where is the expose when its appropriate?

[acroyear]

Why is the media advertising for this group?  Why didn't this AP article take the opportunity to expose these anti-science cretins for the liars they are, and the abuse they do to science and the children they lie to?

Pharyngula and Science, Shrimp, and Grits ask similar questions.   I find the article painfully uncritical and one-sided, omitting far more than it presents and making the liars they talk about look like the good guys...

Comments

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

I didn't come away with an impression of the tour folk as "good guys" but rather as "misguided guys." The comments from the scientists were well placed to highlight that the positions of the tour guides were not accepted by the mainstream. Also, the scientists' and curators' attacks on the tours weren't strident or "negative" (i.e. ad hominem or personal) but did point out their disagreement with what the tours were doing and why. I found Teri Eastburn's comment at the end to be an nice summary of the scientific position on the general debate. I thought the article made the scientists sound reasonable and the tours to be questionable.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Eastburn's comment was completely irrelevant to the scientific side of the debate.

"We try to explain it using evidence that we find in the natural world, whereas religion is dealing more with spirituality, ethics and morality, which science does not deal with at all," she said. "It's different ways of knowing. How people reconcile the ways of knowing is an individual choice."

If religion is dealing with "spirituality, ethics and morality", why do they consider it "morally" acceptable to lie and misrepresent the knowledge that science has discovered and the techniques by which scientists do their work? Why is it "ethical" to lie to children by implying there is a direct *scientific* connection between Darwin and Hitler?

What does "spirituality, ethics and morality" have to do with natural history? Nothing. Therefore, if that's what religion is supposed to be, then what these people are doing does not belong in the museum, and she should have been far more strident about that.

Where was the *real* scientific viewpoint that these people distort the "evidence", make connections that are not logically tenable, and assert the factual nature of a book as if nothing in it can be contradicted by science? and then indoctrinate new generations of unsuspecting children to their new "facts" that are totally unsupported by the evidence?

To reply to Johnson (the curator, and not even a scientist), where are the "other ideas" the kids are getting exposed to, when the presentation of what they see is so tainted by the creationist lies?

*One* line, "Still, Johnson says: "Their message is quite backward and intellectually dishonest."" is the only criticism this group received in the article.

Every other paragraph took entirely the "tolerate alternative viewpoints" approach rather than expose this madness for the damage it is doing to a new generation of children, their scientific literacy snuffed out in a web of lies and superstition before the schools can even begin to help them figure out that they could actually contribute to science and to this country's and planet's future.

I'm sorry that you enjoy your journalistic world so much that you can't see that they are not doing their job when they present crackpots and liars as merely "alternative viewpoints" when they are really having an extremely devestating effect on children's education and the future of this country.

I'm sorry that you seem to simply only care for "sounding fair" rather than on actually taking a stand for the future of this nation, a future I firmly believe to be non-existent if the fundementalists continue to choke-hold education in this country the way they have been working for for the last 80 years.

I believe it is time that journalists really took a stand at exposing the lies of liars in religion, just as they would the lies of politicians...and dammit, they don't even do that very often anymore, either.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

I know this is one of you hot button issues. And I can appreciate your feelings since I can get up a good rant on my issues. But the only reason I bothered to post was to give some feedback as someone for whom the issue is not a burning one, and who has a least a passing familiarity with journalism -- in other words to give an *objective* take on the article.

I'm sorry that you enjoy your journalistic world so much that you can't see that they are not doing their job...
Joe, you know me better than that. I get plenty pissed at the "journalistic world," as you well know. We've had our discussion about that before -- often on different sides of the issue. But I will claim to know more about what a journalist's job entails than you. I'll stack my 15 years of experience working in the field against your opinion.

A journalist's job *isn't* to be a crusader for any one side -- not unless you want to be an editorial writer or a pundit or do some other form of advocacy writing (a big part of what does get my goat is when "news" reporters do exactly that. That ain't news). The number one job of a journalist is to find the news and get a story and there is no news in "Scientists Disagree with Creationists" or even "Creationists Disagree with Scientists." "Creationists Invade the Temples of Science to Teach Their Children" is news (although I certainly wouldn't classify it as hard news -- more a human interest story; it's only reason for being in the "Nation" section is because that's where the Post puts its wire stories). The fact that a news story doesn't present the issues a particular person or side wants, or doesn't take up the cause someone feels it should, doesn't make it bad journalism.

I'm sorry that you seem to simply only care for "sounding fair" rather than on actually taking a stand for the future of this nation ...
Do you really want to go there? Are you really questioning my commitment to the nation's future? The future my daughter will be living in? Or are you blowing some steam because you're frustrated and/or upset?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Exposing liars who lie is NOT taking sides.

The Expose is a long-standing form of journalism that is only accused of being "partisan" or "one-sided" because the one-sided punditacracy has created a media environment where there is no harsh criticism that doesn't come from someone with "some alternative agenda".

The Expose *used* to be the most respected form of journalism. The power of journalism, the reason is was the 4th House in pre-revolutionary France, and granted its freedom guarenteed in the Constitution, was so that it could have the power to expose the flaws, the lies, the deceptions, the bullshit in society and government without fear of governmental interference.

Instead, we have a generation who think journalism is playing fair, not taking sides, not "advocating".

That's bullshit. Journalism's ideal has been all about advocacy -- advocacy for the *truth* behind the lies of politicians, religious leaders, economic leaders, and those who have an influence in soceity.

Now, we have journalists who don't care. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and Bush has lied to us repeatedly at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lies and journalism doesn't care.

No, the article wasn't "bad journalism", but it could *and shoud* have been better.

The TRUTH is that these people are lying, and are corrupting our children and attempting to destroy our educational system for the sake of their "beliefs", advocating religion where it does not belong, and they shouldn't be granted such weak-ass "reporting". They deserve an *objective* journalist to do what an *objective* judge in Pennsylvania has already done: expose them as the liars they are so people *don't respect what they say anymore because they know its bullshit*.

The expose was once a respected form of journalism, and done well, can get past the partisan bullshit that is ripping this country apart.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

An expose' requires a lot more facts than what is available on these stories, and (as you point out) a press that is not being manipulated by pundits with agendas.

That's bullshit. Journalism's ideal has been all about advocacy -- advocacy for the *truth* behind the lies of politicians, religious leaders, economic leaders, and those who have an influence in soceity. Amen, bro. The issue then becomes answering Pilate's question: "What is truth?" And that takes us back to the problems of having facts and an objective, unmanipulated press.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

the facts are not hard to find.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

True. But (and this is going to sound so hedgey), are the facts related to the story? In this case, the story wasn't about *what* the creationists are teaching but *where*.

The actual disagreements between the two sides and facts of the science no longer are considered "news" unless something happens to bring them back to attention (such as the school board fights), and even then they are glossed over and used merely as background.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry that you seem to simply only care for "sounding fair" rather than on actually taking a stand for the future of this nation ... Do you really want to go there? Are you really questioning my commitment to the nation's future? The future my daughter will be living in? Or are you blowing some steam because you're frustrated and/or upset?

And are you going to answer these questions?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

no, i'm going to apologize for heading in the wrong direction and insulting you far more than merely questioning. sorry, bro. (ok, i'll answer one: there was a little steam in there... ;) )

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

Kind of figured. That's why I didn't answer directly. I think the follow-up questions you posted was more what you really wanted to know.

I admire your passion about this issue. But I honestly don't think science will win this war unless they take control of framing the question from the creationists. In my opinion, the best way to do that isn't by not discussing evoltion with their opponents, but by consistently pointing out that science isn't trying to disprove the existence of God because that is outside the sphere of science. By defining the creationists arguments as *religious*, it makes it obvious that those don't belong in a *science* class (which, I believe, is the objective). It also allows scientists to control the debate.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

isn't by not discussing evoltion with their opponents: scientists don't, as their refusal to attend the Kansas kangaroo court last may showed.

consistently pointing out that science isn't trying to disprove the existence of God because that is outside the sphere of science: Except the existence of God is not at issue - its the literal reading of a book (with no evidence to support it except that starting around 3 millionths of a second into the big bang, "there was light") vs the evidencial support for a completely different natural history of this planet.

defining the creationists arguments as *religious*: uh, they do, and they did that extremely well as Judge Jones's Dover decision revealed.

