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 ...
[[Do you see any evidence that science will, or needs to turn to, magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?]]
No- I see evidence that shoudl cause science to turn FROM magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?
Psssst- ID doesn’t rely on ANY of those- but nice try- trying to dishonestly paint the science as soemthign it isn’t- Is dishonesty the only weapon you have to defend your relgious beleif about life with? Seriously- is it? Every post you make you seriously misrepresent, mistate, and mislead people into thinking somethign that simply isn not true- you present your ready made comments time and time again- time and time again they are soundly refuted and exposed for thje dishonest posts that they are, and yet you continue to present them as though nothing had ever been said before in regards to them. It’s liek listening to a broken record.
Tell me Coyote- IF Macroevolution is worng, then what? Shoudldn’t there be another method proposed and excplored? What exactly is science to you? is Macroevolution the ONLY criteria used when jidging what is and what isn’t science? Who died and made Macroevolution the only criteria for science and for life? When was Macroevolution crowned the only scinetific possibility? I must havem issed that ceremony- What will you do when more and more evidence of design shows intelligent causation? and when more and more serious dead ends to Macroevolution are exposed? ? Just curious to know how many impossiblities it would take to convince you that Macroevolution nver happend? Because quite frankly, there are a lot of serious impossiblities as it stands, yet, apparently, if there’s a twinkle of possiblities- say soemthign liek 10 to hte 350’th power possibility for just ONE single incident, let alone hte trillions of incidents needed for the species we know about today, then apparently, ‘it could have hsppened’? Whos practicing religious theology again?
[[lol, that was aimed at CottShop. I thought you’d appreciate where I’m coming from though, seeing as how you’re being all naughty and denying the brilliance of the now out of work Dover school board. :)]]
If yo8u feel the dover trial was ‘brilliant’ then wow- I certainly do feel sorry for you- Biased agenda and canned ACLU closing speach given by judge who dismissed evidence, denied defendents their right to competent council (which incidently, the defendents had every right to, yet the bias of the judge didn’t aloow it) and who allowed assumptions by the claimants, yet wouldn’t allow evidence to the contrary by the defendents, then seriously- it’s plain to see that you hav3 a VERY low standard by which you judge ‘brilliance’
LOL! Thanks for the clarification.
I don't think the ACLU or the judge selected Thomas More to defend the school board. They inflicted that on themselves.
I suppose once metaphysical psychic projection is incorporated into Science it would make it more powerful, to the credulous believer in nonsense.
You've never told us your evidence and we are still waiting. Better yet, lets assume life is intelligently designed. Then how was life constructed based on these intelligent designs? A contractor is needed to construct what an architect has imagined. So how do we go from the plans to a living thing? Where's the evidence of that? How did the designer bring together the constituents of living things? That's another big hole in ID.
Incompetent legal counsel! That is a laugh! Like someone who murders their parents throwing themselves upon the mercy of the court as an orphan. You lay down with dogs...
The judge was asked to rule if I.D. was Science, but when he did so he suddenly became an ‘activist Judge’. And when he followed Standard Operating Procedure for a legal decision and included the argument of the winning side (it was the legal argument that the judge found convincing after all), suddenly he was a handmaiden of the ACLU.
Ahhh, logic and truth and fair-play. None of these things have been ‘discovered’ by cdesign proponetists at the Dyscovery institute.
Admit this truth and move on."
Very soon to be followed by frothing at the mouth, IMO.
BTW; what is the meaning of "IS"?
And what if we don't "admit this truth and move on"?
Are you getting ready to clobber us?
Complete with non-understanding of the testimony.
For example if one took bacteria with the secretory apparatus that is the reducible complexity in the supposedly ‘irreducibly complex’ flagella, and selected them for mobility, would a flagella develop? At present the Dyscovery Institute is NOT pursuing this research.
I look fowward to another Dover-like trial in Texas, and maybe one in Florida. It all depends on whether the school boards retain competent counsel, or whether they go with Thomas More.
come on..be serious...everyone knows they were each created in one normal day...and declared to be good.
Simply look at the inside joke memes that all of these guys parrot: "cdesignproponentists", "Dyscovery", etc. The fact that they all do it shows that it's a Pavlovian response.
Well, if the publishers of 'Of Pandas and People' didn't make such a sloppy search and replace of creationist with design proponents, we'd never have the transitional term 'cdesign proponentists.'
And we do repeat several concepts. After all, we need to do something while waiting for the scientific evidence for ID to be published. Some day, the Discovery Institute will actually build some lab space and conduct some research of their own. Maybe that will happen after they've hired enough lawyers and publicists to fill their propaganda needs first. Up until now, I'm not aware of any useful, nor accurate, work coming out of places like DI. Nor have they actually made any applicative discoveries. They are, IMHO, useless as a representative of cutting edge research.
What I am waiting for is an explanation of how the design is implemented in the construction of a new organism. No one wants to answer that one.
Actually, what you're probably thinking of is the fact that Dembski was scheduled to testify as an expert witness but chickened out becuase the court wouldn't let him have his lawyer present as he testified.
Have you ever heard of an expert witness who needed his lawyer!? What's he supposed to do?
... You take goals of a MINOR institute amoung the science of ID and you pretend they are the end all be all of ID science, you post their goals which are Entirely scienctific [sic], claim they are not, and give absolutely NO proof or rebuttle [sic] or explanation as to why they are not (Even though it’s obvious that there is absolutely nothing in those goals that is unscientific) and you continue to post irrelevent material such as insitutute’s [sic] statements of faith as thouigh those statements of faith somehow invalidate the sound and entirely valid science of ID being conducted all over hte [sic] world by competent and highly skilled scientists- ...
Could you please list some of the major ID scientists who aren't affiliated with DI, and also the major ID research institutes?
It's not an inside joke, it's a Freudian typo, a transitional form in the evolution of creationism into (new! improved!) intelligent design.
Demski didn’t ‘chicken out’- He was smart enough to see that he was walking into a monkey court and asked that he have legal council present, which is a basic right of any defendent, yet was not allowed that. He recognized that the defense council that was present was innept and unprepared- you cna twist and distort it all you like- but he was DENIED his right to competent council- plain and simple!
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.