…and this is a 
I'm warning you. It's a disaster waiting to build: when the newspapers start reporting creationist versions of stories without questioning them, without providing explanations of the fallacies, and without even bringing in authoritative scientific voices to knock their claims down, all you do is feed the confidence of the creationists. It's even worse than "he said she said" journalism. That's exactly what the BBC has done, though, with a piss poor story about attendees at Ken Ham's preposterous creationist "museum".
I'm going to be charitable and assume the author intended to hang the creationists with their own words; the quotes from the people going to the "museum" do make them sound like ignorant hicks. In particular, one pull quote — Why is Darwin buried with kings at Westminster Abbey? He's not a king. — is a great big flashing idiot light, and will be especially noticeable in the UK (hint: they don't just bury kings in Westminster…unless, of course, Isaac Newton and Herschel and Lyell and many other scientists were crowned when I wasn't looking).
But still, look at the article as a creationist would. It's going to go in a scrapbook or on a wall of reviews at the "museum", and the gomers will stroll through, read it, and nod approvingly. Those quotes affirm their own beliefs; all they'll see is that the BBC approvingly quoted sentiments they share. And there will be readers in England, even, who will be oblivious to the very understated sarcasm, and will be cheered further in their support of creationism. And other reporters will see that as a perfectly reasonable way to write a news story, and the plague of bland reporting will spread.
This part was simply disingenuous.
President and founder Ken Ham stayed resolutely silent about the fossil, called Darwinius masillae, which scientists believe was linked to an early human ancestor.
I'm sorry, but if you go to the Answers in Genesis web site, Darwinius masillae is featured top center in a big full color banner. To claim that Ham was resolute or silent is false: he's been lying noisily and frantically about the fossil record.
Trust me, it's been happening over here. Every article about creationism needs to eschew the subtleties and pound hard on the obvious, that creationism is bunk and its proponents are ignorant, because the creationists don't get subtlety.
Comments
Posted by: mxh | June 14, 2009 4:06 PM
yeah, i was disappointed to see a review of the creation museum in today's Washington Post. Although it was written in a way that made it seem like a rip off, it was absolutely not critical of any of the claims they made. The fact that it was in the Travel section made it even worse (are they actually suggesting that it is a vacation destination?)
Posted by: Zetetic
|
June 14, 2009 4:09 PM
Heh!
I love how the picture in the article makes the creation "museum" look like a scene from an old horror movie.
Perhaps some unintended honesty?
Posted by: alextangent | June 14, 2009 4:09 PM
Ah, but that's how the British poke fun at you. It's a piece that's comparing Murricans with Brits. Listen attentively, write down exactly what you say, and wrap it up in a slightly sniffy piece about our dipshit cousins.
Draw your own comparisions, it says.
Which has the average Brit gasping; How far???That's from Cronwall to off the map, fer chrissakes!
Cultural differences, really. We don't get that wound up about religion.
Posted by: Daniel | June 14, 2009 4:13 PM
Posts like this make it hard for me to take PZ seriously. That article seems like responsible journalism, and it's silly to demand that your seething hatred be reflected in non-editorial articles.
I have identical contempt for the "museum", but this sort of reaction to this sort of article is a just embarrassing.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 14, 2009 4:15 PM
Trust me on this, PZ, the vast majority of my fellow Britons will read the piece in exactly the spirit that was clearly intended, pointing and laughing throughout. I read the piece before you highlighted it, and the sarcasm fairly dripped off the screen.
Posted by: CTHULHU (your lord and savior) | June 14, 2009 4:15 PM
wow. thats absolutely pathetic.
"gee we cant use logic, reason, or our (lack of) proof that god did it....so...obviously the best course of action is a petting zoo and robot dinosaurs"
Posted by: Zetetic
|
June 14, 2009 4:18 PM
For what it's worth it does seem like article is "softly" critical of the Creation museum. They don't seem to be endorsing it, even if they aren't openly hostile towards Ham's Palace O'Lies.
Posted by: origin | June 14, 2009 4:22 PM
"... a kind created on Day Six of Creation Week"
lol
Posted by: Benjamin Joseph Clark | June 14, 2009 4:23 PM
This was a rather troubling paragraph:
The most recent such finding, a "47-million-year-old fossil" of a primate, called Ida, may have given scientists a "fresh insight" into evolution - but followers of Answers In Genesis are having none of it.
Why the quotes???
Posted by: mjs | June 14, 2009 4:27 PM
God made the world in six days, which when adjusted for inflation equals about 14 billion years. He was especially delighted by the home movies of his son riding on the backs of large dinosaurs. Though lost for millenia, there are experts on the trail of the Dead Sea Home Movies, so stay tuned!
++++
Posted by: xebecs | June 14, 2009 4:27 PM
I was just struck by a similarity between bad journalists and bad prosecuting attorneys. The first just wants a good story, truth be damned, and the second just wants a conviction, truth be damned.
Posted by: Benjamin Joseph Clark | June 14, 2009 4:31 PM
This was a rather troubling paragraph:
The most recent such finding, a "47-million-year-old fossil" of a primate, called Ida, may have given scientists a "fresh insight" into evolution - but followers of Answers In Genesis are having none of it.
Why the quotes???
Posted by: BaldySlaphead
|
June 14, 2009 4:36 PM
I don't think anyone in the UK would think that was a supportive story for a second. It's classic 'give 'em enough rope' stuff.
Posted by: mxh | June 14, 2009 4:36 PM
I liked this quote... even if it's millions of thousands of years old, I guess you could still say thousands. Or maybe he just read 100 different versions of the bible and considered that groundbreaking scientific research.
Posted by: Sky
|
June 14, 2009 4:41 PM
I think we in the US are a bit more desensitized to the type of deranged statements being quoted from the ignoramuses attending the museum. I suspect in the UK this stuff is much more jaw-dropping and doesn't require quite as explicit a counterbalance.
Posted by: fraserdavidson | June 14, 2009 4:44 PM
this reads differently to me to be honest.
its difficult to express the intonation of this article from a uk perspective.
the writing style is very different to the sort of thing you might come
across in the us and a million miles from the likes of fux news.
i want to use the phrase 'to damn with faint praise' but thats not quite it.
the creationist view isnt really taken seriously over here and to take the piss
out of this nonsense in an article would almost be shooting fish in a barrel.
after all, how do you make this stuff sound more ridiculous than it already is.
just write down what these retards say. job done. comedy gold.
Posted by: RT | June 14, 2009 4:44 PM
Yup, The Unknown Warrior, William Wilberforce, Charles Dickens, Samuel Johnson, Rudyard Kipling, George Frederic Handel, Thomas Hardy, Muzio Clementi, Geoffrey Chaucer, Ernest Rutherford, J.J Thompson... all kings.
Jeez, I know many americans like the fact we have a lot of history in this country, but how many monarchs does he think we've had?
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
June 14, 2009 4:45 PM
Oh the quotes, they burn!
"I personally don't know, but natural selection seems to be the only thing people go on. It should be more open," he says. "There are sometimes better explanations for things, I mean people thought the earth was flat."
Ah, yes; natural selection is the old way people looked at things, like believing in a flat earth.
There are over 100 ways science is able to look at the Earth and 90 say it is thousands of years old - only 10 say it's real old." He adds: "The way liberals and evolutionists win an argument is to outlaw freedom of speech... they won't let us in.
Oh, yes, those liberals and atheists.
The father-of-three, from Chicago, was a business consultant when he "had an encounter with Jesus" and became a youth pastor.
Ah, he was married so couldn't become a catlick priest?
The former high school teacher, who says she believes God created "everything visible and invisible", feels people look down on her views "especially under the current [White House] administration". "It interferes with their lifestyle, you know 'If it feels good go ahead and do it' - the Bible doesn't teach that," she says.
I think I'll masturbate now - should I blame it on Obama or Darwin?
Posted by: littlejohn | June 14, 2009 4:46 PM
Trust me, very few serious journalists are creationists. But it is absolutely beaten into our heads to keep our own opinions to ourselves and let people spout what crap they want. But a sufficiently savvy writer can keep his employer happy by repeating some of the more obviously ludicrous stuff. It looks like that's what's going on here. I don't know any other way an objective broadcast or publication can approach it without becoming an advocacy group, kind of like this blog.
Posted by: Chris H | June 14, 2009 4:54 PM
Although creationism is on the rise in the UK, and so we can't really say: "lol, look at those crazy Yanks" for much longer, for the majority of people reading that article in the UK, I'd say it was comedy.
Posted by: Hideki | June 14, 2009 4:59 PM
Hihi
I doubt anyone here took it seriously, there's an article on Roswell on the BBC site atm written in much the same tone but people aren't taking to the streets screaming about alien invasion -.o
Posted by: Frink | June 14, 2009 5:02 PM
My complaint isn't that they weren't critical enough. I'm wondering why they chose to cover it in the first place. Take the ending paragraphs about Ida, for instance. We don't go around seeking the input of astrologers when a new cosmic phenomenon is discovered, so why are we even talking to these quacks? Neither of their beliefs about the universe hold up to scientific scrutiny.
Also, I hope nobody overlooked this gem: "I believe the Earth is around 5,500 years old. If you don't believe in Genesis, you don't believe in anything else."
Ah, the mindset of a fanatic.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 14, 2009 5:04 PM
I think the clincher is the fact that all four boxed-out vox pops are certifiably insane - normally, the BBC bends over backwards to offer a balanced viewpoint, but clearly decided in this instance that BaldySlaphead's "give 'em enough rope" approach was the most sensible one.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 14, 2009 5:08 PM
No, you can be Called by God™ if you're married. It just doesn't happen often.
Posted by: Paul | June 14, 2009 5:11 PM
I am British and I know that the writer of this BBC article is laughing loudly at this sad excuse for a museum. Maybe you have to approach this from a peculiarly British perspective. The BBC are compelled to be 'impartial', but don't be fooled that they haven't done a PZ in this article. The laughter is loud and clear. The profiles of the visitors alone are enough to confirm this. This is an 'only in America' article - and that's not supposed to be complimentary to our transatlantic cousins. The grasping clinginess to religious woo that is exhibited by the american people (and especially their politicians) is a constant source of amusement (and occasionally, worry) to the average Brit.
Posted by: Paul | June 14, 2009 5:13 PM
I am British and I know that the writer of this BBC article is laughing loudly at this sad excuse for a museum. Maybe you have to approach this from a peculiarly British perspective. The BBC are compelled to be 'impartial', but don't be fooled that they haven't done a PZ in this article. The laughter is loud and clear. The profiles of the visitors alone are enough to confirm this. This is an 'only in America' article - and that's not supposed to be complimentary to our transatlantic cousins. The grasping clinginess to religious woo that is exhibited by the american people (and especially their politicians) is a constant source of amusement (and occasionally, worry) to the average Brit.
Posted by: Mena | June 14, 2009 5:14 PM
Well, considering that BBC America decided to air "Married to the Eiffel Tower", Love Me, Love My Doll, and "My Car is My Lover", this could have been much, much worse.
Posted by: Paul | June 14, 2009 5:15 PM
I am British and I know that the writer of this BBC article is laughing loudly at this sad excuse for a museum. Maybe you have to approach this from a peculiarly British perspective. The BBC are compelled to be 'impartial', but don't be fooled that they haven't done a PZ in this article. The laughter is loud and clear. The profiles of the visitors alone are enough to confirm this. This is an 'only in America' article - and that's not supposed to be complimentary to our transatlantic cousins. The grasping clinginess to religious woo that is exhibited by the american people (and especially their politicians) is a constant source of amusement (and occasionally, worry) to the average Brit.
Posted by: Sky
|
June 14, 2009 5:16 PM
Also, I can understand why this article bothers PZ so much. As an American, seeing articles like this and having that "museum" in our metaphorical back yard fills one with a deep dread and seething embarrassment. The British have the luxury of being (a bit) more removed from this nonsense, and I envy that.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 5:16 PM
Having read both the "creationist museum" article and the "Roswell" article, I don't agree with Hideki that they are written in the same tone - the "Creation Museum" article is much more respectful, indeed is written entirely straight as far as I can see. I agree with PZ that this is worrying, and will consider what I, as a licence fee payer, can do about it. And no, before anyone gets on a "free speech" high horse, I don't intend to call for the article to be removed, the journalist to be sacked or whatever - but it shouldn't be allowed to go unanswered.
Posted by: SEF | June 14, 2009 5:16 PM
I'm British/English and I disagree with the suggestion that people in the UK will simply laugh at the crazy yanks. The story is very much in line with the rest of the modern BBC's trashy output and its routine failure to care about the truth. Eg this BBC quote (NB not a creationist one) is particularly damning:
Note how they side with the "claims to" view rather than being competent and honest enough to state that it does undermine their pseudo-theories.Posted by: Fatpie42 | June 14, 2009 5:19 PM
You had me worried there for a moment. However, having read the article I cannot agree with you. I didn't see anything wrong with it. I can only imagine that this is a cultural difference. In the UK, the condescension from the writer towards the creationists echoes loud and clear.
Take this part for example:
"The Creation Museum is the uncompromising vision of Australian-born evangelical Ken Ham, who aims to "expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas" and "enable Christians to defend their faith".
It's very clearly stated that this is Ken Ham's aim, not something he has achieved, and any mention of those aims is in quotations to make it clear that it's Ham's words and not those of the journalist. The effort made to put distance between Ham's opinion and the journalists own makes it extra clear to us that Ham is not being treated as a source of objective information (and that's putting it mildly).
Yeah, creationists might happily put this on their wall as a document supporting them, but that's because they are idiots. You can't blame the BBC for that...
Posted by: Zmidponk | June 14, 2009 5:20 PM
I have to say, PZ, this is, indeed, down to cultural differences. If you imagine someone reading that article to you with a slightly amused tone to their voice and a sardonically lifted eyebrow, you kinda get how most UK readers would read it.
Posted by: george | June 14, 2009 5:23 PM
Am I the only one who can see Ken Ham is a cave man? He rallies against evolution so no one will figure him out!
Posted by: Citizen Z | June 14, 2009 5:28 PM
Why is Darwin buried with kings at Westminster Abbey? He's not a king.
What's really astounding about the quote is you have to wonder how he managed to screw it up. I mean, he obviously knows that famous Brits are buried there. And he knows that Darwin is buried there. Yet he obtained those bits of knowledge without also figuring out the types of people buried there? Mindboggling.
Posted by: Derek | June 14, 2009 5:29 PM
I saw this article first via Reddit, then wandered over here. I appreciate the solid lampooning of these fools, and of the BBC for doing as poor a job as American media.
However, something struck me funny, and now I'm a bit angered (quote):
"Laurie Geesey, 57, made the 560-mile trip from Wisconsin the night before with her husband Richard. The former high school teacher, who says she believes God created "everything visible and invisible", feels people look down on her views "especially under the current [White House] administration". "It interferes with their lifestyle, you know 'If it feels good go ahead and do it' - the Bible doesn't teach that," she says. In fact, she's not sure Darwin believed his own theory. Husband Richard Geesey, 67, a retired university professor, says he was "very impressed" by the museum and liked the fact that scriptures backed up the exhibits. "I believe in a lot of this and wanted to see how accurate it was," he says. "I believe the Earth is around 5,500 years old. If you don't believe in Genesis, you don't believe in anything else."
Firstly, they should have addressed her as an "educator", it's poor journalism, but that's been pointed out.
What hasn't been pointed out, is her husband, the university professor. So I did some minor digging, and this "distinguished scholar", who believes the Earth is 5500 years old, and Genesis is the end-all-be-all of knowledge (it was a totally kick ass gaming system), was actually awarded in 2007 for Excellence in Teaching. For shame, U of Wisconsin. For shame.
Posted by: Mathematician | June 14, 2009 5:30 PM
Another Brit here to confirm that, read in British English, that is not an article supportive of the Creation Museum. Very funny, in fact!
Posted by: Vagueofgodalming | June 14, 2009 5:32 PM
In my experience, if you point out factual inaccuracies (click on 'contact us' then 'website' then 'style, accuracy, grammar') the BBC corrects them. I haven't tried the 'general comments' or 'complaint' links.
Posted by: Happy Tentacles
|
June 14, 2009 5:33 PM
Most British people will take the article in the intended way. No respect is being given to those visitors; they're the exhibits in a freakshow, parading their ignorance and stupidity without realising that we're all laughing at them.
Posted by: Chris P | June 14, 2009 5:41 PM
I don't think PZ understands humour in the British sense. This article reads like something out of the magazine Private Eye.
Something akin to dripping, but subtle, sarcasm.
Chris P
Posted by: PaulJ | June 14, 2009 5:49 PM
It's true that creationism isn't taken seriously by many in the UK, but that's because most people don't think about it at all.
James Williams of Sussex University has studied the growing attempts of creationists to gain a foothold here (creationist comics, the Truth in Science DVDs, etc) and tells how children are being attracted by the large dinosaur model in Portsmouth's Genesis Expo and are dragging their parents inside (it's free). The parents, hoping to keep their children amused with something interesting and educational, take them into the exhibits, not realising that it's all creationist propaganda.
I visited Genesis Expo myself and found it obvious and unsubtle, and a bit pathetic - but I already knew of its creationist roots. If we eventually get something like Ken Ham's ridiculous exhibit in the UK I'm not sure which way opinion would go. I like to think we don't go in for bible-thumping literalism over here, but one can't be certain.
Posted by: ZK
|
June 14, 2009 5:49 PM
I'm English and I expect the average British reader will snigger at that article, as intended.
That said, the BBC can be absolutely terrible at reporting science, or anything with more numbers than they have fingers and toes.
Example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8098245.stm
Apart from the ridiculous premise of the article it contains this little gem:
"It is here on a dried-up lake bed high above sea level that the radio telescopes of the US government's Very Large Array (VLA) send signals to the outer edges of our expanding universe, chasing the very moment of the Big Bang through the trackless void of time and space."
That's a damned good trick if you can do it, bouncing signals off of the edge of the universe, I do hope you've brought sandwiches and a flask because you're in for a very long wait!
See the sort of ignorant reporting we have to put up with? The independents are no better, often as thick as two short ones when it comes to science topics.
It really pisses me off.
Ben Goldacre reads this blog doesn't he? Oi, Ben, go tell 'em will ya? The Beeb would never listen to me, but they'll listen to you!
Ho hum.
ZK
Posted by: Harry | June 14, 2009 6:08 PM
It is typical of today's lazy, uncritical journalism. The point of journalism should be to investigate on our behalf and offer some findings/conclusions. Articles like this are just thrown together with no time for any deeper study and the reader is invited to come to his/her own conclusions based on inadequate, unqualified, information.
This quotes are priceless. One wants parents to decide whether their child should study creationism. Maybe they should also be given the choice to study astology etc.
A Brit.
In which case what is the point?
The writer should When I read something I hope that the writer i
Posted by: catta
|
June 14, 2009 6:33 PM
I don't see a problem with this article. It's neutrally worded but presenting views that the vast majority of readers will see as bizarre and amusing at best; remember that reporting styles are vastly different in the US, in the UK and in the rest of the world -- and you can't blame the BBC for what creationists read into anything. That's like blaming Darwin for what they read into The Origin of Species.
Especially the visitor statements are pretty obviously in there as a "let them make themselves look like idiots so we don't have to spell it out" device.
I don't know if the last paragraph was there when you linked the article, PZ, but it now does state at the end:
"Remained silent" may just mean "no verbal statement".
I agree that the BBC does occasionally have bad science journalism - but remember there isn't just one person working there, and they're not infallible. The vast majority of the Beeb's reporting is still excellent. They still attempt to be neutral when possible and belligerent when necessary, and I like it that way. I don't want all of it to sound like O'Reilly, or Olbermann, nor do I want them to be completely spineless. Fortunately, they're neither.
Posted by: bloodredsun
|
June 14, 2009 6:35 PM
This is a fairly common style of writing at the Beeb. I think that it stems from the idea that the BBC is supposed to be impartial but sometimes covers issues when that is impossible. In this case, it was written for a very British (and very secular) audience with eyebrows firmly raised.
Question - Who goes to a creationist museum?
Answer - Judging from the sample - complete loonies.
Science journos are rarely qualified enough to have more than a 'New Scientist' level of understanding in any particular discipline and sometimes it shows.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 14, 2009 6:39 PM
Yes, yes, I know your average British reader will see this as an amusing poke at those American rubes -- see my second paragraph. But note: your average reader will see it.
You guys aren't reading it like a creationist at all.
That's what I'm trying to tell you: this article will be viewed positively by the creationists. You won't even notice it, but it will help them strengthen their hand. They sound utterly insane to you, but to the creationists...at last, they think, voices of reason in England.
Posted by: skepsci | June 14, 2009 6:46 PM
That's what I thought too, but then why the scare quotes around "47-million-year-old fossil" and "fresh insight"?Posted by: bloodredsun
|
June 14, 2009 6:47 PM
PZ, I can see your point. The lack of negative will been seen as a positive in their eyes. I guess it's similar to debating ID in an academic environment. It doesn't matter if they win of lose, the fact that they are there will be (mis)perceived as validation.
Your last sentence has it right - the level of insanity is almost beyond comprehension so maybe it's difficult for those not regularly exposed to it to understand how mendacious creationists can be.
Posted by: ZK
|
June 14, 2009 6:51 PM
P.Z. precisely what are news agencies supposed to do then? Particularly ones with a legal duty to maintain some degree of neutrality such as the BBC?
Would you suggest that they report in a style a la pharyngula? I hope not because that just won't wash, at least not with new agencies in Britain.
Sorry chap, I think you're just going to have to take the rough with the smooth in this case. The creationist twonks will go quote mining, or looking for some sort of authority from the fact that the BBC wrote about their sky fairy "museum", and that's that. It's done.
It's also not the first time that British television has covered the lunacy of Ken Ham's Creation Museum, in fact the last time I saw it covered on television here Mr Ham came away looking like a thoroughly intolerant wanker with an extremely bullying, maybe even violent stance toward the scientist/journalist who had gone along to interview him (prearranged).
Ho hum.
Posted by: JMk2 | June 14, 2009 6:54 PM
American-style creationism does seem to be leaking into the UK - I was shocked to hear that the very-popular-in-the-UK Sky TV has at least one Christian channel which pushes out standard creationist material (Noah's flood with water coming from a vapour canopy and a column-supported world-spanning deep underground lake etc). I've not got Sky TV myself - just been watching BBC 4 repeat of a documentary about archaeological excavations in Wessex at Silbury Hill (dated in 1969 at 2750 BCE +- 95 years, more recently dated closer to 2400 BCE), with a mention of West Kennet Long Barrow (3600 BCE). Just 400-odd years after the 'creation', but no sign of flood damage, of course.
I wouldn't write off the possibility of creationism becoming established in the UK to the same degree that it is in the US. Anyone know any more about what is going on here, especially about what's on Sky TV, which reaches so many living rooms in the UK?
Posted by: Zembla | June 14, 2009 7:05 PM
PZ,
This article was written in a 'those wacky religious Americans, what are they like?!' kind of vein. Perhaps not obvious to American readers.
Posted by: meloniesch | June 14, 2009 7:09 PM
Like the other Brits who've commented above, I read the BBC article earlier today and felt the journalist's tongue was firmly in cheek. On the subject of creationists in the UK, I do know plenty (my family included). I don't think it's a growing trend, though. They lost me from their ranks 7 years ago. I also heard Ken Ham speak - twice! Yes - dubious claim to fame.....
Posted by: James F | June 14, 2009 7:12 PM
JMk2 #50:
Seriously, has there been a point in post-Dark Ages history where acceptance of science has gone backwards? Anti-vax woo is more immediately dangerous to our well-being, but creationism's outright rejection of biology, geology, and physics is truly insidious.
Posted by: shyster | June 14, 2009 7:16 PM
Writing for a newspaper I interviewed a woman who swore she had been briefly abducted by aliens.
I wrote her account in her words. I also included her education and professional background so that the reader could be assured that I was not making fun of the mentally challenged.
That was my job.
Should I have added my opinion that she was a wackaloon?
No — that was NOT my job.
Besides, maybe her story was true and I didn't want the aliens pissed at me.
Posted by: AdamK | June 14, 2009 7:24 PM
If Darwin isn't a king, would that mean Richard Dawkins isn't a king either? That can't be right.
Posted by: Kompani | June 14, 2009 7:28 PM
I to read the article on the BBC web site this morning and was shocked that nothing was challenged therein and it therefore became a free advertisement for this sham creationist organisation. The BBC produces an excellent web site, superb television and radio programs and should know better. As a BBC licence payer I am somewhat miffed.
Posted by: Deacon Barry | June 14, 2009 7:32 PM
Sky has got about a dozen religious channels, including Godtv, TBN, and Britain's very own christian channel - Revelation. They gave Ken Ham several half hour segments to put across his views - he revealed that the big question everyone wants to know, is who did Cain marry? Answer - his sister (duh!)
The entertainment value of these channels is as high as the intellectual content is low. (Those van Impes crack me up!)
Posted by: Kompani | June 14, 2009 7:33 PM
I to read the article on the BBC web site this morning and was shocked that nothing was challenged therein and it therefore became a free advertisement for this sham creationist organisation. The BBC produces an excellent web site, superb television and radio programs and should know better. As a BBC licence payer I am somewhat miffed.
Posted by: 386sx | June 14, 2009 7:37 PM
Why is Darwin buried with kings at Westminster Abbey? He's not a king.
Yeah that's pretty dern stupid alright. Of course it was meant as a setup for what he wanted to get across next, which was that Darwin was the king of the atheists. In which case it still don't make any freakin sense.
One big slippery slopey mental gymnastics rolly coaster ride down the ad hominem stream of conscience trail of kook-nuttery wing-bat cuckoo bird. Tweet tweet!! Cuckoo!!
Posted by: hans | June 14, 2009 7:47 PM
Well, just another story of money trumps science !
Posted by: hans | June 14, 2009 7:49 PM
Well, just another story of money trumps science !
Posted by: Ompompanoosuc | June 14, 2009 7:51 PM
F*ing BBC. Where is the dog damn comments on that site?
The BBC also had a story about witch doctors in Africa using (and providing a market for) albino body parts and some stupid thing about how the Chinese new year (zodiac, whatever) revealed how the Obama presidency would go, back-to-back one day. Still better than news that originates in the U.S.
If the story is about how the British parliament spent their per diem the reporter *grills* the interviewee. If it is an interview with an archbishop about the pope wanting to sentence a 9 year old Brazilian to motherhood, all is okey fucking dokey.
Posted by: charley
|
June 14, 2009 8:01 PM
PZ @46
Are journalists supposed to self-censor anything that might be misconstrued or misused by ignoramouses? This story provides a little insight for those who simply cannot imagine how creationists think. It's newsworthy, and it's accurate.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 14, 2009 8:05 PM
/snark mode
PZ,
I protest against your liberal use of the word "gomer",which to me is strictly a medical term,and seems way too nice a word to be describing creationists with !
Gomer
/snark mode
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 14, 2009 8:09 PM
It's also a biblical term.
Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | June 14, 2009 8:20 PM
Hey PZ, new rainforest discovered by Darwin Initiative, possible new species:
http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/new-rainforest-discovered-using-google-earth/
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 14, 2009 8:27 PM
Will the Sofa King be buried in Westminster Abbey?
Posted by: Paul Burnett | June 14, 2009 8:28 PM
skepsci (#47) asked: "...why the scare quotes around "47-million-year-old fossil" and "fresh insight"?
In a "6,000-year-old world" you have to put quotes around "47-million-year-old fossil."
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 8:44 PM
Are journalists supposed to self-censor anything that might be misconstrued or misused by ignoramouses?
that would entirely depend on how obvious it would be that something might be misconstrued, or misused, and just how smart the journalist, and their editors/publishers, are.
So, how much credit do you give THIS journalist?
Frankly, I would have given them more credit than you appear to.
I could be wrong. They might be entirely oblivious.
Posted by: echidna | June 14, 2009 8:47 PM
As an Aussie, I can hear both the British snide in the article, and also hear PZ loud and clear.
It's one of those "let those who have ears to hear, hear" moments: of course most British people will read it as intended.
PZ's beef is that there are people who will take it as confirmation of their own idiotic beliefs, and that this will encourage the spread of Creationism.
I will never forget my shock at hearing YEC nonsense in Melbourne for the first time 25 years ago. Now the anti-science memes have taken hold in the local churches, and well-meaning Christians are now undermining science education in the name of "making room for God" - all the while not even realising they are shills for the YEC idiots.
That the BBC allows room for the Creationists to think that they have establishment support is a real problem.
Posted by: QrazyQat | June 14, 2009 8:50 PM
In a "6,000-year-old world" you have to put quotes around "47-million-year-old fossil."
Exactly. Since it's the BBC doing it -- that's their voice there, not a quote from anyone else -- it gives the firm impression that the BBC thinks to some degree that a being in a 6,000-year-old world is a reasonable proposal.
I've sat across from enough Brits who yak on and on about how immigrants have destroyed their country, etc., to be sanguine about their sanity (the least one was a nut-brown daughter of immigrants herself). It's true we in the USA shoot each other with alarming regularity, but I rarely see bare knuckle brawls in normal areas of small and medium-sized towns like I have in the UK. It's not all Masterpiece Theater over there.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 8:51 PM
clear example of misleading journalism:
one, note that the article now elevates creationist nonsense to the level of "theories", and two, note the use of the qualifier word: "claims".
sorry, but this is very poor journalism.
Posted by: tk | June 14, 2009 9:51 PM
a month or so ago BBC world radio had a story on some RC priest sending prayers for people over twitter. with nary a "and do you have evidence it will work?" sort of question. ridiculous.
Posted by: Arcturus Kirwin | June 14, 2009 10:22 PM
Lots of strange and fantastical people were buried in Westminster Abbey.
One of my ancestors was! (The legislator and revolutionary Henry Grattan.)
