Rev. Falwell comments on Georgia/evolution. CNN transcript shows typo(?)

Ladewig

I lost an avatar bet.
Ladewig
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
28,828
Jerry Falwell was interviewed on CNN where he described what he thought was the most appropriate method for teaching evolution: the evidence for and against evolution should be presented to the students, along with other models, and the students decide for themselves.

The funny part is the mistake that appears in the CNN site's transcript.

The Reverend Falwell-
We don't want to fire anybody of teaching evolution. We just want to
allow the teaching of cretin and other models in the classroom so that academic freedom prevails in the science classroom like it does in every other discipline.
Click to expand...


full transcript
________________________________
Jason Spaceman posted the link on TALK.ORG and SCI.SKEPTIC along with the following admonition:

[One should always] use Falwell's complete title.
He should always, always be addressed as "that idiot, Jerry Falwell."
He's worked hard for it, he's earned it, we should all use it.
 
Jerry Falwell has taken Rev. Moon's money to shore up his own interests.

Jerry Falwell sucks in $80-million-a-year to finance his "church" and his religious compounds and his cosmetic dental work and his suits, and his first class plane flights, and his his bulletproof vehicles....

Jerry Falwell preaches shallow isolationism and ignorant dogma, for hilariously mangled moral principles.

Jerry Falwell recently announced that the Antichrist is already here - and Jewish.

Jerry Falwell spoke on the 700 Club and said the 9-11 attacks that took place essentially because God had chosen to "lift the curtain" of his previously granted protection of the United States due to god's anger with America's sinful ways.

According to Falwell, Tinky Winky the Teletubbie is purple and wears an antenna shaped like a triangle -- these facts have great significance to Dr. Falwell -- the promotion of gay pride.





...and CNN honestly still interviews him for his opinion?

Unbelieveable.
 
"..and let the students decide."
That would be fine if the students have the necessary background to 'decide." I do agree wholeheartedly with Falwell, as long as "other models" are other valid models. Creationism, including Intelligent Design Creationism, should be discussed so that students can understand why it is not valid science.
 
I think that at the high school or elementary levels the only science that should be taught is that which has withstood the rigors of the peer review system. It should mostly stick to basics. If a theory has not withstood the testing of the institutes of higher learning then it should never find itself in the school curriculum.

This idea of teaching alternate theories or models is a transparent attempt to sneak it in through the back door. We shouldn't stand for it and we shouldn't stand for the 'renaming' of solid sound scientific theories.

This whole thing is both preposterous and disgusting.

The word Nazi could be considered a buzz word that upsets some people. Should we rewrite history books? Education should be about reality not about being politically correct.

Attributed to Cox
Every major scientific breakthrough has been done by an individual who was shunned by the rest of the scientific community.
Click to expand...

What do you bet she can't provide a single example to back up this claim? She isn't even clear as to whether it was the individual or the theory that was shunned. Seriously, EVERY, major breakthrough. She really is a ....nevermind.

Falwell is one too.
 
CNN doesn't care whether Rev. Falwell is out to lunch or not on the subject of Teletubbies. All they care about is that he's a public figure, and viewers want to see public figures do interviews.
 
Attributed to Cox

Every major scientific breakthrough has been done by an individual who was shunned by the rest of the scientific community.
Click to expand...
Crick and Watson were not "shunned".
The Manhattan Project did not occur in a cultural or scientific vacuum.
Alexander Fleming didn't discover penicillin out in his garage--he was working in a well-equipped, mainstream lab, purposefully looking for new antiseptics.

Even Darwin had Wallace hot on his heels.
 
The thing is, students are not in school to decide for themselves. They are there to be taught what they do not know.
 
I had a teacher say we were there in school to learn how to think. And learn of course. I had some great teachers that made us answer tough questions on topics I didn't know existed, even in early grades. It was great. They didn't answer the questions for us, they made us brainstorm and look things up. Falwell asks a question, and then he answers it, cause he is always right, :P

Falwell and others remind me of con artists. Say whatever to get people to think whacky and believe you. Reminds me of hitler too. The followers, why do they listen to such crap?

The typo is hilarious because he is a cretin, lol.
 
Ladewig said:
Jerry Falwell was interviewed on CNN where he described what he thought was the most appropriate method for teaching evolution: the evidence for and against evolution should be presented to the students, along with other models, and the students decide for themselves.

...

[One should always] use Falwell's complete title.
He should always, always be addressed as "that idiot, Jerry Falwell."
He's worked hard for it, he's earned it, we should all use it.
Click to expand...

Hey, I think that Jerry Falwell is right on target!

I would support the teaching of evolution and the teaching of creation mythology.

The Christian creation myth could be taught,
the Hindu creation myth could be taught,
the Egyptian creation myth could be taught,
the Greek creation myth could be taught, and
many other creation myths could be taught as well.

Then, one could show how elegant some of these stories are,
how the stories show elements of the various cultures and environmental conditions,
how the stories show their god(s) at work in the real world,
how the stories were passed down orally for hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of years before they were actually written down, and
how the stories were translated, re-interpreted, and continually re-distributed over many thousands of years.

Then, once all of this was done, one could teach Evolution and correctly state:
Evolution is a real Scientific Theory as opposed to a religious story,
Evolution is supported by vast amounts of objective evidence which is quite unlike any of the creation myths,
Evolution has actually been seen at work many times while no one has seen god at work,
Evolution does make verifiable predications about what will happen in the future which occurs later in religious texts, and that
Evolution is a fact whereas there is little to no data to support any of the creation myths.

That would be a pretty cool class all right!
 
If I'm not mistaken, Michael Shermer once conducted a survey in which he asked whether various creation myths should be taught as science (possibly recounted in "Why People Believe Weird Things"). Many of those myths sounded primitive or sounded bizarre or sounded like they belonged to "someone else's religion." Respondents overwhelmingly concluded that those myths should not be taught as science.

Included in those myths, of course, was the "Judeo-Christian" myth, although it was not identified as such: The Universe came into existence at the word of the Creator.

Respondents generally felt that teaching this creation story was not appropriate, but many were suprised when they were reminded that Genesis describes God creating by speaking. One suspects that if you asked people, "Should the Biblical version of creation be taught?", the responses would be quite different.
 
By the way, although I take exception with a great deal of what Falwell says, I am puzzled by his repeated use of the word "model": "the evolution model," "the Darwinian model," "the creation model."

In my Science and Engineering education, "model" had a very important meaning. In particular, "modeling a system" was a technique for predicting the behavior of the system. In my experience, I have modeled circuits, I have modeled motors, I have modeled radios, I have modeled human cells, I have modeled a human heart, I have modeled a wheelchair controller... all of them with a goal of looking forward in time, and predicting the behavior of a causal system. In other words, "modeling" is a technique for understanding not only what a system did in the past, but what it probably would do in the future.

In that sense, how could creation possibly be a "model?" How could it possibly predict anything?

Some might argue, perhaps with some justification, that evolution is not a "model," either. (After all, a "model" is not the same as a "scientific theory.") And yet, the theory of evolution includes some accurately predictive aspects.
 
zenith-nadir said:
According to Falwell, Tinky Winky the Teletubbie is purple and wears an antenna shaped like a triangle -- these facts have great significance to Dr. Falwell -- the promotion of gay pride.
Click to expand...

in all fairness to the tool Jerry Falwell...he insists he never said such a thing and there is no audio, video or transcribed record to prove otherwise.

seems it was an internet rumor that the media picked up on.
 
HarryKeogh said:


in all fairness to the tool Jerry Falwell...he insists he never said such a thing and there is no audio, video or transcribed record to prove otherwise.

seems it was an internet rumor that the media picked up on.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is not quite right.

True, Falwell never actually said such a thing, but it was said by the editor of the publication that is produced by Falwell. So it is safe to say that Falwell at least originally approved of its being said, however, the notice recieved a harsh public reaction shortly after it was published, so Falwell made a public appearance with the 'Teletubbies' in order to control the damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom