Replies

For those who think the Discovery Institute is anything but a well-financed public relations outfit, consider this:

As Project Steve indicates, over 700 scientists named Steve (or Stephanie, Esteban, or Stefano, etc.), about two-thirds of whom are biologists, have signed on to a statement that says:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

These Steves are only the tip of the scientific iceberg, because the name "Steve" is given to only about 1% of the population. Therefore, the 700 Steves probably represent about 70,000 scientists. See also Project Steve update.

The Steves alone are greater in number than all the scientists (of every name) who have signed statements questioning evolution, and most of the evolution skeptics aren't biologists. For example, the much-publicized list of 500 names (compared to 70,000) collected by the Discovery Institute includes only about 154 biologists, less than one-third of the total. Those 500 signed a rather ambiguous statement, which says:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
[Note what a hollow statement that is, compared to the statement signed by the Steves; and also note what the hollow statement doesn't say: It doesn't say that those who sign it are creationists or advocates of ID (although some probably are). It doesn't even say that they reject evolution (although some probably do). It merely says they're "skeptical," presumably a term chosen to permit as many as possible to sign.]

In contrast, two-thirds of the 700 Steves are biologists, so the biologist-Steves are about 466 in number. Steves are 1% of the population, so they represent approximately 46,600 biologists. Compare that number to the 154 biologists' names collected by the Discovery Institute. Those 154 are the totality of biologists who are evolution skeptics. Did you get that? The comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evolution to a mere 154 who are "skeptical."

These competing lists clearly tell us that evolution skeptics are a tiny fringe group -- about one-third of one percent of biologists. Therefore, notwithstanding the unending demands to "teach the controversy," there literally is no scientific controversy about the basic principles of evolution. Scientists, especially those in the biological fields, are all but unanimous in their acceptance of evolution.

And in a similar way, scientists "all" believe in the unfalsifiable (is it hot? Global warming. Is it cold? Global Warming!) junk science of man-caused global climate change.
It is time for all real philosophers (people who admit that reality and truth exist, but who do not assume that others must defer to their wisdom in lieu of facts) to recognize that "objective" journalism is sophistry.
Whenever there is a dispute, journalism tends to take a position on it - and it is very reliably a position not supported by facts. "McCarthyism" cannot be debated; if you think that Joe McCarthy had a point you are a whackko. But then, actual research into the record reveals that there is nothing behind that position except the propaganda power of journalism. The Alar scare? Nothing but propaganda. The silicone breast implant scare? Nothing but propaganda (not that it's any comfort to know it now that Dow Corning is out of business). And on and on.
The upshot is that when Ann Coulter takes on journalistic conventional wisdom, I do not presume that she is wrong. She says that the fossil record is that complex life did not evolve over a long geological period but appears relatively abruptly. I do not assume that she is wrong, and I appreciate her point that if you call that punctuated equilibrium or anything else, what it is not is gradual evolution.
Coulter claims that hoaxes consistently are accepted as "proof" of evolution, and that even after they are debunked such hoaxes continue to be taught as "proof" of evolution. I wouldn't know, independently, since I have never studied biology and have never seriously studied the topic of evolution. But Coulter has cred with me because I have seen her fight the good fight when I knew she was right, and I just doubt that she took on this fight casually.
When she brought out her latest book she was savaged for "attacking the 9/11 widows" when she was actually pointing out that four particular 9/11 widows were being used as human shields by liberals to protect liberals from legitimate criticism. She pointed out at that time that she expected the criticism to come over her questioning of evolution. But it never really came. So I guess none of what she said about it was actually indefensible at all.