Posted on 09/25/2001 4:46:13 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
There is no religious bias in the PBS Evolution Project because Ken Miller says there isn’t.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Josh Gilder
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.
© 2001 Josh Gilder. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. File Date: 9.19.01
If I understand correctly, the Intelligent Design theory is actualy an outgrowth of information theory that has been around since at least WWII. The SOS story is interesting but not very intriguing. The most interesting application of this particular branch of information theory is the SETI, or the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Large radiotelescopes are searching the skies and processing what the receive to see if it's noise or a message. One of my coworker's computer even processes SETI receipts in its screensaver mode. The key to this processing is the information theory that will allow the computer to recognize the difference between noise, naturally occurring EM phenomena, and an actual message from an intelligent life form. If this branch of information theory doesn't work, SETI is a guaranteed failure.
For the record, it was once thought that SETI had received a message. However, when the result was analyzed it was clear there was no information content and the phenomenon was likely natural. After more study the scientists decided that the phenomenon was indeed natural and called it a pulsar.
The reason for my post is to point out that ID was not developed to determine whether the universe was designed intelligently. It was developed to know whether the static on a radio setting represented noise or code. The ID crowd used that existing science applied to the universe to decide that the universe could not be a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Shalom.
A graduate of the Archie Bunker Institute of Ignorance ?
The eye thing was debunked on last nights show.
You saw it of course, right ?
Darwin never "maintained" any such thing. Where are you getting this?
the Big Bang Theory was shown to be more probable than Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The two theories are entirely incompatible
How? Why? How does the fact that the universe originated by the expansion of space-time from a singularity prevent the occurance of biological evolution on the planet earth 10+ billion years later? No hand waving, please. What specifically is the contradiction between the theories.
It will be "sign" = It will be a "sympbol"? Could this statement be supportive of my belief that Genesis story is a metaphor and not a step by step description an actual six day creation operation.
Another significant problem is that if there was no First Adam, then there is no Second Adam.
Not sure why this is a problem. God Could have created Man separate from nature. And even if man evolved from a lower primate, there still had to be a first fully human man (Adam)somewhere in the process. If we today are Men, then there must have at some point been an Adam. We werent all born at once.
And what the evolutionists don't want you to know is that many of those were hoaxes and conjecture, not fact. There is a growing body of evidence to show that Neanderthal Man is genetically the same as modern man, no different from us than Orientals are different from Caucasians or Negroes. Java Man was pure conjecture, built up from a few teeth and part of a skull, and leg bones found a distance away from the teeth and skull cap (not even a complete skull). The same with "Lucy" the so-called "mother" of us all. 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".
Put your money where your mouth is and prove this statement with citations. Otherwise you are lying for God, and despite all protestations, liars still go to hell, no matter who they lie for.
That was last night. I believe the remaining nights will be the same boring documentaries that you all know and love. Never fear.
You mean how 1/2 an eye is of no use to an organism? Or how a fully-formed eye is of no use to an organism with 1/2 a nervous system? Or how a fully-formed eye is of no use to an organism with 1/2 of a circulatory system? Yes, please tell me how this happened.
A "sign" will be a "sign"? As far as I can tell, in the Bible, real things or events usually serve as symbols of something else, not symbols serving as symbols of something else.
...there still had to be a first fully human man (Adam)somewhere in the process.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'(Matthew 19:4) Do you think that when Jesus was teaching about the basis of marriage in this passage, that the male and female is symbolic or literal?
Cordially,
Look Bozo, I am a Catholic. I believe in God and I believe in Jesus Christ. That I refuse to join your ignoramus creationist literal interpretation of the OLD TESTAMENT doesn't make me any less Christian than you. And it scares me to see the kind of religious fanaticism in this country in certain Christian sects that we see in the Middle East with Islam. The kind of fanaticism that refuses to see the obvious truths of our lives here on earth and the over eagerness to believe stories that were handed down for thousands of years, generation to generation, before recorded history. You creationists are dragging down Christianity and making it into some kind of joke. Wake up jerk.
Oh, and by the way, in case you didn't know it, YOU DON'T TALK FOR GOD!
I'm sorry I couldn't help overhearing this, but was Jesus Himself then an "ignoramus creationist" not only because of His literal interpretation of the OLD TESTAMENT, but also because He Himself IS the Creator?)
And it scares me to see the kind of religious fanaticism in this country in certain Christian sects that we see in the Middle East with Islam.
You're kidding, right? If I disagree with William Dembski or Ken Ham they will send out teams of assassins to kill me?
The kind of fanaticism that refuses to see the obvious truths of our lives here on earth and the over eagerness to believe stories that were handed down for thousands of years, generation to generation, before recorded history.
To say these accounts are 'before recorded history' is to assume the very thing in quesion.
Cordially,
The stories in the Old Testament are what is known as "folklore". Stories handed down around the fire verbally, from generation to generation many centuries ago before written language. Eventually some people started to record these stories many centuries later. In other words all these stories were recorded many centuries after they were supposed to happen or told for that matter.
You're kidding, right? If I disagree with William Dembski or Ken Ham they will send out teams of assassins to kill me?
It never starts out that way but the seeds of religious extremism eventually grows into just that if unchecked. Again, just look at the extreme Muslim elements that now haunt many an Arab nation and the zealotry they preach. It didn't happen overnight.
I'm sorry I couldn't help overhearing this, but was Jesus Himself then an "ignoramus creationist" not only because of His literal interpretation of the OLD TESTAMENT, but also because He Himself IS the Creator?)
That is YOUR interpretation of what Jesus may have said about the Old Testament. May I remind you that the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH that started Christianity and is still the largest Christian faith by far around the world. Their theologians have studied every aspect of the bible for centuries. If the Catholic Church generally accepts the theory of evolution in most quarters you have to ask yourself "what do they know, that I don't"?
That's odd...it sounds like it is YOU who have a closed mind....
"If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bulls**t..."
You aren't going to seriously tell us that you believe Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Java Man were all legitimate, are you? When they have been proven hoaxes, not by Creationists, but by your own Evolutionist heroes? Of course no one would set up a museum exhibit that wasn't 100% accurate and scientifically verifiable. Why, such dishonesty couldn't possibly exist in scientific circles...
I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night....
There are several theories of Genesis authorship, but please allow me to suggest to you as I did to Dave S, that you take a look at the tablet theory of Genesis authorship, which takes into account actual Mesopotamian archeological evidence.
Cordially,
Some kind of wacky world you live in. I guess the Creationists game plan is to just say Evolution is a hoax no matter what science says and hope there are enough gullible people around to believe it. Your problem is that truths have a tendency of sticking around while falsehoods perish in time.
I don't disbelieve everything written in the Old Testament. The trouble is that there are so many way-out stories in the Old Testament that it is difficult to separate the fiction from the non-fiction. That you can find Jesus quoting a parable here or there from the Old Testament means virtually nothing. Also, please show me where Jesus said to believe everything written in the Old Testament. Even the Jews of today largely discount most of the Old Testament and it is their book! Where have you guys been?
The same could be said of Evolutionists.
Your God is science, but science is not, and never has been a constant, never-changing standard, whereas my God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Bible, is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Doesn't matter to me whether or not you believe, I don't have to answer for you on that. But I will object to you defending as fact that which is not provable, and is rife with hoaxes propogated by those who will not abide the idea of a God who has created the universe and whom they are accountable to.
Science rests on demonstrable, reproducible facts. Evolution cannot be proved because it is not reproducible, and there is absolutely no evidence of one species "evolving" into another. None.
Well, that depends. Christ, in order to be the Savior, had to be without fault or blemish. If he had sinned in His life, then he died on the cross for Himself and wasn't qualified to be my substitute. If Christ lied or misled anyone, He would have broken a key commandment and therefore couldn't be God.(Remember "I and the Father are One. If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father") Now Jesus mentioned( you can look up the references as easy as I can) that He was the second Adam, there was a Garden, Sodom and Gomorah were real places and were destroyed, Noah and the Flood happened, etc. Now if you believe the gobbledigook about Genesis being myth or some type of moral storytelling, then Jesus was either lying or mistaken, either of which is a problem for a Christian. I read the NT several times to see if Jesus talked about a big bang, or millions of years, or pond scum or monkeys, and it ain't there. You must decide if Jesus is a liar, or He is God, but enough of the lukewarmness. If Jesus wanted to re-write the Bible He would have when He came. But the truth is, He taught from it. This talk about Bible error is blasphemy to the Savior and He will spew you out. If one reads the Bible as written, you are required to be a right wing conservative fundamentalist extreemist just to do your reasonable service. Don't try to put God in a box that you have perscribed for Him. I've heard all the reasons the Bible is false, but only when you know God personally, can you trust Him completely for the truth. The Bible is true, every word, or as Jesus said "every jot and tittle".
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.