HarryG,
I’m glad you raise Copernicus. He and today’s creationists have a lot more in common than you might suppose. Firstly, both explicitly believed the Biblical scriptures. Also, they were both willing to swim against the stream, stick their neck out and risk intense criticism by stating their position, and giving clear reasons for that position. Why should an accusation that I’m holding to a minority position bother me? I hope you weren’t suggesting that right and wrong in all this is defined by a majority vote.

Now I know that creationism is a minority position. So if the ABC and other media suppose to ignore it as such, then so be it.

However, creationists must be punching above their weight since the ABC can’t seem to ignore it and were often reporting this issue (when I used to tune in to the ABC).

All I ask is that the ABC uses its tax payer funding to report fairly. And fair reporting is not difficult to define. As I said previously, on a controversial issue, it has something to do with reporting both sides. (I’m not sure why I have to explain this to media people. I wonder what they learn at media school.)

When Ian Plimer was attempting to make a name for himself as an anti-creationist crusader, the ABC would give him unfettered access to the airwaves. His message was (similar to someone on this thread) that creationists were sinister and out to deceive. Asking for some sort of balance or right of reply was an exercise in futility.

If you get any response at all, it was something like ‘turn on Compass on a Sunday night.’ In which case you would get the views of the Relda, George and Waterboy type who also hold a low view of creationists.

So it’s not rocket science. If you are going to address the issue of creationism or the Biblical view of origins, then you need to make a reasonable effort to accurately portray the creationist view, from the creationists.

So Harry, I’m sorry for my anti-ABC rant. No doubt they try very hard, and I know they don’t have horns coming out their heads, but I get quite hot under the collar about them. The way I see it is that they’re not a lot different from other media. But the biggest difference is with other media, I can just tune out. But with the ABC, I have to pay for the privilege of not watching.

You ask, what would a balanced and fair discussion on creationism look like? It would have a qualified scientist, who understood and adhered to the creationist viewpoint explaining the evidence from a creationist perspective. Of course, depending on the question that was being addressed or the topic of debate, or whatever, there would be room for discussing the evolutionary point of view, as they are competing views.

We got onto this line of discussion because I said that most kids in our culture largely only get one view presented to them, which is propagated daily by books, periodicals, TV and radio, etc. Last week, my primary school son came home with a school assignment of writing up about a zoo animal. He had chosen the mandril monkey and selected some books from the school library. Each of those books contained pages of evolutionary philosophy. One I looked at a bit more contained imaginative pictures of hairy half-monkey type people using primitive tools and building makeshift shelters.

Now the fossils that these pictures were based on (probably never even seen by the artist who drew the pictures) are usually scrappy fragments of bone, without flesh, skin or hair. To arrive at the pictures my son was viewing required much interpretation, philosophically driven guesswork and speculation.

EVO,
Good to see that you so quickly recovered from your misadventure last Saturday.

AJ,
I’m sorry you didn’t like my phrase ‘sprung into existence’ millions of years ago. Okay, I’ll use terminology reflecting the currently accepted scientific view – ‘The cosmos exploded into existence millions of years ago’. This is often referred to as the Big Bang.

Dan:
Just to clear things up - it is something I tried to do before, but cut it out because of exceeding the word limit, and I did not put it back in after I decided I had to split my post.

While having worked at the ABC, I am not a "media type", though I still had to go through the same induction procedure and I worked with many "media types".

I had probably given a wrong impression before.

<< All I ask is that the ABC uses its tax payer funding to report fairly. And fair reporting is not difficult to define. As I said previously, on a controversial issue, it has something to do with reporting both sides. (I’m not sure why I have to explain this to media people. I wonder what they learn at media school.) >>

But then the ABC would have to report equally on the Raelian and Falun Gong beliefs regarding UFOs, the crystal-powered beliefs of astral travellers, and the faith of the Last Thursdayists, who believe that the universe was created last Thursday and the creator simply filled us with false memories of everything that came before.

Natural selection and evolution get top billing for a simple reason: there is oodles of evidence behind it. Creationism cannot claim that.

As the founder of the Flying Spaghetti Monster faith wrote,
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

<< If you are going to address the issue of creationism or the Biblical view of origins, then you need to make a reasonable effort to accurately portray the creationist view, from the creationists. >>

Absolutely. In religious studies or sociology, but not in a science classroom.

The creationist view, Dan, is that all science is a 'paradigm'. A point of view. An inventive approach to page one of the bible.

Very nice words sancho, very nice. I can see resolution not too far off. The filing cabinet of life is really getting a good shuffling, I cant wait until the dust settles.

I think once all enidence comes to light, its going to be a case of I told you so! from both sides.

Thanks Dan! I am feeling a lot better.

EVO