Xeluan

Indeed it is. IDers and Creationists really like the idea of falsification. I'm no Philosopher of Science but their idea of falsification is really naive.

Then again given the average creationist/IDer understanding of science I'm not surprised.

Xeluan

Edited for dumb typos

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Xeluan ]</p>

Lizard

I have two objections to the way the evo/creo issue was handled on CNN's "Crossfire":

1. Putting erudite Genie Scott on against an evidently loony ignoramus suggests their views deserve equal time, that they are equally qualified to comment.

2. Giving the issue ten to 15 minutes obviously leaves no time to explore the issue in enough detail for anyone at home to understand what's going on.

I agree, Genie was very calm and poised, which was good. The other guy was practically foaming at the mouth, which was also good. However, I don't know who acted more idiotic, Carville or Tucker.

This points up a problem in advocating for evolutionary science in education. That is, if you appear on these shows with idiots, there is danger of legitimizing them. If you don't, you have to wonder who they *will* get to represent science. Will they be qualified and knowledgeable? Will the producers know the difference? So in most cases, pro-science spokespersons decide to participate, hoping that there may be some in the audience who can see through the nonsense and respond to reason.

Richiyaado

Crossfire is news as entertainment. It's not meant to provide anything substantive.

The whole purpose of the segment in which Eugenie Scott appeared had little to do with discussing the Cobb County situation. Its whole purpose was to provide a context that would lead up to revealing the monkey/Carville sight gag.

Richiyaado

On the same evening that Eugenie Scott appeared on Crossfire, I happened to have Fox News on "in the background" when I heard Cobb County being talked about, so I started to pay attention.

I'd missed most of the segment, so I don't know what all had been said, but I did catch Cal Thomas grilling a scientist from Kansas (can't recall the name) who had just finished pointing out that until IDists actually do the science, publish their findings and put forward a coherent theory of Intelligent design, there's really nothing for the scientific community to consider.

Cal Thomas' immediate response to this was something like (I'm not making this up) "Was it OK for the Nazis and Joseph Mengele to do medical experiments on people?"

The scientist, who'd identified himself as a Christian, said of course it wasn't.

Thomas then asked something like "Then why are you trying to force your morals on everyone else?"

This is more or less where the segment ended. Yikes!

l-bow

Calson was suprised when Scott referred to Newton's theory of gravity.

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]</p>

Grumpy

Evolution/Creation doesn't lend itself to the neat, partisan polarization of TV shout shows. There are Democrats who revile Darwin (calling him racist & so forth), and there are Republicans for whom the issue is not so urgent.

Still, to the extent that it is a political issue, it is mainly a concern of the Right. Liberals don't have anything to gain by insisting that educators stick to established science. But conservatives can seize the issue and make it into a rallying cry ("Equal time!").

I'll note that the GOP platform in my state includes a "special creation" plank, yet even with a Republican supermajority in the legislature, they haven't bothered to pursue it.

tgamble

I prefer "Quality Education!"