Dover documentary

Like I said over on Afarensis, I can't wait to see the IDiots start their kvetching about the movie and the evil Darwinist conspiracy behind it. It will be quite entertaining.

"...a definition of science so loose that it includes astrology."

This gets right into the "can science say anything one way or another about God?" question.

If this phrase means "a definition of science so loose that it includes astrology as a legitimate and validated science," then absolutely, Behe really blew it here. Any "science" which puts all theories on the same level of probability and likelihood no matter what work has been done on them is not what experts consider science.

But if the phrase means that the ID definition of science would classify astrology as a falsified claim, a hypothesis which was testable and theoretically confirmable -- and which was therefore rejected because of disconfirming evidence, a failure to make successful predictions, inconsistency with other theories, and better explanations for what had once seemed like positive evidence -- then I'm not so sure PZ, Dawkins, Stenger, etc. would agree that this definition is laughable. If you take the concept of God and treat it as a science hypothesis, then it goes the way of astrology and psychic powers. If you hold on to them by assuming it's real but your own experiences are "special," it's pseudoscience.

Remember, the strong desire to keep God away from scientific analysis comes from reasonable moderate and liberal theists who recognize that the evidence has not gone towards confirming the existence of supernatural. They must re-categorize the concept as being instead like a value, feeling, taste, or personal philosophy -- unless God someday "decides" to reveal itself like a person in hiding.

I thought Behe was so proud of his testimony! Why should he now be reluctant to expound further on it in a documentary?

Maybe they didn't offer him enough?

Full text of Nature reivew - with annotation.

Michael Behe, inventor of the specious meme "irreducible complexity" and guiding light of the intelligent-design movement, refused to participate.

The Nova folks should have told him a different title, such as Why Intelligent Design is the Bestest Thing Ever!. I've been led to understand that this approach is standard practice when making documentaries about Intelligent Design.

Specious Meme would be good name for a band.

justawriter, I think Matt Nisbet has already cornered the band-name market with "New Atheist Noise Machine". (Find me some people who can compose and play music, and I'll do the lyrics.)

if the phrase means that the ID definition of science would classify astrology as a falsified claim, a hypothesis which was testable and theoretically confirmable -- and which was therefore rejected because of disconfirming evidence, a failure to make successful predictions, inconsistency with other theories, and better explanations for what had once seemed like positive evidence

Here is a link to Behe's actual testimony. It's very clear that he takes the "astrology is a former scientific theory that has since been discredited" route.

But that doesn't save him, because astrology was never a scientific theory -- it never offered a naturalistic account of the connection between the stars and human personality (and events). That's the point of the complaint, that ID also shares this feature of lack of naturalistic explanation. It is not science to say "X happens because fairies made it so", since this is essentially not disconfirmable -- one can easily make up stories about invisible, non-material fairies that happen to act exactly in the way that natural processes do. Once one allows supernatural entities into one's theories, all bets are off, as any observation can be accounted for.

To channel Caledonian, if it affects the natural world then it's naturalistic -- there's no such thing as supernatural entities, at least those that impact the natural world.

One can only snicker at the whining and sniveling that has already begun at the Discovery Institute. I'm sure the hucksters there will turn up the volume as the time for the airing of Nova's opus on Dover draws near.

Discovery Institute responds:

"The (Discovery) Institute has sent the PBS teaching guide (for the NOVA show) out to 16 attorneys and legal scholars for review and analysis of its constitutionality."

http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?162…

Sigh. ID is code for "I want my mommy" or "I can't handle the fact that there isn't oversight of [everything]."

Looking forward to the documentary; thank you for the heads-up.

Michael Behe, inventor of the specious meme "irreducible complexity" and guiding light of the intelligent-design movement, refused to participate.

Classic.

Tell us how you really feel.

Hopefully, Ben Stein will tune in and come to his senses. "These are my allies? Holy Cow, get me out of here!"

Help me Mr. Wizard! I don't want to be a denialist!

This movie (assuming it's good, which seems likely--after all, it shouldn't be hard to merely document their attempts to have "free speech" subsidized by the state) should be replayed around the time when Expelled comes out. It wouldn't even have to be formally linked to that sham, just mentioning Darwin's birthday anniversary should be enough.

Telling what they're really up to is the perfect answer to their follow-up fraud regarding the "freedom" of IDists to take over.

Glen D
http://tiny

marcia, #9: Oh, Lordy.

