Posted on 11/20/2007 10:27:07 AM PST by CottShop
PBS Airs False Facts in its "Inherit the Wind" Version of the Kitzmiller Trial (Updated)
UPDATE: A tenth PBS blunder is addressed, where PBS makes the false insinuation that intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology. Scroll down to read more.
More than 50 years ago two playwrights penned a fictionalized account of the 1920s Scopes Trial called "Inherit the Wind" that is now universally regarded by historians as inaccurate propaganda. Last night PBS aired its "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design" documentary, which similarly promotes propaganda about the 2005 Kitzmiller trial and intelligent design (ID). Most of the misinformation in "Judgment Day" was corrected by ID proponents long ago. To help readers sift the fact from the fiction, here are links to articles rebutting some of PBS's most blatant misrepresentations:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Oh, and I'm saying creationist engineers say Goddidit and don't bother to investigate--in case it escaped your attention, engineers do not study the natural world.
It was in the court transcripts and cited by ahayes in post #18. According to the definition of a scientific theory offered by Dr. Behe, astrology would be considerd scientific. He said so in his own words under cross examination.
You aRE attempting to insinuate that the majority of ID science is made up of bumbling engineers who wouldn’
t know science if it bit em on the backside- and that is a blatant misrepresentation of ID- Apology? No- You did the same hting when you quoted Behe- attempting to suggest that his discussions about ID science rested on one irrelevent statement he made about Astronomy.
Now listen up folks- There has been a LOT of misrepresentations about ID science on here- and apparently, instead of discussing the subjects at hand and offering relevent coutner arguements, apparently, the best you all can do is present some lame misrepresentations and intentional misleading accusations.
ID science is the ONLY TRULY OBJECTIVE science in regards to biology. I’ll say it again- ID science is the ONLY science that doesn’t rest on religious propoganda and speculation.
Forensic science looks at EVIDENCE- ID science looks at evidence- Macroevolution does nothing buy assume and speculate and relies on purely unprovable untestable events which are hypothesised about that supposedly beat out insurmountable odds and biological impossibilities- and not just in a couple of instances, but in EVERY STEP of the process!
Folks like Coyoteman and others constantly bring up the fact that SOME ID scientsits are secure enough to sign statements of faith, and they try to portray ID science as some supposed ‘religious agenda’ when it’s evident that these posters here haven’t got a clue what they are talking about. ID science is the ONLY NON-RELIGIOUS scientific process around concerning biological processes.
You and Doc can quote Behe all day long and try to dishonestly attribute that one statement to the whole of ID if you like- but if that is the best defense for your religious view of Macroevolution that you can mount, then by golly, that tells me that Macroevolution must be in a very very sorry state.
When an arceologist comes across a crossbow buried under layers of ground, the ONLY logical conclusion to make would be that an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER caused the item- They don’t sit around and speculate that naturedidit. They don’t mount a long winded assumption driven hypothesis that because evidence can be presented that there are curved branches, vines, twigs etc in nature, that all these DESIGNED elements of the crossbow could have naturally and randomly ‘evolved’ over millions of years- They ALSO do NOT attack anyone who points to the design elements and suggests that an intelligence formed the item, and insinuate that the person suggesting such a thing is ‘practicing pure apologetics’ either! The ONLY logical conclusion is that an intelligent agent caused the assembly and creation of the bow. Now, if billions of such bows are uncovered, it would be absolute insanity to suggest that ‘naturedidit’- yet that is precisely what Macroevolutionsits do in the face of overwhelming evidence of Design- and frankly, it’s a sad day for science when advoicates of Macroevolution have to resort to false insinuations, misrepresentations of the opposing theorists who study actual factual evidences that are overtly obvious to anyone caring to take a purely objective look.
You and Coyoter and Doc and JS and others can misrepresent ID all you like- but your objections are entirely irrelevent to the facts. ID studies design- period! Design is a biological FACT! Complex design ALWAYS suggests an intelligent designer- presenting simplistic designs that were randomly assembled and which follow the laws of nature does absolutely nothign to discredit the factr that complex design needs a designer- ESPECIALLY when we are talking about trillions and trillions of complex designs that simply break down whne elements are removed or crippled in some manner.
