ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - The PBS television station in Albuquerque pulled a documentary on evolution after discovering it was funded by evangelical Christian groups.
==============================
I'm not especially interested in your opinions regarding creationism, evolution, intelligent design, alien seeding, or what-have-you.
But would you have pulled this show or let it run? If you let it run, would you let go as is or would you require disclaimers or other restrictions?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ted Garcia, KNME’s general manager, said, “Had the program been produced from the perspective of an objective body, free of this perceived influence, the program would have been acceptable for broadcast with an appropriate disclaimer.”
If this is correct (can't tell without seeing it myself), then it should have been run with that disclaimer. Funding is always good to make transparent, but the work should be judged on its own merits.
[Word, Kat and Irami. ]
[ January 07, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It shouldn't have been pulled - it should have been aired and let the people who see it make their own decision.
Every PBS program has been funded by outside sources, or at least partially so - tell the public who funded the program and then let it run so people can judge for themselves.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe there is anything on PBS that I have seen that is totally "objective" so I think he is blowing smoke in his quote.
All he needs to do, if he wants, is post a disclaimer like the network stations do before infomercials. "This does not necessarily represent the views of this station, etc. etc. etc."
quote: I don't believe there is anything on PBS that I have seen that is totally "objective" so I think he is blowing smoke in his quote.
That was my thought exactly. How many shows on PBS or any station can claim to be completely neutral and unbiased?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:“It challenges the idea that this sophisticated machinery and software could arise purely by the means of natural selection and random mutation, which is the core of Darwinian evolution,” Keller said.
Bad enough that the general public gets its science from TV, without making it pseudo-science to boot.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my question, which I can't have answered except by seeing the show in question:
Does it discuss evolution vs. intelligent design in a scientific manner, or not?
In other words, does it say "This could not have arisen by any means other than creation, so it's in fact evidence that there is a Christian God and you better get on board or you're going to Hell." If it says that - then don't air it, it's religious propaganda.
But, if it's more like "There are many questions about the origin of life and no one has all the answers. Some mysteries include what some scientists call "irreducible complexity" Let's look at the claims made by these people and then look at the rebuttals by those that believe these complexities could have arisen by random chance and natural selection."
If it's that - then it should definitely air, because they are intriguing questions. I've read Behe's work (and the article's description of the content made me think of Behe) and I've read the responses by his critics, and I've read his responses to those critics. I don't understand most of it, but I do think it's a worthwhile dialogue regardless of what side you're on.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory; it meets essentially none of the qualifications thereof. Any show stating (not necessarily any show arguing, but definitely any show taking it as tacit) that ID is scientific is highly biased.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and its worth pointing out that Behe has published zero scientific papers/books/whatever refuting evolution (I'm not even talking refereed). He has published popular pieces he says refute evolution, but none that has attempted any sort of scientific rigor.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh uh, didn't ask for commentary on the validity of the theories.
Also, don't PBS stations often run informercials? Is it the station's contention that none of their other programs have an agenda (something which, I submit, is not automatically suspect)? Was it the content of the program, or the fact that it almost ran in the "Nova" slot, possibly lending it more credibility than the station managers thought appropriate?
[ January 07, 2005, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can we possibly have an opinion on whether it should be aired or not without drawing on our opinions of intelligent design as science? Clearly, if it is good science, it should be aired. If not, not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At Fugu and ID not being a theory...Why not? There are nature shows that bring up the biblical age of the earth computation made by that dingy Englishman, as if to prove that if you don't believe in evolution you are an idiot.
If nature shows will leave theology alone, then we can insiste that theology leave nature alone. This is censorship, pure and simple.
[ January 07, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does science matter? The documentary could be worthy of being broadcast without being good science. It could be a good documentary with only a shred of scientific worth.
I like science fine, I just don't think that Public Broadcasting or Public discourse should be limited by its mandates.
posted
You know, regardless of whether Behe's works are scientifically worthless, one of his books got me interested in biochemistry. So even psuedoscience can lead to people discovering real science. I would say to run the documentary with a disclaimer in the correct spot (if there really was a mistake, I wouldn't agree with pre-empting NOVA). That is, of course, assuming that no religious claims are made and the science is actually sound. Fairness does not require running a documentary that says the earth must be flat because otherwise people in Antarctica would fall off.
Then again, the problem with irreducible complexity is that it's impossible to determine which systems are irreducibly complex because it's always possible that each of the components was co-opted from some other system. A mouse trap isn't impossible to make if you're using a spring that was taken and adapted from a fully-functional shock absorber, a base that was once part of a wooden storage box, and bait from a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, for example.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Nova ran a show that was funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. I thought that was odd. It was about Typhoid Mary. I wonder if it was because they tried to be as sympathetic as possible toward her and imply that the public health officials had persecuted her. And in persecuting her, they had convinced her that she didn't really have a problem. It seemed kind of bogus to me. But still interesting.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with tacitly assuming ID is a scientific theory is that its a clear indication they aren't holding the documentary up to a high standard.
