Dalle sigarette all’ID
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. Within the business we recognise that a controversy exists. However, with the general public the consensus is that cigarettes are in some way harmful to
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. Within the business we recognise that a controversy exists. However, with the general public the consensus is that cigarettes are in some way harmful to the health. If we are successful in establishing a controversy at the public level, then there is an opportunity to put across the real facts about smoking and health”.
Come si vede è decisamente impressionante la somiglianza con la strategia usata dai creazionisti e dall’ID per contrastare con alternative non dimostrate e non dimostrabili (e quindi non sostenute affatto dagli esperti) la teoria dell’evoluzione … (“When two groups of experts disagree about a controversial subject that intersects the public school curriculum students should learn about both perspectives. In such cases teachers should not teach as true only one competing view, just the Republican or Democratic view of the New Deal in a history class, for example. Instead, teachers should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents”). Qualche tendenza a confrontare anche mele con pere pur di non sembrare parziali sembra ci sia anche nel mondo dell’informazione.
Splendida e logica anche la riflessione conclusiva, che mette in evidente difficoltà gli antievoluzionisti su base religiosa, che non possono non riconoscersi (“But with all that said, the idea of teaching the controversy isn’t an intrinsically bad one. There are plenty of subjects that have legitimate controversies where this commendable call for fairness could be better applied. For example, how about sex ed? A great many religious conservatives – many of the same ones who call for teaching the controversy on evolution, I don’t doubt – change their tune when it comes to public-school health classes, demanding that students be taught an “abstinence-only” program that omits contraception, or mentions it only to discuss its failure rates. How strange. Whatever happened to fairness? Whatever happened to learning about all sides? Why can students make up their own minds about evolution, but not about how to protect themselves from STDs? [sexual transmitted deseases]“).
Tratto da L’Antievoluzionismo in Italia, il blog di Daniele Formenti