Leaked PBS Memo Reveals Improper Political Agenda

Discovery Institute via US Newswire ^ | 09/27/2001 | Discovery Institute

[Nora]

Discovery Institute: Memo Reveals 'Evolution' Agenda

U.S. Newswire
27 Sep 6:00

Leaked PBS Memo Reveals Improper Political Agenda Behind 'Evolution' Series, Says Discovery Institute

To: National Desk, Science and Education Reporters
Contact: Mark Edwards of the Discovery Institute, 206-292-0401, ext. 107;
e-mail: medwards@discovery.org

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

[Paradox]

I am an evolutionist, and it is my opinion that most creationist I know are deluding themselves, but thats not the point. The point is, PBS should be defunded, period. They are biased, usually quite liberally and have no business recieving government money.

[Nyralthotep]

Again, is it irrefutable evidence or is it how they interpret the evidence. And the makers of this series, what are their biases? If the are strong evolutionists, would they suppress any evidence that supports creation? Do you believe everything you see on TV? TV is nice because you can use it to engender feelings in people to accept ideas based on feelings. I don't accept anybodys interpretaion on this issue as pure fact. I want to see arguments from both sides before making my mind up on the issue.

[dead]

While I agree with the science, I don't support their pushing any political agenda with my tax dollars. Then again, I don't support them doing anything at all with my tax dollars.

[anguish]

I hate to ask, but how do we know that the "leaked PBS memo" is genuine and not a fabrication? Has anyone at PBS admitted that they wrote it, or are there other sorts of evidence?

[narby]

Evolution makes me wonder that if we came from apes, then why are they still here?

The previous replies to this I think where a bit to lofty, or a bit to snooty. I'll try and get it down to where you can understand it.

You know, evolution works kind of like doggie families. The Great Dane goes to visit the Cocker Spaniel one afternoon. And a little while later there's a whole batch of puppies that are bigger than the Cocker, and have longer hair than the Dane. But then the Dane visits another Dane, and you have a bunch of puppies that look just like the Dane! Isn't that special!

Now you have TWO bunches of doggies that don't look like each other. Great big ones with short hair. And medium sized ones with longer hair.

All you have to do is repeat the process for a few million generations, and you'll have two bunches of animals that are different species.[/babytalk]

Just as an asside, there's been lots of discussion on these threads about macro vs. micro evolution. I propose that we can see macro evolution, in the human community right now. Downs syndrome people do not have the same DNA count as normal people. Therefore (please don't anyone take offense here), they are technically not human. I'm not sure the results when Downs people have children, if they can. And it might be said that this genetic mutation is a "failure". But if instead it resulted in a stronger, or smarter, or some other mutation that was more successful, I believe that in a few short number of generations you would see an entirely different "humanoid" species.

[WRhine]

And do these "creationists" that you seem intent to wage such a jihad against receive your tax money to support their silliness as do the Darwinians. Perhaps it's their exercise of their First Amendment rights that has you fluttering about so.

Whether a person believes in creationism or not the fact is that creationism has virtually all its roots in the bible, so under the separation rules between church and state creationism can never be taught in the public school system or actively promoted by public TV. If creationists choose to teach creationism in their own private or home schools that is their prerogative...as unfortunate as it is for the kids that are exposed to this bunk.

[narby]

While I agree with the science, I don't support their pushing any political agenda with my tax dollars.

Evolution isn't a "political agenda" for scientists, its just the facts. Fighting evolution is a political agenda for creationists who are promoting their own book/church/whatever.

[Ice-D]

As many people on this board have said many times, 'Consider the source...'

[Nyralthotep]

Oh, ok since somebody came on TV and made a statement then it must be true. Gee, now it's all clear. There is no need to have critical thinking, we must just believe everything on PBS and since it came from PBS is has to be true since they don't have political agenda. Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me.

[dead]

"co-opt existing local dialogue about teaching evolution in schools."

PBS attempting to involve themselves with local school boards decisions is a political act, whether it’s over science, history, sex-ed, or gym.

I will fight with my local school board if they ever stop teaching evolution, but I don't need PBS agitating either way on my dime.

[Nora]

I have no idea. You can read the memo on-line and form your own conclusions. I suspect that WGBH will denounce the press release if the memo is a fake. It takes them at least a day to get their position together as I recall from the donor-list scandal.

[anguish]

Sort of like reading an old book and saying that what it says must be true.

[lute]

Perhaps it's their exercise of their First Amendment rights that has you fluttering about so.

ROTFLMAO - - I hope you meant that to be funny Mr. Lucky.

[Mr. Lucky]

So let me get this right. Somewhere in your thorough reading of our Constitution you have gleaned an article which provides that which scientists receive tax-funded research support and which don't will be based upon their religion? That if an atheist's deeply held beliefs cloud his world view that's just fine, but if a theist's beliefs do the same, he should be ridiculed?

[dubyagee]

"But the preacher told me Sunday that thar ain't no transitional forms! This Gingerich fellah, he's lying' he has to be lyin', those rocks are fakes, there's no evidence for evilooshun there cain't be my preacher wouldn't lie."

This complete disrespect for anyone who believes in creation will be your agenda's downfall. To assume that because we have faith, we have no intelligence, is a grave error on your part. Your intellectualism has so crowded your head full of "facts" that you are blinded to anything that may lie outside of those "facts". My head was crowded with "facts" at one time too, but thankfully I didn't crowd out reason.

[Steve0113]

if you can't find the parallels between our rabid religious nuts and their rabid religious nuts....

How about the fact that "our rabid religious nuts" don't make a habit of murdering those who disagree with them?

[dubyagee]

Is there an agenda when people are so ignorant of the idea of evolution that they ask, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

It's a legitimate question from someone who obviously doesn't understand the anwser. Why don't you try explaining it to them, instead of immediately assuming they are not capable of understanding. Because someone doesn't immediately accept the "double-speak" of some scientists does not mean they lack intelligence. It may mean they are actually thinking for themselves. That's a rare commodity in today's world. You guys are no different from the creationists. You let several books do your thinking for you, we let one help us with ours.