I love this quote from the article:

"The teaching guide is riddled with factual errors that misrepresent both the standard definition of intelligent design and the beliefs of those scientists and scholars who support the theory," adds West.

Okay, "standard definition of intelligent design." I am the only one here who hasn't even seen this yet?

The article then says the program is a "docudrama."

Um, no it's not. It's a documentary. A docudrama implies the show is part fact, part story. I haven't seen the show yet, but I bet it's pretty close to 100% fact.

Thanks for the link, marcia.

From the article:

But subpoenaed drafts of a textbook that promoted intelligent design reveal that the word 'creationists' was simply replaced with 'design proponents'. In one instance, this alteration was made so hastily it caused the misprint 'cdesign proponentsists', satirized by the prosecution as the transitional verbal fossil linking creationism to intelligent design.

ROTFL!!!

My day is saved. :-D

I guess the show will try to capture the different moods and feelings of the people in and around Dover, but I wish there was a good way to exhibit the many, many letters to the editors of the local papers.

I'm giving my 10-12 graders in my science classes a bit of extra credit for viewing it and giving me a write up. AND I NEVER give extra credit.

A quote from the article Marcia cited above:

"The NOVA/PBS teaching guide encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," says Dr. John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute.

I know I don't have to point out the irony to anyone here, but I'm left wondering if Dr. West sees it himself. What about the Discovery Institute fellows? Can they possibly fail to see how mind-jarringly WRONG this quote is? Frankly, I don't know which I'd rather believe of them. That they really don't see it (and are thus some kind of pithed automatons) or that they do see it (and are, well, utterly reprehensible lying scum).

No need to ask PZ on which side of the question he falls.

Honestly, I think they're either all or mostly actually that deluded. The sheer tenacity of obviously incorrect fanatics in the face of data is so consistent I suspect humans are just wired for it.

If you hold on to them by assuming it's real but your own experiences are "special," it's pseudoscience.

I like the analysis except this one point. Pseudoscience would be any movement that claims to be science while scientists agrees it is not. I don't think it matters if it is falsified (astrology) or unfalsifiable (design).

"standard definition of intelligent design."

PvM on The Panda's Thumb has a project where he consistently uses a definition, Well's and sometimes Dembski's I think, of "design is the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity" if memory serves. I.e. by modding out the stochastic and non-stochastic laws we can test, the remains are either the null set (naturalism) or supernaturalism (creationism).

So far creationists ignore him, so I guess they tacitly accept the definition. :-P

What about the Discovery Institute fellows? Can they possibly fail to see how mind-jarringly WRONG this quote is?

Well, what else are they going to spend their time and money on? It's not as though they have any scientific research to splash out on, so they might as well waste their time whining about double standards and biased documentaries.

If they want to waste thousands of dollars on lawyers in a fruitless attempt to force PBS to retract their materials, then more power to them, I say. Have at it! :)

If the Nova/PBS teaching guide merely points out that there are different interpretations of Christianity, and many of the most common have no problem accepting both evolution and the divine inspiration of the Bible, then no violation of establishment clause. If the Nova/PBS teaching guide states something like "those who understand Christianity best realize that there is no conflict between the Bible and the theory of evolution" -- or some variation of that -- then the DI could have a point. My guess is it's the first, so they're out.

Hi, speaking of Dover trial, have anyone heard something about the fictional movie. Last I've heard, it's on script writing. Any news about?

For people who can't get the program there will be a stream a day later as posted here

Bah, there gets a nofollow inserted when I try to put up a link. oh well then
scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/11/nova_judgment_day_intelligent.php

@ #5, wow dude, that was some funny shite! I can just picture Behe or Debmski with a childlike toothless grin saying "Golly gee willickers, intelligent design and creationism are super swell!" -lisp included!

the teacher's guide:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/pdf/3416_id.pdf

this may be what they're upset about (link within teacher's guide):
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html

Also, the guide links to here (very good videos):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/teachstuds/svideos.html

I look forward to reviews on this show by PZ and readers. I don't think I can watch it or else the neighbors might complain about the shrieking and thumping sounds of me hurling myself upon furniture and walls.
Of course, if Behe isn't on it, I might - might - be able to tune in.

I'm guessing that this show is going to be based a lot on the NSCE's view of the matter. If you ever get a chance to hear Euginie Scott's take on it, be sure to do so. It's a really nice story. She gives a very detailed account of the evolution of The Panda's Thumb, and shows the same figures that they used in court. She relates how the judge, nominally keeping his cards close to his chest, saw one of the figures and one of his eyebrows went up. They knew then they had scored a big one.

I asked Scott if she thought that was a bigger blow than the "wedge document" but she hedged her answer, just saying that both of them were devastating.

I suppose it's comforting that, despite the bad infestation of creationists in the US, there's still a film-making company over there which is willing to expose what the creationists are really like in a documentary. Will most of the actual broadcasters show the PBS material? Or are some local ones refuse to show it?

(I'm in the UK and trying to grasp how this works over there. Although it turns out that regions of the UK also don't get all the public BBC broadcasts!)

I lost a bit in the editing of that somehow (and as usual only noticed after pressing the button)! :-D

I think it should have ended up as "Or are some local ones likely to refuse to show it?"

I have never seen a local PBS station refuse a program, at least not explicitly. True, I'm in a "blue state", however I think that I would hear of, say Southern (convenient stereotype, but that is where it'd be more likely) PBS stations refusing to air a show if the matter became public, and I can't remember any doing so in the last 10 years or so (quietly not picking up programs, or shifting them to poor time slots, no doubt occurs).

So I really don't think that there will be much problem in getting the documentary shown. It's PBS's viewership that matters, for it is relatively small, and it tends not to consist in the sorts of people who need to learn to value science. Your average IDiot won't see it, then, while a few will pointedly view it with an eye to rubbishing it.

It will be of worth to educators and some policy makers who are often enough in PBS's audience. I would hope that the Kitzmiller costs will make local politicos take heed, since they might be sympathetic to local creos and IDsts, but not at all happy about paying the fees for being on the wrong side of a lawsuit. And if teachers learn more about dealing with creos and their current set of mendacious "arguments", so much the better.

What we'll not see, of course, are the commercial TV outlets running a program such as this one, and they are the ones who could make quite a difference. But just imagine a program dealing with legal matters and science, with a position that will potentially offend around half of the viewing audience (albeit not the richest section), and you can see why freedom speech, however necessary it is to democracy, ends up with a whole lot of things not being said to those who need it most.

The commercial TV channels run "balanced" programs on the issue, though not a lot of them, and if we would almost always judge the pro-science people as winning, the creos probably hear what they want to hear from their spokespersons, who are treated as equals to knowledgeable persons.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Speaking of offending viewing audiences (with the truth!), in this section of the Nova pages:

I think one of the reasons why evolution is such a contentious issue, quite frankly, is the same reason you can go into a bar and start a fight by saying something about somebody's mother.

that's a rather poor analogy.

In most cases the pub scenario involves someone saying something untruthful about the other person's mother which is specifically designed to offend. Whereas, in the case of evolution, it's the saying of something factual and truthful, that was discovered with the intent of being useful, which offends the fantasist types in the audience.

"I like the analysis except this one point. Pseudoscience would be any movement that claims to be science while scientists agrees it is not."

Do they all vote on it? :D

Pseudoscience is something claiming or having the appearance of being scientific, but not adhering to the requirements of the scientific method. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, and a rigorously self-critical seeking out of any possible biases or flaws that could lead to the scientist deceiving his or her self. It is this scientific integrity, this willingness to go to extreme lengths to prevent ones own biases and preconceptions (and all humans have them) from influencing the results, that most distinguishes science from pseudoscience.

Is everyone looking forward to the new Nova program, Judgment Day?

yes, got the popcorn already

Sastra wrote: If the Nova/PBS teaching guide merely points out that there are different interpretations of Christianity, and many of the most common have no problem accepting both evolution and the divine inspiration of the Bible, then no violation of establishment clause. If the Nova/PBS teaching guide states something like "those who understand Christianity best realize that there is no conflict between the Bible and the theory of evolution" -- or some variation of that -- then the DI could have a point. My guess is it's the first, so they're out."

It isn't even the first. There is utterly and absolutely nothing in the PBS teacher's guide about God or religion. It's all about science, with exercises for kids to do stuff like match gene sequences. The closest they get to anything religious is a few pointers to external ID materials.

The DI is relying on people assuming there must be something touching on religion in the guide, rather than reading it for themselves.

No particulars come to mind but I think I remember PBS shows that were not shown in some areas. I do know that the Ken Burns documentary The War was censored in some areas. The censors bleeped out all the swears in the series. I guess war is heck after all.

So what will mostly happen is that commercial TV channels won't show it and approximately no-one will be watching the PBS outlet anyway? The viewer exceptions being the sort of US people who post on PZ's blog (+vely and -vely).

Will most school boards have already noticed the Kitzmiller case when it happened? Does anyone really monitor the teachers to make sure they aren't teaching creationism anyway? Eg Kathy Martin must surely have been pretending to teach science for years (given that she's a non-scientist creationist who was nonetheless in charge of science at an elementary school).

"Does anyone really monitor the teachers to make sure they aren't teaching creationism anyway?"

Sadly, no. In fact, since there are no virtually questions on the Maryland state assessment about evolution and natural selection, we are encouraged not to "waste our time" with the topic at all.

At the end of a high school biology course, a student is expected to be able to describe protein synthesis, recite a more or less fictional version of genetics (genes are either dominant or recessive. If you have the dominant gene, you have the trait.) but not expected to know that a chicken is not a mammal.

Someone asked if the school boards are aware of the Dover decision. Well maybe, but they seem to be like the woman who steals another woman's husband and is then surprised when he cheats on her. They try the same damned thing and are shocked, shocked I say! that anyone would question that "goddidit" is not a scientifical theory.

Pseudoscience is something claiming or having the appearance of being scientific, but not adhering to the requirements of the scientific method.

Agreed, and this is a much better (and simpler) expression than the one I used which is open for misreading. IMO it is scientists as a community who agrees on what they do (i.e. what is science). I guess I happened to loosely describe the subject instead of cutting to the chase. Thanks!

Out in the mid west, my hight school biology class had 'co-teachers' when evolution was the topic-- and this was back in the '70's long before the oxymoronic terminology 'intelligent design.'

Torbjörn,

You're very welcome.

I understand just what you mean. I agree that scientists as a community agree on what science is. But it is important to get the cause and effect the right way round. They are a community of scientists because they agree on and follow the scientific method. It's not the scientific method because the community of scientists agree on it.

Scientists invented it of course, and can change and improve it, but I have dreadful difficulty with religious and political people who say that what is "science" is just a matter of our opinion over theirs. In the Dover case the creationists tried to redefine science, and ask what made our definition any more valid than theirs was? If science was just a matter of what scientists think, the answer would be 'nothing'. But the scientific method has to be as it is to work: it is the universe that decides that, not people.

For that reason, I much prefer to avoid any mention of scientists at all. (And especially the community of scientists, which brings to mind some sort of 'democracy' on what is true.) It avoids so much honest misunderstanding.

They are a community of scientists because they agree on and follow the scientific method.

Agreed. It is ultimately the success of the scientists and their work in competition with one another to find the best explanation (loosely describing an important part of "the method"), that makes it working science.

Again, I agree that scientists working in competition with one another is one very good way to apply the scientific method because it provides better checks against self-deception, but the critical defining property is that they follow the scientific method. Someone who works entirely on their own with no competition, with no success even, but who does so following the scientific method is still a scientist. A community working in competition and achieving great success could describe athletes or presidential candidates.

I'm really sorry to keep on nit-picking like this, but it's important to get it right. A lot of the lay public have the impression that "science" is the things scientists say. With that definition it becomes just like religion, with scientists as the high priests. I've had no end of arguments with people who just regard science as another worldview like paganism or Christianity or Scientology, because scientist keep on making the dreadful mistake of saying "Trust us, we're scientists".

No! No! No! You should believe science because when I say you do this and that and then the solution turns pink, you can go out for yourself, follow the instructions, and the solution really does turn pink. Every time. People can say whatever they want and dress it up how they like, but it's only what the stuff in the test tube does that matters. (That's a simplistic example for explanatory purposes, by the way - science is more about explanations than recipes.)

Trust is not scientific - it's a human thing that we are forced into as a necessary compromise to be able to make progress, and it's dangerous too. People can give or withhold their trust for any reason they like, but we invite them to trust us only because people can check our work and find us to be trustworthy. And even then, test tubes can still overturn it all.

If someone asks you why they should believe some scientific theory, it should be possible for you to either show them directly, or at the least, to hand them the end of the thread that (at least in principle) if they followed far enough would lead them to be able to work it out for themselves. At no point in the chain should there be any link that says "because scientists say so".

Most people will not bother to follow the chain for more than a link or two, and that's their choice of course. But the answer to their question is that they could if they wanted to, and that other people have. It's up to the scientists to make sure that's true.