Trisha: one doesn't just get to say something is a scientific theory. Before something can be considered a scientific theory it must meet a very high standard of evidence, so much that it is generally accepted as a likely reasonable explanation. This doesn't mean that people (scientists) have to think its the most likely reasonable explanation, just that it is a likely reasonable explanation.
I'm not even saying it should be taken off if it argues ID is a scientific theory; part of science is contention, and this contention is a major part of the debate on ID. However, if it tacitly accepts ID as a scientific theory, then the makers have completely ignored a huge facet of the debate they propose to cover. Usually when a documentary or news show says its on something but does a bad job of covering what it says its on, one evaluates it as a "bad" documentary/news show.
And I really have no idea where your comment about the age of the earth thing comes in.
posted
More reason not to have public funded television.
A private station can refuse to show anything they want, with the exception of paid political ads. If this were a private station, the argument would be limited to whether the science was any good.
Now we have to determine the criteria a partially government funded entity should be allowed to use in content-based discrimination.
quote:the teaching and active extension of the doctrines of evangelical Christianity through approved grants to qualified organizations.
Evangelical Christianity does not necessarily require belief in creationism, even using the more constrained definition in use today.
quote: If nature shows will leave theology alone, then we can insiste that theology leave nature alone. This is censorship, pure and simple.
Yes, but how do you get those concerned with theology to not take offense by it? Science is often the enemy of religion because of the very fact that science likes to explain things, and religion thinks all things unexplainable were God's work. So, it's hard. I've talked to religious people who think that scientists are desparate to find the missing link, and they are out to disprove God. Scientists don't want to attack God or religion, they just want to stay in their own little world of science. Look at history, the people who cause ripples with science are religious people who deny science.
quote:What does science matter? The documentary could be worthy of being broadcast without being good science. It could be a good documentary with only a shred of scientific worth.
To get back to the main point of the post though, I think in part PBS pulled it because of the lack of scientific value. There's a difference between showing specific proof, with tests and evidence and all that, and then showing a show that lacks the scientific process. Sorry but the scientific value of a claim DOES MATTER when you're talking about a SCIENTIFIC THEORY!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think ID is a scientific theory by any standard I am aware of, though it is obviously someone's hypothesis.
The age of the earth thing addresses how a show presumably about science will take a potshot at religion. The reason it's dingy is that the guy stipulated a date and time that the earth was supposedly created, which corresponded with some observance at a British university. It is likely that the man was himself poking fun at Biblical chronology, but the factoid is often cited to make bible believers look like fruitcakes.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ted Garcia, KNME’s general manager, said, “Had the program been produced from the perspective of an objective body, free of this perceived influence, the program would have been acceptable for broadcast with an appropriate disclaimer.”
quote: That is to say, they thought the show was worth airing until they found out who was behind it
That IS suspicious. I'm having a hard time with this because my instincts want to say NO NO NO NO NO to showing it because I dislike a lot of what religious groups such as evangelical christians and such are doing in America. But at the same time the fair and impartial side of me says that it's discriminatory to pull the show JUST because they "Suddenly discovered" who the financial backer was. If they knew the content before they knew the creator and planned to show it, they should show it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:More reason not to have public funded television.
You are just itching to defund public television, aren't you? This sounds like an executive whoops that'll be rectified through the proper channels and probably lead to the most widely viewed mediocre documentary in history.
posted
I have a very serious problem with government funding of speech, because by its nature, unless it is unlimited, it requires content-based discrimination.
Anyway, Nova in one story takes DeBeers view that manufactured diamonds are fake, but in another applauds the Japanese efforts to control conditions to produce more pearls. They pitch for who's paying.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: I'm being quite careful in my statements partly for the reasons you note, and am not just arguing that it is bad science, but that the show does a bad job of going about its stated goal if it tacitly assumes ID is true. To break down my argument with more linebreaks:
AS ID is not considered by scientists a scientific theory
AND some people greatly dispute this position on the scientific validity of ID
AND a large part of the intended to be covered subject matter is disputes surrounding ID and evolution
AND whether or not ID is a scientific theory is highly relevant to the disputes surrounding ID and evolution
THEN any documentary with that intended subject matter which tacitly assumes ID is a scientific theory fails to adequately cover its intended subject matter, and should be removed for doing a bad job at covering what it said it was about.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've established that the show does in fact discuss ID.
I guess the issue now is what a disclaimer would need to say in order for it to not betray PBS's ethic of objectivity.
I was asking my brother why PBS wasn't awash with documentaries about Vietnam during the election year, and he pointed out that most shows on PBS are funded by oil companies.
We still prefer PBS over anything else, though I probably only watch it twice a week. Still, it's important to recognize that they are biased.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All these assumptions are fine, fugu, except that they also can be disputed at any point.
I wouldn't agree with those disputing them, but I don't want the government setting the rules of discourse like that. Fine, use scientific principles when deciding what research to fund. But not in deciding which ideas get government subsidies.
This kind of line-drawing is unavoidable in any situation where the government has limited resources to make available for private expression.
Why have a system that requires government content-based discrimination?
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok Hatrackers, what do you think? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try not to. I find I get in less trouble that way.
