Thursday, Jan. 11, 2007 - 9:30 a.m.

Wow! Thanks, Doc

I was so glad to see Dobson's response to the furor over his using two researcher's(?) info, especially "Scientists don't get to choose who can cite their works and who can't." and "What homosexual activists and their sympathizers are trying to do, Schneeberger added, is shut up their critics.

"What they are saying is, 'Not only can you not have the beliefs that you have, but you can't use science to back up your beliefs, or we'll accuse you of misusing science.' "

Now for the actual article by Winn of citizenlink.org, a branch of Focus on the Family,citing some of Dobson's responses.

Dobson Rebuffs Gay Activists Over Time Article
by Pete Winn, associate editor

Allegation that the child development expert 'cherry-picked' research is preposterous.

America's foremost radio advocate for children has fired back against allegations he misused research when he wrote an article in a December issue of Time on the topic of children raised in "alternative" homes.

In his January newsletter to constituents, Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James Dobson said the criticism he's taken for the piece is because "the views expressed in this article run counter to everything our liberal, politically correct culture holds dear."

The commentary, written at the request of Time, had as its news peg the just-announced revelation that Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, was pregnant with a child she intends to raise with her partner.

"With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the preponderance of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father," Dobson wrote in Time. "That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy -- any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl."

Gary Schneeberger, public policy media director for Focus on the Family, said reaction from the left was especially furious because Dobson cited research from several authors showing that children need their fathers -- and suffer when the father is not present.

One homosexual activist took it upon himself to convince some of the scientists whose research Dobson referenced to complain.

One of those researchers, Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School, wrote Time to complain Dobson had "cherry-picked" -- or used quotes out of context -- when he quoted from Pruett's book, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett went so far as to demand that Dobson stop referring to this work.

Dobson was stunned at the allegation.

"Something is strange here," he wrote in his newsletter. "Doesn�t the title (of Pruett's book) itself proclaim the significance of fathering in the well-being of children? Of course it does. The phrase that Dr. Pruett said I 'cherry-picked' was this: 'fathers do not mother.' Incidentally, that is the title of the first chapter of his book!"

Moreover, Dobson pointed out in his newsletter what Pruett himself said in the final paragraph of Fatherneed: "Men are the single greatest untapped resource in the lives of American children. Natural, renewable, and by and large nontoxic, they couldn�t be healthier for the country�s children. We can�t afford to let another one get away."

"What am I missing here?" Dobson asked. "Isn�t that precisely the point I was making? In what sense did I misquote or take Dr. Pruett�s writings out of context? Is he now changing his position and claiming that fathers are NOT critical to healthy child development? Is he saying that fathers DO NOT create huge consequences for children, or that two lesbians can do the job just as well without them? Apparently so, but that is not what he wrote."

Princeton Professor Robert George, who wrote a letter to the editors of Time in defense of Dobson's perspective that children need both a mother and a father, said while he is not a psychologist, he is familiar with Pruett's work.

"It didn't look to me as though (Dobson) had misused the work in any way," George told CitizenLink. "Rather he had simply cited a work that made a point that supported the case he was making."

Another scientist whose work Dobson cited from -- educational psychologist Carol Gilligan -- angrily accused him of misrepresenting her views and demanded he not mention her work ever again.

That's nonsensical, according to Schneeberger. Scientists don't get to choose who can cite their works and who can't.

"In science, there are two different things -- there's data and there are the conclusions drawn from the data," Schneeberger said. "Dr. Dobson accurately cited the data of every scientist he quoted from in that piece. That's what the data says.

"Now, those scientists may not have been pleased with the conclusions he drew from that data, but that's not their call to make. In the realm of science and social science, you can't issue cease-and-desist orders simply for having your work cited by people you may disagree with."

What homosexual activists and their sympathizers are trying to do, Schneeberger added, is shut up their critics.

"What they are saying is, 'Not only can you not have the beliefs that you have, but you can't use science to back up your beliefs, or we'll accuse you of misusing science.' "

The practical effects of the controversy have been many. CitizenLink readers have sent more than 8,000 e-mails thanking Time for giving Dr. Dobson the platform he had.

"What's great about that," Schneeberger explained, "is we're starting to get mail from people who say that we have shut down the Time magazine inbox. So many letters were sent that it apparently exploded.

"That's important for the editors of Time to know -- that there are everyday Americans who buy the magazine and read the magazine and who want to see in mainstream media publications the perspectives of someone like Dr. James Dobson."

Professor George agreed Time should be congratulated for allowing people who share Dobson's point of view to have a say.

"The point of a news magazine is to present competing points of view on timely and important issues," he explained. "That's what Time did in this case, and Time deserves to be congratulated for letting the argument be aired in its pages."

EE's devotional

newAutumn Leaves

previous - next