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 ...
Q But the way you are using it [the word "theory"] is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?
A Yes.
Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."
That's the scientific theory of astrology?
A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.
Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.
And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.
____________________________________________
For those who are interested in what Michael Behe actually meant.
After the discussion resulting from the previous post on this subject I thought I would ask him....
Q1. At the deposition for the Dover trial when you were asked the question about astrology where you answered "It could be...Yes" were you thinking of "astrology" as it is practiced in terms of the present day...horoscopes etc or were you thinking in terms of astrology related to astronomy in the history of science... or something else?
(deposition statement)
17 Q. Using your definition of theory, is Creationism -- using
18 your definition of scientific theory, is Creationism a
19 scientific theory?
20 Behe. No.
21 Q. What about creation science?
22 Behe. No.
23 Q. Is astrology a theory under that definition?
24 Behe. Is astrology? It could be, yes.
Michael Behe:
I was not thinking of the modern superstition of astrology, but of the idea of astrology in the middle ages, when people were trying to discern what forces actually were in play in nature. After all, if planetary bodies such as the moon and sun could affect the tides on earth, perhaps they could affect other things as well, such as people's behavior. We now know that to be wrong, but at the time it was a reasonable idea, based on physical evidence. I am told by some historians of science that the educated classes of Europe thought astrology to be quite scientific.
Q2. At the time of your deposition statement did you believe that astrology (as it is understood and practiced today) was included within your broader definition of "scientific theory?"
Michael Behe:
No, not modern astrology, as practiced by card readers with bandanas on their heads and such. I had in mind astrology of centuries ago, when educated people thought it might really have explanatory power.
Q3. Do you currently believe that astrology (as it is understood and practiced today) is included now within your broader definition of "scientific theory?"
Michael Behe:
No, of course not. Best wishes. Mike Behe
This was what I had surmised from reading the transcript of Behe from the trial. It is good to know that I had understood his position correctly.
[[Unfortunately, both ID and Evolution proponents blindly accept Popperian falsification as the only legitimate scientific process out of ignorance. This only serves to muddy the discourse on the subject.]]
That’s only half true- only Evolution proponents mistakenly think that Karl Popper gave the only acceptable criterion for science. He’s been proven wrong many many times, yet evolution proponents ignorant of what science is still put hte wholly unscientific onus of falsification upon others while they themselves, or rather hteir hypothesis, are imune from such restraints. Hypocritical? Oh yes!
[[To try to re-mold the Biblical story of creation into a science, is intellectually dis-honest and spiritually un-necessary]]
Thank you for your post- but I must strongly dissagree and say that ID isn’t an attempt to model anything, an that I think that Christians can and indeed should explore science to find the fignerprints of God- Yes, when evangelizing, the bible is al lthat is needed, however, I don’t beleive Christians are constrained to just evangelize and that God has given some great powers of observation and great examinatory powers which I think they should use to pursue science in the correct path instead of the wrong dead end rabbit trail that we’ve been handed for 150 years with the hypothesis of Macroevolution. God gives each person unique gifts, and to some, I beleive He gave the gift of objective research and understanding in particular fields of science and medicines.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7; emphasis added].St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.
[[ID has no algorithm for determining that a finite string is the result of an evolutionary algorithm or the result of divine intervention or the result of intervention by space aliens.]]
I said I wasn’t going to respond in this thread, but this is an interesting point- If ID doesn’t, then neither does Evolutionary science, so if Evolutiuon science is allowed to investigate an unknown, and to come to assumptive dirven ‘conclusions’, then by what unwritten law is ID then not allowed the same scientific endeavors? The fact is that Design in nature and biology is more than obvious, and that design then appears to be intelligently assembled, which is precisely what ID is all about- investigating HOW this factual design could have come to be- Evolution claims random mutations, mistakes in the genome, could result in this factual design, yet they can show no evidence to prove this, yet their statements are allowed and revered as science despite this serious lack of evidence, but yet ID is called a psuedoscience because it does EXACTLY the same thing eovlution science does? Investigates and coems to reasonable onclusions?
There is NO escaping the complete and utter hypocrisy that the secular scientific world is steeped in. To others in this thread who have suggested that ID is nothign more than a religious beleif- and you others to claim ID doesn’t perform legitimate science is a disingenious, misleading outright lie and just goes to show the blind willful ignorance of those opposed to ID science. 10 minutes on the internet will reveal more sicnetific studies being done in ID. No matter how many times you claim that, it can’t undo the fact that you are stone blind lying- either that or you truly are ignorant of what ID does and doesn’t do.
When Christian ID scientists talk nonsense- you just let us know Coyote- Till then, We’ll objectively follow their scientific endeavors and keep pointing out the serious holes and problems with Macroevolution as any science enthusiasts should do. And just for your edification- which you should know by now, but obviously are loathe to admit, ID science isn’t made up of Christians, it’s made up of many people of many different beleifs who have found the truth that Macroevolution is a scientific and biological impossibility with absolutely nothign but conjecture as it’s evidence and who have sought and found a highly probable alternative to the dead hypothesis of Macroevolution. Thanks for playing and thanks for posting absolutely irrelevent exceprts from folks who evidently thought Christians were too ignorant to study and understand the fields of whatever.
