Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Leaked PBS Memo Reveals Improper Political Agenda
Discovery Institute via US Newswire ^ | 09/27/2001 | Discovery Institute

Posted on 09/27/2001 7:43:35 AM PDT by Nora

Discovery Institute: Memo Reveals 'Evolution' Agenda


U.S. Newswire
27 Sep 6:00

Leaked PBS Memo Reveals Improper Political Agenda Behind 'Evolution' Series, Says Discovery Institute


To: National Desk, Science and Education Reporters
Contact: Mark Edwards of the Discovery Institute, 206-292-0401, ext. 107;
e-mail: medwards@discovery.org

SEATTLE, Sept. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- An internal PBS memo made public today reveals an improper political agenda behind WGBH/Clear Blue Sky's ongoing series "Evolution", according to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. The memo describes how "Evolution" will be used to influence government officials and promote political action in order to shape how evolution is taught in public schools.

Dated June 15, 2001, the memo bears the title "The Evolution Controversy, Use It or Lose It: Evolution Project/WGBH Boston" The document outlines the overall goals of the ongoing PBS series Evolution and describes the marketing strategy for the series. The complete text of the PBS memo is posted at http://www.reviewevolution.com.

According to the document, which was leaked by a source within PBS, one of the goals of "Evolution" is to "co-opt existing local dialogue about teaching evolution in schools." Another goal is to "promote participation," including "getting involved with local school boards."

In addition, the document identifies "government officials" as one of the target audiences for the series, and it describes a publicity campaign accompanying the series that will include writing op-eds for newspapers and "guerilla/viral marketing."

"Clearly, one purpose of 'Evolution' is to influence Congress and school boards and to promote political action regarding how evolution is taught in public schools," says Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "In fact, 'Evolution's' marketing plan seems to have the trappings of a political campaign."

"Public television is funded in part by American taxpayers, and it should be held to high standards of fairness. It is inappropriate for public broadcasting to engage in activities designed to directly influence the political process by promoting one viewpoint at the expense of others," said Chapman.

According to Discovery Institute's John West, the political agenda behind "Evolution" is made even more explicit by its enlistment of Eugenie Scott as one of the official spokespersons for the series.

Scott runs the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an advocacy group that by its own description is dedicated to "defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools." According to the group's Web site, the NCSE provides "expert testimony for school board hearings," supplies citizens with "advice on how to organize" when "faced with local creationist challenges," and assists legal organizations that litigate "evolution/creation cases."

"The NCSE is a single-issue group that takes only one side in the political debate over evolution in public education," says West, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University. "It is inappropriate for public television to enlist NCSE's executive director as an official spokesperson for this program."

------
Founded in 1990, Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non- partisan public policy center for science, technology, regional development, environment, and defense. More information about the Institute and its activities can be found at www.discovery.org.

KEYWORDS:
SCIENCE, EDUCATION

-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
09/27 06:00
Copyright 2001, U.S. Newswire


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 281-298 next last
To: Southack
...that first living form would have to evolve out of that inanimate,
lifeless environment for Evolutionary theory to be taken seriously.

This statement isn't true. I'm sorry that your personal incredulity
doesn't allow you to process mainstream scientific theories.

201 posted on 09/27/2001 2:29:00 PM PDT by dbbeebs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
I could go with "God's Guiding Hand thru Evolution" theory...

is that allowed?

202 posted on 09/27/2001 2:29:26 PM PDT by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Northman
Don't they know that only Creationists are allowed to co-opt the language used in the classroom to advance their agendas

Uh, Creationism is outlawed in the classroom. Time to return to our planet.

203 posted on 09/27/2001 2:30:08 PM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nora
I'm not going to get into the Creationist/Darwinist spitting contest. I will, however, say that PBS should be defunded now. If they ever served a legitimate government purpose (a debatable propostion), they certainly no longer do.
204 posted on 09/27/2001 2:33:09 PM PDT by BurkeanCyclist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
I just have a hard time coming up with stats that rank pound for pound Christianity vs. Islam that show moral equivalency in terms of murderous religious fanantics.

I'm glad you brought up this point. I wish to make it clear that my concern is with coercive religious extremists of ALL flavors. I find all of them to be dangerous and a threat to liberty.

In fact, other than the deity, the prophet, the scripture, and the language, I don't see any difference worthy of note between them.

205 posted on 09/27/2001 2:34:43 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Only a sincere desire to take back education from the Taliban creationists, so that kids can grow up able to think rationally.

Uh, it's illegal to teach Creationism in the classroom. Time for you to return to the earth's atmosphere as well.

206 posted on 09/27/2001 2:35:30 PM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Moreover, I already showed that fact to you, and you either failed to grasp it or chose to ignore it, when I pointed out that the VERY FIRST life form must have evolved from an inanimate object, and clearly you aren't going to claim that inanimate objects reproduce their own offspring.

An expansion of what I did say earlier:

The first self-replicator has to arise by purely random processes, yes. There is no process of variation and natural selection, since there is no replication. Once you do get to a self-replicting entity, even if it's a simple molecule, the game of evolution is on. We did at least one thread (with continuation) on the subject recently.

Abiogenesis and evolution are generally considered to be different subjects since you can't explain A with B and A is over once B is going. Abiogenesis is also a favorite hiding place of evolution-deniers since actual evidence of what happened back when is likely to be scarce for some time. But it's a dodge.

However life got started, it started close to 4 billion years ago. Since then, it has evolved quite a bit.

207 posted on 09/27/2001 2:35:37 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
"The theory of evolution is a model that best describes the current understanding of the diversity of life here on earth."

Nonsense! The Theory of Evolution is flatly contradicted by Complexity Theory, Chaos Theory, Intelligent Design, and a host of other scientific theories which have far more credible scientific evidence supporting them.

Ten years from now Evolutionary Theory will be so discredited by the mainstream that you won't touch it or give it the time of day.

So Darwinism is the best that you've got?! Ridiculous. Darwinism doesn't even explain the very FIRST step of the "evolutionary process."

My suggestion to you is to read Noble Prize winner Illya Prigone's "Order Out of Chaos" at once.

Best theory, indeed... Hurumph!

208 posted on 09/27/2001 2:35:42 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"false witness"? LOL That's funny !

If your circular reasoning has convinced you that you evolved from lower life forms, then next time I go to the zoo and visit the primate exhibit, I'll give all of your relatives your regards.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:18-25

...there's a verse for you to meditate upon "brother".

baa

209 posted on 09/27/2001 2:37:07 PM PDT by woollyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
This issue was settled once and for all many years ago. My understanding of the outcome of all the court battles is that for lack of scientific or other bonified evidence, both theories would be taught and not refuted.

That's the same court system that's given you... Do your own research. I would suggest arn.org

210 posted on 09/27/2001 2:38:44 PM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Southack
First of all, Genesis has NOTHING to do with proving or disproving Evolutionary Theory. It is at best a straw man. Let's stick with scientific facts and avoid religion, shall we.

How honest are you being here? If your objections to evolution are at bottom scientifically motivated, I'm Queen Victoria. People don't bend over backwards for nothing.

211 posted on 09/27/2001 2:39:34 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: rvoitier
Because there is still a niche in the ecosystem for apes to fill. When there isn't they will become extinct.

I see no conflict with dogs being descendent from a common ancestor of the wolf and co-existing with wolves. Likewise humans can co-exist with other species that descended from an earlier common ancestor.

212 posted on 09/27/2001 2:39:42 PM PDT by muir_redwoods
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dbbeebs
...that first living form would have to evolve out of that inanimate, lifeless environment for Evolutionary theory to be taken seriously.


"This statement isn't true. I'm sorry that your personal incredulity doesn't allow you to process mainstream scientific theories." - dbbeebs

Nonsense! Of course my statement above is true.

We started with a lifeless planet, yes or no?

How did we FIRST get life on that lifeless planet?

If one discounts Intelligent Design and insists upon Darwinism, then life MUST have first evolved from purely inanimate objects.

But hey, you claim that what I said isn't true, so why don't YOU explain where that first life evolved from if not from inanimate objects!

Oh yeah, that little challenge means that you will have to flee this debate because there is NO WAY that you can answer said task.

Buh bye.

213 posted on 09/27/2001 2:41:41 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1
I could go with "God's Guiding Hand thru Evolution" theory...

God is not addressed one way or the other by the theory of evolution. Evolution is just a model describing the diversity of life. Did God have a hand in it? I have no way to ascertain that. That assumption then falls into the religious as apposed to the scientific venue. Now do I personally believe in God? Yes! Do I think he has an active role in evolution through out the ages? I have absolutely no idea. Should that be taught along side of the theory of evolution? No! It does not fall within the realm of science.

214 posted on 09/27/2001 2:41:42 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The Theory of Evolution is flatly contradicted by Complexity Theory, Chaos Theory, Intelligent Design, and a host of other scientific theories which have far more credible scientific evidence supporting them.

If a theory makes no prediction save "Evolution can never explain [your favorite complexity here]," how can it be said to have evidence supporting it?

215 posted on 09/27/2001 2:44:11 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

Comment #216 Removed by Moderator

To: dbbeebs
Good question. We and the apes had a common ancestor. That's why we're both here.

"What is not sensed is non-sense."---David Hume.

As no one has come up with any empirical evidence of this "common ancestor" of apes and humans, any claim that such an ancestor existed is unproven, or, as the original Empircist put it: "Nonsense."

One cannot claim adherence to the empiricism of pure science, then posit a prior abstractions to "explain" what is presently apprehended by the senses. Be empiricists or be idealists. Make up your minds about what constitutes a true Philosophy of Science, but stop changing the rules all the time. Your "common ancestor" is as physically invisible as you claim God to be, yet you expect us to believe in one invisibility and reject the other on the basis that one of them, God, cannot be empirically verified. Well, the other, the "common ancestor" can't be empirically verified either.

When you guys come up with a consistent scientfic method, here's thirty five cents. Call me.

217 posted on 09/27/2001 2:45:51 PM PDT by roughrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"However life got started, it started close to 4 billion years ago. Since then, it has evolved quite a bit."

That's wild-eyed speculation. One could just as easily say that however automobiles got started, they started over a century ago and they have evolved quite a bit, but one would be completely wrong. The cars didn't evolve; their Designers changed them.

Likewise, the code re-use of DNA strongly suggests that life forms don't evolve into other life forms, but rather that the Designers of life forms (especially notable with artificial computer life and computer software viri) created new versions.

To disregard the precise mathematical code reuse of Base-4 DNA and speculate that species randomly morph into other species is hardly rooted in ANY proven scientific evidence or basis.

218 posted on 09/27/2001 2:47:51 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
But (according to evolutionary theory) THERE IS NO DESIGNER.....

Just random changes that somehow (accidently ?) lead to improved (new) species .... or death.

According to evolutionary theory, the "species" CANNOT change itself, it just randomly mutates into something better.

There is no "Mother Nature" allowed, no design, allowed, nothing but random mutations. No species can change based on any amount of "want to" or "need to" change.

219 posted on 09/27/2001 2:48:31 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Best theory, indeed... Hurumph!

Make that "only theory." There is no other scientific model that rationally explains the data.

220 posted on 09/27/2001 2:51:00 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 281-298 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson