PZ Myers. 2005 May 03. Lazy anti-evolution reporting. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/lazy_anti_evolution_reporting/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Lazy anti-evolution reporting
Here's the problem with the media.
As was brought to my attention in the comments, CBS news has an article on the so-called evolution debate in Kansas. They are running a sidebar that is simply propaganda straight from the Discovery Institute, titled "What Some Students Are Asking Their Biology Teachers". It's ripped straight from the pages of Wells' terrible, incompetently-written book, Icons of Evolution, and it's presented as if these are serious questions that are troubling biologists.
They aren't.
They are nothing but tired old innuendo from creationists. Did the reporter ever think to, say, call up a biologist and ask her if there were answers to these questions? How about the National Center for Science Education? These are exactly the sort of things that the NCSE is geared up to address…they even have a resource prepared with short, media-friendly answers to each one of Wells' ten questions. Or, if the telephone is too terrifying, try googling talk.origins—they have a longer, more thorough demolition of Wells' case.
What is particularly ironic is that one of the points that the writer is making is that teachers face the difficulty of "learning to handle well-organized efforts to raise doubts about Darwin's theory". I think reporters need to learn the same thing.
I have a suggestion to all journalists. When a dishonest institution like the Discovery Institute mails you a press release full of assertions and insisting that there are profound questions that must be answered, don't accept it at face value. If you're planning to run it, at least call up a scientific organization like the NCSE or a local scientist and ask if their claims about biology have any reasonable foundation in fact. You might be surprised at how detached from reality they are.
I have a question for any journalists who might read this, too. What was the author of that article thinking? Why would a writer think a pile of crap from some grossly biased and unqualified organization like the Discovery Institute would be a useful addition to an article?
BG made an excellent point in the comments: complain to the source. Here's a link to the CBS feedback form. Everyone write in and tell them to quit swallowing the lies of the Discovery Institute, and point them to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7719_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp.
-
They do have a "Contact Us" Thing where you can leave commnets
#: Posted by on 05/03 at 12:34 PM
-
Sorry,
I meant to hit preview not submit. Anyway, perhaps a bunch us us could leave comments asking why they are peddeling Di propaganda.#: Posted by on 05/03 at 12:36 PM -
They at least list the source and note that:
"Critics of evolution are supplying students with prepared questions on such topics as:..."
But you'd think a link to the NCSE rebuttal! Note exactly heavy lifting!#: Posted by on 05/03 at 12:41 PM -
That's why the DI is successful. They are (or have) a PR firm. You have to remember that virtually anything you read in the paper that is not hard news is generated by a PR firm.
There was a discussion of this on slashdot recently, but I couldn't find it to link to... but anyway - if you suddenly start seeing articles about how "casual friday is over, suits are back in!" you can bet its because Men's Warehouse has their PR firm working hard to generate that.
I used to do design for a little free weekly Pennysaver and a print shop, and even we got swamped each week with these press releases, because they know that there are understaffed and lazy papers that will print anything that seems halfway interesting just to fill space.
That's why the sidebar is straight DI propaganda - you can be it came that way from the press release. -
Craig is absolutely right. The terrible power of the press release works because reporters are either too lazy or too harried to do anything other than recant the press release. I've even been guilty of this myself at a small local paper--although in my defense, I was working freelance in addition to a full-time job instead of being a full-time reporter. In my opinion, there is no excuse for an actual professional journalist, one for whom writing pays the bills, to not follow up with opposing sources or consult an expert.
#: Posted by Thomas Wilburn on 05/03 at 12:57 PM
- Just FYI-I couldn't get the second page of that CSM article, just a flippin pop-up telling me how wonderful Wal-mart is.
-
There's a feedback link on CBS.com. Wingnut radio producers are organized and expend much time and effort providing their listening audiences with contact numbers anytime they see something that rubs against their grain. Dr. Dobson once boasted how his program caused a telephonic brown out on capitol hill after he urged his listeners to call their elected officials.
