Dispatches from the Creation Wars

They had Mr. Buckingham commenting, following the verdict, that the judge was an idiot, and disgusting, who didn't understand the law or the Constitution. That was kind of fun.

One of the more interesting segments involved a local reporter who had written up the early stages of the controversy, talking about her father who owned a failing local radio station. Christians came in asking to buy time to air Christian music. Her father, she said, became "born again" and the radio became a Christian station. All that by way of background. She then talked about how she thought for her father [who was worried about her soul since she was not a creationist]and those who thought like him, nothing mattered... not the constitution, not the first amendment, nothing in fact... except bringing souls to Christ. Scary.

What was impressive about the Nova show was that it presented the issues, the science, the disagreements plainly enough to be easily understood without trivializing them or talking down to the viewers. Or so I thought.

Posted by: flatlander100 | November 14, 2007 4:06 PM

They had Mr. Buckingham commenting, following the verdict, that the judge was an idiot, and disgusting, who didn't understand the law or the Constitution. That was kind of fun.

Oh, yeah. Buckingham was a real piece of work and did not come off well at all. After the segment about the verdict, he was shown in interview footage going on and on about how Judge Jones was a "clown" and an "idiot," adding that the only bench he should be allowed to sit on should be in the center ring of the circus. He also said something about Jones' obviously having fallen asleep during the part of law school where they taught about the Constitution.

What a maroon.

Posted by: Orac | November 14, 2007 4:31 PM

I enjoyed it immensely. I couldn't keep from yelling at the ID folks whenever they said "but it's just a *theory*" which seemed to happen whenever any of them opened their mouths. I thought the science was explained well, I am an interested layman and I understood it just fine, as did my girlfriend who, while very intellegent hasn't studied science since high school. Does anyone know if the reenactments were actually verbatum from the transcripts? If so then all the laughing I have done at Behe really isnt enough, he is twice the ass I thought he was.

Ed, were you involved with the trial? I seem to remember hearing you were affiliated with the NCSE, but am not sure in what capacity.

Posted by: jba | November 14, 2007 4:33 PM

I caught most of it on the re-air in the middle of the night. I missed the beginning, but thought it did a very good job of hitting the highlights of the trial. Not many people caught every NCSE podcast and waited for every blog post. The program did a great job of giving the average viewer a feel for the anger in the community, the stakes of the trial, and the courage of those that stood up to vile ignorance. The Dover trial was one of the true bright spots in the last several years. Thanks to the NOVA folks for bringing this one home for many more Americans to see.

Posted by: Dave Puskala | November 14, 2007 4:45 PM

Just a clip from my blog post on this today, and I think it is something that opponents of ID need to think very hard about before they put their stamp of approval on what was a very unbalanced presentation:

"If I'm a scientist who believes in Darwinism, I'm going to find 'Judgment Day' very disturbing, and here's why: I'm going to be sitting there waiting for calls from my Intelligent Design friends who are going to ask me if the kind of objectivity on display in the PBS program is the same kind of objectivity I employ when dealing with scientific questions that bear on Darwinism."

Posted by: Martin Cothran | November 14, 2007 5:17 PM

I'm going to be sitting there waiting for calls from my Intelligent Design friends who are going to ask me if the kind of objectivity on display in the PBS program is the same kind of objectivity I employ when dealing with scientific questions that bear on Darwinism.

I think that you have that backwards. The scientists who support the theory of evolution (Darwinists would be persons who have studied the life of Darwin, no matter how creationists try to twist the language to mean something else) have acted all along by rigorously upholding the scientific method (including objectivity) as the standard that must be followed. Since ID has no scientific theory to speak of, ID supporters cannot claim that scientists don't apply objective scientific standards.

Of course the reverse is also true, scientists *can* claim that ID *does not* apply objective scientific standards, as evidenced by their lack of evidence.

Posted by: kodiak | November 14, 2007 5:28 PM

Martin Cothran, I'm with Josh in wanting citations where the program was unbalanced. The proponents of ID and creationism for the most part were hung by their own words. Their attorneys looked like fools and the primary promoters of ID on the school board, Buckingham and Bonsell, did themselves no favors either in their interviews or the recorded comments from the trial transcript or the depositions. Yet they were given full time to explain their views. If there was any lack of balance, the program didn't invest much effort in examining why those opposed to evolution are so overwrought emotionally over the issue, how they commonly perceive it-- ignorantly I might add--as a mortal threat to their religion.

Posted by: Keanus | November 14, 2007 5:39 PM

The show was liveblogged over at the Atheist Experience.

Martin Cochran obviously wants the kind of wimpy he-said/she-said nonsense that passes for journalism these days to have been what the Nova episode was about. The problem is, scientifically, there's no "controversy" to teach. And the objective truth is: ID is not science. And the ID supporters in Dover were a bunch of dishonest sleazebags whose mendacity and deviousness brought about their own humiliation in court.

Posted by: Martin Wagner | November 14, 2007 5:43 PM

I thought it was fantastic. I love NOVA, and this was one of their best episodes in a while. I had been waiting for the program ever since it was first announced, and it did not disappoint. When it becomes available, I will probably buy the DVD. It will go nicely with the PBS Evolution box set.

PZ Myers live blogged the whole thing, if you want to read a more detailed description.

Posted by: Chris Berez | November 14, 2007 5:52 PM

Just a clip from my blog post on this today, and I think it is something that opponents of ID need to think very hard about before they put their stamp of approval on what was a very unbalanced presentation:

Maybe they should have left out the Buckingham and the Behe clips. It sounds to me like it probably would have a much more balanced documentary that way. :D

Posted by: 386sx | November 14, 2007 6:11 PM

ooh ooh, quote mining opportunity:

Even arch Darwinist, pro-homoist Ed Brayton remarks that this PBS programme was "all distorted".

Posted by: steve_h | November 14, 2007 7:11 PM

One very important point I thought NOVA failed to make is to show just how dishonest and error-ridden Pandas is. In the documentary, creationists repeatedly whine about how modest their goals are: all we want to do is to point out that evolution is only a theory, and that there's this book out there which the kids can read in order to familiarize themselves with both sides of the story and keep an open mind blah blah blah. From a PR perspective, I think it is a very effective strategy, and the creationists were essentially allowed to drive this point home unchallenged. It was crucial to make the viewers understand that Pandas lies to its readers about the evidence we have in favor of evolution. This would negate the PR effect of their message: sure, you just want the kids to read this book; the problem is the book you want them to read contains a whole bunch of lies about biology. I feel as though this was not done at all.

Posted by: DeniedAntecedent | November 14, 2007 7:53 PM

As the Kitzmiller trial was being held I read each transcript as they came out, the expert depositions and the full ruling of Judge Jones. The Nova program, when covering the actual trial testimony, was faithful in every word to the actual testimony given.

With 40 days in the trial obviously all could not be covered. PBS did cover the important testimony that resulted in Judge Jones' two main conclusions. Obviously, Martin Cothran and ID apologists elsewhere had their minds made up before the program aired and kept their minds closed thereafter. Such is the nature of their ilk.

It was good to see Nick Matzke get some credit for the most important work he did behind the scene for the entire trial. All on the evolution side performed very well indeed!

Posted by: vhutchison | November 14, 2007 8:24 PM

Well, I'm posting at UD right now and they've complaining about the literature dump they did on Behe.

Sad. I don't really know how much more they can spin this.

Posted by: Reynold Hall | November 14, 2007 9:22 PM

I almost wish I had taken notes, I had so many brilliant thoughts while watching. (You don't suppose the Jameson's had anything to do with it, do you?) Among the many parts that stood out was when the Thomas Moore lawyer was bemoaning the fact that science education had to be so rigid, etc. Was any one else thinking it boiled down to "why does science education have to be so scientific?" Also, I'd loved Buckingham claiming that the Santorum-recommended, Bush-appointed judge had the law wrong. This guy obviously believes that his opinion is the equivalent to any expert's on any subject.

Posted by: Taz | November 15, 2007 12:16 AM

I also really enjoyed it. The science was done well, and they hit all of my favorite high points and smoking guns from the trial. I remember thinking, "Say cdesign proponentsists! Say cdesign proponentsists!" I was not disappointed.