Kayla, I have a theory about that. Check out the January 07, 2005 04:41 PM post in the East of Eden thread.
quote: Why have a system that requires government content-based discrimination?
Do think we'll EVER live in a society in America where there ISN'T content based discrimination in how government funds are spent?
Outside of television and radio, look at the controversial issues that have gotten funding or have been denied funding. Stem cell research, funding charities and relief organizations that have ties to religious groups, research into "clean coal", renewable energy, medical research. So long as the government controls the purse strings of ANYTHING, this will happen. And I'd argue against cutting government run television and radio. Generally I feel without government sporsorship, NOVA and other shows like it would never see the light of day. The ultimate goal of the station is the public good, and I think in general they do a decent job of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stem cell research, funding charities and relief organizations that have ties to religious groups, research into "clean coal", renewable energy, medical research.
And each of these has some purpose other than pure communication. People can agree or disagree about the purpose of these programs, and elect representatives who will pass laws which reflect their opinions. We've specifically decided and enshrined in the constitution that we don't want government deciding what people can say.
Providing resources to allow one group to say what they want and not another certainly violates the the spirit of the principles informing the First Amendment.
If people are uncomfortable with libraries not buying books because of the content, they ought to be uncomfortable with this. Why is a book which a large portion of the country feels is objectionable more worthy of protection than this documentary?
posted
I don't really know what proportion of funding for a show comes from the CPB, sponsors, and "Viewers like you". Also, I know the production of a show can be funded by one company (say, Iomega) but subsequent airings funded by another (in the case I noticed, Cnet).
In the case of "The Diamond Deception" I think the producers (who are not the "They" of PBS or even Nova) were influenced to favor DeBeers in exchange for access to DeBeers operation. My understanding is that individual documentary makers can submit films to be shown on Nova. Some are commissioned by WGBH.
This show, of course, was merely slated to run in what would normally be the Nova slot, probably instead of a rerun.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Providing resources to allow one group to say what they want and not another certainly violates the the spirit of the principles informing the First Amendment.
I don't think its as clear as all that.
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While that perspective is quite possibly true regarding religion, the authors used a distinctly different phrasing with regard to freedom of speech. There they prohibited the abridgement, not banned laws respecting (unlike religion).
I think that the extension of no abridgement of free speech to no preference in public funding of speech is a modern sensibility, not one written into the Constitution.
posted
Of course it's true with respect to religion, and that includes a LOT of speech.
In general, a right is a right because the government cannot take steps to stop you from exercising it. Suppose the government taxed everyone, but gave back all or most of the taxes for those who were willing to sign a waiver of their 4th amendment rights.
The denial of government benefits because of the voluntary exercise of a right by a citizen is coercion.
posted
By that argument, any private military research (along with everything else funded where preference is made based on non-content agnostic ways, such as rolling dice) paid for by the government is coercion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:By that argument, any private military research (along with everything else funded where preference is made based on non-content agnostic ways, such as rolling dice) paid for by the government is coercion.
quote: So you don't think it would be coercion for the government to give $1,000 to everyone who promised not to go to church anymore?
Yeah I'd say it counts. I'm asking when it happened.
quote:By that argument, any private military research (along with everything else funded where preference is made based on non-content agnostic ways, such as rolling dice) paid for by the government is coercion.
I don't buy that. When the Pentagon paid Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to build the B-2 that was private military research through government funding, but I don't see how that's coersion. It's only coersion when they threaten to not protect citizens unless they cave to a demand.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah ah, Dagonee, we already established that religion was a separate case from more general speech.
Actually, as the collection of taxes and enforcement of laws are by definition coercion, I'm not exactly certain if it is coercion that automatically makes it somehow unconstitutional.
You know what, I do reconsider my military research example, though. This is because the commision of military research contracts falls under a power explicitly granted Congress, which means a Constitutional method of evaluation is the suitability to being used in the exercise of that power.
Many things, though, such as governmentally funded arts, research, public television, public radio, and others, would seem to have problems under the principle.
But then I got to thinking, well why would Dag still support public schools, then, since they involve huge amounts of preference in speech? I'm pretty sure you justify it by education being a right (one of those not enumerated ones), as otherwise it would most definitely violate that principle.
Under that framework, where non-enumerated rights justify content-based discrimination in their support, education seems to be okay. But then where do we put things like public television, or publicly funded scientific research, or publicly funded art?
Well, there must be some right which justifies content-based discrimination in those cases for them to be justifiable under that principle in anything like their current form. And given any such right, the question ceases becoming "can the government discriminate based on content?" but "to what degree is it allowable the government discriminate on content in order to protect that right?", a very different question.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing- The Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is a religious teaching and can therefore be separated from state institutions such as schools. This has not happened with Intelligent Design and is unlikely to, given that it can't be disproven. Because, unfortunately for non-ID evolutionists, they have not yet been able to create life in a reproducible experiment.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That something can't be disproven (in a scientific sense) is excellent proof that its not scientific. That something involves an argument, by Christians for a being mysteriously similar to the Christian God is an excellent case for it being religious.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
