Posted January 7, 2005 by Dave Thomas
President, New Mexicans for Science and Reason (NMSR)
KUDOS for KNME!
Or, Responsible Programming is Not Censorship
The local PBS affiliate, KNME TV-5, is embroiled in a flap largely created from whole cloth by New Mexico’s “Intelligent Design” (ID) creationists. Members of IDnet-NM have lobbied KNME for years to carry the ID documentary video called “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”. The KNME program director turned down requests to air the video last summer, telling IDnet-NM “…a reasonable segment of the public might readily conclude that the program was created solely to promote the interests of the funder.”
After that program director left KNME, IDnet-NM sensed a new opportunity, and managed to get somebody at KNME to schedule the ID video for Friday, Jan. 7th, at 9PM. When scientists in various watchdog groups (New Mexico Academy of Science, CESE, and NMSR) noticed the schedule, calls were made to KNME, asking why they had reversed their previous decision not to air the pseudo-documentary. When KNME senior management looked into the situation, the decision was made to pull the video. As reported in the Albuquerque Journal on Jan. 7th (subscription required), “‘The funders of this program have a clear and specific agenda that they openly promote,’ said KNME marketing manager Joan Rebecchi. ‘KNME has no position regarding this agenda, but we must guard against the public perception that editorial control might have been exercised by the program funders.’…”
As soon as news came out that the ID video would not be shown, IDers and creationists began to scream Bloody Murder. KNME has been condemned locally by the Creation Science Fellowship of NM and by IDnet-NM, and nationally at World Net Daily, the Discovery Institute, Agape Press, the Southern Baptist Press, and the Discovery Institute’s new Blog. (The CESE site has a compendium of creationist whining about KNME.)
IDNet-NM took out a large ad in Friday’s Journal which declared “In Our Opinion This Is Unprecedented Censorship… It is unfortunate that New Mexico residents will be denied the chance to see for themselves the scientific evidence that directly opposes specific parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution, evidence that supports an intelligently designed universe. … Paid for by those in the Scientific Community that would like to see both sides of the debate allowed.”
This is the IDnet-NM ad which ran on Friday, January 7th in the Albuquerque Journal.
Here’s where it gets interesting. The day before this ad ran, staffers at KNME offered a compromise. Although KNME couldn’t air the video because of its funding connections, it did offer to produce a local show featuring local scientists both for and against “Intelligent Design.” In this way, KNME said, the discussion could commence - free speech would be encouraged - and the debate would be aired publicly, as IDnet was demanding. NMSR members Dave Thomas and Kim Johnson agreed to appear on the half-hour show “In Focus,” which would have aired on Friday, Jan. 7th at 8:30 PM, but Joe Renick and Mike Kent of IDnet-NM refused to participate in the panel discussion, dismissing it as an “unproductive use of time.”
Why do the IDers complain about “unprecedented censorship,” and yet refuse to participate in an open discussion of these same ideas? I think the reason is the playing field, pure and simple. The “Unlocking” video has been very carefully crafted to look scientific, not religious. It avoids any substantive discussion, and is simply an ID propaganda vehicle. (Some Christian groups market the video as “the most impressive evangelistic tool ever made!”)
Renick’s and IDnet’s accusations of “censorship” are absurd, especially given IDnet-NM’s refusal to participate in a public discussion of this topic with mainstream scientists. Do the members of IDnet-NM want “both sides of the debate allowed,” as they claim? NO! They only want THEIR side of the debate to be aired. They will step into the ring ONLY if the fight is fixed in advance.
KNME should be applauded for not caving in to special-interest pressure to show this poor documentary. Even if the funding sources were sanitized, the video is no more worthy of airing on Public Television than are the “Apollo was a Hoax” documentaries popping up on FOX TV from time to time. As Molleen Matsumura said in a Jan. 6th e-mail,“Responsible programming is not censorship*.”
We know that KNME is getting anguished calls from misinformed creationists. How about sending them a ? Here’s the Sweetest Message of All for a public television station. Also, check out KNME’s Science Crawl!
