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.
- Log in to post comments
Frist?
And budding scientists need to know this. So expose their minds to the fallacy of ID, in science class.
=====================
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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).
Was the transitional fossil between creationism and ID, the cdesign proponentsists found in Of Pandas and People, featured?
"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-mainstreame…
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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
My PBS station didn't even show the damn thing! All I got was yet another Andre Ruie (or something like that) concert.
*fumes*
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.
David @ #9, yes they did. I hadn't heard that during the trial proper, so it cracked me up.
I'm glad you like my trademark, Schmeer. It is useful, especially when I want to review my argument.
==================================================
kim: Ctrl-F.
Whenever I see anything about IDiocy, I can't help but htink of this cartoon
http://www.durangobill.com/CreationismPics/CreationismBothTheories.gif
So far, I can only read your trademark as "no content post".
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.
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.
#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.
Whenever I see anything about IDiocy, I can't help but htink of this cartoon
http://www.durangobill.com/CreationismPics/CreationismBothTheories.gif
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.
==========================
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?
Yes, Norman Thomas was quite insightful, mojoandy. Get it? Ha ha.
==========================================
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!"
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.
You're catching on, Robert. 'An Inconvenient Truth, Part Dupe' can be a highlight film in your class.
=========================
In 15 minutes, G. Felis read and understood 250 comments on the Stan Palmer thread. Why am I skeptical of his claim?
===================
Now I am trolling. I shouldn't be on here if I didn't watch the show.
================================
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.
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.
==============
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?
=======================================
Question: Is NOVA just a repackaged BBC Horizon documentary?
====================================
======================================
=============
========================
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 . . .
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!
=======
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.
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.
kim,
I'll just wait until the section on abnormal psychology comes up.
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.
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.
Hi kim, I just want to ask...what exactly are you trying to contribute to the thread?
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
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.
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!
EXACTLY. Jesus Christ, if he Googled HIV-1 he would have seen his Vpu mistake.
Behe is one arrogant, lazy Creationist.
But I LOVED the actor who portrayed him. The glistening quiver-lip, almost in tears... pure gold!
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.
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?
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.
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.
Damn I love my Firefox / Greasemonkey / Killfile combo. Ya listenin' kim?
Cheers,
Ray
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!
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.
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.
Watching that show made me very happy to be a member of the ACLU and PBS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just found this little tidbit posed on YouTube by the Discovery Institute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVXzXCAL0ec&rel=1
@#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.
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.
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.")
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.
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.
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.
I see at least one of the dumber and more pointless trolls are here... Like arguing with a septic pillow...
"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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
"Mr Rothschild, would you like your books back? They're heavy."
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.
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.
@wnelson
On the road again...can't wait til you get back on the road again...
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.
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
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?
I wonder ... what is the percent of atheists in the ID movement?
That will tell you whether or not it is religiously motivated/driven.
Can they provide these numbers?
The piling up of books may have been theatrical, but it wasn't just theatre. It was a graphic demonstration of how Behe cherishes his ignorance and preserves it by not making himself familiar with the peer-reviewed science that is directly germane to his arguments about whether something is probable or not, is possible or not, and occurs or not. He should stick to biochemistry, which I gather is his actual field of expertise. Evolution certainly isn't, as he demonstrates almost complete ignorance every time he makes an argument. And I'm talking about things that would lose me marks in a high-school science essay, from "there is no one-step blood clotting" to "viruses have DNA."
WNelson has given us an apt description of Uncommon Descent, in a nutshell! Thanks, WNelson.
I don't really get the piling-on Kim here. He (she?) suggests using ID as a prime example of pseudo-science. The only thing wrong with that idea is, I think, something that's already been mentioned here: there's not a lot of spare time in science class to devote to pseudo-science. We don't see many serious suggestions to use Astrology for the same purpose in Physics or Astronomy classes, and Astrology enjoys far greater popularity amongst the general public than does ID - but it is true that there aren't many well-funded faith-based organizations lobbying to have Astrology taught in public school science classes.
The hope is that the rigors of learning science concepts, methods, and philosophies will provide the tools necessary for the student to determine for his or her self that these *koff* disciplines are indeed pseudo-sciences.
That said, I'd ask Kim to take note of the fact that his/her approach does indeed mimic the approach often taken by back-door IDers of the "teach the controversy" variety. That, plus a little (ok, a lot) of AGW-denying elsewhere, is a recipe for... well, this!
wnelson said:
about the anti-ID side!
Oh, the irony. BWAHAHAHAHAHA...ow, I hurt something...Heh, heh.
Kim. Unlike a lot of other people here, I have been paying some attention to the point you are stumbling towards. Here is a clue though: ***adults*** describe in as precise terms as possible what they are talking about, then discuss how to do it. You have been playing one side of a fracking twenty questions game. So, tell us, is it animal, vegetable or mineral? Bigger or smaller than a bread box? WTF are you actually proposing, and why the heck do you think that proposed solution makes sense, instead of just wasting time?
That said, I have thought for some time now that we **badly** need a basic logic course. I am sure we could find some way to mix parts of other types of classes into it, including say English classes, so that it doesn't unduly detract from the existing requirements, while still teaching people how to carefully consider the validity of something, and more to the point, how **not** to do so. Whether or not ID itself needs to be one of the subjects is questionable, though a curricula that emphasized not just teaching such logic, but then repeating it with examples throughout all the other courses *might* be called for too. You know, bring up the common mistakes made in language, for language classes, the most common errors from history, for history class, etc. Drive home the point that its not about how many people believe something, its about if they can prove that what they believe is based on *facts* instead of anecdotes, personal *feelings* or second/third hand claims, which the evidence doesn't support. In that respect, assuming I haven't completely missed what Kim is aimlessly trying to get at, I would agree. Right now we try to cram facts into people's head, their church, family and culture try to cram other facts into their heads and the vast majority never learn to distinguish between the stuff that *actually* makes sense and the stuff that *seems* to make sense, based on their own environment (which could be living in the middle of fracking la la land). The only positive thing is, now, its a whole lot harder to lock the kids in the la la land closet and prevent them from "ever" seeing anything else. But that doesn't mean the rational people are doing their jobs right, or any better, just that its harder for the delusional people to shield their kids from alternative view points.
@wnelson
It would be misleading to suggest that there is only "a sentence or two" out there that completely discredits him. To make a statement such as he did, that there is no scientific explanation in the literature without even bothering to read the relevant literature (not just some, but NONE of it) goes to not only his lack of credibility but to his lack of ability as a scientist. He is simply a bad scientist. The actions of the lawyer served Judge Jones in allowing him to get a feel for the sheer weight (pardon the pun) of the published information on the subject that Behe simply couldn't be bothered to read. If Behe had ever tried to publish such a ridiculous false statement in a peer reviewed journal the submission would be thrown back at him so hard at him that he would have required plastic surgery to fix the damage. This is exactly why he publishes such tripe where he does. He and his cronies at the DI are simply dishonest brokers. Oh, hell. They're liars.
wow...
GWW's got a wife?
Richard Wolford (#81) - on the road again?
Priceless!
I thoroughly enjoyed Judgment Day; I think the presentation was as balanced as one could expect given that neither Behe nor any other DI folks would agree to appear (excluding Johnson, I guess).
In the thread there is much being said about "bad science" and then references to historical ideas like phlogisten, ether, Ptolemaic solar system, etc. I would refrain from calling these "bad" science; rather, they are simply scientific ideas that have been discarded in light of evidence.
As for ID, astrology, etc., I wouldn't call these "bad science" either. I'd simply say they are not science as they entail explanations that are untestable; i.e. they belong in the "not even wrong" category.
@Bruce Almighty (#92)
Thanks. It was either that or calling him an onion with legs, but I figure the reference would get lost, sadly.
Kagehi: Great idea, if difficult to implement (curricularize?) across subjects like that. I like it, though. A Distributed Critical Thinking program. :-)
From Luskin's Article:
Isn't that like saying, "I didn't have an affair with that woman. I've never even seen her before. Besides, she was the one that seduced me."
ACLU, PBS and AU! I've hit the trifecta!
Gingerbaker #53, that's a great idea. Can we teach the controversy in churches around the globe? Let's develop a pizza wedge document, and rebrand Darwinian evolution as DarGod's sacred wordution Ministries and see if they'll bite. Quick cut & paste through the text of the online Origin of Species to insert the words God and hallelujah every few pages and we're off. Then we get millions of dollars in donations to further our ministry. The only thing I think we'll have trouble pulling off in order to be convincing is the multiple wetsuit wearing, buttplug inserting, meth snorting, Lear jet flying, mano e mano hot oil massages that seem to be necessary to pass muster as a genuine christo minister.
