'Bogus' poll of scientists latest twist in ID/creationists' fight against science standards; scientists battle back - News and Comment

One of the latest tactics of "intelligent design" proponents in their battle to water down the teaching of evolution is to announce results of questionable polls it claims were taken at major scientific institutions.

At least that's what IDnet-NM (www.nmidnet.org), the New Mexico branch of the pro-creationist Intelligent Design Network, Inc., tried this summer. But it got caught with its polls down.

In its many attempts to influence members of the State Board of Education, IDnet-NM sent a news release to board members on July 28 announcing the results of supposed polls it said represented attitudes of local scientists concerning the teaching of evolution and intelligent design in New Mexico's schools.

It claimed the overwhelming majority of respondents, including scientists at two national laboratories in New Mexico, "favored teaching the evidence both for and against evolution by a factor of 4-to-1." It also claimed that they "favored teaching intelligent design by an overwhelming factor of 5-to-1."

It said its online survey was sent to "approximately 16,000 employees of Sandia and Los National Labs" and 500 science and engineering faculty members at three universities in New Mexico.

Trouble is, one of the laboratories, strongly miffed by the group's attempt to use its name and prestige to promote the ID cause, fought back--successfully.

Suspicions were first raised when informal questioning of employees found few, if any, who said they had received such a poll. An independent poll of eighty-one employees at Sandia and Los Alamos found that not one had received the IDnet poll at their lab addresses. Many other questions about the poll's validity and claims were soon raised.

Los Alamos decided initially not to respond about the poll.

But Sandia National Laboratories, one of the nation's leading engineering and scientific research laboratories, strongly disputed both the poll and the news release. Sandia issued a statement calling the poll "bogus" and said it "has no scientific validity."

The statement came directly from Sandia's president and director, C. Paul Robinson. Robinson is a physicist and a respected national leader in science and technology and in defense policy. He's a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a 2003 recipient of the American Physical Society's Pake prize. He also carries the rank of Ambassador; he headed the American delegation to the US/USSR nuclear testing talks in Geneva that led to protocols to the Threshold Test Ban Treaty.

When informed about the poll announcement and the way it was being used to persuade Board of Education members to dilute New Mexico's much-praised new draft science content standards for public school education, Robinson looked into the matter. He then prepared a strong statement refuting the IDnet assertions.

Here is complete text of Robinson's statement:

   A recent news release issued by the
   Intelligent Design Network indicated
   Sandia's 8,000 employees were among
   16,000 people surveyed about the
   issue of teaching creationism along
   with evolution in New Mexico
   schools. This release was very misleading.
   No such survey took place
   among Sandia's 8,000 employees.

      When we looked closely into this
   claim, we learned that of the 16,000
   people at Sandia, Los Alamos, and the
   three New Mexico state universities who
   we understand purportedly were given
   an opportunity to participate, only 248
   people actually chose to participate in
   such a survey. We have no idea how
   these individuals were selected.

      A sample this small, from such a
   large population, has no scientific validity
   and should not be used to imply
   Sandia National Laboratories or its
   employees endorse the Intelligent
   Design Networks ideas. I am disappointed
   that the Intelligent Design
   Network chose to include Sandia
   National Laboratories in a news release
   based upon a bogus mini-survey.

      As one of the world's leading engineering
   and science laboratories, we
   at Sandia are very careful to apply
   accepted scientific methods to all surveys
   in which we participate. That is
   not the case with the survey in question.
   We did not participate in the
   Intelligent Design Network's survey
   and do not support its conclusions.

As soon as the statement was completed, on August 13, physicist Marshall Berman, a former Sandia department manager and a former member of the State Board of Education, immediately sent it, as was Sandia's intention, to all current board members and to officials in the governor's office. Berman had been instrumental in reversing the 1997 victory of creationists in New Mexico. After they stacked the board of education, he ran for election to it on a strong pro-science stance, was elected, and led successful efforts to restore evolution and other related scientific concepts such as the age of the Earth to state science teaching standards (see David E. Thomas, "Science Trumps Creationism in New Mexico," SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, January/February 2000).