My wife and I went to a Farmer's market recently and I found someone selling books at a table, used books of various kinds. I bought two. Both were $2.00. They were by J.P. Moreland and they were on Christian apologetics. I guess it was good that I got a deal. But it was discouraging in another way. When I buy a quality book, I keep it. When good books that challenge the mind are casually discarded, it makes me wonder who let them go and why.
On the way home, I leafed through the book "Love Your God With All Your Mind." At the beginning of each chapter there were various quotes from different figures. Three in particular aroused some old passions in me.
"False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and succeed only in winning a straggle here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion." - J Gresham Machen
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
PBS Indoctrination - Some thoughts
So the PBS Nova presentation on the Dover Intelligent Design case was about what I expected.
The defendants looked like dishonest idiots. The ACLU Lawyers looked like knights in shining armor. Michael Behe was conspicuously absent, PBS claimed he "refused" to be interviewed, which was false. They highlighted the "establishment clause", well, half of it. "No law respecting the establishment of religion." They left out the part about prohibiting the free exercise of it. The usual stuff.
But all that is what we've come to expect. I did note Behe had a response at the Discovery Institute site which pertains directly to the decision of Judge John Jones.
"The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; the incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself;"
The defendants looked like dishonest idiots. The ACLU Lawyers looked like knights in shining armor. Michael Behe was conspicuously absent, PBS claimed he "refused" to be interviewed, which was false. They highlighted the "establishment clause", well, half of it. "No law respecting the establishment of religion." They left out the part about prohibiting the free exercise of it. The usual stuff.
But all that is what we've come to expect. I did note Behe had a response at the Discovery Institute site which pertains directly to the decision of Judge John Jones.
"The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; the incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself;"
Sunday, November 11, 2007
PBS Indoctrination on Origins Continues
PBS has a long history of presenting a pretty one-sided view of the evolution vs. design controversy. From Carl Sagan, ("the cosmos is all there ever was and all there ever will be") to Donald Johanson to Steven Jay Gould, folks who believe everything about origins must be explained by purely natural processes in order to be "scientific" explanations get lots of airtime and those who don't get the "dunce" treatment.
This Thursday the trend continues with a program on NOVA this Thursday about the Dover Pa. case in which a single statement about Intelligent Design which did not mention anything religious was found to be an unconstitutional promotion of religion.
World Magazine reports that the program is less than a stellar example of objective reporting:
"Because no cameras were allowed in the courtroom during the trial, NOVA created dramatic reenactments of the proceedings with actors quoting lines from the case transcripts. Filmmakers also interviewed attorneys, school board members, scientists, and local teachers and parents. Conspicuously absent: interviews with fellows of the ID-advancing Discovery Institute, several of whom testified at the trial."
The article claims that Intelligent Design advocates wanted to be included but PBS would not allow for a bit of checks and balances:
"...negotiations over interview procedures broke down when Apsell (Nova Executive Producer) refused to allow a Discovery Institute representative to record the exchanges for public release should NOVA use any statements out of context..."
Seems like a reasonable request to me. Consider the CBS Westmoreland lawsuit, the Dan Rather forged documents episode, the NBC staging of exploding gas tanks... Journalists these days have a reputation not much higher than that of lawyers and politicians. People do not trust them. PBS made a counter offer:
"Apsell instead offered to provide Discovery officials with complete footage of the interviews provided they signed away any right to make it public. "
So, if Michael Behe were to catch PBS in an outright lie, he would be bound not to tell anybody about it? That's an option?
So PBS will go forward with its "report", with not a single representative of ID, apparently, presenting their side of the story. It will, no doubt, give all the impression of being an objective, factual, news program, but will likely be an all-out indoctrination that materialist views of origins are "science" and anything that suggests nature might not be all there is has to be "unscientific", "religious", and therefore a matter of mere "belief" severed from fact and reason.
Your tax dollars at work.
This Thursday the trend continues with a program on NOVA this Thursday about the Dover Pa. case in which a single statement about Intelligent Design which did not mention anything religious was found to be an unconstitutional promotion of religion.
World Magazine reports that the program is less than a stellar example of objective reporting:
"Because no cameras were allowed in the courtroom during the trial, NOVA created dramatic reenactments of the proceedings with actors quoting lines from the case transcripts. Filmmakers also interviewed attorneys, school board members, scientists, and local teachers and parents. Conspicuously absent: interviews with fellows of the ID-advancing Discovery Institute, several of whom testified at the trial."
The article claims that Intelligent Design advocates wanted to be included but PBS would not allow for a bit of checks and balances:
"...negotiations over interview procedures broke down when Apsell (Nova Executive Producer) refused to allow a Discovery Institute representative to record the exchanges for public release should NOVA use any statements out of context..."
Seems like a reasonable request to me. Consider the CBS Westmoreland lawsuit, the Dan Rather forged documents episode, the NBC staging of exploding gas tanks... Journalists these days have a reputation not much higher than that of lawyers and politicians. People do not trust them. PBS made a counter offer:
"Apsell instead offered to provide Discovery officials with complete footage of the interviews provided they signed away any right to make it public. "
So, if Michael Behe were to catch PBS in an outright lie, he would be bound not to tell anybody about it? That's an option?
So PBS will go forward with its "report", with not a single representative of ID, apparently, presenting their side of the story. It will, no doubt, give all the impression of being an objective, factual, news program, but will likely be an all-out indoctrination that materialist views of origins are "science" and anything that suggests nature might not be all there is has to be "unscientific", "religious", and therefore a matter of mere "belief" severed from fact and reason.
Your tax dollars at work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)