Intelligent Design program on PBS

Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:24 am

I watched it. It was Ok. It could've benefited from a more sophisticated elaboration on some of the key points in the trial. For instance, the "Wedge" that Philip Johnson suggests merely represents him at the thin end and Behe et. al. at the thick is flat out misleading. In the Wedge Document the thin end of the wedge is intelligent design itself and the thick end is a particular religious culture taking over American culture or "retaking" it in their understanding.* They used to reference it all the time, but they have been carefully scrubbing their records and practices from any mention of it given how damning it is to Constitutional questions. Nova more or less took Johnson's explanation and repeated it without making it clear just how wrong it is. It's implied, but not spelled out. To pick another, when they explained the incident in which Behe was confronted by volumes of scientific work on the evolution of the vertebrate immune system, they could've explained how incredibly detailed it is and why Behe's claiming it isn't detailed enough is a sham "moving the goal posts" move in order to quell fears that it was a mere rhetorical trick not unlike stacking volumes of books on intelligent design in front of someone. To pick even another, they should've used some trial report/testimony or witness interviews to explain exactly why astrology isn't normally considered science. Robert Pennock could have done that. It isn't because it is a bad idea. As Behe correctly pointed out, science can involve bad ideas just the same as good ones. They never got around to that and it is key in understanding why Behe's very loose definition of science admits all sorts of traditionally nonscientific notions in order to also permit ID.

*http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Post by **_The Dude** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:15 am

A Light in the Darkness wrote:I watched it. It was Ok. It could've benefited from a more sophisticated elaboration on some of the key points in the trial. For instance, the "Wedge" that Philip Johnson suggests merely represents him at the thin end and Behe et. al. at the thick is flat out misleading....

I just finished watching it here on the west coast. I give it a thumbs up. I agree that Kenneth Miller was great, and I highly recommend his book Finding Darwin's God, especially for religious folks who aren't sure if evolution is compatable with faith in God. Also, Robert Pennock has a good book called The Tower of Babel which uses language evolution as parallel for biological evolution to reveal the duplicity of ID. Why don't the fundies also attack language evolution, since there's a whole 'nother creation story for that in the Bible?

I watched the show with my 10 year old son who is interested in science, but he was confused by all the different faces in the legal confrontation. He kept asking "Dad, is this guy on your side or is he on the other side?"

Whose side are you on ALITD? :-)

Post by **_moksha** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:23 am

I was busy tonight. Hope it will be on later.

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:18 pm

I really liked it. I had read Darwin’s Black Box a couple of years (maybe 2?) ago. I really dug that they went into the flagellum thing as that is one of the things that I’ve never been able to successfully resolve/argue.

Good stuff.

Oh, thank you again The Dude for the heads up on this (and the book recommend [Finding Darwin's God]).

Post by **_silentkid** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:15 pm

When I was a grad student at BYU, the professors who team-taught Biology 100 (biology for non-majors) required Finding Darwin's God as a supplemental text. It didn't seem to go over too well. I think the biology presented in the book was a little over the students' heads. When I taught general biology at UVSC, I allowed students to read either Finding Darwin's God or Gould's Rocks of Ages and write up a short paper to receive extra credit (if needed). Shermer's Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design is also a great resource for anyone interested in the ID debate.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:06 pm

The Dude wrote:I highly recommend his book Finding Darwin's God, especially for religious folks who aren't sure if evolution is compatable with faith in God.

It sounds interesting, but I'm having doubts about the compatibility of religion and evolution after reading Dawkins' The God Delusion. I may have to read that book again to remember why I got that impression.

Speaking of Intelligent Design, I miss having debates on that. Those were some of my favorites.

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:16 pm

asbestosman wrote: It sounds interesting, but I'm having doubts about the compatibility of religion and evolution after reading Dawkins' The God Delusion. I may have to read that book again to remember why I got that impression.

Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.

That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:45 pm

Some Schmo wrote:Because god, himself, would need to be the product of long gradual evolution. Complex things don't just pop into existence (they evolve over millions of years), and god would have to be the apex of complexity.

That's how I understood what Dawkins was saying, and it's a compelling argument.

That is an interesting argument, but I sometimes speculate that our spirits are also the process of evolution. As I recall, Dawkins book smashed even this hope of mine though. I think his counter-explanation was something along the lines of how unparsimonious such an idea is. Whether he said it or not, my idea isn't very parsimonious--Godless evolution does seem a better fit. I mean, if a spirit could evolve through evolution without a body, then why not a body without a spirit? If they both evolved together, then what pressures kept them together?

Obviously Dawkins hasn't converted me to atheism. I don't think it even troubled me much. Still, it did leave me with some questions to ponder now and then.

I also await FARMS review of Dawkins and hope it will spark another fun discussion on it.

Post by **_silentkid** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:58 pm

asbestosman wrote:I also await FARMS review of Dawkins and hope it will spark another fun discussion on it.

Didn't DCP mention a FARMS review of Hitchens' god is not Great? Does anyone have a link for that?

Also, I just thought of another thing I really liked about the PBS special: the explanation of chromosome 2 and how it exemplifies the usefulness of evolutionary theory in making predictions. That part made me smile.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 pm

I made the mistake of watching the PBS show last night while lying on my couch, rather than sitting. I was so comfortable that, due to my really bad sleeping habits (I don't do it enough) I ended up falling asleep for like half the show. Still, the parts I saw were pretty good, and I recorded it, so I'll have to re-watch it soon.