With the election finally over, let’s take a moment to review the Beeb’s coverage before we move on. This is possibly one for the train spotters, but it’s important not least because of the Beeb’s claim that individual examples of bias aren’t persuasive as they are trying to achieve balance over time. How the Beeb does so is anyone’s guess, as there’s no evidence they monitor it. However, let’s be radical: let’s assume they’re not lying. So let’s look at the coverage of the election (okay, from the moment Palin was selected) on Justin Webb’s blog. And let’s take with the treatment of Palin. To anticipate a few preliminary objections:
- Why Webb? Well, he’s the North American Editor, so it seems reasonable.
- Why the blog? I don’t think the Beeb’s going to let me have all the tapes of Webb’s broadcast coverage. And, frankly, I don’t want them. But not to worry: we know that the same rules regarding impartiality apply, so the blog entries should, if Webb’s doing his job, present a balanced and impartial view.
- Why Palin? Webb’s blogged on her a lot, which means there’s a decent sample. And she’s someone on which there are significantly differing views, which we should therefore expect to see reflected in the coverage. As Webb puts it, she is immensely grating on those who do not like her, but immensely pleasing to those who do.
So let’s look at the balance:
As for Sarah Palin! Her creationist views are bound to become an issue (can you really have a president who denies basic truths about the world?)
So Webb’s coverage of Palin begins, and with characteristic style – ignoring the fact that, as the Beeb’s admitted, she’s not a creationist, and that she’s not running for president. I’m going to chalk that one up as a negative comment.
However, I’m going to exclude those comments that are neutral – and I’m using the term loosely. Comments such as these:
- My prediction: she will be a brilliant candidate or blow up and take the whole party down with her. Not sure which.
- A view of Sarah Palin here that suggests she has an ability to crash and burn or remind us all of Ronnie (Reagan, that is) at his best: just dunno which yet.
As well as these posts: on the pregnancy; agreeing she is not the new Eagleton; and his entry about lipstickgate.
So what’s that leave us with? Well, here are the postive comments, such as they are:
- Palins Punches: I liked the parliamentary-style jabs at Obama and they have peppered the news coverage, though I still think she is skating on thin ice.
- America’s Answer to Thatcher: with that quote about being grating or pleasing (I’m trying to be generous)
- Two posts about Palin getting more cheers than McCain: Disappointment? and Regan, Clinton, W and Obama. These really seem like digs at McCain, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
- And an admission that She is not the harbinger of some dark witch-burning retreat into superstition and irrationality.
And on the negative side:
- Eagleton
- The rumour that she wants to ban books – not true, says Webb, but reported anyway.
- Hagel questions Palin’s experience.
- Should McCain have picked Romney, he asks. And at about this point he entirely loses it…
- She’s the woman rational, educated Americans regard with ever-increasing horror
- Will she still debate? He asks, for no apparent reason. The answer, not surprisingly, is “yes”.
- Her voice cuts glass.
- Her world view is essentially ignorant.
- She’s not funny and she’s not clever; and
- She’s the preferred outcome for those who hate America… she pals around with people who believe in witches.
So, on balance, and over time, do you reckon that Webb thinks Palin would have: made a brilliant VP; been an awful one; or do those rules on impartiality and his professionalism make it just impossible to tell?
@Lee Moore
Way to go, dude 🙂
You did not mention Sarah’s accomplishments. Governor of Alaska. A maverick in her own right who stood up to nepotism and corruption in her state government. She cut taxes and slimmed down a beauracracy. Teh people of Alaska approve of her governance – and she negotiatd an important deal with Canada to supply energy to the lower 48.
What, if anything, has O done to even compare with this? His election to the presidency was not a land slide in the popular vote. In electorates, yes, and purposeful – a successful strategy. McCain botched that, not Palin. McCain’s loss is on his own head, now see him hump the leg of The One.
But the O did not land slide the popular vote. This country is deeply divided. Conservatives believe in solid mores. Liberals are relative. As The O is a liberal in the extreme sense, we will see what relativism does beyond sinking the stock market back to 1995.
Ptet wrtes: “No they didn’t. If there was any real dirt on Obama, don’t you think Hillary Clinton would have found it?”
You clearly are on dangerous ground calling Sarah Palin an idiot when you write something as silly as that.
There was (and is) plenty about Obama that remains largely concealed from the general public due to the collusion of the MSM – his ruthless suppression of much of the documentation surrounding his past, to name but one.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has been put under a distorting lens – not least by the BBC – which has magnified and deformed any number of minor issues into major flaws – from her daughter’s pregnancy (how dare she!) to the amount she spent on her wardrobe
Given that our job here is to examine and discuss the bias of the BBC, perhaps you would care to show some examples of serious examination on the BBC’s part of the many troubling aspects of Obama’s past?
And by ‘serious examination’ I don’t mean parroting either the WAPO or the Daly Kos – which is what most of their pre-election coverage seemed to consist of.
The dirt’s there – the Left-dominated media just denied it.
Sarah Palin was Governor of Alaska. The Alaskan Daily News would disagree on the rest.
Obama is a populist, charismatic centrist. He was a uniting figure as the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review. In around a decade-and-a-half politics he’s been able to bring together a coalition of support to gain the democratic nomination; defeat Hillary Clinton, and win a general election.
Despite the ludicrous attempts of the right to portray him as a “socialist” “terrorist” who “hates America”, he ran on the platform of being a patriotic centrist uniter and he won on that platform.
Obama didn’t win as big as Hillary Clinton might have. We’ll never know. America is a largely conservative country, and there are lots of votes he’d never get. But he got enough to win handsomely where Gore and Kerry failed.
“McCain’s loss is on his own head, now see him hump the leg of The One.”
Wow. Bitter, much?
This country is deeply divided. Conservatives believe in solid mores. Liberals are relative. As The O is a liberal in the extreme sense, we will see what relativism does beyond sinking the stock market back to 1995.
The country is deeply divided and Obama said that in his acceptance speech. He has called upon Black Americans to rise above feelings of persecution, to work hard and to sacrifice. He will govern as a centrist because he wants to win a second term in four years time. The harder left in the US will cut him slack for a whole host of reasons – pragmatism and the global recession being the main ones.
By “solid mores” I take it you mean deluding oneselves to the existence of WMDs in Iraq; not bothering to learn the difference between Sunni’s and Shias; not listening to your own state department’s warnings about Iraq; authorizing the torture of prisoners; dropping the ball of Abu Ghraib; veterans hospitals and Hurricane Katrina; turning an enormous budget surplus into an insane budget deficit; and turning virtually universal support for America after 911 into almost universal scorn for the commander-in-chief?
George W Bush ran and won 2 terms as a conservative republican.
That’s why John McCain lost. That’s why Obama won.
Moan all you want, but if you can’t shrug your shoulders and say “gee, Obama was elected as my president and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt” then are you really a patriot?
The American people have chosen four years of “relativism” because they’ve seen what 8 years of “certainty” did for George W Bush, America and everyone else…
Actually I take that back, it could go back to 1992, giving back all the gains since increased wealth allowed 401k’s to grow exponentially. A 3% annuity (basically) will be the replacement.
It would be a good time to take profits in gold and wait for the bottom to buy back in.
“There was (and is) plenty about Obama that remains largely concealed from the general public due to the collusion of the MSM – his ruthless suppression of much of the documentation surrounding his past, to name but one.”
Sources?
“Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has been put under a distorting lens – not least by the BBC – which has magnified and deformed any number of minor issues into major flaws – from her daughter’s pregnancy (how dare she!) to the amount she spent on her wardrobe”
For someone who ran on a conservative-family-responsibility-cutting-expense-and-raining-in-runaway-expenditure platform, Sarah Palin’s behaviour in these regards seems right in point.
“And by ‘serious examination’ I don’t mean parroting either the WAPO or the Daly Kos – which is what most of their pre-election coverage seemed to consist of.”
The Panorama on Obama wasn’t bad. Newsnight did much more.
“The dirt’s there – the Left-dominated media just denied it.”
And when did you stop beating your wife?
ptet, you have drank the kool-aide in deep draughts.
“By “solid mores” I take it you mean deluding oneselves to the existence of WMDs in Iraq…”
No, I mean lying cheating stealing adultery and murder are wrong. I mean capital punishment for murderers and pedophiles.
“..not bothering to learn the difference between Sunni’s and Shias…”
How is that a more?
“…not listening to your own state department’s warnings about Iraq…”
Kicking ass square where it needs kicked.
“…authorizing the torture of prisoners…”
For pertinant information to save lives (maybe yours)
“…dropping the ball of Abu Ghraib…”
All of which were duly disciplined for lack of good judgement.
“…veterans hospitals…”
I am a vet. My husband is still active duty. My Father was a vet. We have never recieved anything but expemplory care at a veterans hospital.
“…Hurricane Katrina…”
You mean the one GW materialized on purpose?
“…turning an enormous budget surplus into an insane budget deficit…”
How are these more? A RINO congress did these things.
“…and turning virtually universal support for America after 911 into almost universal scorn for the commander-in-chief?”
That is a matter of opinion, and I do not see how it is a more.
You have drank kool-aide andmade many presumptions and proved, again, that you are a fool and neither interested in debate with a real person but only in clinging to your views.
Good bye.
“No, I mean lying cheating stealing adultery and murder are wrong. I mean capital punishment for murderers and pedophiles.”
So you think Obama encourages lying cheating stealing adultery and murder? And you call *me* closed minded?
But don’t worry I got ya – anyone who doesn’t think like you doesn’t deserve to have an opinion.
“A RINO congress did these things.”
True Scotsmen, huh?
“You have drank kool-aide andmade many presumptions and proved, again, that you are a fool and neither interested in debate with a real person but only in clinging to your views.”
Crikey. Everyone else in the whole world drank kool aid. You didn’t. gotcha.
Ptet writes: “For someone who ran on a conservative-family-responsibility-cutting- expense-and-raining-in-runaway-expenditure platform, Sarah Palin’s behaviour in these regards seems right in point.”
You mean her daughter’s pregnancy somehow invalidates her conservative views on the family? That’d be pretty rich, even in the Guardian.