So the question is why do they have to do it over and over again to the exact same crap (like Ohio's now rejected standards or the NVCC teacher last month, both of which reading straight out of Wells's Icons of Evolution, long since discredited)?

granted, the #1 problem is that scientists would rather being doing and/or teaching science than even having to get into (much less control) the debate. a recent AAAS meeting effectively tried to be a rally, as had movements like "Project Steve", but really, scientists have better things to do (like argue with a big-business-giveaway adminstration that doesn't believe in global warming to the point of suppressing its own scientists and studies through 23 year old schills that haven't even graduated from college yet...).

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

See, this is the opposite of what I'm saying. They *should* be debating with these yahoos, but constantly be clarifying that science isn't able to address the issue of a creator because it can't be tested (see my previous comments in your post of a few weeks ago).

Despite what the creationists and I.D.ers may say, for them it boils down to the perception that science is teaching their children that God doesn't exist. They see that happening when scientists insist that *only* random events can account for evolution and development of species, especially man. Instead, the accurate scientific explanation is that random events could account for evolution.

Do you see the difference? The first position must rationally follow with a position of there being no God; the second doesn't go to that point. Yet for many years scientists were out there with the first position. I recall reading articles where scientists were quoted saying that -- *only* random circumstances can explain evolution. Such an exclusive statement is over-reaching. This is why I believe all of the creationists arguments boil down to their opposition to this premise.

The way out is by admitting (as scientists now are doing) that science cannot prove or disprove God's existence and clarifying (or reminding) that science is basing their teaching on what is observable from phsical evidence and testing, and creating a working theory and hypothesis that fits those observations.

The Dover decision shows -- although rather sloppily -- that this approach will work. I say sloppily because the winning argument really ended up being that the board members lied about the religious *intent* of their proposed curriculum, not that the curriculem itself was religious. I think a stronger decision would have been issued if the inherent inability of intelligent design to be proved or disproved by the scientifice method had been a larger part of the arguments against teaching it in a science class, instead of focusing on the board members' religious intent.

The arguments will have to be made over and over again until it is refined enougn and becomes clear and understandable enough for most religious persons (you'll never get *all* of any group) to realize that science isn't threatening or trying to threaten their belief in God. Only then will proponents of teaching creationism or I.D. in school lose support.

If scientists don't want to lose control of what they can teach, they are going to have to engage effectively in the debate and learn to make sure their opponents are not the only one's framing the questions.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

does science matter to you? does finding the truth, based on evidence, which you seem to believe in so strongly in *politics*, mean less in science?

is our ability to perform science important to the future of this country?

should the government continue to interfere in the publication of scientific results just because they go against the policies of the current administration?

should, thanks to the lies thrown at them by religious leaders and "presentations" like the one in the article, 50% or more of our children grow up with no real knowledge of what science is or how it works, so they they too can criticize and suppress science that goes against beliefs or policy when *they* grow up?

in short, when liars are corrupting our children, indoctrinating them with false beliefs and illogical conclusions, why *don't* you (seem to) care?

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

I think you are confusing me with "the enemy" because I don't make this as high a priority as you or agree 100 percent with all your positions. Like Cyd pointed out before in one of our political discussions; we agree on a lot more than we disagree, but the points we disagree on usually are ones we feel strongly about.

