Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Valentine Pontifex · 10-01-2002, 12:21 PM

Fox News has a really has a piece that is very biased towards the evolution deniers <a href="http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64487,00.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

The nasty thing about it is that the bit on the bottom that identifies the author does say that he is part of the Discovery Institute, but unless a person is an active follower of the evolution debates it is unlikely that person will know that the DI is a leading anti-evolution organization and hense be unaware the big ax the author has to grind. I bet this guy will fool a lot of people.

Grumpy · 10-01-2002, 01:01 PM

It's true that media reports of the Cobb County situation have failed to distinguish between good old Creationism (or even Scientific Creationism) and this new form of evolution criticism. In a way, this plays into the hands of the IDers, because they can claim (as West does) that the pro-evolution side is reflexively opposing any competition, and portraying them as the most ridiculous strawman.

It's also true, and West would never admit this, that there's essentially no difference between the nuanced form of ID and traditional creationism. Both boil down to simple evolution denying, and have very little to add to science. I fear that ID's scientific trappings (including the Behe/Dembski/Wells name-drops) will give the illusion of something different in the legal sense. Some <a href="http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm#4" target="_blank">legal theorists</a> warn that ID wears enough of a disguise that it would not be considered religious by a court.

Notice how I automatically assume that ID is religious, and that its scientific appearance is a disguise. I'm not the only one. In Cobb County, religious groups salivated at the opportunity to kick Darwin's butt; they knew what it was really about. Sure, the school board says they're not promoting creationism; they'll teach something else -- which is merely creationism by another name. By reading between the lines, the media have correctly identified the true conflict; they simply have failed to report the relationship between this watered-down creationism and the old-fashioned kind.

Incidentally, "Inherit the Wind" was not a battle between evolution and biblical literalism. Well, the "Brady" character may have been a literalist, but William Jennings Bryan was a day-age creationist.

MortalWombat · 10-01-2002, 01:26 PM

Quote:

I bet this guy will fool a lot of people.

Particularly those types who rely on Faux News for their information.

RufusAtticus · 10-01-2002, 05:20 PM

Quote:

What the national newsmedia have failed to report is that a group of 28 scientists from the very same educational institutions (places like the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech) wrote the Cobb County board expressing their skepticism of Darwinism and urging "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory."

And what West forgets to report is that over 250 Biolgists and Life Scientists from Georgia wrote to the Cobb County Board expressig their conclusion that pseudoscience like ID doesn't belong in a science classroom.

250 versus 10
(18 or the 28 were in unrelated fields, like Political Science)

Not much credibility there, Batman.

tgamble · 10-01-2002, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<strong>
What the national newsmedia have failed to report is that a group of 28 scientists from the very same educational institutions (places like the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech) wrote the Cobb County board expressing their skepticism of Darwinism and urging "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory."</strong>

I don't suppose they would urge "careful examination for the evidence" for any other thoeyr. oh no, it's just Darwinian evolution that has to be questioned. It's just that that requires a fucking LAW to require teachers to question it. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Valentine Pontifex · 10-02-2002, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<strong>

And what West forgets to report is that over 250 Biolgists and Life Scientists from Georgia wrote to the Cobb County Board expressig their conclusion that pseudoscience like ID doesn't belong in a science classroom.

250 versus 10
(18 or the 28 were in unrelated fields, like Political Science)

Not much credibility there, Batman.</strong>

Do you have some URLs?

RufusAtticus · 10-02-2002, 06:13 AM

I have some of the actual petitions. (I organized one from UGA.) Copies of them are in the "Cobb County" and "Chemist from UGA" threads.

10-01-2002, 12:21 PM	#1
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	Fox News, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute???? Fox News has a really has a piece that is very biased towards the evolution deniers <a href="http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64487,00.html" target="_blank">here</a>. The nasty thing about it is that the bit on the bottom that identifies the author does say that he is part of the Discovery Institute, but unless a person is an active follower of the evolution debates it is unlikely that person will know that the DI is a leading anti-evolution organization and hense be unaware the big ax the author has to grind. I bet this guy will fool a lot of people.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-01-2002, 01:01 PM	#2
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	It's true that media reports of the Cobb County situation have failed to distinguish between good old Creationism (or even Scientific Creationism) and this new form of evolution criticism. In a way, this plays into the hands of the IDers, because they can claim (as West does) that the pro-evolution side is reflexively opposing any competition, and portraying them as the most ridiculous strawman. It's also true, and West would never admit this, that there's essentially no difference between the nuanced form of ID and traditional creationism. Both boil down to simple evolution denying, and have very little to add to science. I fear that ID's scientific trappings (including the Behe/Dembski/Wells name-drops) will give the illusion of something different in the legal sense. Some <a href="http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm#4" target="_blank">legal theorists</a> warn that ID wears enough of a disguise that it would not be considered religious by a court. Notice how I automatically assume that ID is religious, and that its scientific appearance is a disguise. I'm not the only one. In Cobb County, religious groups salivated at the opportunity to kick Darwin's butt; they knew what it was really about. Sure, the school board says they're not promoting creationism; they'll teach something else -- which is merely creationism by another name. By reading between the lines, the media have correctly identified the true conflict; they simply have failed to report the relationship between this watered-down creationism and the old-fashioned kind. Incidentally, "Inherit the Wind" was not a battle between evolution and biblical literalism. Well, the "Brady" character may have been a literalist, but William Jennings Bryan was a day-age creationist.

10-02-2002, 06:13 AM	#7
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I have some of the actual petitions. (I organized one from UGA.) Copies of them are in the "Cobb County" and "Chemist from UGA" threads.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.