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
Sorry if you consider this witnessing, but I'm trying to get the point across that some of us know, that we know, that we know, that God exists. Science cannot explain the changes that took place in me. Psychology can attempt to, but that's also just "liberal-doublespeak". I don't care how my brain is wired, I just KNOW someone wired it that way.
IT IS NOT lack of intelligence that allows us to believe these things. In fact, our intelligence tells us we will be hammered for believing. Debate is great, but the constant put-downs of others intelligence adds nothing to the process......
Thankfully it is statements like this from Creationists like you that will always keeps your brand of Religious extremism limited to those who lack the intelligence to expand the Creationist zealotry beyond your enclaves.
Could I trouble you to go here (to the "Evidence for Dino-Bird Transition Thread") and see if you can spot which fossil species you consider to be "the one?"
To your larger point, there are over 200 vertebrate transitional fossils catalogued here.
How do you get "not ONE" out of that?
None of this has anything at all to do with the history of the universe or of life on earth or science in general. Your objections to evolution remain as irrational as ever.
Parts of speech: noun , adjective , transitive verb
Part of Speech noun
Pronunciation reh prE bet
Definition 1. an evil or lawless person, often beyond hope of redemption.
Crossref. Syn. blackguard , outlaw , profligate , villain
Related Words knave , miscreant , wanton
Part of Speech adjective
Definition 1. having a corrupt or evil character; immoral.
Crossref. Syn. evil , immoral , corrupt
Definition 2. beyond hope of salvation; damned.
Related Words vile , vicious , profane , base , bad
Part of Speech transitive verb
Inflected Forms reprobated, reprobating, reprobates Definition 1. to reject as evil; condemn.
Related Words denounce
Derived Forms reprobacy, n.
Nice try but anybody can page up and see that you are now attempting to back track. Someone presented you with facts and you crumbled.
Is twenty years of Christianity long enough?
Obviously not. If you had been listening during those 20 years you would never have claimed similarities between Christians in the United States and the Taliban.
Hey, I even fell for that "Christ risen from the dead" crap.
You sound bitter. If you ask me, blind acceptance of ideas learned as a child is just as bad as bitter blind rejection. Critical investigation of one's belief system is never a bad thing. As far as Christ's resurrection, I would simply suggest you look at the evidence before rejecting it outright. A good start is a book called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel who was the legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. He was an athiest and his wife, a Christian, asked him to investigate Christianity like he would a news story He started off intending to disprove it but ended up believing. The book has lots of facts, analysis and logic. All I am suggesting is to look into yourself. So many times we believe things but we don't know why.
It's not the function of the federal government to launch advocacy campaigns on local government. If you're against gun control, why are you in favor of federal government control of local government? Won't that lead to a totalitarian state too?
That's it? That's your obesrvable evidence? And you're gonna rest your entire theory on a mere 200 alleged exaples? Darwin claimed that there would be thousands of such examples! Your 200 finds are but 1/100th of the fossil record. Actually, the number of transition examples should be almost as many at the fully mutated variety.
Observable (it isn't today, nor ever has been), testable (we can't, don't and never will), repeatable (again...won't happen!)...those are the scientific rules for claiming something to be a scientific fact. You have demonstrated none of these requirements that the scientific field demands. Every example of a mutation observable in nature is a negative mutation.
baa
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.