The case “God and Darwin” focuses on the challenge that emanates from a balanced coverage of a court case whereby the trial is about science. Lauri Lebo argues the presence of scientific flaws following a story she covered. The case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District involved a school board against 11 parents. The parents went to court as the ninth graders were required to read a statement that included evolution among the theories with intelligent design. The intelligent design embodies explanations of the development of earth and origin of life (Lancaster 29). It is not the duty of Lebo to be objective as she has to give credibility of the competing scientific theories. For this reason, she had to do more in-depth coverage and show the difference between the editor’s standpoint and her own. The editors were concerned about the beliefs of the community they served which led them to have a different perspective as Laura Lebo. Reporters are expected to give their standpoints for the two parties at trial. Hence, Lebo was qualified to insert her views and conclusions to the coverage.
Lebo’s Options Regarding Behe’s Testimony
While giving his testimony, Behe conceded under cross-examination by giving irreducible complexity examples. The words by Behe cannot be mistaken for a conclusion that the evolution mechanisms have led to irreducible complexity. Despite conceding under cross-examination, the evolution mechanisms have partially tried to give explanations regarding irreducible complexity concerning exaptation. Behe never mentioned that irreducible complexity was attributable to exaptation as he comes out, in the end, showing skepticism towards exaptation as a variable. Further, exaptation is dominated by speculation and cannot be subject to testing which brings forth his standpoint that exaptation cannot be unfalsified (Sulloway 182). Lebo’s viewpoint lies mainly on the bias present in science, but Behe does not come to a definite conclusion as there is a gap which emanates from the inability to falsify exaptation. For this reason, Laura Lebo owes the defense the same benefit of doubt that the judge does. Behe failed to mention if exaptation was a known process and, thus, we cannot conclude that it results in building complex systems.
Stakes of the York Daily Regarding Intelligent Design
The primary concern about the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case was whether the York Daily would treat intelligent design equal to evolution or not. The perception of the readers of the York Daily would determine the stakes of the readership company. If the York Daily considers the intelligent design equal to evolution, religious leaders will view the company as biased. Ultimately, a section of the readers comprising mainly of religious people would be alienated affecting the readership of the media house reports. On the other hand, not treating intelligent design equal to evolution means there would be a controversy (Cleaves 32). Lebo afterward accepted intelligent design to be taught in school to ensure fairness of competing theories. Lebo’s standpoint at the end was different from that which she held in the beginning. Thus, the failure of the York Daily to consider intelligent design equal to evolution even after the reporter covering the story had come to terms with the findings would mean otherwise. Therefore, for the purpose of student’s biology education, intelligent design should be considered equal to evolution.