November 13 2007: Countdown to "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"

Norm and al thinking said: Doesn’t have anything to do with the reality of chemicals to living ecosystems. but go ahead and enjoy your pseudo-victorious experience. You are just one of countless who are are riding the dying wave of vast irrationalities. Human convention doesn’t mean anything when it comes to the vast realities associated with making the claims you do.

So what happened to the press release that was supposed to happen Nov. 7th? What did West have to say? Did they hand out a list of "factual errors?"

It would be funny if the religious content that they were claiming to be unconstitutional was the past creationist attempts at getting their religious beliefs into the school classroom. They obviously do not want their beliefs critically analyzed in public schools, and if they are brought up as negative examples of what science is not, that is just how it will play. Claiming that you can't mention the creationist dishonest propaganda because of its religious content so that it could not be discussed in a negative way in the classroom would be about as hypocritical as they have ever gotten, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Looks like the South West Nebraska jumped the gun. No one else announced it and DI is very quiet about it. DI probably gives advance notice of upcoming "bombshells" to its friendly reporters and there was some miscommunication and the SWNebraska guy announced it prematurely. The typical DI strategy is to get a strong headline even if it is not supported well in the story. Like get "The NOVA documentary is porn!" as the headline. And the story might waffle into some unknown legal expert who is also an etymologist has found a definition of porn as the word was
used in late 17th century in around Cornwall that matches what is implied
in the documentary. But given the short attention span and 30 second
sound bite culture pervasive in America, the headline will linger in
the minds of the people.

Looks like the headline they are going after is "the NOVA packet is unconstitutional and school districts will swamped with lawsuits if you touch/teach it". They still have not found a semi-coherent stretched argument to support that headline. They eventually will. So use the
premature disclosure of the line of attack by the SWNebraska to have a proper answer ready.

DI should realize that it can fool ALL the people with sensational headlines for SOME time, and SOME people ALL the time, but not ALL the people ALL the time.

Going through Panda's Thumb archives, I followed a LINK to this article at Talk Origins and read about a 1977 Indiana court case that was ruled in the same manner as Kitzmiller v DASB.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hendren/hendren_v_campbell.html

I guess I don't understand our legal system. How many times is this same ol' Creationism / ID stuff going to foisted upon the American public. Thirty years from now, is some unsuspecting community going to have to bear the expense of another fundie led attack on people's intelligence.

It would be interesting how many beatings Creationism / ID has taken, in Europe and America. And this kind of information would be a Great into to this NOVA Judgement Day special.

Befuddled wrote:

"I guess I don’t understand our legal system. How many times is this same ol’ Creationism / ID stuff going to foisted upon the American public. Thirty years from now, is some unsuspecting community going to have to bear the expense of another fundie led attack on people’s intelligence."

No one understands our legal system. But two things to remember.

First, the Dover decision was a local one, so yes more such court cases will follow. As I understand it, the Supreme Court will not rule on such issues at the federal level until local decisions become equivocal. And of course by the time that happens, who knows what the composition of the Supreme Court will be?

Second, besides the bad publicity, the creationists did not really lose anything at Dover. The taxpayers paid the bill and even those who committed perjury under oath were not prosecuted. As long as our legal system allows charlatans to assault the educational system with illegal and unconstitutional actions without paying any penalty, nonsense like this will continue. These people need to be held accountable for their actions, both legally and financially.

The 1977 Hendren v. Campbell case was tried in a lower state court, and was not appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court. Therefore, it has essentially no precedential value. (And it was very soon thereafter lost in the dust of the McLean and Edwards federal cases.)

The Indiana Textbook Commission approved a creationist biology book after hearing one witness in favor say that "it accorded with his Christian principles," and ten scientists and theologians testify against it. (Does this sound familiar??) The court found that its adoption clearly violated the US and Indiana constitutions using the Lemon tests.

Reading this opinion reinforces the conclusion that creationists have not come up with any new arguments. They were all there in 1977.

The Hendren opinion said something else that sounds very familiar: "We may note that with each new decision of the courts religious proponents have attempted to modify or tailor their approach.... Softening positions and amending language, these groups have, time and again, forced the courts to reassert and redefine the prohibitions of the First Amendment." Intelligent design, anyone?

How many times is this same ol’ Creationism / ID stuff going to foisted upon the American public. Thirty years from now, is some unsuspecting community going to have to bear the expense of another fundie led attack on people’s intelligence.

So what happened to the press release that was supposed to happen Nov. 7th? What did West have to say? Did they hand out a list of “factual errors?”

The grapevine is buzzing with news that John West was unable to attend.

"Southwest Nebraska News yesterday contained an article titled “Discovery Institute: PBS Teacher’s Guide Injects Religion into the Classroom”."

What's DI's beef? Sounds like they're just teaching the controversy.

"The DI warns darkly that it “has sent the PBS teaching guide out to 16 attorneys and legal scholars for review and analysis of its constitutionality.”"

Amazing that they have 16 actual practicing lawyers doing work, and zero practicing scientists doing experiments.

In response to David Stanton:

The US Supreme Court can accept or reject any case from a lower court. It does not always wait for conflicting decisions. The present Court has its own agenda. Roberts originally wished to promote a consensus among the Justices. The slew of 5-4 decisions since his appointment makes a hash of that goal. What the Court is doing now is removing itself from relevancy to broad issues. The cases it accepts affect only small numbers of people, and the opinions frame the issues very narrowly. This could of course change with appointment of additional conservative justices.

Although the Dover decision has little overt judicial force, the complete drubbing that ID endured gives pause to anyone wishing to re-fight the same ground. (That's why the NCSE insisted on trying to get a decision on whether ID is science. They wanted to close off that escape route as well.) The message to ID is to change tactics, that the old ones are losers.

For the moment, the changed tactics seem to emphasize "teaching the controversy," although school boards are becoming more nervous about getting sued on that as well. One advantage to the DI of de-emphasizing the positive inclusion of ID is to repair holes in their "big tent" strategy. Traditional creationists and YECs are disagreeing more vocally with ID's refusal to name the designer, but they can unite on bashing Darwin. However, ID/creationists may be forced to come up with other approaches to avoid politicians' fears of being sued and losing because of Dover.

I too wish that the school-board members had been prosecuted for perjury. AFAIK, no one in authority has commented on the reasons for not pursing that aspect. Buckingham is still mouthing off about the unfairness of the decision. Bonsell has more wisely kept his peace.

It would also have been nice had Dembski and Campbell not withdrawn from Dover. This brought back memories of Dean Kenyon fleeing his hotel room the night before his deposition in the Edwards trial.

Olorin,

Thanks for the response. I heard that the reason that the witnesses were not prosecuted for perjury was that it would open the case up to an appeal. I don't know if that is the real reason or not, but at least it is one that I heard. Of course that doesn't make much sense. Why should the case be appealed because the losing side lied? Why whould we be afraid if the decision is appealed? Why isn't proof of perjury accompanied by automatic inprisonment for contempt of court? Why do the taxpayers have to pay for all of this when those responsible go free without penalty? Oh well, at least we won.

One of the journalists who signed up for the press conference was told that it was postponed/canceled on account of sickness. Write your own punch line.

"I heard that the reason that the witnesses were not prosecuted for perjury was that it would open the case up to an appeal... Of course that doesn’t make much sense."

I'll say! A perjury charge against the witnesses would be an entirely separate case, and although IANAL, I can't see how that would have anything to do, at any point, with the legal status of the lawsuit.

"I heard that the reason that the witnesses were not prosecuted for perjury was that it would open the case up to an appeal. I don’t know if that is the real reason or not, but at least it is one that I heard."

The decision to seek an indictment belonged to (republican) US Atty. Thomas Marino who was at the time on the Gonzales hit list, and also entertaining a congressional bid. Small wonder he didn't seek to indict the fundy republicans.

Had Kenneth Miller or Barbara Forrest so blatantly perjured themselves, bet they'd be in jail today.

I e-mailed the Discovery Institute contact mentioned in the Nebraska website item and got this:

Hi Paul,

Unfortunately, we had to cancel our conference call due to Dr. John West's laryngitis.

Best,
Anika Smith
asmith@discovery.org

Unfortunately, we had to cancel our conference call due to Dr. John West’s laryngitis.

From article about Dover Panda Trial in Wikipedia.

The Discovery Institute's John West said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court.
"It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech."
Opponents, represented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers, contend that his statement is not just ironic, but hypocritical: the Discovery Institute opposes methodological naturalism, the basic principle that limits science to natural phenomena and natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the superenatural, which by definition is beyond natural explanation.

The Discovery Institute has rushed into production with a pre-rebuttal to the NOVA special - see http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/needs_title.html

Note the URL - they were so rushed they forgot to name it!

And it's a wonderful piece of creative writing. It mentions "in 2001 a leaked memo surfaced...." I wonder if anybody else has had to deal with a leaked memo?

And Robert Crowther claims he "can smell a disingenuous interview request a continent away." Obviously an intelligently designed sense of smell.

"The Discovery Institute has rushed into production with a pre-rebuttal to the NOVA special"

That's their job. They are professional liars. They must immediately lie about anything that's pro-science. The Disco Institute subhumans are just a small part of the big business called "Constant Lying for Jesus".

My favorite is where he complains about taking the statement "I think the creator is God" out of context. The hypocrisy of IDiots knows no bounds.

Oh, no.

"Pre-buttal".

Buzzword of 2008, I'll wager.

Never mind. Apparently it's a Gore-ism from '96. Bleh.

I'm so looking forward to this? Will there be any intrepid Internet warriors for Christ in the movie? I'll play Larry Farfarman. Hey, I know it's a small part, but when I was in High School, I did my best amateur and HS theater when playing crazies.

The Discovery Institute has rushed into production with a pre-rebuttal to the NOVA special

West and the DI must be hoping people will assume the Guide says *something* about religion due to all the fuss, but in fact it says nothing whatever about religion or God. The full 19-page text is available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/pdf/3416_id.pdf .

Remember when the Discovery Institue boasted that it was on somebody's list of most quoted "think tanks" (in its case, unthink tank)? That was in early 2006 ... right after all the hullabaloo surrounding the trial and its aftermath, when practically all news items about ID (and quite a few just mentioning "evolution") had at least a reference to the DI. I went hunting to see if it was being quoted about the NOVA show. Googling in "news" for "nova discovery institute" and "PBS Discovery Institute," I found exactly one comment on the show (other than the DI's own stuff) that included the DI ... a mention of the DI's contention that the "teacher guidebook about the show distributed by NOVA violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause." That was at the "Editorial Board blog" of the Wichita (Kansas) Eagle.

blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/11/nova-program-a-.html

How the mighty have fallen!

Jud, the guide does talk about the various creationist and intelligent design teaching scams and those were deemed to be religious in nature. There is some religious content in the 19 pages, but most people would not assume that the Discovery Institute creationist dolts would be talking about that. They could be talking about the religious implications of the creationist ID scam that they were running, but they haven't put forward the legal evaluation from their lawyers to demonstrate what they are talking about.

Nova has recently added some very good content to their ID site, under video and audio extras. I loved the video about the California salamanders.

One of the salient themes of the video/audio extras is the compatibility of evolution and science. It must really grind the DI to hear religion being folded into evolution even as intelligent design strains unsuccessfully to hide the religion in their own 'scientific theory.'

Sorry, an incomplete revision. The previous should have read:

One of the salient themes of the video/audio extras is the compatibility of evolution and religion. It must really grind the DI to hear religion being folded into evolution even as intelligent design strains unsuccessfully to hide the religion in their own ‘scientific theory.’

The best cheerleaders for ID are all the evolutionists who spend all their time attacking them, rather then dismissing them.

The fact it had to go to court, shows ID is actually winning, not losing. Imagine if meterologists had to go to court to defend meteorlogical science from a bunch of kooks that claim God is making the wind. How sad would that science have to be?

Perhaps the evolutionists good do a better job actually explaining their theory in terms people understand rather then attacking anyone who disgrees with their exact orthodoxy.

don't respond to the troll, he will just fill this thread with garbage
see the thread "Behe 'replies to TREE review" for examples

Troll?

The ID scam artists depend on people that far gone for support. Who else would support a group of dishonest scam artists that are currently running the bait and switch scam on any creationist rube that beleived them that they had something worth teaching about ID. This boob is just one of the required masses that hasn't gotten the message that the new creationist scam can't even mention that ID ever existed.

These guys aren't trolls they are about the only ID supporters left.

Bach said: The fact it had to go to court, shows ID is actually winning, not losing. Imagine if meterologists had to go to court to defend meteorlogical science from a bunch of kooks that claim God is making the wind. How sad would that science have to be?

Perhaps the evolutionists good [sic] do a better job actually explaining their theory in terms people understand rather then attacking anyone who disgrees with their exact orthodoxy.

Bach: The best cheerleaders for ID are all the evolutionists who spend all their time attacking them, rather then dismissing them. The fact it had to go to court, shows ID is actually winning, not losing.

Scientists, much to their credit (but also because of their political naiveté), did attempt to stick to their work and avoid getting sucked into the culture wars started by the ID/Creationists. Staying out of the fray didn’t work however.

Scientists who were baited by the likes of Duane Gish and his trainees found themselves blindsided by the nasty debating tricks of the Creationists. The Creationists capitalized on this to gain “credibility” with their audiences in an attempt to make themselves appear as legitimate scientists debating legitimate scientific issues. The Creationist tactics were a series of ruses to grab political power in the educational community and ultimately in the larger society.

The ID/Creationists have an organized political following that raises havoc with school boards, state boards of education, state legislatures and book publishers. Their activities have cost taxpayers and innocent people millions of dollars.

The scientific community has finally come around to understanding the political threat. Finally there is a national clearing house called the National Center for Science Education that keeps track of the political activities of these destructive groups and shows them for what they really are.

There are now web sites such as TalkOrigins.org that accumulate and catalog the abuses of the ID/Creationist crowd (a good example being the Quote Mine Project).

And there is now Panda’s Thumb that keeps the spotlight on the shenanigans of the ID/Creationists in real time.

That scientists are now aware of the threat and are carefully cataloging and explaining the tactics and falsehoods used by the ID/Creationists is long overdue.

Taking gratuitous offense at scientists who are effectively defending the proper pursuit of science and the education of the public is just another whiney tactic of the anti-science crowd (be they ID/Creationists, post-modernists, or just self-absorbed morons with moralistic pretensions).

If a moron wants to criticize scientists for accumulating the evidence of ID/Creationist mendacity (in the same way scientists accumulate scientific evidence and legal evidence to present in a court of law), that moron is simply displaying the mentality that the ID/Creationists love to exploit. These hate-filled minds are fertile grounds for sewing the seeds of paranoia and the impregnable ignorance that makes a theocracy possible.

"Imagine if meteorologists had to go to court to defend meteorological science from a bunch of kooks that claim God is making the wind. How sad would that science have to be?"

If religions claim that god created the world, Science / scientists do not care. If duplicitous fundies claim that an unknown intelligent designer created the world, Science / scientists do not care.

If religions say that god makes the wind blow, Science / scientists do not care. If duplicitous fundies claim that an unknown intelligent designer makes the wind blow, Science / scientists do not care.

Problems occur when over-zealous members of one group try to prescribe their belief system upon another. In this case the cajones seem magnified by the introduction of a "literal" interpretation of a metaphysical belief system being foisted upon "Science", which defines itself as a "real world" discipline.

How rude.

Keep the religious in-fighting out of Scientific debate.

Having stated the obvious, it also needs to be stated that a tighter grasp of reality is required by some people. A more apt version of the above quotation might be:

"Imagine if Meteorologists had to go to court to defend Meteorological Science classes in public schools from being required to teach that a god (or intelligent designer) makes the wind blow... and / or from being required to read similar statement during every weather forecast".

You always think it can only happen to the "other" guy.

Joh Pieret- remmeber that the DI is a belief tank, not a think tank.

On a related topic: Several area newspapers have carried accounts of a recent presentation by Eugenie Scott at a college in Elgin, IL. A review yesterday in one of them noted that the college "has no plans for a counter-presentation, and the college was unable to provide any professors with a creationist perspective to speak on the topic." Yesssss.

I hope everyone enjoys the show tomorrow night, and revels, like I will in the success that a group of parents, teachers, lawyers, legal assistants, scientists, advocates, and bloggers collectively accomplished. Watching the DI dredge up every previously published item (isn't that the same way the Meyer article in the Smithsonian journal was crafted) about the Dover trial in response to the airing of Judgment Day is pretty humorous.

Happy Judgment Day everyone!

“The DI warns darkly that it “has sent the PBS teaching guide out to 16 attorneys and legal scholars for review and analysis of its constitutionality.””

Amazing that they have 16 actual practicing lawyers doing work, and zero practicing scientists doing experiments.

Let's be careful. This is the Discovery Institute we're talking about, after all. "16 attorneys and legal scholars" probably means 1 attorney (some third tier shmuck like Luskin), a pointy-headed rube like Chicago's Perfesser Alschuler (or some even lesser known fundie "scholar"), and 14 Heritage University sophomores majoring in "Religion and the Law".

I can't wait to see the work product.

This site only mentions 15 "scholars".

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071112/30054_Intelligent_Design_Group_Accuses_PBS_of_Promoting_Unconstitutional_Teaching.htm

Looks like one of the 16 become a "born again evolutionist" at the last minute? Or even DI lawyers refuse to sink that low? I also wonder why they chose to send it to 16 legal scholars instead of 16 scientists? They used to trumpet 15 or so "scientists" who supported ID, which is what led to the Steven Project in talk.origins. Wonder how many of the original 16 will renew their open association with DI now. May be time to contact them and ask for their opinion.

Thank you Mr. Eric Rothschild.

(I'm never gonna wash my keyboard... evar!)

Stanton: ""Whenever ID was taken to court, it was repeatedly demonstrated that Intelligent Design has no scientific merit whatsoever.""

Say what you will, doesn't change the fact that meteorologists
don't have to run to court everytime some nutjob creationists thinks God is making the wind blow.

Evolutioniosts I think are running scared, mostly because they aren't progressing on answering any real questions. When you have to hang your hat on the Appendix as your last vestigial organ and the Panda having a Thumb, your pretty sad.

Where's the big answers guys?

A little bit of follow the links led to the list of 103 (or 105) scientists who publicly signed a statement in 2001 something like
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." That was
timed to coincide with the PBS documentary series "Evolution"

http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php

Now, 6 years later, on the eve of another PBS documentary, I think we should encourage them to publicly renew or recant that statement. Wonder if their ranks have thickened or thinned over the years?

Hey Mike Elzinga,

You really have to excuse people for being such fools. I mean 100 years ago scientists wanted to teach our kids that we had 25 vestigial organs floating around in our bodies.

Its a little hard to get over the fact that scientists for centuries wanted to teach pure rubbish and this time they say, trust us, we've figured it out this time.

I don't want some teaching teaching my children that God created Man, nor do I want one teaching him that when he was a fetus, he changed into a cow fets, a pig fetus, etc.

Bach,

Big answers require big minds and big brains to understand and assimilate. Pity most IDists don't have what it takes to understand the Big answers.

BTW some 300 years ago there were no meteorologists and the only theory in town was "Big Guy in Sky Makes Rain". Now you know how much water that theory holds. ID is headed that way too. Even Behe admits common ancestry of chimps and humans. Guys running away defeated are not the scientists but the IDists.

Bach, said: "I don’t want some teaching teaching my children that God created Man"

Bach, the deal is off buddy. You should have really told this your DI friends and hold them in line. You would let your attack dogs out in one side and sit on the fence. After your dogs have been mauled and come back licking their wounds, you come with this peace offering.

Show that you really mean it by making sure you visit every creationist/DI site and stop them from trying to run sneaky candidates to school boards and stop them from trying to get creationism into schools. Then the reaction from science will automatically cease. It is a simple immune system response really. Stop shoving allergens into the body first. The immune reaction will cease. Is it that hard to understand?

Bach wrote:

"Its a little hard to get over the fact that scientists for centuries wanted to teach pure rubbish and this time they say, trust us, we’ve figured it out this time."

No one ever says "trust us, we've figured it out this time", except religious fanatics who never change their tune no matter what. Scientists only offer provisional answers. if anyone tells you otherwise they are lying, don't beleive them. You simply can't criticize science for not having all the answers, now or in the past. Science is not in the business of certainty, never was, never will be. Grow up and get over it already. The only valid criteria is that we are closer to the truth now than we were in the past and we will be closer tomorrow. We will never have all the answers and we should never claim to. Religion deals in certainty, science by it's very nature cannot.

Bach wrote: "Say what you will, doesn’t change the fact that meteorologists don’t have to run to court everytime some nutjob creationists thinks God is making the wind blow."

However, if a school board through an administrator read a statement to a high school physics class that said that God makes the wind blow, and there are books in the library you can read that support this, then that school board would be taken to court just as Dover's was.

The issue in court is teaching creationism as science in US public schools. It is unconstitutional to do so and this has been upheld court case after court case.

Unless you, Bach, can point to a case where a creationist was taken to court for trying to investigate creationism, I'd say case closed!

Bach the psycho troll: Say what you will, doesn’t change the fact that meteorologists don’t have to run to court everytime some nutjob creationists thinks God is making the wind blow.

Its a little hard to get over the fact that scientists for centuries wanted to teach pure rubbish and this time they say, trust us, we’ve figured it out this time.

The show will actually extend well past my bedtime, but I think we will be able to stay awake.

I would suggest that a new thread be started following the presentation, rather than continue to accumulate comments in this one.

OH BOY! We get to do Dover again.

