Tennessee Book Ban Promoted on Fox & Friends

That video from YouTube runs about four minutes. It’ll be time well spent.

We’ve posted before about Creationism on Fox News, and now they’re at it again. As our readers know, the Knox County School Board is considering the ban of a biology book because one father complained that it was disrespectful to his creationism. See: Tennessee Biology Book Ban Demand.

This morning on Fox & Friends, the complaining father was briefly interviewed. As is usual with Fox in such matters, the interview was totally sympathetic, and no one was present to discuss the other side of the issue.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

20 responses to “Tennessee Book Ban Promoted on Fox & Friends

  1. Gabriel Hanna

    I’d only point out that the other news networks do exactly the same thing. Have we forgotten Paula Zahn’s straight reporting of Saddam Hussein’s last presidential election on CNN? I could give any number of examples, but typically when they report on science they have a real scientist and a nutter and they give them “equal time”, or they have ten nutters and one token skeptic. That’s how journalists operate, which is why I get all my news from crazy people on the Internet.

  2. @Gabriel

    For the 2-3 other creationism-related stories they covered in the last year or 2, IIRC, FOX News did not even have a “token skeptic.” That’s especially disappointing to me because FOX News comes much closer to my views on most issues than the rest of the media.

  3. Gabriel Hanna

    That’s especially disappointing to me because FOX News comes much closer to my views on most issues than the rest of the media.

    Welcome to the Right. Fundamental ideological disagreement with people whom you otherwise respect and can work with on most issues is what we do.

    My sister is as far to the Left as I am to the Right. I think she has never found anyone with whom she disagreed that she could respect. I think the Left in this country is more monolithic than the Right. I don’t have any statistics to back that up, before you ask.

    Apply the critical thinking you know you need to do with Fox News to everything. It’s good practice.

  4. Gabriel Hanna, who is on a roll today, says:

    Welcome to the Right. Fundamental ideological disagreement with people whom you otherwise respect and can work with on most issues is what we do. … I think the Left in this country is more monolithic than the Right.

    Agreed. The Left is socialist. Period. All their other issues are of far less significance.

    The Right still has some decent principles, but is too often overwhelmed by an obsession with sex and religion.

    I find that more and more I need to parse through the mess and make exquisitely nuanced decisions — like what to do about Sarah Palin’s apparent creationism. So far, as long as she doesn’t threaten to go malignant with it, if she were the Presidential candidate in 2012 (and I hope she’s not) I’d vote for her over any socialist opponent. That’s how desperate I’ve become in selecting the lesser of two evils.

  5. Gabriel Hanna

    If by “on a roll” you mean “avoiding work”, then yes.

    I think “socialist” is now getting to be the Right equivalent of “fascist” on the Left–it’s anything we don’t like. It’s another way to turn off your opponents’ brains.

    The key to convincing people is finding common ground. I don’t like the new health care bill, because it’s complicated and expensive and no one can show it is better than the staus quo ante. If you want to convince people, convince them of that.

  6. Gabriel Hanna says:

    I think “socialist” is now getting to be the Right equivalent of “fascist” on the Left–it’s anything we don’t like.

    I know what socialism is, and when I use that term to describe a government program, I use it properly. I can’t vouch for what others do.

  7. ShotMonkeys

    The complaint is correct, though. It’s not quite right to refer to it as a Biblical myth, since creationism isn’t ONLY Biblical. It’s Qur’anic, Puranic, Vedic, Torah…Torahtic?, etc. as well.

    Perhaps more like –
    Creationism : The irrefutably nonsensical religious belief that a deity of some sort created the universe through the application of magical powers which are not meant to be explained or studied, but simply taken on blind faith in the absence of all reason and logic.

  8. Left/Right, Socialist/Fascist. Near useless labels used like swear words. They only divide and prevent constructive discussion. What ever happened to moderates and the art of compromise? I hope we get back to our regularly scheduled program soon.

  9. Benjamin Franklin

    Myth-
    - a traditional story of unknown authorship, ostensibly with a historical basis, but serving usually to explain some phenomenon of nature, the origin of man, or the customs, institutions, religious rites, etc. of a people; myths usually involve the exploits of gods and heroes.

