Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Creationism on Paula Zahn show!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    Paula Zahn appears to have covered the creation-science controversy on her show on or about November 29, 2004. Following my name below is the link and
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 2, 2004
      Paula Zahn appears to have covered the "creation-science" controversy
      on her show on or about November 29, 2004. Following my name below
      is the link and transcript.

      Robert Baty



      When we come back, a brand-new twist in a long-running dispute over
      evolution and creation.


      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a good possibility that both science and
      the faith can coexist, and in fact they're both right.


      ZAHN: The move to put religion in the science lab when we come back.



      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a good possibility that both science and
      the faith can coexist, and in fact they're both right.


      ZAHN: The move to put religion in the science lab when we come back.


      ZAHN: When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution, he
      wrote, "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume
      should shock the religious feelings of anyone." Well guess again.

      Religious leaders attacked his theory then, and 145 years later it
      faces new attacks in public schools across the United States.

      Here's our Tom Foreman.


      TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than half of
      Americans questioned in a recent CBS News/"New York Times" poll said
      human beings were created by God, created just as they are today. So
      those Americans think biblical creation should be taught right
      alongside evolution.

      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a good possibility that both science and --
      and the faith can coexist and in fact they're both right.

      UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do think that it's -- I think everything
      should be taught about both. But, being the age I am, I still lean
      toward creation more.

      FOREMAN: Within the past year, 24 states have gone through public
      debate about teaching evolution. In Georgia, some textbooks now carry
      stickers saying evolution is just a theory. In Pennsylvania, some
      teachers are teaching an alternative to evolution.

      WALT BROWN, FORMER EVOLUTIONIST: I am saying it is a terribly flawed

      FOREMAN: And Walt Brown, who was once an evolutionist himself, is
      pleased. For years, he and others have argued that fossil records,
      the Earth's geology, even astrological events, simply provide too
      much evidence that something else is at work.

      BROWN: Creationists wanted to see all the scientific evidence taught
      at the appropriate grade levels. There's a ton of evidence that
      opposes evolution and supports creation. And it's just being

      FOREMAN: Two words have come up a lot these days, are "intelligent
      design." Supporters of this idea do not talk about God, or the Bible,
      but instead, say some things are so complex, nature alone cannot
      explain them.

      (on camera) The scientific community often dismisses such attacks on
      evolution as the result of runaway ignorance or religious zeal
      masquerading as scientific skepticism. Evolution, they say, is a
      theory but a very sound one.

      (voice-over) Still, some who study religion, evolution and science,
      suggest the fundamental problem is that faith can never prove the
      existence of God, and science can never prove God's absence.

      term that's appropriate community of use is the religious community.
      It's a term that refers to convictions that are held within the
      religious community that may or may not have any bearing on science.

      FOREMAN: But increasingly, it seems, creation is a term that may have
      a bearing on how science is taught.


      ZAHN: Joining me now to debate this Eugenie Scott, director of the
      National Center for Science Education. She joins us from San
      Francisco tonight. And from Cincinnati, Jason Lisle. He has a Ph.D.
      in astrophysics and works with a pro-creationism group called Answers
      in Genesis.

      Welcome, both of you.

      Jason, let's start with you tonight. If you were to teach creationism
      in a classroom, what would you teach?

      JASON LISLE, ANSWERS IN GENESIS: Well, I would show that the
      scientific evidence, when you understand it, is consistent with what
      the Bible has to say about creation.

      If I had the -- if I had the legal right to talk about the Bible, I
      would use that. If I didn't, I would at least show that the evidence
      is consistent with there being a creator with design.

      For example, we see created kinds -- we see different kinds of
      organisms in the world and we see them reproducing after their kinds.
      We don't see one kind of organism turning into other kind of
      organism. That's not something that we actually observe in nature.
      And that's something that evolution -- evolutionists say is required.

      ZAHN: So Eugenie, how would you explain that?

      hearing a creationist define evolution is a little bit like having
      Madeline Murray O'Hare define Christianity. You're not really going
      to get the -- the straight story there.

      The way evolution is taught at the university level is the way it
      should be taught at the high school level. And that's really what
      we're talking about here. It's not between evolution and science.

      ZAHN: What do you mean by that?

      SCOTT: At the university level, which is where I used to teach, we
      teach evolution, biological evolution, as the inference that living
      things had common ancestors. And we teach it neutrally. We don't
      teach it that God did it or God had nothing to do with it. We just
      present the science.

