There is no religious bias in the PBS Evolution Project because Ken Miller says there isn’t.

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.

...than the result of an impersonal, random, ...

Herein lies the crux of the problem. Creationists believe that evolution is a random event. It isn't. The mutations to the genome are random, yes, but those mutations are filtered through the environment -- the result is not random at all, but rather adaptations to that environment. Why is this so difficult to understand?

.....God's Word as we now have it in the Bible has been translated, re-translated, rewritten, recopied, and reinterpreted many times. So to really get a good sense of the meaning of God's Word, particularly regarding such problematic and difficult sections as Genesis, one must study it. Since I am not a theologian, my level of study is inadequate to the level of analysis that an accurate study of Genesis (and the Bible overall) requires...

Well, I have studied Genesis for 11 months(just that one book) and still haven't gone to the depths that are revealed there, but I can tell you that Jesus would have revealed any errors to His people had there been any. Jesus said "I would have told you had it not been so" concerning His building of mansions so we could be with Him. He did not come to fool us, decieve us, or keep us in the dark. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that over thousands of years of re-writing and translations, the Bible was virtually unchanged. If you ever read about the rituals used in copying the Bible, you might have more faith in the product we now have. One letter wrong and the whole page was discarded. I have trouble with some of the newer versions, but we can always go back to the earlier more accurate ones.

The part about theologians is serious, however. Satan has entered out pulpits from seminary schools. You can find in most seminaries, teaching of every liberal stipe imaginable. Ever hear of "Rev. Spong"? Just because you have a PHD behind your name doesn't mean diddly to me.

Believe like you want to believe, but I'll take the teachings of God over theologians. I fear, however that questioning what God plainly said and calling it false is blasphemy and will be delt with harshly.

"The series was funded by Paul Allen not the government."

The facilities to broadcast this tripe are paid for by public funding. Ergo, you have something worse than either the government simply running propaganda on its stations, or a private entrepreneur buying time on private stations to broadcast his point of view: you have an example of fascism:

Public broadcasting has elements in common with fascism. That's one reason I want public broadcasting eliminated. But eliminating public television would not stop Paul Allen from financing and distributing a series on evolution. Provided the series was professionally produced the Discovery Channel would pick it up in a heartbeat.

Believe like you want to believe, but I'll take the teachings of God over theologians. I fear, however that questioning what God plainly said...

In what language did he "plainly" say it? Aramaic? Arabic? Greek? Latin? Old English? Modern English?

Here's a simple demonstration of how words can mean more than their "plain" sense. When we read Adam in Genesis, English readers see it as the name of a man. 'Adam is a name in Hebrew, meaning "first man". 'adam is a word in the Hebrew language. Do you know what it means? Click this link:

'adam

We don't receive the full meaning of the name "Adam" as English readers. Hebrew readers receive both the literal and symbolic nature of the name. So if we are to read for full understanding, to grasp the entire content of God's word, we must rely on accurate scholarship that goes beyond the "plain meaning" that we as English speakers (and thinkers) perceive. If we do it any other way, we risk imposing our own cultural biases on what God was endeavoring to impart to us.

And that's why theology is important to non-theologians like me. I hope this helps to explain my position.

Creationists believe that evolution is a random event. It isn't. The mutations to the genome are random, yes, but those mutations are filtered through the environment -- the result is not random at all, but rather adaptations to that environment. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Please notice in my post that my last sentence ends with two words; first the adverb 'randomly', followed by the verb 'mutating.' I am also using the word 'random' to describe existence of the entire biocosm, in the evolutionary framework, as the result of non-purposed, non-directed, unintelligent, impersonal forces.

Cordially,

"But eliminating public television would not stop Paul Allen from financing and distributing a series on evolution."

I nevr said it would. Having any private broadcaster/distributor air any privately-funded production by any producer is highly prefered over having government owned and operated stations broadcasting privately-funded points of view.

Would anyone here supporting the airing of this series on PBS feel as compelled to support the airing of the 700 Club on PBS stations were CBN to pay for it? You would hear howls of protest of "establishment of religion on public airwaves" from every atheist and ACLU attorney in America, and yet, evolutionism is - as has been shown - the "science" of materialist philosophy and secular humanism. As such, it is as much a religious belief as any other.

Paul Allen is the Pat Robertson of atheism, and has just succeeded in using publically-owned broadcast facilities to push an anti-religious point of view. Those applauding this "camel's nose under the tent" are hypocrites in the extreme, to say the least.

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.