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
Watch the show.
Yep. A myth. A hoax. A fantasy. Always has been, always will be.
Is he paying PBS to air this propaganda?
Providing a brand new show to air is payment. It's either that or show more Barney reruns.
The government funds PBS, the carrier.
Truly funded, Allen would pay for it to be an infomercial on a commercial carrier.
The government shouldn't be in the broadcasting business but the percentage of total costs paid by the taxpayers in this case is minor. Unless it has changed recently PBS gets less than half of their money from the taxpayers. So the money involved would be a fraction - I've heard 40% - of the general operating expenses of the stations for the hours during which the program is broadcast.
But if you want to argue that one dime means that you should have a say in it how far are you willing to take this? Can I use this argument to prevent any promotion of Wicca, Hinduism, or the New Age on PBS on church-state separation grounds?
If you're thinking of the value of the licenses and want to call that a government subsidy you might want to reconsider. If stations are seen as arms of the government that could be used to argue against any religious broadcasting.
The answer is to get government out of this completely.
But don't think that would stop evolution from being promoted on science programs. Paul Allen has plenty more money where that came from.
Come to think of it the Discovery Channel does more to promote evolution than anyone with their great dinosaur specials and they don't get dime one from the feds.
I don't expect you to answer. You do a pretty good impression of a hit and run creationist so far. You avoided all requests for clarification and proof to date, I don't expect you to start answering now.
Even the obvious parables or the stories that Jesus told are based on real things. He didn't say for example that the kingdom of Heaven is like a rock that is planted in the ground, and grows up to to be the greatest of shrubs. He said that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed that is planted in the ground, and grows up to to be the greatest of shrubs. What you are essentially saying is Jesus was using fantastically absurd folklore about Adam and Eve that he knew (or did not know?) to be contrary to all reason and the real natural history of the earth (evolution) to illustrate certain spiritual truths.
Also, please show me where Jesus said to believe everything written in the Old Testament.
It would be nice if you could give at least one Scriptural citation to support your thesis, but I will give just a small sampling out of many references that show that Jesus did believe everything written in the Old Testament:
Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Luke 18:31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled.
Luke 19:46 "It is written," he said to them, "`My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it `a den of robbers.'"
Luke 20:17 Luke 20 Luke 20:16-18 Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: "`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone'?
Luke 21:22 Luke 21 Luke 21:21-23 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.
Luke 22:37 Luke 22 Luke 22:36-38 It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
Luke 24:He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
Luke 24:46 Luke 24 Luke 24:45-47 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
John 2:17 John 2 John 2:16-18 His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
John 6:31 John 6 John 6:30-32 Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
John 6:45 John 6 John 6:44-46 It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
Cordially,
C'mon. I got the full treatment in school. I'm familiar with the arguments. In fact, I did tune in to "Evolution" for five minutes last night and watched a bunch of guys talking to the natives about tiger poachers. Personally, I'm much more interested in the withering intellectual criticism of the ID movement. That's where the action is. Not in recycled elementary school dioramas and slide shows.
You might want to check out arn.org
On your first link I find the astoundingly circular reasoning:
3.0 The Context of Reports of Observed Speciations The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?IMHO, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature.
Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.
Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.
Finally, most of the current interest in speciation concerns theoretical issues. Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms.
Translation: There's not a lot of evidence, but most evolutionists are convinced that it happened. They don't have the slightest idea HOW it happened, but it must have happened, because most evolutionists are convinced that it happened.
Cordially,
****************************************
To change the subject, here's a question for you. Except for the Apostles' and Jesus' interpretations of specific OT passages, where in the Bible does it tell us how to interpret all of Scripture?
Translation: There's not a lot of evidence, but most evolutionists are convinced that it happened. They don't have the slightest idea HOW it happened, but it must have happened, because most evolutionists are convinced that it happened.
I think it could be also a case where most scientists feel that speciation is also proven beyond a reasonable doubt. With the preponderance of evidence out there in favor of the ToE, it would take a theory that supports a stunning mass of evidence to bring about a paradigm shift of this magnitude. I still have not seen a shred of evidence to invalidate the fact that speciation has been observed to occur in nature. Despite criticisms here on style, I haven't seen anything substantive that has refuted the claims in the above papers. That is what is really important to remember, if you can come up with a logically coherent theory that gives an alternate explanation to the speciation events observed, then that is something that should be examined. Everything else is a gedanken experiment, or theological handwaving.
Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.
Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?
Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation. Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.
Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent. Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.
Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.
To these considerations might be added;
Interpret individual passages in the light of parallel or related passages.
Interpret obscure passages in the light of passages that are perfectly plain.
Interpret any passage in the Bible as those who were addressed would have understood it.
Interpret each writer with a view to the opinions the writer opposed.
Interpret poetry as poetry and interpret prose as prose.
These are just some examples of principles for proper interpretation. These lists are not 'inspired':-)
Cordially,
"Hit and run creationist"....that's right, when you can't answer the facts, attack the poster. Great scientific method, that....
Cordially,
If we'd turned out completely differently, we'd still be asking this same question. Our species would have ended up looking like something, with an equal probability to ending up looking like we do now. Simply because it may have been a one-in-a-million shot that we'd look like we do now does not mean there would have been a greater chance that we'd end up looking like something else.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Via accurate interpretation of the language and literary style used in the section which is being examined.
A well-reasoned reply. And I have had to examine the question to determine a proper response to it. And my response to it (which I've researched with some theologians) is that Christ was clearly speaking the truth about the traditional religious history of the Hebrews. One might then ask why he didn't clarify for the benefit of the "readers", i.e. us. Answer: his point in preaching was not to clarify (or even comment on) the scientific issues. His point in preaching was to explain himself as the fulfillment of the Jewish prophetic tradition. So therefore he used it properly and accurately because it was the Word of God. Such a view is in accordance with the words of Jesus Christ and a non-literal interpretation of Jewish (Hebraic) religious tradition.
I do not believe you understand evolution at all. Higher order is not a prerequisite for evolution -- adaptability is. If becoming simpler allows an organism to survive, it will become simpler or die out. Random mutations have been shown to occur all the time and can be caused by something as simple as background radiation. These mutations have also been shown to affect the traits exhibited by organisms. If these traits are detrimental, they will decrease the organism's chance of survival to pass on its genes. If these affected traits are beneficial they will increase the organism's chance of survival to pass on its genes. All these little changes add up to big changes (there is no magic stop sign in the genes to stop this from occuring). That, my friend, is the essence of evolution.
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.