As for your ‘sources?’ that’s precisely the point, isn’t it? The Kos kids’ smear stories about Palin were picked up and amplified by the MSM (with Webb and co leading the race) while the far more serious and troubling flaws in Obama’s story were just brushed aside (Ayres) or completely ignored (the calculated concealment of his university records – even his birth records for heaven’s sake!).
It’s not hard to imagine the furore among ‘liberals’ if similar questions had been raised about Mrs Palin.
GCooper:
ptet is only contentious, and an example of the relative mindset, who depend on liberal outlets to tell them what to be pissed off about. Not the inability to grasp reality, such as the difference between conservatism is a set of mores as guidelines,most usually the ten commandments. Liberals are about relativism, ptet didn’t get it.
“So you think Obama encourages lying cheating stealing adultery and murder? And you call *me* closed minded?”
Yes. To all of those, but ptet, like all the others, excuse him, while jamming our stated boundaries down our throats. Such as Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy – we must be perfect, even wehn we admit we are not, but they may wallow in relativity. There is no having a discussion with such a person.
But you probably already know that, I was just trying to save you time and energy. Cheers.
“
Noticeably, it is only AFTER the U.S. Election that WEBB shows concern that some blacks may continue to play the ‘victimhood’ card:
“An end to ‘victimhood’?”
[Extract]:
“…it is the Bill Cosby take on modern race relations; the claim that, to an extent, the current plight of many black Americans is the fault of black culture.
“And that culture must now change. ”
The above extract sounds like Webb is coming perilously close to saying that blacks should change their black culture.
Nah, Webb wouldn’t say that, would he?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/11/an_end_to_victimhood.html
Melanie Phillips has this take on the problem, both in the U.S. and the U.K.:
[Extract]:
…”freedom has shrunk to what ideology permits. Equality legislation has cemented a ‘victim culture’ under which the interests of all groups deemed to be powerless (black people, women, gays ) trump those deemed to be powerful (white people, men, Christians). Since this doctrine holds that the ‘powerless’ can do no wrong while the ‘powerful’ can do no right, injustice is thus institutionalized, and anyone who queries the preferential treatment afforded such groups is vilified as a racist or bigot.” (Melanie Phillips).
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjljMGU3ODc0YzcxMDkxYTlkYWQwOWY2NDMyZDVlYTY=
Someone please tell ptet that Hillary didn’t lose the dem convention, she lost the appointment, she out voted him. They favored her over a man, and appointed the man instead.
Bristol Palin’s pregnancy wasn’t a campaign issue, just as Obama’s connections to Ayers – through a Republican grandee’s charity – wasn’t a campaign issue either.
“Liberals are about relativism, ptet didn’t get it.”
Yes I did. You just didn’t read for comprehension.
“The above extract sounds like Webb is coming perilously close to saying that blacks should change their black culture.”
Obama said much the same thing. African American’s need to move on from past injustices and seize the opportunities that America offers – and the responsibilities which go with that.
“Someone please tell ptet that Hillary didn’t lose the dem convention, she lost the appointment…”
And that changes the election how exactly?
Over and over, we see conservatives here whine that only they have a grip on reality… While they deny the reality of Obama’s election campaign, and the reality that many conservatives supported Obama because McCain (as admirable as he is) could only offer a continuation of Bush Conservatism when it came to national & foreign policy issues. Both candidates promised change in Washington.
Now we’ll see if Obama can deliver that change.
“To all of those, but ptet… we must be perfect, even wehn we admit we are not, but they may wallow in relativity. There is no having a discussion with such a person.”
All this only exists in your head, betyangelo.
Re dinosaurs being around 2000 years ago:
What is a dinosaur? If you define it as ‘animals living before man’ you will never get a dinosaur living with man. So you can never be wrong.
But if you define it as ‘a huge animal that is extinct’ then a Woolley Mammoth would be defined as a dinosaur. This animal would have been included with the dinosaurs except for the fact that it is believed to have died out only a few thousand years ago, when man was around. There are frozen specimens in Siberia.
If scientists were to find a cave painting showing a large animal currently defined as a dinosaur, it will simply be reclassified as ‘not a dinosaur’
Hence preserving the definition.
If scientists argue over whether the dinosaurs were warm blooded or cold blooded it shows they do not really know much about them. If they cannot be biologically defined how can you say an animal is a dinosaur or not?
We know what a mammal is and a bird is
but a dinosaur has no biological definition.
And anyway, what is this rule about ‘pmore primitive’ animals going extinct? I do not think there can be such a rule. What about Sponges, starfish, other simple plants and animals, Coelocanth, Hoatzin etc. In fact all stages of evolution have their representatives around today.
A crocodile would be a ‘dinosaur’ if it was not alive today.
Hugh, excellent article, showing bias even when you always gave the BBC the benefit of the doubt. If you want another programme to analyse try the BBC Discovery/or History program presented by Victoria Wood about the British Empire. If you kept a tally of favourable/unfavourable remarks about the British compared with other populations I think the bias would be nearer 20:1 than the 10:4 bias found in your last analysis. Eg she referred to Livingstone as ‘racially bonkers’. When she was in New Zealand she was bowing and scraping so much I sure she must have made dents in the ground.
