| Mainstream Media | Bias Revealed! |
|---|
| |
|
Tuesday November 16, 2004
By Raja Mishra, Globe Staff | |
| A long-running American cultural clash has flared yet again, with a trial in suburban Atlanta this month over teaching evolution in public schools. Several Georgia parents are challenging a local school board's decision to require biology textbooks to include a prominently placed label stating that evolution is ''not a fact." | Stated this way sounds a little better than the actual case: the ACLU has recruited "several Georgia parents" ... there is a travesty being perpetrated against Americans' Civil Liberty; books are being labeled truthfully!
I have to admit to being slightly baffled by this need to fight against Truth!? |
|
| |
| The Georgia case is the first to land in court, but this year alone 13 states have had challenges to teaching evolution in schools. With the new federal No Child Left Behind education law mandating a broad review of science curriculum in every state over the next two years, those challenges may accelerate, as religious activists and evolution opponents seize on opportunities to shape guidelines on what public school students learn about the natural world. | Interestingly, there has been not one single case where anyone has suggested evolution should not be taught in schools.
What is being called into question is the absolute ban against teaching that evolution is a theory, and that while there is evidence and a body of proponents, there is also evidence and there are proponents of other theories, the most substantial of which, in terms of both evidence and number of proponents is "Intelligent Design" ... |
|
| |
| Those challenging evolution rarely say that schools should teach creationism, the biblical account of the origin of life. Instead, they insist that teachers present evolution as a debated and uncertain hypothesis, ... | Well! That is certainly very subtle of a vast underground movement to try to undermine a theory by calling it a theory! |
|
| |
| ... though most scientists consider it among the most important and well-supported scientific theories of all time. Scientists worry that the antievolution campaign will weaken American science education and see it as part of a broader push to incorporate religion in public schools. | These are some very questionable assertions made in the name of "most scientists" (exactly how many scientists are there, anyway?) and a questionable suggestion that "Scientists worry ... "
This obvious statistical liberty (saying most, when you don't really know how many there are!) is taken to prop up two very shaky assertions by this reporter, and a disturbing "out of left field" and out of context accusation! Shaky assertions: 1) Evolution is one of the most important and well-supported scientific theories of all time, and 2) The idea that teaching two different theories, along with evidence in favor of and against each, will weaken American science education. disturbing "out of left field" and out of context accusation: 3) By incorporation into a run-on sentence(the last in the paragraph), the writer manages to infer that "scientists" perceive the renewed interest of the public in teaching that evolution is a theory (which every good scientist knows) and that there are other competing theories (which is how science works), ... that scientists perceive this as a part of a "broader push to incorporate religion in public schools" ... what!? I just don't believe the source of this completely out of left field accusation is: "scientists".... Sloppy thinking has led to sloppy writing, here, and bias has crossed the line into lies! |
|
| |
| The debate is unfolding as the nation wrestles with the role of religion in public life, as the recent presidential election made clear. | |
|
| |
| The mobilization of religious conservatives that helped to reelect President Bush greatly impressed officials at the Institute for Creation Research, a self-proclaimed ''Christ-focused creation ministry" in Santee, Calif., committed to challenging the teaching of evolution in schools. |
Wow! Self-proclaimed? You mean they're not ashamed of it? |
|
| |
| ''When people get organized, those that approach politics from a point of view that God exists, it's clear that things can be changed," said the institute's vice president, Duane Gish. ''The evolutionists use every device available in politics. Why shouldn't we?" | An example of people "that approach politics from a point of view that God exists" would be our Founding Fathers. |
|
| |
| Once disparate antievolution groups have become more organized in recent years, establishing networks on the Internet, sharing tactics, developing literature, and honing arguments. | |
|
| |
| ''The case in Georgia is the first court case to take this up, but there will be more," said Paul R. Gross, life sciences professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and author of a recent book on the antievolution effort. ''This is a very serious movement. It touches the deep and sincere feelings of a great many people in our country." | |
|
| |
| While most of the challenges to the teaching of evolution have been in states won by Bush, the issue has also emerged in the last two months in three states won by John F. Kerry: | What's this got to do with it?
This shows the writer's utter desperation to tie this to politics; Republicans vs. Democrats ... religious fundamentalism vs. mainstream America ... if he can succeed at this in such an article, he's helped the cause of creating an instant constituency against the "anti-evolutionists" which, as we've pointed out, don't even exist. The movement isn't ani-evolution, it's more anti non-evolutionary exclusionism. |
|
| |
| In western Wisconsin, the Grantsburg school district passed a measure mandating the teaching of ''various scientific models or theories of origin." | |
|
| |
| In Pennsylvania, the Dover area school board passed a measure requiring the teaching of ''intelligent design" along with evolution. This theory argues that life is so complex that some intelligent force, above and beyond evolution, must be behind it. Proponents say the intelligent force is God. | I wonder, who do the opponents say the intelligent force is? |
|
| |
| In Maryland, the Charles County school board debated a proposal to eliminate textbooks ''biased toward evolution" from classrooms. The measure is under consideration. | Whoa, now that's controversial: let's eliminate bias from what's taught to our children!
In what universe wouldn't such a proposal be unanimously acclaimed among public servants? What's wrong with this picture? |
|
| |
| Last week, a federal courtroom in suburban Atlanta took center stage in the debate. | Yes, last week, and incidentally an amicus brief in support of the school district was filed with the court by more than two dozen scientists, all of them PhD's calling evolution a "theory in crisis". I wonder why this reporter doesn't even mention this?
The brief was filed on the 12th, and this article went to press the 16th, yet the entire focus of this article is to portray this movement as some kind of religious revival of an archaic non-issue properly ended nearly a century ago, and able to be revived only because of the religious fundamentalist conspiracy that got George Bush reelected! That's the media bias. If your objective is to be informed, put this paper on your "watch list." Follow this link to confirm for yourself that there really is another legitimate and scientifically reputable side to this debate: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2305&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News |
|
| |
| At issue was this label, pasted on the title page of the biology books of middle and high school students in Cobb County: ''This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." | ... and the problem is? The sticker states the truth, and advances a very sound policy for the pursuit of all studies. |
|
| |
| In 2002, school board members voted for the label after a petition drive by Marjorie Rogers, a lawyer and devout Christian, who said in trial testimony that she was motivated simply by reading her children's textbook: ''It presented it just blatantly. 'Evolution is a fact. It did happen.' I was outraged." | Understandable that they were outraged, since the textbook misrepresented the facts about evolution. Just earlier in this very article, the writer offered us the results of his research thus: " ... most scientists consider it among the most important and well-supported scientific theories of all time." Right there: most scientists consider this a theory (in fact I'm sure all scientist know it's a theory) ... was this a science book not written by a scientist? |
|
| |
| Six local parents challenged the decision, arguing that the disclaimer on evolution violates constitutional provisions separating church and state. In 1987, the US Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the church-state separation. The Georgia disclaimer does not mention creationism or Christianity, but simply questions evolution. | True separation of church and state would require that this discussion be removed from the purview of the government to regulate.
It does not question evolution. It simply states (accurately) that it is theory, not fact, and recommends careful study. |
|
| |
| Nonetheless, the parents challenging the evolution disclaimer argue that its intent is to inject a religious point of view into public education. US District Judge Clarence Cooper, appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton, must decide the matter, though it is unclear when he will rule. | Upon the vociferous denial of murder by the complicit queen in Hamlet, Prince Hamlet says: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much!" ... when there is a level of denial, vocality, or emotional response completely out of proportion to the situation, it is generally a demonstration of guilty conscience or fear.
What are the "parents challenging the evolution disclaimer" afraid of? The disclaimer is quoted above; it prints the truth and makes good common sense recommendations about study. Harmless! |
|
| |
| Debate over evolution had been considered a relic of the past, captured in plays such as ''Inherit the Wind" about the 1925 trial of Tennessee teacher John T. Scopes, who was convicted of illegally teaching evolution. It took another 42 years before the Tennessee law was taken off the books. The issue largely faded from national attention until 1999, when the Kansas board of education voted to remove evolution from the state's science curriculum. New members have been elected to the board, and the policy has been reversed. But the debate is alive in more than a dozen states and at the national level. | |
|
| |
| In 2001, Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, unsuccessfully tried to insert language into the No Child Left Behind education bill that would require that ''a full range of views" on human origins be taught in classes. | Throughout this article, the writer has attempted to tie the expectation that evolution be responsibly taught (i.e., it is a theory, there are others, here are evidences pro and con), to the No Child Left Behind education bill. Now we're told the attempt to make this bill about evolution failed. Which is it?! |
|
| |
| Evolution, first popularized by Charles Darwin in 1859, holds that simple, single-cell organisms developed into more complex life forms, including humans, over millions of years through genetic changes that gave certain species characteristics that allowed them to thrive while others died. The theory is supported by extensive evidence from fossils, as well as studies of genetics. The vast majority of scientists accept it, with most considering the theory a towering achievement for its ability to explain the enormous variety of life with a few simple principles. | There is evidence on both sides of the question. The act of doing science involves entertaining hypotheses and devising experiments that will produce evidence to support or disprove the hypothesis in question. When a breakthrough is made, it doesn't matter how many people believed a particular hypothesis; once the experiment proving against it is come up with and reproduced, documented, etc. every single person that used to believe one way suddenly believes the other thing. This is called Scientific Revolution. Before Copernicus, practically everybody believed the earth was flat. How will it further good science education if the government bans an undisproved hypothesis and its body of evidence in favor of an un-proved one? |
|
| |
| In many local battles, evolution opponents have successfully argued that students should be exposed to questions about evolution and alternative theories. In Ohio, the state Department of Education passed a measure in March encouraging teachers to hold classes that question the evolutionary theory. | Here ... I've re-written this paragraph; my version says exactly the same information:
In many regions, proponents of Truth in Education have successfully lifted the ban on presenting the facts about evolution, namely that it is only one of several theories about the origin of species. In Ohio, the state Department of Education passed a measure in March allowing teachers to hold classes that will expand the awareness of students on this topic, and familiarize them with the evidence supporting the different theories. See how different they sound!? That's spin; don't you feel annoyed to realize how blatantly the press tries to manipulate you into thinking a certain way about things! |
|
| |
| ''We were very pleased by the science standard that was developed" in Ohio, said John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank active in opposing the teaching of evolution in schools around the country. He added, ''I certainly do see more of these policies being pursued" as the No Child Left Behind law prompts states to review their science curricula. | This isn't being done willy-nilly; a scientific standard underlies such proposed changes in the curriculum.
Notice the quotation marks end just before the writer "finishes" Mr. West's sentence with the press emphasis on the No Child Left Behind law; good legislation being impugned! |
|
| |
| The law requires review of all subjects, and in most states the process is well underway in English and math. The reviews, conducted by state school boards, can lead to changes in curriculum, textbook selection, and standardized test content. School board officials are elected or appointed by elected officials and therefore subject to political pressure. |
What an interesting point to emphasize! It is the political system in the form of the ACLU and the Democratic Party that are trying to stuff a rag into the mouth of the recently liberated school districts that will be offering the broader view, and the chance for students to exercise their own scientific discernment to weigh the evidence for and against and decide for themselves which hypothesis will hold for another season. |
|
| |
| ''When you do get organized, when you use political pressure, it is effective," said Gish of the Institute for Creation Research. He said he would like to see ''the schools present the best case for evolution, and let the creationists present their best case, and let students decide." | The recent success of some school districts is not the result of their politicizing it. The fact that this issue is politicized is an environment created by those defending the Theory of Evolution over the past several decades ... they must have doubts as to how well the theory would hold up without political pressure to prop it up! |
|
| |
| Evolutionary scientists have fought against such sentiment for decades. | |
|
| |
| ''This is such old-hat stuff," said Harvard emeritus professor Ernest Mayr, who at age 100 is one of the titans of evolutionary science. | This is certainly a disappointing recommendation of Professor Mayr's academic credentials. What exactly is a titan of evolutionary science? If Professor Mayr is one of them, who are the others? Is it because of his age that he's a titan; the professor's age is actually the only "fact" in this sentence, so what are we to think?
Apologies to Professor Mayr; I am questioning only the quality of your representation here. Professor Mayr does have an impressive curriculum vitae: "Ernst Mayr is Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Emeritus, at Harvard University. He is also the recipient of numerous honorary degrees and awards, including the Crafoord Prize for Biology, the National Medal of Science, the Balzan Prize, and the Japan Prize." (taken from the following site, which features Professor Mayr and his work): http://www.hup.harvard.edu/contents/MAYEVY_toc.html I hope you will all visit his web site; just remember: "This [web site] contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." The problem in this article is: the writer has no interest in quoting to us Professor Mayr's expertise, science and evolution. Instead Professor Mayr is being shamelessly exploited to comment on the constitution, as you'll see in a couple of paragraphs hence. |
|
| |
| Mayr is adamant that antievolutionary arguments, even those that don't directly mention religion, have no place in public schools. | The implication is that all who would question the theory of evolution have religious motivations. What about the motivation that the theory may actually have some flaw or weakness. The scientists filing the amicus brief mentioned above: " ... say in their brief that there is growing skepticism that evolution as first elucidated by Charles Darwin in his "On the Origin of the Species" can "account for the complexity of life we see today." " |
|
| |
| ''What it really amounts to is a break with our Constitution, which tells you that you should keep religion out of public life," he said. | Thank you Mr. Mishra (that's the writer of this article), here we finally have it; the capstone of your effort. After all, for the journalist, the hunt ... the chase, is about: out of whose mouth will we be able to get (verbatim if possible) exactly what we want to hear [i.e., tell]. And shame on you Mr. Mishra for using the venerable Professor Mayr to cap off this travesty of news reporting.
Actually, this isn't at all what the Constitution says; which Professor Mayr may be forgiven for not realizing, but not Mr. Mishra, who's duty it is to research and know before purveying as fact to the American public, his reader. |
|
| |
| Another major figure in the field, Harvard professor Edward O. Wilson, said the current challenges to evolution are fringe movements, noting that Pope John Paul II, in a 1996 statement, acknowledged that evolutionary scientists had amassed considerable evidence for their theory. | This really about sums up the quality of reporting here: Let's get a Zoologist to give an expert opinion on the Constitution of the United States, and for an expert opinion on evolutionary science, let's quote the Pope! |
|
| |
| ''They are really going outside the beliefs of most Christians in the world and most other religions in the world," said Wilson of evolution opponents. | Inside or "outside the beliefs of most Christians in the world and most other religions in the world" is so besides the point, it is laughable.
Truth demands that evolution be presented to our children in school as a theory. Part of being a theory is that it is not a fact, and there may be other theories simultaneously trying to explain the same set of facts. Until one is proven (scientists know what that means) with reproducible absolute proofs, to advance one theory and ban mention of others is a travesty that is unconscionable in a free and open society such as ours thinks itself to be. |
|
| |
| © Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | © Copyright 2004 AJJE Enterprises |
|
|