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 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 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 when it was first published by the discovery institute beneath an ad criticizing a forthcoming pbs series on evolution scientists ad the headline on the discovery institute's 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 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 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 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