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.

i think that you're mixing up the term "evolution" with something else.

A lot of people confuse evolution by either giving it different definitions or by misusing the theory altogether. It's nearly impossible to have a coherent discussion of the theory because it means so many different things. For some it has to do with how roaches become resistent to DDT. For others it has to do with wheter there is life after death. You can believe you're talking about transitional forms and suddenly find you're arguing whether the definition of a mammal is based on bones or flesh.

That's one of my biggest problems with evolution, by the way. For something that is so foundational to biology, it sure has a sloppy definition.

Shalom.

Yes, six days actually, with a day of rest following. I can't tell you for sure how long a "day" was in Genesis, but I have read commentaries that state that the Greek word used in the passage is meant to convey a 24-hour day.

Not to be disruptive here, but Genesis was written in Hebrew by a Jew named Moses.

Shalom.

Not to be disruptive here, but Genesis was written in Hebrew by a Jew named Moses.

Whoops--my bad :)
You are right...I should have mentioned that the commentaries were of later Greek translations. The original Hebrew word was yom, which, when paired with an ordinal (number), consistently meant a 24-hour day.

You are right...I should have mentioned that the commentaries were of later Greek translations. The original Hebrew word was yom, which, when paired with an ordinal (number), consistently meant a 24-hour day.

I figured it was a "typo." I would have ignored it except that those who do not believe in a literal 6 day creation use every opportunity they can to prove us to be uneducated. Whatever we say, we should research it thoroughly.

Shalom.

When confronted with irrefutable facts and evidence supporting evolution you say what most Creationist say

Thats odd; "irrefutable facts and evidence" have never been produced. Are you aware of any theory that has been proven and has not changed every ten years?

Not a complete skeleton of any so-called "transitional" hominids has ever been found. What you cite as "proof" is mostly conjecture, and artistic license from a biased viewpoint. There is no "proof".

Don't forget "Nebraska Man" (a sawed down pig's tooth) and "Pilt Town Man" (another hoax). Like WRhine, I took this stuff as fact too until I read Darwin on Trial.

It was easy for me to change my position regarding evolution about a decade ago because I had already come to understand that most of the things that I learned in high school were incorrect or out-right lies. Sometimes it's difficult to believe that a class of authorities is full of s-it.

Hey I'm a big Darwin fan, and I love PBS (go ahead, flame on) but I turned this program off last night and won't bother watching. It was some kind of soap-opera style live action drama, Darwing chatting with ladies and kissing while discussing dog breeding. There were miscellaneous bits of information, interspersed with Real Live Drama. Completely lost all credibility.

What happened to you is known as "regression". On this subject you were more educated when you were in high school.

Don't forget "Nebraska Man" (a sawed down pig's tooth) and "Pilt Town Man" (another hoax). Like WRhine, I took this stuff as fact too until I read Darwin on Trial.

Yep, good thing the Creation Scientists uncovered those for the hoaxes that they were.

Er, wait, the hoaxes were exposed by other evolutionary scientists. Aah, nevermind, it's still a victory for Creationism, even if the hoaxes don't actually contradict existing evolution theories or advance creation theories (if such exist).

What a waste of $15m, especially considering the fact that one of the greatest intellectual movements of our time, the Intelligent Design movement, is right under the scientists' noses.

I keep hearing of this Intelligent Design movement and Intelligent Design theory but I've not heard of what the actual ID theory is. Could you explain what the ID theory states, what it predicts, how it can be tested and how it could be falsified?

Thats odd; "irrefutable facts and evidence" have never been produced. Are you aware of any theory that has been proven and has not changed every ten years?

And of course with close-minded Creationists, such as yourself, there never will be "irrefutable facts and evidence" as long as it concerns supporting evolution. For some of you extremists I am not sure if you would believe in evolution even God came down and told you that evolution was in fact true. Oh and as for the theory changing every 10 years...only in your mind, only in your mind.

But Christianity is not harmed and the teaching of Christ and the Apostles are in no way invalidated by accepting certain forms of evolution as God's process of creation.

The six days is not just mentioned in Genesis. For example; Exodus 31:17 - It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'"

Another significant problem is that if there was no First Adam, then there is no Second Adam.

As far as "Genesis being "created three or four thousand years ago for nomadic sheep hearders", and being "spread by aural tradition for hundreds of years if not longer before it was eventually written down, reportedly by Moses", may I suggest that you take a look at the tablet theory of Genesis authorship, which makes a lot more sense from an archeological standpoint.

Cordially,

I keep hearing of this Intelligent Design movement and Intelligent Design theory but I've not heard of what the actual ID theory is. Could you explain what the ID theory states, what it predicts, how it can be tested and how it could be falsified?

Some of Dembski's articles

Cordially,

Could you explain what the ID theory states, what it predicts, how it can be tested and how it could be falsified?

Go to www.arn.org and read anything by Philip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe or Jonathan Wells.

The basic idea lies in what Philip Johnson describes as "specified complexity" or simply information. It is the difference between this sequence of 17 letters, LRINTSPVBMWNRJNQP, this sequence of 17 letters, ABABABABABABABABA, and this sequence of 17 letters, MARYHADALITTLELAMB. The first is unspecified and not complex. The second is specified but not complex. The third is specified and complex.

ID theorists observe natural phenomena that carries information, and try to determine how best to explain the existence of the information. The information can be categorized as information arising from accident, natural forces, chance or design.

Simply stated, it is more reasonable to believe that the letters SOS written in the sand were designed rather than a chance occurrence. Similarly, it is more reasonable to believe in a designer of "irreducibly complex" parts of an organism, such as the human eye, rather than creation by blind chance.

And of course with close-minded Creationists, such as yourself, there never will be "irrefutable facts and evidence" as long as it concerns supporting evolution.

A hoax is a hoax, Bullsh!t is Bullsh!t and two bones found miles apart does not prove anything. For years, the population is told to believe in evolution based upon hoaxes and bullsh!t, and you want to call those who dissagree with you closed minded. Pretty funny.

There is no evidence or facts, just a wish list of what evolutionists wished happened. And if they could just prove it, then we could be well on our way to "debunking God". It makes me laugh that an entire field of pseudo-science was invented to deny God. Actually, I shouldnt say it makes me laugh, because God aint laughing.

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.