I should have known that Felix Salmon would be on the case:
There are basically two sides to this debate:
(a) the side which says that there is a real debate and that both sides should be taught in an on-the-one-hand on-the-other hand sort of approach; and
(b) the side which says that there is not a real debate, that Intelligent Design is not science, and that there’s really no place for ID in any kind of curriculum.
The NYT, clearly, is on side (a). Which is very depressing. Just look at Kenneth Chang’s article: the ID types get the full-on “fair and balanced” treatment throughout, and the reader is very much left with the impression that there’s a genuine debate out there that scientists might be on one side or they might be on the other, and that ID poses genuine questions and arguments which it is incumbent upon evolutionists to answer.
Shameful.
After witnessing various debates in the media, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a distinction which is escaping those who try to be impartial and argue for a “fair and balanced” treatment. The distinction comes from an understanding of what science is as process and methodology. As a result, they fail to see why ID is not science and has no rightful place in the science curriculum.
There may be a debate, but it is not a scientific debate. This distinction is clearly lost on the lay public, and is going to harm scientific education.