neo-Creationism in the news

I am sure that many of my readers get fustrated when they read about neo-Creationism (Intelligent Design) in the news. It's often portraited as a "balanced" reporting on the controvercy.

A good example of this is The Daily Record's reporting of a Dembski-Shermer debate.

It's probably an accurate description of the debate, but nowhere in the article does it make the point that Shermer is right, and Dembski is full of it. It even contains lines like

Both pulled on pop culture references to diffuse the dense scientific data that backed their two camps.

Wouldn't it be proper to actually explain that Dembski actually doesn't have any scientific data to back up his side? News reporting doesn't just involve printing all opinions uncritically.

A different, and much better article on neo-Creationism, is the Philadelphia Inquiter's editorial about the Kansas Board of Education.

I am aware of the differences between a news reporting and an editorial, but if just a tiny bit of the sense from the editorial had made it to the article, the result would have been much better. I mean, just look at these paragraphs:

The old, junked standards were a pack of misleading falsehoods. They portrayed Darwinian evolution as a "controversy" threatened by imaginary "new research." And that's just wrong. Evolution is the bedrock of biology, richly witnessed by fossil records and experiment, accepted by almost all scientists.

In a widely ridiculed move, Kansas' now-repealed standards redefined science to include non-natural explanations.

Somebody gets it!

Note: sorry for any misspelling etc. I turned 32 last thursday, and I was out drinking and partying last night, so I still got way too much alcohol in my blood.