"

 Proposed Intervening Section on ""Controversial New York Times Story"" 

Rather than argue over the title or contents of the disputed second section regarding the pertinence of the controversial petition itself, I propose to insert an intervening section about the controversy stirred up by the appearance of Kenneth Chang's 2006 story in the NY Times, wherein Picard's name is mentioned.  The reason I find it necessary to do this is because some elements of Chang's story, which report claims of the DI have been blithely elevated to facthood, without benefit of a critical examination of the reported claims.

Here is my initial draft for the new section, to appear below the biography and above the discussion of the controversial DI petition.

Controversial New York Times Story

In February 2006, the New York Times ran an investigative story Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition by Kenneth Chang of the New York Times Science Desk, reporting that the Discovery Institute had launched a new websiteDissent From Darwin to promote their expanded public relations campaign regarding how theories of evolution should be taught in public school.  The new website included a list of signatories to an earlier petition which the Discovery Institute had termed ""A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.""Signatories of 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism' The petition dated back to 2001 when it was first published by the Discovery Institute beneath an ad criticizing a forthcoming PBS series on evolution.2001 ""100 Scientists"" Ad]  The headline on the Discovery Institute's 2001 ad was also ""A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,"" although the petition itself, embedded at the bottom of the ad, did not carry that label (it bore no label at all).  The untitled 2001 version of the petition simply read, ""We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."" 

Chang's story disclosed that Professor Picard's name appeared on the petition cited by the newly launched Dissent From Darwin website, but the Times article did not distinguish which version she signed.  Indeed, Professor Picard's name first appeared on the original 2001 untitled two-sentence petition and her name remained on the subsequent controversially yclept versions, including the most recent one appearing on the new website.  Chang's story neither substantiated nor refuted the claims of the Discovery Institute that the two-sentence petition supported or endorsed DI's slant on its meaning, but the story did include a mixture of quotes from some of the people whose names appeared on the list at different times, including some quotes that cast doubt on the Discovery Institute's characterization of all the petition signers as variously ""dissenters from Darwinism"" or ""anti-evolution.""  Chang's story, in conjunction with the Discovery Institute's website and its attached list of petition signers left a wake of confusion over who among the list of signers of the earlier versions of the petition agreed with or consented to the Discovery Institute's characterization of the petition signers as ""anti-evolution"" ""dissenters"" who presumably supported the emerging and evolving agenda of the Discovery Institute.  It is at present unknown to what degree, if any, Picard agrees with or supports the Discovery Institute's controversial interpretation of the petition as ""dissent.""  It is also unknown whether Picard has ever supported any or all of the ongoing political agenda of the Discovery Institute.

The last two sentences of the proposed new section reflect the absence of verifiable published information regarding the attitude of most of the original 103 signers.  So far, Wikipedia has only managed to obtain a reliably sourced comment from Stanley N. Salthe, who disputed DI's characterization and supplied his own salty attitude, ""A plague on both their houses.""  

Skip Evans of the NSCE similarly casts doubt on the DI's interpretation, saying


The Statement
The signatories appear to attest to a statement about the ability of natural selection to ""account for the complexity of life"" - in other words, a statement about how evolution t