*Hooray for KNME! SUPPORT PUBLIC TELEVISION!*
OPEN LETTER TO KOB TV4 (The NBC Affiliate in
Albuquerque, NM)
To KOB TV4 Feedback 4:
I was appalled by tonight’s [1-5-05] segment on KNME’s refusal to air the “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life” video. I have seen this video myself, and found it to be old-style creationism dressed up in a nice new lab coat.
I imagine the creationist community lobbied your station to carry an item about KNME. Of course, they didn’t tell you they were creationists. But that’s who they are, and it was obvious from your extremely slanted coverage.
You interviewed Rebecca Keller, representing the creationist position(now renamed “intelligent design” to obscure the religious source), but you didn’t interview even one mainstream biologist or scientist.
The list of other cities showing this video exists because creationists have been lobbying those cities hard, as they have been pressuring KNME for years, regarding this pseudo-documentary. Creationists desperately fear modern science, as they feel it is incompatible with their personal religion. (Most denominations have no problem with evolution, however.) And so, creationists hound public TV stations to show their material to the community, here and elsewhere. And they’re hounding YOU to make them out to be Martyrs. And you fell for it!
Did you know that…
* the “science” in this show is on the same level as the
pseudoscientific claims that NASA faked the moon landings …
* the producers of the “Unlocking” video also produce Christian
films about Easter, the Passion, Hell, etc. ….
* the local creationist group, Creation Science Fellowship of New
Mexico, had excitedly promoted KNME’s showing of “unlocking”, and is
now protesting vehemently since the showing was rescinded;
* Calvary Chapel is promoting the showing on its web site…
* World Net Daily, a major Christian website, is rallying its troops
against the tyrannical KNME….
* the main claim of the video, that natural processes can’t explain
complicated living structures, has been clearly and carefully
refuted in recent years, with ***major*** publications in Science
and Nature…
You owe your viewers an Update on this story. Your coverage was clearly biased toward creationists, a fringe position in science.
You need to talk to some real scientists, biologists, etc. I can get you connected with hundreds.
My website, for New Mexicans for Science and Reason, has many articles on creation/evolution: http://www.nmsr.org…
Please also check out the web site for the Coalition for Excellence in
Science and Math Education, http://www.cesame-nm.org…
Thanks, and please - write or call.
You wanted Feedback - you got it!
Sincerely, Dave Thomas
President, NMSR
Wha’d I Tell Ya? Discovery Institute Lauds KOB TV4
From http://www.evolutionnews.org/…: “First on Wednesday (Jan. 5), Albuquerque’s ABC affiliate KOB aired a story that correctly reported this a censorship of science. Their coverage was very good, although they did mistakenly identify Discovery’s Center for Science & Culture as the funder of the film, which is not true. …”
To be fair, KOB is the* NBC* affiliate…
17 Comments
Great White Wonder · 7 January 2005
Flint · 7 January 2005
The proposal for a panel discussion is itself slanted, although KNME might not have been aware of it. Creationists will not engage in such discussions unless they are granted the sole right to designate (1)The audience; (2)the moderator; and (3)the format. Not surprising, of course, when public relations is the goal.
Don T. Know · 7 January 2005
Dear PBS:
If the intention of running the video, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," was for scientific enlightenment, you did the right thing by deciding not to air it. Intelligent Design (ID) is a conclusion that is neither supported nor denied by science. It is a matter of personal faith as to whether the world around us came about through the actions of a higher power. Science itself is agnostic as to a "designer."
You are also to be commended for reaching out to address the concerns of the video-makers so that they can have the kind of "equal treatment" they were purportedly asking for. So, it's a bit perplexing as to why they refused to join a panel that would have allowed for a fair-and-balanced discussion between IDers and those who cannot accept the claims of ID because they are not subject to scientific investigation.
Even though I am not from New Mexico, your decision does impact me because I support my local PBS station in Maryland. If this video were permitted to be shown as a science program, it would have set a precedent that may very well have had repercussions at my local station. Sometimes, it's better to nip these things in the bud.
Sincerely,
xxxxx
Flint · 7 January 2005
I must admit I get a kick out of our usual pious "I simply cannot understand why ID proponents would oppose a balanced presentation" posture. Oh, we are just so perplexed by this. After all, honest opponents would be more than happy to play on a level field!
DaveScot · 7 January 2005
Don T. Know said:
"Science itself is agnostic as to a "designer.""
I agree that it should be. In practice I don't agree that it is.
What follows from the agnostic position is that a designer is a possible explanation for life. That's precisely what the IDers want to be made clear up front when introducing young minds to evolutionary theory.
The fact of the matter is that it is not being taught from the agnostic view. There is no explicit acknowledgement made in the teaching of evolution that design is a possibility. The only possibility being mentioned is undirected mutation/selection.
Great White Wonder · 7 January 2005
PvM · 7 January 2005
PvM · 7 January 2005
Reed A. Cartwright · 7 January 2005
386sx · 8 January 2005
What mysteries are they unlocking. They want to lock mysteries. They want to make the mysteries "irreducible." Duh!
Aggie Nostic · 8 January 2005
What follows from the agnostic position is that a designer is a possible explanation for life. That's precisely what the IDers want to be made clear up front when introducing young minds to evolutionary theory.
The error you (and I think IDers) are making is that they assume evolution in general and natural selection in particular somehow precludes a "designer." It does not. It also does not preclude a lot of things, including the idea that visitors from other galaxies "got the ball rolling" or "guided it along the way."
The question is whether the notion of a designer (or any other "guiding force") adds anything of value - in terms of explanatory power with utility - to our body of scientific knowledge. I argue that it does not and therefore should not be included in a science classroom. If a student wants to believe a higher power was involved in a scientific process, then so be it. Neither science nor scientists should nudge him one way or the other.
Also, the fact that a handful of scientists might be militant and overstep the bounds of science does not mean evolutionary theory itself is inherently atheistic. The only reason evolutionary theory (vs. say gravity) is singled out for a beating is not because of Darwin, but rather because of biblical literalists who have a self-made dilemma of reconciling what they believe to be an inerrant book with the facts on the ground.
Keep in mind that very few (if any) IDers advocate ID in its own right. They are IDers first and foremost because they oppose evolution and see ID as a way to discredit evolution. And, like creationism, ID has no testable theory of its own; and it makes the same mistake of thinking disproof of A = proof of B.
Aggie Nostic · 8 January 2005
Hmm, in my experience IDers don't want to say that "a designer" is a possibility, they want to say that it is the reality. That is why much of their production is negative argumentation against modern biology.
It's also why evangelical organizations praise "Unlocking" as an excellent tool for spreading the Gospel of Christ. Were the film actually meant to increase the body of scientific knowledge, conservative Christians wouldn't give it the time of day.
Keanus · 8 January 2005
Reed A. Cartwright · 8 January 2005
It probably is true, since supporters were successful in sneaking it into the PBS rotation by hiding the video's agenda. For example the Christian company that made it created a new company to market the video under, so that it could not be easily traced back to them. I think the only way people were able to make the connection was through domain name registrations.
Ed Darrell · 8 January 2005
DI bought time on commercial stations in many markets in 2003 -- especially in Texas, as part of their campaign against science texts. So some of the airings were purchased (my recollection is that it aired at 2:00 a.m. on a Dallas commercial station).
And my recollection is they sneaked it on to several PBS stations, including one in El Paso.
In no case did DI present the film as a challenge to other programs on PBS, and at no time did they present it openly as an ID program. Subterfuge was their chief tool.
At the same time, DI and its comrades organized dozens of public "education" sessions at churches across the nation. For every presentation at a science conference, there have been four or five dozen presentations at churches, presenting ID as a religious alternative to evolution. I attended one such presentation here in Dallas, and there was no attempt made to cover up the religious leanings of the DI folk, or the religous underpinnings of their ideas -- in fact, they celebrated those links.
It's a wonderfully hypocritical process, breathtaking to watch!
Jeremy Mohn · 8 January 2005
Ed Darrell · 9 January 2005
Oddly enough, though, Jeremy, ID doesn't "happen" to appeal to people who spend time in biology laboratories, nor do ID advocates happen to have meetings in labs, or in the field, or any place that science research is really conducted.
Instead ID advocates congregate before school boards and legislatures!
Politics? No, just another in a string of amazing coincidences that cannot be ascribed to natural processes . . .