Posted on 09/25/2001 4:46:13 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
There is no religious bias in the PBS Evolution Project because Ken Miller says there isn’t.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Josh Gilder
A first-hand report on the PBS Press Conference for the Evolution Project, held July 26, 2001 at the Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel in Pasadena, California
I just returned from the PBS Pasadena press tour, which opened with a press conference on their up-coming 8 hour, 7 part Evolution series, to be broadcast Sept 24-27. Others will no doubt be offering critiques of the series itself. I’ve not viewed the entire series, but from what I have seen I can say that it’s not what you’d expect. It’s worse.
Jane Goodall was there via satellite, along with series producer Richard Hutton, Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott and Jim Morris, all in person. It was a lavish affair, put on with the aid of the some $14 to $25 million dollars donated to the project by Microsoft gazillioniare Paul Allen. Along with a nice press kit, we all had copies of Darwin’s Origin of the Species waiting for us on our chairs and an evolution card game (“Test your evolutionary knowledge”). Advocating Darwinism to the press is clearly preaching to the choir. Even so, the speakers took great pains to impress on us all that there is no (real) conflict between evolution and religion (Miller of course took the lead here) and any perceived conflict was simply a matter of ignorance (on the part of the public, of course). The over-riding purpose of the series, in fact, was to help people overcome their unreasonable and irrational fear that Darwinian theory somehow threatens religious belief. This naturally went unchallenged by the press core, until fellow IDer, John Reynolds, managed to waylay a live mike and ask: if so, why is the series so patently and gratuitously offensive to the religious sensibilities of the majority of the American people? Which it certainly is.
Miller jumped in to express wonderment that anyone could even think such a thing, saying he “wouldn’t have been associated [with the project] if he thought there was any bias whatsoever.” He repeated this to me even more emphatically later on. (It was a little like the joke about the guy whose wife catches him in bed with another woman, but the guy adamantly denies he’s having an affair, saying he’s never been in bed with another woman in his life. His wife points to the rather obvious evidence lying beside him. He simply repeats his denial and adds, “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!”) Miller’s role as religious mascot was clearly central to this whole enterprise. His first words were something to the effect of “I’m a believing Catholic and a believing evolutionist,” and after that, all religious issues were reconciled, as it were, in his person. He saw no bias. Therefore there could be no bias.
Just before they switched off the microphones, I was able to get in a question about the 14 to 25 million dollars donated by Paul Allen. Mr. Allen’s production company, Clear Blue Sky, not only produced the eight-hour series, but is behind a much larger project that includes an interactive website, on-line courses for teachers, a written teachers’ guide, special videos with ready-made answers to students and parents who might raise inconvenient questions about evolution, and the training of special evo-cadres (the “Lead Teacher Initiative”) to go out into the public school system and instruct other teachers exactly how to teach evolution.
I asked Richard Hutton, the producer, if it was in accordance with PBS guidelines to allow donors to produce their own series for airing on the public stations – thereby granting them effective editorial control. Hutton denied that there was anything untoward, as Clear Blue Sky was an independent production company, but when I asked if it was wholly owned by Mr. Allen he admitted it was. Hutton refused to say how much Mr. Allen had given, but said that the production of the series was in line with the costs of other series. This would leave anywhere upwards of $10 to $20 million left over, which Hutton seemed to admit was being used in preparing the educational materials and training the evo-cadres to blitz our public school systems this fall.
It was hard to follow up further as they kept turning off the mike. I did have a back and forth with Ken Miller afterwards, trying to get a little further into the bias issue. I asked why, despite liberal use in the series of evo-“experts” such as Dennett, Gould and others, no mention was made of their philosophical agenda (atheism) -- something Miller discusses at great length in his book, by the way --and that it was only critics of evolution who were portrayed as having an alternate agenda (creationism). I pointed out that Miller himself acknowledged in his book that Berlinski, for instance, was not a believer, and that Michael Behe was not a “typical” creationist. He ignored the question and launched into an attack on Behe, assuring the now large audience assembled around us that there was absolutely nothing to any of these so-called scientific critiques of Darwinism. He was so emphatic on this point that it became impossible even to respond. I was effectively shouted down and left the field.
John Reynolds, however, did get in some good points with Eugenie Scott, which I’ll let him elaborate on in his report. Interestingly, a reporter from the Washington Post came by to get John and my names. I think the funding issue may have hit a nerve.
