Quote of note:

Journalists recognize the techniques in the program as "spinning" - in this case enlisting peer-reviewed science in making the case for an idea that hasn't been submitted to the intense rigor of that same peer-review process. Intelligent design so far has failed to meet the most basic of scientific standards.

Another notable quote:

All of this is not to say that intelligent design, as a religious belief or philosophy, has no place on public television. If the program honestly presented the idea in the context of religion - not claiming it is science but that it does seek standing as science - it might well have been worthy of a public TV broadcast, as would differing or competing religious or philosophical beliefs about creation.

Editorial: KNME did right thing to pull 'science' show

January 27, 2005

As a scientific theory, "intelligent design" simply isn't.

As an extension of Judeo-Christian dogma on the subject of creation, it might provide a compelling argument for those who need to justify their personal religious beliefs by organizing the natural world to fit those beliefs.

That's fine. We respect that and all who hold such beliefs.

But faith is not science. And science is not faith. And the controversial TV program "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" is not science programming suitable for tax-supported public television. The program does not pass educational, journalistic, artistic or informational tests.

Intelligent design, presented in this program as a counterpoint to biological evolution, raises serious ethical, balance and intellectual questions that cannot be escaped by simply claiming the film presents an alternative scientific view to evolution and that, as such, it deserves airtime on public TV stations such as Albuquerque's KNME Channel 5.

Journalists recognize the techniques in the program as "spinning" - in this case enlisting peer-reviewed science in making the case for an idea that hasn't been submitted to the intense rigor of that same peer-review process. Intelligent design so far has failed to meet the most basic of scientific standards.

KNME has come under fire for deciding, based on the station's established guidelines, not to broadcast the program earlier this month. KNME's basis for not airing it was not the program's content - although perhaps it should have been.

KNME's decision was based on the station management's inability to establish that the content of this program - which was not produced within the Public Broadcast System - was produced independently of the program's funding sources. In this case, those providing the funds were religious organizations and affiliated groups, whose avowed mission is to promote intelligent design as science - which it is not.

Don't take our word for that. Take the word of the largest organization of scientists in the world, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. On intelligent design, the AAAS position is simple: It is not science and does not belong in a science education curriculum.

The AAAS statement says "individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of `intelligent design,' demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence and misrepresentation of scientific facts."

None of the AAAS critique appears in "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life." No one from the AAAS is interviewed. No biologists are interviewed about scientific problems with intelligent design. No contrary voices or evidence is offered, although thousands exist.

Why? Perhaps because the scientific theory that explains how life came to exist on Earth is evolution, and it has stood the test of time across centuries. Unlike intelligent design, it has endured the most intense scientific scrutiny.

It not only has been sustained but also has evolved and prospered amid modern scientific revelations, such as the importance of genetics and the vital role DNA serves as the chemical code of life.

Evolution is the very core of biology. But as a scientific principle, evolution is not unique to biology. It is fundamental to all science in explaining how nature works, from the smallest, complicated living cell to the realities of planetary geology to the physical and chemical births of stars within evolving galaxies and the stars' evolution into solar systems.

KNME acted properly and in the interest of its viewers. Those who tune in public TV programs should be grateful. They are entitled to see accurate and transparent programs - not religion disguised as science any more than science posing as religion.

All of this is not to say that intelligent design, as a religious belief or philosophy, has no place on public television. If the program honestly presented the idea in the context of religion - not claiming it is science but that it does seek standing as science - it might well have been worthy of a public TV broadcast, as would differing or competing religious or philosophical beliefs about creation.

KNME is a precious community, regional and national TV resource. In this decision, it affirmed worthy and cherished values of public broadcasting. In adhering to those values, it deserves the support of Albuquerque and other New Mexico citizens.