GallileoWasADenier (whomever and wherever you are) #42, #44, is quite correct in arguing for the point that "[Scientists] are a community ... *because* they agree on and follow the scientific method. It's not the scientific method *because* the community of scientists agree on it." (Sorry, I don't know HTML tagging to preserve the italics in the original.) It is in crucial part that scientists comprise a community, across space and time, because a community consists in large measure through its shared and self-reinforced and -policed mores, values, and beliefs that constitute the human substrate of the scientific method. I refer, of course, to a commitment to naturalism, and fidelity to the test tube, among other features of the method.

Maggie Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, once infamously asserted that there is no such thing as society, only individuals. She didn't even mention populations. But were there only individuals and populations, there would be no such thing as ownership, only possession, for just one example of social mores generally. I surmise that one reason why she was so collosally wrong is that, despite her degree in chemistry, she is not a member of the scientific community, because she made her name and fortune in devising a way for ice cream manufacturers to plump up their product with air instead of actual ingredients. She thus enabled the companies to sell sizzle instead of steak, effectively lying to the public in order to increase corporate profits. As a lier, she disqualified herslf from being considered a scientist. She is merely a technician.

I indemnify PZ Myers, UMM, Pharyngula, and the owner of its host server, from liability should the bitch try to sue anyone for my callimg her a lier, an immoral, stupid, willfuly ignorant bully, and a malodorous bag of wind; I daresay she is hardly a person, merely an individual.

Doug Rozell, M.A. (Sociology), M.L.I.S.
Beachville, Canada

but the critical defining property is that they follow the scientific method.

I'm not sure whether you argue with something in my comment, as this is what it describes.

If you argue that one (assuredly non-competitive) scientist in a world of non-scientists would make a science, I think for practical reasons not. But whether this is a reasonable stress test of a description or not (and IMO not), it was "loose".

On the remaining part of your comment, I think one can discuss the practical value of consensus et cetera, it is not without uncertainty. It is all well and good, especially in this case, to refer to ideal procedures. But in practice we do it differently, even scientists who reads papers by noting if the author is well known et cetera to save time and effort. We can't be dogmatic about how real life works out.

But that is neither here nor there.

Trust is not scientific

This is OT on the comments topic, but in the right context it is. Science lends trust in its methods and theories, not the often used "faith" or "belief". It is one of my pet peeves when people says the later.

From the article:

But subpoenaed drafts of a textbook that promoted intelligent design reveal that the word 'creationists' was simply replaced with 'design proponents'. In one instance, this alteration was made so hastily it caused the misprint 'cdesign proponentsists', satirized by the prosecution as the transitional verbal fossil linking creationism to intelligent design.

ROTFL!!!

My day is saved. :-D

If you hold on to them by assuming it's real but your own experiences are "special," it's pseudoscience.

I like the analysis except this one point. Pseudoscience would be any movement that claims to be science while scientists agrees it is not. I don't think it matters if it is falsified (astrology) or unfalsifiable (design).

"standard definition of intelligent design."

PvM on The Panda's Thumb has a project where he consistently uses a definition, Well's and sometimes Dembski's I think, of "design is the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity" if memory serves. I.e. by modding out the stochastic and non-stochastic laws we can test, the remains are either the null set (naturalism) or supernaturalism (creationism).

So far creationists ignore him, so I guess they tacitly accept the definition. :-P

Pseudoscience is something claiming or having the appearance of being scientific, but not adhering to the requirements of the scientific method.

Agreed, and this is a much better (and simpler) expression than the one I used which is open for misreading. IMO it is scientists as a community who agrees on what they do (i.e. what is science). I guess I happened to loosely describe the subject instead of cutting to the chase. Thanks!

They are a community of scientists because they agree on and follow the scientific method.

Agreed. It is ultimately the success of the scientists and their work in competition with one another to find the best explanation (loosely describing an important part of "the method"), that makes it working science.

but the critical defining property is that they follow the scientific method.

I'm not sure whether you argue with something in my comment, as this is what it describes.

If you argue that one (assuredly non-competitive) scientist in a world of non-scientists would make a science, I think for practical reasons not. But whether this is a reasonable stress test of a description or not (and IMO not), it was "loose".

On the remaining part of your comment, I think one can discuss the practical value of consensus et cetera, it is not without uncertainty. It is all well and good, especially in this case, to refer to ideal procedures. But in practice we do it differently, even scientists who reads papers by noting if the author is well known et cetera to save time and effort. We can't be dogmatic about how real life works out.

But that is neither here nor there.

Trust is not scientific

This is OT on the comments topic, but in the right context it is. Science lends trust in its methods and theories, not the often used "faith" or "belief". It is one of my pet peeves when people says the later.