nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Suppression of alternatives to evolution (view source)
Revision as of 15:00, March 22, 2008
, 15:00, March 22, 2008The Science Show, ABC Australia
She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism".
She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism".
This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".<ref>Gentry, 1986, p.199-194.</ref>
This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".<ref>Gentry, 1986, p.199-194.</ref>
=== Mass Media ===
==== The Science Show, ABC Australia ====
In a March 2003 broadcast of ''The Science Show'' on Radio National, a radio station of the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]], presenter Robyn Williams and [[Eugenie Scott]], president of the American National Science, openly admitted, on the pretence that evolution is true, that creationists do not warrant equal time.
{{QuoteBox|'''Robyn Williams:''' And the old question of science having two sides - and this is a journalistic thing where some of us still, especially if you go to television, are supposed to display conflict, you know, one side and the other side as if there is this continuing argument.<br /><br />'''Eugenie Scott:''' Well Robyn, you put your finger exactly on the issue. When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. If you were doing a show on anthrax you would not feel compelled to put a Christian scientist who denied the germ theory of disease on the show to balance the program, because the germ theory of disease in medicine is a done deal, we are not debating whether germs cause disease. Similarly, if you are discussing an issue like what topics should be taught in science education at the pre-college level, which is a continuing controversy in the United States, you don't debate whether to teach evolution, because evolution is state of the art science and it should be taught. You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments, there is no body of evidence against evolution. And this is what the theory of biological evolution is all about.<ref>Williams, 2003</ref>}}
== Bibliography ==
== Bibliography ==