Nova's judgment day: Intelligent design on trial

[jclalor 12]

This is one of the best nova's that I have seen, if you get the chance, watch it.
TV Program Description
Original PBS Broadcast Date: November 13, 2007

In this program, NOVA captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, including expert scientists and Dover parents, teachers, and town officials, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" follows the celebrated federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District. This two-hour special was coproduced with Paul G. Allen's Vulcan Productions, Inc.

In 2004, the Dover school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to high school biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution called intelligent design—the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The teachers refused to comply. (For more on this, see Board vs. Teachers.) Later, parents opposed to intelligent design filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

"There was a blow-up like you couldn't believe," Bill Buckingham, head of the school board's curriculum committee, tells NOVA. Buckingham helped formulate the intelligent-design policy when he noticed that the biology textbook chosen by teachers for classroom use was, in his words, "laced with Darwinism."

NOVA presents the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as "What is evolution?" and "Is intelligent design a scientifically valid alternative?" Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first legal test of intelligent design as a scientific theory, with the plaintiffs arguing that it is a thinly veiled form of creationism, the view that a literal interpretation of the Bible accounts for all observed facts about nature. (See Defining Science and arguments for and against evolution.)

During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs showed that evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problems—the type that arise in any flourishing scientific field.

U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." As part of his decision, Judge Jones ordered the Dover school board to pay legal fees and damages, which were eventually set at $1 million. (Hear Judge Jones read excerpts from his historic decision.)

"Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core," says Paula Apsell, NOVA's Senior Executive Producer. "Evolution is one of the most essential yet, for many people, least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools." (Hear more from Paula Apsell on why NOVA took on this controversial subject.)

For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how it is taught in the classroom.

[popsjumper 2]

Right now the theory on how life (as we know it) got started in the first place is "accident of nature."

Mix a few chemicals in the right proportion and hit it with a lightening strike and Viola! Life!

We don't know that. It's a theory. What makes that theory any more plausible than devine intervention? I dunno. Neither does anyone else.

What's wrong with presenting both sides of the debate and letting the students have at it?

Limiting to one presentation kind of gives me the creeps.

We don't need no Thought Control.

Here we have "science" dictating our thoughts on this. Read about the Persecution of Galileo and you have an example of the "religious" dictating our thoughts.

The world goes round and round.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[philh 0]

If you want to talk about abiogenesis there are many more ideas than the Mller Urey experiment you allude to. What makes them more plausible than divine intervention is that thhey are based upon processes that we can actually verify occur. We can do no such thing with divine intevention.
If you would like to learn about these ideas I would reccomend this book:
Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins by Robert Hazen

However, the topic of this documentary is about teaching ID as a rival to Darwinian natural selection. This debate has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Personally I have no problem with ID being taught in schools in lets say a philosophy class or a religious studies class. But yet again that was not the issue. The issue was teaching ID in a science class. Since ID not science it has no place in a science class (except perhaps in a history of science class, where there might be mroe time to dicuss pre scientific ideas).

Equal time for ID in science class might seem fair at first. But think of the logical consequences. Should we have equal time in astronomy classess for a Earth centric universe? Equal time for the humoural theory of disease in medical schools? Equal time to holocaust revisionists in history?

The job of a good science teacher is to teach good science. ID does not qualify, I reccomend actually watching the NOVA documentary suggested.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Right now the theory on how life (as we know it) got started in the first place is "accident of nature."

Mix a few chemicals in the right proportion and hit it with a lightening strike and Viola! Life!

We don't know that. It's a theory. What makes that theory any more plausible than devine intervention? I dunno. Neither does anyone else.

What's wrong with presenting both sides of the debate and letting the students have at it?

Calling it an accident insinuates it was an OOPS. Better descriptions are chance and circumstance.

Creationism is an idea. It is not a theory. Any idea that can be thought is not automatically a theory. And concluding that no one knows which is more plausible is absurd. Maybe you are just speaking for yourself, but there are shitloads of very well done research that make one vastly, incredibly, unbelievably more plausible than the other.

The thing wrong with presenting the 2 sides to students is that one is the most reasearched, most documented, and very well understood theories in all of science; and the other is a whacked reaction resting on dogma and the Propogation of Ignorance. High School kids (and a lot of adults) do not have the training or wisdom to be able to tell the difference. Especially when glitzed up with sensational lies and half-truths. For supposedly educated adults to foist dogmatic crap like this on students in a science class is gross negligence.

Lightning strike? Been watching too many Frankenstein movies?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

What's wrong with presenting both sides of the debate and letting the students have at it?

What is wrong is that would, as the judge found, violate the separation of church and state.

I find it surprising, in a way, that the religious groups get so upset about their stories not being taught in public schools. One could argue that it works to their advantage, i.e. their children are being taught the ins and outs of Darwinism, giving them "ammo" for future debate. Meanwhile the scientists kids aren't being taught creationism, leaving them at a disadvantage (if you can honestly call it that).

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[pirana 0]

Speaking of good stuff. There was an excellent show pulling together the latest research findings on who wrote the Old Testament and when. Most interesting (IMO) is the stuff that further establishes the Cult of Yaweh as the foundation of the 3 Abrahamic faiths (or maybe more correctly when the practice of worship started taking on the characteristics of those faiths).

Can't remember the channel, but the show was called Buried Secrets or something like that. I believe because the Dead Sea Scrolls have shone so much light on the topic.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[shropshire 0]

There's no way on gods' Earth that ID should ever be discussed in a science lesson.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JackC 0]

Quote

What makes that theory any more plausible than devine intervention? I dunno. Neither does anyone else.

It's quite simple. Anyone with the right chemicals and an electrical outlet can perform abiogenesis experiments and produce amino acids in their basement. Meanwhile, the number of confirmed divine entities remains at zero. That's what makes abiogenesis a plausible theory. Godidit is not even a half decent hypothesis.

[Ion01 1]

Once again seperation of church and state is not in the constituation. Also, if ID is not science then neither is archaeology or the search for intelligent life.
"To say intelligent causes are empirically detectable is to say there exist well-defined methods that, on the basis of observational features of the world, are capable of reliably distinguishing intelligent causes from undirected natural causes. Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction-notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (as in the movie Contact).... Whenever these methods detect intelligent causation, the underlying entity they uncover is information. Intelligent Design properly formulated is a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of intelligent causation as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow. Intelligent Design is therefore not the study of intelligent causes per se, but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes."
I use the same methods as an forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence does. I have found the simplest question that works in all areas - Can natural forces create what I have found? If I have found a piece of fire hardened clay with a carving in it I can easily concluded that it was created; Same with a painting in a cave; Same with an electric motor, which many hold as one of the biggest signs of our scientifically advanced society. When we look in some cells we find an electric motor called a flagella. Why can we not conclude that it was created? Are you familiar with irreducible complexity by Meyer? Here is his site to help http://www.discovery.org/a/3408
Also, as stated in the quote, information is also a key. If we received a series of radio wave pulses from outer space which could be interpreted into a single sentence such as “We are here” everyone would conclude that aliens sent the message, and rightfully so. We now know of something called DNA which contains so much information that it results in beings, such as us, which are more complex that anything we have every created or even imagined. Just as an archeologist would do, we conclude from such evidence that we were created. This is sound science.

On the other hand evolution requires that you not only ignore such evidence but that you simply have faith (a greater faith than I could ever have) that one day we will find a way to explain how DNA and the Flagella Motor can come about. This is ultimately what is admitted above: "evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problems." If its one of the best tested then what are all these unresolved issues? Yes there are a lot of theories. Do they have a good foundation in observation and experimentation? I can theorize that invisible knomes do my work while I am at home. I may even give all kinds of “evidence” such as the simple fact that when I leave work and set the alarm there is no one left at work and when I get there the next day my spread sheet is on my pc and is done. I, of course, have over look many details in the formulation of my theory such as my computer is connected to a network and can be accessed by other employees who have the same job as I do. Anyways, I think you see my point. People can develop all kinds of ideas but unless they are based in the real world in which we live and takes all evidence into consideration they are nothing more than ideas. If evolution is one of the best tested where are the tests showing evolution to work? If its one of the best tested then why does the scientist credited with the idea that genetic mutations caused evolution say that science has never created or observed a beneficial mutation? How can science be conducted without observations and test? This is, however, how evolution "science" is conducted.
Here is something else regarding evolution as science: http://www.icr.org/article/773/

Ever heard of the Boltzmann Brain Equations. It is an attempt to calculate the probability of intelligence spontaniously existing without confines of a body, to put it simply. Scientists saw how complicated things were for life to exist, particularly intelligent life, and thought that things would be more efficient without the confines of or body or the earth. Basically, if everything we see can "pop" into existance from nothing, why, can't intelligence do the same. They ultimately concluded, through the use of some equation, that intelligent life is so much more likely to exist without a body that many beleive there to be "silent observers" of "brains" which exist that we can't detect but observe us and what we do. Basically, if evolution is so improbable but we "know" it happened because we are here, and the boltzmann brain is far more probable than evolution then it must be true as well. So, if this type of logic is acceptable then one can easily conclude that the most probable of likely occurance is that a single intelligence (a God like boltzmann brain) existed and created everything.

"let's take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance. Remember, natural selection cannot operate until a self-replicating system is produced. Of course, this gene by itself is still only a dead molecule in the absence of other genes and other complex chemicals all perfectly arranged in time and space. Nevertheless, let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene."

[kallend 1,623]

Plagiarising Dembski (whose work is characterized by the National Academy of Sciences as "pseudoscience") is not going to get you very far on here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

Ahh the classic we don't understand so why bother trying, God must have done it arguement!


The biggest problem with creationism is that it starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it. That is the biggest difference between it and any science and why ID is not and can never be considered to be science.

[pirana 0]

Quote

There's no way on gods' Earth that ID should ever be discussed in a science lesson.

That is so prefectly oxymoronic; I'd say sig line worthy.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[peregrinerose 0]

That program was extremely well done, we watched it last year. We live about 30 miles from Dover, so this mess was unfolding locally long before it hit the national news.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

if ID is not science then neither is archaeology or the search for intelligent life.

I believe the search for God can be scientific just as the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. To be scientific however the researcher must approach the problem without the preferred answer in the bottom right hand corner. The researcher must be prepared to conclude that the research has further made the argument against the existence of either extraterrestrial intelligence or of divine intelligence, depending on the experiment.
If our schools were teaching extraterrestrial intelligence as a given, I would be upset to the point of taking political action. I think your comparison is very valid.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

SCOTUS has upheld that the 1st Amendment invokes a separation. If you choose to disregard this then even attempting to debate any related issue with you would be pointless. Have a nice day.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[pirana 0]

That is more bunk in one post than I have seen in quite some time. Even a quick skim thru it reveals several pieces of psuedo-science claptrap. I'd poke away at it, but it's all been done so many times already by so many people more qualified than me that I'll just leave it at this.

Get current, and get real. Open a science text or research on the topic instead of the reactionary moronic ramblings of dogma-driven whackos.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[SkyjunkySean 0]

Ya know what would be a real drag? If those opposed to ID are wrong. I mean if those of us who Do believe in GZod are wrong, no biggie, we take a long dirt nap, it's over. But oh man what if everything in the Book is true? Be a bummer of a time to find out. just my two cents. I'd write more, but I also know when to keep my mouth shut

[jclalor 12]

The show I think you are refering to is another Nova " The bible's buried secrets" This was also a very good show.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Ya know what would be a real drag? If those opposed to ID are wrong. I mean if those of us who Do believe in GZod are wrong, no biggie, we take a long dirt nap, it's over. But oh man what if everything in the Book is true? Be a bummer of a time to find out. just my two cents. I'd write more, but I also know when to keep my mouth shut

What would suck even more is if you spent your whole life sacrificing your self for the wrong god. I mean wouldn't it suck being kicked in the face at the gates of Valhalla because you were a Christian.

[philh 0]

On the seperation of church and state. As I understand it the first amendment prohibits action by the Federal government "respecting an establshment of religion". Laws of course have to be interpreted and it has been the consistent interpretation of many judges that teaching creationsim is in contradiction to this principle.

As to archaeology , that is not one of the classic sciences, Im not sure anyone is suggesting it is. However it certainly has elements of science in it. Archeologists have to present emperical evidence to draw on conclusions. Theistd don't generally do so.
As to SETI, its interesting you mention this. When pulsars were first discovered it matched what many thought was a SETI signal. But real scientists (including those that work at SETI) are more cautious than the wishful thinking types at the Discovery Institute and discovered a natural process to explain the reptitive signal.

Just because something looks likes its from an intelligent source doesnt mean it is; as the case of pulsars so readily testifies. Arcehaolgists can conclude clay tablets are from humans becuase we have verified that humans can make clay tablets. Without such verification we would not reach such conclusions. We have no verification that any intelligent deity exist let alone had any hand in our evolution/creation. that is why such ideas are not science.

I am familiar with the concept of irreducilbe complexity. I believe it was Behe who introduced it not Meyer. He gave many examples of biological machines that could not have evolved because if they are missing parts they lost functionality. His ideas did not survive serious scrutiny because the examples he gave has been clearly demonstrated to have funcitonal simpler forms. He was wrong, plain and simple. That was demosntrated very clearly in the court case. This famous quote from the judge:

"Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large"

I think Meyer also uses Debsmki's idea on specified complexity. These have been widely debunked by mathematicians. He's basically plaing his probability backwards. Any chance event, if you specifiy the probability beforehand will seem improbable. What are the chances of a partricualr distribution of cardd occuring during a night at a casino? If you had specified thhe event in advance (whcih card were handed to whom and in what order) any set of cards is too imporbale to ever happen. Yet casinos do dish out cards every night. Thats what so called design theorists do, any particular evolutionary pathway is unlikely just as any distributionof cards one night in a casino is unlikley. But both are bound to happen. Dembski model evolution in a way that is not chracteristic of its real process and so of course he gets these ridiculous probabilities. Another reaosn why such ideas are not taken seirosuly by the scientific community, why ID is not science and should not be taught in science classes.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Ya know what would be a real drag? If those opposed to ID are wrong. I mean if those of us who Do believe in GZod are wrong, no biggie, we take a long dirt nap, it's over. But oh man what if everything in the Book is true? Be a bummer of a time to find out. just my two cents. I'd write more, but I also know when to keep my mouth shut

hmm, What if the Muslims are right and everyone else is wrong? What if the Hindus are right and everyone else is wrong?....

There are so many what if's, which one do I choose? I would rather go with the evidence, rational thinking.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

I dunno.

That's about the only correct thing in your whole post. Unfortunately the rest of it assumes that everyone else shares your ignorance, and that's a classic fallacy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Personally I have no problem with ID being taught in schools in lets say a philosophy class or a religious studies class. But yet again that was not the issue. The issue was teaching ID in a science class. Since ID not science it has no place in a science class (except perhaps in a history of science class, where there might be mroe time to dicuss pre scientific ideas).

Equal time for ID in science class might seem fair at first. But think of the logical consequences. Should we have equal time in astronomy classess for a Earth centric universe? Equal time for the humoural theory of disease in medical schools? Equal time to holocaust revisionists in history?

I would agree to a point. Teaching ID or creationism in a religious studies class I can go with.. but I would prefer ALL religious dogma whether jewish or christian or muslim or other religions to be taught in church.. by the church... PERIOD. If someone wants their children to learn how Coyote, or Raven or GOD created the world.. it is up to them to do so.. NOT the public school system.

Of course for those who want to live in a theocracy and force others to believe in their particular myth....that is just unacceptable to them so they keep trying to force all of us to believe in their particular dogma... so that we all can be "saved" as they are.

Personally I would not ascribe my beliefs onto others... so please.. keep yours off of me.. thanks.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Ya know what would be a real drag? If those opposed to ID are wrong. I mean if those of us who Do believe in GZod are wrong, no biggie, we take a long dirt nap, it's over. But oh man what if everything in the Book is true? Be a bummer of a time to find out. just my two cents. I'd write more, but I also know when to keep my mouth shut

Aaah - Pascal's wager. Unfortunately it suffers from a number of logical fallacies.

Here's a good place to read about the flaws in the argument.

Main conclusion is that the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is the best place to bet your afterlife.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Ya know what would be a real drag? If those opposed to ID are wrong. I mean if those of us who Do believe in GZod are wrong, no biggie, we take a long dirt nap, it's over. But oh man what if everything in the Book is true? Be a bummer of a time to find out. just my two cents. I'd write more, but I also know when to keep my mouth shut

Aaah - Pascal's wager. Unfortunately it suffers from a number of logical fallacies.

Here's a good place to read about the flaws in the argument.

Main conclusion is that the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is the best place to bet your afterlife.

I dunno 'bout that. Seems The Church of Elvis would give the pink unicorns a run for their money.
On second thought, what if it really IS all about the FSM? Would non-believers be turned into pasta sauce???

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.