[Stultis]

You don't get it. Read the article. ID proponents do want both sides heard, but forums like the LA Times are only presenting one side of the issue!

Uh, so? Assuming this is true (which I don't particulary question) The Discovery Institute itself is at least equally one-sided.

Do you expect something different than that the "controversy" will be engaged principally by controversialists?!? (Especially since it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy, but instead almost entirely a popular one.)

[infoguy]

1. "Uh, so? Assuming this is true (which I don't particulary question) The Discovery Institute itself is at least equally one-sided."

Of course the Discovery Institute is one-sided! They don't pretend not to be! On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times presents itself as an unbiased forum; yet on this issue they are totally one-sided. If I take your comment at face value, you are agreeing with the Newsbusters article that the Times is only presenting one side of the issue.

2. "it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy ..."

Well, I guess you aren't aware of the numerous public debates that have been taking place on the issue. A couple of examples are linked in the Newsbusters piece. You might want to check those out.