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

[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.