“If scientists argue over whether the dinosaurs were warm blooded or cold blooded it shows they do not really know much about them. If they cannot be biologically defined how can you say an animal is a dinosaur or not?”
Congratulations on the most pig-ignorant thing I’ve read today. You could have tried to find out what scientists say dinosaurs are and aren’t, but no, that’s too much like hard work…
Dinosaurs (including birds) are archosaurs, like modern crocodilians. Archosaurs’ diapsid skulls have two holes, called temporal fenestrae, located where the jaw muscles attach, and an additional antorbital fenestra in front of the eyes. Most reptiles (including birds) are diapsids; mammals, with only one temporal fenestra, are called synapsids; and turtles, with no temporal fenestra, are anapsids. Anatomically, dinosaurs share many other archosaur characteristics, including teeth that grow from sockets rather than as direct extensions of the jawbones. Within the archosaur group, dinosaurs are differentiated most noticeably by their gait. Dinosaur legs extend directly beneath the body, whereas the legs of lizards and crocodylians sprawl out to either side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur
What the hell do dinosaurs have to do with the BBC? Oh, wait…..
In fairness, there was one item that gave Sarah Palin glowing coverage…
The photo of her with Sarah Brown.
The person with the dinosaur definition seems to be a very angry person. Anyone can copy and paste and then add an insult at the top. Please explain why a crocodile would not be classified as a dinosaur. From your definition it seems to be the legs are under not out.
But this is mainly a characteristic of its weight and lifestyle, not some stage in evolution. A bigger crocodile on land could not stand up unless its legs were under its weight and stronger. A Trex would definitely do the splits.
I agree with StephenB that if we had no crocodiles today and a crocodile fossil were found it would be classified as a dinosaur, with legs out instead of under due to its smaller weight and living in water. Not a big step in evolution to move its legs a bit is it?
Are you saying one particular creature must have lived 150 million years ago because its legs are under, but another one can be contemporary because its legs are out?
Sorry to go off-topic, so to make it relevant, imagine the BBC making a programme where they allowed creationists to debate with evolutionists. It would never happen. The evolutionists get too emotional and angry so they would not allow it. But there are loads of programs about ufos, ghosts, parallel universes, life on other planets, so why is evolution so taboo? I would enjoy watching the scientific establishment having to defend its position.
Graham | 07.11.08 – 6:35 pm |
Sorry to go off-topic, so to make it relevant, imagine the BBC making a programme where they allowed creationists to debate with evolutionists. It would never happen. The evolutionists get too emotional and angry so they would not allow it. But there are loads of programs about ufos, ghosts, parallel universes, life on other planets, so why is evolution so taboo? I would enjoy watching the scientific establishment having to defend its position.
Actually, you raise an interesting point about a very specific bias at the BBC. I’ve complained about Justin Webb’s religious bigotry, when he states his opinion that having certain religious beliefs ought to disqualify someone from holding public office. I believe our own defenders of the indefensible and a couple of trolls have agreed with him. Ol’ Justin’s concerns were about someone believing something that “goes against science”, or words to that effect?
With this in mind, I wonder just how many Beeboids – or defenders of the indefensible who comment here, or even the trolls – are wont to believe in things like astrology, UFOs (not the same thing as the possibility of any kind of lifeform on another planet), palmistry, ghosts, communicating with “the other side”, precognition, premonitions in dreams, the healing (or other “special”) powers of crystals or magnets, wicca, the healing or otherwise magical properties of “power spots” or magnetic field alignments in nature, or tarot?
And among them, how many think that Gov. Palin’s beliefs (which they’re actually misinterpreting anyway) are so wacky she should be banned from public office?
That would be an interesting poll.
I do find the ‘no-one with a strong faith should hold public office’ debate most peculiar. Do the people that spout this drivel understand that such a viewpoint would prevent any Muslim from holding office?
David – i don’t believe in any of that sh1t. do you?
mikewineliberal | 08.11.08 – 3:06 pm |
David – i don’t believe in any of that sh1t. do you?
How many at the BBC do? Does Justin Webb? How many politicians whom any of you support might believe such things?
I should add dousing, “remote viewing” psychics, and that “energized” water stuff to the list.
My point is, would any of those beliefs disqualify someone from holding public office? If not, why are any of those less of a deal-breaker than believing in a Creator? If Justin Webb is allowed to openly state that Sarah Palin’s beliefs should disqualify her, how many other politicians ought to be banned on similar grounds? Would he dare to say it, and would the BBC and people like you approve?
I would submit that some forms of magical thinking are more fashionable than others these days, and the BBC shows a deliberate bias there.
“If not, why are any of those less of a deal-breaker than believing in a Creator?”
Huh, David?
Barrack Obama believes in a creator. John McCain believes in a creator. What ARE you talking about?
Can you quote anyone at the BBC who said that Sarah Palin should be disqualified from office because she believes in a creator?
And BTW Graham… Congratulations on a hilarious post. If I wanted to write something to make creationists look unbelievably pig ignorant and hilariously stupid, I couldn’t have done better than your post.
ptet above is the kind of person who has no answer to any of the intelligent design arguments so all he can do is shout abuse. There are people like that patrolling blogs all over the internet. (ptet, Do you by any chance work for the BBC?)
