Re: On Gray, "Darwinism," and "design"

From: Keith Miller <>
Date: Mon Feb 13 2006 - 09:48:14 EST

Gregory Arago wrote:

> "It is the ID proponents who insist on labelling evolutionary
> theory as 'Darwinism' and on defining it as implying a purposeless
> and meaningless process that denies God." - Keith Miller
> Yes, and if so then why can this not be revealed to the American
> public? Is there no public relations vehicle capable of countering
> the IDM's rhetoric/propaganda? I ask this not to be pretentious,
> but to seek real possibilities and answers. Is it because the IDM
> promises sensationalist consequences in science (e.g. Dembski's
> 'revolution' chants) that ID dominates the news columns? Or perhaps
> a process has yet to be put in motion that would satisfactorily
> curtail such false labelling of evolution by God seekers who are
> concerned that evolution obscures their search?

I, and many others, in Kansas have been saying this at every
opportunity we can get. It was also the primary response made in
opposition to the ID hearings last summer. It is just very difficult
to get that message communicated and to have it understood by the
media. The "science equals naturalism" and "evolution equals
atheism" line is continually pressed by the ID proponents media
communication. Unfortunately the issue has become completely
politicized and an issue of public relations. Most scientists are
not experienced or trained in media relations, and on giving short
sound bites and focussing on framing rather than substance. The
media looks for one sentence summaries - scientists don't do that well.

Received on Mon Feb 13 09:53:29 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 13 2006 - 09:53:29 EST