Washington Post intelligently addresses intelligent design

The May 15th (Sunday) edition of the Washington Post included a really long feature on Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley legal super-academic that founded the intelligent design movement.

The article is in stark contrast to that paper's editorial page opinion not too long ago, which Johnson quotes in his interview:

"With their slick Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy public relations, the proponents of 'intelligent design'--a 'theory' that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution--are far more sophisticated than the creationists of yore. ... They succeed by casting doubt on evolution."

The reporter notes that the news and editorial sides of the Washington Post are separate, but I think the editorial piece does typify how intelligent design gets portrayed in media (excepting the recent Washington Post article).

I admit that evolution has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to my faith, and that I have winced when listening to some creationist arguments. For example, I've heard some Christians say dinosaur fossils were created by Satan in order to trick people into disbelieving God. So it's nice to hear really coherent, logical critiques on evolution from smart people like Johnson. And it's especially nice to see those arguments represented fairly in news outlets such as the Washington Post.

The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate is getting big headlines today, especially in terms of schoolbook science curriculum. So check out the Washington Post story to get a good run-down. You won't be disappointed.

More links:
Discovery Institute (based in Seattle, my hometown!)
Post-Darwinist, a journalist's blog about coverage of intelligent design in media.
A recent open letter from National Science Academy member Philip Skell supporting balanced teaching on evolution in Kansas, where the state education board is considering making changes to science curriculum.

Finally, thanks Amy (again) for the article tip!

(Also, a clarification: I don't think science should be the basis of anyone's faith in God, nor should it cause anyone to disbelieve God. Science is useful for pratical reasons, and I believe science points to a Creator. But science does not answer why we are here, and it rarely provides definitive answers--it is an ongoing search for answers!)