Yes, science matters. No, finding truth based on evidence isn't less impportant in science than in politics (and is a heck of a lot easier since at least science is testable). And oblviously our ability to perform science is important to the future of this country. Nor have I'ever agreed with government suppression of scientific results, regardless of which party does it (as both have).

should, thanks to the lies thrown at them by religious leaders and "presentations" like the one in the article, 50% or more of our children grow up with no real knowledge of what science is or how it works, so they they too can criticize and suppress science that goes against beliefs or policy when *they* grow up? My friend, the problems of teaching science in this nation run *so* much deeper than whether creationists are conducting tours with their children and telling them the world is 6000 years old. Problems like teachers who are not qualified to teach the material, who have no background in science, passing along the basic pap of a curriculem and doing a piss-poor job of that. Lack of effective education in mathematics and algebra to be able appreciate the insight those sciences give to the other sciences. Lack of proper funding. The list goes on. If you solve those problems first, you'll have a much better chance of solving the one you're most concerned about.

in short, when liars are corrupting our children, indoctrinating them with false beliefs and illogical conclusions, why *don't* you (seem to) care? I will accept that these folks are lying as far as how they are describing what the scientists are (now) saying. But it isn't clear if you are only referring to that or to them teaching that God or a "Designer" created the cosmos. Because, by scientist's own admission, science cannot prove or disprove that point. The absence or presence of God is not testable. Neither can religion disprove science. This is why I said before that the best course for scientists to take isn't to go around saying "God didn't have anything to do with creation" but to point out that science and religion are addressing the question in different spheres and neither necessarily applies to the other. Should creationism be taught in science? No! It's religion and/or philosophy. And the way to keep it out isn't by bashing religious people; it's by framing the issue properly (science cannot test religious/spiritual principles, so those are best left out). Thus, my endorsement of Eastman's statement at the end of the article.

As for why I don't care as much as you do about the issue; it's because after raising a daughter in the public school system I realize there are so many other problems with education in this country that this one has a much lower priority in my mind. I'm more concerned with the fact that we are graduating functional illiterates who cannot read, or read so poorly as to be unable to analyze anything critically (if they could, it'd be a lot easier to get them to understand science and to get them to see the fallacies in what the creationists say about evolution). We have people teaching who can't pass the very exams we are requiring of our children. Even when there are good teachers, they are hamstrung by all the administrative work they have to do instead of lesson planning. Funding for education is still subject to the whims of politics (and I'm not referring to just national politics, but the vicious local politics where individual schools are punished because parents or administrators oppose the county executive's policies). ADD and ADHD children are consistently left behind and legal requirements to help them are consistently ignored. Exceptional children have little or *no* resources to improve and get the learning that takes advantage of their capabilities. In my mind, these issues and other like them are of greater concern.

the difference, then...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

...is that your complaints are a problem with an overall policy of how a tax-based system should work and the abuses it is put through simply out of a combination of lazyness and ignorance, or willful politicking for money, particularly on the part of people who, because they're politicians often with ambition, have no intention of still being a part of that local system when any bad effects of their policy are revealed - they'll have promoted themselves in some subsequent election (as the jackass of L.A. did by moving from school board to city council) and left it as "somebody else's problem", which is often how they viewed it while they were in the original office in the first place.

and it is a problem far broader (and more easily ignored) than the smaller issue of curriculum debate.

on the other hand, the efforts of ID are considerably more willful, and in stark contrast to the moral values they are supposed to be representing (Judge Jones was quite clear when he said the Dover school board members lied on the stand). it is an direct attack on education, rather than an act of lazyness from within a flawed system, and more immediately against a very specific *constitutional* principle under which this country was founded.

so i take offense at that attack on my freedom to be free of their religion setting the laws and the policies that I and my children will live under in a nation where NO religion is supposed to be setting law or policy.

in some way, the two kinda go hand in hand - to me, fixing the flaws that you've described (which will take a lot more time, money, and ironically, education) will mean nothing if the curriculum has already been replaced by religious indoctrination disguising itself as "public education". i have no doubts when they finish with science, history will be their next target (or will come before finishing science - in Kansas they've already started...). when they finish with history, what's to keep their (well documented) bigotry out of current events and social studies classes?

they created a front that must be defended against *now*, while the evidence is more easily on our side, before they can use that power to inflict their closed-mindedness on the rest of education (which is their well-documented intention).

Re: the difference, then...

