Posted on 09/27/2001 7:43:35 AM PDT by Nora
SEATTLE, Sept. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- An internal PBS memo made public today reveals an improper political agenda behind WGBH/Clear Blue Sky's ongoing series "Evolution", according to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. The memo describes how "Evolution" will be used to influence government officials and promote political action in order to shape how evolution is taught in public schools.
Dated June 15, 2001, the memo bears the title "The Evolution Controversy, Use It or Lose It: Evolution Project/WGBH Boston" The document outlines the overall goals of the ongoing PBS series Evolution and describes the marketing strategy for the series. The complete text of the PBS memo is posted at http://www.reviewevolution.com.
According to the document, which was leaked by a source within PBS, one of the goals of "Evolution" is to "co-opt existing local dialogue about teaching evolution in schools." Another goal is to "promote participation," including "getting involved with local school boards."
In addition, the document identifies "government officials" as one of the target audiences for the series, and it describes a publicity campaign accompanying the series that will include writing op-eds for newspapers and "guerilla/viral marketing."
"Clearly, one purpose of 'Evolution' is to influence Congress and school boards and to promote political action regarding how evolution is taught in public schools," says Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "In fact, 'Evolution's' marketing plan seems to have the trappings of a political campaign."
"Public television is funded in part by American taxpayers, and it should be held to high standards of fairness. It is inappropriate for public broadcasting to engage in activities designed to directly influence the political process by promoting one viewpoint at the expense of others," said Chapman.
According to Discovery Institute's John West, the political agenda behind "Evolution" is made even more explicit by its enlistment of Eugenie Scott as one of the official spokespersons for the series.
Scott runs the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an advocacy group that by its own description is dedicated to "defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools." According to the group's Web site, the NCSE provides "expert testimony for school board hearings," supplies citizens with "advice on how to organize" when "faced with local creationist challenges," and assists legal organizations that litigate "evolution/creation cases."
"The NCSE is a single-issue group that takes only one side in the political debate over evolution in public education," says West, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University. "It is inappropriate for public television to enlist NCSE's executive director as an official spokesperson for this program."
------
Founded in 1990, Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non- partisan public policy center for science, technology, regional development, environment, and defense. More information about the Institute and its activities can be found at www.discovery.org.
KEYWORDS:
SCIENCE, EDUCATION
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
09/27 06:00
Copyright 2001, U.S. Newswire
Good question.
-sigh-
Apparently...no one's told you of the new developements that Clintigula's NEA have discovered.
Yea, the tree doesn't fall far from the apple.
If the environment called for it.
If so, would it survive?
If the adaptation was a result of a change in environment, then the change would be necessary for survival.
I can also point out the exmples of the woodpecker and the Cleaner-Fish and demonstrate that it is an impossibility for these creature to have evolved naturally. Each of these two examples show intellegent design
I don't think they do. Mutualism supports evolution. Please expand.
But can you demonstrate a finch turning into a lizzard, or a dog?
Sure, have you got a couple hundred finches, a lot of land and a few hundred thousand years?
Abolish Public Education
Let parents and the free market rule.
You might want to share that info with some of the anti-abortion crowd, what with their website with the crossed off names and all.
You undermine your own cause by your incoherence and irrationality. Keep on posting. LOL.
The Cleaner fish lives in a certain variety of brightly colored coral that is attractive to the barracuda. The barracuda swim over to this coral and hover with their mouths open while the CleanerFish swims into his mouth and feeds on the bacteria that are on the barracuda's teeth. The barracuda allows this to happen and doesn't eat the cleaner fish. Without this activity, the teeth of the Barracuda would rot out and kill it and the Cleaner Fish wouldn't survive.
Splain how the barracuda "evolved" this behavior of alowing fish to swim in thier mouths and not eating them.
OR, how the Cleaner Fish learned to swim in the mouths of larger fish, knowing they wouldn't be eaten.
Or, how the barracuda learned which type of coral to hover near.
All of these traits had to mutate in these organisms at the same time or this phenomena would bot be happening today. Swimming into the mouth of a larger fish is not what is termed "survival of the fittest". Allowing fish to swim in your mouth without eating them is not "survival of the fittest". This is a great example of intellegent design and refutes the evolutionary theory.
Even if these events were to have mutated silmultaniously, these mutations would have had to breed offspring with the same mutations and they would have had to interact only within the the mutated relationships...for instance, if the mutated Cleaner Fish treid his teeth-cleaning stunt in a non-mutated barracuda, he'd be lunch...end of that evolution! Can't happen. Didn't happen.
Evolution is a theory, not fact. And those that hold to it fail to realize that their belief that it is fact is based upon thier faith...faith that there isn't a Creator God. If there is a God, then they aren't Him and are under His reign. This is the core issue with most (not all) evolutionists...submission.
God loves you. His burden is easy and light. Turn to Him and be saved.
...it's lightning...gotta go for now...
baa
Water--frogs do seek their own destiny--level??
Nope, I don't think that will ever be possible. The circumstances the allowed for the path for proto-critter to become proto-finch and proto-lizard, and proto-dog will likely never be the same. Sure, it is possible for speciation to occur, but it will take millions of years for the finch or the dog to evolve. Who knows what the future finch will look like?
There is no evidence of inanimate objects evolving into any animated form whatsoever. This means that there is utterly no EVIDENCE to support the first required step of the Evolutionary Process on an inanimate planet.
In science, one should be a bit suspicious of any theory that fails to find evidence to support the very first step of said theory.
I see, however, that you have religiousesque FAITH is said theory even without said evidence. That's fine, but call your beliefs religion because they aren't based upon tangible scientific evidence.
If I wrote Hey I even fell for that "Talmudic rabbinical crap"...I would be rightly admonished by many.
Personally I think the abuse button is for sissies but you went way over the line. You should be ashamed. Please try not to go ad hominum if possible.
One could say the same thing about various automobiles over the years, yet it wasn't the cars per se which evolved, but rather the DESIGNERS of the cars evolved.
Likewise, seeing the same DNA code (i.e., same skull) re-used in two different species isn't evidence that one species evolved into another so much as it is evidence that the designer of the two species had a reason to re-use some of his old DNA code.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.