H4F, the problem is not the "one-sidedness of the media" in this case, but their phony "two-sidedness."

.

When half the airtime in evolution coverages is given over to people spouting nonsense, and it's treated as an equally-valid alternative, why shouldn't the public believe it's an equally-valid alternative?  Now, if the press were to use, say, 90 percent of the time currently allotted to Creationism and instead highlight the discoveries every week which disprove it, not only would those poll numbers start to reflect reality, but the public "might learn sumpthin'" in the bargain.

.

Same deal on Global Warming.  When half the coverage is given over to the oil company lobbyists instead of coverage of the evidence, what do you expect?  It's almost as if the networks, having thrown off the yoke of the Fairness Doctrine, nevertheless want to use it to peddle mind-numbing, self-serving propaganda. 

.

As I observed elsewhere, if 99 percent of the science goes one way, and 1 percent are doubters, sure, mention the one percent doubters, but don't shut out the 98 percent by given equal weight to "both sides."

"Now, if the press were to use, say, 90 percent of the time currently allotted to Creationism and instead highlight the discoveries every week which disprove it, not only would those poll numbers start to reflect reality, but the public "might learn sumpthin'" in the bargain."

Well, if the media had a "liberal bias," they'd be doing just that, dontcha think?  :-)  They aren't, therefore they don't.

I still say that Intelligent Design could be doable in school curricula if it were tweaked so as to bring about true balance.

What's usually proposed isn't balance.  What's usually proposed amounts to evolution politely stating its case, and then Intelligent Design takes pot shots at it.

What would be balance is for evolution to likewise have the opportunity to take pot shots at Intelligent Design.  True, the approach suffers from the flaw of giving error equal time with truth, but at least students would get to see Intelligent Design get shot down directly -- a spectacle that, at present, is nowhere to be found in classrooms or the media.

The problem with putting Intelligent Design Creationism into the classroom is that it's 100 percent criticism of evolution and 0 percent evidence.  So a "balanced view" would be to spend, say, 98 percent of the time on evolution, 1 percent on IDC, and another 1 percent debunking IDC, as you noted.  But the Creationists want 50 percent of the time, and no rebuttal. (Well, they actually want 100 percent and no rebuttal, but then they're not "into" that free speech thing.

H4F said,  How many Americans, who claim to understand evolution, then say inaccurate things like "we came from apes?"

Woofer says,  What?  We didn't come from apes???

"The problem with putting Intelligent Design Creationism into the classroom is that it's 100 percent criticism of evolution and 0 percent evidence. "

When evolution gets finished stating its case, it would be something to behold, to listen to ID try to state its case with positive evidence.

"Hardliner, would it be scientifically inaccurate to call that Common ancestor an ape?  An extinct one, to be sure, but I bet it would be classified as such by any casual observation. "

It sounds like nitpicking, I know, but to say otherwise suggests that we evolved directly from what we label apes today.  That elicits the tired old saw "if we came from apes, why are there still apes?"

Of course, if evolution got a fair shot in the media (and the depth of treatment in schools that it should be getting), people would understand the answer to that question.

Speaking of Creationism:

The man who plays Adam in a video aired at a Bible-based creationist museum has led a different life outside the Garden of Eden, flaunting his sexual exploits online and modeling for a clothing line that promotes free love.

After learning about his activities Thursday, the Creation Museum in Kentucky pulled the 40-second video in which he appears.

http://tinyurl.com/ys6u5c

Creationism proports that life is now as it always has been when it was created.

Evolution states that life has changed to adapt to changes in the organism's environment as time passed.

That is a fairly widely held intermediate view.

To segue this subject into another recent topic, one reason why I'm so sensitive to the claims that the media are "liberal" is that some people are turning everything into a liberal vs. conservative issue, and using that distinction to denigrate the viewpoint that they thusly cursed as "liberal."

This should not be one of those issues.  Facts and science should not have a partisan affiliation or partisan connection.

It could conceivably be the case that a Supreme Being had a hand in shaping the evolution of life.  But it doesn't require that one be a conservative or liberal to hold that belief.

but do you always have to be the purveyor of "useless information"?

That's the first time Matt has been accused of that. Inaccurately as well.

His posts on this blog have all pertained to the discussion.

Various concepts of Theistic Evolution appear here.

Theistic evolution is the idea that evolution did take place, but that God had a hand in it.

I put old copies of my Discover magazine in doctor's offices with the hope that someone will pick one up and leaf through it.  They may get offended, but for every person who gets offended there may be someone else who wants to read more. 

The universe is so much bigger and infinitely more interesting that the brief description afforded it in Genesis.  It's encouraging that 50% of Americans agree witn me.

There is micro-evolution, short-term changes which we see examples of in the "common cold" and in drug-resistant forms of diseases.

The peppered moth is a good example of micro-evolution. Creationist Jonathon Wells, well-known for altering scientific formulas (changing a base number to an exponent so the the equation wouldn't pan out), once again used fraudulent means to try and discredit peppered moth melanism, but - as always - was shown to be a charlatan through legitimate experiments.

Incidentally, 3/4th of our fellow citizens believe in "Creation"

That's because, like virtually everyone else, they are afraid of dying. So they allow themselves to believe that this "creator" can give them eternal life. If even one of them can show me empirical evidence that this "creator" exists, I'll be happy to join their ranks.

I would love to make a few comments but after thinking it over, I realize my comments with this group will take to long as in the form of a book.

Have a nice day.

Ron.

I disagree with this statement  "Creationism proports that life is now as it always has been when it was created" because I also believe that evolution and creation are intermingled.  The Bible (if you choose to use that as proof) has reference to the first people to sleep in tents and the first to use copper.  Maybe that's minor but it does show some evolving to me.

I guess it depends on ones interpertation of evolving or "evolution."

I agree Nancy evolving seems to work for me.

Ron.

I evolved from a Texan and a Okie which made me a prune picker. (born in Ca.)

Ron.

Sam

Do you remember Okies being called "fruit tramps"?

Mattloch. I have never ran across the word "Wikiality" but after looking it up I believe it to be true.  I have always thought of it as "The Big Lie".  Hitler's rise to power is a good example.