"We" don't garner the same respect simply because we lack the same organization.#: Posted by on 05/03 at 01:06 PM -
This would be a perfect opportunity for someone - like you, PZ - to put together a brief list of "Answers to the 10 questions being spread by the Discover Institute", post it somewhere like Talk.Origins, and send CBS News a link.
I know I've seen stuff recently on Panda's Thumb about the Cambrian, about peppered moths, reducing atmosphere on the early Earth...#: Posted by on 05/03 at 01:13 PM -
Uh, it's been done -- that's the link from NCSE I included in the article.
Maybe I should steal it and post it here or PT to hammer it home. -
As a former journalist and current journalism basher, I can tell you that the main reason journalists do that kind of thing is that most of them are abominably educated. A journalism major can graduate without learning much of anything. A reporter from a certain big-city newspaper in a certain big city in Georgia as much as admitted it in print a while back. She was the Y2K End-of-the-World reporter. She said journalists are not trained to do much beyond looking at public records and asking people questions. They are not trained to evaluate the answers.
A snide comment: most journalists aspire to be something else, usually a lawyer. I think it's because they go to the exciting trials, see the lawyers perform, and say, "I can do that!" So they go to law school. Few of them aspire to be scientists. I know personally of only one: me.#: Posted by on 05/03 at 01:44 PM -
OK, one more snide comment couched as a story. A well-known TV reporter (recently retiring) was the Southeast reporter for a network before she hit the big time. There was an interesting trial taking place in federal court in a small South Carolina town. The trial lasted two weeks. The TV reporter came on the last day, stayed around a couple of hours while the artist the print media people to call her and tell her how the verdict went. Then she appeared on TV and authoritatively reported on this trial about which she knew nothing.
#: Posted by on 05/03 at 01:48 PM
-
I screwed up the edit. It should read "The TV reporter came on the last day, stayed around a couple of hours while the artist drew some pictures, then asked one of the print media people to call her ..." Sorry about that.
#: Posted by on 05/03 at 01:49 PM
-
CBS = See B.S.
#: Posted by on 05/03 at 02:41 PM
-
We still need to push back. I used their feedback section to leave the links to the NCSE and Talk Origins. But I'm only one person. Everybody needs to do the same so CBS gets the message.
#: Posted by on 05/03 at 02:56 PM
-
You're right -- the answers to the 10 questions should have been included. I suspect space issues.
But before your ire really bursts those bulging veins on your forehead, look again: First, CBS is carrying what really is a very good article from the Christian Science Monitor (which, despite its religious ownership, is usually pretty good on such stories)(go see the story here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s04-legn.html?s=t5); second, the questions are carried in a sidebar that clearly identifies them as propaganda questions urged by critics of evolution; third, at the Christian Science Monitor site, that sidebar is accompanied by a poll that was still open a few minutes ago, on whether kids ought to be loaded up with such questions to bother biology teachers (it's running about 80% against the DI questions at the moment)-- so you can go vote against it.
This isn't meant to be much comfort -- what this means is that your action is needed in more places. See the CSMonitor site, and write them, too. And then understand that CSM has a syndicate, and that story is likely to be picked up in daily newspapers across the nation. Watch for it in a paper near you, especially if you don't live in New York, Los Angeles or Washington. Get your letters ready.#: Posted by on 05/03 at 03:05 PM -
I was somehow under the impression that the Christian Science Monitor was pretty good about covering scientific issues appropriately, especially for a paper run by a church. I guess I was wrong.
#: Posted by Philip Brooks on 05/03 at 03:10 PM
-
In my opinion, there is no excuse for an actual professional journalist, one for whom writing pays the bills, to not follow up with opposing sources or consult an expert.
In MY opinion, there is no excuse for an actual professional journalist to pay any attention to PR flaks in the first place.
PR is trying to sell something, whether it be product or idealogy. When you use that ADVERTISING as the seed of an article, you get their advertising out even if you try to "balance it" with other opinions.
If you bite on Men's Warehouses bait, you get their advertising out for them free even if you include a counterpoint.
PR firms know that they can't possibly lose in the proposition. You get your message out no matter what, and you sell your product.