You clearly did not even read what I posted.
You are calling St. Augustine "absolutely irrelevent" and someone "who evidently thought Christians were too ignorant to study and understand the fields of whatever."
I think we have firm evidence to whom that last statement applies.
I’m not saying that string theory doesn’t have its problems, but there are some predictions that project down to energies accessible now and at LHC. Even if string theory gets it wrong, I expect it will stick around though.
I didn’t call Augustine irrelevent, but hten again, you aren’t known for your honesty when replying to me- I implied that his opinion about the matter is irrelevent- Being that you;ve decveitfully misrepresented my statement so we can obviously see whom I was talking about!
To all: One point I want to bring up here in response to all the “ID isn’t sicence and nuttin but religion” folks is that all the personal opinions you have about ID amount to nothign more than a pisshole in the snow. If you want to discuss sceicne, then do so, but try to refrain from irrelevent personal opinions that have absolutely nothign to do with scientific facts as your defense of Macroevolution or to your objection to ID. All you do by posting that “ID is religion” is seriously and blatantly misrepresent ID. ID is about design and specified irreducible Complexity- that is it! This is a scientific science that, despite the fact that the ‘requirement’ for science being ‘falsifiability, predictability, testability’ is a false criterion for science, ID meets every one of the superselfimposed criterion made by those who don’t udnerstand whaT scoience is and is not. Claiming that ID proposes “God dun it” is a dishonest and intellecutally deceitful practice conducted by those with lesser arguing skills- Don’t be party to such childish gibberish. ID doesn’t propose any such thing- the pure ID science proposes that design is irreducibly complex. To suggest that they then go furhter in their scientific examinations claiming to propose God is the intelligence, is to ignore that they do no such thing in the strictest sense of hteir science. Yes, some within the ID movement have personal opinions that go beyond the actual SCIENCE of ID, and htey are perfectly able and allowed to hold such views, and well they should- because, as we’ll discuss in a moment, irreducible complexity is a VERY strong indicator that small incremental steps toward complete assembly NEVER happened. The anti-ID folks and scientists will argue that it could have happened, but they offer NO proof that it ever did, and give NO examples that it did- they only give their OPINION that it did happen. So, if they are allowed hteir OPINION, then who are they, or you or anyone, to claim that ID proponents can’t have their OPINION outside of the strict science?
Now that we’ve cut through all the bull, and exposed those who offer nothign more substantial than personal opinion, if you wish to conduct intellectually honest conversation, then let’s get down and dirty.
ID claims that everythign has specified complexity. They show, scientifically, that elements are designed, they then propose that this design has intelligent assembly, or causation if you will. that is it. There is NOTHING unscientific about htis. Those of you trying to undermine ID who claim the science goes beyond this are intellectually dishonest- period- end of story. IF ID isn’;t a scientific fact, then it will be falsified by naturalism. IF naturalism can show incremental steps (minus hte great imaginary leaps of faith between dissimiliar species), then obviously, there would be a strong possibility that creatures have only a natural common ancestry, BUT, and htis is an important BUT, it will STILL NOT go to showing that everything MUST have a natural Causation which progressed from day one’s simplicity ot present day’s complexities.
ID’s claim and goal isn’t to show God, or even that God dun did it- ID’s claims and goals are simply a perfectly ligitimate goal of showing specified irreducible complexity, and to show that Macroevolution couldn’t possibly be the vehicle through which species arrived at their present highly complex states.
IF Science is TRULY objective (which it absolutely is NOT) then there should be absolutely NO objection to this scientific investigation, because after all, we’re told that science is an objective study that is in search of the truth regardless of the implications. However, that is absolutely NOT what we find in the scientific realm- instead, we find people spouting off false accusation after false accusation in an concerted effort to try to muzzle damning evidence that is accumulating against hte accepted OPINION about life! And what we see are the same old silly PERSONAL OPINIONS rife with disdain and unscientific gibberish being hurled toward those in the ID field.
If anyone here has proof that irreducible specified complexity came about by a purely natural means of accumulated changes brought on by deleterious random mistakes i nthe genetic code, then by all means present it- until then, whether you like it or not, ID and specified irreducible complexity are an entiely legitimate scientific field of investigation which meets all of the criteria that people mistakenly htink science should meet, so here, once again, we see that there can be no obection to ID, yet still, sadly, people aren’t willing to ceede a fair and honest point to ID.
God was created?
Does he pray to his creator?
Etc, etc?
How does the occurrence of evolution
threaten the existence of God? Didn’t
God also put evolution in place?
I believe in both:
I base one belief on physical evidence
collected and analyzed by scientists,
and base the other on a faith that ‘there is
more to life than this’ and that the teachings of
those deep thinkers who have pondered this
stuff for centuries ought to be listened to.
However, if Billy has three apples and Cindy gives Sally a pear, when did Ferdinand III repeal the Punitive Estate Tax of Portugal?
Also, has anyone read De Duve’s ‘Vital Dust’ or any such book that attempts to account for the earliest beginnings of the evolution of life on earth?
That book gives an explanation, but, even for the genius he may be (Nobel prize and all), it takes too many jumps in the earliest part of the ‘story of life’ for us layfolk to grasp whatever thread he hangs out there. That was about 10 years ago, maybe there is something newer?
[[I believe in both:
I base one belief on physical evidence
collected and analyzed by scientists,]]
Well if tyou beleive in Macroevolution- then you don’t actually beleive in the evidence, you beleive in somoenes highly partisan opinion about whaT that evidence means- and their opinions are based on huge impossible biological gaps for Macroevolution to be a reality. If you honestly examine the evidence, you will see that it points ONLY to MICROevolution and NOT to MACROEvolution, anythign beyond Micro is nothign more than conjecture with no scientific evidence to back it up.
If you go strictly by the evidence, you have to come to hte following conclusion “MICROEvolution is a provable fact, MACROEvolution however is nothign more than an unsupported hypothesis, and infact is quite biologically impossible” That’s as far as you can go with what scant obscure ‘evidences’ there are to SUGGEST a very miniscule possibility despite the overwhelming odds against it which are insurmountable at every level and trillions of steps along our supposed evolutionary path.
[[and base the other on a faith that ‘there is
more to life than this’ and that the teachings of
those deep thinkers who have pondered this
stuff for centuries ought to be listened to.]]
Oh- we listened alright, and we found the model to be both biologically impossible and feasibly unsound, and we came to a much more logical determination that another model HAS to be the case, and we think that ID is the answer as there is ample evidence to support the idea that structures that are irreducibly complex could not have come about randomly by chance positive mutations for whichj there is absolutely no proof that trillions upon trillions of necessary positive mutations EVER occured when we have nearly NO examples of TRUE positive mutations today- the best we can show from the evidence is that some, very few infact, obscure deleterious mutations have some benificial unintended side effects while still be a detriment to the species due to loss of information and the ill effects of the deleteriousness itself.
That said, an honest examination of both sides will reveal just what a leap of faith it is to trust that MACROEVOLUTION ever surmounted the insurmountable.
And no, I haven’t even heard of Duve’s book, so can’t answer your question.
No it doesn't. I would explain how you're making declarations based on material you don't understand, but you already told me you wouldn't read it anyway. So I'll just point and laugh.
That would be obvious to anyone who had both a lick of sense and clue about what science says about both evolution and the age of the earth.
I'd try to explain, but you said you wouldn't read my explanation anyway.
Thanks. I probably wouldn’t read it anyway.In other words, facts are irrelevant because I have my beliefs. Are you threatened by big words?
He's a creationist engineer--the kiss of death. They know everything about every field of science without ever having to crack a book.
To repeat myself, by the normal definition astrology was not, is not, and never will be a scientific theory. By the normal definition, intelligent design was not, is not, and never will be a scientific theory.
Behe was right on the money—intelligent design is as much science as astrology is, that is, not at all.
Tut-tut, where are my manners. I’m talking about you in front of your face in post 136.
Two words: "cdesign proponentsists".
It does what it was designed to do. It is not "atrophied."
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.Predictive value of evolutionary theory in this case: Negative. Predictive value of ID theory in this case: positive.That's the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week.
For generations the appendix has been dismissed as superfluous [by evolutionists]. Doctors figured it had no function. Surgeons removed them routinely. People live fine without them.
And when infected the appendix can turn deadly. It gets inflamed quickly and some people die if it isn't removed in time. Two years ago, 321,000 Americans were hospitalized with appendicitis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. There are more bacteria than human cells in the typical body. Most are good and help digest food.
But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix's job is to reboot the digestive system in that case.
The appendix "acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker, a study co-author. Its location _ just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine in a sort of gut cul-de-sac -- helps support the theory, he said.
Also, the worm-shaped organ outgrowth acts like a bacteria factory, cultivating the good germs, Parker said. That use is not needed in a modern industrialized society, Parker said.
If a person's gut flora dies, it can usually be repopulated easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn't as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy.
In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S., other studies have shown, Parker said.
He said the appendix may be another case of an overly hygienic society triggering an overreaction by the body's immune system.
Even though the appendix seems to have a function, people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because it could turn deadly, Parker said. About 300 to 400 Americans die of appendicitis each year, according to the CDC.
Five scientists not connected with the research said that the Duke theory makes sense and raises interesting questions. The idea "seems by far the most likely" explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. "It makes evolutionary sense."
The theory led Gary Huffnagle, a University of Michigan internal medicine and microbiology professor, to wonder about the value of another body part that is often yanked: "I'll bet eventually we'll find the same sort of thing with the tonsils."
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.