I'm not at all surprised at the calls for "balance" from NOVA. "Balance" no longer means soberly examining the facts that favor both sides. All it means now is that you simply regurgitate whatever bullshit both sides want to baffle us with, even if it's obviously factually wrong. If you consider, "Scientists claim that the Pacific ocean consists largely of water. Others disagree. You decide" to be high-quality, balanced reporting, then this program was not for you. Stick with the political horse race handicapping on the evening news.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 15, 2007 2:55 AM

One thing I've noticed lately is that a lot of the anti-evolution side refuse to get it through their head that evolution cares not a bit for how life started. They keep viewing creationism and evolution as mutually exclusive, which I just don't see. Perhaps I'm the deluded one.

You're not deluded. I think a huge part of the problem is that evolution just really isn't that user friendly. It requires some serious contemplation to understand what is really going on, even at the "layperson level." The amount of misinformation out there is staggering. Just as an example, a lot of folks who are pro-evolution think that traits arise for a purpose, which isn't accurate. I think a huge part of it is a problem of user-friendliness. Perhaps the same is true of science in general. I've had arguments with pro-evolution people trying to tell creationists that evolution is proven. When I try to get these folks to understand that they're not helping things because they're completely misrepresenting how science works, they've labeled me as pro-ID. We have a large hill to climb.

Posted by: Josh | November 15, 2007 8:26 AM

From Cochran's blog:

In one scene, the ACLU attorney hired by the parents who sued the Dover School District to overturn its pro-ID policy asked ID proponent Michael Behe (a scientist himself) if, under his definition, astrology counted as science. Behe said that, yes, it did. The attorney (or, rather, the actor playing the attorney) then asked if astrology hadn't been proven false, to which Behe (or, again, the actor playing Behe) again agreed.

The viewer, of course, was supposed to be appalled at Behe's ignorance.

But, of course, Behe was right, as anyone with a passing familiarity with the philosophy of science knows. Astrology, under most definitions of science, is indeed science. It's just that it is bad science--something very different from non-science: a distinction PBS propagandists either just didn't know or conveniently ignored for dramatic effect.

No, Mr. Cochran, astrology is not science. It's not even bad science. It makes no empirical claims and is eternally non-falsiable. It is good old-fashioned mysticism.

Not every theory of the universe qualifies as science, Mr. Cochran.

Cochran says that of course the Discovery Institute didn't participate in the NOVA program because the DI wasn't given editorial control over their own interviews. This is presented as a reasonable stance to have, despite the utter lack of precedent for any serious news organization ceding editorial control to the people they are interviewing. Absolutely no journalistic purpose is served by an interview that lets the interviewee have final editorial control over what is asked, what is answered, and what appears on TV. What Cochran is demanding of PBS is that they provide the DI with free advertising.

Posted by: RickD | November 15, 2007 8:35 AM

With respect to the comment of Martin Cothran:

"If I'm a scientist who believes in Darwinism, ...

By this, I assume you mean something like, "If I'm a scientist who recognizes that evolution is a process in the world of life".

Chemists do not "believe in Mendeleyevism". Physicists do not "believe in Einsteinism".

Posted by: TomS | November 15, 2007 10:28 AM

I thought it was excellent.

I think a couple of rheotical points could have been scored, however, by maybe re-visiting Johnson's blurb about how bad 'Darwin' is for our culture along with the statements from Kitzmiller and Jones about the death threats and such they rceived.

The coarsening of our culture, I believe, is firmly rooted in conservative religionism, not science.

Posted by: slpage | November 15, 2007 11:20 AM

Did anyone else think the reenactments were the weakest part of the show?

I read most of the trial transcripts and there were parts that were so interesting and dramatic I thought it would make an awesome courtroom drama. Especially the plaintiff's entire closing argument, which was absolutely devastating. But, the reenactments just didn't seem to carry much weight, not compared to the excellent interviews by the actual participants including Ken Miller, Barbra Forrest, and Kevin Padian.

I just don't think the actors were that great.

Posted by: MyPetSlug | November 15, 2007 12:12 PM

There was one element that I wish had been mentioned--the long, ongoing exchange of letters to the editors and opinion pieces in the two York papers. Judge Jones mentioned them in his opinion. I expect another flurry of letters now that the Nova piece has aired, and I expect to see the very same arguments that were refuted on the show (and elsewhere, again and again).

One other missing piece--Pastor Ray Mummert was interviewed, but did not repeat his immortal observation: We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.

Posted by: Mark Duigon | November 15, 2007 1:00 PM

I loved the broadcast, though there was that inevitable little bit of disappointment at what was left out--favorite little bits like the "40 days and 40 nights" exchange at the end of the trial, or Heather Geesey's unbelievably vapid testimony. I'd pay a lot to see an actual video of that LOL!

I loved the science they depicted. I was especially delighted with the segment on Tiktaalik. Too bad that discovery wasn't made just one year earlier, so they could have actually used it in the trial.

I was also impressed at how hard they worked to reduce the level of stupidity displayed by the Dover board all the way through the development and fruition of this situation. Yes, Buckingham came off as an idiot blowhard in the program, but they ignored a lot of his outrageous behavior. They also failed to mention things like the fact that the attorney for the school district advised them in no uncertain terms to *not* pursue this path, because they *would* get sued.

I was a bit disappointed they didn't give more attention to some of the preliminaries to the trial as well. For instance, the battle over whether Barbara Forest would be allowed to testify was pretty choice--not to mention revealing of the soft underbelly of the ID slug.

But two hours isn't much time LOL! They couldn't possibly have fit all of the good stuff in, and what they did was excellent.

I'm pleased to say quite a few of my students watched it. Of course, the extra credit assignment might have had somethning to do with that LOL!

Lynn

Posted by: Lynn Fancher | November 15, 2007 1:19 PM

Josh,
From the trial transcripts, as Judge Jones was concluding the case and collecting final statements. The Thomas Moore Lawyer his this to say:

MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, I have one question, and that's this: By my reckoning, this is the 40th day since the trial began and tonight will be the 40th night, and I would like to know if you did that on purpose.

THE COURT: Mr. Gillen, that is an interesting coincidence, but it was not by design.

(Laughter and applause.)

Posted by: MyPetSlug | November 15, 2007 2:02 PM

Huh...I've never gotten to the transcripts from the last few days. That's terrific. Thanks.

Posted by: Josh | November 15, 2007 2:14 PM

Thank you, Big Nasty, for the Goblin King comment. I literally flung spittle, for my laugh was so hard and sudden.

I gladly would have viewed a two part/four hour version of the program. Mention the district lawyer's opinion being dismissed. Be more explicit on exactly how much money was was wasted by district because of this. Explore the full dishonesty of the ID proponents from start to finish. Get Geesey scenes reenacted. More mention of the death threats for the plaintifs, the lawyers and the judge. Do some deeper digging into Dembski's ducking out. Mention the legal maneuvers to exclude testimony by Forrest.

Looking back at my list, I see a trend developing. Despite the creationist claims that Darwinism leads to declining morals, it was their side which exhibited poor personal behavior. Hold the mirror up to them. Hammer that point over and over.

Posted by: Sean | November 15, 2007 2:49 PM

I also really enjoyed it. The science was done well, and they hit all of my favorite high points and smoking guns from the trial. I remember thinking, "Say cdesign proponentsists! Say cdesign proponentsists!" I was not disappointed.

How did they pronounce it?

Posted by: Coin | November 15, 2007 4:16 PM

And I'd love to have seen a bit of interview with Mike Argento, or some recognition of the terrific opinion pieces he wrote about the case.

An agnostic "Amen" to that. I read everything he wrote about the trial, and still try to read him regularly. He can be even snarkier in e-mail than he is in his column.

Posted by: Pieter B | November 15, 2007 4:59 PM

Keanus,

I gave citations of how the program was unbalanced in my blog post, which you are free to read, and I really don't think these are in dispute. Here are my two major observations about this:

First, the program had two parallel extended segments explaining each position: one on evolution, the other on ID. The segment on evolution was uninterrupted by any rebuttals from the ID side. In the segment on ID, however, a rebuttal from the evolution side was included on every point about ID.

Second, in the dramatized course scenes, a number of cross examinations by the anti-ID side were shown, while no cross examinations of the anti-ID side by the pro-ID side were shown. Not only that, but the actors were clearly directed to show the ID side in a bad light in quite a number of ways.

Now so far, no one has contested these two points, they have only argued that NOVA was justified in doing this for various reasons. It seems to me that that is the only thing you could argue: that an unbalanced treatment was justified in some way.

The problem is I don't think that is going to be very convincing to people who are looking at this objectively.

Posted by: Martin Cothran | November 15, 2007 6:12 PM

Tyler,

You accused me of being a "bad concern troll". I'm not quite sure how that differs from a non-"bad-concern" troll, but I'm wondering what you base that on. A troll is someone who disrupts the intended purpose of an online community.

I posted, using my real name (unlike most of the other posters here), and responded to Ed's post inviting his readers to say what they thought of the program. I'm a reader of Eds, and said what I thought of the program. Didn't flame or anything. And unless the purpose of this forum is something exactly the opposite of what Ed said it was, then I'm at a loss to figure out how I'm disrupting the purpose of the forum.

Is there a problem with simply addressing my points?

Posted by: Martin Cothran | November 15, 2007 6:30 PM

Astrology certainly does make falsifiable claims...

It also makes a lot of claims that are not falsifiable because they're so vague that they can be reinterpreted after the fact to have predicted...whatever actually happened. Just like ID.

In fact this issue is just one example of the tendency of people with a scientistic mentality to employ mutually inconsistent arguments...

And it's a lame "example;" care to come up with some more such "examples" in order to establish the pattern you allege?

...that a certain position is not scientific because it is not falsifiable, and then turning around and arguing that that same position makes false claims.

There's nothing inconsistent about observing that both ID and astrology have made some claims that are not falsifiable, and other claims that have been proven false.

You're stretching so far backward to pretend we're being "inconsistent," it's getting painful to watch. You'd better have a damn good chiropractor.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 15, 2007 10:08 PM

Martin,

To paraphrase the now famous quip from Stephen Colbert, reality has a well known bias toward evolution. Perhaps you are unaware of the difference between objectivity and neutrality.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 16, 2007 1:17 AM

I think a huge part of the problem is that evolution just really isn't that user friendly.

I know several children that understand the fundamentals of evolution. It's not that hard, so long as you don't have to hose out the bullshit first.

Posted by: Graculus | November 16, 2007 1:37 AM

Martin has brought up an accurate point, albeit, unintentionally. No documentary is objective. As others have pointed out, time constraints mean that the creator(s) must select and shape their source material.

But what he is arguing for, in the name of greater objectivity, is the strategy that ID has staked out from the beginning; to foster the illusion that there is a debate in the scientific community about evolution and that ID is some sort of plausible alternative view.

Thus his desire to see equal time give to IDers refuting the evolution portion as Scientists did the ID section. It isn't important if the refutations held water, only that there was the appearance that a substantial body of scientists supported ID. Even if the IDers were not scientists, they might be mistaken as such by putting them next to the opposition.

This desire to create the illusion of support for ID is apparent throughout his blog post. From repeating the DI talking point about the growing numbers questioning darwinism to his original posts here. He stated his concern was that scientists would have trouble justifying the program to their ID leaning friends. C'mon, what friends? ID is a fringe belief that has gained no foothold in the areas of science it claims to examine. This has been fisked here several times.

But back to his complaint; that equal time isn't given to ID rebuttals. Say it had been. Would this really be objective? Giving substantial or equal airtime to beliefs that are virtually unanimously rejected? It would be equally objective to allow the rebuttal, as he suggests, and then follow it with a poll from scientists working in this field. "Ok on point #1, our poll of 1000 scientists selected for their expertise in this issue, all found the evolutionary point correct, and the ID point nonsense. Point #2, same answer, Point #3...Hey, same answer, what a coincidence!"

Now this is obviously a bit of hypothetical silliness, but the point is that Martin is, in an odd way, arguing for the same thing the Dover board argued for; present ID so it appears to be an equal but alternate view to evolution. Hopefully, for the ID proponent, the viewer might take this alternate explanation as having some sort of value. But it's not surprising the creators of the program didn't bother. After all, the whole conclusion of the case was that ID had no scientific validity and was just warmed over creationism. So why bother to answer these questions again, in a documentary about how they were already answered?

