AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:58 pm

From Right WIng Watch today:

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is now complaining that the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime for evolution deniers.

Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to criticize Cosmos for not providing airtime for Creationism adherents. When Mefferd asked if Cosmos will “ever give a Creationist any time,” Faulkner responded by lamenting that “Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all.”

Mefferd agreed that the show isn’t being very fair and balanced: “Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there, you know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed.”

“Consideration of special Creation is definitely not open for discussion it would seem,” Faulkner added.

Arguing that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, and one of many theological beliefs on human creation are simply “two sides” that merit competing time on a science program is much like the equally absurd argument Creationists use when trying to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/c ... ZftYB.dpuf
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby cathy » Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:32 pm

I suspect Cosmos didn't give any airtime to the opinion that the moon is made of cheese either? Thought not.
a
The answer for AiG is very simple. Provide some evidence for your beliefs. Actual evidence and data that falsify evolution etc AND give equal weight to the creationist theory. It should be very simple - the whole shebang only started 6000 years ago. There was a major flood 4000 years ago. Two major events. There should be tons of evidence - not least the totally mixed fossil record! Dinos and humans drowning together.

Ken has had plenty of opportunities to find and present this evidence so why hasn't he?

And who the hell is Janet Mefford? She needs to look around cos there are lots of programmes not giving alternative loony views air time. A whole history channel insisting that the holocaust took place with no nods at all to the holocaust denial view. Not even a 'some historians don't think this happened'.

Is Mefford giving real scientists any time to say the above by the way?
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:41 pm

I think it would be useful if any contributor to these forums who has seen the offending series/episode of the series on National Geographic (I have not) could comment. (I did receive a round robin email from a committee member suggesting that he was going to watch the series.)

I agree with Cathy. Mr Ham purported to offer alternative ie non scientifically mainstream 'predictions' from his particular (orthodox Christian and Genesis-inspired) creation 'model' in his recent debate with Bill Nye. But signally failed - as Mr Nye pointed out on the night and as I have pointed out here subsequently (with one possible exception, every Ham 'prediction' was either a statement of the bleeding obvious or else something that has been shown to be complete nonsense).

I'm aware that creationists in the US are incandescent over the new 'Cosmos' series. It might perhaps be causing some to query what they have been taught by those who insist the universe is less than 10,000 years old. (And such people have probably also been told by people like Mr Ham and his outfit that if a 6,000 year old universe is not true, you simply cannot trust anything in the Bible.)

I expect that the programme did not cover spontaneous generation, the stork theory, or 'steady state' much either.

As someone who follows the BBC Points of View message boards, broadcasters and programme makers must often get the 'what about that' argument, even for legimitate subjects that are omitted or glossed over (never mind far-fetched ones). But they need to make focused factual programmes in order to retain all viewers' attention as far as possible, and also work to tight time constraints. They also need to come up 'new' programme topics/'angles' all the time - thus a topic omitted from one programme might become the 'meat' for another later series.

Of course there probably are not wealthy religious lobby groups demanding that spontaneous generation, stork theory and 'steady state universe' be given 'fair' representation in science documentaries. Unlike recent 'special' six-day creation, these are not 'required' for sound fundamentalist Christian theology of the kind that insists that the whole Bible is infallibly authoritative even on matters scientific (and tells us that people who do not have such a view of the Bible somehow 'use' evidence-based science to 'suppress the truth').
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:10 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I'm aware that creationists in the US are incandescent over the new 'Cosmos' series. It might perhaps be causing some to query what they have been taught by those who insist the universe is less than 10,000 years old. (And such people have probably also been told by people like Mr Ham and his outfit that if a 6,000 year old universe is not true, you simply cannot trust anything in the Bible.)



The message to the fundamentalists should always be the same - if they don't like the programme and/or are offended by it, then don't watch it.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:23 am

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... inflation/
According to Ken Ham, for what that's worth, this AiG staff member has been interviewed recently on BBC Radio (though I can find no other evidence backing that up)!
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... n-abounds/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:42 am

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... inflation/
According to Ken Ham, for what that's worth, this AiG staff member has been interviewed recently on BBC Radio (though I can find no other evidence backing that up)!
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... n-abounds/

EDIT: I strongly suspect that Faulkner got to speak on the Radio 4 'Sunday' programme:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _feminism/
"This week scientists recorded the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, coming one step closer to proving the Big Bang theory. Bob Walker reports on the theological implications of this" (from the description of the programme contents - item starts around 31 minutes in)

PS True to form the creationist accuses scientists of having 'moved the goalposts'. It is regrettable that this accusation is not addressed on the programme but simply left hanging in the air. And the BBC no longer appears to have message boards for discussion of or criticism towards its radio programmes.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:57 am

Giberson, a professing Christian but who believes in evolution


Sounds to me as if Faulkner is calling into question Giberson's salvation. Why not just say Karl Giberson is a Christian rather than a "professing" Christian ? Placing the word "professing" before Christian throws in an element of doubt, in my opinion.

Likewise the word "but". He's a professing Christian "but" ?

In other words, he isn't a real Christian.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:27 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
Giberson, a professing Christian but who believes in evolution


Sounds to me as if Faulkner is calling into question Giberson's salvation. Why not just say Karl Giberson is a Christian rather than a "professing" Christian ? Placing the word "professing" before Christian throws in an element of doubt, in my opinion.

Likewise the word "but". He's a professing Christian "but" ?

In other words, he isn't a real Christian.


