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

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]