Intelligent Design program on PBS

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Intelligent Design program on PBS

Post by _The Dude »

It should be fun. I'm definitely going to watch this....

Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial
Airs on November 13 at 8PM

Review in Nature:

Conflict between religion and science has rarely been of more concern. Whereas the rhetoric of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others has little measurable effect, the outcome of a juryless trial in a two-bit Pennsylvania town in 2005 had a profound impact on how science is taught throughout the United States, and beyond. The parents of 11 pupils at the only high school in Dover launched a legal challenge to prevent the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution by natural selection. There followed thefts, fires, death threats, a media sensation and a robust verdict.

Hot on the heels of several books chronicling Kitzmiller vs Dover, comes Judgment Day, a rigorous television documentary from the producers of the prestigious science series Nova. This two-hour montage of interviews and reconstructions, to be shown on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the United States, features all the main players, bar one. Michael Behe, inventor of the specious meme "irreducible complexity" and guiding light of the intelligent-design movement, refused to participate. His testimony — the cornerstone of the defence — revealed a definition of science so loose that it includes astrology.

Herein lies the dramatic challenge of retelling this important story. The feebleness of the intelligent-design case, and the overwhelming strength of the prosecution in systematically deconstructing it, render the verdict clear just minutes into the programme. The makers of Judgement Day inject tension with eyewitness accounts from the people of Dover, and home-video footage of raucous school board meetings shows how passionate and divided this small community became. It works: it is inspiring to hear parents and educators,such as Sunday school and physics teacher Bryan Rehm, recount how they refused to be steam-rollered into bringing religion into the science classroom.

Judgment Day gracefully avoids ridiculing intelligent design for the pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist fig-leaf that it is, by simply showing how the protagonists shot themselves in the foot. They plead for the teaching of "alternative theories" to strengthen children's education (the misguided sentiment picked up by President Bush). But subpoenaed drafts of a textbook that promoted intelligent design reveal that the word 'creationists' was simply replaced with 'design proponents'. In one instance, this alteration was made so hastily it caused the misprint 'cdesign proponentsists', satirized by the prosecution as the transitional verbal fossil linking creationism to intelligent design.

At times in this overlong show, one feels almost sorry for the intelligent-design team, they're so inept. And then you remember that its champions take comments from scientists out of context and even lied under oath.

The judge at the centre of the dispute, John E. Jones III, is the hero of the piece. When this republican lutheran, appointed by the commander-in-chief himself, was assigned to the case, the pro-evolution lobby feared they had been dealt an unsympathetic ear. Happily, the measured, dry-witted Jones was fascinated by the comprehensive scientific case for darwinian evolution. He handed down a damning judgment that intelligent design is not science, and that its teaching is a violation of the cherished First Amendment. As a result, Time magazine rightly put him in their 2006 list of the world's 100 most influential people.

Intelligent design has not gone away. Next February, cinemas will be showing the pro-intelligent-design film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, written by comedian Ben Stein. Richard Dawkins, prominent anti-creationist blogger P. Z. Myers, and others claim the producers duped them into appearing.

But the Kitzmiller vs Dover verdict, matched this September with the outlawing of intelligent design in the UK national curriculum, marked the official neutering of this unpleasant, sneaky movement in much of the western world. Judgment Day is just the sort of thoughtful programming that celebrates how sensible people — faithful and otherwise — can use science and reason to combat fundamentalism.


The bold part is mine.

'cdesign proponentsists' ... the transitional verbal fossil linking creationism to intelligent design.

ROFL
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_silentkid
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm

Post by _silentkid »

LMAO at the bolded part. I'll be sure to watch this too. My boss actually sent me an email about this the other day.
_Doctor Steuss
_Emeritus
Posts: 4597
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm

Post by _Doctor Steuss »

Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to have to set up my DVR tonight (so I don't forget).

[...]the official neutering of this unpleasant, sneaky movement [...]

I wonder if the fossil/archeological record has anything on this emasculation of the species. Perhaps this is just those crazy liberals trying to censure the scrotum of this impish beast.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

I think Intellient [sic] Design is nonsense. I don't see much Intellient [sic] in the world.
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

The missing link that makes the fact that intelligent design proponents have evolved from a species of creationists indisputable has been found! Recently, curious remains of some mysterious hominids named "cdesign proponentsists" have been found in a texbook draft in Northern Alabama.

Spokespeople for intelligent design face yet more scientific evidence that will make it difficult for them to deny that they and creationists have a common ancestor.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

They probably did a better job at it than me. Can't wait to watch the documentary!
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

The Dude, that is freaking hilarious. The transitional verbal fossil, ROFL!
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Intelligent Design program on PBS

Post by _huckelberry »

The Dude wrote:It should be fun. I'm definitely going to watch this....

Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial
Airs on November 13 at 8PM

Review in Nature:

Michael Behe, inventor of the specious meme "irreducible complexity" and guiding light of the intelligent-design movement, refused to participate. His testimony — the cornerstone of the defence — revealed a definition of science so loose that it includes astrology.


The judge at the centre of the dispute, John E. Jones III, is the hero of the piece. When this republican lutheran, appointed by the commander-in-chief himself, was assigned to the case, the pro-evolution lobby feared they had been dealt an unsympathetic ear. Happily, the measured, dry-witted Jones was fascinated by the comprehensive scientific case for darwinian evolution. He handed down a damning judgment that intelligent design is not science, and that its teaching is a violation of the cherished First Amendment. As a result, Time magazine rightly put him in their 2006 list of the world's 100 most influential people.





ROFL


I left the comment about the judge because my sympathy lies with a judge of this description. I do not think design or creationsist theory belongs in a Science class. Darwin is a hero in my personal world view.

I was curious about the comments about Behe. I do not have strong feelings about that author one way or the other. I read his black box book and was left thinking, perhaps, perhaps not. I think it describes an intuition about things which is not really demonstrable.

However I was wondering how much one might understand about the reviewer by looking at the choice of words, specious meme. Meme is a word used only within some mental campgrounds. Specious of course is a blanket final judgement. Should I view the finality there with the same puzzlement I feel about the combination, Behe did not participate, followed by observing how bad his testimony was. What nonparticpating testimony would this be referring to I wondered.

I suppose there is some explanation but the author did not bother to straignten that out. Better to rush the dismissal.

I could imagine a good bit of horror for science books created by creationist scientists redubbed intelligent design. I wonder if Behe realized he was being saddled with a huge pile of creationist fantasy which he would be inclined to disavow. I wonder if he was looking for a way out of the debacle. I am not a close enough follower of Behe to know for sure but I suspect from the one book that I read that he may be a long way away from Noahs ark creationists.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

I am struck by how dishonest and similar the behavior of the Creationists/Intelligent-Designists seems to that of the Mopologists.... Coincidence? I think not!
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Re: Intelligent Design program on PBS

Post by _The Dude »

huckelberry wrote:I was curious about the comments about Behe. I do not have strong feelings about that author one way or the other. I read his black box book and was left thinking, perhaps, perhaps not. I think it describes an intuition about things which is not really demonstrable.


Behe's intuition is demonstrably false. All the examples of "Irreducible complexity" in that book have been explained, and some of the answers were known at the time Behe wrote the book but he failed to catch them when he did his literature searches. For example, Russ Doolittle at UCSD had published an evolutionary explanation for the clotting cascade, while Behe was declaring it irreducible.

The reason the concept is rightly called specious is because it is an argument from ignorance -- in this case, Behe's ignorance.

Meme is a word used only within some mental campgrounds.


I'm not a fan of the meme concept. It is an easy label with little explanatory power.

I suppose there is some explanation but the author did not bother to straignten that out. Better to rush the dismissal.


Well, Nature is directed at professional scientists, not the general public. The author of the review didn't need to give a full critique of Behe's old book.

I wonder if Behe realized he was being saddled with a huge pile of creationist fantasy which he would be inclined to disavow. I wonder if he was looking for a way out of the debacle. I am not a close enough follower of Behe to know for sure but I suspect from the one book that I read that he may be a long way away from Noahs ark creationists.


By now, Behe must know he has major support from the fundamentalists. If he were to disavow the Noah's ark camp he would loose half his readers. I guess as long as they don't reject Behe for accepting common descent, Behe won't reject them for believing in Noah's ark.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Post Reply