Campus personalities present and past Rebecca C. Brown and Tommaso Sciortino tackle the issues. This week on a very special CalJunket: Rebecca learns not to chew with her mouth open and Tommaso finds out his best friend is addicted to no-doze.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
UC Berkeley rejects scientific relativismFrom the LA Times comes this article detailing how our very own UC is standing up to those who believe that biologists should get their knowledge from scientific process and not divine inspiration. (Which is not to knock divine inspiration, just to identify it with its proper sphere).
Basically, some religious right schools are trying to make-believe that students who took a “biology” class using an evolution denying textbook should get as much credit as students who attended bio classes that taught them facts that might actually help them make scientific advancements some day. The UC is putting its foot down and setting firm standards for what students need to know to succeed in biology. The Christian schools are taking the UC to court.
If only the left had a media machine as good as the right stuff like this would get more attention. Bill O’Reilly could stretch an issue like this out for months. Some day… some day.
*snark*I wonder if I this story will get a link from calstuff or if I they only link to stories from the cal patriot nowadays. *snark* Just kidding. I’ll always love calstuff.
Update: Via The Questionable Authority comes these exerpts from one of the books in question:
The people who prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second...If...at any point God's Word is not put first, the authors apologize.And this gem:
The same encyclopedia article may state that the grasshopper evolved 300 million years ago. You may find a description of some insect that the grasshopper supposedly evolved from and a description of the insects that scientists say evolved from the grasshopper. You may even find a "scientific" explanation of the biblical locust (grasshopper) plague in Egypt. These statements are conclusions based on "supposed science." If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.Italics mine. I think I may have been hasty with the calls of scientific relativism. These people just seem to oppose the main tenets of science all together.
A guy in my house was telling me about this story earlier, but when I post it
< snark> I guess I can throw you guys a pity link. < /snark>
"If only the left had a media machine as good as the right stuff like this would get more attention. Bill O’Reilly could stretch an issue like this out for months. Some day… some day."
Tommaso, it's called CBS, ABC, CNN, every major newspaper. It's just that the left is quite unconvincing and people on the coasts are too preoccupied with the right wing stations. If you guys get so worked up about one small little newstation like Fox News, you're really saying the Republicans are winning. Jesus, they have one station and left can't fight back.
For the record, I'm against the war and militarty intervention.
I wonder why it is that Republicans are never bashful about the fact that Fox news is "their" new station while liberals never say the same thing about the other networks. I suppose it could be a grand conspiracy by liberals to not be honest about their secret mind-link with Wolf Blitzer. Or it could be that most people don't actually feel that CNN presents news that is unfair to one side or the other.
You know, it's funny. On the news networks I can find a former Republican presidential candidate, a former republican congressman, a leader of the religious right, and a slew of overtly conservative opinion journalists, and they all have their own shows. But I have to switch to the comedy channel to find a guy who can even openly embrace the principals of liberalism though without any hints of partisanship. When I turn on the radio I have twenty channels of fag-hating and liberal-bashing to choose from, but one station with views different than those who rule every branch of the federal government.
When Republicans don’t like the facts, they make new ones. And when they didn’t like the news media, they made their own media too. I’m not blaming them. If anything, I encourage liberals to follow suite. For the past 30 years, Liberals haven’t been arguing their case very well. While Republicans learned how to use radio and television to make their case, aging hippies were wasting their time holding protest signs while technocratic journalists decided that if they give equal time to “both sides” people would magically figure out who’s telling the truth and whose lying.
You know what? Let’s say we do have CNN for a second. Let’s say we have ABC and CBS too. Let’s say we liberals have all that and you guys have Fox news and the am dial: Can we trade?
Hey don't blame your loss in the 2004 presidential election to lack of liberal views. Was Dan Rather a conservative? Ted Turner? Tom Brokow? Bernie Ward? You know it seems like you liberals think that something is fair and balanced because it fits your views. Well you know what, NO media source is fair and balanced because individuals are not fair and balanced.
Do you really think the news media is conservative? Try stepping back and looking at it from a removed perspective and stop wearing liberal shoes when you try and apply your judgment of fairness.
I'm a conservative and I consider some news stations to be conservative and some liberal. That makes sense. Your definition of fair and balanced isn't on the same wavelength as most Americans.
I believe that the left or right bias of the main media (CNN, ABC, CBS etc.) are so subtle that they are of no concern. The real problem is all the other biases: being the first to get info on air, getting ratings, getting it in under budget, pleasing the people in power to maintain your access. This is what is bringing the news media down.
Everyone has biases, but some newscasters revel in them (like the ones at Fox news) and others try to cover them up with technocratic "he said, she said" journalism. Even if most news stations have liberals in them, they aren't acting as a partisan media becuase they have forgetten that balanced journalism doesn't mean that "the left and the right complain about you in equal amounts".
You hold Dan Rather up as some sort of liberal crusader, but did he ever fawn over Kerry like the folks at Fox news did for Bush? Did he argue for Democratic proposals when they came up. Did he even operate as an opinion journalist at all? No. He is a reporter, and a bit of a shoddy one at that. To pretend that a reporter is equivelant to an opinion journalist is to not understand the difference at all.
There is no Bill O'reilly of the left on the news. John Stewart is the closest we come and of course he wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a real news show. This isn't meant as an "excuse" for democratic losses, rather this is the "reason" Democrats have failed. Liberals brought this upon them selves and they have no one but themselves to blame.
Let's save the Republican persecution complex for a time when you don't actually control every lever of power.
"Even if most news stations have liberals in them, they aren't acting as a partisan media becuase they have forgetten that balanced journalism doesn't mean that "the left and the right complain about you in equal amounts"."
So you're automatically assuming that liberals believe in balanced journalism? I recommend you listen to a talk from Charles Wylie about the difference between advocacy journalism (done by ALL major news stations including Fox, their fair and balanced stuff is bull) and objective journalism.
Yes, in the 2000 election i heard Dan Rather say (during the map with the states), "If WE can just win a few more states here and there..."
That's pretty balanced to me... lol
I'm not saying liberals automatically believe in balanced journalism. Check out IndyMedia to see that. I'm just saying that the nominal liberals at CBS aren't partisan like the conservatives at Fox. Yes, the conservatives on Fox continually complain about "liberal bias" at CBS, but whining about something doesn't make it so.
This is a weird conversation for us to be in. I'm continually complimenting you on your superior network (for indeed Fox still has the highest ratings) and you're trying to put it down.
Fox has the highest ratings because it's the only conservative news station while the others lean to the left. Naturally, since about half of America is conservative, Fox would have higher ratings.
I understand that both Tommaso and RepBast feel like the other side controls the media. This is a natural feeling... they want to look like victims because it makes their victory look like they won IN SPITE of the media, and the loser lost BECAUSE of the media.
The answer about media bias is that viewers tend to think the media is biased towards the other side. So a Republican will think that conservative Fox is either fair and balanced or leaning to the left and a Democrat will thinkt hat liberal CBS is either fair and balanced or leaning to the right.
Well there's the paleocons who think everything the neocons are doing is liberal. Also, I know people who think Fox leans left on some things because of liberal reporters and correspondents. Carl Cameron, for example, or Gerardo.Post a Comment