More and more, we're seeing top level reporters in the prestige press rejecting the concept of phony "balance," and exposing nonsense when they see it. A great example comes in a recent Times story covering debate over an anti-evolution bill in Utah:
The Utah bill's main sponsor, State Senator D. Chris Buttars, a Republican from the Salt Lake City suburbs, said he was not surprised by the debate it had inspired. He said ordinary voters were deeply concerned about the teaching of evolution.
"I got tired of people calling me and saying, 'Why is my kid coming home from high school and saying his biology teacher told him he evolved from a chimpanzee?'" Mr. Buttars said.
Evolutionary theory does not say that humans evolved from chimpanzees or from any existing species, but rather that common ancestors gave rise to multiple species and that natural selection -- in which the creatures best adapted to an environment pass their genes to the next generation -- was the means by which divergence occurred over time. All modern biology is based on the theory, and within the scientific community, at least, there is no controversy about it. [Italics added] How's that for a debunking of Mr. Buttars' ridiculous statement about people evolving from chimpanzees? I seriously doubt Utah science teachers are telling kids anything like this. Rather, I suspect what we have here is a case of Christian conservatives complaining about something that they didn't even bother to understand first.
And speaking about Christian conservatives and evolution, check out Jerry Falwell on the subject. First, he writes this:
Creationists and evolutionists utilize the same historic facts and evidences in their research, but they reach largely dissimilar conclusions. But the evolutionists' interpretation of the evidence at hand is largely given authority over the proposals of creationists.
But by the end of the article, Falwell is saying this:
...I will continue to stand against the evolutionary and secularist tides by proclaiming that God spoke the heavens and the earth into existence in six literal days.
In this last quotation, Falwell is clearly relying on very different "evidences" than do evolutionary scientists. Namely, he is accepting that the Bible is literally true. Last I checked, evolutionary biologists do not accept such "evidences." Moreover, it's quite precious of Falwell to gripe about evolutionists claiming a position of authority when he's willing to accept the authority of the Bible without question....who's the bigger authoritarian here? Who is less open-minded? I think that's pretty obvious.
