Snow repeated falsehoods, offered new one in attempt to rebut Media Matters
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Fox News host Tony Snow made false claims while attempting to rebut items on Media Matters' April 19 list of "the many falsehoods of Tony Snow."
On the April 20 broadcast of his Fox News Radio show, host Tony Snow made several false claims while attempting to rebut items from Media Matters for America's April 19 list of "numerous false and misleading claims advanced by Snow as a Fox News commentator." But in responding to the points, read by assistant Sean McGrane (ph), Snow repeated his previous false or misleading claims. In one case, as a result of a misreading by McGrane, Snow made a new false claim about former CIA operative Valerie Plame.
-
Snow's assistant misread the first item on Media Matters' list. Media Matters wrote that "Snow falsely asserted that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV said his wife, Valerie Plame, 'wasn't covert for six years' before she was exposed as a CIA operative by syndicated columnist Robert Novak." But when McGrane read it on the air, he incorrectly said that Media Matters had accused Snow of claiming that Plame herself had said she wasn't covert. From the April 20 broadcast of The Tony Snow Show:
McGRANE: Snow falsely asserted that former ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame -- that Plame said "wasn't covert for six years" before she was exposed as a CIA operative.
Snow responded, "Uh, no. That's not what I said. But I did say she was not covert when she was exposed because she had not been on foreign soil for six years." But the claim that "she had not been on foreign soil for six years" is also rebutted by the evidence. As Media Matters has previously noted, evidence indicates that Plame engaged in CIA business abroad between 1998 and 2003, even if she was not stationed abroad. An October 8, 2003, Washington Post article suggested that Plame remained undercover "in recent years" as an "energy consultant," while actually serving as a weapons-proliferation analyst for the CIA. She was known by friends and neighbors as someone who "traveled frequently overseas," according to the Post article. Moreover, on September 29, 2003, CNN national security correspondent David Ensor stated in a report: "All I can say is, my sources tell me that this [Plame] is a CIA operative. This is a person who did run agents. This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information."
-
Snow repeated his false claim -- also flagged in the April 19 Media Matters item -- that evolution is not scientifically testable. Saying that "we're gonna get nerdy here for a moment," Snow asserted, "If you study the philosophy of science ... you have to be able to conduct like a test-tube experiment. You have to be able to falsify something. The theory of evolution may fit a whole string of facts. But can you do something that demonstrates that apes turned into men? The answer is no, you can't. You can't conduct that experiment. It's humanly impossible. So as a consequence, it's going to remain interesting, it'll remain speculative." He then stated that, similarly, "[y]ou don't have the intelligent-design test tube." As Media Matters noted when it first documented this claim by Snow, the theory of evolution has, in the process of its acceptance by the scientific community, been subject to extensive testing and rigorous scrutiny. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (National Academies Press, June 1999), documents more evidence in support of evolution -- such as physical and embryonic similarities among seemingly divergent species. The book also refutes Snow's assertion that evolutionary theory "isn't verifiable or testable." From Science and Creationism:
Evolutionary theory explains that biological diversity results from the descendants of local or migrant predecessors becoming adapted to their diverse environments. This explanation can be tested by examining present species and local fossils to see whether they have similar structures, which would indicate how one is derived from the other. Also, there should be evidence that species without an established local ancestry had migrated into the locality. Wherever such tests have been carried out, these conditions have been confirmed.
-
Snow also repeated his false criticism in response to Media Matters' claim that "Snow peddled the baseless Republican National Committee talking point that 2004 presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) had blamed U.S. troops for the explosives looted from the Al Qaqaa military installation following the invasion of Iraq. Snow said, '[T]he Kerry campaign is not criticizing the president here. They're criticizing our troops.' " Snow said "the whole point" was that Kerry said "they're [the administration] guilty of malfeasance by letting the weapons get away. Well, you can't say that I'm criticizing the fact that the weapons got away and not criticize the people who let the weapons get away, in your opinion. You can't say that George Bush was standing right there."
But, as Media Matters noted, Kerry did in fact blame the administration and not the military personnel who were there: "After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq," Kerry said, "this administration failed to guard those stockpiles -- where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept."