To Martin's second point. That is perhaps more valid, I personally don't think reenactments have much value. But could they ever be objective? Pick a movie where an actor portrays a historic figure, ask your friends about how realistic the actor's performance was, see if you get the same response. Probably not. You won't get objective performances. One viewer will find the characters coming off worse than they actually were, others may feel they come off much better. But it is worth noting that the most common derogatory comments about the program are directed at the real people being interviewed. Getting these people to speak for themselves is more damning than having an actor portray them.

Posted by: Matthew | November 16, 2007 3:28 AM

On the does Astrology qualify as science question:
It's not that there's subjective and objective falsifiability, Astrology is not science because while certain claims of Astrology can be tested and have shown to be false, the concept of Astrology itself cannot be disproven. Certainly, you can demonstrate that people born on a certain day aren't all gregarious outgoing people or whatever the case, but go ahead and try to disprove that the stars or the alignment of the planets have no affect on a person's personality or destiny.

Of course we know that disproving a negative is impossible, but this is precisely the reason Astrology sticks around. That, and Astrology does not posit a mechanism for it's influence.

This is exactly analogous to Intelligent Design. While the individual claims of irreducible complexity or the explanatory filter can be show to be false, you can never disprove that an all powerful Intelligent Designer was doing something somewhere in history of biological life on this planet. And Intelligent Design, like Astrology, does not posit a mechanism either for any hypothesized design.

It's a near perfect analogy that shows how loosening the rules of science opens up the door to all kinds of stuff that we already know is BS.

Posted by: MyPetSlug | November 16, 2007 9:55 AM

And if ID opponents are going to be assailing dishonesty on the ID side (and, like any other heated public debate, there are going to be people on every side of the issue who do this), then they ought to be careful about cheering it when it happen on their side of the issue.

As somebody else posted, there's a difference between being dishonest and not giving equal time to both sides of an issue. I think that a major failing of documentaries and news reports on issues of little controversy is to manufacture "fake" controversy by giving equal time to unequal positions.

For example, it's common uncommon for a news discussion forum to hold a "debate" between two "experts" on a topic--one of whom represents 99% of all experts in the field and one of whom is often a complete crackpot. The result: The average person walks away from the program thinking, "They both seemed like they knew what they were talking about. I guess the experts just agree to disagree on this one." I think that such a treatment does an even worse job of accurately portraying the state of the debate.

Of course, it's also worth remembering that this documentary was less of an in-depth examination of ID vs evolution than it was a retelling of exactly how the ID crowd got its collective ass handed to it in court. Given that, chronicling the "smoking guns" that lead to the decision makes a lot more sense than diving into the detailed defenses the ID proponents try to give on the scientific front.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 16, 2007 5:39 PM

And still, you have nowhere pointed out any dishonesty in the program.

Posted by: Skemono | November 16, 2007 11:59 PM

1. Popperian falsifiability is latched onto as the defining measure of science by many scientists, but by far fewer philosophers of science, since they are aware of the significant critiques of this criterion (e.g., most notably by Popper's student Imre Lakatos). Where's John Wilkins?

2. Philip Kitcher, a notable philosopher of science who has also produced multiple very strong critiques of creationism and is one of the few debaters to have soundly defeated Duane Gish, criticizes "naive falsifiability" in his classic book, _Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism_. In one of his more recent books, _The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusion_, he makes the case that (as most philosophers of science agree) there is no solid line criterion of demarcation between science and nonscience, but we can distinguish between good and bad science. I suspect he would agree that astrology is bad science rather than non-science.

3. I agree with Martin Cothran that astrology makes empirical claims which are falsified. Astrology continues to be used because the manner in which it is used promotes belief in its accuracy on the basis of poor tests and subjective validation, which Geoffrey Dean has described in detail in his two-part _Skeptical Inquirer_ series titled "Does Astrology Need to Be True?" Dean and Arthur Mather published an excellent article in the astrology journal _Correlation_ titled "Is the Scientific Approach Relevant to Astrology?", which was published as a symposium with commentaries from scientists, philosophers, and astrologers (vol. 13, no. 1, Northern Summer 1994).

Posted by: Jim Lippard | November 17, 2007 10:31 AM

BTW, here's a quote from Kitcher's _The Advancement of Science_ about creationists and science in which he argues it's not the doctrines that are unscientific, it's the behavior of the creationists that is unscientific.