Posted by: Andrew | June 14, 2009 10:27 PM
I disagree, I think the sarcasm is fairly clear. I think it's too derisive for any creationist to display it proudly. I might always be proved wrong there, though...!
Posted by: Matt | June 14, 2009 10:31 PM
Creationist idiocy, to be sure, but we should anticipate these articles. Leave it to one of the creationists to make a stupid statement about Westminster. Out of 100, 90 theories support creationism theories? Where do these individuals receive their ridiculous figures? Do they even understand how science functions at all?
I swear, this world disappoints me greatly.
Posted by: Matt | June 14, 2009 10:38 PM
Oh, and I found it completely and utterly laughable when a religious lady claimed that "libruls and atheists" wanted to outlaw free speech. Typically, every atheist I've met has been very Libertarian-minded. We don't want to impose *our* morality on society. No - we don't conform to pre-set rules and expectations. If anything would outlaw free speech, it's the theocratic society that most of them secretly desire.
School prayer? Check. Religious idols displayed on every corner? Check. Christianity-based laws? Check. (Incidentally, the Commandments contradict capitalistic ideals!)
Posted by: NoGurus | June 14, 2009 10:47 PM
I do see a bit of dry British humor in the piece, but that is not the problem. The problem is when a paper is afraid to give the other side of the story they are giving these crazy ideas and their hucksters a free pass. Sure the British intellectuals will give the article a snicker and laugh at those crazy Americans, but the majority of the Brits will see an article that offers no criticism of Creationism.
Despite the difference in tone, the problem is exactly the same in America. Cowardly news outlets are afraid to take on religion for fear of offending readers and losing money.
That is why scathing criticisms like PZ's are so valuable. PZ is not afraid of offending the religious wackos and calling them on their b.s. PZ often offends me and I have said so, but at the very least he offers an informed opinion that I can become offended at and rebel against. That's a lot more than I can say for these namby pamby news organizations, who in their timidity will avoid offending the masses, but they will have to sacrifice truth and integrity in order to do so.
Posted by: genesgalore | June 14, 2009 10:48 PM
why, i represent that modern stone age family.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 14, 2009 10:57 PM
Harry @ 43:
Holy shit, man!
Where can I score some of that?
Posted by: gearloose
|
June 14, 2009 10:59 PM
#67: That's (groan) sofa kingdom.
Posted by: H.H. | June 14, 2009 11:12 PM
A lot of people keep defending the article on the basis that the creationists "hang themselves with their own words," but that's only true to readers who are already informed about evolution and the age of the Earth. But say you didn't know anything about evolution or creationism and this article was your first exposure to the idea that a controversy exists. Based on the content within this article alone and not assuming any prior knowledge, does the article present creationism unfavorably or favorably (or maybe even just more favorably than it deserves)?
Shrug off this sort of "balanced" coverage at your peril. You can keep on thinking the average Brit is smart enough to see straight through the lies, right until the day you wake up one morning and read in the paper that the creationists outnumber you.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | June 14, 2009 11:28 PM
"P.Z. precisely what are news agencies supposed to do then? Particularly ones with a legal duty to maintain some degree of neutrality such as the BBC?"
Do you mean to say that if the BBC interviews a man who thinks he's Napoleon, they are not allowed to intimate that he may not be?
I disagree with this definition of neutrality - that there's no such thing as reality.
Posted by: Otto | June 14, 2009 11:36 PM
So Richard Geesey teaches Forestry?
He is a lumberjack!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQOMxz-O7Sc
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | June 14, 2009 11:58 PM
At first I thought PZ overreacted, after all, I read the article and laughed at the silly creationists. However, I read it a second time, and I realized that between the unnecessary scare quotes, the errors, and the inappropriately taking their side, I laughed at the creationists not because the article is trying to make fun of them, but because they are so silly that even a sympathetic article can't protect them. From my eyes that is. Feed this to someone who is even a bit sympathetic to creationism and on him the article will leave a quite different impression.
Posted by: Mena | June 15, 2009 12:02 AM
Kind of on topic, my husband sent me this link today and it reminded me of you guys.
http://www.partiallyclips.com/index.php?id=1594
Posted by: Ditch | June 15, 2009 12:12 AM
Thank you for enlightening us as to the perniciousness of understated sarcasm.
It's not just the BBC that have gone down this road, and it could be a struggle to get us on all the right side, but I'm sure concerted efforts will be made. Where we need to express ourselves more simply, bearing in mind the different world perspectives of others, we should consider doing so.
I thought "Mr Rubin's sign-off sentiments could be taken as a conciliatory gesture to those who would beg to differ with his views" was particularly piss-poor. Heaven forbid anyone think that such sentiments are conciliatory.
"The guy is a freakin' idiot" has its merits, but unfortunately the direct style is not yet ubiquitous.
Speaking plainly, I found the article amusing, the caption hilarious, and I beg to differ with the interesting view that it constitutes "bland reporting."
Mind you, as far as I know, the phrase "I beg to differ" may only express mild disagreement in certain parts of the world, and - in all genuineness - such nuances can indeed present a problem.
In short, let us have our snark on our bbc.co.uk website - what good does it do to dumb down and think as a creationist would?
Posted by: Penny | June 15, 2009 12:51 AM
#42 - I emailed the BBC about the Roswell story last night, and this morning (UK time) they have corrected the bit about the VLA 'sending' signals.
My question to all of you who are attacking the article - have any of you actually complained to the BBC? If enough people complain they may either change it, or learn a little for next time.
This is mainly addressed to pharyngulites in the UK - as I would hope that an organisation paid for with UK TV licences would take more note of complaints from the paying customers.
They may, of course, ignore such comments, but it doesn't take long to compose a (polite) message pointing out some specific problems with it (e.g. the science that 'claims' to contradict creationism). If no-one complains they may not even realise that they have presented something that could be taken as supporting creationism in some way.
(Although like most Brits who have commented above, I think the thing is poking fun at nutters without saying so directly.)
Posted by: woodstein312 | June 15, 2009 2:16 AM
I agree with Daniel @ 4,
PZ, while I share your contempt for the "museum" itself, I think the article really isn't a "piss poor" example of journalism as you've described it.
Instead, I don't really see the author taking any stance one way or another about the veracity of the museum or its claims. It's more or less objective and focuses primarily on the people who visit the museum -- who are, of course, religious wackjobs.
But the piece lets the readers decide for themselves how much credence ( none) the museum and the people who visit it deserve.
The author doesn't take the time to debunk the museum's claims -- on that you're right -- but he also doesn't set out with that intend anyway. This is a so-called "people story," a feature that's more about the personalities involved than the controversy of science/religious quackery, which I think is what you'd prefer (and which has already been done to death by countless other writers).
It appears, at least, the only thing that would please you is yet another editorial slamming (deservedly) the museum for its message. But that isn't necessarily journalism (at least it's not supposed to be). That would be editorial writing, which is something very different - and I don't think I really have explain how it's different.
Posted by: Steve P. | June 15, 2009 2:34 AM
Poor PZ, getting harder and harder to be a skeptic these days. Creationism is sleeping under your bed. What's an atheist to do?
I think you need to fire your advertising manager. Time for a new 'fortuitous mutations over deep time explain everything' ad campaign.
Got an idea. Show a creationist being 'build up' step-wise over say a million years, but crunch it into a couple of $1,000,000 minutes.
That ought to get people thinking about the idiocy of creationism.
:)
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 3:11 AM
But the piece lets the readers decide for themselves how much credence ( none) the museum and the people who visit it deserve.
....without anything to compare it to, and using horribly waffly language besides.
this is the problem.
None is a conclusion YOU reached. there's nothing in the author's piece to suggest that's the only sane conclusion TO reach.
many people will not reach the same conclusion.
as much as apparently many in the UK want to ignore it, creationism has a good foothold there, too.
Now I think I can see why.
It appears, at least, the only thing that would please you is yet another editorial slamming (deservedly) the museum for its message.
now that's an interesting conclusion, where exactly did you draw that from reading PZ's article?
oh, you inferred it, did you?
...and you don't see the irony at all, do you.
Frankly, I would have been happy to have the author not use waffle words like "creation theories" (of which there are none and have never been), and "scientific claims", which again there are none (there is scientific evidence that completely annihilates the creationist dogma).
Posted by: tmplikeachilles | June 15, 2009 3:13 AM
Well, I'm British, and I don't think this article is a wry look at crazy yankee religious zealotry. I think it is a good example of the pernicious concept of "balance" which infests British journalism and whose champion is the BBC. Just take a look at their Israel/Palestine coverage, for example.
In any case, this is an article put out on the internet. If (as other British posters seem to be claiming) non-British (i.e. forrin) readers need special extra-patronising irony lessons in order to read it properly, then that is a serious failing of the article in question.
Posted by: Cruithne | June 15, 2009 3:15 AM
As another Brit who has read the article I also agree that it comes across as clearly mocking and derisory in tone.
The only quibble I have is with the wording of one phrase, previously mentioned upthread
But what do creationists make of the scientific evidence that claims to undermine their theories?
I can live with that, just as I can live with PZ's mistake of using the term 'English' to describe all Brits.
Posted by: Canary | June 15, 2009 3:18 AM
Eeeeeewwwww at BBC
Posted by: bassmanpete | June 15, 2009 3:47 AM
Matt @76 said 'I swear, this world disappoints me greatly.'
The world doesn't disappoint me in the least; some of the people though...!
Posted by: Mads | June 15, 2009 3:53 AM
I can see this article happening in Denmark as well, because I think most Danes find it self evident that believing in creationism is stupid. I base my claim on the fact that a recent study showed that only 8% of the Danish population believe in creationism of some sort (That's 8% to many, but still...). It agree it is bad journalism and it would be in Denmark as well, but Danish article does not have such a big impact because of the language barrier, unless of cause the feature cartoons. BBC should know better. They are a world renowned source of news (often the standard is very high) and they report in English which make them easy to understand and quote. This is a perfect example of lazy journalism because the journalist has not considered his audience and has written the piece as if it would be read by people with se same view as he.
Posted by: SEF | June 15, 2009 4:09 AM
No, the BBC standard is not very high. They're resting on the laurels of a good reputation which they haven't deserved for decades. It's about time more people started seeing them how they really are.
Eg the first BBC news headline I saw today: "Flu risk 'still low' after death". I'd say my risk of catching flu was actually much lower than normal once I had already died. They're well-roundedly incompetent and self-admittedly habitually dishonest.
Posted by: Linda | June 15, 2009 4:26 AM
@#3
"Which has the average Brit gasping; How far???That's from Cronwall to off the map, fer chrissakes!"
Perhaps us Brits think that 1000 miles is a long, long way, but many Americans think that 1000 years is a long, long time. :-)
And as for the article, yes, creationists will read this BBC article as sympathetic, but then they think that the 'Darwin was Wrong' article from New Scientist is sympathetic too. Perhaps the journo was erring on the side of impartiality - wasn't there a case recently where a anti-pseudo-science article in New Scientist got pulled because a bunch of religious types complained?
Posted by: Steamshovelmama | June 15, 2009 4:42 AM
Having read this blog with great pleasure - and approval - for some time I'm delurking in order to disagree.
As others upstream in the comments have stated this is *not* a neutral article. Reportage -at least, quality reportage - in Britain will *never* interpret the story for the reader. This is a very big cultural difference between us and the style of reportage used in the States where journalists seem to find it necessary to tell the reader how they should be reading the article.
The key, from a Brit POV, to reading this typical BBC article, is to look at the juxtapositions of examples within the text and, most particularly, at the fact that the quotes given are all the exact words of the people involved. If you're reading this as a Brit you are *laughing* at these kooks. It's an in joke between the reporter and the reader. It's a "look how dumb these hicks are" attitude.
And, yes, the idiot creationists won't get it. So what? Given they quote mine overtly negative articles having one they've completely misinterpreted isn't really significant.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 15, 2009 4:59 AM
Several points.
It's in the 'magazine' section and is specifically asking the question, in Darwin's Bicentennial year, who in the modern world would go to such a place? It's perfectly valid and Aunty is trusting its readership to know these are freaks, they are presented as such. Sure with standard British understatement, but be assured they are being portrayed as 'strange people' and by implication 'not like us'. It's a standard cultural trope that obviously does not travel.
Also PZ what do you think the first B in BBC stands for? saying 'England' when you mean Britain is demeaning to the rest of these islands and those of us who live here. Doctor Who may be made in devolved Cardiff, but it is still the BBC, not the EBC, the WBC and the SBC.
Finally wrt Ham's silence, that was obviously in the context of the interview, iow the interviewer asked for which I say good on them. Furthermore, having asked they reported the lack of a response. That AIG has one is not relevant or germane to that context. Ham was caught struck dumb and reported as being so. That is not a failure, it is a strike for us. Stop being so grumpy PZ, yes the stiletto was oiled so that Ham did not feel it sliding between his ribs and you did not perceive it either, but I assure it was being wielded, with a disarming smile.
We Brits do character assassination and it is a blood sport here too, only it should not look like one. That is what the tabloids do, Aunty does it differently.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 15, 2009 5:05 AM
Addendum:
It's in the same tradition as Louie Theroux and his Weird Weekends. When he presented us with the ageing Neo Nazi who liked Are You Being Served he gave the guy some rope and he proceeded to hang himself. That it helped a lot to be steeped in British culture to see it, he definitely hung himself and Louie definitely knew he was doing so and let him. As I said, it's a standard cultural trope.
Posted by: SEF | June 15, 2009 5:06 AM
No, the quote extracted by myself and then Ichthyic, Penny and Cruithne gives the lie to all the BBC-apologist types of readings of the piece.
Try reading that in the sarcastic tone of voice which some of you seem to be imagining exists for the article and see where it gets you.The writing is all too typical of ill-educated BBC staff output. Reality is not "neutral". Modern journalistic versions of "neutrality" (especially trying to claim it as a virtue) are somewhat selective, highly misguided and frequently dishonest.
Posted by: alephzero | June 15, 2009 5:18 AM
Could be needless subtlety on the side of the journalists, or it could also be the belated effects of relativistic, 'open-minded' postmodernist indoctrination.
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 15, 2009 5:38 AM
As a Dutchman, I can say that I perceived the mild sarcasm in the article. The first sentence gives it away:
You know immediately that this can't be a very serious museum. I do think the article is too one-sided, though. Couldn't they have cited at least one sceptic visitor? Or asked the opinion of a paleontologists? I would at least have dropped the name 'Flintstones' somewhere.
That said, I did learn something from the article. I always pictured the Creation Museum as some crappy House-of-Wax style outfit (with Ken Ham in the role of Vincent Price). But it is huge, on much bigger grounds than the Natural History Museum in London. It's true: everything is bigger in America.
Posted by: Gilian | June 15, 2009 5:56 AM
"Also PZ what do you think the first B in BBC stands for? saying 'England' when you mean Britain is demeaning to the rest of these islands and those of us who live here. "
Well, in my experience, the only ones using the word Britain are the English, since most of the people living outside of England but inside of Britain call themselves Welsh, Scottish, Irish and so forth. Anything but British actually.
:)
Posted by: BigBob | June 15, 2009 6:17 AM
Steamshovelmama and Peter Ashby have both hit the nail with precision. We Brits don't require our journos to lead us by the hand. We get it, we laugh. Frankly, the fact that some non-Brits don't get it, makes it funnier. Even my xtian colleague read the article and said, "oh god, is that how we look"? It's more than just the language that separates us.
Posted by: Walton | June 15, 2009 6:24 AM
As a Brit, I disagree. The media - even the "quality" media - universally feeds its readers propaganda of one sort or another (depending on the particular outlet's audience and political orientation).
I think it's honestly very difficult, if not impossible, to report on a controversial issue in a way that's genuinely completely neutral. One inevitably has to make editorial decisions about what to include, and about how much weight to devote to various perspectives. It's therefore better in some ways to have a media outlet which is unashamedly and obviously partisan, than one which pretends to be "neutral".
In Britain, our TV and radio news attempt to maintain the appearance of "neutrality" (indeed, the BBC is obliged to do so by its charter, and OFCOM - our equivalent of the FCC - places tight restrictions on political partisanship even on commercial channels). By contrast, our press is, by and large, unashamedly partisan, with different papers supporting different political points of view. I find the press much more easy to stomach than the BBC, for this reason. As I understand it, though, in the US it's largely the other way around; your TV news (Fox et al.) is highly partisan, whereas your reputable newspapers make a pretence of being above partisanship.
Regarding this article: I agree with Professor Myers, I think it's much too friendly to creationism. However, because of the Beeb's charter and obligation to treat controversial issues in a "neutral" fashion, they have no choice but to pretend to take woo seriously. This is why I don't agree with the legal position of the BBC (but that's another issue and I won't discuss it here, as I'll be accused of hijacking the thread).
Posted by: Penny | June 15, 2009 6:24 AM
Gilian #105
Yeah - but 'Brit' is a handy collective noun when you really do mean 'English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish'...
(or are you pointing out that it is only the English that are secure enough in their national identity to not mind being lumped in with former subject nations....)
:-)
[removes tongue from cheek]
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 15, 2009 6:26 AM
I have visited the creationist museum in Portsmouth, and was thrown out.
It was a pretty pathetic effort, unless they had the aim of showing how dishonest they are. It is small, and consists of display cabinets containing fossils, stuffed animals, rocks etc. Each cabinet has an explanation of how fossils, adaptations etc are not evidence for evolution. Most seemed to employ quote mining, including the Darwin eye quote. I did start taking notes on all their errors, but gave up when I had filled 6 pages of A4 and was not even a quarter of the way round.
After viewing the exhibits I went to the information desk and asked why they were misquoting Darwin. They denied they were, so I got out a copy of Origins (I'd gone prepared) and showed them. They asked me to leave. I left the copy of Origins on the desk, but as I was standing on the pavement outside it was thrown out of the door to land beside me.
Portsmouth is a popular tourist destination, and the museum is located next to the Historic Naval Dockyard, where HMS Victory is, and across the road from the train station and where ferries leave for the Isle of Wight. It could not be in a better location in Portsmouth for attracting visitors. It advertises that dinosaur fossils are on view, and they do have a lovely fossil dino egg. For them to get only 50,000 visitors in 7 years is pathetic.
Posted by: istara | June 15, 2009 6:53 AM
I am British, and my first thought when reading it was that it was far too neutrally written. While I could see what the the journalist was trying to do (eg picking utter wack-jobs for the vox pops), I could also sense them bending over backwards to follow the BBC's policies of neutrality and "respect" and so on.
I also feared - correctly - that a lot of people reading it wouldn't get the subtlety. Perhaps this is because I've lived overseas a bit, which gives you more insight into how people from other cultures interpret one another's media. Irony and sarcasm in particular get utterly lost in translation, and not just between English and non-English speakers.
The UK attitude to disregarding creationism is dangerous. It is allowing creationism to seep into the system unchecked and unchallenged. When I grew up in the UK, even being educated at a hyper religious school, creationism was unheard of. We were taught that Genesis was "partly an allegory" and there was no mixing whatsoever of science and religion. This is worryingly no longer the case in many schools.
So I agree that the BBC doesn't help by writing this kind of article. It needed a lot more background and angle that creationism is NOT conventional science, that it is not even considered science.
At the end of the day the BBC is a public service broadcaster. Its primary, state-funded role is to inform. Where a story conflicts with factual information, education, reason, logic and science, it should not just be treated as any other story. A policy of neutrality ("political correctness") is no longer appropriate. The BBC's duty is to leave the public informed, not to open doors of misinformation. Which unfortunately it did in this case.
Posted by: Sam C | June 15, 2009 7:04 AM
Bollocks, as we say in England.
You're grumbling because a British broadcaster has written an article aimed primarily at a British readership, rather than writing one that furthers your own local agenda in America.
Christian creationism is a US problem. Yes, creationists exist in other countries, but it's not a problem in most of them, especially not in Europe. It's tolerated and laughed at, but it's not important or influential. In Britain, we don't need to go on the warpath at every bit of creationist nonsense, because we don't have a country stuffed of anti-science cretins and liars.
It is not our responsibility in Britain to deal with your problem in America. If creationists choose to mis-represent the BBC's article, so be it, but why can't you sciencey guys get your head around the point that creationism in the USA is NOT a scientific issue (we know the science, evolution by natural selection is a superb and correct explanation), it's a POLITICAL argument. The science is irrelevant to the argument.
It might a subtle distinction (never underestimate cultural differences even if the language looks the same!) but that little gallery of visitors makes a British reader think "wow! what a bunch of idiots!".
And that will be far more effective at mocking creationism to a British readership than shouting thuddingly dull slogans and listing refutations and sources. Not everything has to be done at a scream.
Posted by: Lynsey | June 15, 2009 7:18 AM
:p The bbc tosses a bone to it's creationist section of the licence fee payers... such as an animatronic dinosaur deserves.
Whilst David Attenborough deservedly took centre stage in his broadcast support for Darwin.
The bbc can only exist as is if it's not seen to be polarised. :o Who knows what subtle gems wouldn't exist if it were otherwise. The airing of 'jerry springer the opera' generated a fantastic feud that was more farce than fever.
I do tend to sympathise with the bbc's position as long as the commercial channels don't emmulate them too much and hold up their end on the creativity stakes. Hard to predict how different things would be without the licence fee. It would be an interesting exercise, that and getting rid of the royal family would make us quite a different nation.
It's a shame we don't have HBO over here though.
Posted by: IainW | June 15, 2009 7:34 AM
Gilian (#105):
Hmm. I was born in England (although not that far from Wales) of Northern Irish parentage, raised in Northern Ireland, my ancestry is primarily Scottish, and I now live in England again. I think that gives me some claim to be British in a meaningful sense, since I have connections to most parts of the British Isles but none strong enough to constitute an "identity" (and frankly, an upbringing in Northern Ireland is enough to immunise one for life against the pettiness of regional nationalism).
So I think of myself as British, a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And I doubt I'm the only one.
Oh, and as for the article, to this Brit it looks like a "people believe the oddest things" piece, combined with careless reportage.
Posted by: echidna | June 15, 2009 7:35 AM
SamC@111,
Twenty years ago, I would have said the same thing about Australia.
What has gone wrong in the US is that in many parts of the country people are too polite to openly disagree with each other, especially over religion and politics (too many guns about for that maybe?).
In the UK and Australia (and in NY for the most part) people are generally outspoken enough to ridicule BS when they hear it, and that is very protective. By being polite, "throwing a bone" as Lynsey puts it, you give false legitimacy to the idiots. After a while, it gets out of control.
The UK is not immune, and the ridiculous libel laws don't help.
Posted by: Mrjonno | June 15, 2009 7:35 AM
Agreeing with #111 SamC that creationism is a political problem but I would go further than that and that its basically the entire system of democracy that is at fault.
It's a hard fact that American democracy has let people power go to far, parents (or politicans) should not be involved in designing textbooks or reading lists. They should no more be electing what happens in a science lesson as you should be electing who flies a plane.
Fundamentally there is a place for elections and there is a place for elites to run things, ie teachers are choosen by senior teachers, pilots are choosen by senior pilots etc
Posted by: Mrjonno | June 15, 2009 7:39 AM
Agreeing with #111 SamC that creationism is a political problem but I would go further than that and that its basically the entire system of democracy that is at fault.
It's a hard fact that American democracy has let people power go to far, parents (or politicans) should not be involved in designing textbooks or reading lists. They should no more be electing what happens in a science lesson as you should be electing who flies a plane.
Fundamentally there is a place for elections and there is a place for elites to run things, ie teachers are choosen by senior teachers, pilots are choosen by senior pilots etc
Posted by: Mrjonno | June 15, 2009 7:43 AM
Agreeing with #111 SamC that creationism is a political problem but I would go further than that and that its basically the entire system of democracy that is at fault.
It's a hard fact that American democracy has let people power go to far, parents (or politicans) should not be involved in designing textbooks or reading lists. They should no more be electing what happens in a science lesson as you should be electing who flies a plane.
Fundamentally there is a place for elections and there is a place for elites to run things, ie teachers are choosen by senior teachers, pilots are choosen by senior pilots etc
Posted by: Christiaan | June 15, 2009 7:45 AM
This article is dripping with irony which the British public will most certainly recognise.
You also don't have you facts straight, if you click on the big banner on ham's site, there is no article about Darwinius masillae. Just some generic nonsense about newspaper articles.
The journalist did forget to check carefully - because there is an article about Darwinius masillae if you use the search function, but the site itself doesn't link to it.
Seems they don't want creationist to read it unless they search for it.
It's a journalistic error that the BBC didn't report this, but it does give the impression Ken Ham is embarassed by the evidence. I'm guessing that reporter didn't really want to search too much.
Posted by: MrJonno
|
June 15, 2009 7:47 AM
Agreeing with #111 SamC that creationism is a political problem but I would go further than that and that its basically the entire system of democracy that is at fault.
It's a hard fact that American democracy has let people power go to far, parents (or politicans) should not be involved in designing textbooks or reading lists. They should no more be electing what happens in a science lesson as you should be electing who flies a plane.
Fundamentally there is a place for elections and there is a place for elites to run things, ie teachers are choosen by senior teachers, pilots are choosen by senior pilots etc
Posted by: John Morales | June 15, 2009 7:59 AM
Christiaan,
What facts are wrong here? Is it not featured top center in a big full color banner? Has not Ham been lying noisily and frantically about the fossil record? Where does PZ write that clicking on the banner leads to an article about D. Massillae?
Care to sustain your claim?
Posted by: Chris | June 15, 2009 8:10 AM
As a Brit, I do have a couple of comments on this:
1) I agree that the journalist almost certainly has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek. If not because of the actual text, but because of the fruit-loops that were interviewed. To most Brits (the target audience) the obvious one-sided ignorance of these quotes is a freak show.
2) However, we are getting more input from religious nuts, thanks in part to the dearly departed Tony Blair. There are faith-based schools/colleges that have started to appear, some of which have been bankrolled by creationists. It is a definite issue in some parts of the country.
3) Portsmouth? That's my neck of the woods. I may try to get thrown out of there too!
4) We've got Darwin on one of our bank notes. Gotta love it.
Posted by: Francesco Orsenigo | June 15, 2009 8:55 AM
I don't see why the BBC should have criticized the Museum.
They're doing journalism, they stick to the facts.
You're getting (understandably, I'd say) oversensitive.
Creationism is an US problem, AFAIK on this other side of the Atlantic it is an issue only in Turkey and Iran.
Almost none here takes "the controversity" seriously.
Posted by: SEF | June 15, 2009 9:37 AM
For those who imagine the "article is dripping with irony": it isn't. Dripping (or oozing) with irony would look more like the following (NB amended bits from it, preserving creationist quotes and putting them into context):
However, it is true that the majority of British readers will regard the statements from the creationists as evidence that those particular Americans are delusional ignoramuses. The average Brit probably won't see them as being dangerously delusional ignoramuses though.
Posted by: Kismet | June 15, 2009 9:51 AM
Some people simply don't get it (woodstein312, Francesco and many others). Giving the same credibility or space to Creationist claims is NOT neutrality. Journalism does not mean losing focus of reality FFS.
You mean reflecting on the fact that 99.9% of scientists disagree with creationism would be bad journalism or editorialising? If that is true, then I couldn't care less about your form of "good journalism" and no one should.
I prefer the Wikipedian NPOV; even in articles about creationism it is mentioned that those views are contested.
Posted by: AJS | June 15, 2009 10:04 AM
If you think the article gives credibility to idiots, it's only because you are misinterpreting it. Remember which organisation it comes from, and where they are based.
In the UK, the notion that the universe is anything shy of billions of years old has approximately the same amount of credibility as the notion that television sets are full of little people who act out all the shows.
Any one of us Britons can step out of our front door, travel for less than an hour, and see and touch something thousands of years old ..... the idea that the world was created just 240 generations ago is frankly laughable.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 15, 2009 10:20 AM
What really amazes me is all of the "brits" commenting here who oh so easily able to discern the sarcasm in the article are completely unable to read PZ's comments with any kind of comprehension, particularly this, "But still, look at the article as a creationist would." Not as a Brit who is so accustomed to the BBC particular brand of british satire, but as a CREATIONIST. It is amazing who many comments here are "I'm british and it is clear it was ridiculing them", or "you have to read it like a british person would". That is not the point, a news article should not be written in a kind of "code" that only one audience will understand, especially one that is posted on the web (you do understand what "www" stands for right?). And the thing is this isn't some article from a little newspaper in the middle of nowhere with a circulation of dozens. It's the BBC; that has built a reputation of reporting internationally to an international audience.
[in addition to not being able to read a simple error message that says "do not resubmit]
Posted by: Cruithne | June 15, 2009 10:22 AM
"Reportage -at least, quality reportage - in Britain will *never* interpret the story for the reader."
Sorry but that's patent bollox, especially in stories about the monarchy from the BBC which are almost univerally fawning and designed to perpetuate support for the current system. As a British republican this makes me angry.
Remember that Orwell wrote 1984 partially as a result of his experiences working at the BBC.
Posted by: Christiaan | June 15, 2009 10:22 AM
@ John Morales, #120
My bad.
Because I don't like to stay long on the AiG site, I overlooked the link to the article about Darwinius masillae.
You got your facts straight, PZ.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | June 15, 2009 10:32 AM
For a look at humour on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8098245.stm
_____________<;,><_____________
One of the quotes:
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 15, 2009 10:35 AM
@Gilian
Been to deepest darkest Lanarkshire recently? where they paint the kerbstones red white and blue and where Loyalist paramilitaries and their families find succour? There is far more to Scottish sentiment than the Braveheart tendency and if the polls are to be believed the English are keener on Scottish Independence than us Scots are. The Welsh are even more reluctant than the Scots for their own Independence.
