insight-less:

The “B” is for Bias

If you’ve recently visited Drudge you’ve probably seen this memo from ABCNews’ political director essentially saying that it will essentially be ABCNews’ official policy not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" because "the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done…". This pretty much confirms what I’ve been saying for the last 10 months, that the MSM has decided that Kerry’s going to get a pass and that the media’s critical eye will be unblinkingly fixed to the Bush administration. From Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek admitting “the media wants Kerry to win and so they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic” in July to the CBS memo controversy we’ve seen an unprecedented decline in the editorial integrity of mainstream news sources. It’s incredibly frustrating to me that the news most people receive is becoming a less accurate portrayal of reality and more a reflection of the desires of poorly educated, idealistic journalism majors from the 60’s.

Darwin and a "Higher Purpose"?

I just found this article, Planet with a Purpose, linked to from Andrew Sullivan's blog. It's an interesting piece that describes a reluctant declaration from "popular" philosopher, Daniel Dennet, stating that "life on earth shows signs of having a higher purpose." It should be noted that Dennet is (or perhaps was) an atheist and wrote an influential book in 1995 called "Darwin's Dangerous Idea."

Here's a quote from the article:

"More recently, he urged his fellow non-believers to unite and fight for their rights in a New York Times op-ed piece, depicting belief in God as contrary to a naturalist" worldview.

I have some bad news for Dennett's many atheist devotees. He recently declared that life on earth shows signs of having a higher purpose. Worse still, he did it on videotape,during an interview for my website meaningoflife.tv. (You can watch the relevant clip here, though I recommend reading a bit further first so you'll have enough background to follow the logic.) Dennett didn't volunteer this opinion enthusiastically, or for that matter volunteer it at all. He conceded it in the course of a dialogue with me—and extracting the concession was a little like pulling teeth. But his initial resistance makes his final judgment all the more important. People who see evidence of some larger purpose in the universe are often accused of arguing with their heart, not their head. That's a credibility problem Dennett doesn't face.

When you watch him validate an argument for higher purpose, you're watching that argument pass a severe test. In fact, given that he's one of the best-known philosophers in the world, it may not be too much to say that you're watching a minor intellectual milestone get erected."

UPDATE: Daniel Dennet disagrees with Wright's summation of his argument. "all I am granting [in the interview]... is that IF evolution exhibited the properties that embryogenesis [i.e., the maturation of an organism] exhibits (which it doesn't, as I've kept insisting) this would work to some extent in favor of your purpose hypothesis.” Wright replies here.