CBS Sunday Morning

[gethen]

I normally like this show, but this morning it really disappointed me. They did a section on ID vs evolution and the Dover, Delaware trial, and it was fairly well done, right up to the last few seconds. After having given a pretty decent description of the theory of evolution earlier, the reporter wound up saying something like, "So, evolution, which is the theory that man descended from an ape......" :rolleyes: This statement was read over the film of a gorilla chewing on a plant.
How is the average person supposed to understand what the theory of evolution means when such popular programs screw it up?

[Frog march]

oh, it's close enough.

[Hamlet]

oh, it's close enough.

No, I don't think it is. How hard would it have been to get this right? A slight change to: "So, evolution, which is the theory that man and apes descended from a common ancestor......". This is more accurate and doesn't change the flow of the report. Why shouldn't we demand better of the news media?

[ToSeek]

I would be inclined to argue that man is an ape.

[crosscountry]

don't get your knickers all in a bunch.


I'd be more concerned that the program put Creationism on the same level as Evolution. That's what is disturbing to me.

[peteshimmon]

Perhaps the message is we are all made apelike
but some are more apelike than others!

[beskeptical]

It is the wrong info. They could have said apes and humans descended from a common ancestor. How hard is that? It shows the writers of most media pieces don't take the time to learn about the subject before writing. They just print cliches.

On the other side, I'm waiting for the evolution scientists to declare we DO teach alternative theories in science but the ID hypothesis has been discredited by genetic research discoveries. Instead they bite the bait and try to argue why ID isn't science. That just leads to ID believers being all the more convinced there is a conspiracy against their theory. "Heck, those atheist scientists don't want to look at the evidence."

We need to point out the bad science behind ID. To keep trying to explain it isn't science because it isn't 'testable' is just expecting too much of an un-science educated public.

Sorry, to get OT, gethen.

[gethen]

Sorry, to get OT, gethen.
No problem. You got me thinking a about radio program I happened to hear last week in which an anthropologist was talking about ID. He said some of those "scientists" who are pushing ID have a very odd approach to evidence. Their mantra had been "There's no evidence of a 'missing link' between that ape-like ancestor and modern humans, therefore, it didn't exist." But apparently within the last 10 years a fossil was found that does appear to be almost exactly halfway between the two. Instead of admitting that their so-called missing link had been found, those scientists quickly changed their tune to "Oh, so you now have two missing links." He thought it was funny. I think it's kind of sad.

[Van Rijn]

We need to point out the bad science behind ID. To keep trying to explain it isn't science because it isn't 'testable' is just expecting too much of an un-science educated public.


But there is no science behind ID. That is, there is no positive evidence for ID, and it isn't falsifiable. Yes, it is important to show errors in ID arguments, but this gets to the heart of the argument: ID isn't science. If you are going to teach science in a classroom, you need to explain what is and what is not science. If you don't do that, the public will remain ignorant of scientific principles.

[Kizarvexis]

I would be inclined to argue that man is an ape.

The BEST ape ever!

Which was a great line in Disney's animated "Tarzan" movie.

Kizarvexis

[Candy]

I normally like this show, but this morning it really disappointed me. They did a section on ID vs evolution and the Dover, Delaware trial, and it was fairly well done, right up to the last few seconds. After having given a pretty decent description of the theory of evolution earlier, the reporter wound up saying something like, "So, evolution, which is the theory that man descended from an ape......" :rolleyes: This statement was read over the film of a gorilla chewing on a plant.
How is the average person supposed to understand what the theory of evolution means when such popular programs screw it up?
I don't recall this part, are you sure?
I watch this daily, and I dont' remember the part you decscibe as "ape" or "gorilla".

[gethen]

I don't recall this part, are you sure?
I watch this daily, and I dont' remember the part you decscibe as "ape" or "gorilla".
Well, since CBS Sunday Morning is not on daily, but only on Sundays, I wonder if perhaps you are thinking of another morning show that CBS runs. The show I saw featured this (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/sunday/main3445.shtml) segment in which the comment about evolution I cited was made, near the end. I'm pretty sure about the statement, as my husband and I were both struck by it and wondered why the reporter who made it could have said that after the earlier correct definition of evolution.

[Gillianren]

I learned in any number of science classes that humans are apes. Is this wrong? As I recall, it starts at "primate," which is then divided into "apes" and "monkeys" (and "lemurs"?), and then monkeys gets divided into "New World" and "Old World" and apes get divided into (I believe; biology class was a long time ago) "greater" and "lesser" apes. Humans are great apes. Us and gorillas, chimps, orangutans, gibbons, and I think bonobos. (And, yes, any given detail in this could be wrong--except I am quite certain about "New World" and "Old World" monkeys.)

[Candy]

Well, since CBS Sunday Morning is not on daily, but only on Sundays, I wonder if perhaps you are thinking of another morning show that CBS runs. The show I saw featured this (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/sunday/main3445.shtml) segment in which the comment about evolution I cited was made, near the end. I'm pretty sure about the statement, as my husband and I were both struck by it and wondered why the reporter who made it could have said that after the earlier correct definition of evolution.
Oh, you're right.

[Frog march]

when creationist talk about missing links I think it would be a good test of their new ID "science" would be if they could find specimens of the Tasmanian Tiger which is now extinct, but there is film of a living one so even they can see that it once existed. There must have been thousands of these creatures even from their 5000year old Earth point of view. But I wonder how many complete skeletons of this creature they could dig up.

But I don't suppose their "scientists" would like to get their hands dirty doing some actual sceintific research or anything.

[gethen]

I learned in any number of science classes that humans are apes. Is this wrong? As I recall, it starts at "primate," which is then divided into "apes" and "monkeys" (and "lemurs"?), and then monkeys gets divided into "New World" and "Old World" and apes get divided into (I believe; biology class was a long time ago) "greater" and "lesser" apes. Humans are great apes. Us and gorillas, chimps, orangutans, gibbons, and I think bonobos. (And, yes, any given detail in this could be wrong--except I am quite certain about "New World" and "Old World" monkeys.)
Maybe you could somehow make a case for the reporter's statement being acceptable, based on this, but I would still say the statement is misleading at best. It implies that man descended from an ape, instead of that the two species have a common ancestor. Of course, this may not be what you're getting at, if you're simply referring to earlier posts saying man is an ape.;)

[Donnie B.]

...the reporter wound up saying something like, "So, evolution, which is the theory that man descended from an ape......"If this quote is accurate, the error is even worse than the aspect you're objecting to (which is bad enough).

Evolution is not a theory about humans. It's the fundamental unifying theory of Biology. It's about all living things.

That is a just slightly larger scope than "humans and (other) apes".

The statement also subtly reinforces the widely-held misunderstanding about what "theory" means in a scientific context (i.e. "speculative idea" vs. "unifying concept well supported by multiple independent lines of evidence").

[gethen]

I won't swear that my quote is word-for word-accurate, only that it was clearly stated that the theory of evolution says man descended from an ape. The rest of the segment was pretty decent and did talk about other aspects of the evolution/ID controversy, including evolution at the cellular level.

[Jim]

The exact quote:
Nevertheless, evolution, the idea that we are all descended from apes, has never been popular in this country.

[gethen]

Thanks, Jim. Where did you find that?

[Jim]

Uh, it's available at the link you provided.

FYI, I also emailed CBS about the choice of words. Tune in Sunday to see if they pay attention.

[gethen]

Uh, it's available at the link you provided.

FYI, I also emailed CBS about the choice of words. Tune in Sunday to see if they pay attention.
Well, duh.:doh:
I have to be out of town this weekend. I hope someone lets me know if they mention your email.