As the October 25, 2004, The New York Times reported, the administration was repeatedly warned about Al Qaqaa being left unguarded -- but did nothing about it:
The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives [at Al Qaqaa] before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.
From the April 20 broadcast of Fox News Radio's The Tony Snow Show:
McGRANE: And, then, finally -- well, two quick ones if we have time. Media Matters lists the many falsehoods of Tony Snow.
SNOW: Oh yeah, I love this one. I love this one.
McGRANE: You want to hear a couple of your falsehoods? Or is that --
SNOW: Yeah, actually -- because I've actually -- what's happened is, the creative readers of that site have actually been thoughtful enough to cut and paste the entire thing for me.
McGRANE: Oh, really?
SNOW: Yeah, so --
McGRANE: The vast list of your falsehoods.
SNOW: The vast list of falsehoods. So let's, yeah, let's hear some of those, and then we're gonna take a break and I will share with you some of the emails too.
McGRANE: "From his statement that evolutionary theory is a 'hypothesis' to his defense of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Media Matters for America has documented numerous false and misleading claims advanced by Snow as a Fox News commentator" --
SNOW: Wow. That's dangerous. Let's hear them.
McGRANE: -- including "Snow falsely asserted that former ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame -- that Plame said 'wasn't covert for six years' before she was exposed as a CIA operative."
SNOW: Uh, no. That's not what I said. But I did say that she was not covert when she was exposed because she had not been on foreign soil for six years.
[...]
McGRANE: "Snow put forward numerous falsehoods to argue that 'evolutionary theory, like intelligent design, isn't verifiable or testable. It's pure hypothesis.' "
SNOW: Yeah, well, here's --
McGRANE: Don't they call it the theory of evolution?
SNOW: Well, here's the deal. In science -- if you study the philosophy of science -- we're gonna get nerdy here for a moment. You have to be able to conduct like a test-tube experiment. You have to be able to falsify something. The theory of evolution may fit a whole string of facts. But can you do something that demonstrates that apes turned into men? The answer's no, you can't. You can't conduct that experiment. It's humanly impossible. So as a consequence, it's gonna remain interesting, it'll remain speculative. Similarly with an intelligent design. I mean, intelligent design says, there's a design behind everything. Well, yeah, OK, we seem to have natural laws and all that that seem to vindicate it, but, you can't prove it. You don't have the intelligent-design test tube. That's all I was saying.
McGRANE: "Snow peddled the baseless RNC talking point that 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry had blamed U.S. troops for the explosives looted from the Al Qaqaa military installation following the invasion of Iraq. Snow said, '[T]he Kerry campaign is not criticizing the president here. They're criticizing our troops.' "
SNOW: OK, well, John Kerry says that they're guilty of malfeasance by letting the weapons get away. Well, you can't say that I'm criticizing the fact that the weapons got away and not criticize the people who let the weapons get away, in your opinion. You can't say that George Bush was standing right there, that was the whole point. Here's -- that's pretty weak stuff.
McGRANE: Yeah, there's not a whole lot here. I hope maybe they're saving their best stuff for if you do decide to do it.
SNOW: Somebody's going to read through all these columns, they're going to find out -- Remember, you said this about the president? I'll just have to say, yeah, sure do.
McGRANE: You can blame -- blame that on [producer] Griff [Jenkins].
read the quotes exactly as mmfa wrote them and then reply. not what you're trying to suggest was said and then reply to that. but after all, you are fox. enough said.
To knock down strawmen arguments, right?
For many years I have tried to cut Tony Snow some slack, hoping he might be different from the hypocritical right wing talking heads. This was because back when the "family values conservatives" were advocating the kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez, he was the only person on the right who stated that the child belonged with his father. Since then I would cringe when I heard him spout the Republican talking points, figuring he had to play the part of "advocate for his side". However, I have to give up my hope that Snow might have been an actual person possessing independent thought. It turns out he really is just another RNC robot who accidentally got one thing right in his life. Oh well, the search goes on for a neocon who isn't a neopropagandist.
a possible candidate for White House Press Secretary who denies 145 years of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution, yet still apparently accepts arguments, now known to be unequivocally false, that Saddam posed a legitimate nuclear threat to the U.S. Sheesh....bring back Scottie M.!!!
Plato
That clip, I mean. If Snow had any integrity, he would invite someone from MM to appear on his show and discuss the "vast list of [his] falsehoods." Instead, he has his toady mangle and misrepresent MM's assertions. They sound like frat boys sneering at a student who actually does his school work.
If Snow thinks he can play that act in front of the White House press corps, toothless as they have been, I think we'll see a train wreck.
Tony's in for a viscious gumming?
that's funny
This is a huge pet peeve of mine, but it's repeated so often by the ignorant that it's worth rebutting again.
McGrane said, "Don't they call it the theory of evolution?"
It seems that many proponents of intelligent design are getting hung up on the word "theory" in the phrase "theory of evolution." In the layman's vernacular, "theory" is often synonymous with "hypothesis," but this is not the scientific definition. Electricity is also considered a theory, but no sane person doubts its existence. It's the same with evolution. Evolution is a fact, and as with electricity, the theory lies in explaining the mechanics of the process. This is the difference between evolution and intelligent design, and it's why they shouldn't be given equal credence in the classroom. Evolution is a scientifically proven fact and has been for over a hundred years, while intelligent design is faith-based speculation with absolutely no basis in scientific fact. It drives me crazy how the right is always pointing to the word "theory" to support their idiocy.
...beneath every layer is another layer of folly. Snow and his buddy bought a big ol' bowl of it.
First, I like that he actually tried to defend himself versus going they're horrible people for repeating what I said back to me -- like BO and others. But damn, if you want to protect yourself put your hands up, don't stick your chin out -- use something close to reality. This was almost two easy for MM, calling him out knowing he was dumb enough to take the bait and receive yet another beat down. I have previously thought Snow would make a lousy Bush Press Secretary. However, after reviewing my last statement, given his obivous lack of ability to learn to the lesson stop while you can and his willingness to "take one" to the head (What's to damage?) I think he'd be a "great" choice to become this WH's punching bag. "DING" and there's the bell. Will Snow be able to answer it?
"Cut me, Mick." "I don't want to do it kid."
Rocky I
...than someone trying to respond to MMFA and getting themselves deeper in a web of lies? Seems to be happening a lot lately!
To give the impression of defense for his statements, Snow is just going through the motions to provide his supporters with defensive talking points for his brand of political falsehoods. After all, if you are suppose to be top dog, you have to give the appearance of being "on the money" with your line. The problem with this is we are still in the world of facts, and what is true is just that: true. When the dust settles, MMFA was correct in their assertions, and Snow now have more to keep up with -- its hard to keep up with lies once you travel down that road because you always lose track of the growing lies you have told.
Now you can run off and defend Un-intelligent Design! Something most Americans know as the Bush Administration. Don't forget to take your test tube with you. See if you can fit the reason we staggered into Iraq in it.
Scottie always appeared a little sweaty - whatcha need is a guy who really believes it all!
Okay, well, his listeners will maybe check out MMFA to see how ol' Tony did in rebuttal and find out...
Maybe they read on, maybe they don't, but Tony led them here and thus...
I WON'T BE SURPRISE IF TONY SNOW WILL BE GIVEN THE JOB. THEY HAVE BEEN GIVE THE WHITE HOUSE AND REPUBLICANS TALKING POINTS TO GET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY THERE LIES SINCE THEY BEEN ON.
...the administration announced today that they had sold the naming rights to the White House in a deal worth $250 million over 2 1/2 years and a toy "nucular" [sic] missile for the President. Henceforth, the White House will be known as the Fox News House.
The President's Straw Men would have nothing to talk about if they thought their audience wasn't stupid. They count on the audience not seeing though their falsehoods.
A genetic history has already made the link from primates to man, and the Christian may not allow themselves to acknowledge this. They won't indulge science in many forms that contradict their religious doctrine, whether that science should make their family sick or protect them from sickness. Their big on science of weapons, not so big on anything that contradicts their scriptures.
The earth is 8500 years old and we must have had dinosaurs when the earth was formed in 7 days. I wonder when their beliefs are spiritual, and morally subjective, without their insistence that monks writing scripture 900 years ago may have had a less than informed view of nature, and science.
We could accept that the Dark Ages didn't happen and it was just an era of human history that had a shortage of thinking?? We could accept everything the Repugs would wish us to believe, and start our own new Dark Age.
If we continue with the Republican governance our grandchildren will be good evangelicals with a 4th grade education equivalence, and a trade & budget deficit that will keep them in debt for ever, on minimum wage.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Though Snow delt out quite a bit of nonsense, there is something that sticks out. This was particularly ridiculous:
"You can't say that George Bush was standing right there, that was the whole point. Here's -- that's pretty weak stuff."
That is madness. Saying that a president can not be at fault unless present at the crime.
Tony Snow can't take the White House job because then he would officially be on the White House payroll and then we would have to give him backpay for all his Bush loving years! The National Debt is already out of sight!
"You have to be able to falsify something. The theory of evolution may fit a whole string of facts. But can you do something that demonstrates that apes turned into men? The answer is no, you can't. You can't conduct that experiment. It's humanly impossible. So as a consequence, it's going to remain interesting, it'll remain speculative."
What an ignoramus. First of all, he brings up falsification. Yes, theory of evolution can be falsified - rabbit in Precambrian is such a widespread meme that even Snow should have heard of it. He never addresses the falsification issue, though he brought it up.
Second, he repeats the usual creationist canard that science is based on experiments. It is not. Science studies _observable_ facts. Whether that be observation of an experiment or observation of the fossil record - makes no difference.
He is so obviously ignorant of the philosophy of science, yet he pontificates on it! Ugh.
Russian Liberal states that Snow doesn't know what the definition of Science is and therfore labels Snow an ignoramus.
RL uses to prove his contention the falsification. As prove he provides a straw-man approach. Snow not discussing "rabbit in Precambrian" is RL's proof. However that is a logically consistant as me calling RL an ignoramus because he didn't articulate Einstein's quote: "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
RL further states Science is not based on experiments. "Science studies _observable_ facts. Whether that be observation of an experiment or observation of the fossil record - makes no difference."
RL should have known that both he and Snow are referring to what is commonly known as the "Scientific Method".
RL states, "He is so obviously ignorant of the philosophy of science, yet he pontificates on it! Ugh."
Perhaps RL should take a refresher course. I found this in Wikopedia:
The scientific method provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields. ...This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and thorough peer review of experimental design as well as conclusions of a study.
Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven scientific theory is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.
Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of an established law that was later found not to be universal - it does not hold in experiments involving motion at speeds close to the speed of light or in close proximity of strong gravitational fields. Outside these conditions, Newton's Laws remain an excellent model of motion and gravity. Since general relativity accounts for all the same phenomena that Newton's Laws do and more, general relativity is now regarded as a better theory.
There is more, but you'll have to go read it yourself.
I think RL and so many others in here, who take evolutionary theory as GOSPEL ought to settle down and seriously consider its flaws rather than being tied down to the Darwin dogma.
A two second Google search makes us all experts these days.
Despite whatever you may find at Wikipedia, RL is quite correct. There is a very specific definition of "experimental design," and falsifying a scientific theory is not conditioned on an experiment - an observation will do quite nicely, thank you.
I don't blame Wikipedia for this, by the way - you are the one conflating the scientific method with falsifiability. They are two related, but separate, topics.
But I must admit, your post is instructive. Creationists (which is what they are - the "intelligent design" designation is a ruse) try to elevate their beliefs to the level of scientific theories; then they say that scientific theories aren't worth much, anyway ("It's just a THEORY!"). An interesting contradiction.
By the way, I think Led Zepplin is the world's greatest rock band. That's MY theory - prove me wrong. You can't? Well, I MUST be right!
See how this works?
AA says:
"Russian Liberal states that Snow doesn't know what the definition of Science is and therfore labels Snow an ignoramus."
