You are currently browsing the AcademicFreedomBlog weblog archives for November, 2010.
- Comparative religion (4)
- Culture & society (78)
- History (29)
- Notable Quotes (19)
- Personal story (13)
- Politics (35)
- Science and faith (116)
- Uncategorized (44)
- March 11, 2012: Encouragement
- March 6, 2012: Legalistic life
- February 24, 2012: Burning Qur'ans and Burning Bridges
- February 8, 2012: The War on Religion
- January 24, 2012: Evolution in Excel
- January 11, 2012: Steno's Applied Science
- January 9, 2012: "Love" in the Bible and Qur'an
- November 6, 2011: The Problem with My Spouse
- October 23, 2011: Mind Brain Controversy
- August 26, 2011: How Old Is The Earth?
Blogroll
Chat
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
Archive for November 2010
Had Your Daily Dose of Darwinian Correctness?
November 6, 2010 by Dr. Mc.
Tonight my wife and I enjoyed another (prerecorded) episode of the Discovery Chanel’s Life TV series. The series is filled with beautiful, painstaking photography and fascinating facts about our natural world.
However in order for people to benefit from this, they must constantly be subjected to Darwinian correctness. I say “correctness,” because it’s not just the facts that are presented, it’s that they are said a certain way.
For example, every time narrator Whoopee Goldberg made reference to a creature that has a unique ability, she would say it “has evolved” the amazing characteristic, regardless of whether there is any fossil record of the development of the feature. But when it was noted that any of today’s creatures was identical to its entire fossil record, Ms Goldberg was obliged to say that it “has remained unchanged over millions of years.”
So, what’s wrong with this? Two things: First, the carefully selected words would never be interchanged. Never could Ms Goldberg say that an animal “changed” into its present form, nor would she ever have liberty to say that over millions of years an organism “had not evolved.” To say that something had not evolved, even if it had not changed, would be anathema!
Second, evolution must be continually reinforced in the minds of the audience, even though it has nothing to do with the facts being presented. For example, any time a feature was mentioned as having evolved, no reference was made to what it had evolved from. There was no evidence, just the presumption of evolution. It sounds so intelligent to say “evolved,” in a nature show, even though it has nothing to do with the facts being presented. Likewise, on the flip side, when reference is made to no change, there must be insertion of the phrase “millions of years,” even though the show is only about life today.
This is why most people who believe in evolution believe in evolution. They aren’t dumb. They have just never been exposed to the evidence and allowed to make up their own minds. Maybe they never will. They just constantly hear the presumption of evolution, and assume it’s a slam dunk. Maybe it isn’t. If they ever find out, it’s going to be because they take the initiative to find out for themselves. The Discovery Channel certainly isn’t going to help them.
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »