Archive for Wednesday, December 7, 2005

Liberal bias

December 7, 2005


To the editor:

While I was waiting the other day for an appointment, I picked up a copy of the Journal-World and started thumbing through the various sections, articles, commentaries and "letters to the editor." I really don't know why I was so "taken back" by the extremely liberal slant, or should I say bias, since I have been a consistent reader of the Journal-World since first learning to read 50 years ago.

I quit subscribing in 1999 because I never had time to read the paper when I came home from work. Now I would not choose to subscribe because of the Journal-World's failure to be objective and sensitive to the diverse cultures that live in this county. Liberals have always prided themselves on being progressive, open-minded and multiculturally tolerant and affirming.

It ceases to amaze me when I see the diatribes being flailed against those who believe in "intelligent design" or those who simply believe that Darwin's theory of evolution should be taught as it should be - as a "theory." Why become agitated when we question these theories or beliefs? Doesn't higher education emphasize the importance of developing analytical thought processes in our children? Is there fear that some child will believe in God? The true fear should be that we cause a child not to believe in God.

Donna Ketchum,



Spoken1 12 years, 6 months ago

Donna, you completely missed the point, so I have to say your letter is completely biased as well. It isn't about not teaching ID, or teaching that Darwin just had a theory. It's much more about does ID belong in science class? Many people do not believe that the science behind ID really stands up to what is commonly accepted as scientific standards or processes, and therefore have no place in science class. Also, when I was in school (public school), Darwin's theory was always taught as just that, theory. We were always taught that ideas and laws of nature could change at any time as human understanding of these ideas and laws grew and, well, evolved, if you will. You seem to being seeing in monochrome, but there are far more shades of color to this debate than you presented in your letter. I know that personally I believe a bit of both, creationism and evolution. So, I think teaching ID is ok, but I believe it shouldn't be taught as science, as I believe it is a matter of faith, not science. I even see no problem with religion taught in school, as long as all the important major religions in this world are represented equally, as well as a little smattering of the smaller ones for balance and depth of knowledge. How liberal is that for you?

Richard Heckler 12 years, 6 months ago

ID/Creatioism possibly could enter the poli Sci, religious or philosophy arena for discussion. The problems seriously are being created through it's most vocal proponents of demanding a science arena only.

I have no problem with teaching religion in our public schools so long as it includes a long list. Granted this will only scratch the surface however may provide a small bit of understanding other cultures on the planet.

Bradley Kemp 12 years, 6 months ago

Look, Donna. Intelligent design isn't science, which is why it shouldn't be taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution, which is.

And surely, even if you haven't been reading the Journal-World lately, you must've heard at least some of the recent discussion about what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory isn't a guess. It isn't a wild stab in the dark. It isn't crazy conjecture.

A scientific theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Of course we want people to learn to think analytically. But letting them think that an untestable idea is equivalent to a scientific theory won't advance that goal.

Jamesaust 12 years, 6 months ago

"Why become agitated when we question these theories or beliefs? " Perhaps because some refuse to listen to the answers???

Yes, its clear that the LJW's editorial push for metastatic growth is a "liberal" bias. Granted, the LJW's endorsement of W for President might be "liberal" seeing that W is anything but "conservative".

JVW 12 years, 6 months ago

Souki nailed it. People have the wrong idea about what a scientific theory is. When they hear the word "theory" they immediately think of it as an opinion or a guess. But in scientific terms, it's much much more than that. Just as Souki said.

And if we place ID alongside evolution (or any other science) we diminish the value of that science in the eyes of kids, which is a tragedy. Who else will care for this world in the future?

dotteboy 12 years, 6 months ago

Donna has stayed in grandpa's cough medicine too long.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.