Just want to note that I enjoyed the PBS NOVA special "Judgment Day" which fairly depicted (imho) the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and the machinations the intelligent design supporters.
A student of mine emailed me to let me know that his wife was impressed about his ability to predict what was going to happen next (I guess regarding the evidence presented by the plaintiffs) in the documentary. I had lectured on the history of ID last week, so that made me happy. At least one of the 85 students is remembering the material!
Overall, the program only strengthened the image of the ID movement as an abject (albeit noisy) failure. As Larry Arnhart notes, neither the Discovery Institute nor Behe did their cause any favors by not participating. Steve Fuller was an embarrassment to those of us who take history and philosophy of science seriously, with his claim that the genetic factors behind heredity, before the discovery of genes and DNA, were regarded as "supernatural". Bill Buckingham - a man who lied under oath - came off as an jackass with his attack on Judge Jones. The "breathtaking inanity" of the "cdesign proponentsists" lives on, no doubt in the whining of the DI over the next few weeks about the program.
PZ and Greg Laden have more.
I’m on the road for a few days so posting will be non-existant until Friday at best. Enjoy the quiet time.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Tell me this isn't true - even Fuller can't be that dumb. His moule interieur must be broken.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | November 14, 2007 2:19 AM
It is true John. Fuller was quite clear in this, that scientists used 'supernatural' notions here before we understood DNA and how it works. I said "Bullshit!" out loud at that one, and my wife chastised me. Then he complained that we shouldn't abandon supernatural causation as look how we used it so well in the past. He provided no specifics of course.
One has to wonder that if these genetic factors were seen as supernatural, then how did the DNA research ever get done in the first place?
Posted by: Dave S. | November 14, 2007 9:34 AM
I, too, was aghast at Fuller's remark about the "supernatural" quality of hypothesized hereditary factors. I can only assume that he meant something akin to what early critics of Newton meant when they observed that his postulated gravitational force was an "occult power." But what was meant by 'occult power' is some distance away from what is meant by 'purposeful agent,' as Fuller well knows.
Posted by: bob koepp | November 14, 2007 10:03 AM
Even if Fuller was historically correct, (I am not saying he is), my response was "so what?" Anyone with a supernatural explanation for heredity was clearly proven wrong, and had simply been wasting time. He inadvertantly gave a good example for NOT assuming supernatural explanations.
Posted by: maxwell | November 14, 2007 2:23 PM
I didn't see the episode yet (should be on the DVR), but one complaint I heard from my labmates today is that they depicted some scientists finding a (transitional) fossil at the last minute before the trial as some super tense moment. As if it somehow held the key to prove evolution once and for all.
Posted by: OneRandomScientist | November 14, 2007 2:59 PM
None of the interviewed creationists showed that they had learned anything about evolution, science, or logic in the time since the trial.
Posted by: mark | November 14, 2007 3:00 PM
OneRandomScientist -
I don't think it was quite that bad. However, it would have been nice had they made it plainer that the evidence for evolution didn't just consist of what was shown, and was already overwhealming long before Tiktaalik was dug up. It wasn't like evolution got evidentiary support just in time for the trial.
Posted by: Dave S. | November 14, 2007 5:24 PM
But Tiktaalik was a very timely icing on the cake!
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
| November 23, 2007 11:14 PM