Monday, July 13, 2009

The Politics of Scientists and the Media

It isn’t news that the media has a liberal bias—but what about scientists? According to a recent survey by Pew Research Center, 87% of scientists identify themselves as being either moderates or liberals while only 9% of scientists are conservatives.

Promoters of Darwinian evolution don’t like it when they are confronted with the public’s desire that both sides be taught on the issue of origins science. They often defend the exclusion of other views by stating that science isn’t a democracy.

It sure isn’t—it sounds like they think they are an aristocracy.

The survey found that the public’s views on the issue of evolution was “strongly linked to religion.” “The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public,” the survey stated.

Among scientists, 51% believe in God or a higher power while 95% of the general public believes in God or a higher power.

Should the “aristocracy” decide what is taught in the PUBLIC classroom?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent point! The fact is that science has a perspective too on issues of origins. The scientific world has a self-imposed ban on printing anything that is not friendly to their view. The system is corrupt which is generally what happens when people engage in censorship.

Anonymous said...

MV1805-
I believe Mr Freshwater has stated he does not teach creationism in school. If so why are you dedicating this whole blog site to supporting him? You are obviously pro creatiionism

Anonymous said...

Obviously you don't find the thought of a knowledge and authority based 'aristocracy' as bad as you're trying to insinuate science is, or you would have stopped listening to whatever 'man of god' tells you what he thinks is right about 'religion'.
You probably wouldn't take a scientist's or an engineer's advice on religion as carrying much weight because he's not an authority on the subject, so why would you be prepared to take a religious person's word on what's good for science and education if they know nothing of the subject?
Long answer short is that you wouldn't, because if you put people in charge of science and education who care more about their religious ideology than making well educated kids, then you're going to end up with a lot of stupid people a few years down the road.
Plus, it's also incredibly self-serving and disingenuous to link to a professed conservative group, a la MediaResearch.org, aiming to show liberal bias in the media. It must be easy to prove bias when you're already biased from the start. A recent study from Indianna University that is based on the actual facts of reality shows that media bias actually leans the other way, as in, the bias favors conservatives. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/993.html

mountvernon1805 said...

Anonymous said: “MV1805-I believe Mr Freshwater has stated he does not teach creationism in school. If so why are you dedicating this whole blog site to supporting him? You are obviously pro creationism”

Thanks for commenting.

Yes, Freshwater has stated he followed the school's instruction to not teach creationism or ID.

This site is not dedicated to supporting Freshwater—it is dedicated to seeking and reporting the truth. I have presented information from the various sides involved in the controversy at the Mount Vernon Middle School.

mountvernon1805 said...

Anonymous said: “You probably wouldn't take a scientist's or an engineer's advice on religion as carrying much weight because he's not an authority on the subject,[…]”

Thanks for commenting.

The problem is that scientists are trying to do just that when they deal with origins science. Darwinian evolution pushes the boundaries of science—maybe to the breaking point. It falls into the category of “origin science” and attempts, like intelligent design (ID), to answer the philosophical question of “Where did we come from?” (see my previous article Evolution – Is It More Speculative Philosophy than It Is Science?)

At issue here is the question of how much influence does the political and religious beliefs of scientists have on their interpretation of data—the two hot button topics the survey dealt with was evolution and global warming.

Anonymous said: “[…] so why would you be prepared to take a religious person's word on what's good for science and education if they know nothing of the subject?”

Not everyone agrees with the conclusions that Darwinian evolutionists come to. The public wants a broader perspective taught in the classroom. (Although evolutionists don’t always want to admit it, the interpretation of data related to origins science is often influenced by a scientist’s assumptions.)

When it comes to a class on religion, I would expect that the beliefs of scientists should also be represented.

Anonymous said: “A recent study from Indianna University that is based on the actual facts of reality shows that media bias actually leans the other way, as in, the bias favors conservatives. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/993.html”

Reality shows? That is not exactly what I have in mind when I think of the issue of bias in the media—I had in mind journalism.

Also, your link goes to a page about physical fitness.

Anonymous said...

MV-
I actually disagree with you. Your reporting only on Mr Hamiltons witness' not the school boards.

mountvernon1805 said...

Anonymous said” “MV-I actually disagree with you. Your reporting only on Mr Hamiltons witness' not the school boards.”

Witnesses that I’ve reported on that have been called by the school board include: James Hoeffgen, Kathy Kasler, Bonnie Schutte, Zachary Dennis (first time on stand), Jennifer Dennis (first time on stand), Dr. David Levy, Paul Souhrada, and Simon Souhrada.

Other witnesses I’ve reported on that were called by Hamilton but should have been favorable to school board include: Julia Herlevi (one of the school’s investigators), Dr. Lynda Weston (school administrator and significant source for school’s report), Jeff Maley (former superintendent of the Mount Vernon City Schools) and Deborah Strouse (the monitor assigned by the school to Freshwater’s classroom in the spring of 2008).

Even when I’m reporting on witness called by Hamilton, I will often cite statements made in the HROC report, in the “termination” resolution and etc.

Post a Comment

Comments from all ideological viewpoints are welcome. However, please avoid abusive language and ad hominem attacks.