By M. Kim Johnson, president
New Mexico Academy of Science
Your story, "Anti-Evolution Poll Called Bogus," reported that Joe Renick, director of a local creationist organization, promised to stop citing a deceptive poll. But the Web site of the New Mexico Intelligent Design Network still prominently features the poll.
In aggressive lobbying of the state Board of Education members over the past few months, with the aim of weakening the coverage of evolutionary biology in science curriculum standards, IDNet cited the poll, which it claimed represented the professional opinion of 16,500 scientists and engineers at Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory and three New Mexico universities.
Based on the poll, IDNet claimed that an overwhelming majority of New Mexico's professional scientists want Intelligent Design Creationism taught in public schools.
The poll actually reflected only 248 respondents, and they chose to respond rather than being randomly selected. Concerned that its good name was being linked with an unscientific poll, the management at Sandia examined the poll and found that it bordered on outright fraud.
In a recent letter to state Board of Education members, Sandia President C. Paul Robinson warned that IDNet's poll was "very misleading" and that the "bogus mini-survey ... has no scientific validity and should not be used to imply Sandia National Laboratories or its employees endorse the Intelligent Design Network's ideas."
The N.M. Academy of Science is concerned with this issue on two counts. First, IDNet inappropriately purported to speak for a large number of scientists in our scientific community (they do not) and also made misleading statements.
Second, the Academy and numerous national scientific organizations as well as religious organizations have repeatedly insisted that the concept of Intelligent Design is part of a hidden religious agenda and should not be taught as science in our schools. (For example, it has no testable hypotheses which is an absolute requirement to pass the test of science.)
The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) even wrote directly to the state Board of Education in this regard:
"NSTA also joins other organizations and scientists in concluding that so-called theories of intelligent design and creationism have no scientific credibility and will lead to many misconceptions about scientific concepts and the nature of science. Thus NSTA urges the members of N.M. State Board of Education to resist efforts to revise the draft standards in a manner that would make legitimate the tenets of intelligent design and creationism as credible products of scientific evidence and research."
This misleading use of the bogus poll by IDNet is not simply an isolated mistake, although it is certainly a mistake. The continuing use of the bogus poll indicates that IDNet and its director are attempting to deceive the public and the State Board of Education with the aim of introducing religious doctrine masquerading as science into the science classroom.
Finally, the public should realize that this inappropriate action by the Intelligent Design Network may have the potential to derail the adoption of what are excellent science standards— perhaps the best in the country.
The version of our state science standards now up for adoption has been hailed by national experts. Larry Lerner of the Fordham Foundation, who reviews state standards, gave these an A, up from a grade of F in 1998.
Religious beliefs should be taught and celebrated openly in our places of worship and homes, but not introduced surreptitiously in our public school science classrooms.
opinion 
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
