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
Ah the old OBTAIN DISAPPROVALE propaganda technique- this technique is used to get the audience to disapprove an action or idea by suggesting the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group which supports a policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people also support it, the members of the group might decide to change their position.---From the US Army propaganda techniques Appendix I, Psychological Operations Field Manual No. 33-1.
And that is the dumbest screen name ever todd.
I was not putting down the doctors and other personnel in women's clinics.
I didn't say you were. I was pointing out that the killing of abortionists and staff is extremely rare. If there is an ongoing campaign to wipe them out wholesale, it's certainly not going very well.
Some of our our "rabid religious nuts" DO commit acts of terror.
Really? Why is this not reported in the news? Surely acts of terror committed in this country would be newsworthy.
Hey, genius, who said they couldn't do both? Fuhcryinoutloud, listen to yourself!
41 Posted on 09/27/2001 09:27:25 PDT by Paradox
I totally agree.
Blackmore is a radical neo-Darwninist who places intense belief in Richard Dawkins' notion of memes. She has emerged as the primary public defender of the idea. It is through the memetic concept that Dawkins and his posse hope to further a leftwing, atheistic political agenda, first by denigrating all of philosophy and religion that existed prior to the "discovery" of memes, suggesting that they are mere evolved survival mechanisms similar to the opposable thumb, and then by constructing and installing a memetic algorithm in keeping with Dawkins' utilitarian view of morality and politics, being careful all the while to attach suitable scientific sounding justifications for obliterating what they consider a primeval belief in the transcendent.
Nothing about memes has been proven, by the way. It's junk science through and through.
Blackmore's ridiculous appearance (the garb of a teenager and orange, blonde and purple hair on a woman in her 30s), and hopped-up, childish demeanor served to denigrate only one thing---her intellectual capacity. She made a fool of herself.
I used to date a girl who though she evolved from a venus fly trap.
Evolutionists seem terribly afraid of having anyone interpret scientific data differently than they do. The obvious question is "Why?"
Instead of an honest and open debate, with the intention of finding the truth, they desperately try to silence any opposition. One tactic they use is the attack against religion. Any discussion of evolution, where the precious theory comes under scientific questioning, quickly becomes a debate on religion, invariably started by the evolutionists.
The PBS series presented a part of the controversy with religious creationists......not all of it, and certainly not the most effective advocates within the religious field.
But, unless I missed it, they completely omitted the growing SCIENTIFIC body of evidence AGAINST evolution. A brief clip of Philip Johnson, discussing Intelligent Design, is the closest they came. There was nothing about the specific challenges to evolution brought up by scientists in genetic engineering who say evolution is not only not observed, but is not possible. And there was nothing about the inaccuracies of dating methods used. ("The rocks date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately" is a classic quote.) The laws of probability argue against evolution numerically, also. Many fields of science can offer arguments against evolution, but they are not allowed on PBS or in the classroom.
That isn't good enough for a publicly-funded program. The series was very disappointing, in a scientific sense, even laughable at times, such as the animated "explanation" for the origins of sex. (Two cells kiss/contact and exchange genetic components, and then some of those single-celled organisms became faster, and suddenly they were like sperm cells and that's how it all began.........yeah, sure!)
I strongly object to the lies used by evolutionists to further their fantasy. Don't you feel cheated when you find out someone has lied to you?
It's much better to have the whole range of facts presented, and make your choice of belief freely. This PBS series was not science; it was simple propaganda.
You know, it could be worse than being a "creationist" one could be a amoral swine with no hope what-so-ever, just like you.
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.