Comments on: You Don’t Always Need to Be Fair and Balanced

By: JimboB

JimboB — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:10:20 +0000

So, why don’t we make up a bastardized copy of the bible, with a 50-page “introduction” that completely dismisses the content of the entire book?

I suppose that would be petty… and Ray Comfort-ish…

…Ewww

By: Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:40:51 +0000

Maybe I’m picky, but it’s the US News and World Report. Not Newsweek.

Thanks, Justin. I’ve fixed it!

By: Justin

Justin — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:55:51 +0000

Maybe I’m picky, but it’s the US News and World Report. Not Newsweek.

Maybe the flaw in the reasoning of “balance” is that the average reader will be able to sort the real from the fantasy. This isn’t necessarily the case.

By: muggle

muggle — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:38:44 +0000

My first impulse was to say remind me not to read US News.

However, on thinking it over (and reading some of the other comments), I’ve got to say maybe they’re using the right approach.

Ray Comfort may get people to follow this who don’t even know who Eugenie Scott is. It may open some minds to maybe he isn’t that smart after all. Or it may at least just expose them to some facts they didn’t know.

At the very least, it’s gonna be controversial enough to draw attention to the issue (and the butcher job done to the book) that just giving Eugenie Scott’s side wouldn’t do. Comfort is hoping to to fool people, obviously. This will make it a bit harder.

The more exposure to his atrocity on this matter the better, even if it does keep that fool gloating in the spotlight he craves with adoring pretty boys like his cohort gazing lovingly at him.

By: Jen

Jen — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:26:02 +0000

As an atheist, I never am sure how to deal with Ray Comfort. I can see why PZ talks about him regularly, as RC is a nut. However, the Atheists of Austin, and specifically Matt, have pointed out that paying attention to him even a little gives him the life-giving attention he so clearly craves. Given that he is going to keep seeking attention, I have to just look at this at as a reason for some middle-of-the-roaders to meet Eugenie, who is about the nicest A-list atheist who always gives an awesome interview.

By: Baconsbud

Baconsbud — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:06:35 +0000

Brad think about what you are asking. How many times in any classes you have attended have they asked you to prove the negative? You say that science can’t prove doesn’t god exist but can science prove he does exist. It seems you are on the edge of what is the truth and you have to decide if you want to believe something because you have evidence it is or because you have faith it is. Since I have no idea of what you have been told in your upbringing I can’t say where you might want to look for answers but until you are willing to look at everything the same and base your beliefs on what does the most good around you, I would say you need to question those around you.

By: SeanG

SeanG — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:18:41 +0000

I am not deluded. I just don’t find it rational or reasonable to say “god did it” every time there is a question without an answer. If I do that, then I am not doing science. As Dr. Scott has said in the past, science is agnostic toward god. You’re right, science is concerned with the natural, not the supernatural. The purpose of science has never been to disprove god. But at every turn science is finding answers to questions that religion used to claim ownership of. Science has moved into areas of knowledge never imagined by theologians. Frankly, I think that scares the crap out of them.

Evolution is science and there is mountains of data and observation to prove it. Darwin did not try to answer the question about the origin of life. He was interested in the diversity of it. The origin is a question that we haven’t answered yet.

Science is ok with saying “I don’t know.” That drives progress in science, finding new questions and new ways to answer those questions.

Faith can never prove god’s existence either, but faith doesn’t care. The very definition of faith is to believe something without any evidence whatsoever. I have been netter served in my life by reason.

By: Brad

Brad — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:18:31 +0000

How do you know that you are not the one who is deluded… Science itself, can’t prove the non-existence of God, it may postulate but can never prove.

If you possess half of all the knowledge in the world, how do you know that the knowledge about God is not in the other half?

Science does not contradict God, nor can it. Man’s theories may contradict him in the name of science, but it is not science that is at fault, it is their application of science.

By: SeanG

SeanG — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:17:53 +0000

I haven’t followed the story on Ray’s version very closely. In reading Dr. Scott’s rebuttal I’m immensely disturbed to find that not only did Ray write an intro, but 4 chapters were removed altogether! Memory hole, anyone?

So you not only get to add to a book to cast a shadow on its contents but you get to change the contents by cutting things out? I’m publishing my own version of the bible. I’m going to buy a bunch of blank journals and write “holy bible” on the cover. That should do it.

By: Matt D

Matt D — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:32:57 +0000

I loved Miko’s comment.

I agree that we might all be better served if the media could present only things that are “true”.

Unfortunately I think the media’s role is no longer to disseminate facts and truths. it’s a ratings game, with the only priority being to win the war to capture advertising spend.

Mainstream media cant afford to offend anybody, so they present a mixture of non-news and overly PC debates, giving voice to anybody who seems to represent a reasonable number of media consumers.

sounds a lot like politics really.

if you want some truth in your media diet then you have to go online – then you can find any “truth” that you like!