    The school found that the use of ‘myth’ was appropriate, and according to the above definition, it most certainly is.

    Is the problem that these people don’t know what a myth is, or is it that they simply refuse to admit that the bible is anything but the inerrant, word of god?

  10. retiredsciguy

    Benjamin Franklin:
    “Is the problem that these people don’t know what a myth is, or is it that they simply refuse to admit that the bible is anything but the inerrant, word of god?”

    If it’s your religion, it’s inerrant truth. If it’s someone else’s religion, it’s mythology.

  11. Creationists complaining about teaching the “controversy”, about the “strengths and weaknesses”?

    BTW, from the snippets that I’ve seen of this textbook, the authors are not aware that creationism is a congeries of inconsistencies.

  12. carlsonjok

    I know what socialism is, and when I use that term to describe a government program, I use it properly.

    I am curious what that description is. I would hope that it doesn’t center on the redistribution of wealth. As Ed Brayton pointed out the other day over at Dispatches, all government programs redistribute wealth. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is who they extract the wealth from and who is the beneficiary of the ensuing largesse.

  13. carlsonjok says: “I am curious what that description is [re socialism].”

    That’s covered in basic economics, and it’s way off topic. We can all agree that it’s not the free enterprise system. That way we’ll avoid quibbles over details.

  14. carlsonjok, you are completely right at a practical level. However, the “socialist” word battle here is a symbolic and emotional one. The economic right maintains faith that some idealized “free market” is always the correct direction towards which to move. Otherwise, we are stuck with the tedious reality that compromise and pragmatism is all that works in the complex, interconnected world — and equivocation doesn’t get TV ratings nor generate political contributions nor win in live debates. It’s belief in something absolute vs. constant study and revision to get something a little better– which reminds me of another conflict . . .

  15. That’s covered in basic economics, and it’s way off topic.

    I have an MBA, so thank you, but I don’t need a map of the library. I was more curious as to your definition because I find that the word “socialism” has been reduced to a conservative shibboleth (Seriously, compare the Obama HCR reform to the Republican alternative proposal to the Clinton plan sometime. Newt was a socialist? Who knew!)

    That you haven’t offered a meaningful clarification and have gaveled the discussion as off-topic, I’ll let it drop.

  16. Gabriel Hanna

    as long as she doesn’t threaten to go malignant with it, if she were the Presidential candidate in 2012 (and I hope she’s not) I’d vote for her over any socialist opponent. That’s how desperate I’ve become in selecting the lesser of two evils.

    It’s easier than you think, SC. For two reasons.

    First, when you elect a President, the President is not in charge of EVERYTHING. A President has to delegate and get advisors and has to appoint people. You have to consider who a President will bring in.

    For example, with Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, they are both moderate liberals but there were (for Bill) and will be (for Hillary) people they will bring in who are more liberal; they will also bring in people who know more about specialized topics than they do. Of course it’s the same for Republicans.

    Secondly, wisdom, as opposed to intelligence, seems to be confined to the 50 – 75 quartile on the bell curve. There is no way that someone like James Hansen or Steven Chu or Paul Krugman should be elected to high office. Really supersmart people put too much faith in their intelligence. There are problems that cannot be solved by thinking about them. Wisdom and intelligence are not the same. Winston Churchill was bright, of course–I’m not saying we should elect Forrest Gump or Chance the gardner, but supersmart people should be advisers to reasonably bright people.

    And Republicans will invariably be characterized as idiots no matter how smart they are–look at what John Steinbeck said about Eisenhower.

  17. Maybe when creationists stop adding “strengths and weaknesses” “critical analysis” “evidences against” evolution maybe, just maybe, they can remove the truth that creationism is a myth from this book. Until then, I have no problem with this. (Either way, keep the myth statement in the book)

  18. I have a few other links & video clips on this posted at
    http://wp.me/p1V0H-11x

  19. Excellent work, Tony. Thanks for the link.

  20. This link will give you some current info on the story in Tenn. You will discover a Louisiana connection. Just what we need, right?
    http://lasciencecoalition.org/2010/04/11/addendum-rejected-in-tennessee/#more-2612