© 2001 Josh Gilder. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. File Date: 9.19.01
“Come to Darwin”
Anti-Design Group [Love it!] Launches a Public Relations Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------------
by John Mark Reynolds
(A personal reflection on the PBS Press Conference for the Evolution Project, held July 26, 2001 at the Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel in Pasadena, California)
It includes a card game, interactive software, a high-tech web site, and a seven-part television series. It is earnest. Very, very earnest. Today, I got to go to the public birth of PBS Evolution. Richard Hutton, the producer, crows that the films are “Masterpiece Theater meets Nova.”
That seems about right. Viewers should look forward to the artistic pretentiousness of the worst of Masterpiece Theater combined with the thrilling drama of a science program on the life of the artichoke. At least if the press conference is any indication.
Imagine video done by the sort of humorless people who know how Important their Project is. The very Future of the Planet depends on their Mission. But it will not be simple. The Project has enemies. Bad or misinformed people have been deceived about Science. The Producers of this video are courageously going to take a stand. Offensive? Perhaps. It might cost PBS all its cachet at Liberty University, but they are not going to take it any more.
Gripping television, this is not.
So why not ignore it? Sadly, like many sincere and good people they are spiteful, in a petty way. It is open season on religious people who do not fit their definition of “good religion.” Their opponents are all simple minded, confused, young, or wicked. They sell the program on the controversy that exists. The press conference implied there is controversy only because some people are ill informed.
This might be the one virtue of the series as television. It is easy to be offensive. It is easy to be dull. This series manages the much more difficult task of being both offensive and dull.
The press conference did have a surfeit of one element found in both of its video ancestors: it was sincere. However, this is also its chief video draw back. Sincere cannot be irreverent and this is the Age of Irreverence. The Great Pumpkin might pick their video pumpkin patch, but is hard to imagine the average post-modern student sitting through a series controlled by nineteen fifties “gee whiz” scientism.
The press conference seemed vaguely aware of this problem. The room in which the press conference was held was decorated with large plush apes and “Survivor-style” vines and ropes. We got a copy of the Origin, a card game, and lots of color. Golly. Anyone who ever endured a class with a teacher who wanted to show that "science is cool" gets the point. This was "naturalism is cool and religion is o.k. too."
Introduced by a former aide to Dick Gephardt, the Evolution project was top bill at the Public Broadcasting press tour. Four activists came to launch their cause on the American public.
And what an American public it must be. Evolution is the “bedrock of all Biology.” It “remains essential to understanding the nature of life on our planet and ourselves, especially in an age when environmental, agricultural, and health issues dominate world headlines.” In fact, “Evolution happens all around us--in our bodies, in our backyards, and on our grocery shelves.” Who could doubt such a thing? Who would want to do so?
Right thinking people believe in evolution. But shockingly, so many people are misinformed. Richard Hutton, the producer of the series, wants to inform people. He is on a mission to help the American public. As Jane Goodall pointed out, American failure to embrace Darwinism may destroy us all. This is not just about science, this is about the survival of the human race.
All of this was done with the sort of straight-faced, pompous, delivery of Captain Kirk reminding the Enterprise crew of why man is in space. Breathlessly, with pauses for effect, the audience was told that everything was on the line.
This is Important Stuff. Sadly, some people are opposed to this idea. They are fearful people. Teachers might have to help confused students. This might cause controversy, but so be it. Some people just do not get it.
Who are these people? Eugenie Scott informed the meeting quickly that they are people who just do not understand science. They are confused, ill informed, or part of small religious groups. In particular, religious protestants, who according to the clip shown at the press conference have funny beards and go to artistically challenged churches, oppose Darwinism. They seem to oppose the “joy” that Jane Goodall finds in being “part of nature” and not separate from it. They sing hymns about their non-belief. It is all too shocking for words, but the series must be fair and show these people and their points of view.
Is this religion bashing? The “right sort” of religious people need not worry. Opponents of Darwinism are not “main-stream” religious. The good religious people long ago “made their peace with Darwinism.” At least that is what Evolution “national spokesperson” Eugenie Scott told the press conference. Scott should know since she runs a political think tank that does nothing, but oppose any point of view different from that found on the series.
More to the point, it seems they are American. Dr. James Moore, a Darwin biographer, claimed several times that in England criticisms of Darwin just do not happen. But then when questioned about his own religious viewpoint, he also pointed out that Brit’s don’t discuss sex and religion in public. He was offended that anyone would ask about his own point of view. Shocking. Colonial. Bad taste.
The questions from the press mostly followed this line. A few were puzzled by the obsession of the series producers with Christians. Where were the other religions? The organizers sighed and pointed out that almost all the benighted were Christians. Goodall plugged Eastern religion and everyone felt much better.
In fact, the room was full of people who accepted the dualism. There are silly people who doubt Darwinism. Public Television should help such people. How could reporters help the helpers? It was confused college students and super-fundamentalist Ken Ham against science and mainstream religion. What press reporter was going to war for Ken Ham?
I finally asked if the series was unfair to critics of Darwinism. Not all critics are religious. Not all are Protestant. What about science? Miller, the most media savvy of the group, sighed again. How could the series be unfair? Miller, himself, is a Catholic. He would never have had anything to do with something unfair to religion. Miller had personally resolved any religion and science problems. In fact, most of Miller’s comments were incarnational in this manner. Behe? Dembski? He just saw them self-destruct at a recent science meeting. “They were not ready for prime time.” How do we know? Because Miller says so!
Besides, and this was the important point. The series showed some simply wonderful Wheaton College students honestly wrestling with the issue. What could be fairer than that? Miller sighed again. It is plainly hard to be sincere.
“I am not,” he hastened to say, “here because I am a Catholic, but as a textbook author and evolutionist who happens to be Catholic.” He said this a good deal in the period after the formal presentation. He also seemed fairly confused about the purpose of the series. Is it a science show? Is it about culture? Does it address theology and philosophy?
The public relations materials make all sorts of philosophic claims. The press conference made frequent reference to religion, politics, and society. Sometimes, when convenient, the series became all science all the time.
Miller describes the series in the manner convenient to the moment. To one reporter, Miller addressed the concern that many “experts” on the show make frequent, public anti-religious comments. Miller said that the fact that people like Daniel Dennett and Steve Gould were used in the series did not make it anti-religious. Miller himself pointed out that he had denounced such a misuse of science. Scientists should only talk about science. Anything else was outside there area of knowledge.
I asked Dr. Miller about Dennett’s doctorate. What is it in? “Philosophy,” he said. “Then Dennett is not qualified to talk about science. Either he must be talking out of his field or the series is dealing with philosophy. Why doesn’t the series then include philosophers who do not accept Dennett’s very controversial views?” Why not include philosophical critiques of naturalism?
Miller was personally very, very offended. The series was about science. It was not about philosophy. There are no scientific reasons for doubting Darwin. Scientist who seem to scientific doubts are not scientists. They do not play by the rules. He began to ramble about Michael Behe, a scientific critic of Darwinism. “Behe does not make his arguments in front of scientists in his discipline.”
This seemed an odd response. Behe must be bad, so Miller is right. It did have the attraction of being consistently centered on Miller’s experience of Behe.
I asked Miller to forget, for a moment, about science. He had philosophers on his program. His own comments were a mix of philosophy and science. Why not include philosophical criticisms of his views? Even if there were no scientific criticisms, there were surely philosophical ones. A reporter from the Washington Post was puzzled by this as well. Where was Huston Smith? Why show Ken Ham and not Huston Smith?
Miller was not happy. The videos were about science. Philosophy was beside the point. The fact that it contained philosophers and dealt with philosophy did not matter.
At this point, Miller entered a strange world of sentence fragments that all centered on his experience. Had the listeners seen his book? It got favorable reviews. He heard Behe talk. He was not persuaded by Behe. Miller was Catholic. In any case, Miller had written a book.
Miller finally conceded the videos dealt with philosophy and theology. The fact that critics the PBS viewpoint were missing did not matter. Philosophic critics of Darwinism were ill informed. I pointed out that Miller was not competent (by his own standards) to make such pronouncements.
Miller now began to sigh in earnest. The video was fair. He would have nothing to do with a project that was not fair. There were those “wrestling” Wheaton College students. That showed how fair everything was. Of course, Miller had written a book on the topic. It dealt with all the theological and philosophical problems. We should all read it. Miller, like the series, lacks much sense of self-irony.
Dr. Scott greeted me. We had a congenial chat. She ritually denounced Dennett, Provine, Dawkins, and Gould for mixing religion and science improperly. I asked if she thought high school students would know who these folk were. She agreed most students would not. I then asked why these people, who got the relationship between religion and science so wrong, were used in the video series as the “designated smart people.” A bright student would view the video and see Dennett doing his thing . . . and that would help Dennett sell the books Dr. Scott was denouncing. Why not bring new voices, better voices to the table? Dr. Scott seemed frustrated with this question. She was led away by her handlers before she had a chance to answer.
Everyone was interested in the only other impertinent question asked. “Where did the money come from?” Josh Gilder, of the Weekly Standard, pressed this question hard. It appears that Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen got to make his own PBS show. Why? Where was all the money going? How did the public in Public Broadcasting get to have input? There were not any answers coming anytime soon.
So the very earnest campaign to save our souls for Darwin has begun. Much money will be spent. Many students will be urged to come to science. There is no sawdust and no tent. But the sincerity is there.
The press conference reminded me of nothing so much as the film Elmer Gantry. This first rate film captures the antics of a small time tent preacher and his friends. The press conference was a high tech tent revival meeting.
The same sort of populist appeal is being made, though this time to a middle-brow audience. There is the same mix of the brilliant and the absurd. Gantry had the Bible, while Miller and company have Darwin. Gantry ran services in circus like tents. PBS put plush apes on our tables and fake vines hanging from the air conditioning vents.
There is the same appeal to the prejudice against “others” we do not know very well. Gantry’s fundamentalist feared communism, while Miller’s middle-brow readers fear religion that might get demanding. Gantry could rail against rum, Miller against the wrong sort of religion.
The casting has been done well. Jane Goodall will act as the devout, sister interested only in the welfare of the lost. Eugenie Scott is the sincere disciple who will do the work. And Miller will do the dirty work of Elmer Gantry in mixing it up with the foes of Darwin. One supposes that like Babbit, poor Paul Allen ends up paying for it all. One wonders what they have on him.
Sadly, Public Television which often imitates television evangelists right down to the pledge drives still does not get it right. Gantry was never dull.
© 2001 John Mark Reynolds. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. File Date: 9.14.01
_______________________________________________________________________
Piling it high and deep...
As a homeschooling parent, I am on the PBS mailing list, and I received the "teaching" guide. I'll see if I can find it (might have thrown it away in a fit of anger) but from what I remember, it did have a short list of "inconvenient questions" and what teachers should tell any students bold enough to challenge this "forthright" presentation. I do recall one answer, it went something like this...
"Well you can believe your religion AND evolution at the same time, they are not exclusive of each other"
Hmmmm...Don't know what religion they were talking about, but my religion says that God created the earth in 7 days...that seems to exclude the possibility of evolution over "millions" of years, eh ?
What the presenters of this series don't seem to understand is...
Evolution IS a religion !
Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer's Guide to PBS's Evolution
Accuracy and objectivity are what we should expect in a television documentary - especially in a science documentary on a publicly-funded network. But the PBS EVOLUTION series falls far short of meeting these basic standards. It distorts the scientific evidence, ignores scientific disagreements over Darwin's theory, and misrepresents the theory's critics. The series also displays a sharply biased view of religion and seeks to influence the political debate over how evolution should be taught in schools. EVOLUTION presents itself as science journalism, but it is actually a work of one-sided advocacy.
The series is intended not only for broadcast on public television, but also for use in public schools. EVOLUTION's biased content, however, makes it inappropriate for classroom use without supplementary materials. This Viewer's Guide has been prepared to help teachers, parents, students, and interested citizens ensure that discussions of evolution in the classroom fairly represent the evidence and the full range of scientific viewpoints about Darwin's controversial theory.
http://www.reviewevolution.com/getOurGuide.php
The series was funded by Paul Allen not the government.
I would have done the same thing, but please try to find it. I'd love to see it.
We're homeschooling too. This is reason #26.
Is he paying PBS to air this propaganda?
Ancient greeks, like "modern" Darwinists, maintained that the universe had no beginning. But in the 1940s, serious scientists (like Einstein) began to see that the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the relativity theory supported the concept that we live in an ever expanding universe, which tended to be winding down. Einstein resisted his findings, because they ran counter to the theory of evolution, which he once thought true.
In the 1960s, the scientific world was shook to its core when the Big Bang Theory was shown to be more probable than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The two theories are entirely incompatible, although they are taught side by side in schools today. The Big Bang Theory states the universe started at a specific time. Darwin maintained that the universe always existed. Both cannot be correct.
Humanists automatically discredit the Bible, regardless of its veracity. Instead of having our children quote the Bible in class, they should ask the teachers whether they believe in the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution. This question seems "scientific" enough, but will force our educators to actually learn that the two theories are indeed incompatible. Even the scientific community will have to balk if our educators attempt to stuff the Big Bang Genie back into its bottle.
Genesis was created three or four thousand years ago for nomadic sheep hearders. It was spread by aural tradition for hundreds of years if not longer before it was eventually written down, reportedly by Moses (not being there at the time I assume thats true).
The purpose of Genesis was to establish that 1) the world was created, it didnt just happen, and 2) it was created by God. In doing so it laid out the sequence of creation and explained creation in a manner appropriate for nomadic tribes with no understanding of science.
Just as you wouldnt talk about quantum theory, valance electrons, and such when teaching a young child about electricity, you wouldnt go into the process of creation with nomadic sheepherders. They wouldnt understand and wouldnt care. The important part was who created the Universe, not how He did it.
Now you may believe that God created the Universe and everything in it in a literal six days. Fine. But Christianity is not harmed and the teaching of Christ and the Apostles are in no way invalidated by accepting certain forms of evolution as God's process of creation. God uses natural processes every day to maintain his universe, why wouldnt he use what appear to be natural processes to create it?
Is Evolution scientifically valid? Some parts seem valid such as within species. I, like you dont buy the theory that Man evolved from Monkeys. Science has never found the missing link to prove that relationship. Just as Genesis has man created separately from the birds, fish and other animals, its posible that man was a separate creation. What I dont buy and what few Americans buy these days is that God literally created the earth in six 24 hour days.
Correction: your denominational affiliation within the religion of Christianity interprets the Bible to indicate that God created the world in 7 24-hour days. Note that nowhere in the Bible is a 24-hour day indicated or defined.
There are many other denominational affiliations, and other ways of interpreting the Bible, particularly the Book of Genesis. Even if we disagree on those interpretations, we all still believe in Christ the Savior. Right?
The government funds PBS, the carrier.
Truly funded, Allen would pay for it to be an infomercial on a commercial carrier.
What am I missing here. I thought I studied Evolution in college in the 60's but I dont recall anything about Darwinists believing that the universe always existed.
Even if Darwinists did beleive that the universe always existed, that is still not sufficient reason to say that the big bang and evolution could not both be true. God created the world. It sprang from nothingness (quantuum singularity) to an (ever?) expanding universe. Over millenia, life evolved on Earth. Some species died out and others were created. Little by little, those creatures that were best suited for their environment proliferated while those less well suited, such as the Dinosaurs, died off. Evolution is a process of change. Its just as valid if it started from a point as if it always existed. The matterialists who pushed Evolution as a theory may have believed the world always existed in order to avoid dealing with God but I fail to see why evolution requires a never beginning universe in order to be valid. What am I missing?
Well, for one thing, the mathematical probabilities concerning the supposed emergence of life from lifelessness, and the complexity of even the simplest single-cell organism. The fact that the insertion of vast periods of time is supposedly the answer to those mathematical and statistical indications that evolution couldn't possibly produce even a single-celled organism from a "primordial soup", let alone any higher forms of life. The fact that, despite all their protestations to the contrary, evolutionists cannot produce even one example of a "transitional species". The fact that what they cite as "proof" of evolution visible today in the development of resistance to pesticides and antibiotics by bacteria, virii, and some insects is nothing more than adaption to current environmental changes introduced by man.
There is another consideration, too. Why is it that some will accept the idea that God created the universe, but not believe that He COULD have done it in 6 literal days? If He is God, could He not do so? And if He COULD do so, why would you suppose that He must not have? What evidence can you supply that unequivocally proves that He did not? Were you there? Did you observe Him creating the universe? Why is your concept of God so limited? If God exists (and I know He does), then omniscience, omnipotence, and eternal existence are His attributes, and they are His attributes in the fullest, most complete measure. If not, then there is no God, which is a stark and utter impossibility, because what is all around us, the very fact that we exist, is proof that there is a God in heaven. Take His omnipotence as an example. If He is omnipotent, doesn't that mean He is all-powerful? He can do anything, in any way, at any time, and there are no limitations on that whatsoever. 6 literal days to create the universe? He could have done the whole thing instantaneously!
Ugh. Reason #27 for homeschooling.
How about purchasing the video, "Intelligent Design: From the Big Bang to Irreducible Complexity," from ARN for $25? Demand equal time!
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/catalog.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.