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

From: Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 17:59:41 EST

Hello Michael,
   
  Though i don't think you are exaggerating your position as against certain journalists, even Christian ones who are not scientists yet who write about science and religion, I think it would be wrong to use such a broad stroke as if scientists (even Christian ones) are innocent from the same charges. Scientists also have their need to 'sell' themselves and their theories to those who pay their salaries, send them to conferences or who print their books and pamphlets. Sensation and controversy flourish in scientific circles too.
   
  There would be no problem with evolutionary theory and its connections or lack or connections with materialism, naturalism and secularism if it were not for those scientists and scholars who try to pass off evolution as purely atheistic or materialistic. Of course, I am not suggesting you are doing this, and neither is George Murphy. But surely it helps to have journalists on your side rather than against you.
   
  A non-theist acquaintance of mine sent me this journalistic article today, even with good words about the science and religion discourse: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f556177f-8d82-4c24-bfa0-772da0ee3ffe
   
  Journalists must be good for something too!
   
  An apparent lack of willingness to properly define the boundaries and limitations of evolutionary theory on behalf of theistic evolutionists can lead readers of popular news stories to believe that TE's are willing to accept even some of the anti-theistic dimensions of evolutionary theory. Of course, this is almost entirely untrue, and such reporting is against the spirit of fair discourse. But it sure would help if TE's and EC's would provide a statement distancing themselves from the anti-theistic, materialistic and naturalistic dimensions of evolutionary theory in order that the solidly scientific uses of evolution and neo-Darwinism could gain more popular acceptance.
   
  Everyone here surely knows that journalists are not the voice of science itself, but they are great at fuelling controversy and spreading the (good or not so good) news. Perhaps journalists, according to the logic displayed in such examples highlighted by members here, should not be allowed to propogate at ASA because of conflicting interests and promoting personal agendas?
   
  Gregory

  Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
    You have got to remember that journalists sell stories rather than truth. They want to sell sensation and controversy.

Michael

                
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Tue Nov 22 18:06:26 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 18:06:27 EST