Davos Newbies

Brad Plumer identifies part of what is irking me about the current New York Times series on so-called intelligent design:

The New York Times’ big series about evolution and creationist design is by turns horrifying and hilarious — hilarious in the sense of “Oh my god they really did run a ‘Views on Shape of Earth Differ’ article”.

But it’s more than that. Of course the rise of this neo-creationism is sinister and needs to be marked by any serious newspaper. I distinctly get the tone from the Times, however, that they are treating the “design” advocates with respect they don’t deserve. I know the end of the series will occasion a magisterial editorial piece from the Times decrying the rise of intelligent design. The paper will already have done its part by then in making it acceptable.

Addendum: Brad’s subsequent comment to his own post makes the point better: “Essentially, they’ve enshrined this thing as a “debate,” rather than what it really is: a bunch of crackpots making pseudo-objections to a scientific theory they don’t understand, or care to.”

And am I the only person who is totally mystified by the Gates Foundation helping the anti-science cause, by contributing to the Discovery Institute?

Rebecca MacKinnon: “I would rather see education about the practice of journalism better integrated into basic high school English classes, and definitely into the required curriculum for all college students. In a world where all citizens can and increasingly do create media, we need to teach people the skills, social responsibilities, as well as legal and personal consequences of what they post online. I’ve always felt that our school system fails to educate the American public on how the news we consume gets made – and how to be an intelligent consumer of that news. These skills are all the more urgent now that practically anybody can become a news organization.”