You see this over and over again from the anti-evolution crowd. They're alway proclaiming that they're winning. "Evolution is on its last legs, and the deluded Darwinists don't even know it." Is it just delusion, or a ploy?
Since last night's broadcast, the creationists have been very busy on the PBS discussion board for NOVA: Judgment Day.
@#100
Yeah, I noticed. Anyone watch the video reply yet? I still think it should be marked as spam, particularly since they've disabled commenting.
Well, at least the DI got their wish for a PBS documentary on Intelligent Design and its implications.
shaggy maniac (#93) wrote:
Astrology does make predictions: the predictions either fail, or can be shown to be so general and vague that they could apply to many situations. When a failed scientific hypothesis is defended and buttressed by poorly done studies, elaborate networks of excuses demanding new theories, and incoherent theoretical explanations, it becomes pseudoscience.
Intelligent Design is in a interesting halfway point, I think. To the extent that it actually says anything that can be tested, it's wrong. To the extent that it's nothing more than a God-of-the-Gap "explanation" with no actual content, model, or mechanism, it's not even wrong.
But here's a cool thought experiment to do at home: how would you go about writing a science fiction story about intrepid space explorers who visit a mysterious planet and encounter a Magical Disembodied Mind-Force which creates new animals -- or changes old ones to make them "better?" If you can visualize this discovery, invent some sort of way this is noticed, tested, and confirmed, and imagine a vague kind of mechanism -- then I think you've got a hypothesis which could, in theory, be supported by evidence and examined through scientific methods. Basically, you're bringing in ESP and PK.
So I think the "labs" in the Discovery Institute should be working on demonstrating that minds have the power to move or create objects using nothing but willpower. They can take over the parapsychology thing from PEAR.
Hey, if they did this, they would be on to something interesting, surprising, and germane to the issue, wouldn't they?
Once the Designer is declared ineffable, Behe cannot be proven wrong anymore even in principle.
This is not a feature, young padawan. It is a bug. Ideas that are unfalsifiable in principle are completely worthless. If they are wrong, we cannot find out that they are wrong. They are therefore not science. And that was a major point in the trial.
Re #65 and DI's YouTube video:
I find it funny that they have disabled comments on that video's page. Cowards.
@103
I think the point is being missed; astrology making predictions does not make it science, false or otherwise. Predictions are made using models which are built based upon observations. No observations exist which would put forward a model for astrology. ID is the same way, there are no observations, hence it is not science. It should not be in a science class because it isn't science. At least phlogiston was based on observations, and it was replaced with caloric theory when experiments found that phlogiston theory was not likely correct.
You can't just come up with these theories and ideas, you have to base them on something. That is where ID fails; upon what is it based? The bible? Hardly a source of salient scientific knowledge.
"...the creationists have been very busy on the PBS discussion board for NOVA: Judgment Day."
I just went to the board at PBS and they are having a good old fashion conniption fit.
http://discussions.pbs.org/viewforum.pbs?f=231
A couple of thoughts:
1. The only nitpick I had was when I saw the courtroom re-enactments, the sides of the parties were reversed. Facing the judge, the Plaintiffs were on the right, with the Defendant's on the left. At least that's where they sat the day I was there. I found that incongruous. How could they have missed that, if they were trying to be realistic?
2. My favorite quote was from Judge Jones' when he said, referring to the effect that allowing ID into science class would have on the level of education in the country - "Garbage in, Garbage Out". I don't think it's possible to be more succinct.
3. The Discovery Incompetents actually started rattling their chains days before the film was aired, claiming, without seeing it, that it would be biased. I argued with some Christian asshat on his blog, and then blogged about it myself today. They refuse to participate in the trial, then they refuse to participate in the documentary, and then have the temerity to cry "Bias". I'm weeping for them, I am.
Kagehi @#89,
I could not agree more. I took intro to logic my first semester of undergrad and I thought it was fantastic. I learned so much. Teaching high school students how to spot fallacious arguments, I think, would benefit them not just in science but in every other aspect of their lives. I think it would be well worth the time.
About Kim and "Teach the fallacy". I think the question boils down to: would you show this Nova episode in science class?
I think the answer is a qualified "yes"... providing that you then followed up on the sciency bits and treated the court case and religion stuff as entertaining fluff.
I would show this NOVA in a high school civics class as part of a unit on the U.S. Constitution and the separation of church and state that the First Amendment embodies.
As for intelligent design, that could just be mentioned briefly as just a latter-day version of the old argument from design that Darwin's theory of evolution made irrelevant.
Yes, I would show it in a science class! Except that it's two hours long, and I tend to avoid just showing videos where we sit and watch. I'll probably cut out about 15 minutes of the more sciencey bits and use that next term, as supplemental material.
wow...
GWW's got a wife?
You bet.
And she's HOT.
Randy Olson's "A Flock of Dodos" double-billed with NOVA's "Judgment Day" would be great fun.
My fave part of the whole thing might be, and yep it is...the look on the actor who was Behe when the lawyer stacked up book upon book upon book in front of him all about the human immune system. Oh a classic "deer in the headlights" look.
Richard Wolford (#106) wrote:
I'm not sure this is right. As it stands, the model is simple (simplistic), but there does seem to be one (hypothesis: "the movements of the planets and stars in the sky have measurable effects on events, behavior, and personality on earth.") If specific claims in astrology actually were backed up by strong evidence -- and had regular patterns -- then I suspect more elaborate models explaining the demonstrated effects could and would be built, either physical (small effects of gravity) or non-physical (interconnections between phenomena at the level of meaning). Some models would be less useful than others.
Didn't happen that way, of course.
My goodness, Brent's comments on the PBS blogs are nearly unreadable.
Holy cow, I hope he doesn't find this website, or else this thread right here will end up with 1,211 comments, with half of them coming from Brent.
(I usually stop reading threads when they get around 300 comments long here. When they get past that point, it means one person is going against the world.)
I understand about the lack of time in science classes to cover real science, but don't underestimate the effect of religion in the Bible Belt. A girl in my son's pre-AP bio class actually believed that men have one less rib than women. A discussion of why ID is not science should be required, not optional.
I stayed on the "Hello, Stan Palmer!" thread till at least 825, and that point hadn't been reached yet. But now, with kim boasting what she (?) wrote way past 800, it probably has been... I haven't bothered looking.
Anyone listen to Behe being interviewed on the Point Of Inquiry podcast? It was fun listening to him squirm.
I guess P.Z. missed my post, which went up early this morning. Here's few choice cuts:
"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."
"If I'm a scientist who believes in Darwinism, I'm going to find "Judgment Day" very disturbing..."
Fortunately no one "believes in Darwinism" so that's a problem that'll never crop up.
Also, "objectivity" doesn't mean that your side must come out looking good. ID is objectively an intentional scheme to promote creationism, and religion in general, while pretending, not very convincingly, not to. As such, the PBS show was objective enough.
Teaching high school students how to spot fallacious arguments, I think, would benefit them not just in science but in every other aspect of their lives.
In A Brave New World Revisited, A. Huxley wrote that schools should teach propaganda analysis. Ever since I've read that, I thought it would be a good idea.
For all those that missed the show, you can watch the whole thing online starting Friday, here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
Yay!
(PZ should get that URL up into the post.)
Using ID as an example of what is wrong with pseudoscience might be a great idea--except that you'd end up with expensive lawsuits against such attacks upon religion (believe me, they'd be "converted" very quickly to ID's religiosity if it were treated like an unprotected pseudoscience).
Of course that in itself might make doing so worthwhile. I just suspect that no one is willing to bankroll the costs of what would likely be a successful 1st Amendment lawsuit against teaching that ID is nearly the epitome of pseudoscience and anti-science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
@Sastra #119
I agree with your point, but there is one issue: there were no observations made. In other words, I didn't observe specific behavior and then correlate this with any celestial body, or whatever the hell it is they do. Instead, they simply assumed that the heavenly bodies had some sort of effect, but had no empirical evidence as you've said.
Now if they did, then absolutely I agree, a model would have been formed and tested. But alas, there wasn't really any data to begin with, at least nothing worthy of a hypothesis.
One might perhaps say that astrology fit what we'd now call "ancient science," albeit a both falsifiable and falsified "ancient science".