Yer, the view seems true to form amongst many fundamentalists - there are only two "wordlviews" people hold, those of Biblical inerrancy and atheism. See http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/e ... rnity-mind
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:44 pm

Oh dear Roger, another flavour of nutters: the Seven Mountains brigade. That they have an extreme version of Christianity isn't our problem. That it includes YECism and they wish to enforce it (including in schools) is.
The second mountain is the church or religion. This, of course, does not mean just any religion or any church. This means their specific brand of anti-science evangelical Christianity which believes in the infallibility of the bible and that prayer can solve any problem. This is the type of Christianity that believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that people coexisted with dinosaurs and that a man lived in a fish for three days before being spat out.
Literalists - and dominionists - it seems.
http://amoderndaydavinci.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/the-seven-mountains-the-most-dangerous-movement-you%E2%80%99ve-never-heard-of/
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Mar 26, 2014 8:04 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:Oh dear Roger, another flavour of nutters: the Seven Mountains brigade. That they have an extreme version of Christianity isn't our problem. That it includes YECism and they wish to enforce it (including in schools) is.
The second mountain is the church or religion. This, of course, does not mean just any religion or any church. This means their specific brand of anti-science evangelical Christianity which believes in the infallibility of the bible and that prayer can solve any problem. This is the type of Christianity that believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that people coexisted with dinosaurs and that a man lived in a fish for three days before being spat out.
Literalists - and dominionists - it seems.
http://amoderndaydavinci.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/the-seven-mountains-the-most-dangerous-movement-you%E2%80%99ve-never-heard-of/


I've got round to the conclusion that American religious fundamentalism is a far more serious threat to the world than Islamic fundamentalism. It's utterly toxic.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:16 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:From Right WIng Watch today:

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is now complaining that the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime for evolution deniers....


Ray "Bananaman" Comfort, one of the dumbest and oiliest creationists around, has decided that Tyson doesn't know what he is talking about because he isn't a theologan - carefully failing to mention that Bananaman himself has no formal education or qualifications in theology either. See http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/24/c ... enesis-is/
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:27 pm

Here's a chap blaming this on Ham's being emboldened by his luring Nye into his lair. I feared it would all end in tears. :-(
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/creation-museum-demands-e_b_5031550.html
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:05 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:Here's a chap blaming this on Ham's being emboldened by his luring Nye into his lair. I feared it would all end in tears. :-(
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/creation-museum-demands-e_b_5031550.html


Well, the fundaqmentalists have a huge broadcasting and programme production industry of their own so there is nothing at all to stop them producing a TV series to "counteract" science - they've been doing this for years anyway. It seems that what they nw really want is the right to get others to pay for and proselytise their religious opinions. For better or for worse, though, the Federal Communications Commission long ago dropped the requirement for broadcasters to act in a "fair and balanced" manner.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby cathy » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:00 pm

For better or for worse, though, the Federal Communications Commission long ago dropped the requirement for broadcasters to act in a "fair and balanced" manner.
What do you mean fair and balanced. There is NO current alternative to evolution and the age of the Earth to be shown in a fair and balanced manner. When there is I'm sure science programmers will show it by virtue of the fact it will be science. The use of the words fair and balanced are not appropriate here at all. The language is not appropriate.

There is no lack of balance in this issue because there is NO debate. If it were about politics or even other Christian fundie issues like abortion or the use of stem cells or whatever then it would be a completely different matter. They are issues of opinion and ethics. Evolution is not.

The only fair and balanced DEBATE around this issue is should all religion now accept evolution and I'm not sure that is a debate because clearly they should. To do otherwise is to deny reality.

Fair and balanced is only a concept where there is actually a debate. There is none hence no real rationale for inclusion in real science programming.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: AIG want fair and balanced coverage on TV programmes

Postby cathy » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:11 pm

Sounds to me as if Faulkner is calling into question Giberson's salvation. Why not just say Karl Giberson is a Christian rather than a "professing" Christian ? Placing the word "professing" before Christian throws in an element of doubt, in my opinion.

Likewise the word "but". He's a professing Christian "but" ?

In other words, he isn't a real Christian.

Peter the time is long overdue for real, non creationist Christians to start using the same language I'm afraid. I guess I have the advantage of not being a Christian and therefore have no real allegiance to belief and thus to fellow believers as a whole but I have long been refusing to call creationists proper Christians. Even since the Marc Surtees days I refused to acknowledge his beliefs as anything other than creationist ego.

You have everything on your side to call their Christianity into question! You have the ninth commandment for starters.

You have the bullying they engage in.

And you have the trump card given they call themselves creationists. You have the fact that they consistently deny the real world that they claim God created, i.e. the actual creation, in favour of their made up version. In short scientists of all beliefs and none study but do not make up the events leading to us. Creationists fabricate their own version. If that can't be called blasphemous I'm not sure what could. It's certainly not showing humility to claim their made up version of things is better than Gods version that is what science seems to be revealing.

And of course the people they put off. I'd say I'm a reluctant atheists. They robbed me of beliefs and comforts from those beliefs that I'd held for years. That is surely against the Bible and NT as well.

Oh and a very non Christian brand of arrogance as well. And a refusal to listen to criticism etc.

You need to fight fire with fire. I've heard lots of sane Christians saying 'weeeelll they're Christians to blah blah blah'. Well from where I'm standing they aren't. They are a new weird sect loosely using bits of Christianity. Use their language against them for a change. They are the professing Christian BUT .....

T
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Next

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron