Posted on 09/27/2001 7:43:35 AM PDT by Nora
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
Right. One day: no life. Day two: Life. We're merely arguing over the mechanism.
Or are you saying that the earth always had life on it?
You're saying... I'm saying...
Why don't we stop guessing what each other is saying and put this issue into black and white terms.
We start with the premise that this planet was originally lifeless, if you disagree, speak up now.
We proceed to speculate HOW life came to be on a lifeless planet. For Evolution, it must mean that an inanimate object evolved into a living organism.
If you disagree, please specify HOW life came to be if it didn't evolve from an inanimate object on a lifeless planet.
If you agree, then what we need is to be able to replicate in a laboratory the evolution of that first life form from an inanimate object. To date, this action has not been accomplished.
As far as I'm concerned, the Theory of Evolution needs to explain how the first form of life evolved from inanimate matter. If it can't explain that first step, then it has no scientific usefulness, and is of dubious realibility, to me.
Hopefully we're clear on where we stand after this post.
Good luck responding to the above without admitting that the Theory of Evolution has grave scientific flaws as outlined above.
So you say. Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny? What about the Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus?
Evolution isn't "outdated" but you're welcome to believe that fantasy.
Of course Evolution is outdated. Complexity Theory, Chaos Theory, and Intelligent Design ALL make better arguments than Darwinism for the Origin of Species.
Just try to answer the issues put to you in Post #263 above and you'll quickly see why Evolution has so many scientific weaknesses...
You're still wrong. Is that clear?
And that's one of MANY reasons why Darwinism is outdated...
I agree that it hasn't been accomplished. However, the absence of this experimental proof
doesn't detract from the validity of ToE. Except in your mind.
Well Nora, I owe you appology as I know the rant is not yours. NoDak, you are correct in your response as well and I probably owe you an a appology. I am mistaken in the oldest sense of the word.
I too enjoy some of PBS or else I would not watch it. (It is one of 2 chanels I can receive.) The perfidy of PBS in their contrived adgendae is grounds for de-funding. The rant will come from those who will not consider any opton to their dogma.
Peace between us and death to the Jihad.
Dan
In addition, since when does a supposedly scientific theory pull this kind of political promotion? It shows very well that evolution is not science it is a materialistic ideology.
More disinformation from an evolutionist.
Atheists are mostly leftists, Christians are mostly conservative. Evolution and the PBS series are promoting atheism, plain and simple. It is nothing new and it is just the same far left agenda PBS has always had.
peace!
baa
Interesting, how you -- in the fullness of your glory -- decide the one single issue that evolution must answer -- to your wondrous satisfaction. And (your personal doctrine continues) if evolution doesn't satisfy you (splendid you) then everything that evolution actually does explain is worthless -- in your perfect opinion.
That's the "Southack doctrine" as I've understood it. You've been told numerous times that evolution has never tried to work on your personal issue. Evolution starts with the existence of simple life (how it started is yet to be understood) and then evolution explains the proliferation of species from that point forward. But to you, because at your "zero point" of ignorance there is no final answer yet, it's all garbage. You sweep aside generations of information, and your only rationale for doing so is the gap in our knowledge at the first step.
You'd better pray that we never manage to produce life in the lab, because if that little trick gets accomplished, your whole worldview will be totally shattered -- depending as it does on our ignorance of your issue. A worldview based on ignorance ain't much to go on, but it's your brain, so use it as you like.
Where does the universe show any intelligent design? Show me verifiable scientific evidence for that assumption.
How about the 15,000 chemical processes that happen in each human cell every minute.
Or How about DNA!
Or, how about the fact of the moon's orbit and that with out it, we would have no tides and the resultant O2 benefits and ocean cleaning that results.
Or how about that if we were just 3% closer to the sun, or 3% further way from it, we could not exist.
Or how about the tilt of the earth's axis which allows for the varied climates that allows us to habitate so much of the earth's surface and that with out this tilt, we would have no seasons for growing and that the equator would be too hot for habitation and the poles would be too permanently cold.
Or how about the very thin layer of ozone which filters out the radiation that would normally kill us.
Or how about the human eye. Now there's one for you 7,000,000 rods and 15,000,000 cones that are able to convert light to an electrical signal, send it to our brain, interpret what has been seen, flip it rightside up and enable us to move about in time and space. And we have two of them, which work in concert to focus faster than any human manufactured optics developed so far and are able to discern depth of field. Wanna know what the greatest minds in science have to say about how that "evolved"? Allegedly, an ameoba crawled onto the beach, got a sunspot and it "evolved into an eyball". Wow! itsn't that special! I guess that explains it all huh!?! But how do they explain two freckles evolving the same way? Strange huh?
How about the human brain? Science is centuries away from uncracking the full workings of the human brain! And it's still faster than any super-computer ever made!
Or how about the concept of "mass"? It used to be believed that "mass" would be found in the atoms, but with the advent of the electron microscope, there were found to be great spans of nothingness between the electrons and the nucleus and that the electrons contained no mass. Then it was theorized that the "mass" would be found in the nucleus, but oops!...when the electron microscope was advanced to be able to look further at the nucleus, guess what? They found that the nucleus has no mass!!! Go figure! So what is it exactly that causes us so much pain when we stub our toe, if there is no mass? Don't ask science, because they still haven't found what constitutes the "mass" in the universe around us. Again, this from the "best minds in science"!
Or the balance of centrifigal force verses gravitational pull, that keeps this blue marble from either falling into the sun and burning up, or from being thrown out into the blackness of space to freeze up like a giant iceball (being a radioastronomer, I'm rather surprised that you could miss that obvious last one!).
Every one (and a million others) of these systems are required for life to exist on this planet. If one of them fails, life perishes.
Well, that is a short list of the things around us that point to intelligent design with a purpose. I don't need "evidence" to support what is obvious in observation. The truth is that there is more about the universe that science doesn't know that it can ever hope to know.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork". ("handywork", in the original language, lit. "his fingerwork"...He did it all with his fingers! How cool!) Psalm 19:1
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Colossians 1:16-17
You also asked;"Show me verifiable scientific evidence for that assumption."
The burden of "proof" isn't upon me, it's upon you, for I freely admit that my position is based upon faith in God, as revealed in His Word, confirmed in the universe around us and by the tesimony of His Spirit upon me, not scientific fact. You however trust in science, that evolution is fact. So you are the one that needs to substantiate your argument with scientific fact, for that is the methodology that you have chosen to substantiate your views and upon which you have placed your confidence. Since I don't reason by your same principles (science), I am not subjucated to you reasoning. I need only rely on the Word of God and what His Spirit writes uon my heart; then walk by faith! Turn to Him and be saved!
baa
"Only a sincere desire to take back education from the Taliban creationists..."
Given recent events, your use of the word "Taliban" to describe people here with whom you disagree shows you to be an even bigger a-hole than anyone could have possibly imagined.
Crawl back into your hole, troll.
Do you have problems with reading comprehension? I said, ' "our rabid religious nuts" don't make a habit of murdering those who disagree with them.' Which of those words don't you understand?
habit, n.
1. A constant, often unconscious inclination to perform an act, acquired through its frequent repetition.
Now go back and read the sentence again.
In the nearly thirty years since abortion was decriminalized nationwide, fewer than a dozen abortionists and staff have been killed. That works out to about one per five million abortions during that time, or about one every three years. Not exactly an epidemic. Far more of them died in car accidents.
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.