What it has never been is "modern science," which does not begin with superstitions about the gods in the heavens, but with observable causes and observable effects.
And the trouble with Behe is that he seems not to know the difference between what would pass as "ancient science" and what is "modern science." Modern science doesn't allow you to pull a "Cause" out of the dark nether regions (pick a region, or organ) to make a "hypothesis" and then conjure up fake falsification tests which you know are impossible in practice.
I would say that an honest "intelligent design hypothesis" (something like Paley's, though you'd have to get past his own attempts to prevent testing) is falsifiable. But such a hypothesis isn't really scientific (in the modern sense) in the first place, because it really isn't based on observable data. It's "cause" was, as I noted before, pulled out of the nothingness, and even at its most honest it is only "ancient science". Still, I'd be happy to treat it like modern science, if they'd just hypothesize reasonable design criteria (especially rational (as opposed to evolved) solutions for the problems organisms must deal with).
As it is, today's ID isn't even as good an "ancient science" as astrology was, because although St. Augustine was able to come up with a reasonable test of astrology, the current crop of IDists simply will not tolerate testing their bunkum.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Judgment Day has caused me to 're-invest' in PBS. This is perhaps the best response to cretionist blogoxisms (-asms).
PZ and others have rightly pointed out not only that IDiots failed to meet the VERY low bar as to what constitutes a science and the teachers were required to overtop a VERY high bar as to showing intention to introduce religious beliefs into public schools but most importantly, that they were disingenuous in their actions and dishonest in their statements. These latter aspects will, I hope, resonate with an American public often deficient in science education.
Many have listed minor flaws with the presentation. My pet peeve: in discussing mutations using a butterfly example, the graphic had two flapping yellow, black striped swallowtail butterflies, Papilio glaucus, and the narration stated that a mutation occurred such that it more closely resembled a distateful species. It was an ambiguous graphic/ narration as the dark swallowtal portrayed was the protected species, Battus philenor and not the dark morph of P. glaucus resembling it as the graphic would lead one to believe. Better, save money on the motion graphic, use old fashioned 'static' photos of P. glaucus, its dark morph, the model species B. philenor, in short- illustrate the concept.
This is such a minor objection, but still rates higher than all the DI's criticisms combined in that it addresses facts instead of being obfuscatory rhetoric.
By Behe's definition my first "scientific theory" was: step on a crack, break your mother's back. However this show leaves me with one enduring question: who am I more in love with, Eugenie Scott or Barbara Forrest? (Sorry Ken Miller, I just don't swing that way.)
CalGeorge:
The Discovery Institute shold be renamed the Disinformation Institute or the Dishonest Institute.
They are nothing more than a self-promoting band of professional liars.
Amen, brother. Though I prefer the Dickless Institute myself. Did you check out their threat to have PBS's informational packet on 'Judgement Day' judged to be 'establishing religion?' As if they actually had the stones to go to court! I call their bluff here.
Guys, you've just GOT to go take a look at DI's Media Complaints Division (doesn't that sound like something from Harry Potter?). It's a bunch of finger-pointing and harping on minutiae. They're claiming they weren't in the crosswalk because they'd just stepped off the curb, while ignoring the fact that they're splattered all over the street.
Most of it is, in Judge Jones's immortal words, "breathtakingly inane." But "Wedge Document: So What?" is really offensive. Take a look.
Ctenotrish (#12), those are some funny designs. I am undecided between the cladistic diagram and the idevolution word-form. I also found a nice one that says simply, BS-IQ=ID from "End Self-inflicted Ignorance."
You need to take the period out of your first link to make it work.
I love this quote:
"Tiktaalik is not very impressive as a transitional form because it does not document the key aspect of the alleged fish-to-amphibian evolutionary transition: the transformation of fins into feet."
Now I'm no biologist, but I can wonder at nature with the best of them. So when I look at an animal that has worked out how to breathe in air instead of (or as well as) breathe in water, the first thing that springs to mind isn't how it could walk.
Oops. Thanks Monado! Here is my link corrected. The others work as far as I can tell!
http://www.cafepress.com/redfishpottery
Cheers, Ctenotrish.
