Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Seeing the light -- of science

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:12    http://www.salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/index.html Interesting -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,19:51    a snippet from that interview I had posted on another thread: Quote [interviewer:] But at some point, your ideas obviously changed. What caused you to question the creationist account? [Numbers:] I wish I knew. There are a few moments that proved crucial for me. I went to Berkeley in the '60s as a graduate student in history and learned to read critically. That had a profound influence on me. I was also exposed to critiques of young earth creationism. The thing that stands out in my memory as being decisive was hearing a lecture about the fossil forest of Yellowstone, given by a creationist who'd just been out there to visit. He found that for the 30 successive layers you needed -- assuming the most rapid rates of decomposition of lava into soil and the most rapid rates of growth for the trees that came back in that area -- at least 20,000 to 30,000 years. The only alternative the creationists had to offer was that during the year of Noah's flood, these whole stands of forest trees came floating in, one on top of another, until you had about 30 stacked up. And that truly seemed incredible to me. Just trying to visualize what that had been like during the year of Noah's flood made me smile. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,07:00    Did that remind you of anyone?   -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,08:15    Quote Did that remind you of anyone?   Why, yes. Yes, it did. And, though "anyone's" thread is about to close, I don't think "anyone" is banned from the forum, and, should he have a sensible response to Numbers, I imagine he could post it here. (I shall resist the urge to "debate" it, though.) another snippet:   Quote [interviewer:] Are we going to see this war between evolutionism and creationism continue for years to come? [Numbers:] I probably shouldn't even try to answer that question. Historians generally shouldn't try to be prophets. But it doesn't seem to be declining in any way right now. I think the creation scientists are still extremely strong. Some people say the intelligent design movement has eclipsed the creation scientists. But I think that's judging strength by press coverage. And the press will cover it only when it's exciting, when there's a legislative battle or a court case. I'm shocked by how much publicity the intelligent design movement has gotten in 15 years. They have a very good public relations machinery. So you have a handful of people in Seattle at the Discovery Institute and a few million dollars a year to play with, and they've convinced Time, Newsweek and others that the whole scientific community is divided over intelligent design. It's amazing! As with the whole selling of the Iraqle Debaqle, the more regrettable failure has been the willingness of "Time, Newsweek, and others" to uncritically broadcast the claims of the scammers. Scammers, like the poor, we will always have with us. And there will always be a gullible target group. But I'm not at all confident democracy can survive the kind of atrocious (non)journalism that's been the sorry legacy of the past decade or two in the USA. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Tim Posts: 40 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,08:26    Quote and they've convinced Time, Newsweek and others that the whole scientific community is divided over intelligent design Is this actually true? I'd have given far more credence to the abilities of the investigative reporters of Newsweek and Time than that.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,08:51    Quote Is this actually true? I definitely have that impression - that what passes for "objectivity" is being scrupulously neutral, granting "equal time" to any two contradictory positions. The ID/creationists have certainly milked this for all it's worth ("It's only fair that both sides should be heard!") But to be fair, I suppose we should pick a concrete example, an actual Time, Newsweek, or Other article to examine. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,17:27    From memory. Time seems to more or less agree with the scientific consensus on Darwin and Global Warming. But here is a long article http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html The Evolution Wars - cover story -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,17:49    Oh, I don't doubt that overall Time "agrees" with the scientific consensus. My beef is that too much of the reporting on the issue tends to be way too deferential to the crackpots.  Way too much "on the one hand James Watson says... on the other, Michael Behe says..."   Again, I'd have to go back and read the articles in question, but I don't think they drove home the point that there is absolutely no support in the scientific literature for the IDCreationists. Now that I think of it, I really should go back and read it. Did they, for instance, devote due scrutiny to the Wedge Document, or Wells's Pledge of Allegiance to Rev. Moon? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2007,07:09    Quote (Russell @ Jan. 03 2007,17:49) Oh, I don't doubt that overall Time "agrees" with the scientific consensus. My beef is that too much of the reporting on the issue tends to be way too deferential to the crackpots.  Way too much "on the one hand James Watson says... on the other, Michael Behe says..."   Again, I'd have to go back and read the articles in question, but I don't think they drove home the point that there is absolutely no support in the scientific literature for the IDCreationists. Now that I think of it, I really should go back and read it. Did they, for instance, devote due scrutiny to the Wedge Document, or Wells's Pledge of Allegiance to Rev. Moon? I would have to go read all 7 pages of it again!  But I think they come out on the side of the angels, just not a stridently as I would like. And I agree this idea of "looking at both sides" now gives a disproportionate amount of ink to the extreme crackpots. -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,21:09    Remember also that news thrives on "drama." Editors know which side their foccacia is cheesed. Thus the cheesey compulsion to keep the kicky drama going by not squashing the "alternative" view. An article slamming creationism/ID for its lack of credibility would turn people off, even if they all agreed with it--but worse, it shuts down reportage on further debates and "controversies." A lot of "news" is just plain gossip and theatrics, meant to provoke more "news." And many editors and reporters are just so confused about the issue that they fall back on the "these people say/those people say" format. Most of my co-workers accept evolution, but if you ask them why, they probably haven't thought much about it since high school (being that this is an arts organization). -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,22:48    Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 05 2007,21:09) A lot of "news" is just plain gossip and theatrics, meant to provoke more "news." After all, the entire purpose of "news" is to sell advertising space. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2007,21:33    Another article in Salon that might be of interest:     Quote The holy blitz rolls on The Christian right is a "deeply anti-democratic movement" that gains force by exploiting Americans' fears, argues Chris Hedges. Salon talks with the former New York Times reporter about his fearless new book, "American Fascism." Here's a snippet from the Amazon review of the book (whose actual title is American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America )     Quote Twenty-five years ago, when Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists first spoke of the United States becoming a Christian nation that would build a global Christian empire, it was hard to take such hyperbolic rhetoric seriously. Today, such language no longer sounds like hyperbole but poses, instead, a very real threat to our freedom and our way of life. In American Fascists, Chris Hedges, veteran journalist and author of the National Book Award finalist War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, challenges the Christian Right's religious legitimacy and argues that at its core it is a mass movement fueled by unbridled nationalism and a hatred for the open society. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2007,22:02    Quote ....challenges the Christian Right's religious legitimacy and argues that at its core it is a mass movement fueled by unbridled nationalism and a hatred for the open society. I couldn't have put it better myself. Dembski and his proto book burning, teenage thought control, comparative religion teacher bashing, rabble of reactionary right wing radicals had the beginnings of a Christian Right putsch in Dover until faced down by Barbara Forrest long before the trial. That should be added to his C.V. brave, fearless, hard case, Christian Right Master and Commander of the good ship I.D. wets himself and hides before the battle of the century ....'Darwin's Waterloo'. Will Dembski and his entourage of suck holes  take credit for his part in the downfall of Christian Right facism in the USA? Over to you DT...... -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard