…and this is a 
The morning after Judgment Day
Category: Creationism
Posted on: November 14, 2007 11:00 AM, by PZ Myers
I checked out a few of the blogs by the usual suspects this morning, and noticed that the creationists are largely silent (so far, give 'em time) on the Dover documentary from last night…with one exception. The Discovery Institute's Media Complaints Division is wound up over it. They have an eight-point "rebuttal" of the documentary that consists of many picked nits and regurgitated whines, and I thought about taking them on point by point, but then decided it wasn't worth it. For one thing, it's written by Casey Luskin, the DI's small mammal mascot, who is something of an incompetent pipsqueak, so it's hardly worth flicking him around any more. Most importantly, it misses the point of the program entirely.
If you've seen it, think back. What was the story it told? It has two parts.
First, it made the case that Intelligent Design is not science. This is the part that I liked best; scientists came on, schooled the court on the basics of evolutionary biology, and showed them what science is, by empirical example. The documentary supplemented that with lovely animations and diagrams that illustrated the points well. Then they showed that the witnesses for Intelligent Design failed to even come close to the standards of good science, and were in fact trying to rewrite the meaning of science to sneak their doctrines into the classroom.
Second, it showed that Intelligent Design is religion in disguise. The proponents of the changes in Dover, Bonsell and Buckingham, were young earth creationists with a patent religious agenda. The book, Of Pandas and People, which was written by people associated with the Discovery Institute and which was promoted by the DI, was rooted in creationism and got a face lift in response to court decisions that ruled against creationism. And the Discovery Institute itself was founded with a sectarian religious purpose (the first words in the Wedge document are "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.")
These are the premises that were tested in the court case, and these were the ideas illustrated in the documentary. The Discovery Institute "rebuttal" doesn't even touch these issues; their objections don't address the thrust of the court decision, which was accurately portrayed. The story is very simple, and this is all we need to say: Intelligent Design is not science, and Intelligent Design is a religious idea. That's the message, and that's the decision of a major court case, and that's what the scientists have been saying for years. And now, in the desperate gasp of the creationists, they've failed to even touch these conclusions.
Politics
Comments
Frist?
Posted by: CC | November 14, 2007 11:13 AM
And budding scientists need to know this. So expose their minds to the fallacy of ID, in science class.
=====================
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 11:14 AM
I really enjoyed this episode of Nova. I was expecially impressed by the person following the trial, who, after hearing the expert testimony of the biologists, asked "Why isn't this stuff in more books?" The next speaker explained how successful Creationists have been at keeping much information on scientific support for evolution out of textbooks. This is a front on the Creation wars that needs more attention.
Posted by: Nicholas | November 14, 2007 11:17 AM
It was beautiful, Buckingham (or was it one of the others?) complaining that he just couldn't remember the name of "intelligent design," so he called it "creationism," coupled with his half-apology for being so honest. But you know, it's the science of "intelligent design" that he really meant (which in his rodent-like mind is probably how he sees it, as having already compromised by pushing ID instead of YEC).
Anyway, this program simply must be shown around the time of the release of Expelled, as I've written previously.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 14, 2007 11:20 AM
An interesting question: do you think that Behe made a mistake by not participating? I find it hard to believe he could possibly make more of an ass of himself, but I may be underestimating his abilities in that field. It certainly gave Nova carte blanche to depict his testimony in any way they wished.
Posted by: Randy | November 14, 2007 11:21 AM
The fun part of their rebuttal, as always, is watching the rhetorical contortions as they try to pretend they believe in evolution and common descent while at the same time automatically criticizing any evidence of it. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where everybody is insisting they're not gay, "not that there's anything wrong with that."
Tiktaalik is NOT an example of a transitional form between fish and amphibians... not that we're arguing that there are no transitional forms or anything... because we believe in evolution, of course... we're just saying...
The human chromosomal fusion evidence is NOT evidence that humans evolved from apes... not that we're saying humans didn't evolve from apes or anything... I mean, we believe in evolution and all... just saying...
Posted by: Max Udargo | November 14, 2007 11:27 AM
So kim is still at it. Hey, why not also teach spontaneous generation. Throw a bunch of garbage in a corner and, voila! rats come to life. And in chemistry classes, students should try to turn lead into gold. Hey, they can learn the scientific process by learning disproved ideas.
Posted by: Janine | November 14, 2007 11:31 AM
Kim - why should the kids be exposed to the idiocy that is ID in science class? They barely have enough time to learn what they NEED to learn, much less hear about the junk science. The teachers don't need to battle with the IDiot kids who will say, "well, we talked about it in class today, so it must be true". Don't waste class time with false ideas. If schools want to set up a Philosophy of the Sciences class, or a History of Science, fine, but keep the junk out of the Science classes (I mean Biology, etc).
I've seen what my kids have to learn in school. They don't need to be exposed to the bad science in order to learn the good. (Although we DID discuss ID at home and laugh about it).
Posted by: Dawn | November 14, 2007 11:35 AM
Was the transitional fossil between creationism and ID, the cdesign proponentsists found in Of Pandas and People, featured?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 14, 2007 11:35 AM
"Vjack; he's (we'll assume it's a "he") a person who writes for a blog called Atheist Revolution. "As an atheist living in rural Mississippi, concerns about my personal safety and the impact on my career prevent me from using my real name on my blog or during interviews," he said. "I teach at the university level, and I would not want my personal beliefs about religion to become an obstacle to the education of the largely Southern Baptist students with whom I work.""
From http://bloggasm.com/the-dawkins-effect-how-the-god-delusion-mainstreamed-atheism
"Intelligent Design is not science, and Intelligent Design is a religious idea. That's the message, and that's the decision of a major court case, and that's what the scientists have been saying for years. And now, in the desperate gasp of the creationists, they've failed to even touch these conclusions." - P Z Meyers.
"I was expecially impressed by the person following the trial, who, after hearing the expert testimony of the biologists, asked "Why isn't this stuff in more books?" The next speaker explained how successful Creationists have been at keeping much information on scientific support for evolution out of textbooks. This is a front on the Creation wars that needs more attention." # 3 - Nicholas.
----------------------
There is a bridge that must be built here.
Educators must be able to teach knowledge (practical, predictive, scientific, useful information that has measurable application) without fear of repercussion from the mob-majority of un-scientists.
Posted by: Jefe | November 14, 2007 11:36 AM
My wife and I were al ready to watch it. 8:00 pm came up and we turned to the local PBS station. We see the NOVA log come up and we hug each other in anticipation.
Then they started to show some old episode about a family that walks on all fours.
WTF?
I've written my cable company to find out what was going on. There are certainly several religious stations at the top of the basic cable channel numbers. I hope that my cable company isn't a bunch of "Christards" as Penn Jillette like to call them. Could they be trying to protect me from these dangerous scientific ideas?
I'm looking forward to their response.
Posted by: GregB | November 14, 2007 11:37 AM
There are some good t-shirt designs floating around now, my own included: http://www.cafepress.com/redfishpottery. Well, I like it! Here are some others.
http://www.cafepress.com/mclir
https://60456.spreadshirt.com/us/US/Shop/
http://www.cafepress.com/idevolution
Designer (smirk) of the idevolution stuff will donate any profits to NCSE. Great idea! If I can figure out how to collect any potential profits, I will do the same with 1/2. The rest will go to my student loans. Cheers, ctenotrish.
Posted by: ctenotrish, FCD | November 14, 2007 11:37 AM
Behe should have appeared on the program to admit his part in Johnson's "wedge" strategy and then apologize for it. He can never hope that the damage he's inflicted on science education will be forgotten now, or that it will ever be seen as anything other than deliberate and malicious in intent. Evidently the Ninth Commandment (the one about bearing false witness) is something that need not be honored when it comes to biology and in my opinion Behe's tenure ought to be yanked given how he's abused his profession.
Posted by: David Wilford | November 14, 2007 11:40 AM
How about the cabbage patch theory of human reproduction? "In this class exercise, students will search under cabbage plants for babies. Extra credit will be given for anyone who actually finds one."
Of course, most urban schools will have to plant a few cabbage patches since most of the population lives in cities these days. The Intelligent Procreationers should be able to shake some money out from the federal faith based initiatives slush fund.
Posted by: raven | November 14, 2007 11:41 AM
Oh, Kim, better yet, they can set aside a few months to attempt to create homunculi, because students really need to spend as much time on stupid, useless shit as possible.
David, yes they did - see the live blogging thread for T-shirt options.
Posted by: J Myers | November 14, 2007 11:45 AM
#11- what the hell? You're kidding, right?
Regardless, the show will be online on the sixteenth, if you don't find PZ's spoilers too troublesome.
Posted by: Dan | November 14, 2007 11:47 AM
Our PBS station wimped out, too. Had it listed in the guide in the newspaper, but showed a program about dogs instead.
The PBS website says Judgement Day will be available to view on-line after November 16.
Posted by: Nan | November 14, 2007 11:49 AM
Ohai,
=========
kim!
=========
What else should
=======
we expose the young minds of
=======
budding scientists to in science class?
=============
Flying Teapot Theory?
======
the Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis of Pyramid Engineering?
==========
jeez.
=======
p.s.
==========================
isn't this equal-sign thing
===========
obnoxious?
===================
kthxbai
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 14, 2007 11:50 AM
My PBS station didn't even show the damn thing! All I got was yet another Andre Ruie (or something like that) concert.
*fumes*
Posted by: OH geez | November 14, 2007 11:54 AM
How long until PZ notices the Kim troll? She even identifies her Trolliness with that neat line of equal signs so you can spot it while quickly scrolling. Wonderful.
Posted by: Schmeer | November 14, 2007 11:55 AM
David @ #9, yes they did. I hadn't heard that during the trial proper, so it cracked me up.
Posted by: True Bob | November 14, 2007 11:55 AM
I'm glad you like my trademark, Schmeer. It is useful, especially when I want to review my argument.
==================================================
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 11:58 AM
kim: Ctrl-F.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 14, 2007 12:01 PM
Whenever I see anything about IDiocy, I can't help but htink of this cartoon
http://www.durangobill.com/CreationismPics/CreationismBothTheories.gif
Posted by: techskeptic | November 14, 2007 12:01 PM
So far, I can only read your trademark as "no content post".
Posted by: True Bob | November 14, 2007 12:01 PM
There was an argument?! Wow I must reread... nope can't find anything but trolling. I guess I should avoid speaking to you now. Please continue trolling in the dungeon after your banishment.
Posted by: Schmeer | November 14, 2007 12:02 PM
The fraud and ineptitude of the Discover Institute and Bebe was truly breath taking on Judgment Day. I was also left dumfounded by their reasoning; they seem to think if they can stop teaching Evolution in American public schools that this will somehow roll society back to the early Victorian era.
Posted by: Bob L | November 14, 2007 12:04 PM
#11: My local PBS station also carried the Nova episode on the hand-walkers, but it was followed by the full two-hour special program on the Kitzmiller trial.
Posted by: Zeno | November 14, 2007 12:04 PM
Whenever I see anything about IDiocy, I can't help but htink of this cartoon
http://www.durangobill.com/CreationismPics/CreationismBothTheories.gif
Posted by: techskeptic | November 14, 2007 12:05 PM
I'm inordinately proud of my contributions from around Comment 800 to around 1060 on the Stan Palmer thread. Scroll through my stuff there; you could learn a little.
==========================
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 12:07 PM
Here's hoping Kim finds a doctor that spent a few semesters learning about the humour theory of medicine instead of germ theory.
Actually, can we get her to go to that doctor?
Posted by: mojoandy | November 14, 2007 12:07 PM
Yes, Norman Thomas was quite insightful, mojoandy. Get it? Ha ha.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 12:09 PM
I agree with Kim. We should teach ID in school. Along with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Lamarckism, Geocentrism, etc. We can have an entire class devoted to:
"Things which are Wrong!"
Posted by: Robert Thille | November 14, 2007 12:11 PM
kim (comment #2 & #20), for an argument to be reviewed, it must first be viewed. I took a gander at the comment thread where you appeared the other day, and you made no arguments whatsoever. You barely even bothered to make unargued assertions. Mostly you just asked lame rhetorical questions.
Dangle all the bait you want, no one's biting here. Go away now. Adults are talking.
Note to self (and others): Resist any further troll-feeding.
Posted by: G Felis | November 14, 2007 12:13 PM
You're catching on, Robert. 'An Inconvenient Truth, Part Dupe' can be a highlight film in your class.
=========================
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 12:13 PM
In 15 minutes, G. Felis read and understood 250 comments on the Stan Palmer thread. Why am I skeptical of his claim?
===================
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 12:18 PM
Now I am trolling. I shouldn't be on here if I didn't watch the show.
================================
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 12:20 PM
My PBS station showed the family walking on all fours thing at 8, and then from 9-11, it showed "Judgement Day." So for all of you who gave up at 8:15, all I have to say is, "D'oh!". This was KVIE, by the way.
I thought this show was pretty darned awesome. Yes, #9, they showed "cdesign proponentsists", and it was very effective.
Behe DID make a mistake. Here's how I have it figured: Phillip Johnson had the guts to get on the show, why couldn't Behe? While I think Johnson is absolutely nuts when it comes to ID, I do admire the man's courage for agreeing to be on the show.
Here's how I've always felt about Behe: I think he is certain that ID is BS, because he's a smart guy. For some reason, he feels compelled to go on and on about ID, but he's smart enough to know that if you broaden the definition of science so it can include astrology, you've diluted science to the point of uselessness. He knows this.
Why he continues to peddle this garbage is beyond me, but he knows it's garbage, and he knows he's peddling it. To me, the guy who got to portray Behe came off being nowhere near snotty enough. I pictured Behe as being WAY over the top, so I'd say the actor portrayal was probably understated.
Frankly, I question Behe's mental state. There, I've said it, I think he has a diagnosable condition. Are you reading this, Behe? Your whole life is a cry for help. Please, do something for yourself.
I loved this show, and I plan to talk to my daughter's middle school science teacher so her class can view the program. I consider the program to be entirely without controversy. Even DI is having a hard time arguing with the documentary.
Posted by: MikeM | November 14, 2007 12:25 PM
A little metric. That's reading and understanding one comment every 4 seconds and the arguments within. No stopping to rest, either.
Buh, bye, fraud.
==============
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 12:26 PM
Mike, you wanta be very careful about suggesting discussion of ID in science class. Isn't there a separation of church and state around here?
=======================================
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 12:29 PM
Question: Is NOVA just a repackaged BBC Horizon documentary?
Posted by: Donalbain | November 14, 2007 12:29 PM
====================================
======================================
=============
========================
Posted by: also kim | November 14, 2007 12:34 PM
Kim might have a point, although perhaps not what she intended . . .
All secondary science classes should include a unit on the nature of science, or weave it throughout.
ID is a perfect example of non-science, and is useful for that purpose. Kinda like some people are born just to be bad examples . . .
Posted by: nunyer | November 14, 2007 12:34 PM
nunyer, that's exactly what I intended and exactly what I have said. Now look at the attacks on me because I'm not in your crowd.
Objectivity, Ho!
=======
Posted by: kim | November 14, 2007 12:36 PM
Actually, I think there is some merit to attacking Luskin's DI whine about the film. Their drivel should be refuted any and every time it is put up.
Posted by: Josh | November 14, 2007 12:37 PM
They were in denial in the documentary, do you think they would be any different after it was released? I still like that part were the Lawyer for ID said that the piling of books and articles about the evolution of the immune system was pure theatrics.
Posted by: Chris | November 14, 2007 12:39 PM
kim,
I'll just wait until the section on abnormal psychology comes up.
Posted by: MikeM | November 14, 2007 12:42 PM
I don't question Behe's mental state, I question his professional honesty. The presentation of the stack of books was of course good courtroom theater, but it clearly showed Behe's dishonesty regarding his repeated claims about the amount of scientific research that's been done with regard to the evolution of immune systems. As a professor of biology, Behe has an ethical obligation to honestly relate matters pertaining to his field, and not misrepresent them on the stand in a court of law.
Posted by: David Wilford | November 14, 2007 12:42 PM
Well, it WAS theater. My big gripe with the IDiots is that they instead of arguing science, they are trying to make a legal argument. The judicial function is part of government, not part of science.
Posted by: True Bob | November 14, 2007 12:43 PM
Hi kim, I just want to ask...what exactly are you trying to contribute to the thread?
Posted by: Shnakepup | November 14, 2007 12:54 PM
I am not sure I disagree so profoundly about Behe's suggestion that astrology is a science. In "The Mathematical Experience", Davis and Hersh refer to astrology as a "failed science." I think this is a good distinction. Astrology makes predictions. They don't hold water so out they go. Bye , bye astrology.
The same can be said of spontaneous generation and the medical theory of "humours". They just don't work.
There is lots of science that turned out to be wrong too and it is not taught. Remember N-Rays and polywater? How about ether theory?
We don't teach these things because they are a waste of time and there are better explanations for the phenomena.
The reason for not teaching ID in a science class is that not only is it a waste of time, it does not have a shred of scientific thought behind it. To quote Hans Bethe: It's not even good enough to be wrong!
--PatF in Madison
Posted by: --PatF | November 14, 2007 12:54 PM
I understand that it was a bit of theatrics but it also showed that Behe didn't do his research on his idea that evolution can't explain the immune system. The lawyer totally missed that point and thats what I was pointing out.
Posted by: Chris | November 14, 2007 12:57 PM
That show was devastating to ID. It was fantastic and I watched gleefully as the case unfolded. Great stuff. It's time to donate to PBS again!
Posted by: Matt | November 14, 2007 1:03 PM
Behe is one arrogant, lazy Creationist.
But I LOVED the actor who portrayed him. The glistening quiver-lip, almost in tears... pure gold!
Posted by: ERV | November 14, 2007 1:07 PM
I think a court case to insist that evolution be taught beside creationism in every Sunday School in the land might be fun, now that we know that the Discovery Institute merely wants all students to receive information on ALL theories.
We can keep ID in our religious studies section, and churches can provide evolution training in their ...nevermind.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 14, 2007 1:09 PM
I don't know that we have to waste energy disputing the DI's assertions when they've done a fine job of disputing their own. Compare items 1 and 4 of their response:
Item 1 - "Discovery Institute has long-opposed mandating ID in public schools...."
Item 4 - "Two Discovery Institute senior fellows--Michael Behe and Scott Minnich--did testify in the Dover Trial. Discovery Institute has long explained why some other Discovery Institute senior fellows chose not to testify: 'Meyer, Dembski and Campbell were all willing to testify as expert witnesses....'"
So 5 DI senior fellows were ready and willing to testify in support of mandating ID in public schools, which has been "long-opposed" by the DI - huh?
Posted by: Jud | November 14, 2007 1:09 PM
Be sure to head over to the NOVA web site and use their "leave a comment" feature to tell them what you thought of the show.
Posted by: mikado | November 14, 2007 1:10 PM
Donalbain: Question: Is NOVA just a repackaged BBC Horizon documentary?
There's alot of crosspolination between the two. Some episodes of Nova are just Horizon with an American Narrator. But it goes both ways. You really have to look at the production credits to find out exactly what's going on.
Posted by: Jim A. | November 14, 2007 1:11 PM
Damn I love my Firefox / Greasemonkey / Killfile combo. Ya listenin' kim?
Cheers,
Ray
Posted by: Ray | November 14, 2007 1:13 PM
I still like that part were the Lawyer for ID said that the piling of books and articles about the evolution of the immune system was pure theatrics.
