Judgment Day Accurate, NCSE Reports

Judgement Day Accurate, NCSE Reports ?!

Of course the NCSE would call it accurate. They are plaintiffs which the NOVA senior producers have verbally supported.
DUH!

So Bruce, what inaccuracies did you note in the program?

"They tried to make an end-run around an earlier generation of legal rulings by switching the word 'creation' to 'intelligent design' in drafts of a creationist textbook," commented Nick Matzke, NCSE's scientific consultant for the Dover plaintiffs and now a doctoral student in integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley. "We found documents in the NCSE archives which were 'missing links' in this evolution of creationism."

Wasn't “cdesign proponentsists” found in trial discovery rather than in the NCSE archives? Presumably he means other transitional forms...

"Judgment Day" clearly shows that the greatest threats to modern religion are its fundamentalists.

ditto from me:
So Bruce, what inaccuracies did you note in the program?

I watched this last night and I have to say that not only was it really enjoyable, I thought they did a great job in putting it together logistically. The flow was great, it seemed very balanced to me, it presented the case in terms of social, political, education, and legal impacts, and presented an understandable the history in an understandable manner. Personally I even sympathized a little with the ID proponents feelings to some extent, though I was shocked to discover that Judge Jones had received so many death threats and so much harrassment after the verdict.

Overall great job and I am highly recommending it to my friends and family.

I agree, just reading all the transcripts, depositions, and decision doesn't give a good feel for the atmosphere in the community, the father-against-daughter disputes, the death threats and slammed doors, the Sunday school teachers blasted as atheists, the bitterness of the quintessential sore losers, and the pervasive but unarticulated fear (except by Pat Robertson) that God would smite them all any day. Or that their kids wouldn't get into heaven.

On paper, we see an inherently dishonest and hypocritical campaign to sneak fundamentalism into science classes by any means necessary. In real life, we see frightened and confused people unwilling to defy their God or to deny the validity of their bible. For me, this made it personal and very effective.

I liked the part where Buckingham said that he couldn't remember the words "intelligent design" so he just called it creationism by mistake. Why choose that word? Why not call it skepticism or anything else? The guy was obviously lying, as the long record of his religious affiliation shows.

I also wish that they would have reenacted the part where Bonsell was grilled by the judge for lying about where the money for the books came from. They did say that the transcripts were reviewed to see if perjury charges should be filed. They did not say why charges were not filed.

I really liked the pastor who objected to evolution not on scientific grounds, but because it offended his sense of his own specialness. That really made the case that ID is science.

It was important that they stated that the ID proponents were invited to participate and declined, especially Behe. If he thinks it went so well, why decline? Why not bask in the glory some more? He sure can't complain about the guy who played him if he refused to participate. And he was right about including astrology as science. By his definition, it is just as much science as ID. I wish they would have asked him how many science departments at major universities offer courses in astrology.

I thought the PBS people were a lot more fair to the ID side than I would have been. Not addressing the "it's a problem for both sides" comment, and allowing the Thomas More Law Center guy to get away with "that's a classic lawyers trick" comment about the immunology article and book stacking scene.

I saw the first hour or so, but could not stay up any later. Their whole point seemed to be that this is Inherit the Wind all over again. Ignorant fundies who "ain't descended from no monkey." Intelligent and oh so trustworthy scientists explaining patiently how evolution is supported by the facts, while creationism is not. Misrepresenting ID as saying each species just "poofed" into existence, unrelated to the others. Not showing any scientific ID advocates, just high school drop outs who never read any book except the bible.

Total shameless BS propaganda.

The DI is in full on panicky spin mode now. Here's a sample:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html#more

I was astonished at how dumb Steve Fuller thinks we are. What a total idiot.

I saw him post here there other day and wondered why he wasn't posting/lurking at uncommondescent where he belongs.

What an idiot that guy is, my 4 yo daughter could see through his stupidity.

Just sayin'...

RealPC,

It is a shame you did not watch the entire episode. You would have seen how shallow Intelligent Design is. It is a shame that you continue to stick your head in the sand and ignore the overwhelming evidence.

Ed

The first post-telecast response from DI seems to be an "ad hominem" attack on Judge Jones suggesting ulterior motives for the Judge.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/what_nova_wont_tell_you_about.html

Not entirely unexpected, given the Dec 25 Christmas present animation Dembski made.

To me the most important verdict was not the one rendered by Jones but by the people of Dover. In that election all 8 evolution supporters won. That county is as red as it gets in America, it is the Santorum country. The sanctum sanctorum of the bible belt. There, for all 8 ID proponents running to lose sends the real message, chill down the spine of the Republican party. ID, fundamentalism and the God card has gone from being the winning margin for the Republicans to a millstone around their neck. In Florida, 70 or 80% of the response from the public about the change in science standards support evolution. ID is dead.

The Anika Smith posting was in the afternoon.

The first post telecast response by Luskin is here. Splits hairs mainly. Nothing new. Except may be a little bit more emphasis
"ID is not incompatible with universal common ancestry". I am not sure if that pastor who felt insulted by common ancestry with chimps knows that.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html

The Anika Smith posting was in the afternoon.

The first post telecast response by Luskin is here. Splits hairs mainly. Nothing new. Except may be a little bit more emphasis
"ID is not incompatible with universal common ancestry". I am not sure if that pastor who felt insulted by common ancestry with chimps knows that.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html

I thought Dembski said ID is not a friend of theistic evolution (or the other way around). Doesn't that suggest he's opposed to much of what Behe accepts?

RealPC wrote: Misrepresenting ID as saying each species just “poofed” into existence, unrelated to the others. Not showing any scientific ID advocates, just high school drop outs who never read any book except the bible.

So how does ID suggest then that species came into existence if they weren't "poofed" into existence? I don't know if you saw the quote by Eugenie Scott, but she articulated it well - ID says nothing about how the intelligent agent caused design, when it occurred, why it occurred, and offers no scientific insight into these matters. So here's your opportunity - perhaps you can fill us in on this. Usually ID advocates refuse or avoid to answer these questions, and sometimes even say they are 'irrelevant'.

Also, as to including scientific ID advocates, Michael Behe was invited to appear on the documentary but declined.

Not showing any scientific ID advocates,

Misrepresenting ID as saying each species just “poofed” into existence,

Mike O'Risal: So Bruce, what inaccuracies did you note in the program?

realpc said: Not showing any scientific ID advocates, just high school drop outs who never read any book except the bible.

Fundamentalists think that the earth is 5k years old and that every species on earth popped into existence at the same time. That means they are anti-geology, anti-biology, anti-paleontology, anti-astronomy, etc.

In other words, whining that they are just "anti-evolution" is very very hollow and obviously false.

HeartOfGold prevaricated: Scopes was portrayed as a science teacher (as opposed to the eager defendant he was). Sensational and historically fictitious scenes from Inherit the wind were shown as though they were true. Fundementalists were identified as being anti-science (as opposed to anti-evolutionism).

I saw the first hour or so, but could not stay up any later.

Why not? Did your mom send you to bed? Or did you just chicken out when you realized you were being proven wrong again? You don't seem to have a lot of energy for actual learning, do you?

Not showing any scientific ID advocates...

I notice you didn't say "Not showing any scientific work that proves ID or disproves evolution." Why? Because you know as well as we do that no such work exists.

HeartOfGold truthfully stated: "Fundementalists were identified as being anti-science (as opposed to anti-evolutionism)."

Fundamentalists ARE anti-science. As Boosterz said, fundamentalists' creation mythology is "anti-geology, anti-biology, anti-paleontology, anti-astronomy" and anti-every other science. Period. This is part of the message we must all carry forward. Teach the controversy, indeed.

I saw the first hour or so, but could not stay up any later. Their whole point seemed to be that this is Inherit the Wind all over again. Ignorant fundies who “ain’t descended from no monkey.” Intelligent and oh so trustworthy scientists explaining patiently how evolution is supported by the facts, while creationism is not. Misrepresenting ID as saying each species just “poofed” into existence, unrelated to the others. Not showing any scientific ID advocates, just high school drop outs who never read any book except the bible. Total shameless BS propaganda.

Misrepresenting ID as saying each species just “poofed” into existence, unrelated to the others.

A Coward: I thought the PBS people were a lot more fair to the ID side than I would have been. Not addressing the "it's a problem for both sides" comment, and allowing the Thomas More Law Center guy to get away with "that's a classic lawyers trick" comment about the immunology article and book stacking scene.

This shows to the entire world how the mind of a creationist works. Whenever any evidence appears that shows something the creationist doesn’t want to know, they manufacture a dumb excuse about why they couldn’t look at it. This is why they never learn. It’s too painful for them. Knowledge puts them to sleep. This is called an avoidance response.

When fundies deny the age of the earth (which is measured in billions and not thousands of years) they are admitting they are anti-scientific. Darwinism has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

Fundy - self-imposed ignorance.

I went to sleep because I have a job.

realpc: Misrepresenting ID as saying each species just "poofed" into existence, unrelated to the others.

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.

I went to sleep because I have a job.

I watched the show last night and thought it was done very well. It seemed to me to do a good job of presenting both sides and while I disagree with the fundamentalist "Christian" methods and the underlying ID movement, I have to say I came away feeling sympathetic to some of the ID proponent's views. The fact that the views may be misguided is noted, but the show did present the ID proponents, particularly the school board members, as very human.

I have to say though that I was shocked to learn about the level of death threats and harrassment that Judge Jones received (and still receives, to some extent). I think that really reveals a lot about the underlying danger of the fundamentalist "Christian" and the ID movement.

Bruce: Judgement Day Accurate, NCSE Reports ?! Of course the NCSE would call it accurate. They are plaintiffs which the NOVA senior producers have verbally supported. DUH!

Oops...sorry about the double post. For some reason the comments list was not refreshing for me and I thought that my first comment hadn't been posted. Disregard the second.

Paul Burnett in response to HeartofGold, said:

"Fundamentalists ARE anti-science. ... fundamentalists’ creation mythology is “anti-geology, anti-biology, anti-paleontology, anti-astronomy” and anti-every other science. Period."

That's just an assertion. The fact is--

anti-geology. Creationists claim the geological record is just a prop for evolution. In fact, the geological strata containing different fossils were identified in the 18th century, long before evolution was thought of.

anti-biology. Well, if nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, if you take out evolution, what's left?

Anti-paleontology. Fundamentalists routinely misrepresent the fossil record. For instance, they claim the Grand Canyon was laid down in one flood event, while the evidence shows many fossil tracks that could only have been made by land animals. Fundamentalists also bring up the Piltdown hoax again and again, as if it were a recent scandal. The Piltdown hoax was exposed in 1953, the same year that the double helix was discovered. (Look at where molecular biology has come since then, and you can see why creationism is despised by scientists.)

anti-astronomy. Fundamentalists deny stars are more than 6000 years old, although astronomers have solid evidennce that the oldest stars are billions of years old.

And let's not forget--

Anti-physics. Dating measures based on the half-life of radioactive elements are routinely scoffed at by fundamentalists. Lord Kelvin's attacks on evolution, based on his knowledge of physics before the discovery of atomic energy, are still sometimes quoted by fundamentalists.

Anti-chemistry. Fundamentalists routinely deny or disparage the strong similarities in cell chemistry between species that appear from fossils and comparative anatomy to be related.

Which brings us to--

Anti-anatomy. The misstatements of fundamentalists concerning the anatomical differences between humans and apes never stop. (Sample: 'Apes don't have three-color vision.')

Add to that the large number of fundamentalists who believe disease is caused by God's will-- which pretty much wipes out modern medicine-- and what part of science is left that fundamentalists HAVEN'T attacked? Highway engineering?

Fundamentalist creationists are not scientists. There is no way to have a scientific debate with them. They just get mad and spout nonsense. Not so different from atheists, actually.

Anti-anatomy. The misstatements of fundamentalists concerning the anatomical differences between humans and apes never stop. (Sample: ‘Apes don’t have three-color vision.’)

Fundamentalist creationists are not scientists.

There are a large variety of people who claim the mantle "creation scientists". Almost all of them come from the fundamentalist Protestant wing of Christianity, although a few belong to such denominations as the Roman Catholic Church.

During the 1953 ASA annual convention, Henry Morris presented a paper entitled "The Biblical Evidence for a Recent Creation and Universal Deluge". Morris, a staunch Biblical literalist and young-earth creationist, had deliberately chosen to major in hydraulic engineering and minor in geology, so he could study the effects that flood waters would have on the earth.

Another small organization which gets some press occasionally is the Creation Evidences Museum near Glen Rose, Texas. The Museum is run by the Rev Carl Baugh, who has a PhD in anthropology from the College of Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church.

One of the ICR's favorite pamphlets is entitled "Twenty-One Scientists Who Believe in Creation", which lists a number of holders of doctorates and masters degrees in various scientific disciplines who assert the literal correctness of Genesis. Of the 21 listed by ICR, though, only a tiny number hold a degree in any of the life sciences. Three of the 21 hold doctorates in education, two are theologians, five are engineers. The remainder include a physicist, a chemist, a psycho-linguist, and a "food scientist".

realpc: Fundamentalist creationists are not scientists. There is no way to have a scientific debate with them. They just get mad and spout nonsense. Not so different from atheists, actually.

in the context of the NOVA program it is important to note that even though the DI claims that ID is non-religious/scientific, Buckingham and Bosnell believed that ID was a way to inject a "legal" form of creationism into the classroom. Buckingham et. al. admitted (and later denied in court) to having religious motivations for purchasing the Pandas book and contacting the DI.

it is an additional/related but potentially independent issue that ID is a sham and that the DI likes to pretend that ID is scientific and not just a strategy to further the fundie agenda The concept of ID might someday be be scientific, as noted by previous posters, but ID as championed by the DI is a HOAX it IS creationism relabeled. It is the result of rewriting creationist propaganda and systematically trying to remove "offensive" words w/o changing the content.

Ravilyn Sanders,

The problem with an ad hominem attack is that it evades the issue we are trying to discuss.

On a nebraska.statepaper.com site you started writing about intelligent designers and religious vs. scientific decisions in reponse to my post merely about intelligent causes. When we exercise "nice, forgiving, non-jealous behavior" as a "winning strategy", the discussion should be about whether it is an intelligent strategy or a non-intelligent one, not about whether it is a scientific vs. religious decision.

Similarly you began talking about how an intelligent designer would do this, that, or the other thing. Well, many people are intelligent designers, but they have not contributed to this, that, or the other thing. I don't believe that Intelligent Design theory should address an intelligent designer at all, like I stated in my post, but it leaves us open to intelligent causes and random causes. Just because there is intelligence in nature does not meant that everything in nature is intelligent! There is much more evidence of intelligence in human beings than there is of intelligence in a rock, in the same way that there is much more evidence of intelligent design in some features of biology than there are in others. If it were one creator God, then we would be talking about if all of nature is intelligently designed or not. If we are just talking about intelligent design as a better explanation for some features, then we are only discussing those individual aspects, while letting all other aspects pass on as having non-intelligent causes.

I feel like your reply was an ad-hominem attack against me, in the sense that instead of attacking me as a person in order to evade the issue, you chose to invent me as a different person making different arguments, in order to evade the issues I was really addressing. You attached many arguments to my person which were not even part of my person, in order to attack that imaginary person instead of me.

Glen Shrom says:

"Just because there is intelligence in nature does not meant that everything in nature is intelligent! There is much more evidence of intelligence in human beings than there is of intelligence in a rock, in the same way that there is much more evidence of intelligent design in some features of biology than there are in others."

I have hit this point again and again recently, Glen, but please consider it carefully;

There is a lot of evidence of natural "intelligent design," in the sense of creatures with brains making choices, in nature. One example is honeybees. Honeybees may not be Einsteins, but they are capable of choosing which flowers they want to pollinate. They consistently prefer bright colors (in their color vision, blue through yellow.) As a result, bee-pollinated flowers have evolved to have much brighter colors than wind-pollinated flowers.

Honeybees can't see red, however. But some wildflowers are red. So does that mean red flowers are evidence of an intelligent intervention? Absolutely-- the intelligent agent, in that case, would be a hummingbird, which is also a pollinator, and is attracted to the color red.

But what if the flowers are white and very sweetly scented-- but only at night? They are worthless to both bees and hummingbirds. What "intelligence" planned that? Well, that would be flower-pollinating bats, as a matter of fact.

So, you see, much of evolution-- in fact, virtually all of evolution when it shows progress in a consistent direction-- is driven by intelligent "designers" (in the sense of animals making choices that affect an organism's ability to pass on its genes.) Most of the field research done in biology consists of studying the interrelationships between organisms and the creatures who make consistent choices about them, whether it's a member of the same sex deciding whether to fight them, a member of the opposite sex deciding whether to mate with them, an insect deciding whether to pollinate them, or a predator deciding whether to eat them.

The Intelligent Design movement, instead of studying all these observable intelligent agents as one might think they would, has essentially lumped all these intelligent agents in with "randomness," and then postulated some other, presumably supernatural, "intelligent designer"-- who can't be observed or studied. And that totally stops science.

THAT's the problem scientists have with the Intelligent Design movement. That it stops science-- not that it postulates a supernatural intelligence behind nature. The many biologists who believe in God do, too, but they're accepted as scientists without problem, even by vocal atheists. No, the problem with Intelligent Design is that it refuses to study all the known intelligent agents first, before it jumps to hypothesizing an unknown agent which can't be studied.

Evolution isn't just "random." Natural selection is largely driven by creatures with brains making consistent choices. All scientists are asking is that they be allowed to study those intelligent agents first, before they hypothesize some unknown, presumably supernatural, intelligence that they can't study.

To add to Hoary Puccoon's excellent post, I'll see the Atheist's nightmore banana and raise the CDesign Proponentsist's nightmare of the spider web. Surely the ID crowd would grant that if we found a fishing net on the beach, it is every bit as reasonable to draw a design inference as it would be for finding "Mike loves Mary" written in the sand. Yet that reasoning mysteriously doesn't apply to spider webs, or complicated insect burrows, or a beehive. That intelligence and planning and construction for a purpose just mysteriously passes their notice.

There are many in the intelligent design movement who want to talk about a supernatural designer, but that does not define the movement. Intelligent design is open to the intelligent causes being natural or supernatural. Thinking about natural intelligence does not stop science. To the contrary, it opens up new realms of investigation to find intelligence where we never looked before. Only in 2007 are we discovering intelligence in scrub jays where for centuries we only saw "instinct". We are just making avenues now into artificial intelligence and the nature of intelligence in systems not composed of neurons. It is a matter of time before we begin testing for intelligence on the sub-cellular and intra-cellular levels.