Why does....

[dawiyd]

Why does the media insist on calling Creationist Science an 'alternative' to the theory of evolution?

That's like saying pancakes are a good alternative to an internal combustion engine.

 

[AngryWomble]

Why does the media insist on calling Creationist Science an 'alternative' to the theory of evolution?

That's like saying pancakes are a good alternative to an internal combustion engine.

hehe

Funee!!

And it's good to laugh after the morning i've had.

 

[Hydra009]

Why does the media insist on calling Creationist Science an 'alternative' to the theory of evolution?

Because that's what it's presented as by creationists, the media just passively relays the message.

That's like saying pancakes are a good alternative to an internal combustion engine.

Make a stir about it, and you just might see a lively, on-air debate about it on Fox News.

 

[Allister]

the idea of creationism as an alternative to evolution appears to be a strictly American construction. From my experiences Britain does not do this. for some unknown reason a high proportion of Americans are fanatically christian. the cause of this fanaticism i do not know but it is not the same in England

 

[JohnR7]

Why does the media insist on calling Creationist Science an 'alternative' to the theory of evolution?

Because there are only two different kinds of science. There is creation science and there is evolution science.

Of course evolution science is a oxymoron, because there is no evidence that shows evolution to be true.

Just like there is no science evidence that shows creationism to be false.

 

[JohnR7]

i do not know but it is not the same in England

I hear they are required to teach creationism in England.

Pupils in England will be required to discuss creationist theories as part of a new GCSE biology course being introduced in September.http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1728235,00.html

 

[shernren]

I hear they are required to teach creationism in England.

I hope it's because phlogiston and aether got lonely on the shelf of wannabe theories.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Because that's what it's presented as by creationists, the media just passively relays the message.

Yup, that seems to by the gist of it. The creationists/IDists have done a very good job of convincing the media and the public that there is a legit scientific debate going on and that there are competing theories.

Unfortunately, nobody pays attention to how real science is being done in the "real world" (i.e. beyond the contrived "debate"). You see a remarkable absense of anything to do with creationism and ID in that regard.

 

[arensb]

Why does the media insist on calling Creationist Science an 'alternative' to the theory of evolution?

That's like saying pancakes are a good alternative to an internal combustion engine.

I'd say it's more like astrology as an "alternative" to meteorology or astronomy.

I suspect a laziness bias, or ignorance, or unwillingness to offend readers (a distressing number of Americans are creationists, after all. A headline like "Religious Extremists Attempt to Subvert Science Education" would doubtless annoy lots of readers).

Look at it from the reporter's point of view: we're long past Scopes, when the creationists wanted to forbid teaching evolution; these days, their best bet is to get creationism (under the name of Intelligent Design) taught alongside it. Actually, after Dover, we may even be past that point: the new scam from the Discovery Institute is "teach the evidence against evolution". But a lot of rank and file creationists haven't gotten the message yet.

Since they can't just get rid of evolution (yet), they need to get their foot in the door somehow, so they present creationism/ID as an "alternative". That sounds nice and fair, and since the party at the focus of the story said it, the reporter feels justified in using that term. And besides, the person calling it an "alternative" usually has a Ph.D, or represents a group with an innocuous name like Citizens for Academic Freedom and Baskets of Puppies or some such, so hey, let's go with it.

Ignorance: the Discovery Institute has had years to perfect the art of masquerading as scientists, and they've gotten rather good at it. If this is the first time creationism has come to the reporter's town, he or she might be excused for not knowing its history, and thinking that there's something to it.

Journalistic principles: while many newspapers may be biased one way or another, in the US "bias" is a Bad Word, so they at least claim to strive toward impartiality (heck, even Fox News calls itself "fair and balanced", not "news for the right"; that wouldn't go over well). There's a tendency in the media to present both sides equally and let the readers decide, even when, in the words of Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". It just isn't done to say that there's a dispute between A and B, and B is obviously wrong.

 

[Elduran]

John hears wrong. I got an education which included religion as an academic subject, but this was generally a look into the history and the imagery of the various religious texts, making it more of a culture and literature class than anything.

Creationism was never taught as fact, and will not ever be taught as fact in this country as long as the various scientific bodies still have a say in the drawing up of the national curriculum.

 

[Ondoher]

Because there are only two different kinds of science. There is creation science and there is evolution science.

Of course evolution science is a oxymoron, because there is no evidence that shows evolution to be true.

Poppycock! Every month hundreds of papers supporting evolution are published in scientific journals. You need to kill your Morton's Demon.

Just like there is no science evidence that shows creationism to be false.

In fact, creationism cannot be shown false. It is utterly unfalsifiable. It cannot be tested in any way. It just isn't science.

 

[Biologist]

Why does the media insist on calling Creationist Science an 'alternative' to the theory of evolution?

The media tells people what they want to hear, and creationists tell people what they want to hear.

Of course evolution science is a oxymoron, because there is no evidence that shows evolution to be true.

You have that backwards, and you still continue to refuse to formally debate Evolution. One formal debate will end your evangelism.

 

[Chalnoth]

You have that backwards, and you still continue to refuse to formally debate Evolution. One formal debate will end your evangelism.

Wouldn't that be nice? It wouldn't stop him, though.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Because there are only two different kinds of science. There is creation science and there is evolution science.

Of course evolution science is a oxymoron, because there is no evidence that shows evolution to be true.

Just like there is no science evidence that shows creationism to be false.

Is your wife Carico?

 

[AngryWomble]

I hear they are required to teach creationism in England.

The day they do is the day i go down to Parliament and burn some bibles and the national curriculum in front of the buildings!

Creationism is included as a discussion point of the previous thoughts and how through discovery we changed our thinking to the scientific model.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The day they do is the day i go down to Parliament and burn some bibles and the national curriculum in front of the buildings!

Creationism is included as a discussion point of the previous thoughts and how through discovery we changed our thinking to the scientific model.

I'll join you there.

 

[Dr.GH]

I think you have all been too kind to the journalism programs in our community colleges, and the "communication" degrees scattered to the winds at university and 4 year schools.

The "media" is staffed with fools.