OH BOY! We get to do Dover again.
Ya Hoo! I'm with you Gary. Read the transcript. Read a book. Didn't get to WATCH it. The wings are in to marinate. Necessities are on ice. I'm ready.
I'm not often moved to delurk, but when I read the ignorant, self serving crap purveyed by Bach, BA77 and their ilk, just want to say thanks for the continuing education. Jeez, you guys are patient.
A new thread may be good, because Wednesday the flakes may seem like a snow storm. David

Re "Religion deals in certainty, science by it’s very nature cannot."

Just wondering, but if religion deals in certainty, why do the various religions not converge toward the same theology, instead of repeatedly diverging from each other? Maybe it's just me, but to me that sounds like a decided lack of reliability, and without reliability how can there be certainty?

Henry

The "Gothamist " website has this to say about the Nova program: "This two hour special takes a look at some hicks in Pennsylvania who hate science and tried to sneak religion in the form of what they called “Intelligent Design” into the classroom to counter evolution being taught. which resulted in a modern day version of the Scopes Trial."

Apparently the world still ends at the Hudson River for some people.

religion is an important part of facing the uncertainties of life. It allows the myth of "fountain of youth", "everlasting life". Most people can't face death, a natural result of life. A belief that they (and only they) won't die, allows them to die peacefully. But they, like all living creatures die, their body rots (as do all creatures), all is gone. hard to face so be religious and believe the myth. But don't force your fear of death on the rest of us, keep your concept of salvation in the trash can where it belongs not in our science classes.

Just wondering, but if religion deals in certainty, why do the various religions not converge toward the same theology

This afternoon, an "ID the Future" podcast interviewed Phillip Johnson about his interview for Nova. After all the cowardly refusals by other DI denizens, it was funny to hear Casey Luskin praise Johnson for standing up to the infidels on their own turf.

As to the interview itself, Johnson claims to have been hoodwinked that the program would focus on the ID movement, although he does admit that they might possibly have mentioned Kitzmiller along the way. He also admits that the interview was fair, although he fears that editing will distort his message.

Most of the 19-minute DI interview focused on general scientific bias against ID, rather than on aspects of the Nova interview itself.

It was interesting to hear Johnson's analysis of the DI claim that the Nova teaching packet injects religion: The packet stresses that many religions see no conflict between evolution and religion. Johnson's beef is that some religions do see a conflict; therefore, the teaching packet promotes the religions that do accept evolution as "good" religions, to the detriment of the others.

Johnson alleges that scientists are trying to "soothe" people into believing that there is no conflict, even though Richard Dawkins et al. and most other scientists think that a conflict does exist. (Francis Collins is "an exception.") Johnson calls this the "one-two punch": minimize the conflict, then knock down religion later.

Why do I keep listening to "ID the Future" podcasts? It's not just a waste of time; I always have to clean my boots off afterward.

The packet stresses that many religions see no conflict between evolution and religion. Johnson’s beef is that some religions do see a conflict;

"Apparently the world still ends at the Hudson River for some people.

Somewhat off topic, but I'm wondering what posters here think of the James Watson thing. He was fired from his lab, which I assume was peopled with scientists. Thus, on this issue, some scientists, because of what they _feel_ to be right, ignore the evidence. Is this not the same epistemology as the creationists?

P.D.Q. Bach writes:
"

Hey Mike Elzinga,

You really have to excuse people for being such fools. I mean 100 years ago scientists wanted to teach our kids that we had 25 vestigial organs floating around in our bodies.

Its a little hard to get over the fact that scientists for centuries wanted to teach pure rubbish and this time they say, trust us, we’ve figured it out this time.

I don’t want some teaching teaching my children that God created Man, nor do I want one teaching him that when he was a fetus, he changed into a cow fets, a pig fetus, etc."

You don't even understand recapitulation theory much less that it went out of fashion almost 100
years ago.

Can you name any high school text book that makes the claim "when he was a fetus, he changed into a cow fets, a pig fetus, etc." ?

In the booklet, teachers are instructed to use such discussion questions as: "Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?" The answer to that query is provided as: "Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false." "This statement is simplistic and not neutral among different religions, and in that sense arguably inconsistent with Supreme Court teachings concerning neutrality," said attorney Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at the institute. "The Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that the government must maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'" said Randal Wenger, a Pennsylvania attorney who filed amicus briefs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case. "Because the briefing packet only promotes religious viewpoints that are friendly towards evolution, this is not neutral, and PBS is encouraging teachers to violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," Wenger added.

And, guess what! They’re being less than honest again.

I listened to the Johnson pod cast. I especially like the end where he talked about used car salesmen. What was Johnson selling during the entire pod cast? What did it have to do with the science of ID? Since Johnson has admitted that the ID science isn't up to snuff in other interviews where he claims to have been treated fairly, isn't it true that if a used car salesman ran the bait and switch scam on every one of his customers that bought a car he could be prosecuted? How many used car salesmen stoop to tactics that low? Isn't that immoral and illegal? What is the Discovery Institute doing when they sold the teach ID scam for years, but all they have given the rubes to teach is something called teach the controversy, or critical analysis. Every creationist rube since Ohio in 2002 has bought that switch car or walked away except Dover. Dover wouldn't take the switch and didn't walk away, that is why this NOVA production exists.

They are making a lot of noise about mentioning the religions that do not have an objection to biological evolution. The only thing wrong with their argument is that it is clearly stated that science makes no determination of whether some god exists or not. They only use the example for what is is, to demonstrate that there is no universal religious opposition. The claim is that there is the misconception that evolution is inconsistent with religious belief and it gets settled. There are people that think differently, but they are obviously wrong if they contend that it has to be that way. Isn't this the critical analysis that they promote? Why shouldn't their views be critically analyzed? I guess the difference between science and religion is that you can criticize science whether it is right or wrong, but you can't criticize religious beliefs that don't fit reality.

I do agree that we shouldn't have to discuss religious differences in the science class, but who made that necessary?

He makes the usual arguments about atheists like Dawkins, but he has to admit that these views are not taught in the science class as science. If they were the creationists would have something to complain about. It is hypocrisy to know that you were involved in trying to sneak religion into the school systems, and had developed a "Wedge" strategy to do it, and then complain about something that isn't even happening as some excuse for your own dishonest attempts.

Hran -
Yeah...it seems that James Watson was expressing personal feelings as if they were scientifically grounded. I think he later retracted his racist comments and scolded himself for saying such scientifically unsupported things, but who knows whether he was doing so for public relations reasons or because he really recognized his error. Anyway, the guy's getting pretty old, so perhaps his scientific acumen is fading and is allowing some old prejudices to sneak through.

Frequent lurker here....off subject question. But I need a concise accurate answer.One that the average person could understand. What is a good definition of Evo-Devo? Don't mean to get off thread. I am looking forward to enjoying the show tonight!!!

JJ,

Evo-Devo is the study of the evolution of developmental pathways. PZ has an excellent blog that contains many fine examples if you are interested in details.

For example, many of the differences between arthropod body plans involve placement of appendages that are segmentally arranged. If we can identify the genetic regulatory mechanisms that determine appendage identity, then we can identify the genetic changes that have been responsible for generating the diversity of body plans seen in the arthropods.

We are just beginning to unravel the genetic mechanisms that are important to development. The lesson we are learning is that simple genetic changes that are possible and even probable, can generate morphological diversity. This is undoubtedly a major mechanism for macroevolution.

I certainly hope that the Judgement Day video contains some scientific information about topics such as this. It is important for people to understand that this should really be about the science and that a lot has been discovered, whether the ID scam artists want you to know about it or not.

Answer me this, why are intelligent design advocates so profoundly dishonest. Can an IDer here justify the dishonesty for me?

Mr_Christopher asked: "Answer me this, why are intelligent design advocates so profoundly dishonest."

Some of us refer to this as "Lying For Jesus." Apparently it's okay to break the Ninth Commandment if it's in a good cause, such as in Defeating Evil.

The blatant untruths of certain members of the (previous) Dover (PA) school board and the CEO of the publisher of "Pandas" caused the judge in the Dover trial to comment in his decision "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

"ID" doesn't just stand for "intelligent design" creationism, it also stands for "Intellectual Dishonesty."

Thanks David for the info on Evo-Devo, I will check PZ's site. Back to the original thread

Just a note on something peculiar!
I was just checking to see when "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" would be aired, I found this in my (newspaper supplied) TV listings -
[....*NOVA: Statement suggesting an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. (N) (CC) (DVS) 12043*...] I have never seen a listing like that for Nova before in this TV Guide. Usually just Nova with no other info. or Nova followed by the Title of the episode. The description given makes little sense given the subject matter as presented on the PBS site.
Anyone see anything similar in their Guide (this one is called "TV Week" and comes with the Sunday paper)?

My local cable listings (Comcast) has the following description:

"Conflict among the school board, parents and teachers evolves when the board orders teachers to read to students a statement suggesting an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution."

The last several words are the same as the listing you described. Maybe yours was truncated somehow.

(Separately, it's pretty awkward to say that a conflict "evolve[d]," especially given the subject matter, but whatever.)

Mike Z,
The problem is that there IS a lot of data to support Watson's statement. His statement was not "scientifically unsupported" or racist. Racist is when you believe something that has no basis in fact. Furthermore, it is consistent with natural selection: the European and African populations have lived in disparate geographical locations for tens of thousands of years, so there should be no surprise when we find a difference in gene frequencies. Indeed, differences in "neutral" gene frequencies between the two are accepted -- with regard to hemoglobinopathy, etc.

uhh..wasn't Watson talking about intelligence levels between the races rather than about hemoglobinopathy or whatever else? He was referring to humanitarian projects to raise education levels and such, and he expressed doubt that they were worthwhile because of the (supposed) lower intelligence of Africans. Is there good evidence to support his attitude? I've not seen any, but then I've not seen a lot of stuff.

Hran said: "Racist is when you believe something that has no basis in fact."

Hmmmm...now, to what else might that statement apply???

"Hran said:
Mike Z, The problem is that there IS a lot of data to support Watson’s statement. His statement was not “scientifically unsupported” or racist. Racist is when you believe something that has no basis in fact. Furthermore, it is consistent with natural selection: the European and African populations have lived in disparate geographical locations for tens of thousands of years, so there should be no surprise when we find a difference in gene frequencies. Indeed, differences in “neutral” gene frequencies between the two are accepted – with regard to hemoglobinopathy, etc."

Yes - there are differences but the differences don't seem to amount to anything important. The big issue always seems to be centered on IQ tests. There is a big controversy as to what they mean, what do they actually measure and what accounts for the 'gaps' seen between different groups. Maybe it only means some groups are better at test taking. Who knows. And that is the point.

There doesn't seem to be the case that human polulations have developed in such isolation for so long as to allow for any significant differences - especially intelligence (whatever that might be)

Let's hope we don't get dragged into a 'Bell Curve' argument.

Mike Z is correct in regards to what Watson was referring to. That is the implication of "The Bell Curve". Intelligence is innate, hardwired and cannot be changed by any government program - so we should not waste time and money on it.

More related to this site is the fact that similar tactics are used by different groups. The authors of the bell curve, instead of publishing their 'earth shattering' conclusions in peer reviewed literature opt to go for the popular press. They dazzled the mathematically unsophisticated with all kinds of linear regression and statistical hocus pocus. Sounds familiar?

Reminds me of the researchers who instead of publishing their discovery of cold fusion in peer reviewed literature decided to have a news conference. Do I need to say that no one was able to replicate their experiments? I don't even remember their names.

This should all be old hat to the ID people.

Just a note on something peculiar! I was just checking to see when “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” would be aired, I found this in my (newspaper supplied) TV listings - [….*NOVA: Statement suggesting an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. (N) (CC) (DVS) 12043*…]

PBS' The News Hour will have an interview with Judge Jones (6:00 PM EST) before the Nova presentation.

Best part is, they’re absolutely correct!

I hope a few of you will have some fun by helping us out on
this discussion board. IDers and other creationists dominate the discussions on this forum, and although their arguments are easy to refute, the few voices of reason there are swamped by the Niagara of bullshit.

I'm watching it! What rot! They're pretending it's the same old evolution vs. creationism case.

I’m watching it! What rot! They’re pretending it’s the same old evolution vs. creationism case.

Pretty funny...
They are comparing the "tree of life" showing common descent vs. the separate appearance of individual lineages, and the separate appearance of each lineage in their little animation is accompanied by a church bell dong. Does that count as a subliminal message?

Just finished watching the program and just wanted to add my praise to Nick, Ken, Eugenie and others for their steadfast work. I also wanted to give special praise to Barbara Forrest for her remarkable detective work that rivals anything in fiction. You go, girl!

Oh, about our newest celeb: Ben Stein? He appeared on the 7pm "Glen Beck" show tonight in an attempt at a spoiling attack before the 8pm Nova program to push his book and film. I just turned the channel.

An excellent piece of journalism, including giving William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell the chance to have their say.

There was even an ever-so-brief shot including Prof. Steve Steve.

Just finished. It was awesome! The program was pretty damning for the defendants.

I thought the transitional text fossil was the best part!

Well done, NOVA.

I thought it was very well done, and was quite respectful of the ID side, although I'm sure the ID folks will soon be jumping all over it. Also, the bacterial flagellum in NOVA's graphics was a lot prettier than that ugly thing on the UD home page!

FL, why aren't you and your ilk content to push your bullshit in church, where it belongs? Last I heard, lying and fairy stories were acceptable there.

" realpc said:

I’m watching it! What rot! They’re pretending it’s the same old evolution vs. creationism case."

Just what we expect a cdesign proponentsist to say!

The latest DI whinge, "What NOVA Won't Tell You about Dover," contains the following statement near the end:

"Discovery Institute has a policy that all interviews be recorded for the protection of its speakers. While NOVA at first agreed to these common-sense measures, they later changed their mind and would not allow Discovery Institute scientists to be interviewed with these protections."

A normal person might understand this to say that Nova would not allow a recording of interviews with DI people. But the quotation does not exactly say that, does it? We know that Paula Apsell did offer to let them see and comment on, not only an audio recording as they had requested, but a video recording. The quotation refers to "these protections," which has no direct antecedent in the first sentence. So it's not reeeeeally a baldfaced lie, you see.

A normal intellect might also be forgiven for understanding "changed their mind" to mean that Nova had agreed to certain conditions, and then had unagreed to those same conditions. What actually happened was that Nova agreed to make their recording available to DI for certain purposes. The DI then demanded to make their own recording of the interview, and take it home with them for any use. Nova would not agree to this change. Ergo, Nova "changed their mind" from "yes" to "no." A bit of pretzel logic there.

FL sed: "there’s yet a good chance that your grandchildren (or thereabouts) may yet evolve an opportunity to explore some sort of alternative within the biology classroom!"

No, not a "good chance." At this point, it would take a helluva lot to knock down or even significantly whittle away TOE. Slim chance... sure. If someone comes up with a scientifically testable alternative to evolutionary theory that shows some successes and potential, it could happen. No one has yet, though.

And it won't be the crop of anti-evolutionists on display in this case that do it, either, if anyone ever does. After 20 years, they don't seem likely to start proposing testable hypotheses and doing research now.

realpc sed: "They’re pretending it’s the same old evolution vs. creationism case."

Who, the fundamentalist schoolboard members? Um... I don't think they're pretending, rpc. Sorry to break it to you.

Watched NOVA's Judgment Day: ID on Trial... and enjoyed it very much. It was "clear", "concise", and wasn't at all boring like I thought legal stuff might.

Even though I followed the Dover Panda Trial on my computer, I had no idea that it was being reported on TV and I was a little surprised about the hatred, destruction of property, and threats that were mentioned on NOVA. Yup, and those are the "good" christians...

But you have to love their enthusiasm.

All the articles I read didn't do justice to the import of Kenneth R. Miller, and Barbara Forrest. But this NOVA special helped visualize their contributions better... not to minimize those of all the other people like Eric Rothschild (Pepper Hamilton LLP), and the ACLU.

I'm glad this program was made, it "brought things to life".

In spite of being very engrossed in the program, my butt started getting tired about 9:25 pm. My dog was comfortably lying on the floor, in no apparent discomfort... and this re-ignited a running dispute I have with her. Just who / whom is the best suited for survival? Well, during walks in cold, snowy, and icy conditions.... I have to admit that she has displays some mighty fine characteristics that would help in the "survival of the fittest".
Of course, she wasn't able to enjoy the NOVA special like I was, but then.... if humans didn't have the capacity to be egotistical and dogmatic, this NOVA special wouldn't have been made.

Not sure who's winning.

I must express my admiration to those people that stood up to the duplicitous and back-handed shenanigans of people like William Buckingham and Allen Bonsel. I've tried to imagine if I would have had the strength to do such a thing myself, in my community. The whole experience had to be emotionally draining and require inner strength that not many people possess.

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised to see the Discovery Institute's reaction to Judge Jone's ruling, to them it's a Power thingy. But I was unprepared to hear William Buckingham's hateful reaction.
He didn't learn a thing... and that's not a good trait.

Wow. Just... wow.

I love that they re-enacted Behe's Tower of Denial.

Bill "Homunculus" Buckingham apparently knows more about law than Judge Jones. Oh, sorry did I say "homunculus"? That was unfair. I meant "purgerer".

pwn^100!

Oh, yeah, and the TMLC closing argument... were they even at the same trial????

Perjurer. Sorry.

I was able to record the 720P HD version of the NOVA program and have it on my networked media player’s external hard drive and I’m re-watching it right now on my HD front projector.

Hey, I’m a science geek.

“Judgment Day” is excellent… one of the very best NOVA’s ever produced… and I’ve been watching NOVA since I was a little kid. I noticed that Joseph McMaster directed it, and I believe he directed the Emmy and Peabody award winning “The Elegant Universe” NOVA that was based on Brian Greene’s book of the same name.

Very insightful, very clearly presented to the audience… gripping and intelligent… unlike creationism.

WGBH Boston should get some money together and have this program transfered to 35mm and get it out in theaters to counter “Expelled.”

A 100 theaters around the country would be acceptable.

realpc: I'm watching it! What rot! They're pretending it's the same old evolution vs. creationism case.

fnxtr wrote:

"Oh, yeah, and the TMLC closing argument… were they even at the same trial????"

Yes they were. They just obviously wrote the closing arguments before the trial started and never revised it. So of course they completely ignored all of the evidence that refuted their claims. Gee, now where have we seen that tactic before? Ignoring evidence isn't just a hobby for these people, it's a way of life.

Fortunately the judge was intelligent and paying attention. I imagine that even if he was desperately looking for a way to not rule against the defendants but he was too intellectually honest to even pretend that he had found one. Of course, even if he had inexplicably ruled in favor of the defendants, the case would be appealed. Then there could have been no reason to protect those who had lied under oath. i wonder if they would have told the same lies again the second time around.

I watched last night and loved the program. But I almost fell out of my chair when I saw the next program on my local PBS channel.

Wait for it...

"Supernatural Science"

ARRRRGH

When Judge Jones recommended that Buckingham and Bosnell be charged w/ perjury, why wasn't the case persued? (other than policital reasons) or are political reasons enough? - kinda irritating that the DA can selectively enforce the law and all that.

also - what a breathtaking display of ignorance/ umwillingness to learn displayed by Buckingham - "hey the word 'theory' doesn't mean what you think it does in this context" I'm sure was expalined to him - but he still stated that evolution is "only a therory", not "Darwin's law" or "fact" - and I never guessed how smarmy these guys were until I heard it from their own mouths- to SWEAR on a Bible that you never asked for the money for the books, didn't know where the money came from, and didn't now who purchased the books, claim that he wasn't motivated by his religious beliefs to inject the material into the curriculum. (when the opposite was true) - his excuse? (paraphrasing) 'well you see, I got up infront of my CHURCH and said - I'm not saying that anyone here should give me money to buy these books - but if you all want to, you know, kinda leave some money laying around that I might find, I would use that money to get someone to get these books to save our childrens' souls, thank you in Jesus's name , amen'

and Bonsell - when caught Lying for Jebus - "sorry, I mispoke"

what a pair of turds

I stumbled across the showing last night and thoroughly enjoyed the presentation. I did follow the trial in the news as it was ongoing, rooting for science and baffled by ID, and the threats against the judge and his family for his ruling in the case.
Enjoyable to watch, must see for everyone.

I seem to recall a post on another thread to the effect that it is the purview of the District Attorney or some such to bring charges, and in this case the job was held by a theocratic socially conservative Republican up for re-election, or something like that.

Mike O'Risal: I'm going to see if the coordinator for the Intro Biology labs at my university will allow us to give students extra credit on their next lab quiz if they attach a brief synopsis of the program. At least half of them are likely to tune in if there are points involved.

HOG said "Sounds like a ploy to get children to memorize bible verses at Vacation Bible School. The more I learn about Evolutionists, the more I believe they have created a religion."

almost made the stupidist statement grand prize, 3rd place, but keep on trying, you can make 1st place, give it a shot.

jasonmitchell: what a breathtaking display of ignorance/ umwillingness to learn displayed by Buckingham - "hey the word 'theory' doesn't mean what you think it does in this context" I'm sure was expalined to him - but he still stated that evolution is "only a therory", not "Darwin's law" or "fact"

HeartOfGold: Sounds like a ploy to get children to memorize bible verses at Vacation Bible School. The more I learn about Evolutionists, the more I believe they have created a religion.

a perpective:
years ago while a Marine stationed in the South, I was volunteered to spend Xmas with a local family. It was a difficult assignment as the the family was "fundies". They took me to church on Sunday where I witnessed them edging a 5 year old child to roll on the floor and beg god's forgiveness. I walked out in disgust and hitched a ride back to my base. I have this feeling that HOG is that 5 yr old child now grown.

Do you have a string in your back that you reach behind and pull to start the recording?