Teach Science in Science Class
This is the editorial stance of USA Today. This is the rebuttal USA Today ran. A few paragraphs from the rebuttal:
These vehement critics claim that there are mountains of scientific proof that man evolved from some lower species also related to apes. But in this tremendous effort to support Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, in all these "mountains of information," there has not been any scientific fossil evidence linking apes to man.
The trouble with the "missing link" is that it is still missing! In fact, the whole fossil chain that could link apes to man is also missing! The theory of evolution, which states that man evolved from some other species, has more holes in it than a crocheted bathtub.
I realize that is a dramatic statement, so to be clear, let me restate: There is zero scientific fossil evidence that demonstrates organic evolutionary linkage between primates and man.
Why does USA Today print something like that? I'm sure the editors at USA Today would tell us they're supporting evolution and doing the fair thing by giving the other side equal time. But when that other side is printing something factually inaccurate, shouldn't the USA Today editors step in? I'm reminded of the Saturday Night Live skit where Bill O'Reilly insists that the capital of New York is New York City, and when he's presented with the evidence of the other side, he says, "We'll just have to agree to disagree," as if he's being very magnanimous by allowing the other side to have its say. Journalists need to be able to distinguish between matters of opinion and matters of fact and let their coverage reflect that.
Hat tip: Chris Mooney.