      And that's what should be done at the high school level.

      ZAHN: Jason, I want to share with you a result from the latest
      CBS/"New York Times" poll, which show that 65 percent of those people
      polled were in favor of teaching both creation and evolution in
      public school classrooms. Do you appreciate these numbers?

      LISLE: I do. I think that a lot of people realize that it would be
      very smart to teach both creation and evolution if that were
      possible. Because...

      ZAHN: So you don't have a problem with both being taught side by

      LISLE: Not at all. In fact I encourage people to actually teach
      evolution. But teach it warts and all. Show the problems with it, as
      well, and then show what the creationist interpretation of the
      evidence is. Because we feel that the creationist interpretation of
      the evidence makes a lot more sense when you understand it. ZAHN:
      What about the argument Eugenie made that you can teach it in a more
      neutral way, and I'll let you expand on that in a moment, Eugenie?

      SCOTT: Thank you.

      LISLE: Well, there's no neutral ground, is there? I mean, you're
      ultimately either for what God has said as word or against it. And
      that's what the real issue is here.

      ZAHN: Eugenie?

      SCOTT: No, we're treating this as if there are two alternatives,
      evolution, and the institute, or the answers in Genesis' version of

      But you know, his version of creation, which is everything was
      created all at one time in six days, 10,000 years ago, is not what
      Catholics believe. It's not what Episcopalians believe, and it's
      certainly not what Hopi believe or what Navajo believes. So you can't
      say teach both, because there's more than two alternatives.

      Now my view, the view that the National Center for Science Education
      takes, is that we should know more about a lot of creationisms,
      plural. But it has no place in science class. I think comparative
      religion is a wonderful study, and we should be more theologically
      literate than we are. But keep it out of science class, because it is
      not scientifically demonstrable.

      ZAHN: So Jason, would you support the idea of moving that into a
      religion class?

      LISLE: I have no problem with creation, evolution being taught in a
      religion class, as well. But it would be nice if the scientific
      aspects of the creation models, just the idea that there is an
      intelligent creator, would be brought up in a science classroom.

      There's scientific evidence supporting that position. I mean, is the
      evolution model so weak that its adherents feel the need to suppress
      any alternatives?

      SCOTT: I don't think it's a matter of...

      ZAHN: Eugenie, there's a lot of, you know, strong words that are used
      when it comes to this debate that creationism is actually being
      censored out of the curriculum.

      SCOTT: Of course. It's being censored out of the science curriculum,
      because, contrary to the claims that have just been made, there are
      no scientific data supporting it.

      Look, the fact of the matter is that science is not a fair process. I
      mean, it's not a democratic system. The creationists have the same
      right that I have to make their position to the scientific community
      and convince them that there is evidence supporting the idea that
      everything was created all at one time. The problem is, there are no
      data. They haven't made the case. But what they want to do is make an
      end-run around the scientific community and go directly to the school
      district, as opposed to the normal process of having these ideas
      filter down from the scientific community.

      You know, the thing is, scientists and teachers aren't trying to get
      creationism into this -- into the curriculum. It's the politicians.
      And what this has done is politicize science education in a very
      negative fashion.

      ZAHN: Well, Jason's a scientist. He's trying to get it into the

      LISLE: Yes, and you know, real science, real science thrives on
      competing models.

      SCOTT: That's right.

      LISLE: A real scientist...

      SCOTT: Make your argument to the scientific community.

      LISLE: A real scientist would not squelch the evidence.

      SCOTT: Don't make it to a -- don't make it to a high school teacher.

      LISLE: But see, I find it interesting that evolutionists would try to
      use political pressure to suppress certain ideas. For example Russ
      Humphries, he's a Ph.D. nuclear physicist, and he has a model of how
      magnetic fields work. It's based on their being created 6,000 years
      ago. And he's able to actually predict the magnetic fields of the
      planets Uranus and Neptune based on creation.

      And yet, most students will never hear about that, because we're not

      SCOTT: And there's -- and there's a very good reason for that.

      ZAHN: All right, Eugenie, you get the last word tonight in the
      debate. The very good reason for that is what, Eugenie?

      SCOTT: The very good reason for that is that he has to fool around
      with some constants that completely violate the laws of physics,
      which is why these arguments are not made in the scientific
      literature. They're made -- they're made politically at the local
      school board. And that's not the place for them.

      ZAHN: Eugenie Scott, Jason Lisle, thank you for educating us tonight.
      Appreciate it.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.