM. After a greeting from Jack Miles of Sun Publications, Derek Donovan introduced the panel and explained the ground rules. Immediately, John Calvert (who failed to identify himself each time he spoke) wanted to know why Steve Abrams and Dave Awbrey were on the panel. Calvert would have preferred that he had been on the panel, so he could express his frustrations with the media from the Intelligent Design Network viewpoint. Donovan ducked Calvert's query in a manner that reveals his qualifications for the post of Reader's Representative at the KC Star.

Right out the blocks, Abrams claimed the Kansas Science Standards of 2005 didn't cover ID, which a flyer passed out at the door by Jack Krebs, Kansas Citizens for Science, readily refutes. Awbrey claimed the whole issue of whether ID belongs in the Science Standards was framed around the Scopes Trial of 80-odd years ago. Awbrey intimated that the media was not up to speed on the core issues of the evolution debate. Dave Heiling of the KC Star disagreed, saying the media should not let either side define the issues by their words alone, rather both sides should be covered through common terms understood by the public, and if that was "Scopes", so be it.

Next, without an apparent segue, Awbrey chided Kansas scientists on the standards committee for not participating in the "debate", the KBOE hearings in Topeka orchestrated by the wing-nut majority on the board. Awbrey blasted their non-participation in the sham hearings as Arrogance, which raised some hackles. During the open comment period of the meeting, Krebs countered that scientists will debate the issues, but choose not to do so in the rigged hearing format.

I was surprised that nobody questioned the appropriateness of a debate format to settle issues of fact. Since when are the defintions of science or evolution, the proper subject of a debate between scientists and pseudo-scientists. And, by what qualification do members of the KBOE believe they have the right or reason to define either? They need to affirm the decision of the scientists as to what makes good standards and disregard the pseudo-scientist minority report they accepted. The education of our children should be above politics. Calvert referred to his minions who testified at the KBOE hearings as equally credentialled as the ones who refused to participate. I won't question the quality of their degrees or their degrees' pertinence. An examination of the hearing transcript will show that it is not the degree one holds that matters, rather it is what they do with it. I know a few people with bachelor's degrees who are more knowledgeable in their fields than are some PhDs.
Awbrey in his ramblings against scientists who chose not to debate, preferring instead "peer review", described them as harboring a dangerous attitude. Awbrey attacked the scientific community as being 'dogmatic' (Now, where have we heard that?), suggesting that both sides play the religion card. Awbrey lamented that scientist should take their religion out of science class, supposedly referring to the religion of materialistic cosmological metaphysical secularism or some such. By the time Awbrey completed his circle of logic, I swear his comments amounted to something like science is not about "objective reality". I wish I had brought my handy little recorder, so I could have captured verbatim all of the wisdom Awbrey imparted for posterity.

One of the problems with media coverage was exemplified by a comment of Dave Heiling. He said that "Scientists believe in evolution." Well, that's a common use of the verb, believe, but it is incorrect to say that. Creationism and science are not parallel. Creationism is based on faith in the biblical account of origins and saying believe about matters of faith is right. Evolution is based on empirical evidence of the transformation of the biosphere. Scientist have proof, they need not rely on belief as does a biblical literalist. Scientist know the facts and the logical interpretations that spring from them.

Back to Awbrey: He asked several times for proof that the Science Standards fiasco has given Kansas a "black eye". I got the impression that Awbrey was claiming, "No harm, no foul." Well, it may be too soon to see empirical evidence of the damage done to our state's economy, but there are plenty of anecdotes as to our being perceived as backward. It is not just our "inferiority complex" as Awbrey alleges. I personnally have heard scientists in the aerospace industry question if Kansans are really as ignorant as they seem to be. Kansas prides itself on aerospace connections, but if viewed as ignorant in science, opportunities for collabortion will be lost, simply because Kansans will be discounted as players. Finally, Awbrey alleged a media bias against conservatives, which Heiling countered effectively. It was fortunate that the panel discussion was drawing to a close. I suspect that Dave Awbrey had ran through his play book and further discussion would have been a rehash.

Did the question, 'ID, Is the coverage fair?' get answered? Partially, but it would have been better, if more panelists had contributed, and more viewpoints were represented and heard.