All the experts say evolution story lacks WHAT!?

Define terms.

Identify sources.

The best journalism recognizes the importance of doing both — particularly on complicated and controversial subject matters.

On the other hand, the Austin American-Statesman embraces neither concept in a news story reporting that “critics” say students are being taught creationism in two public high schools.

Let’s start at the top:

A charter-school operator with contracts to teach at two Austin high schools has come under fire for questioning evolution in its science curriculum — the latest in a long line of clashes over Christianity in Texas classrooms.

Advocates for the separation of church and state say that Responsive Education Solutions — one of the state’s largest charter operators, which the Austin school district partners with at Lanier and Travis high schools — is pushing creationism.

For example, the biology curriculum, obtained by the Austin American-Statesman, says: “Many leading scientists are questioning the mechanisms of evolution and are disputing the long timeline required for evolutionary processes.”

Experts say that is untrue. What’s more, they say, discrediting evolution invites students to consider creationism as an alternative.

The latest in a long line of clashes over Christianity in Texas classrooms. What clashes are we talking about? The story never elaborates.

Advocates for the separation of church and state. Who are these critics making these allegations? The newspaper never names them.

Pushing creationism. In the context of this story, how would “creationism” be defined? Are we talking about “Young Earth creationism” or “Old Earth creationism?” Are we talking about intelligent design?

Experts say that is untrue. One biology professor — presumably an expert — is quoted later in the story. Would “an expert says that is untrue” be more accurate? Or are there other experts who aren’t named? And would any “experts” disagree? (Even better, maybe the story should establish named sources as “experts” rather than crown them as such?)

Later in this story, there’s this:

Some argue that Responsive Ed’s curriculum crosses into creationism territory. A section called “Origin of Life” includes a quote from the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.”

Again, do the “some” who are allegedly arguing have names?

There’s a potentially meaty, important news story here. Unfortunately, the American-Statesman chose to publish a vague, hollow report that lacks any real context, depth or insight.

To that end, there’s an easy place to start: Define terms. Name sources.

"Glad you're moving back to a more moderated format. Patheos, while suitable for blogs, made ..."

Same as it ever was: It’s ..."
"Congratulations on your anniversary and on the addition of Dawn Eden. One suggestion I have ..."

Same as it ever was: It’s ..."
"I am really glad you're bringing Dawn Eden on.And now I have to go change ..."

Same as it ever was: It’s ..."
"Dawn Eden! What a great addition to your cast of characters."

Same as it ever was: It’s ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • RayIngles

    The American-Statesman seems to have (badly) summarized this far more complete account.

    • http://getreligion.org/ Bobby Ross Jr.

      Thanks for the link, Ray.

  • HowardRichards

    Just because a text “includes a quote” also does not mean that it endorses that quote, let alone endorses it as infallible Sacred Scripture. Many books contain literary allusions.