If you and Doc and Coyote have some scientific evidence that shows that trillions of highly complex irreducibly complex systems have naturally and randomly assembled themsleves into irreducibly complex structures, then present it here- but quite frankly, it’s becoming a little tiring seeing the ad nauseum posts attackign ID with nothign but fluff and pompous false accusations. If you can show that small incremental accumulations of biological mistakes- mutations- have produced ANYTHING but minor alterations to a species, and if you can show these biological mistakes have indeed led to fully functional systems that advance species beyond their own kind, then by all means, present them for discussion- I’m not interested in philisophical ruminitions and assumption driven religious beleifs about Macroevolution. Posting irrelevent information about an organization such as discovery institute’s statements of faith is a tired out lame and blatant misrepresentation of ID science-0 their statemnbts of faith have absolutely NOTHING to do with the science of ID anymore than the personal beleifs of the archeologist have absolutely nothign to do with the fact that he is able to look at hte DESIGN of the crossbow and logically and correctly conclude that it was intelligently caused. Accusing th4e archeologist of a ‘religious agenda’ would be dishonest and intentionally misrepresentative of the science he conducts when studying the device. He could beleive little green martian ants created the bow for all we care- BUT His investigation is either scientific or it’s not- and I’ll flat out state right here that his investigation is FAR MORE scientific than is the investigation of those who can’t conceed that design has any meaning whatsoever and go into the investigation wedded to the dead hyptohesis that nature must have done it- that naturaL biological mistakes must have shaped a tree into a crossbow with fully functioning parts all nice and neatly assembled after billions of years of supposed Macroevolution.
[[in case it escaped your attention, engineers do not study the natural world.]]
Incase it escaped your attention- the MAJORITY of ID scientists are NOT engineers- despite your attempt to dishonestly insinuate that they are! Attempting to mislead others into thinking they are is apparently the best you can offer? Wow!
Thank goodness you’re here to tell other people what I mean, otherwise no one would ever be able to understand my posts!
To recap our previous conversation:
Me: Behe says ID is as much science as astrology.
You: You blatant liar!
Me: [Quotes Behe.]
You: [Rabbit-trail, putting words in my mouth, vanishing act.]
I accept apologies at any time! :-)
I would appreciate if you would give me the testimony or furnish a link. Sorry, But any “ definition” of science is problematical. Narrow it enough and one excludes a “soft” science like psychology/psychiatry. Open it up and one includes something like sociology-as Marx understood the term.
Golly gee, Cottshop, it sounds like you’ve snapped. All we’ve ever requested was evidence of design from ID proponets. Huffing and puffing isn’t going to blow anything down. All you have provided was a diatribe complaining that science doesn’t accept the ‘it’s complex ergo it’s designed’ premise.
And for posting the evidence of what you describe as macroevolution, which is a creationist-coined term because they have had no choice but to accept microevolution, another creationist term, but no different than macro evolution, the FR server could not handle the dataoverload of having hundreds of thousands of papers put here, plus the associated copyright infringement implications. GO to any university library and they will have reams of published work. It’s so easy to look up, even a caveman could do it.
Try Googling the text in #23 and #70 and you’ll turn up the transcript of the trial.
In order to include ID in the realm of science, Behe had to redefine “science” such that astrology was included.
Providing you taught him one of the most commonly used modern languages, of course. :-D
It they're facts, they're not false.
If they're false, they're not facts.
Sheesh!
The Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of ID nowadays, had to launder their website to remove all of the religious references that were giving their true agenda away. But, courtesy of the Wayback Machine, they couldn't hide the evidence. Here is a link to a thread that shows how their website has changed over the years in a failed effort to hide their religious motives:
The Evolution of the Discovery Institute's Website Rhetoric.
And as for "ID science is the ONLY NON-RELIGIOUS scientific process around concerning biological processes" -- that is both ridiculous and untrue.
The Wedge Strategy spills all the beans about the Discovery Institute and ID when it states, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Can you claim that is scientific and non-religious?
How about their goals?
Governing GoalsCan you claim those are scientific and non-religious?
Five Year Goals
- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Twenty Year Goals
- To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
- To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
- To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
- To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
- To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
- To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
I don't know whether you are deluding yourself or trying to delude us about the true nature of ID.
ID is religion start to finish, the stepchild of creation "science," still trying to sneak its nose back into the science tent.
Coyoteman, according to Cottshop’s breakdown post 163, what you posted is edited information. ID, to him, is really, really good science, but the DI version doesn’t count. You just cherry picked a bad apple and are ignoring the really good stuff.
It’s kind of like socialism. Sure, that method of socialism didn’t work, but this one will be better and it will work. Just substitute “ID” for socialism and you get the essence of CottSHop’s post.
I agree with him. Astrology was based on inferences from a huge number of observations over a period of thirty -five hundred years. A lot of intelligent people believed in it. Kepler made his living serving as a court astrologer. (The Catholic Church, BTW, was opposed to it because it deprives human beings of their freedom. In other words, dogma opposed science.) It wasn't until the telescope great increased the astronomical data base that astrology ceased to be plausible to educated people.
According to Behe, astrology was and is science.
he doesn’t say IS science but that it WAS accounted as science. Astrology WAS thought to be science and not just by the lower-classes. Where today a ruler will have a pollster, a king of the 16th Century would have an astrologer. The belief was that a man’s fate was determined by the stars under which he was born. People are always looking for signs, because life is so uncertain.
Yuo can’t explain that to th4m- they think they’ve ‘got something’ on ID now thaT Behe has said that one minor point during hte trial= This has been explained to these folks before- but apparently, they’ll simply ignore it and keep posting His statement in an effort to mislead folks into htinking Behe thinks Astrology is now science akin to ID
Sigh- see Robbys’ explanation of whast was ACTUALLY said and WHY it was said-
[[According to Behe, astrology was and is science.
]]
Sigh- Please see what RobbyS has explained- Yawn- again- you folksm ust be pretty desperate if you think bringing up somethign Behe said will crumble ID lol- but I give you filks an A for effort at least!
For hte last time Coyote- since when does DI amount to the end all be all of ID science?
Now follow along Coyoteman- I’ll explain this to you and to everyone else you’re trying to pull the whool over on,:
[[Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
There is NOTHING unscientific about ANY of that- IF Macroevolution IS infact a false religion with NO scientific evidence to support it- then logically one MUST find an alternative and to soundly defeat the dogma that demands that a dead theory is a viable theory- There is absolutely NOTHING unscientific about ANY of the above- Nothing- Comprende?
[[ID is religion start to finish, the stepchild of creation “science,” still trying to sneak its nose back into the science tent.]]
That is totalt BS and anyone with an odicum of intellect knows that DI’s PERSONAL OPINIONS OUTSIDE OF THE FACTS OF ID mean absolutely NOTHING to ID science itself- Again- listen up- because apparently you’re just not comprehendinging htis- DI does NOT constitute ID SCience- they are an instititute WITHIN ID science- their PERSONAL OPINIONS are just that- opinions OUTSIDE of the scope of the FACTUAL SCIENCE of ID. ID science is the ONLY non religious science regarding biology- the only one Coyote- it studies actual facts- it doesn’t entertain fanciful wishful dreams and assumptions like Macroevolutionists do- So lower your nose a bit and you might just understand that- until then- I suppose I’ll have to keep repeating it everytime you post DI’s PERSONAL OPINIONS as though they are the opinions of every scientist in ID when infact they are NOT. There also is NOTHING inconsistent or anti-science about their goals- You seem to be under the delusion that the only viable science is one of naturalism- yet incredibly, naturalism is more a religion than any other branch of science- yet- amazingly, you accept that religion hook line and sinker, yet can’t allow any other hypothesis? You call yourself an objective scientist? Lol-
Doc- if that’s the best you can do- then do us all a favour and run along back to the playground you came from- the fellers over at DC must miss you- they get scared when one of their own wanders off into big boy country
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.