I think that this attorney from the Thomas More Law Center also said that it (the piling of books and articles) was "one of the oldest tricks" in trial law. Yet it was extremely effective and made the point that it was attempting to make. And these jackasses from the TMLC didn't have the brains to adequately prepare their witness for such a tactic!
Posted by: Engr Tony | November 14, 2007 1:14 PM
Why is ID is the "perfect example," and not astrology, numerology, phrenology, homeopathy, alchemy, or Tarot card reading? Or even full-blown YEC?
ID isn't a wacky unscientific belief system, it's a marketing strategy for an wacky unscientific belief system. Teach it in an advertising class, or a political science class if you have to. Marketing strategies have no place in a science class.
Posted by: foldedpath | November 14, 2007 1:17 PM
The problem with calling astrology a science (as Behe did) is that astrology is nothing more than a series of ad hoc hypotheses that explain away any and all contradictions to it's claims. That is NOT what science is about, that's what pseudoscience is about. It's no surprise that Behe couldn't give an honest answer about astrology on the stand, as it would have undermined his claims about intelligent design being scientific.
Posted by: David Wilford | November 14, 2007 1:17 PM
Watching that show made me very happy to be a member of the ACLU and PBS.
Posted by: Dahan | November 14, 2007 1:18 PM
Judgment Day was a very interesting special. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The KC PBS affiliate, KCPTO, also had a one hour special after the Nova, called Evolution on the Frontlines (or something similar), which was a moderated discussion with calls from the viewers specifically about evolution and ID in the KS Standards, including a few science teachers. It was an interesting discussion to watch.
Posted by: Stephen | November 14, 2007 1:19 PM
To Comment #49:
It seems wrong to say that astrology was ever a science because it does not produce testable predictions. Astrologers produce vague statements that can fit most anyone and any time someone does not like what they here they can get another opinion on the exact same stellar alignment. I have read some of the ancient astrology books (i.e. Ptolemy's "Tetrabiblos") and have seen how the early astrologers agreed on just about nothing, much like modern ones!
Furthering the notion of the non-science nature of astrology is the fact that if it fails and it still utilized today it certainly cannot be scientific. Besides, it is based on a model of the universe which is simply wrong (geocentricism). Horoscope also look at the sky as it was 2000 years ago when it comes to sun signs. Obviously, the field cannot change, grow, or make hard and testable predictions. Hence, under the definitions of science and falsifiability a la Popper, astrology is not science. Hence, when Behe wants to make the definition of science able to incorporate astrology and ID it shows how terrible his ideas are. But, I'm sure everyone here already agrees with that.
Posted by: Gilgamesh | November 14, 2007 1:22 PM
Kim's right.
Further, since we're all interested in exposing kids to the truth here, I propose that religious services should teach the controversy too. Insist that your local priest, rabbi, minister, reverend, imam, guru spend at least one sermon delineating the Buddha's Eightfold Path, a few studying the Hindu Vedas, a few for the Zoroastrian Avesta, a few for the Q'uran and one for the Hadith, one or two for the Five Classics of Confucius, and a few for some of the various oral traditions of the Aztecs, Incans, Mayans, and other belief systems various and sundry.
Unless of course, Kim's being a typical IDiot: dishonest, disingenuous, and generally dispicable.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 14, 2007 1:24 PM
I got a good Shadenfreude laugh at the wonderful typo in Of Pandas and People. The missing link if you will between bold faced Creationism and the weaselly (no offense to weasels) ID.
"cdesign proponentsists"
What more proof does anyone need.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | November 14, 2007 1:27 PM
Just found this little tidbit posed on YouTube by the Discovery Institute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVXzXCAL0ec&rel=1
Posted by: Amy | November 14, 2007 1:33 PM
@#65
They've disabled comments; can we all flag this as spam? I didn't see a "bunch of bullshit" category under the flags section, so spam was the next logical one.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | November 14, 2007 1:35 PM
Gosh, but Steve Fuller is a slimy creep.
The best part about watching the special was pointing at all the creotards and saying to my wife, "I caught that asshole lying, personally called him on it online, and he refused to admit or apologize."
Then watching the lying asshole make a further lying asshole out of himself on national TV.
Too much fun.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 14, 2007 1:37 PM
Kim has this much of a point: how concepts of the world are (or can be) falsified is an important part of science; how such concepts have been falsified is an important part of the history of science; how such concepts sometimes continue to be believed and asserted in the face of contrary evidence is a salutary warning against pseudoscience and in favor of a healthy skepticism.
I remember a science class covering the phlogiston theory and why it failed, a relatively quick topic and not one still disputed by many people. The history of the Ptolmaic vs Copernican theories took longer to cover because of the religious/political struggles involved at the time. The topic of Creation vs Evolution would be worthwhile to cover, but would take even longer because it shades into current political events -- and the students' parents might still fall into opposing camps. Saving time and avoiding a heated conflict between parents and the school seem to be pragmatic reasons to have high school classes cover earlier failed theories instead. When the kids go off to college is the traditional best time to radicalize them from their parents' beliefs.
("Traditional radicalization" is my oxymoron for the week.)
Somewhat related: the BBC links its own new article with the question: "Is science itself biased against the climate sceptics?" (As we've heard in other contexts, "the facts have a liberal bias.")
Posted by: Pyre | November 14, 2007 1:38 PM
Kim says:
"And budding scientists need to know this. So expose their minds to the fallacy of ID, in science class."
What?!?!?
Why waste time pointing out what 'isn't' science? Should Astrology, Phrenology, Alchemy, and Numerology be taught in science class as well then? Your suggestion is absurd and smacks of a way to try to get creationism taught in science class through a back-door channel. What a tremendous waste of a teacher's precious time.
Posted by: Jesse | November 14, 2007 1:39 PM
An excellent program, and one I hope many more people see. I've encountered more than a few people who think that ID is simply theistic evolution (probably because they've had "evolution = atheism" hammered into them), and this would be a terrific antidote to that.
The IDers really made a tactical error in refusing to be interviewed. It meant that on all the science questions, the IDers were limited to what appeared in the transcripts, while the actual scientists were asked follow-up questions in their interviews and thereby got "the last word."
As a result, the only post-trial content from the creationist side was from their school board members, who made creationists look dishonest and nasty as well as ignorant, and the attorneys, who to their credit were professional enough to refrain from cheap shots at Judge Jones.
Posted by: jdb | November 14, 2007 1:41 PM
Another truly hilarious part was the clip of that Discovery Institute video showing the "intelligent design scientists" looking through microscopes and walking down halls with white jackets.
What were they doing? "Ah, there it is! A fin! That looks designed for swimming to me. Eureka! I must publish this data at once! At once, I say!!!!!!"
Rotten lying losers and sick psychos, every last one of them.
The biggest disappointment was that I didn't get to see Phil Johnson cry. He once thought he could turn America into a bunch of fundamentalist dickheads before he croaked but, sadly, that won't be happening. Boo hoo hoo hooo!!!!!
If there's a hell, that fucker will be rotting in it.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 14, 2007 1:43 PM
I see at least one of the dumber and more pointless trolls are here... Like arguing with a septic pillow...
Posted by: Moses | November 14, 2007 1:43 PM
"As a result, the only post-trial content from the creationist side was from their school board members, who made creationists look dishonest and nasty as well as ignorant"
Buckingham is actually perfectly representative of how all these fucking assholes behave when they aren't being watched.
I give credit to Buckingham for at least being straightforward and unashamed of his hate and his agenda.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | November 14, 2007 1:46 PM
I didn't catch all of it (my roomie got bored and switched to Food Network, hehe), so I'll definitely watch it when it's up online. I did get a chance to practice my ID-rebuttal arguments, though. That was fun.
I liked how the show actually did give "equal time" to explanations of evolutionary theory and ID. I don't think the DI can claim PBS was showing bias.
I cheered when the ACLU was mentioned. I'm a nerd.