I agree with the others above. If primitive creatures became replaced by more advanced creatures, then why does every primitive creature in the evolutionary stages still have its representatives around today?
Eg Aligators are of a primitive type.
The definition you found is a bit vague. To summarise: ‘Big Lizard types, but because they are big their legs are under the body to support the weight – (obviously)”.
And I do not think lizards have become extinct yet.
Janice M – You kill me… “Intelligent Design” has practically no support amongst biologists, including Christian biologists. Even Michael Behe, pretty much the only “respected” biologist to support ID, accepts common descent and practically all of standard evolutionary theory.
“why does every primitive creature in the evolutionary stages still have its representatives around today?”
Ask Michael Behe, ’cause he believes in common descent. Alternatively, ask yourself why if everyone alive was born from parents, how come we find so many parents alive today?
Don’t take my word for it. Here’s an article from a Conservative Christian biologist explaining why Intelligent Design is not only bad science, it’s bad theology too…
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23404
“in light of the issue’s new prominence and with a desire to improve the mental hygiene of others, I would just like to say that Intelligent Design is a really, really bad idea –scientifically, politically, and theologically. I say this as a dedicated conservative, who has on many occasions defended and espoused religion and religious conservatism. I also say it as a professional molecular biologist, who has worked daily (or at least week-daily) for years with biological problems to which the theory of evolution has contributed significant understanding — and to which Intelligent Design is incapable of contributing any understanding at all.
Scientifically, attributing every aspect of biology to the arbitrary design of a divine tinkerer explains as much about biology as attributing the eruption of volcanoes to the anger of the Lava God would explain geology. A theory, by definition, makes predictions that can be tested. Intelligent Design predicts nothing, since it essentially states that every thing is the way it is because God wanted it that way.”
ptet you say:
—-start quote——————-
“why does every primitive creature in the evolutionary stages still have its representatives around today?”
Ask Michael Behe, ’cause he believes in common descent. Alternatively, ask yourself why if everyone alive was born from parents, how come we find so many parents alive today?
—end quote——————-
Reply:
But as the next stage and the stage after that is meant to be improving, the old stages should not all stay around. A few exceptions, ok, but every single stage still going strong?
As for your analogy, no, the parents would not be around if they were different from their children and the world had changed such that the parents’ survival skills were no longer adequate.
As for saying ‘biologists/Christian biologists…do not support intelligent design’, that is like saying ‘scientists support man-made global warming theory so that must be true also’.
Are you saying you know the answers to the life the universe and everything? Is the debate closed? I am not saying the world was definitely created in 7 days, I am saying we do not know, and I am also saying we should be open minded and listen to the arguments instead of trying to silence or mock anyone who questions the establishment view.
A lot of evolutionists cling to their version of life the universe and everything with a faith that is very strong. When you question them they get very aggressive, angry and emotional, like you are attacking their deep held beliefs.
Another quote from above—
‘I would just like to say that Intelligent Design is a really, really bad idea –scientifically, politically, and theologically’
—end of quote
Look at word ‘politically’ – so Intelligent Design must be opposed for political reasons? …hmm a bit of a hint there that this is not purely a logical debate about scientific evidence.
Another thought – a greater proportion of physicists and astronomers believe in some sort of other intelligence/god/design – I cannot remember the exact wording– compared with biologists.
I studied biology for my degree and I can assure you that biologists are not going around logically weighing up the evidence and coming to logical conclusions. Look how they went with the flow over man made global warming.
Graham
“As for saying ‘biologists/Christian biologists…do not support intelligent design’, that is like saying ‘scientists support man-made global warming theory so that must be true also’.”
No it’s not. First, evolution has substantially higher support amongst biologists than Anthropomorphic Climate Change has amongst climate scientists. Second, that doesn’t make evolution “true”, but it does reinforce that it’s ludicrous to pretend there is a scientific “debate” about evolution. There isn’t.
“Are you saying you know the answers to the life the universe and everything? Is the debate closed?”
Of course not. You are confusing biological evolution with religion, cosmology, and any other number of *other* debates.
“Look at word ‘politically’ – so Intelligent Design must be opposed for political reasons?”
No. ID is a political & religious movement, not a scientific one. If it was, it would be producing science. ID produces no science.
Evolution is true or not true whether or not God exists or not, Graham.
Also, anyone who doubts that humanity is having a profound and damaging effect on the environment really is living in a fantasy land. Sure, we don’t know for certain what long term effects that will have… But that isn’t the same thing as saying we can throw out everything relating to “climate change” simply because we don’t believe in it.
“I studied biology for my degree and I can assure you that biologists are not going around logically weighing up the evidence and coming to logical conclusions.”
In summary: Graham says, don’t believe those thousands of scientists who actually work in biology day in and day out who accept evolution – believe me, ’cause I studied biology, even tho I don’t work with it. Oh yeah – and just forget all those biologists who are christian who accept evolution, they just get in the way of what Graham wants to pretend is true.
Nice argument.
I think on my biology course two were doubters of the evolutionary theory, and out of maybe 50 that was 4%, although how many were secret doubters, or later became doubters I do not know. This is a small number, but that was bearing in mind the completely one-sided presentation of the argument to the students. If you ever doubted the theory you would receive the same hammering as if you had stood up in a BBC newsroom and said you liked Norman Tebbit, or as if you had said David Bellamy should be allowed to air his views about global warming. In a more open minded environment I am sure the percentage would have been much higher.
If you accept as a concept the possibility of God, without necessarily believing in a particular religion (such as the willy-cutters or the “let’s weaken our gene pool by stopping the most intelligent sons from breeding” group or the “you cannot be forgiven for divorce, even if the Bible preaches forgiveness” group) then you are capable of a more open-minded approach, as you can choose between options; for example: God created everything in 7 days, God created over 100s of years, or millions of years with some kind of intelligent design, God created via other dimensions which we don’t understand, evolution with God to guide it, evolution without any God involvment, or some other explanation to do with matter and physics which our brains have not worked out.
But if someone ‘KNOWS’ that God does not exist, even though they cannot tell you how they know, apart from to say ‘I believe it to be so, it is my strongly held belief’, then how can that person have an open mind on the subject? How can they say anything other than ‘My beliefs mean my mind is closed on the subject; I have only one option • evolution full stop”. Would you trust the opinion of such a person? Would you trust their opinion when their beliefs were so dear to them that they became emotional, angry, and offensive?
How do You KNOW what happened millions of years ago, how do you KNOW that evolution is a fact as you state? How do you KNOW there is no God involvment?
Maybe you go along with the *majority*. A few centuries ago the *majority* believed in a flat earth. Now the *majority* believe in man-made global warming.
There was a meeting of doctors in Boston where a surgeon gave a display of the use of nitrous oxide as an anaesthetic. The *majority* voted to send the man packing. An open minded approach by the scientific establishment would have been to say ‘the patient was unconscious and did not feel pain for the first part of the operation, although he woke up towards the end. You tell us you have carried out dozens of dental operations successfully where the patient did not wake up at all. Let us investigate this amazing substance and see if we can get the dose right’. No, the majority did not say that. They closed their minds and decided not to use laughing gas. The dental surgeon was humiliated and eventually killed himself. It was decades before the establishment accepted laughing gas as the best anaesthetic. This kind of closed mindedness slows down the advancement of medicine and science.
There is the scientific establishment in action for you. How would you have voted at the meeting?
(By the way, I think we are the only ones left in this debate)
The last message was to ptet I forgot to say at the start
Who cares what Palin purchased? No one, including the mainstream media illuminati are worried about what Obama purchased, or how he got all that money.
“A few centuries ago the *majority* believed in a flat earth. Now the *majority* believe in man-made global warming”.
I am not so sure the latter part is really true. The bbc and eco-warriors command the airwaves in Britain and impose their views on us with their constant propoganda without any real facts, and with studies made by the converted, which means that when they cannot prove it then it is not publicised.
It is surprising how many influential people are not totally convinced of this man-made argument.
I agree with Cassandrina to the extent that probably most intelligent people do not believe in man-made global warming (AGW), or are at least very sceptical about it.
But the scientific establishment, on the whole, do accept the man-made global warming scam, and they influence the media in general, as it is not just the BBC that promotes it. As far as I am aware most of the press go along with it also, apart from Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph. (The Telegraph carries other articles which do support the scam, and even the link to Christopher Booker’s articles on the Telegraph website is mocking him for his stance).
Scientists talk about ‘looking at the facts logically and coming to scientific conclusions’. But as regards man-made global warming (AGW), this approach is put to one side when there is a research grant available. For example, if you want to study penguins it will be hard to get a grant, but if you want to sudy penguins and can somehow make it relevant to AGW you are much more likely to get the grant. Hence, you must put your logical thought processes to one side and you must accept AGW. Eg study penguins as an indicator of global warming and your application will stand a much better chance. As Cassandrina mentioned above, if the earth gets cooler while you are studying the penguins your research will not attract much attention. But if it gets warmer, we will never hear the end of it. At present cooling is occuring.
The eco-warriors’ agenda is the source of the scam and the driving force behind it, but those who follow it do so because:
a) They agree that capitalism must be attacked.
b) They want the grant and they can see a bandwaggon loaded with money when it comes by.
c) They decide they are not expert enough themselves or they have not got time to research the subject, so they follow the lead of the establishment as they assume that they know best.
Graham
“This is a small number, but that was bearing in mind the completely one-sided presentation of the argument to the students”
One-sided argument? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for anything other than that life has evolved over billions of years through common descent. Unless of course you want to allow religious “knowledge”, such as the “truth” of the Bible or the Koran, to over-ride science, of course.That’s the only grounds to you have to argue that evolution is “false”.
Is God involved? Who knows. ID doesn’t help. All it says is that “the most likely explanation is that complex biological systems arose through the involvement of an intelligent designer”. Hilariously, ID provides no way of identifying what that intelligent designer is. IID isn’t science. It’s a joke.
“But if someone ‘KNOWS’ that God does not exist, even though they cannot tell you how they know, apart from to say ‘I believe it to be so, it is my strongly held belief’, then how can that person have an open mind on the subject?”
