He's a little late, but Afarensis finally saw Judgement Day. Verdict: he likes it! I knew he would. He also points out the key factor that demolished the creationist case:
This, in a nutshell, is why ID lost at Dover. The contrast between the experiments embodied in that stack of papers and books vs the lack of any interest in performing experimental checks on their own ideas on the part of ID advocates spelled their doom.
I think there were several factors that played a role: the obvious dishonesty of Bonsell and Buckingham, and the analysis that showed Of Pandas and People to be a descendant text of creationist literature were pretty darned important. But yes, the Discovery Institute's clear avoidance of actually doing any science was damning.
This failing will be repaired in time for the next trial by the recent hiring of eminent scientist Michael Medved.
- Log in to post comments
My impression of Buckingham's reactionary sullenness in the film was that he had some sort of psychological handicap to accepting what was, to him, a new idea. I imagine him feeling betrayed that what he'd always been told was true, wasn't. Silly for a guy like that to want to be on a school board, but he struck me as someone in over his depth, and I felt a bit forgiving.
Bonsell just seemed greasy. Like he knew exactly what he was doing, but just didn't give a damn, and would do or say anything to make it work, or to defend himself after it didn't. He seemed like someone for whom other people - and their feelings and rights - weren't all that real. If anyone in the whole thing was the cause of it, I'd venture to guess it was him.
I just finished watching it on the PBS website. I cringed every time one of the cdesign proponentists uttered the word "theory".
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I still say the Discovery Institute should start to concentrate on parapsychology -- which actually can be tested and studied in laboratories, at least in theory. Sure it's never been measured or confirmed, and nothing in physics suggests it, but at least there's an actual research project here with connections to their theory.
Imagine the impact on the scientific status of Intelligent Design if the DI came out with replicable data showing that those machine-like parts of the flagella can be separated and then assembled together again from across the room by nothing but the concentrated power of a Mind!
Right now they got jack-nothing. But THAT would be jack-something.
Was I the only one annoyed by the way the atheist card was played in the documentary?
I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but perhaps 2/3 of the way through the film Bryan and Christy Rehm (married couple/teachers--he science, she English/pro-science plaintiffs/he ran for school board while the lawsuit was pending) discussed Bryan's campaign for school board. During the campaign, evidently the Rehms were met with hostility by some residents of the school district, who yelled at them that they were dirty atheists.
On screen, we saw the Rehms reacting with horror and offense to that attack--because (indignance, indignance) they're not atheists. (Cut to the Rehms teaching Sunday School at their local church.) Take-away lesson: those fundies have some nerve, tarring people with the epithet "atheists" just because they advocate teaching evolution and not ID.
That reaction seems to me blitheringly ignorant to the very real bigotry at work in the episode. If Bryan Rehm had actually been an atheist, would the hostility he faced have been justifiable? Or if the voters who didn't like him had called Rehm a "f---ing nigger," would it have made sense for his entire response (on a PBS documentary) to have been "I'm not a nigger, and I'm offended that they called me one"?
And these were the good guys. Guh.
Of course the good guys weren't atheists, Rieux--atheists eat puppies and hate freedom.
Adrian: "I cringed every time one of the cdesign proponentists uttered the word "theory"."
I yelled at the TV every time one of them said it. Ignorant at best, disingenious/lie for the most part, at least for the people who should know what a scientific theory entails. I know that the cdesign propentistists aren't good scientists, but they should still know what the words *mean*.
Rieux: "Was I the only one annoyed by the way the atheist card was played in the documentary?"
No, my girlfriend and I were both annoyed by it. I just figured it was because they were christian that they thought it was such an insult.
Rieux wrote:
Nope, I noticed that too, and it annoyed the heck out of me. They called them atheists ... and it was particularly hurtful because they actually teach Sunday School. Or something like that.
They called them "negroes" -- and that was particularly hurtful because their ancestors came over on the Mayflower! Not a drop of colored blood in them!
I'm tired of the word "atheist" being treated like an insult. Nobody today would talk about people being "charged with" being Jewish or "accused of" being Hispanic. Nor do they put cutsey-poo little modifiers on "avowed, acknowledged, self-designated" people with theistic views. An "admitted Catholic." No, we don't see that.
Fighting creationism in public school is only one goal. Our other goal is that, one day, people fighting creationism in public schools will sit before reporters and bravely say "Our neighbors said we must be atheists, which we aren't -- not that there's anything wrong with that!!"
Did anybody notice how many books were on the shelves behind Buckingham? Surely that guy hasn't read that many books. Or has Lee Strobel really written that much garbage?
