Tuesday, July 17, 2007

NY Times: unbalanced but honest

Cornelia Dean, writing in the New York Times today included the following statement in an article about a creationist book
"In fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth."

Every article, in every newspaper, that discusses creationism should include such a clear statement. Too often you get so-called balanced reporting where creationism and belief in evolution are both put forward as viable alternatives, as in this Canadian Press story in the Globe and Mail.

4 comments:

Ollock said...

Very nice article. Now if we can just get some more articles to point out the flaws in fundamentalist Christian creationism.

The Ridger, FCD said...

Don't hold your breath. Most major papers (and more minor outlets, probably) fear to offend any religious people, who often take any attack on any religion as a signal that "religion" is no longer a sacred cow, so to speak. This obviously doesn't include threatening religions, like Islam, but does include all forms of Christianity.

I'd be happy with this strong statement - and possibly another which says "Many Christians have no difficulty accepting this science as compatible with their faith." - in every article that mentions creationism.

Steve Kaufmann said...

It has always bothered me that established religions are shown a degree of respect and preferential treatment that is not given to other social groups or individuals.(This includes all religions, by the way, including Islam, Sikhism, Judaism, as well as Christianity). As a friend of mine said, if God exists I doubt that he supports any religion.

Brett, since you are an English teacher, is "ballanced" an accepted spelling for "balanced"? I googled "ballanced" and found quite a few examples of it.

Brett said...

Steve is referring to the now-corrected title. As far as I know 'balanced' is the only accepted spelling. I keep telling my fingers that but they don't believe me.