For example, when they assign Mark Rahner to interview (by email) physicists Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking.  Mark Rahner may know something about pop culture, but he does not know enough about science to interview these two men, at least not without studying far more than he did.

After reading the exchanges, which you can find here and here, I felt as if I should apologize to Greene and Hawking, even though I had nothing to do with allowing Rahner to do these interviews.  That's silly, but the interviews really were that bad, a combination of flippant questions and ignorance.

There was one unintentionally interesting exchange, which revealed that both Rahner and Hawking are, to be polite, misinformed:

Q: What do you -- searching for a unified theory of the cosmos -- make of what seems to be growing dismissal of science, from global warming to stem-cell research to evolution?  As you may know, Seattle is home to the Discovery Institute, which promotes "Intelligent Design."

A: The swing against science occurred during the Bush years mainly in America rather than in the rest of the world.  But now there's a reaction in the last year.  Climate change has become a global concern.  Stem-cell research was never out of favor in Europe and the law in the U.S. is likely to change when Bush goes.  And the debate on evolution is being won.

What evidence does Rahner give for a "growing dismissal of science"?  None.  And I have seen none in public opinion polls.

Nor is the debate about stem-cell research a debate about science.  Instead it is a moral debate; those opposed to embryonic stem cell research oppose it because they believe it requires the taking of innocent life.  There's nothing new about such debates; there are all sorts of interesting experiments that could be done if scientists were allowed to treat humans as they treat rats — but many of those experiments are forbidden by law, for moral reasons.

What that exchange shows is that even a brilliant man like Hawkings can be fooled by foolish journalists.  Hawking is not a biologist nor an American, so perhaps he can be excused for not knowing the facts about the embryonic stem cell controversy here.  Briefly, the US government had never funded embryonic stem cell research until President Bush came into office.  He changed this, providing funds for research using existing stem cell lines.  He was, I repeat, the first president to provide such funds.  He did not block private funding for such research, nor even funding by other governments in the US.  Despite what Professor Hawking thinks, restrictions on embryonic stem cell research are common in other nations, including some European nations.

Let me close by providing some questions that Rahner might have asked, if he were better informed, and if he were less flippant.  He might, for instance, have asked Greene this question: What, in your opinion, are the strongest arguments against string theory?  And since Rahner raised a public policy question to Hawking, let me suggest this question:  President Clinton cut back funds for research in may fields.  The Superconducting Super Collider was killed by a Democratic congress while he was in office.  In contrast, President Bush has sharply increased funding for scientific research, but has directed most of the increase toward biology.  Do you think this shift of public money from physics to biology is good policy?

Feel free to suggest your own questions in the comments.  But, please, try to phrase them better than Rahner did.

(Note to anyone at the Seattle Times who knows why Rahner was assigned to do this story:   Would you please send me an explanation, privately?

This isn't the first time I have caught Rahner blowing an interview; he botched the interview with New York Times columnist Frank Rich, too.)