Pamela R. Winnick posted a message to the message board of this site.
Those of you out there accusing me of being a creationist merely because I gave the PBS series a bad review (deservedly so) and have a foundation to explore, from a media standpoint, the evolution debate out to know that I'm a practicing Jew and a liberal Democrat and a native of New York City.
I am also an attorney.
Also FYI, the paper I write for, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, has strongly endorsed the teaching of evolution (and properly so in my opion)--primarily because I was the only reporter in all of PA who scooped the story of how PA almost adopted standards that might have allowed the teaching of evolution.
I am, however, writing a book about the subject showing how the media and scientific elite has stifled meaningful debate on the subject. In doing so, I am indeed supported ($25,000) by the Phillips Foundation, an organization which takes absolutely no position on the subject of evolution, but which seeks to promote fair and balanced reporting in all subject areas.
Whoever out there who is mis-identifying my purpose a ought to have the courage to identify him/herself. There is terribly reminiscent of the McCarthy period and reflects terribly on all of who seek to defend Darwinism.
- Pamela R. Winnick (2001/11/16)
As the owner of the "antievolution.org" domain (easily checked via a WHOIS query) and the author of the page on the PBS "Evolution" series which mentions Winnick's negative review, I guess that I am the target of Winnick's pointed comments. I found her response very interesting, primarily in the way it uses and abuses rhetoric.
I would like to take up several of Winnick's points and discuss them.
Those of you out there accusing me of being a creationist merely because I gave the PBS series a bad review (deservedly so) and have a foundation to explore, from a media standpoint, the evolution debate out to know that I'm a practicing Jew and a liberal Democrat and a native of New York City.
I am also an attorney.
I assume that the nonsensical nature of Winnick's introductory sentence can be explained by haste on her part in entering it, and that the meaning can be restored by substituting "ought" for "out" and "fellowship" for "foundation". That still leaves a few problems. Winnick appeals to facts not in evidence. She makes a claim that she has been accused of being a creationist. Nowhere in my writings am I aware of having made any such accusation. Winnick could prove me wrong by providing evidence to back up the claim, but I doubt that any such documentation will ever be forthcoming. Next, the various associations and affiliations listed have no bearing upon one's stance concerning evolution and creation. That's just a non sequitur on Winnick's part.
I categorize Winnick as an antievolutionist, and I do so based upon the evidence of her writings and the description of the fellowship she has received to pursue the topic.
Also FYI, the paper I write for, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, has strongly endorsed the teaching of evolution (and properly so in my opion)--primarily because I was the only reporter in all of PA who scooped the story of how PA almost adopted standards that might have allowed the teaching of evolution.
Again, I think that the inconsistencies in this paragraph by Winnick likely stem from haste in entering the message. I'm not sure how this information is supposed to bear upon the topic of discussion, though. I don't think that it's worth the time to puzzle out. Perhaps Winnick will attempt to clarify this point later.
I am, however, writing a book about the subject showing how the media and scientific elite has stifled meaningful debate on the subject. In doing so, I am indeed supported ($25,000) by the Phillips Foundation, an organization which takes absolutely no position on the subject of evolution, but which seeks to promote fair and balanced reporting in all subject areas.
I see no signs of this "stifling" of "meaningful debate". The scientific literature on evolutionary biology is copious.
Perhaps Winnick has a connotation of "meaningful debate" wherein the uninformed musings of people largely or almost completely ignorant of evolutionary biology are supposed to be accorded equal respect to the insights of those who have actually taken the time to do research in the field.
The phrase, "scientific elite", is an artful rhetorical touch on Winnick's part. It is, however, pretty much an inversion of reality. The resistance which "intelligent design" conjectures encounter is not due to policy handed down from on high. Instead, the scientific proletariat can look at the claims made by the "intelligent design" proponents and quickly determine that there is a definite lack of substance there. "Intelligent design" proponents have been predicting the rapid demise of evolutionary biology as we know it, but like cultic claims of imminent apocalypse, it always seems that it is conveniently delayed. "Intelligent design" proponents like to promulgate conspiracy theories and utilize the "scientific elite" phrase to cover up their consistent failure to put forward arguments which convince scientists en masse of the correctness of their claims. They seem never to give any credence to the notion that a simpler explanation fits the facts far better: they are wrong, and one doesn't have to be a member of the "scientific elite" to figure it out.
About that fellowship... let's have a look at what the Phillips Foundation says about it.
Pamela Winnick
Part-time FellowshipProject: "Examination of How Media and Established Scientists Treat the Subject of Evolution," analyzing why there seems to be little tolerance for teaching creationism in America. Pamela is a staff writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and previously worked as a staff writer for The Blade in Toledo, Ohio. She received a B.A. in English from the State University of New York at Buffalo, an M.A. in English from the University of Virginia and a J.D. from Columbia University. After practicing law for many years, Pamela decided to pursue a career in journalism, earning an M.S. in journalism from Columbia University in 1999.
The Phillips Foundation clearly states that the fellowship is about exploring the lack of "tolerance" for "teaching creationism". It says nothing about "meaningful debate". This contradicts Winnick's claim that the Phillips Foundation takes "absolutely no position on the subject of evolution".
Further, the content of the Phillips Foundation site gives no support to the claim by Winnick that the Phillips Foundation's only concern is promoting fair and balanced reporting. Consider, for instance, this page, which repeats the phrase, "liberal bias", throughout.
Other pages which belie the stated goal of "objective journalism" include this page, which lists the projects picked out by the 1999 fellowship recipients. It's not just me who can see this, for this page on Contests and Scholarships: Free-Market Conservatism lists the fellowship program of the Phillips Foundation right at the top.
Whoever out there who is mis-identifying my purpose a ought to have the courage to identify him/herself. There is terribly reminiscent of the McCarthy period and reflects terribly on all of who seek to defend Darwinism.
I have not "mis-identified" Winnick's "purpose". I have done my homework and found substantial evidence that Winnick approaches her journalistic assignments concerning evolution with an axe to grind. This is, unfortunately, all too common in modern journalistic practice.
At the time of Winnick's complaint, I didn't have my name directly on the page about the PBS "Evolution" series. Does that mean that I lacked the "courage" to "identify myself"? That hardly follows. Just as you won't find the name of the editor of a newspaper printed on each and every page, my name is not shown on every page of my "antievolution.org" domain. However, my name was listed under the "Site Information" section of the topics web page. Also, my name is listed as the owner of the "antievolution.org" domain. Any journalist with half a clue can run a WHOIS query and come up with that information. Whoever wants to claim that I "lack courage" for failing to identify myself should have the technical competence to have checked whether I had, indeed, failed to identify myself. A person with minimal technical competence would have easily found that I had identified myself.
I find the allusion to McCarthy to be self-serving on Winnick's part. Certainly my pages don't lend credence to such an analogy. I link to the original writings of the people I criticize and I clearly give my reasons for criticizing them. I even provide fora for those who I criticize to utilize, as Pamela Winnick has done with the use of the Message Board here at antievolution.org. I don't see any good point of analogy to McCarthy in what I have done. However, I can make an argument that the use of misleading rhetoric apparent in Winnick's response is clearly reminiscent of "tailer-gunner Joe".
The "intelligent design" proponents seem to have a propensity for making the sort of invidious comparisons that Winnick utilizes above. Whether it is evolutionary biologists being compared to the repressive former Soviet regime or to McCarthyites, it seems that the exploitation of cheap rhetoric takes precedence over doing the hard work of convincing the scientific community - not the "elite", whoever they might be - that "intelligent design" is anything more than a social and cultural program advancing antievolutionary views and antiscientific philosophy.
Wesley