As is typical for conservatives, AA cannot argue with arguments, so he must invent strawmen. I never even brought up the _definition_ of science. I addressed one aspect of science which Snow distorted.
"RL uses to prove his contention the falsification. As prove he provides a straw-man approach. Snow not discussing "rabbit in Precambrian" is RL's proof. However that is a logically consistant as me calling RL an ignoramus because he didn't articulate Einstein's quote: "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""
Einstein's quote has nothing to do with the topic, so just another strawman. ToE is falsifiable, Snow says it's not, ergo he is a liar and/or ignoramus.
"RL should have known that both he and Snow are referring to what is commonly known as the "Scientific Method"."
The point being?
As for quote from "Wikopedia" (which AA cannot even spell), well, if Wiki is the basis of AA's and Snow's knowledge about the philosophy of science, I can only pity them.
"I think RL and so many others in here, who take evolutionary theory as GOSPEL ought to settle down and seriously consider its flaws rather than being tied down to the Darwin dogma."
Typical creationist preaching. There is no "Darwin dogma". Science is not gospel. Those are fundies' projections of their own dogmatic beliefs.
The bottom line: Snow is an ignoramus and AA failed to challenge this conclusion.
The theory of evolution by natural selection is a tricky one in terms of falsifiability. There are volumes of evidence in support of evolution; so much so that evolution itself is not in doubt. What Snow somewhat misstates, however, is actually true: Natural selection (not evolution) is essentially a tautology and therefore not falsifiable. Natural selection in essence says that traits conferring advantages for survival and reproduction will become widespread in populations; we then evaluate how advantageous those traits are by noting how widespread they are in populations. In other words, when we say survival of the fittest, we're really saying survival of the survivors, which is a tautology and hence not falsifiable (given how we define the components, there is no possible way it could not be true).
This debate among evolutionary theorists centers on coming up with a testable statement or statements about natural selection, not on whether natural selection is an agent of evolution.
You're wrong about tautology. [link to www.talkorigins.org]
Most everyone concedes that micro-evolution occurs. However there is no supportable evidence of macro-evolution, (i.e., the changing of one species into another.)
In the fossil record most major animal phyla appear fully formed at the beginning of the Cambrian period. Interestingly, there is no fossil evidence they branched off from a common ancestor. This explosion of new animal forms and the lack of evidence in the fossil record should at least be show as a problem within evolutionary theory.
There are many problems with evolutionary 'facts'. One is the creation of amino acids from a primordial soup. It has been discredited as the experiment of creating amino acids in a test tube with a jolt of electricty doesn't work when the latest scientific concensus of the atmosphere at the dawn of the earth is used.
The theory that embryos of different animals look erily the same at some point in development has been proven as misleading.
Many take for granted that similar looking bone structure of say birds and humans prove a common ancestor. But to do that you have to find a natural mechanism for showing the bones in both species evolved from that common ancestor. Evolutionists have proposed two: developmental pathways and similar genes.
Scientists have known for years that different homologous (i.e. bone development) structures are often not produced by similar pathways nor are they produced by similar genes. Neither method has been proven to show a common ancestry over a common design.
It is false and circular logic to argue that the common ancestry theory proves the evolution when "common ancestry" is part of the theory.
There are other challenges to evolution. I suggest that open minded people here, rather than attacking the messenger, go see for themselves that evolutionary theory is far from being "proven".
AnotherAmerican
[link to www.kcfs.org]
First, science never proves anything; it merely fails to disprove things so often and consistently that we come to accept them provisionally as true. What you said about evolution having not been proven is true; it is also true for every scientific theory and law we have. Second, the "micro" vs. "macro" distinction is a red herring. The fossil record is so spotty and so incomplete that to demand fossil evidence of "one species evolving into another" is a virtual impossibility. If we found the 1st, 132nd, and 578th pages of a book and found clear evidence that they were related (same characters, similar writing style, fonts, pagination, and so on), we might reasonably infer that they were from the same book and not insist that the absence of the intervening pages is evidence that the pages were created independently of one another for different books. And as with the book analogy, other lines of evidence are quite compelling, however; including the changes in mitochondrial DNA, rRNA, and so on. Finally, yes, evolution as a theory does have problems. So does every active area of science--if evolution as a theory had no problems, it would be a dead science.
The National Academy of Sciences web site
"problems with evolutionary theory do exist"
Problems with any scientific theory exist. If there were no problems, there would be no science. Why do creationist only focus on ToE, inventing most of the "problems" along the way?
"Most everyone concedes that micro-evolution occurs. However there is no supportable evidence of macro-evolution, (i.e., the changing of one species into another.)""
Just another ignorant statement. Macroevolution has been observed: [link to www.talkorigins.org] , [link to www.talkorigins.org]
Even the moonbatty YECs say: don't go there, don't use this flawed argument - [link to www.answersingenesis.org]
"In the fossil record most major animal phyla appear fully formed at the beginning of the Cambrian period. Interestingly, there is no fossil evidence they branched off from a common ancestor. This explosion of new animal forms and the lack of evidence in the fossil record should at least be show as a problem within evolutionary theory."
Nope. [link to www.talkorigins.org] , [link to www.talkorigins.org]
Aren't you tired of being debunked?
"There are many problems with evolutionary 'facts'. One is the creation of amino acids from a primordial soup. It has been discredited as the experiment of creating amino acids in a test tube with a jolt of electricty doesn't work when the latest scientific concensus of the atmosphere at the dawn of the earth is used."
Showing your ignorance again? Abiogenesis is not even a part of ToE. Nevertheless, even your irrelevant claim is outdated. [link to www.talkorigins.org] , [link to www.talkorigins.org] , [link to www.talkorigins.org] , [link to www.talkorigins.org]
"The theory that embryos of different animals look erily the same at some point in development has been proven as misleading."
No it hasn't. [link to www.talkorigins.org] , [link to www.talkorigins.org]
"Scientists have known for years that different homologous (i.e. bone development) structures are often not produced by similar pathways nor are they produced by similar genes. Neither method has been proven to show a common ancestry over a common design."
Yawn. [link to www.talkorigins.org]
"It is false and circular logic to argue that the common ancestry theory proves the evolution when "common ancestry" is part of the theory."
Common descent is proven by a multitude of theory-independent facts, see [link to www.talkorigins.org]
"There are other challenges to evolution."
There are no challenges to the fact of evolution. There are only challenges about details of evolutionary science, and scientists are working on them. IDers and other creationists need not apply, thank you.
" rather than attacking the messenger, go see for themselves that evolutionary theory is far from being "proven"."
Theories are never proven, so just another strawman. The fact of the evolution (which the theory explains) has been proven.
Embarrassed yet?
I am surprised that the professional liars in the media do not recognize that the right wing's arguments are so weak and untenable that it is necessary to lie in order to support them.
Never underestimate the power of money to turn once good men into anti-American sniveling suck-ups and liars.
Snow will likely take the place of Scott McClellan and is perfect for the job. He comes from the white house fake news channel, fox. so he should be well versed in spin and talking points ....with a straight face.
I've never heard this term before reading this thread. It's an interesting, somewhat loaded, term, in my opinion.
Science does not consist of "proving" theories. It consists of observation of the natural universe, drawing conclusions based on those observations, putting forward hypotheses based on those conclusions, and testing those hypotheses using the scientific method.
The Theory of Evolution consists of several hypotheses, all of which have been subjected to the scientifc method, including analysis of new evidence. While ET has never been "proven," it has been overwhelmingly accepted. The same can be said of global warming, which, interestingly, is also denied by the same people who deny ET.
Intelligent Design (creationism) is a system of belief based on faith in the supernatural. As such, the scientific method can never be applied to it.
The persistence of ET opponents is directly porportional to the threat they believe ET poses to their beliefs. This is why they have to promote the false dichotomy of either ET or ID. I don't see how the two preclude each other, but those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible can never admit that ET has merit. They can't adjust their beliefs, so they have to attack ET.
He'll fit RIGHT in as Dumbya's new press secretary!