New York Times - this is reporting?
The controversy over evolution in the public schools is up again with this "report" Kansas Begins Hearings on Diluting Teaching of Evolution by the New York Times.
I have criticized several local papers over their editorials on this contoversy here and here. So now I look at what the New York Times reports and I see much of the same. I will give them some credit though. They are much more subtle and achieve their purpose by way of subtle omission and association rather than overtly as demonstrated in my earlier critiques. Unfortunately, it is clear that their purpose was not to thoroughly report but rather to reinforce many people's misconceptions. Either that, or they are just not very good at the job of reporting.
Notice that Intelligent Design is portrayed as just an assertion and of course the oft repeated claim that it is merely creationism in disguise.
While they do give some interesting background to the current matter, they fail to provide much information to the reader regarding Intelligent Design. In fact, they merely go with the typical liberal meme and associate Intelligent Design or criticism of Evolution by materialism alone as being closeted Creationists. The implication, as always, is that religious ideologues are trying to sneak that dangerous Christian Bible into our public schools.
Their closing to this "report" is typical in that it gives the opposition to Intelligent Design the final word with no rebuttal from the other side. But it is also revealing in other way, along the lines of a Freudian slip.
That last sentence would more accurately read, "They have created a straw man. They are trying to make Intelligent Design stand for religion, so they can fight religion". Perhaps the editorialist *oops* I mean reporter and editors should get some counseling.
I have criticized several local papers over their editorials on this contoversy here and here. So now I look at what the New York Times reports and I see much of the same. I will give them some credit though. They are much more subtle and achieve their purpose by way of subtle omission and association rather than overtly as demonstrated in my earlier critiques. Unfortunately, it is clear that their purpose was not to thoroughly report but rather to reinforce many people's misconceptions. Either that, or they are just not very good at the job of reporting.
intelligent design, which asserts that life is so intricately complex that an architect must be behind it. Critics argue that intelligent design has no basis in science and is another iteration of creationism.
Notice that Intelligent Design is portrayed as just an assertion and of course the oft repeated claim that it is merely creationism in disguise.
While they do give some interesting background to the current matter, they fail to provide much information to the reader regarding Intelligent Design. In fact, they merely go with the typical liberal meme and associate Intelligent Design or criticism of Evolution by materialism alone as being closeted Creationists. The implication, as always, is that religious ideologues are trying to sneak that dangerous Christian Bible into our public schools.
While the proposed new standards for Kansas do not specifically mention intelligent design, critics contend that the proposed changes will open the door not just for those teachings, but to creationism, which generally holds to the Genesis account of creation.
Their closing to this "report" is typical in that it gives the opposition to Intelligent Design the final word with no rebuttal from the other side. But it is also revealing in other way, along the lines of a Freudian slip.
"These people are going to obfuscate about these definitions," complained Jack Krebs, vice president of the pro-evolution Kansas Citizens for Science, whose members, wearing "I support strong science education" buttons, filled many of the 180 auditorium seats not taken by journalists from as far away as France. "They have created a straw man. They are trying to make science stand for atheism, so they can fight atheism."
That last sentence would more accurately read, "They have created a straw man. They are trying to make Intelligent Design stand for religion, so they can fight religion". Perhaps the editorialist *oops* I mean reporter and editors should get some counseling.
Author: Mark K. Sprengel | 8:14:00 PM |
|
| 
Save To ~ Social Bookmarks | My Bookstore |
