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?
I went so far as to say that the NYT has capitulated to the neo-creos. The very existence of this series gives science journalism a bad name.