Posted by: tyro | November 14, 2007 1:48 PM
Myers, if you could have rebutted, you would have. The disagreements between you and "them" are entirely dogmatic. The "journal-stacking" scene in last night's NOVA polemic was telling: if Behe could be proven wrong, the journals would have been irrelevant when a sentence or two could have discredited him forever.
This is akin to a kid on a playground, badly losing a confrontation, but repeatedly yelling "THAT DIDN'T HURT!"
Posted by: wnelson | November 14, 2007 1:52 PM
The Discovery Institute shold be renamed the Disinformation Institute or the Dishonest Insitute.
They are nothing more than a self-promoting band of professional liars.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 14, 2007 1:55 PM
Thinking of the ACLU, the unmistakable glee of that ACLU attorney who (in my humble opinion) knew even before the case started that they were going to blow the other side out of the water was a beautiful thing. Sniff... I'm tearing up now just thinking about it.
Anyway, so much for the legal strategy of the creationists bearing anything other than bitter fruit. There isn't a school board in this country who will now risk a million dollar settlement against them just to appease some Christian fundamentalists.
Posted by: David Wilford | November 14, 2007 1:59 PM
"Mr Rothschild, would you like your books back? They're heavy."
Posted by: Phy | November 14, 2007 1:59 PM
PZ, they have to miss the point. If they addressed it, they'd have to admit that they were wrong. And that they were religiously motivated by peculiar interpretations of one particular brand of scriptures. And, of course, that they were playing the false dichotomy card.
Posted by: Monado | November 14, 2007 1:59 PM
HAHAHAHA.
They let Behe set his own trap bytstating over and over that the evolution of the immune system hasn't been studied or explained in detail.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 14, 2007 2:00 PM
@wnelson
On the road again...can't wait til you get back on the road again...
Posted by: Richard Wolford | November 14, 2007 2:01 PM
Guys, the judge stated that there Intelligent Design, being demonstrably baseless and religiously motivated, could not be taught at face value as science. He added that it could be discussed in other courses, e.g. history, philosophy, religion, logic, critical thinking. It simply has to be labelled for what it is: a rhetorical position based on emotion and unsupported by facts.
Posted by: Monado | November 14, 2007 2:04 PM
You didn't even watch, did you cretin? Or if you did, you're just too stupid to understand words. You don't "prove" things in science, as the actual scientists (not your slobs) pointed out, plus even mathematical proofs aren't very often possible in a "sentence or two". Gee, why do you think journals exist, just for you and Behe to claim that they're irrelevant to science?
They're only irrelevant to you. If you or Behe cared about science you'd deal with the research written up in the journals. That's what the "lawyer's trick" did, it dramatized the level of vapidity, stupidity, and inability manifested by you idiots and your little rhetorical tricks.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 14, 2007 2:04 PM
You know, on this part about "teaching bad science" in school, when I was in high school in the 1970s, the teacher DID teach about bad science. He taught about spontaneous generation, among other things.
I don't see a thing wrong with showing what good science is, and then contrasting it with what we know to be bad science, so students get the point.
So, fine, show why Pasteur and Lister were correct, and the dolts around them were wrong, and show why Copernicus was right, and the politically motivated and religious folks around him were wrong, and then fire off a few more examples of bad science.
I'm against a bad science class, though. Students just don't have enough time to cover the good science, so why spend time on the bad? I don't know, maybe have an elective class on the history of bad science. ID hasn't had enough success to throw it in with the good science class (that all students should take), so I'm against it being there. On the other hand, spontaneous generation is thrown in with the good science class to show it as an example of bad science.
I guess I'm in agreement with PZ here. I won't ask my daughter's science teacher to show the movie, although I won't object if she does. However, as a part of the core language arts/social science 2 hour class, I think "Judgment Day" is fair game.
Maybe instead of including ID in biology class, there needs to be a class that covers nothing but the scientific method, and then show some failures there...? Doesn't ID have many good examples of bad science that could be shown in a "Scientific Methods" class?
Posted by: MikeM | November 14, 2007 2:04 PM
I wonder ... what is the percent of atheists in the ID movement?
That will tell you whether or not it is religiously motivated/driven.