You love tour straw-man arguments, don’t you? Most Christian biologists accept evolution. Funny how you have to ignore them in post after post after post after post.
“How do You KNOW what happened millions of years ago, how do you KNOW that evolution is a fact as you state? How do you KNOW there is no God involvment?”
We know beyond reasonable doubt that life on earth was substantially different millions of years ago than it was now; and we also know beyond reasonable doubt that life evolves through common descent. Michael Behe and the other leading ID theorists who are biologists accept all of this.
We have no way of knowing whether God was involved, just as we have no way of knowing whether invisible dancing pixies were involved.
If you can provide any evidence for the existence of any particular God, or of invisible dancing pixies for that matter, please go ahead. Your nobel prize awaits.
The evidence is overwhelming, however, that life has evolved over millions of years thru common descent whether or not “god” was involved in the process.
“Maybe you go along with the *majority*. A few centuries ago the *majority* believed in a flat earth. Now the *majority* believe in man-made global warming.”
Number one we have substantially different ways of looking at the world than we had centuries ago. Number two, *educated* people even centuries ago knew the world was not flat. Your argument sucks.
I’ll leave you to your pig-ignorant conspiracy theories.
ptet –
Some things are not know for certain, and others are beyond reasonable doubt. It depends on how you process all the information you have received in your life so far as to what you think is beyond reasonable doubt. For example, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that men landed on the moon and Princess Diana died in an accident, but other people do not.
There is not a ‘Christian’ view on many things. Right-wing Christians believe Jesus would be right-wing, Labour-voting Christians believe he would be a socialist. Christain Aid and the World Council of Churches even supported the terrorist Mugabe and helped to get him into power!
Some Christians believe in having Sharia law in England. Some do not.
Even Jesus used to critisise the religious establishment view, and look what happened to him.
I don’t attach any importance to the fact that most Christians believe in evolution in this country, as they are just doing their best to understand things, and they accept what is the extablishment view on this and other subjects such as global warming because they are deferring to experts and trusting them to be scientific and fair in their thinking. Everyone cannot go and study fossils for themselves for example. We have to sometimes make a judgement about the people that do study fossils. Are they going to be fair in what they tell us about what they find, or are they going to be governed by their beliefs and not present the evidence fairly, as in the case of global warming?
You might be interested in the Christopher Booker column Sunday 16.11.08 about global warming and the way many of the science establishment operate.
Also, see what reasonable people say about the type of blogger who keeps shouting, and what it says about them.
Graham
Your previous posts implied that young earth creationism or intelligent design had some sort of scientific support. By any reasonable measure, they don’t.
You seem to have abandoned those arguments in your last post. Or maybe you just didn’t read what I’d written.
You also don’t seem to have read my previous posts when I’ve talked about environmental issues.
Maybe if you read what people write, and didn’t just assume they were “shouting” at you, you might get somewhere.
There’s a gazillion things we don’t know. In fact, he main advances of science in the last 2 centuries have shown us that the universe is many orders of magnitude more complex, mysterious and amazing that humankind had ever thought possible before.
We should celebrate that.
And seriously, given you supposedly have a degree in biology, your previous posts here claiming that scientists can’t decide what is a “dinosaur” and what isn’t are frankly bizarre.
ptet – The dinosaur definition you found is vague. A big lizard type is not a precise definition. If dinosaurs are a stage in evolution why are all the more primitive stages before that still here? Yes a crocodile would be thought of as a dinosaur if there were none around today and a fossil of one was found. I don’t think I am saying anything controversial there. Like the coelacanth: fossils were found, the fish was said to be a prehistoric type, then they found them swimming around today. If scientists found some preserved dinosaur DNA and managed to implant it in an embryo and make one develop, say one like a Tricerops, and then put it on a Pacific island, I see no reason why it could not live quite happily today. There are many ‘primitive’ types around today, such as lizards themselves, sponges, starfish. One part of the definition is the legs are under the body. And that is not because they are all related it is because they are big and you cannot walk with legs out if you are heavy. A heavy crocodile can manage it for a short time. As part of my degree course we had to calculate how fast large animals can move, and how thick bones have to be to support various body weights. The weight of the animal is proportional to the cube of its length, but the bone strength is proportional to the square, ie a cross section area, so as you get larger, so to speak, you need to compensate by having thicker and thicker legs. This effect means, for example, that a brontosaurus could not run and it could not walk faster than 10 miles an hour or its legs would break.
And there is a debate about whether they were hot blooded or cold blooded, which shows we do not have a precise definition.
I am not saying we all have to go and study fossils etc before we can have an opinion. We did not study fossils for exampl on my degree course. It was just like Biology ‘A’ level except in more detail. I am saying we should be allowed to see the experts debate the subject between themselves, like global warming was debated. The sceptics made their program, the alarmists made a counter programme (…and then it stopped). I am saying people with a strong evolution faith (‘I know what happened’ they say)should have a bit more confidence that their views will stand up to scientific scrutiny.
And it is not a conspiracy so much as ‘We get angry and must not allow any other view to be aired’
As for the environment, of course we should save rainforests, stop man made desert erosion, reduce pollution, recycle waste, and not waste power. But these issues don’t have any bearing about whether CO2 causes global warming or not. We should do these things anyway.
