Judgment Day [Insert Law & Order sound here]

Just want to note that I enjoyed the PBS NOVA special "Judgment Day" which fairly depicted (imho) the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and the machinations the intelligent design supporters.

A student of mine emailed me to let me know that his wife was impressed about his ability to predict what was going to happen next (I guess regarding the evidence presented by the plaintiffs) in the documentary. I had lectured on the history of ID last week, so that made me happy. At least one of the 85 students is remembering the material!

Overall, the program only strengthened the image of the ID movement as an abject (albeit noisy) failure. As Larry Arnhart notes, neither the Discovery Institute nor Behe did their cause any favors by not participating. Steve Fuller was an embarrassment to those of us who take history and philosophy of science seriously, with his claim that the genetic factors behind heredity, before the discovery of genes and DNA, were regarded as "supernatural". Bill Buckingham - a man who lied under oath - came off as an jackass with his attack on Judge Jones. The "breathtaking inanity" of the "cdesign proponentsists" lives on, no doubt in the whining of the DI over the next few weeks about the program.

PZ and Greg Laden have more.

I’m on the road for a few days so posting will be non-existant until Friday at best. Enjoy the quiet time.

More like this

The new PBS documentary on the Dover trial, Judgment Day (optimistically reviewed by NCSE! The Discovery Institute in frantic denial!) starts here in the midwest in about a half hour. I've got my diet coke, I think I'll pop some popcorn, and maybe I'll take a stab at liveblogging the show. Let's…
You can see the NCSE's official stance on the NOVA documentary about the Dover trial at our website, but I want to add to that. The official stance is that it is "accurate," which skips the part about how ID got its ass handed to it in Dover. The thrill of that victory was getting a bit distant,…
"Evolution is the central organizing principle of all biological science, yet teaching evolution has become controversial in many states. When the National Science Teachers Association recently surveyed its members, 30 percent said they experienced pressure to omit or downplay evolution and related…
JUDGMENT DAY PRAISED IN NATURE From the National Center for Science Education ... Judgement Day Praised in Nature Reviewing Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial -- the new documentary about Kitzmiller v. Dover -- for the November 8, 2007, issue of Nature (450: 170), Adam Rutherford was…

Steve Fuller was an embarrassment to those of us who take history and philosophy of science seriously, with his claim that the genetic factors behind heredity, before the discovery of genes and DNA, were regarded as "supernatural".

He said what now?

Tell me this isn't true - even Fuller can't be that dumb. His moule interieur must be broken.

It is true John. Fuller was quite clear in this, that scientists used 'supernatural' notions here before we understood DNA and how it works. I said "Bullshit!" out loud at that one, and my wife chastised me. Then he complained that we shouldn't abandon supernatural causation as look how we used it so well in the past. He provided no specifics of course.

One has to wonder that if these genetic factors were seen as supernatural, then how did the DNA research ever get done in the first place?

I, too, was aghast at Fuller's remark about the "supernatural" quality of hypothesized hereditary factors. I can only assume that he meant something akin to what early critics of Newton meant when they observed that his postulated gravitational force was an "occult power." But what was meant by 'occult power' is some distance away from what is meant by 'purposeful agent,' as Fuller well knows.

By bob koepp (not verified) on 14 Nov 2007 #permalink

Even if Fuller was historically correct, (I am not saying he is), my response was "so what?" Anyone with a supernatural explanation for heredity was clearly proven wrong, and had simply been wasting time. He inadvertantly gave a good example for NOT assuming supernatural explanations.

I didn't see the episode yet (should be on the DVR), but one complaint I heard from my labmates today is that they depicted some scientists finding a (transitional) fossil at the last minute before the trial as some super tense moment. As if it somehow held the key to prove evolution once and for all.

None of the interviewed creationists showed that they had learned anything about evolution, science, or logic in the time since the trial.

OneRandomScientist -

I don't think it was quite that bad. However, it would have been nice had they made it plainer that the evidence for evolution didn't just consist of what was shown, and was already overwhealming long before Tiktaalik was dug up. It wasn't like evolution got evidentiary support just in time for the trial.