Brian W.,
I listened to the Behe interview on Point of Inquiry. Very entertaining, particularly when he asserts that he did a great job in his Dover testimony (the proof? some undoubtedly unbiased people told him so). In my opinion the NOVA actor was too kind to Behe; he came across as a quiet, obviously confused, tweedy academic, when in reality he is the furthest thing from a sympathetic figure (I am a quiet, tweedy academic and am predisposed to sympathy for our kind).
Judgement Day was, IMO, excellently presented and completely unbiased. I had read all the written material available about the trial, but the program made it come alive for me - plus it was fun to see reenactments of the things I read, about which I had thought, "Ow, that must have hurt! Ha ha!"
I was disappointed that DI was called simply a "conservative thinktank" without reference to its stated goals. Perhaps it would have taken too much time from the program to present evidence of DI's actual agenda in order to prevent claims of slander (or is it libel if there's a written script?)
I found myself talking to the TV, which is rare, and had a good laugh when the TMLC head accused the ACLU of using lawyerly theatrical tricks as though they would not have used such tricks HAD THEY HAD ANY TO USE. They couldn't even come up with any TRICKS! I thought the piling of the books and articles did a great job refuting Behe's assertion that nobody had ever researched evolutionary explanations for the immune system. ACLU wasn't trying to prove an evolutionary explanation for the immune system; they were only showing Behe as the buffoon (and poor expert witness) he is.
I almost felt sorry for Buckingham (almost!)and wondered if he actually attended the trial. I truly don't understand how anyone who heard and saw what was presented in the trial could still cling to any belief that ID-as-science in public schools is NOT a violation of our constitution, even if they choose to believe it personally.
Comments to NOVA or PBS about the program are not being read. Apparently they are getting quite a hailstorm of comments and have been simply sending back a form: Due to the large numbers of comments, we are unable to [blah,blah,blah]. Maybe they'll assign someone to cull the comments and provide an overview of the responses later.
This program inspired me, after refusing to contribute for several years due to the 'appeal to the ignorant masses during fund-raising time with Deepak Chopra and Andrew Weil woo', to contribute to PBS once again. I hope they'll read my contribution page comment so they'll know WHY I did it.
DonaldBain (#41)
Belatedly: The Last Judgment production team was led by an in-house WGBH producer/co-director/writer: Joe McMaster. Joe has done a ton of work at NOVA for a long time, with his most famous credits prior to this one coming as the lead producer on The Elegant Universe -- the Brian Greene fronted 3 part special on string theory et sequelae, which, I believe, won a Peabody among other awards. (Disclosure: Joe, whom I admire, has worked with me on a couple of occasions).
This project was not a BBC production, and the connection between NOVA and Horizon, once very tight, has loosened considerably over the last decade and a half. Discovery now shows more BBC stuff than NOVA, I believe (though I haven't checked for a while.) The co-producing company on this project was Vulcan -- a Paul Allen company; Allen through Vulcan has been the major source of money for NOVA's big evolution/genetics programming over the last few years. Whatever you think of the state of the Seahawks, Allen's been doing good work here.
Lastly -- this was not a case of a thin facade over a British production effort. The team Joe put together is a collection of well known American film making types, including a cast of usual NOVA suspects in the camera department, to the NY based animation company and so on.
In other words, contrary to out dated rumor, there are a few on this side of the pond who actually do know how to put together a competent -- or in this case, better than -- science documentary.
Note to self: Don't PO PZ.
Don't want to see my ego ripped and bleeding.
Has anyone asked the DI: "How is the theory of intelligent design of any use to researchers attempting to predict the evolution of viruses such as avian influenza and AIDS?"
"Is ID more accurate than the theory of evolution in its predictions?"
How would they answer? Your best impression please...
Found another set of t-shirts etc on cafepress regarding the trial. Seems like people are having lots of fun with this one!
http://www.cafepress.com/athene17
Was the transitional fossil between creationism and ID, the cdesign proponentsists found in Of Pandas and People, featured?
Once the Designer is declared ineffable, Behe cannot be proven wrong anymore even in principle.
This is not a feature, young padawan. It is a bug. Ideas that are unfalsifiable in principle are completely worthless. If they are wrong, we cannot find out that they are wrong. They are therefore not science. And that was a major point in the trial.
I stayed on the "Hello, Stan Palmer!" thread till at least 825, and that point hadn't been reached yet. But now, with kim boasting what she (?) wrote way past 800, it probably has been... I haven't bothered looking.