From: pz Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: WGBH's Evolution: no method, what message? Date: 28 Sep 2001 08:48:38 -0400 Organization: Hah. Lines: 109 Message-ID: References: <3BB40081.D5906B1@rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin.ediacara.org User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC) X-Face: 2s*=*s!>PPD}[;eqzoV\c_ma%;3[x!BS@$R_+qzk,(>Xe5Ox$}z3?4D=4g![%IjIK{}DXEA3J\(~Q/Z?8"YNL8k*9s:?jef>w9r&NIcPp~.W>h/J(JC/$CQr9<9kNr!iET(6wd8+CiOTmzQj@x~5B/nB4+\yf7^u&_~.rp|Q4%r[;nr_J`G&f X-Complaints-To: abuse@onvoy.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 07:48:31 CDT In article <3BB40081.D5906B1@rcn.com>, Wade Hines wrote: > WGBH's series "Evolution" has certainly been met with mixed reviews. > > It has been attacked before it aired by the likes of the Discovery > Institute. There are those who have expressed their admiration for > the show in this forum including for instance kudos for the first > episode from those who have closely studied Darwin's life despite > their ability to point out multiple mistakes. But I'm also struck > with the broad dissatisfaction from both experts and non experts with > the series, counting myself as one of the lesser experts. > > Why? > > From the pbs website we have the following: > > Evolution determines who lives, who dies, and who passes traits > on to the next generation. The process plays a critical role in > our daily lives, yet it is one of the most overlooked -- and > misunderstood -- concepts ever described. > > The Evolution project's eight-hour television miniseries travels > the world to examine evolutionary science and the profound effect > it has had on society and culture. From the genius and torment of > Charles Darwin to the scientific revolution that spawned the tree > of life, from the power of sex to drive evolutionary change to the > importance of mass extinctions in the birth of new species, the > Evolution series brings this fascinating process to life. The series > also explores the emergence of consciousness, the origin and success > of humans, and the perceived conflict between science and religion > in understanding life on Earth. > > The Evolution series' goals are to heighten public understanding of > evolution and how it works, to dispel common misunderstandings about > the process, and to illuminate why it is relevant to all of us. > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/about/overview.html > > It's a flawed beginning. Evolution does not determine who lives > and dies, evolution is a consequence of who lives(to reproduce). > They have the cart before the horse. Frankly similarly muddled > thinking permeates the series. If this is the standard of evolution > being broadly taught, the creationists not only will have an easy > time of it, they have reasons to be unconvinced. > > If one leaps to the statement of goals, I'm afraid the series > misfired there too. I've missed two segments but unless they > are broadly different, "how it works" has been generally ignored > except in the very broadest sense dependent wholly on believing > the talking heads (or labcoats). A thinking viewer wasn't given > much to think about, just things to agree with or disagree with. > > As to dispelling misconceptions, where was that done? In the last > episode they presented vignettes of different people saying what > they believed and a few students expressing rather haphazard > lines of thought. That dinners not finished so we should let > them finish cooking their thoughts but where were their questions > explored? Ken Ham got to present his beliefs about fossils and > a geologist got to say something about the geologic column but > none of the reasons they claim what they claim were explored > at all. We got teachers being dismayed that their good students > seemed to fail to understand what science was, that they think > creationism isn't science but no reasons why. It was left as > he said/she said. > > If the anti-evolutionists say that the program had a clear > pro evolution bias and made the creationists look like fools > I can't disagree but worse they did it without actually > using any scientific reasons or reasoning. > > Ken Ham is shown priming his kids to respond to "millions > of years" with "were you there"? Yes he was generally > disregarded but did they touch on how science does lots > of things where nobody was there? Archeology, including > excavation of biblically referenced sites that creationists > will cite of "proof" of the bible, is accepted as science > by creationists even if the archeologists weren't there > "thousands of years" ago. If the goal was to dispel common > misunderstandings, I'm afraid they missed the net. > I agree. I thought the last episode was simply ghastly. They had Ken Ham babbling away about the ark, and they never bothered to spend even a minute to explain all that is wrong with the idea that the earth is 6000 years old. They wasted time with a family debate between a college student and his ignorant, dogmatic father -- a discussion that was pointless, since one side was completely uninformed. They showed a group of students lobbying to have creation taught in their science class, and failing, but they didn't explain why creation and ID are not scientific. "Evolution" had 8 hours and a phenomenal budget to *teach* people something, and it didn't. It makes me wonder how they went about writing this show. If they'd gone to a group of professional educators (you know, those college professors), and said, "I want you to give me a one-hour introductory lecture on the topic of natural selection (or the age of the earth, or transitional fossils, or the history of Darwin). We'll provide professional actors, cinematographers, computer animators, etc., and a big budget. Make it entertaining, but also be sure to cover the key points you want an informed college student to understand", you would have gotten something very different, and much more substantial. I would have even forgiven them if they'd given an hour to the evolutionary psychologists, if only they'd given us more than fluff in the other episodes. -- pz