Posted by: Jim Lippard | November 18, 2007 12:36 PM

Yeah, the thread gets "old" when Martin finds himself unable to answer the one important substantive question repeatedly put to him.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2007 3:34 PM

Martin: I just posted a (non-profane, non-name-calling, non-flaming) comment on your blog. Whether you allow it to be published will be taken as a test of your intellectual honesty.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 19, 2007 4:08 PM

Examples of how it was unbalanced?

Ok, here's an example. The section with Michael Behe ends like this:

"ACTOR ERIC ROTHSCHILD: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory.

ACTOR MICHAEL BEHE: Yes, that's correct.

VIC WALCZAK: You know, when you loosen the rules around what is science, and, er, permit the supernatural, permit deities, um you are really destroying what makes science so vitally important . . ."

This is clearly intended to make Behe look as bad as possible, as if he believes in astrology, and that consequently the whole ID movement is similar to astrology.

The overall context of the Dover transcript shows that there was a serious discussion over the proper boundaries of the word "science". What Behe acknowledged was that some issues related to 16th century astrology could be regarded as "scientific questions" in their time. They would not be science today, nor does this have anything to do with modern day astrology.

One may or may not agree with Behe's view of the matter. But to simply rip out this small section on "astrology" giving the impression that Behe just admitted that ID = astrology, was not necessary, and quite distorted.

So, yes, that's an example of a lack of balance.

Posted by: Robert | November 20, 2007 12:31 AM

Wrong. The clear intent is to show that the only way intelligent design could count as science is to warp the definition of science so far that it includes either junk like astrology.

In searching the internet for Judgment Day, Behe and astrology, you'll find several instances where people came away with the idea that Behe equated modern astrology with science. This is totally false. The writers of Judgment Day knew, or should have known, that lots of people would come away with this false impression.

If they were concerned for the truth they would have made their best efforts to give Behe's best arguments from the Dover transcripts. Then they would give their response. This would not be 100% balanced, but at least would have some semblance of fairness.

Do you honestly think the Judgment Day writers selected this small snippet that mentions the word "astrology" because they felt it best represented Behe's point of view? Come on, do you really think that was their motivation?

Posted by: Robert | November 20, 2007 3:57 AM

PS: I notice you didn't actually quote a false statement about Behe from all those Internet searches you talked about. Why? Because the "the idea that Behe equated modern astrology with science" was NOT false: he wanted to redefine "science" in a way that, he admitted, would have included astrology. Therefore, he advocated changing the definition of "science" in such a way that astrology would indeed be equated with science.

You cdesign proponentsists really can't handle the truth, can you?

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 20, 2007 10:30 AM

Robert: the quotes you pasted disprove your own point. Behe explicitly admitted that, according to his proposed redefinition of "science," both ID and astrology would be included as "science" in the present era. Reread what you pasted if you don't believe me. Your hand-waving about astrology in "the historical sense" doesn't even work as a diversion.

Here, let me repaste it for you, with emphasis added:

ACTOR ERIC ROTHSCHILD: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory.

ACTOR MICHAEL BEHE: Yes, that's correct.

Note the present tense in which Behe was speaking: astrology would have been included as "science" in the present time. So yes, Behe did, in effect, admit that the actions he advocated would have equated astrology with modern science, by redefining science to include astrology. The Internet statements you call "false" were, at worst, merely slight exaggerations of what Behe said. And you know it.

So your arguments about how "unbalanced" the PBS show was, are still groundless and unsubstantiated.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 21, 2007 9:08 AM

That is a perfectly good question, and it would be silly to answer "No" on the grounds that Shakespeare is now dead. Nor would most people make a big point about is and was.

Most SCIENTISTS would, given that state of the art changes constantly.

I'm not sure that you're clear on the differences betweeen literature and science. Given that hypotheses in science are disproven in science all the time, a historical view of theories does not make sense.

Posted by: gwangung | November 21, 2007 1:27 PM

Once again, you're changing the subject

Once again, you were changing the subject

Aw, I guess you are not a real SCIENTIST. (At least, you weren't when you said that!)

Have a Happy Thanksgiving, guys (or gals)!

Posted by: Robert | November 22, 2007 4:19 AM