I get something similar all the time: one of the common "insults" used against me in hate mail is to call me a Jew. Why, I don't know; maybe because liberal professor=Jew=communist to certain people. Anyway, it's inaccurate, but I'm not offended, and I don't rush to stomp on a yamulke or take communion to prove them wrong -- it's as harmless and silly as if they'd called me Ukrainian or Iberian as an insult.
But yes, this is so familiar: someone gets called an atheist on TV, and the next scene must be of them singing hymns in Sunday school.
Of course, when Expelled comes out, the storyboard is a little different. First I get called an atheist, and the next shot is me cackling over a cauldron of boiled babies.
This may be difficult for a person of faith to play well. The point is that the creationists are lying. If they'll lie about the faith of a candidate, which the people who attend the church with the candidate obviously know about and can vouch for, what will they NOT lie about? Those who cannot be trusted in small things, cannot be trusted in large things either.
In one campaign I staffed in Utah, about ten days before the election the opponent charged that our candidate's staff were all highly-paid, out-of-state carpetbaggers. Actually, we had a shoe-string operation of almost exclusively volunteers. Two of us were paid a meager salary, the issues guy and me, the press guy. I got the obligatory call from one of the wires (back when there were two working wires in most of America), and I freely identified myself as half of the paid staff. The reporter went through the list of questions: "Where did you graduate from college?" (Utah) "Where did you grow up and graudate from high school?" (Pleasant Grove, Utah) "What about the other paid staff?" (I met all of the other paid staff in college, on the debate team.) "At Utah?" (Yes.)
In such cases, you shouldn't have to connect the dots for the reader.
Of course, the reporter assumed that since we were Utah connected, we'd be Mormon. I've sometimes wondered if the election would have turned out any differently had we got to that question. I doubt it.
The point is that the charges are false. The other side is so desperate, they'll lie about easily checked things, just in the hope that someone won't check. Don't take it personally. It's no different from being born in a different state.
Next shot is from the W. C. Fields movie, in which he says:
"A tough child, Madam? There is no such thing as a tough child. They are all tender, if you parboil them first."
Only one cauldron? Piker.
"Only one cauldron? Piker. "
What, PZ can't have a quiet meal at home with just him and his trophy wife? Sometimes you don't feel like entertaining the entire coven, you know?
Isn't that the way that all the Myers children were born?
I'm surprised you haven't already posted this. Judgement Day is online (via DailyKos) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
Boiled babies? Oh, you people.
The Atheist Cookbook, due out soon from Hatefilled Press, has dozens of better recipes for babies.
There's one in particular, the Christian Baby Chocolate Torte, that's just superb.
No. My wife had to tell me to shut up about it so she could hear the show.
When 'Expelled' gets plopped out on the general populace, when the infamous atheist PZ Meyers gets introduced, a really neat act of quote mining will be done. They will pull out the link PZ Myers had a few months ago to the comic book character a few month ago and claim the this is an accurate self portrait.
All hail Pharyngula; Harvester Of Stillborn Souls!
(Just feel the need to point out, the misspelling of PZ's name is a joke.)
Yikes! J is Janine. Not was not a joke.
Well, for a second helping of baby stew, I'd gladly come over and help PZed move his sofa(s) - and I won't make bad jokes about his trophy wife(tm) and lemonade ...
Myers,
You have a future on the tonight show. "...the recent hiring of eminent scientist Michael Medved." That is frivolous juxtaposition at its very best. My wife asked me why I was howling at the computer.
People, people... don't misquote the cdesign proponentsists.
As a newbie "scientist", mind you I'm old enough to be a grandmother. However, in my observations, would someone please explain why the scientific support of this program through commentary after the program was broadcast was hardly recognizable?
Why were the vast majority of comments on NOVA actually trying support creationism, which in a lot of commentaries, creationism being supported as a science?
Why in the hell, among the multitude of NOVA replies have there been hardly nary a comment in support of this program? Where is the rational voice?!
Support NOVA in this documentary, support their cause through your scientific words!
I think I'm in love with Barbara Forrest. She's BRILLIANT. And tough. What a woman!
Our other goal is that, one day, people fighting creationism in public schools will sit before reporters and bravely say "Our neighbors said we must be atheists, which we aren't -- not that there's anything wrong with that!!"
LOL - nicely put! And now I know why Sastra won the Molly.
"Some of my best friends are atheists!"
"the experiments embodied in that stack of papers and books "
HEY! Those books could have been filled with BLANK pages! and those textbooks are just filled with facts about BIOLOGY, not about evolution...!
They maybe only have six or seven words about evolution in them and that means the whole stack is WORTHLESS!
Worthless I tell you!
People, people... don't misquote the cdesign proponentsists.