PBS Affiliate KNME Gets Some Support


Howdy folks.

Here are links to some recent articles supporting KNME’s decision not to air the creationist ‘infomercial’, “Unlocking the Mystery of Life.” Cheers, Dave

KNME Put Lock on Infomercial (N.M. Academy of Science )

The reason ID supporters want “Unlocking” shown on public television instead of religious stations is that they want the implied “seal of approval” that comes with being aired on KNME. They want to ride the coattails of PBS programs such as “Nova” and “Nature.” They want the respect given modern science, but they have not earned that respect in the science community.

Albuquerque Tribune Editorial: KNME did right thing to pull ‘science’ show

Journalists recognize the techniques in the program as “spinning” - in this case enlisting peer-reviewed science in making the case for an idea that hasn’t been submitted to the intense rigor of that same peer-review process. Intelligent design so far has failed to meet the most basic of scientific standards.

KNME is a precious community, regional and national TV resource. In this decision, it affirmed worthy and cherished values of public broadcasting. In adhering to those values, it deserves the support of Albuquerque and other New Mexico citizens.

Crosswinds Weekly: “Posing as science” by Steve Lawrence (will be over-written after this week…)

New Mexico’s largest public television station, KNME (channel 5), remains under fire for refusing to air an ersatz documentary that pushes creationism as science.

It is apparently well known that Albuquerque’s Public School administrators have refused to fire a high school science teacher nicknamed “Six-thousand-year Phil” who teaches his science students that the earth is only 6,000 years old. His proof? The Bible says so.

Previously on The Thumb:

Albuquerque PBS Station Under Fire by Creationists

The Discovery Institute’s Strange Allies (Jan. 21, 2005)



Good description. It tends to emphasize the fact that a key part of the piece is a plea to sell copies of it for showing at churches.

Abusing propositional logic, one of the DI’s favorite rhetorical tools.

“Evolution is false because intermediate fossils are missing.” This is a conjunction of three propositions:

1- Evolution requires intermediates 2- There should be fossils of these intermediates 3- These fossils should have been found

Proposition 1 is generally true. Proposition 2 may be false. Proposition 3 is dubious.

This is a riot! If there are intermediate fossils then evolution is supported. But on the other hand, if there are no intermediate fossils then evolution wins again because of the use of propositional logic with dubious propositions.

“Life is too complicated to have evolved” This involves two propositions: 1- Life is complicated 2- Complicated things can’t arise by evolution

In this case proposition 1 is true. Proposition 2 is consistent with everyday experience, but not universally true.

If life isn’t complicated then evolution is possible. If life is complicated, then evolution is still possible.


Come, come, Jeff Low. Tell us what you really mean. Do you assert that there are no transitional fossil sequences?

(Hmm. I might get to use the TFEC on the web…)

Here’s the scoop, Jeff:

1. If evolution occurs, it produces “intermediates,” such as a father between a grandfather and grandson. This is a byproduct of evolution, not a requirement of evolution.

2. If fossilization occurs in any sort of sampling sequence, it will likely have sampled some of these intermediates.

3. Intermediates in fossil form are very common. For example, among the most spectacular of intermediates are the archeopteryx fossils, which show a feathered, flying creatures that has a tail more like a dinosaur than a modern bird, and which lacks a beak, but which has teeth like a reptile. Not only are these fossils almost-perfect examples of the sorts of intermediates that would be expected to be found if evolution occurs, but of the seven best specimens (most of them nearly complete), we have seven different species of archeopteryx represented, showing evolution within the genus or near-genus.

Not strictly related to this thread, an American Indian publication/website posted an editorial about evolution and the American Indian with a take on the topic a bit different than what we commonly see. Nonetheless the writer strongly supports evolution of which his/her initial comment…

Rather, “intelligent design” is simply well conceptualized and crafted ideological garbage.

…is well taken. Such candor is welcome. The essay, which can be found at http://www.indiancountry.com/conten[…]d=1096410255, is worth reading.

Jeff seems to have a good handle the value of propositional logic in science.

“If life isn’t complicated then evolution is possible. If life is complicated, then evolution is still possible.”

Actually, no. If life weren’t complicated, then it wouldn’t be robust enough for natural selection to work or have anything to work on.

But then, real life contains LOTS of “heads I win, tails you lose” situations anyway, so I don’t see your point. If I go to the bank, you’re a moron, and if I don’t go to the bank, you’re STILL a moron. See?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on January 28, 2005 11:41 PM.

Anti-Evolution in Georgia (Again) was the previous entry in this blog.

ID, Scott, Steves in Newsweek. Forecast: DI Complaints. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter