Comments on: Journalistic integrity http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:32:19 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Tim Farley http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/comment-page-2/#comment-10060 Tim Farley Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:17:24 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/#comment-10060 Most readers of this site have probably seen it before, but just in case not I thought I would call attention to a great piece on the whole issue of "fairness" in reporting of science issues in journalism at the Columbia Journalism Review. Blinded By Science How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality URL: http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp Most readers of this site have probably seen it before, but just in case not I thought I would call attention to a great piece on the whole issue of “fairness” in reporting of science issues in journalism at the Columbia Journalism Review.

Blinded By Science
How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality
URL: http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp

]]> By: Irishman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/comment-page-2/#comment-10059 Irishman Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:34:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/#comment-10059 RAD Said: >Tracy, I see a common problem that creation believers have is that they think the theory of evolution is all about how life began. Not true, its about how life has changed. This is a point where I have a quibble. Creationists lump life origins into Evolution not just by mistake, but because Evolution is a naturalistic approach to describing how life diversified. While technically evolution is the process of change of life forms, there is the underlying premise that life began at some point and changed from there, whereas Creationists take life to have begun in diversified form, not from a common point. But the real issue is that when scientists get around to discovering about life origins, their answer will not be *poof* "it came from nowhere". Rather, the scientific answer will be a naturalistic explanation about how the complex molecules formed and combined into more complex structures and began replicating. That answer will be every bit as naturalist as Evolution is now. The premise of whether or not God is ultimately responsible will still be a religious question that has no bearing on how life began. So I sometimes don't agree with the harping on "Evolution doesn't say anything about life origins", because any scientific answer will have to be merged with Evolution and will have the same naturalist foundation. RAD Said:
>Tracy, I see a common problem that creation believers have is that they think the theory of evolution is all about how life began. Not true, its about how life has changed.

This is a point where I have a quibble. Creationists lump life origins into Evolution not just by mistake, but because Evolution is a naturalistic approach to describing how life diversified. While technically evolution is the process of change of life forms, there is the underlying premise that life began at some point and changed from there, whereas Creationists take life to have begun in diversified form, not from a common point.

But the real issue is that when scientists get around to discovering about life origins, their answer will not be *poof* “it came from nowhere”. Rather, the scientific answer will be a naturalistic explanation about how the complex molecules formed and combined into more complex structures and began replicating. That answer will be every bit as naturalist as Evolution is now. The premise of whether or not God is ultimately responsible will still be a religious question that has no bearing on how life began.

So I sometimes don’t agree with the harping on “Evolution doesn’t say anything about life origins”, because any scientific answer will have to be merged with Evolution and will have the same naturalist foundation.

]]> By: RAD http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/comment-page-2/#comment-10058 RAD Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:10:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/#comment-10058 Tracy, I see a common problem that creation believers have is that they think the theory of evolution is all about how life began. Not true, its about how life has changed. If you could just get past life this and realize that evolution is a true and tested theory in that change happens and is still happening, then I think you could come to terms with evolution and life origins not being the same thing. The life origins link above should exlain that point clearly including the "common ancestor" theory is not evolution but only a part of it. This conflict between creation and evolution seems to be, at the very core anyway, this very same problem. There is more involved then that but that is where the problem begins Tracy, I see a common problem that creation believers have is that they think the theory of evolution is all about how life began. Not true, its about how life has changed. If you could just get past life this and realize that evolution is a true and tested theory in that change happens and is still happening, then I think you could come to terms with evolution and life origins not being the same thing. The life origins link above should exlain that point clearly including the “common ancestor” theory is not evolution but only a part of it. This conflict between creation and evolution seems to be, at the very core anyway, this very same problem. There is more involved then that but that is where the problem begins

]]> By: Irishman http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/comment-page-2/#comment-10057 Irishman Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:38:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/#comment-10057 Kent Hovind credentials: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html <a href="http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/6756_unmasking_the_false_prophet_of_9_1_1999.asp" rel="nofollow">read also here</a> Tracy said: >About gaps in the fossil record. Sorry, but there are not just gaps that are ” few and far between,” but rather whole periods of time unaccounted for with no transitional fossils at all. We could have no fossil record whatsoever and Evolution would still stand. The fossil record provided the first insights into understanding evolution, but modern genetics and other elements of biology provide plenty of footing for Evolution if there were no fossils at all. >There is another issue I didn’t mention in my original post, and that deals with the subject of GENETICS and how GENETICS prove that Neanderthals have no link to modern man. I fail to see how this defeats Evolution. Evolution allows for divergence and competing lines. There are gorillas and chimps and orangutans. The existence of gorillas does not make chimps obsolete. >This evidence along with the frauds of Java, Piltdown and Peking man should at least cause those on both sides of the debate to take a look. I am aware of Piltdown man, but are Java and Peking man frauds? Kent Hovind credentials:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

read also here

Tracy said:
>About gaps in the fossil record. Sorry, but there are not just gaps that are ” few and far between,” but rather whole periods of time unaccounted for with no transitional fossils at all.

We could have no fossil record whatsoever and Evolution would still stand. The fossil record provided the first insights into understanding evolution, but modern genetics and other elements of biology provide plenty of footing for Evolution if there were no fossils at all.

>There is another issue I didn’t mention in my original post, and that deals with the subject of GENETICS and how GENETICS prove that Neanderthals have no link to modern man.

I fail to see how this defeats Evolution. Evolution allows for divergence and competing lines. There are gorillas and chimps and orangutans. The existence of gorillas does not make chimps obsolete.

>This evidence along with the frauds of Java, Piltdown and Peking man should at least cause those on both sides of the debate to take a look.

I am aware of Piltdown man, but are Java and Peking man frauds?

]]> By: L. Fuller http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/comment-page-2/#comment-10007 L. Fuller Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:13:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/#comment-10007 Also, speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html Also, speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

]]> By: L. Fuller http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/comment-page-2/#comment-10006 L. Fuller Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:07:30 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/#comment-10006 Please see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe on the misconception that evolution has never been observed. It has been both observed directly and indirectly http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ In fact, here is a good FAQ page that has links to resources on many misconceptions about evolution, including transitional vertebrate fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html I would recommend reading Darwin's Black Box as well. I did so when it first came out and I have found it an invaluable resource for understanding the ID mindset and how to counter the damage that it tries to do to real science. Please see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe on the misconception that evolution has never been observed. It has been both observed directly and indirectly http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

In fact, here is a good FAQ page that has links to resources on many misconceptions about evolution, including transitional vertebrate fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

I would recommend reading Darwin’s Black Box as well. I did so when it first came out and I have found it an invaluable resource for understanding the ID mindset and how to counter the damage that it tries to do to real science.

]]> By: PK http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/comment-page-1/#comment-10005 PK Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:51:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/01/18/journalistic-integrity/#comment-10005 Tracy says: <i>People were smaller in that time period, didn’t have good nutrition, vaccines or sports nutrition. Today peole do, and they grow much taller, stronger and healthier. That is micro-evolution.</i> This is Lysenkoism, and has been thoroughly refuted. It was favoured by Stalin, because "survival of the fittest" does not agree with the communist philosophy. There are interesting parallels with the creationism crowd. Tracy says: People were smaller in that time period, didn’t have good nutrition, vaccines or sports nutrition. Today peole do, and they grow much taller, stronger and healthier. That is micro-evolution.

This is Lysenkoism, and has been thoroughly refuted.

It was favoured by Stalin, because “survival of the fittest” does not agree with the communist philosophy. There are interesting parallels with the creationism crowd.

]]>