NPR Stifles Evolution Debate by Canceling Guest Critical of Darwinian Evolution

[lodity]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040601/sftu107_1.html

Tuesday June 1, 1:54 pm ET


SEATTLE, June 1 /PRNewswire/ -- National Public Radio (NPR) is being criticized for censorship after canceling at the last minute the appearance of a high school biology teacher critical of evolution, while still allowing a pro-evolution teacher to present his views.

On May 21 NPR's Science Friday program cancelled invited guest Roger Dehart just hours before airing a program discussing the teaching of evolution. DeHart is a high school biology teacher critical of evolutionary theory. Featured in the documentary "Icons of Evolution," DeHart received national attention in 2001 because his school district in Burlington, Washington forbade him from presenting scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory. DeHart was originally slated to appear along with a Texas teacher who opposes the critical examination of Darwinian theory in the classroom. As of Wednesday, May 26 the NPR.org website still listed Roger DeHart as having been a participant in the program. In fact, at the last minute he was asked not to participate, but the Texas teacher was still allowed on the air to promote his views.

"I wish I'd been allowed to present my side of the story," said DeHart. "The teacher they had on made false claims such as Discovery Institute wanting to weaken the teaching of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth, but NPR listeners will never know that because NPR only presented the one side."

According to DeHart, the producer who pre-interviewed him for the show said she was an "atheist" and insisted that scientists who are critical of evolutionary theory such as biochemist Michael Behe are merely promoting religion.

"The censorship of DeHart is just another incident in a long list of biased reporting by NPR in what seems to be a campaign of misinformation about criticism of Darwinian evolution," said Dr. John West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. "NPR has a history of presenting only one side of the issue, or misrepresenting critics of Darwin when their point of view is included."

Discovery Institute has documented at least five recent reports on NPR about the teaching of evolution that are inaccurate, misinform listeners on the key issues in the story, and misrepresent the Institute's position on these issues. To date, NPR has responded to only one complaint raised by the Institute.

[Minnesota]

As noted in the article, this story was put out by the Discovery Institute of Seattle Washington, an organization dedicated promoting Intelligent Design. So it is hardly an unbiased article. It's a P.R. piece, and nothing more.


More curious, however, is that the Discovery institute is funded in main by the Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson estate. Ahmanson, was an evangelical who was "associated at times with Christian Reconstruction, a radical faction of the Religious Right that sought to replace American democracy with a theocracy based on biblical law and under the "dominion" of Christians. For years, the Orange County multimillionaire served on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, the movement's think tank."

"Reconstructionists believe conservative Christians should take "dominion" over American society. Under their version of "biblical law," the death penalty would be required for over a dozen categories of offenders, including adulterers, homosexuals, witches, incorrigible children and those who spread "false" religions. They regard the teaching of evolution as part of a "war against Genesis."
source

My guess is that NPR was wised up to the phony science IDers were foisting on the public, and seeing them for what they are, they wisely canceled.

[shunyadragon]

As noted in the article, this story was put out by the Discovery Institute of Seattle Washington, an organization dedicated promoting Intelligent Design. So it is hardly an unbiased article. It's a P.R. piece, and nothing more.


More curious, however, is that the Discovery institute is funded in main by the Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson estate. Ahmanson, was an evangelical who was "associated at times with Christian Reconstruction, a radical faction of the Religious Right that sought to replace American democracy with a theocracy based on biblical law and under the "dominion" of Christians. For years, the Orange County multimillionaire served on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation, the movement's think tank."

"Reconstructionists believe conservative Christians should take "dominion" over American society. Under their version of "biblical law," the death penalty would be required for over a dozen categories of offenders, including adulterers, homosexuals, witches, incorrigible children and those who spread "false" religions. They regard the teaching of evolution as part of a "war against Genesis."
source

My guess is that NPR was wised up to the phony science IDers were foisting on the public, and seeing them for what they are, they wisely canceled.

I am a firm believer in evolution and I question NPRs last minute cancelation. IT does not look good. They should do their homework earlier as to the nature of the beliefs of the teacher. It would be naive to assume that a proponent of ID and Discovery Institute would present a view different than was concluded hours before the broadcast.

Interesting side note. Both Darwin and I are Geologists who believe in Intelligent design, but both of us realize science cannot be manipulated to prove ID.

[WebToaster]

I am a firm believer in evolution and I question NPRs last minute cancelation. IT does not look good.

A possible explanation is that NPR has become a bastion for left-wing idealogy in the USA. NPR has always been progressive in its view, but since the rise of right-wing media outlets (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc...) NPR has founded itself more and more upon left-wing opposition to the right-wing, and since creationism is way out there on the right-wing spectrum it is opposed virulantly by NPR. However, this type of opposition occurs in the right-wing too, notice the clever wording in the article painting the creationist idealogues as someone 'providing critical arguments against evolution.' Of course, the same could be said for the evolutionist who 'provides critical arguments against creationism.'

It really is a cultural tribal war here in the USA, unfortunately NPR has been caught up in the left-wing counter-attack on the right-wing media. I suppose it will all settle out sometimes in the future, but there is little doubt the left-wing has grown more adamant in their positions as the right-wing has grown in power.

This is all unfortunate for me as a devoted fan of public TV and radio. I've been listening/viewing for over 20 years, and last night I sat through a one hour campaign commercial for John Kerry posing as the Charlie Rose show on PBS. Charlie Rose is normally pretty good at questioning both sides of idealogy, but sometimes he too gets caught up in our tribal wars.

[Snarf]

I am a firm believer in evolution and I question NPRs last minute cancelation. IT does not look good. They should do their homework earlier as to the nature of the beliefs of the teacher. It would be naive to assume that a proponent of ID and Discovery Institute would present a view different than was concluded hours before the broadcast.

Interesting side note. Both Darwin and I are Geologists who believe in Intelligent design, but both of us realize science cannot be manipulated to prove ID.

If there is no evidence accepted by evolutionary scientists that invalidates the modern theory of evolution, then why should a high school teacher be allowed to offer evidences accepted only by him and the nonevolutionary scientists at DI?

To say that there is a controversy is decieving because there is no controversy among 99% of scientists. To say that evolution is controversial because a few religious fundamentalists can't accept it is like saying that because because of the beliefs of Scientologists, the germ theory is controversial.

[EvoUK]

If there is no evidence accepted by evolutionary scientists that invalidates the modern theory of evolution, then why should a high school teacher be allowed to offer evidences accepted only by him and the nonevolutionary scientists at DI?

To say that there is a controversy is decieving because there is no controversy among 99% of scientists. To say that evolution is controversial because a few religious fundamentalists can't accept it is like saying that because because of the beliefs of Scientologists, the germ theory is controversial.

Exactly. I don't see why many forms (not all I hasten to add) of creationism should be given a scientific outlet. In the end of the day, scientifically speaking, all ideas are not all equal. Its model is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence (see AiGs statement as an example). Where the model can be falsified, it has been.

oh, and as an aside- if we were to teach creationism in schools, we'd also have to teach the creation beliefs of the following (as an example):

Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]e, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, and Zulu

Creationists have the same scientific outlet as everyone else. If they want to submit an article for peer review they have numerous scientific journals with which to do so. What they are doing instead is asking for special treatment. Why should a professor grant them time in a classroom, for example, when every other minute of the class time was first filtered through a gauntlet of peer review and scientific standards creationists could never hope to meet. Why should creationists be exempt from the rigors of the scientific method and peer-review?

[Minnesota]

We can second-guess NPR's decision all we want, but until we know the facts it is unfair to fault them for it. Personally, I'm quite pleased they did cancel. ID doesn't deserve genuine consideration any more than does the flat-Earth theory. Better to use the air time for more honest issues.

[lodity]

If there is no evidence accepted by evolutionary scientists that invalidates the modern theory of evolution, then why should a high school teacher be allowed to offer evidences accepted only by him and the nonevolutionary scientists at DI?

Because he was invited on the show to present those views. To cancel at the last minute shows that there is something that they don't want the audience to hear. If they really thought his views were insignificant, then there shouldn't be a problem letting him on the program as they had originally planned. It is unfair to allow the pro-evolutionary person to present his views as scheduled, yet cancel out the opposing view at the last minute.

To say that there is a controversy is decieving because there is no controversy among 99% of scientists. To say that evolution is controversial because a few religious fundamentalists can't accept it is like saying that because because of the beliefs of Scientologists, the germ theory is controversial.

Biblical Creationists (and others) have provided many substantial challenges in their criticism of evolution. Not only do they reject it because of their belief in the Bible, but also because there are many unanswered objections and inconsistentcies in evo. theory. But that doesn't matter to evolutionists, they don't take the criticisms seriously as they ought to, they would rather reject the opposition solely on the fact that they believe in the Bible. That's not quite open minded - as evos often claim to be - now is it?

[Dr.GH]

Because he was invited on the show to present those views.

Well, I don't know that that is why DeHart was invited. Mostly he just whines about how he was reassigned after he violated his agreed to contractual obligations.

edited to add a link for those interested in the Dehart saga:
http://www.scienceormyth.org/discoveryinstitute.html

Biblical Creationists (and others) have provided many substantial challenges in their criticism of evolution.

Heh, heh.

Feel free to start a nice fresh tread for each of these "substantial challenges." Or, maybe you will be able to respond to any of Glenn Morton's challenges to the YEChood?

[shunyadragon]

If there is no evidence accepted by evolutionary scientists that invalidates the modern theory of evolution, then why should a high school teacher be allowed to offer evidences accepted only by him and the nonevolutionary scientists at DI?

To say that there is a controversy is decieving because there is no controversy among 99% of scientists. To say that evolution is controversial because a few religious fundamentalists can't accept it is like saying that because because of the beliefs of Scientologists, the germ theory is controversial.

I agree with you to the extent that it would not have been productive for NPR to plan this program in the first place, but I think NPR set itself up to look bad in the light of the cancelation.

[shunyadragon]

Because he was invited on the show to present those views. To cancel at the last minute shows that there is something that they don't want the audience to hear. If they really thought his views were insignificant, then there shouldn't be a problem letting him on the program as they had originally planned. It is unfair to allow the pro-evolutionary person to present his views as scheduled, yet cancel out the opposing view at the last minute.

Biblical Creationists (and others) have provided many substantial challenges in their criticism of evolution. Not only do they reject it because of their belief in the Bible, but also because there are many unanswered objections and inconsistentcies in evo. theory. But that doesn't matter to evolutionists, they don't take the criticisms seriously as they ought to, they would rather reject the opposition solely on the fact that they believe in the Bible. That's not quite open minded - as evos often claim to be - now is it?

I definitely do not believe 'Creation Science' has presented sustantial challenges to evolution. In fact they have made themselves look very bad trying to add a defence for a young earth.

[Cubist]

Biblical Creationists (and others) have provided many substantial challenges in their criticism of evolution. Not only do they reject it because of their belief in the Bible, but also because there are many unanswered objections and inconsistentcies in evo. theory.

"Many... substantial challenges" and "many... inconsistencies"?
Okay, fine. Name five of each. Since there are so gosh-darned "many" to choose from, identifying five shouldn't be a problem... right?

[DunnySaze]

Biblical Creationists (and others) have provided many substantial challenges in their criticism of evolution. Not only do they reject it because of their belief in the Bible, but also because there are many unanswered objections and inconsistentcies in evo. theory. But that doesn't matter to evolutionists, they don't take the criticisms seriously as they ought to, they would rather reject the opposition solely on the fact that they believe in the Bible. That's not quite open minded - as evos often claim to be - now is it?

I would say they reject it only based on their belief in the Bible. There is no scientific basis for their arguments. None whatsover. Nada. Zero. Ziltch. Zippo. The Big Goose Egg.

[djdavo]

i'd hardly say the 51% of scientists believing in strict darwinian evolution is a "huge majority"....moste believe in some sort of creation process behind it...IE there's a small minority who believe 100% evolution, no diety involved whatsoever.

and for your "why don't they publish in peer journals" argument, read these responses to michael behe's article submissions,because they're nothing more than bigotry based on an ideological view, NOT ON SCIENTIFIC REASONS.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_corr...cejournals.htm

--------

here's the thing: none of this "present 15 theories on each area of evolutionary theory to dispute it" is not the REAL issue.

the real issue is if evolutionists think the growing ID movement is such a joke, why not let them publish and refute the articles instead of stifling the debate at every turn? i've heard it said, "if a person is going to make a fool of themself, step out of the way and let him".

so...why not just let people like michael behe into your debates and peer reviewed journals? he talks about irreducible complexity from a SCIENTIFIC viewpoint. his CONCLUSIONS drawn from his research is a separate issud.
that would seem to be the smart thing to do,wouldn't it? just publich and then debunk all these thorny problems that ID scientists are presenting (and to be fair, they're a little too credible and broad rangin to dismiss like dismissing sceintologists' disbelief in germs...)

hold an open 'summit meeting of the minds' to discuss things..

actually, i'd pay money to see that :-)

[djdavo]

oh gheesh....sorry about jumpin on the advanced board...i'm not a scientist..just enjoy doing some self study :-)