Re: media & religion (Was Re: Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible)

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 14:29:38 EST

George

You have got to remember that journalists sell stories rather than truth.
They want to sell sensation and controversy.

Sadly some Christian journalists do the same and an ordained colleague of
mine who was a journalist before ordination, applied his journalistic
"skills" to "creation/evolution" and wrote a book. He sent me the chapters
for comment and he simply did not understand any of the issues. I told him
that his work defied comment as I would need to write a book to correct all
his mistakes. My favourite was fossil conifer forests in the Grand Canyon!
He was willing to give equal weight to a handful of YEC "geologists" and to
every other geologist, and either couldn't wouldn't and didn't want to
understand when he got things wrong.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Preston Garrison"
<garrisonp@uthscsa.edu>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:19 PM
Subject: media & religion (Was Re: Catholic Church no longer swears by truth
of the Bible)

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> To: "Preston Garrison" <garrisonp@uthscsa.edu>; "ASA list"
> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
>
>
>> As one who takes the Times each day, not because it is the best paper but
>> because others are worse, I find the standard of religious reporting in
>> the Times to be poor and inaccurate.
>>
>> The best thing to do is never to believe journalists especially those who
>> write on religious matters - or science
>
> Here's an excellent personal example of this which is relevant to the ID
> controversy.
>
> A little over a week ago I was on a panel at the University of Akron to
> talk about ID, with particular reference to the Dover case. An earlier
> speaker mentioned the statement attributed to one of the Dover defendants,
> "2000 years ago a man died on a cross, and I think somebody should stand
> up for him." (This had been cited as an indication of the board's
> religious intent.) In concluding my remarks I commented that when I speak
> on such matters Christians sometimes say to me things like, "Why aren't
> you preaching the gospel instead of defending these evolutionists?" OK, I
> said, I'll do that. I referred to the statement about "the man who died
> on a cross" & then said, "That's right. & the man who died on a cross is
> where we know God & who God is, not in the details of the bacterial
> flagellum."
>
> In our local paper I was reported as saying that _prayer_ is where we know
> God, not the details of the bacterial flagellum. This was not, as I found
> out, just a simple slip, a conflation of my closing statement with
> something I said earlier about prayer. The reporter thought that this was
> a correct interpretation of what I had said!
>
> Those with some theological smarts will recognize the difference between
> saying that we know God in the objective event of the cross and that we
> know him in subjective religious feelings associated with prayer. The
> latter is the kind of thing that Johnson, Dembski &c would _like_ for
> people such as me to say - i.e., TEs think that God is just a feeling
> while IDers believe in a God who really does things. It isn't what I
> said. But if people in the media don't know the difference then public
> debates about ID will only be confused. & in a debate that generally
> works to the benefit of the side that needs to have facts obscured, which
> in this case is the IDers.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 22 15:04:09 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 15:04:09 EST