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

I would sum up the difference as "The problems are broader than a curriculum debate about a single issue." Or better still as "There are so many other bigger problems that the single issue of that particular curriculum is dwarfed by it, and will likely be remedied in the course of solving the other problems."

Although part of the problem is policy and politics and laziness, that only can account for part of it. If all the problem was as you outline (since I don't recognize any of what I said in your summarizing paragraph), I could agree that focusing on the singe issue would be effective. But the educational system is broken for a lot of reasons, not just lazy, self-serving politics.

In fact [joke ahead], the system is so broke, the best way to prevent children from learning creationism as science it to have the schools teach it. [joke ended] (Yes, I know - it's perverse.)

If the educational system were a big vacant lot in which a park were suppose to be, the current situation is that the lot is completely choked by weeds and brambles. And focusing on just the creationism curriculum is like only being concerned about the thistles in the lot. But if we clean up the entire lot, the thistles will get yanked out along with the rest of the weeds.

Now, conversely, I could see someone making the argument in the analogy that the thistles are pretty much in one area of the lot (and risk spreading, to grant you premise of the religious right taking over other curriculums as well) and by concentrating on getting rid of them that at least one part of the lot is cleared, even if other parts still have to be worked on.

So it boils down to whether one wishes to work on the overall problem or large parts of the problem, or focus on one part of the problem. The two approaches are not incompatible, nor necessarily mutually exclusive, unless the parties are too close-minded to see that each side's work helps the other.

Re: the difference, then...

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

And apparently we are boring everyone else, given the evidence of other's involvement (or lack thereof) in the discussion. [grin]

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

i was going to let this settle, but new evidence has come to light.

Minnesota has a "creation science fair", much like a normal science fair except that certain requirements are odd ("5. Pray your exhibit will witness to non-Christian visitors.") - Every exhibit is required to display a Bible verse.

Here's an excerpt from the suggestions for ideas:

Evolutionists ask this question:
How can I prove that evolution is true (and God does not exist). This may not be stated in this way, but is inferred by their writings. Darwin and others have said that if evolution is true, there is no need for God.

this is the lie, and scientists are not the one saying it. Darwin never said that "there is no need for God" in any way at all. Its yet another "factoid" the creationists made up over a century ago and have never stopped repeating in spite of the falseness of it.

why should scientists continue to be expected to correct something they never said, something that's been corrected already over 100 years ago? why do they still have to repeat themselves just because the other side is able to repeat the lies ad nauseum to an entirely new credulous and susceptable audience every day?

at what point will they, when clearly told they are lying, stop lying...especially when they admit that lying is against their faith (by insisting that the 10 commandments be publically displayable by anybody, anywhere)?

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

Why should Republicans have to keep correcting the same lies told about them? Even today, newspapers and pundits repeat the lie that Bush said Iraq was connected to 9/11 (read the text of the speech - he said Iraq was connected to terrorism). Does finding the truth, based on evidence, which you seem to believe in so strongly in *science*, mean less in politics?

Seriously, Joe, do you expect scientists to not have to deal with the same sorts of problems and hassles as everyone else? Just with groups I'm associated with I have to deal with responding to the same lies over and over ad nauseum about Republicans, unions, and Mormons -- and those are the ones I can think of without having to even strain a brain cell. How about the lies about Rennies (I don't know about you, but I've never been invited to the wild drug parties and sex orgies after hours)?

If there's any sort of opposition, there are going to be those "sound bites" and "evidence" that work and get traction and get used constantly, even if they are not true.

As for when they'll stop lying -- I wouldn't hold my breath. It might be a useful tool to ask for citations for the alleged statements, and then when they cannot be provided (or they only give hearsay anectdotes), take the battle to their home turf (morality, allegedly) exactly as you have here: Why are they lying, especially when they admit that lying is against their faith?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

I don't know about you, but I've never been invited to the wild drug parties and sex orgies after hours

oh. sorry. i'll try to sneak you into the next one, ok?

(actually, california did have some doozies before RPFS lost their site ;-) )