Don't mistake the election of Nationalist politicians in Edinburgh and Cardiff for major support for independence in either place. People are sick of Labour and the Tories are still nowhere in either place, the Liberals here in Scotland are tainted by being in govt with Labour. There was nowhere else to turn, but still they Nats could not win a majority and nobody wanted to go into coalition with them. Wee Eck may be strutting around as though he has a huge mandate (ooh er missus!) but he leads a minority government.
Posted by: BC | June 15, 2009 10:43 AM
It is a little odd that no one has picked up on the poll mentioned in the BBC article in question. It clearly states that “A 2006 survey for the BBC's Horizon programme, found a fifth of people polled [from the UK] were convinced by the creationist argument and just less than half accepted evolution as the best description for the development of life”. The full details can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm
That 22% opted for creationism and 17% chose ID might perhaps come as a surprise to those suggesting here that such views are uncommon in Britain. The ability to fondle antiquity at will (#125) is evidently not enough to prevent such ideas remaining current.
Perhaps the absence of any serious overt criticism (i.e. quotes from palaeontologists or any other informed professional demolishing this monument to superstition) is a reflection of the BBC’s drive for balance and 'impartiality'. It could also be because this was a small article intended for amusement and was not subjected to the serious scrutiny prior to publication that it has now received.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 15, 2009 10:49 AM
@SteveM #126
When you pay for a TV license here in these sceptered isles, then you might have a right to question how OUR broadcasting corporation speaks to US. Until then the domestic problems of a FOREIGN country should not sway how something is reported to us and by us. Just think how you would react were us Brits to start picking holes in your craven media (Jon Stuart and Steven Colbert excepted).
YOUR creationists and how they perceive the world are not OUR problem, we have our own brand and they have a longer pedigree than yours and we don't allow ours guns.
Churchill was right, we are two people's divided by a common language. One day you Yanks (in the sense WE mean it) might grow up and learn that language can be a subtle tool rather than a shouted bludgeon.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 15, 2009 11:02 AM
MrJonno #119 (etc etc etc):
No, the fault is not with the democratic system, it's with popular and populist misconceptions of what constitutional democracy entails. Evidently, a lot of people never make it past the "majority rules" and "everyone's view is just as good as anyone else's" egalitarianism of a children's birthday party.
This tracks along very nicely with populist misconceptions on what evolution is, which are also stuck somewhere in toddlerhood.
Posted by: Pen | June 15, 2009 11:09 AM
My personal view is that you underestimate our sensitivity to sarcasm, PZ.
Posted by: Steve | June 15, 2009 11:10 AM
I weep for our country. A scientist works for years to get a peer-reviewed piece published, it is then dismissed by some inbred gomer from the creation "museum". We could not possibly look worse than the way those interviews paint us.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 15, 2009 11:14 AM
I agree with those that Brits are expected not to swallow that shit like many Americans do.
Then again, it's probably just the American type of creationist moron who will indeed be encouraged by flat reporting of lies.
So it could backfire.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 15, 2009 11:17 AM
This couple with all those demands to be "listened to" that I am sure are as prevalent in your media as they are here in the UK. Groups are always demanding their views be listened, when in fact they have bbeen listened, and the views rejected. What people really mean when they complain they have not been listened to is that have not been allowed to have their own way.
Posted by: Al | June 15, 2009 11:37 AM
It's not all bad news at the BBC...
Posted by: Austin | June 15, 2009 11:59 AM
Well, does it really matter? How is this museum differ from a church? I know it urks published academics, but then a lot of things do. I won't react to it, because it just doesn't carry any real weight. Most people like to argue if someone differs in opinion, science just needs to ignore the banter like so much noise. My prof doesn't argue if I don't agree with him, or fail to complete his assignments, he'll just give me a bad grade. Do the same with pseudoscience. Stay away from the ad hominem, let them do that- righteous anger and all that. ;)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 15, 2009 12:02 PM
It is different because it calls itself a museum.
Posted by: balagan
|
June 15, 2009 12:04 PM
Personally I think the BBC should commission Louis Theroux to go and spend a week with Ken Ham. He has a very adept talent at letting people demonstrate just how batshit crazy they are.
Posted by: SEF | June 15, 2009 12:17 PM
@ Al #138:
The cephalopods are nice but, as usual, the BBC is utter pants at the science and maths part of it. Eg:
For an approximately constant speed of sound, say around 1500 metres per second in water, a higher frequency (Hz = cycles per second), ie "sounds above", means a smaller/shorter, not greater/longer, wavelength (metres per cycle) - with those 2 things being multiplied together to give the speed.Was that also "a small article intended for amusement and ... not subjected to ... serious scrutiny prior to publication" (@ BC #131)? Or is the modern BBC, as I contend, fundamentally incompetent at many levels.
Posted by: SEF | June 15, 2009 12:25 PM
You Yanks (and many Brits too) have got to stop regarding the BBC as the bees knees - unless to you that means: on its last legs, hairy, disease-ridden and infested with parasitic mites!
In reality, the BBC (because of its staff) is an extremely untrustworthy institution.
Posted by: Austin | June 15, 2009 12:27 PM
Well Matt,
You've done it! Maybe we can get the law to define what a museum is a how it must establish itself.
If an organization can't scientifically present an accurate educational interpretation of it's artifacts, it cannot be a museum, etc.
But this can get out of hand quickly. Oh well.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 15, 2009 12:39 PM
Such an organisation can call itself a museum if it wishes. However, neither it, not you, then have grounds for complaint when it is judged by the standards people expect museums to maintain.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 15, 2009 12:41 PM
That makes absolutely no sense. Especially when juxtaposed with the comment about Stuart and Colbert whose sole job is to pick holes in our craven media. Why would it upset me to have the same criticism coming from a Brit rather than a Yank? And frankly I'm surprised to hear this petty kind of nationalism (only brits can criticize the BBC). No I don't expect the BBC to tailor itself to my criticisms, but that does not mean I can not express it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 15, 2009 12:47 PM
The BBC, except for the World Service, exists to serve the a UK audience. Why then do you think it should give priority to a US audience ? Especially when said audience does not fund the BBC.
Posted by: Qwerty | June 15, 2009 12:55 PM
Let's fact facts: If this article had a vicious attack on creationism, it would be protrayed as "the liberal media" attacking Biblical Truth(TM). So, perhaps sledge hammering creationists may not be as effective as PZ thinks.
I was amused by the attendee who described himself as "a creationist in training." Doesn't he know that as a creationist all he needs to know is three words: God did it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 15, 2009 12:58 PM
For some being able to remember those three words could take a long long time.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 15, 2009 1:01 PM
So what? That's true.
Selection. Hello? Descent with modification by mutation, selection, and drift.
Selection is Darwin's great discovery, not mutation. It's even in the title of his most famous book.
Isn't it obvious what this ridiculously overshortened headline means? "Someone says that the flu risk is 'still low' even now that someone has died from it".
Yeah, right. Because there is no Internet, there is no EU, and Americans – especially those on this very blog – all fawn over Faux News all the time.
<sigh>
"Domestic problem".
Posted by: Austin | June 15, 2009 1:11 PM
Matt,
You're right. You can tell the legal world isn't my forte.
Science Vs. Religion will be an issue for a long time to come, perhaps forever.
I never heard of critical thinking until college, well, a little from Sagan on TV. Schools should stress that as much as math, at least.
I'm starting to clutter this blog. I'll stop! Anyway great conversation, thanks for the input.
Posted by: SEF | June 15, 2009 1:19 PM
Paradoxically (or ironically!), it would have been more obvious/correct if it was shorter, viz: "Flu risk 'still low'". Then the main article could have begun: "Despite the recent death ...".Posted by: DeusExMacintosh | June 15, 2009 1:23 PM
As a Brit, the local reaction could best be summed up as
"BWAH, ha ha hah! They paid HOW much for that piece of ****?"
It's capping the age of the earth at 10,000 years that really puts the ky-bosh on this desperate grasp for credibility. The UK is a nation of Time Team watchers (it's like an archaeological equivalent of Extreme Home Makeovers) so we're not going to be easily fooled, but it is entirely newsworthy when a group of people make such a massive investment in promoting their religious views in defiance of scientific understanding.
And be fair to the beeb news website - the piece to which you refer was not a news report, it was an article in the general interest magazine section and therefore more of an opinion piece.
Posted by: DeusExMacintosh | June 15, 2009 1:26 PM
As a Brit, the local reaction could best be summed up as
"BWAH, ha ha hah! They paid HOW much for that piece of ****?"
It's capping the age of the earth at 10,000 years that really puts the ky-bosh on this desperate grasp for credibility. The UK is a nation of Time Team watchers (it's like an archaeological equivalent of Extreme Home Makeovers) so we're not going to be easily fooled, but it is entirely newsworthy when a group of people make such a massive investment in promoting their religious views in defiance of scientific understanding.
And be fair to the beeb news website - the piece to which you refer was not a news report, it was an article in the general interest magazine section and therefore more of an opinion piece.
Posted by: DeusExMacintosh | June 15, 2009 1:29 PM
As a Brit, the local reaction could best be summed up as
"BWAH, ha ha hah! They paid HOW much for that piece of ****?"
It's capping the age of the earth at 10,000 years that really puts the ky-bosh on this desperate grasp for credibility. The UK is a nation of Time Team watchers (it's like an archaeological equivalent of Extreme Home Makeovers) so we're not going to be easily fooled, but it is entirely newsworthy when a group of people make such a massive investment in promoting their religious views in defiance of scientific understanding.
And be fair to the beeb news website, the piece to which you refer was not a news report, it was an article in the general interest magazine section and therefore more of an opinion piece.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 15, 2009 1:33 PM
What part of "I do not think the BBC should tailor itself to my criticisms" didn't you understand?
Posted by: DeusExMacintosh | June 15, 2009 1:34 PM
As a Brit, the local reaction could best be summed up as
"BWAH, ha ha hah! They paid HOW much for that piece of ****?"
It's capping the age of the earth at 10,000 years that really puts the ky-bosh on this desperate grasp for credibility. The UK is a nation of Time Team watchers (it's like an archaeological equivalent of Extreme Home Makeovers) so we're not going to be easily fooled, but it is entirely newsworthy when a group of people make such a massive investment in promoting their religious views in defiance of scientific understanding.
And be fair to the beeb news website, the piece to which you refer was not a news report, it was an article in the general interest magazine section and therefore more of an opinion piece.
Posted by: Neko Onna | June 15, 2009 1:43 PM
I've got to say, I actually liked this article. It made me chuckle- especially those unconscionably ignorant quotes from attendees. It's almost like an Onion article, only these fools are real. Is anyone else realllly realllly scared that our military is apparently populated by brainless lemmings?(see first quoted attendee).
Posted by: DeusExMacintosh | June 15, 2009 1:44 PM
As a Brit, the local reaction could best be summed up as "BWAH, ha ha hah! They paid HOW much for that piece of ****?"
It's entirely newsworthy when a group of people make such a massive investment in promoting their religious views in defiance of scientific understanding - the actual beliefs themselves are quite incidental (and in the UK 'creationism' is still treated with the derision it deserves by the wider public) so providing an opposing view isn't really relevant.
And be fair to the Beeb news website - the piece to which you refer was not a news report, it was an article in the general interest magazine section and therefore more of an opinion piece.
Posted by: Austin | June 15, 2009 1:51 PM
Ha Ha,
How many times will this guy post? Hilarious!
Posted by: DeusExMacintosh | June 15, 2009 2:27 PM
Sorry about the multiple posts, please delete. (I stuttered when I hit the submission button).
PZ @46 said this article will be viewed positively by the creationists. You won't even notice it, but it will help them strengthen their hand. They sound utterly insane to you, but to the creationists...at last, they think, voices of reason in England.
It's not the place of the BBC to make creationists feel "suitably abashed" about their beliefs or to "deny them the oxygen of publicity"*. The article clearly balances the view of the majority (busy celebrating Darwin's 250th anniversary) with the creationists putting their energy - and significant money - into celebrating this new 'museum'.
What creationists do is newsworthy as it is a) organised, b) well financed and c) politically active. It would be impossible to report on any of their activities if writers were expected to spell out in detail the many ways in which their beliefs are scientifically laughable in every single instance (and would you rather people DIDN'T know when they are make large donations to individual politicians or parties and trying to get a foothold in the education system?)
There is also centuries old constitutional protection for freedom of religion in the UK, so any writer representing a publicly funded body like the BBC would be constrained to at least be polite as creationism is still a religious belief, despite the attempt to impinge on science. (Brits don't like to be rude as a rule, but I'd be very surprised if Louis Theroux didn't have this place penciled into his schedule already.)
If you want someone to sing "You're s**t, and you know you are!" at a creationist, put in a call to Richard Dawkins. It's not the job of the BBC.
*Margaret Thatcher's excuse for banning the transmission of the actual voices of IRA spokesmen on British Television was that it would give them "the oxygen of publicity". Broadcasters just dubbed in the voices of Irish actors instead.
Posted by: DeusExMacintosh | June 15, 2009 2:37 PM
{blush} Long time reader, first time poster. What can I say?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 15, 2009 2:41 PM
False dichotomy. No one is saying the BBC has to make creationists feel abashed, or announce that they are stupid. A few factual statements scattered in there, a few comments from scientific authorities, and presto, they have their subtle snark and you've laced it with the straightforward science that the creationists find poisonous.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | June 15, 2009 3:01 PM
PZ - Maybe you should apply for a job at the Beeb. Let's face it, with current stories such as this and this on the BBC News website, not to mention the one about the Cretin Museum, it's starting to look to me as if the BBC have just taken on a new science reporter who's not quite up to the job. (Whoever he/she is, their standards are nowhere near up to yours, and certainly not what I have come to expect from the BBC.)
Posted by: Stuart | June 15, 2009 3:08 PM
It's the Magazine section.... nuff said
Posted by: Stuart | June 15, 2009 3:13 PM
It is in the magazine section and this is the same BBC that has just shown a 5 part series on human origins and their spread across the world, did an hour last week on Ida and has recently finished a Darwin season
Posted by: AJS | June 15, 2009 3:44 PM
To a UK audience, the creationists have already displayed abject stupidity in the quotes on the site. The straightforward science doesn't need spelling out. To tell the average Briton that you believe in Young Earth Creationism is one step removed from saying that you believe in underpant gnomes.
If the creationists really do point to this article as "positive coverage", while everybody over here is pointing to it and laughing their tits off, who are the biggest fools?
Posted by: Steamshovelmama | June 15, 2009 4:34 PM
To 107 & 127. Actually I agree with you. My comment was about *style* not *intent*. Even a biased article won't explicitly state the conclusion the reader is meant to draw. It may lead the unwary, uncritical reader by the nose, it may manipulate the expected outcome quite skillfully but that manipulation will not be in the form of saying "this is how you need to interpret this piece of writing" any more than this article contains the instruction, "laugh at these morons" because the reporter knows that is how his intended readership will react. And I did.
Posted by: fatpie42 | June 15, 2009 4:57 PM
the majority of the Brits will see an article that offers no criticism of Creationism
I don't see why. The article is quite blatantly FULL of criticism of Creationism. Fully justified condescension spills from nearly every sentence. How can you not have noticed?
Posted by: Kate W. | June 15, 2009 5:34 PM
This museum is the largest tourist atrraction in Kentucky, which cause great shame to some Kentucky residents like my parents.
Posted by: DeusExMacintosh | June 15, 2009 6:09 PM
Well PZ@163, perhaps I misunderstood you. I assumed that your comment that said the article would "help them strengthen their hand" was a reference to your fear in the post that the piece would "feed their confidence".
I don't see how it would do this. It wont enable them to claim that the BBC takes their theories seriously - your specific complaint is that the article doesn't deal with their theories or debunk them. What it does do is accurately describe them as a religious-based ideas being pushed hard by a very specific Christian ministry who simply ignore any scientific evidence to the contrary.
The story in this article is not about their beliefs, it's about their museum. Had it been about their beliefs I'm sure the author would have had plenty of British scientists on speed dial.
Posted by: MrJonno
|
June 15, 2009 6:22 PM
The BBC and specifically its science department is far from flawless but its coverage of Darwin year has been excellent. Many high quality programmes on the science and even a couple on the ethical consequences (if any) of his work.
The UK has problems with integrating religious minorities into its society but there is no serious issue with christianity pissing around in politics, our most ring wing bigots are almost all without exception ring wing secular bigots.
You just can't expect the BBC to take sides in a battle that simply doesnt exist in the UK
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 6:48 PM
You just can't expect the BBC to take sides in a battle that simply doesnt exist in the UK
yes, it does.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/nov/27/controversiesinscience.religion
please don't bury your head in the sand.
Posted by: Heidi | June 15, 2009 7:14 PM
To those of you in the UK, don't let the crazies get a hold over there. They're a deceptive bunch, and they'll use anything to try and infect young minds with their stupid. Years ago I remember a "free pizza for teens" thing run by a church in the next town over from me. It turned out that while the kids were getting their free pizza, they were also baptized. And I don't live anywhere near the bible belt.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 7:17 PM
and:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm
Those arguing that the UK has no problem with creationists are living in denial.
Posted by: Paliban Mom | June 15, 2009 7:46 PM
What a wonderful article! Why, it makes me wish I could run down there and visit for myself!
That Mr. Schoonmaker is dead on. "There are sometimes better explanations for things, I mean people thought the earth was flat." It's much more sensible to take the Bible's explanation for how the world was created than to use ridiculous "scientific theories" like that flat-earth nonsense!
Posted by: astrounit | June 16, 2009 2:25 AM
This is precisely the sort of EGGING in "journalism" that's bothered me for decades.
It's gotten steadily worse.
Most dishearteningly, very few in a technical position to object bother to notice what's wrong with it.
The BBC - that previous halfway-decent bulwark of journalistic standards - ought to be thoroughly ASHAMED of running this article. That article very overtly plays out the "controversy" card, when in fact there is no controversy.
The article becomes a lousy "human interest" piece that does nothing but inflame the non-existent "controversy" while attempting to raise readership interest.
Can it be that the BBC is looking to NewScientist for clues on how to get their science reporting just right? Because the latter has been so "successful" at it lately?
Posted by: Stu | June 16, 2009 5:16 AM
Incidentally the last British Monarch to be buried in Westminster Abbey was George II in 1760. Most since have been buried in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle.
Posted by: Stewart Cowan | June 17, 2009 9:15 AM
Straight in with the straw man, PZ Myers, about Westminster Abbey. You take a quote from a retired businessman, not a Creation scientist, and use that in your 'argument'.
It's not big and it's not clever.
The BBC is biased, even prejudiced, against Christians, so they wouldn't knowingly do us a favour if they could help it.
"...creationism is bunk and its proponents are ignorant.."
That's all you have is it?
Judging by the other comments, the snigger-factor wins over science with evolutionists.
What evolutionists cannot stand is:
a) people dare to have a different opinion and more importantly,
b) what we believe necessitates the existence of a Creator and by extension, we are here for a purpose and will be judged for our sins.
I guess this denial of reality is what aids evolutionists to become filled with hatred and fear. Of course a belief in evolution is what prompted the Nazis to attempt to create a Master Race.
You fear what you don't understand. You fear to confront the truth and instead hide behind a theory that becomes more discredited as our knowledge of science increases.
Posted by: SEF | June 17, 2009 10:59 AM
Which must be the result of the Director-General of the BBC, Mark Thompson, being a Christian and also explain why he's been offering unmerited favours to the religious - specifically Christians - and why the BBC has Songs Of Praise regularly while Richard Dawkins was exiled to C4 for his mini-series debunking religion.[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 3:51 PM
That's all you have is it?
not hardly, but then people like you don't really bother to follow up on real information anyway, so it's no surprise you said that.
Posted by: Palifox | June 20, 2009 12:20 AM
"Of course a belief in evolution is what prompted the Nazis to attempt to create a Master Race."
That's what you say. Not what Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf", somewhere about Chapter 4 if I recall correctly.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 20, 2009 12:29 AM
Stewart, you're just wrong. Grow the fuck up.