In summary, I would like to see the experts debate evolution by letting the sceptics make a program, then the other side make a counter arguments program.
Graham
You say a bunch of sensible things, then you then say this…
“I am saying people with a strong evolution faith (‘I know what happened’ they say)should have a bit more confidence that their views will stand up to scientific scrutiny.”
Evolution has happened. The evidence is overwhelming. Michael Behe, the leading ID biologists, accepts that it’s happened.
Sure, we don’t know *how* it happened for certain…
So then were left with 2 choices. Either it happened through understandable causes which we only partially understand; or it happened by what is effectively magic.
ID says it was “magic”. Creationism says it was “magic”. Both provide no way scientifically to distinguish between intervention or guidance by a “god”, by interdimensional space aliens, or by invisible dancing pixies.
We do have TV programmes about real scientific debates in evolution. They tend to be dry and not many people watch them, but hey.
“In summary, I would like to see the experts debate evolution by letting the sceptics make a program, then the other side make a counter arguments program.”
This sums my entire problem with “Biased BBC” and places like it. Sure, there is bad journalism and especially bad science journalism…
But all people here seem to offer, time after time, is a cretinous and childish call for “equal time” to be given for every position no matter how frikkin’ idiotic.
Once ID starts producing science, instead of books where the word “creation” has just been searched-and-replaced with “intelligent design”, then we can talk.
“And it is not a conspiracy so much as ‘We get angry and must not allow any other view to be aired'”
Sure, that is a bad attitude and we see it all the time from the left as well as the right, from conservatives as well as liberals. It annoys me as much as you…
But it doesn’t make ID science any more than it makes the scare-mongering over MMR-Autism science.
Oh yeah, and here’s some more on the difference between corodiles and dinosaurs
http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Dinosaurs/dinoBG3.html
I’d expect someone who’s obviously intelligent and apparently claims to have a degree in biology to be able to use Google, but hey, I know I’m not always right.
Best
P
ptet – interesting link. I think I will save that information. You are becoming a dinosaur expert.
Now, be honest and look at the extract below which is taken from your link, and I think you will have to agree that the unique feature of dinosaurs is not much and is really just an essential difference considering the huge weight that some of these animals carried.
——-quote—
Crocodiles are also diapsid reptiles, like dinosaurs direct descendants of thecodonts. Are crocodiles dinosaurs? No. What makes dinosaurs unique, what sets them apart from both crocodiles and thecodonts, are key changes in how they stand and run.
————end quote–
I was looking at your interesting pics and there is one huge beast called a Stegosaur. Imagine a bunch of those *****s on some island. The biggest carnivores like tigers around today, if put with them, would not stand a chance. The ‘primitive’ one would win with its massive tail without even having to interrupt its meal.
Here is a link you might be interested in about a debate: (Melanie Phillips, http://www.Spectator.co.uk)
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=619
And here is one you will like about making a mammoth from some old DNA (This makes me wonder • how old are these bits of wool • how accurate is all the dating? Could man have lived at the same time as mammoths?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1087473/Woolly-mammoths-roam-Earth-thanks-DNA-ball-frozen-hair.html
One thing we can probably agree on • God is not revealing himself much these days. Once he parted the Red Sea for the Jews but he does not seem to be helping them very much any more. And a few good miracles for the Christians would revive that faith and stop the churches from being closed down. Eg an extra chapter appearing in everyone’s Bible by a miracle, if it is God’s book and written by Him, explaining everything once and for all would be pretty impressive, and would not be more difficult than many of the miracles in the New Testament. And if Islam is a peaceful religion, as I keep hearing it is, there is a bit of a communication problem going on there between God and his followers, as that message does not seem to be filtering through to the faithful.
Best W. to you!
Hi Graham
I’m certainly no dinosaur expert.
“I think you will have to agree that the unique feature of dinosaurs is not much and is really just an essential difference considering the huge weight that some of these animals carried.”
That’s gibberish. There is a difference in the evolution of the hip joints of dinosaurs and crocolids, amongst other factors. Crocolids and dinosaurs, as far as we can tell, share a common ancestor; but they come from separate lines. Ask yourself why modern birds are considered descendants of dinosaurs, and crocolids aren’t.
“The ‘primitive’ one would win with its massive tail without even having to interrupt its meal.”
It’s nothing to do with “primitive”. They are entirely different creatures from entirely different environments and entirely different times.
“Here is a link you might be interested in about a debate: (Melanie Phillips, http://www.Spectator.co.uk)”
Graham did you even READ that article? Melanie Phillips (NOT a scientist) is attacking Darwin for his atheism. That doesn’t affect whether evolution is true or not. As I’ve said repeatedly, most Christian scientists accept evolution. I’m really not sure what you are arguing with, Graham, but it isn’t anything I’m saying.
“Could man have lived at the same time as mammoths?”
Of course mankind lived alongside mammoths. What ARE you talking about?
“there is a bit of a communication problem going on there between God and his followers, as that message does not seem to be filtering through to the faithful.”
True dat.
Take it easy.
P.