This is exactly how the DI is able to operate - like any PR firm they know that if they churn out the press releases, somewhere it will stick, some paper somewhere will take the bait.. and once it's printed, others will be more likely to take the bait... and scientists will be left with nothing to do but respond - and that very response will serve to strengthen the legitimacy of the DI's garbage in most people's minds. They can't possibly lose as long as some paper somewhere picks up their press release, and they know that as long as they keep churning them out that is inevitable.
If you read the paper critically, you can see that virtualy any story not in the front section is essentially just advertising... usually by the end of the article you can figure out exactly whose PR agency got the story placed. - Sadly, most journalists have only a rudimentary understanding of science, if that. Couple that with the fallacious quest for "balance" between two viewpoints that are not even close to equally valid, and articles like the CBS story are the result.
-
Uh, it's been done -- that's the link from NCSE I included in the article.
Thanks, I've got it bookmarked now.#: Posted by on 05/03 at 03:37 PM -
We need PR flacks to be as pervasive; Wells' creationist drivel is popping up in the oddest places.
When my wife completed the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle's quote-acrostic puzzle, she was angry to have worked so hard to decipher this BS:
"But a definition of science cannot possibly limit the nature of reality," Wells comments, "Even if an intelligent designer is beyond the reach of Darwinian science, such a designer may nevertheless be real."
Cripes, it's like a perpetual game of wack-a-mole. -
In MY opinion, there is no excuse for an actual professional journalist to pay any attention to PR flaks in the first place.
Well, as a former PR flack, I'd say that they get listened to when they have credibility and/or when they provide information that is useful.
Reporters pay attention to flacks because good ones will show them where the great stories are.
But you're right about throwing stuff out to see if it sticks -- of course, a good, repsonsible flack does that with good stories, too. Darrell's Rules of Tens: For every ten press releases put out (on average), one will get printed. For every ten times a reporter gets an item from a source, one item will get printed. For every ten media outlets contacted, one will run an item.
So, if you want to compete with the Discovery Institute, you need to put out some press items. How many have you done today?
Why do you think the DI spends most of its budget on PR, and none of it on research? What does that tell you about the mission of the DI? Of every $10,000 PZ gets in research grants, how much of it goes to research, and how much to generating press? What does that tell you about PZ's mission?
See? PR flackery can indeed point to good, solid information . . .
Seriously, however, I always found science stories the hardest to sell. Generally they were the most rewarding, however.
(My recommendation to PZ, and all you other honest researchers out there: Take a stroll over to your campuses' public relations bunch; invite them to come to your lab and see your neat stuff. When you get a paper accepted for publication, call and tell them. Tell them the lay person's version of what it is, what it does, and why it is important to the university and the public at large. Figure out what would be a good, interesting photo, and suggest you could help the photographer. It's not the PR flack's fault that we don't provide better stories in opposition. It's not the reporter's fault, either.)
[Is the plural of "campus," "campi?"]#: Posted by on 05/03 at 03:54 PM -
Have any of you bothered to read the article? Have your brains fallen out today or something?
This is its concluding paragraph, quoting a science teacher:
"When there's no empirical evidence, some very serious things can happen," she says. "If we can't look around at what is really there and try to put something logical and intelligent together from that without our fears getting in the way, then I think that we're doomed."
I don't know who put those DI box quotes there. (I'll put a bet on an editor, though.) But don't blame the journalist. Because throughout the article is sympathetic to the science teachers. The journalist went and talked to them, and listened to the problems they are facing in the classroom. They're real. What are you going to do about that?#: Posted by on 05/03 at 04:15 PM -
[Is the plural of "campus," "campi?"]
Without looking it up, I''m guessing it's "campi" if "campus" is second declension, and "campus" if fourth declension.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 05/03 at 04:16 PM - Material like NCSE's response to Wells would IMO make excellent additions to school curricula. I think PZ disagrees with me though, saying it's better not to teach the non-controversy. I'd argue that there's more discussion of evolution in the NCSE material than kids are likely to get otherwise, and it's the one chance to give them information to contradict the lies of people like Wells.
-
Ed's suggestion of talking to the university PR office is a good one. They can distribute a nice, compelling synopsis of research that you have done. Unfortunately, most research today doesn't actually have anything to do with refuting the absurd claims of the IDers. It's like a cosmologist talking about dark matter while a bunch of idiots say that the Earth is flat.
#: Posted by on 05/03 at 04:23 PM
- Sharon: You're right, the article itself isn't bad. I'm just really pissed off at the Discovery Institute constantly getting a free pass and having their garbage passed off to the public without any skeptical input at all.
-
In my experience, decisions like this are probably made by an editor, not the journo (despite my ranking journalists slightly below used car salesmen and just above state politicians). Editors have a production mentality - they are primarily concerned with copy and visuals. So something like this is a godsend (pun intended) to them.
What we need to do is prepare a ten question list for IDevotees.#: Posted by John Wilkins on 05/03 at 05:50 PM - When the reporter gets the news releases from the "intellegent" design folks, the first thing they should ask is: "If life on earth has been 'designed', who or what is the designer?" Follow up: "Show me your evidence of his/her/its existance."
-
John, I agree with you and Sharon...I shouldn't have chewed out the poor grunt writer who did a decent job with his material. It's the editors who should be lined up against the wall.
And that is an excellent suggestion. One question: why only ten? -
Mark, you're right -- but that's why I think people like PZ need to do it. Talking about one's research is the time to make those connections about evolution.
Louis Jacobs, an SMU paleontologist, does a lot of work around Dallas with locally found fossils. I've noted that almost every time he's quoted he mentions evolutionary connections. So two or three times a year there are stories about another local fossil find, with Jacobs' comments favoring evolution. Not once have even the creationist reporters gone to find an intelligent design advocate on the topic. Quietly making the point.
Of course, there is another world-famous dinosaur finder here in Texas who begged me not to mention his research since the smaller town his world-famous university is located in is loaded with creationists, and he doesn't want the attention.
I'd urge PZ and all other scientists to append evolution to the interview.'Let's go to Eyewitless News reporter Sally Strumpet with a story about zebra fish sex on the Minnesota Prairie.' [cut to Strumpet at some academic-looking building in Morris, MN] 'Thank you, Charlie! I'm here with P Z Myers, who is one of the world's foremost authorities on zebra fish sex, who today in Darwin's Diary had a paper published that says zebra fish are more selective in their mates than most humans are. Tell us about your paper, Dr. Myers," [Cut to guy with Einstein hair and orange labcoat with, "Danger, Pharyngula!" on back] "Well, this is another in a long string of confirmations of Darwin's evolutionary ideas, Sally -- and while it doesn't indicate that your cousin Irving really is a fish, it suggests that we might learn more something from our finny friends besides that we need to filet them carefully after poaching . . .'
See how painless that was?#: Posted by on 05/03 at 06:06 PM -
Why only ten?
Because editors can't count past ten.#: Posted by John Wilkins on 05/03 at 08:50 PM - Well, if the numeracy of editors is all that matters, we really only need four. 1, 2, 3, many.
-
Because editors can't count past ten.
I'm an editor, but I wear Tevas to work. So I can count to 22.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 05/03 at 08:56 PM -
Careful PZM, you're starting to froth at the mouth.
I have no patience for ID trying to get respect from the scientific establishment, the popular media, or even snails; but I'm also a science grad with journalistic training (we do need PR!).
This article needed that sidebar. If I had read this article I would want to know exactly what sort of crap Discovery Inst. is telling children to ask science teachers. I was literally laughing out loud as I read some of the crap; I'd suspect the journalist was too (then I realised, these kids think its clever, so did he, by the tone of the article).
Sure the could have posted a link to the entire list discovery.org (and direct traffic their way!), but the reporter probably (naively) thought his audience was smart enough to realise that the questions were stupid, by reading the whole article. He could have added a rebuttal, or headlined it with Stupid/Misinformed questions that students are asking teachers -- but unlike the beast (from a few entries ago, about Tom Cruise), CBS probably isn't interested in trying to be sued by religious wingnuts.
[I think I'm going to have to trackback this to my blog later today to finish this thoughtstream]. -
Wilkins said:
In my experience, decisions like this are probably made by an editor, not the journo (despite my ranking journalists slightly below used car salesmen and just above state politicians). Editors have a production mentality - they are primarily concerned with copy and visuals. So something like this is a godsend (pun intended) to them.
Tough room here! At least I've never been a used car salesman. (I hesitate to ask where you rank lawyers.)#: Posted by on 05/03 at 10:19 PM -
Tough room here! At least I've never been a used car salesman. (I hesitate to ask where you rank lawyers.)
I worked in newspapers and as a PR hack for an educational institution. I find that Mark Twain sums up my attitude to the media - it is a tragedy when a newspaper starts up in a decent and democratic village. He, too, had worked in the newspaper business.
But lawyers are necessary to provide the fertiliser from which used car salesmen and journalists grow...
#: Posted by John Wilkins on 05/03 at 11:39 PM -
Well, I am an actual working newspaperman.
Will Rogers said, all of us are ignorant, just on different subjects.
I happen to think I know a fair amount about biology, for a newspaperman; but not so very much about how the oil industry works, which is the subject I'm supposed to be reporting this week. Except on the very biggest publications, you are always going to be talking to generalists.
If you guys care, then in each community, the biologists and their fellow travelers ought to select one or two members who are good at communicating (short, snappy quotes), who return phone calls, stuff like that; and let the local newserati know those are the good guys to call. Back up these sacrificial lambs. The best source in the world isn't any help to me if I cannot reach him on deadline.
Let your designated speakers be patient and tolerant, and make sure they have time to cultivate whichever reporters are likely to run into ID -- that's hard to predict, but education reporters are likely candidates. Professor Myers is doing a dandy job here, and it must take a lot of effort. He should divert some of that to whoever in Morris and Minneapolis is likely to be hoodwinked by ID. Get your licks in first.
Stroke reporters and editors who, even if by accident, report something correctly.
Remember that most people -- and reporters and editors are almost people -- don't give a flying crap about evolution. But they do care about kids.
Some years ago, I persuaded my editor to let me run a story, suggested by the Skeptical Inquirer folks, asking our readers their opinion about whether the paper ought to continue running its horoscope. Not one reply, pro or con. So we keep running it.
It's a lot of effort to cultivate reporters, and some of them are real dumbos (especially the TV ones), but the alternative is going extinct, isn't it?
Last (well, maybe not last, but last for now), remember that it is not so clear to Joe Sixpack, who may be a reporter or editor, that one side is all angels and the other all devils on this one.
I have to hand a little book called 'A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam,' which is basically DI in a kaffiyeh. This is handed out to reporters at large. (To read it online, go to http://www.islam-guide.com. )
But when I say things about Muslims here that are similar to what you guys say about Christian, I get savaged.
So you might consider how effective you'd be if you could wring your politics out before you start entering this controversy with reporters.#: Posted by on 05/04 at 12:08 AM -
I am shamed. You are, of course, right, and I have known some wise and even educated newspaper journalists. But they tend not to report on what they know
All industries have their exigencies and shortcuts. They have to - it is an economic enterprise, whatever it is. Journalism is no better or worse in that respect (but the industry is a loooonnnggg way from being a medium of information it seems now to be a medium for attitudes).
We should attempt to raise the bar for journalism by giving it useful, clear and above all accurate information if we wish to see science better reported. But at the same time, I think history shows us that the media are not a good way to educate. At best, they will lead to education; at worst they are a bar to it.
Please excuse my bad-temperedness. I leave that to Our Host from now on...#: Posted by John Wilkins on 05/04 at 01:30 AM -
If it were Latin (as in the word for 'field'), the plural would be 'campi'. It's second declension.
As an aside, are there any Latinate English words that have fourth declension plurals? Many people say 'stadia' or 'octopi', but I can't think of any '-us' plurals. Then again, their aren't any English fourth declension singulars that spring to mind either.#: Posted by on 05/04 at 04:52 AM -
The fourth declension plurals, -us and -ua, are not used in English. The only nonstandard plurals that are productive in English are -um/-a, -us/-i, -is/-es, -an/-a, and very rarely -a/-ae.
All that aside, since campus is a thoroughly Anglicized word, its plural is campuses. If you want to call the plural of campus campi then you should also call a campus a campum when it's a direct object, a campo when it's an indirect object, and so on. -
Do I hear Latin? Coitus (interruptus), census, prospectus, sinus, casus (belli), fetus (?), virgus (intactus - a mythical creature), et cetera.
#: Posted by on 05/04 at 07:33 AM
-
I have a question for any journalists who might read this, too. What was the author of that article thinking? Why would a writer think a pile of crap from some grossly biased and unqualified organization like the Discovery Institute would be a useful addition to an article?
The author of the article was thinking in precisely the right way.
First, he had nothing to do with the publication of the sidebar of questions -- but it was perfectly appropriate and even mandatory to publish that sidebar. That's because the writer alluded to the 10 questions early in the article, and the inquiring reader will want to know what those questions are. Since inserting the questions into the body of the story would have been cumbersome, the editors put them into a sidebar. Should they have published the scientific answers to the questions, or linked to the answers on the Web page? Yes. But that's not the writer's fault.
What was the writer's assignment? Was it to demonstrate that ID is BS and verify the truth of evolution, in an article of approximately 800 words? Of course not! A newspaper article is not a textbook on biology, nor could it be -- it has too few words! The writer's assignment was to report on a fact -- the fact that some teachers are uncomfortable about teaching evolution, because their students are armed with PR from the Discovery Institute (another fact). The reporter was reporting facts -- which is his job. Indeed, this kind of article is a good thing for scientists, as it brings a problem to public attention.
Rather than dump on the jounalist or even the editors (who, admittedly, should have posted or published the answers to the 10 questions), maybe you should direct your ire at those teachers who are wimping out on teaching evolution. If it weren't for them, this article never would have been published in the first place.#: Posted by on 05/04 at 07:53 AM -
[impression of enraged classics teacher]
Platypi!! PLATYPI!!!!! Never! The word is Greek not Latin from pus or foot. The plural is of course podes and therefore it should be platypodes. Damn you boy
etc rant rave snort indignate
[/impression of enraged classics teacher]
Sadly one of my favourite quotes is "Television. The word is half Greek, half Latin. No good shall come of this."
Can't remember who said it though.#: Posted by on 05/04 at 08:25 AM -
Harry, I think you are on to something. When I was a newspaper reporter, I knew there were certain people I could go to for certain things. The surrounding area had lots of farming, so I often did farming-related stories. I went to the county agent. Not the one in my county, but the one in an adjoining county, because I knew I could count on him for lots of good information and good quotes. So, if people like PZ make themselves known to reporters as someone who knows the subject and gives good quotes, the reporters will gladly go to him. I don't think most reporters intend to do a bad job, although there are lazy people everywhere. So, find the good reporters and make yourself known to them. Actually call them up if you see a story in need of your help, and tell them you can help them the next time. And call the lazy reporters, too, because they will usually take all the help anyone offers.
#: Posted by on 05/04 at 08:42 AM
-
Actually, DavidM has a point. One quote was rather disheartening:
"The argument was always in the past the monkey-ancestor deal," says Mr. Williamson, who teaches at Olathe East High School. "Today there are many more arguments that kids bring to class, a whole fleet of arguments, and they're all drawn out of the efforts by different groups, like the intelligent design [proponents]."
It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom, Williamson says - one that he doesn't like. "I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher."
Unfortunately, this quote seems to be implying that Williamson doesn't like it that much when his students challenge him. I understand that he may resent having his classroom discussion time hijacked by a bunch of ID zealots who ask confrontational questions, when it could be better used for other things. However, not all confrontation is bad. If he were to have ready answers to these pre-packaged anti-evolution questions, he could use those answers to them to teach why ID is not science and why evolution is. He won't convince the ID plants parrotting the Discovery Institute's line, but he may keep other students from falling for the DI's fallacious arguments. -
The article as journalism isn't great, but I think it has been attacked for the wrong reasons. However, stuff like this:
Even after decades of debate, Americans remain deeply ambivalent about the notion that the theory of natural selection can explain creation and its genesis.
borders on the incoherent, since evolutionary theory doesn't purport to explain "creation" in the sense that seems to be implied here.
As Harry Eagar said, if you are a scientist who is concerned about how the media represent evolution and other science subjects, make yourself available to reporters, who love short, snappy quotes. (Of course, short, snappy quotes can't always do justice to complex subjects, but newspapers have limited space.)#: Posted by on 05/04 at 09:37 AM -
Actually, the journalism is even less than not great. "Creation and genesis" mean the same thing in this context, and, as davidm points out, evolution has nothing to say about either. If "genesis" refers to the origin of species, maybe not, but I suspect the writer meant the genesis of the bible.
#: Posted by on 05/04 at 10:03 AM
-
Unfortunately, this quote seems to be implying that Williamson doesn't like it that much when his students challenge him.
Look at the questions and note the insidious lies written into these "questions". Honest questions should be welcomed by teachers, but Wells has written blatant lies like "its [archaeopteryx's] supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?" These "questions" are not and should not be welcomed into classrooms trying to teach kids how to honestly deal with the evidence. Wells' questions are Trojan horses designed to fuck up the teaching of science.#: Posted by on 05/04 at 10:16 AM -
I'm not a teacher, but I think this is how I might handle these questions if someone asked them in biology class. I would say, "I am glad you brought that up. Those questions have been floating around a long time and have been answered countless times. You are now assigned to look up the answers to those questions and write a report which you will present to the class next week. I expect you to give citations. Now, let's get on with our class."
#: Posted by on 05/04 at 10:48 AM
- I like the way you think!
-
If you want some good reportage on the Kansas Kangaroo Court check out this article that appears in today's Pitch (a weekly paper in Missouri).
What a triumphant journey awaits Mustafa Akyol.
Kansas taxpayers are footing the bill to bring the Istanbul resident to Topeka as one of 23 witnesses scheduled to testify this week before a subcommittee of the Kansas State School Board in its unorthodox "trial" over science teaching standards. (Fortunately, Akyol happens to be in Washington, D.C., on other business, so Kansans are paying only to bring him across the country, not all the way from Turkey.)
Born in 1972, Akyol has a master's degree in history and writes a column for a newspaper in Istanbul. He also has identified himself as a spokesman for the murky Bilim Arastirma Vakfi, a group with an innocuous-sounding name -- it means "Science Research Foundation" -- but a nasty reputation.
Said to have started as a religious cult that preyed on wealthy members of Turkish society, the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi has appeared in lurid media tales about sex rings, a blackmail prosecution and speculation about its charismatic leader, a man named Adnan Oktar. But if BAV's notoriety has been burnished by a sensationalist Turkish media, the secretive group has earned its reputation as a prodigious publisher of inexpensive ideological paperbacks. BAV has put out hundreds of titles written by "Harun Yahya" (a pseudonym) on various topics, but most of them are Islamic-based attacks on the theory of evolution.
Turkey is a secular country that aspires to join the European Union and boasts several institutions of higher learning on a par with good Western universities. But beginning in 1998, BAV spearheaded an effort to attack Turkish academics who taught Darwinian theory. Professors there say they were harassed and threatened, and some of them were slandered in fliers that labeled them "Maoists" for teaching evolution. In 1999, six of the professors won a civil court case against BAV for defamation and were awarded $4,000 each.
But seven years after BAV's offensive began, says Istanbul University forensics professor Umit Sayin (one of the slandered faculty members), the battle is over.
"There is no fight against the creationists now. They have won the war," Sayin tells the Pitch from his home in Istanbul. "In 1998, I was able to motivate six members of the Turkish Academy of Sciences to speak out against the creationist movement. Today, it's impossible to motivate anyone. They're afraid they'll be attacked by the radical Islamists and the BAV."#: Posted by on 05/05 at 02:40 AM - Great article, Jason. Thanks for the link.