Nova Blatantly Misrepresents Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute ^ | November 14, 2007 | Casey Luskin

[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

[CottShop]

DI has a wholel ist of 700+ scientists who aren’t affiliated with them- they simply signed DI’s statement concerning the issue that Darwinian evolution was a broken and impossible hypothesis and who simply beleive that design is evident and has an intelligent agent- they make no statement about what that agent might be, but throuhg their research have come to hte logical conclusion that MaCROEVolution is impossible, and that intelligent design is evident.

[atlaw]

Demski . . . was DENIED his right to competent council- plain and simple!

What did Demski need legal counsel for?

[CottShop]

The prosecution asked the totally irrelevent question about whether or not ID met the ‘criteria’ for science- They asked if it was ‘falsifiable, testable, and predictive’- The answer was YES- it was- Examples were given- Miller then LIED abotu what Behe said- twisted his words, and made it appear that Behe had said somethign he never did- Behe not only refuted Miller’s assinine arguments, but later, after the trial fully exposed miller as an outright liar- but, The blatant activist judge IGNORED the evidence presented- the examples given, and in a PRE WRITTEN canned speech done entirely by hte ACLU BEFORE the trial- denied that ID is science- Spin this any way you like- but the trial was a freakin joke! Demski knew it- saw the writing on the wall and refused to testify without ocmpetent council who could nail down the judge on his obvious bias and expose the trial for what it was- a injustice! Can’t dimsiss ID? Why htne just lie about it in trial- well done activists- the religion of Darwin is safe for now thanks to deceitful testimony and the preconceived bias of a judge and thanks to the PREWRITTEN closing dissertation by the ACLU- The judge wasn’t even cometent enough to think for himself!

[CottShop]

[[I don’t think the ACLU or the judge selected Thomas More to defend the school board. They inflicted that on themselves.]]

I never said that they did- Yuo are correct, ID made a mistake hiring him, and they recognized hte mistake too late, but were denied their basic right to new council- even wards of the state hwo are assigned council can fire their council at ANY time htey choose and have other council given htem- yet in one of them ost important trials in history, the defendents weren’t allowed competent council? Speaks volumes about the design of hte trial.

[hawkaw]

Spin this any way you like- but the trial was a freakin joke! So why no appeal?

[js1138]

The prosecution asked the totally irrelevant question about whether or not ID met the ‘criteria’ for science...

The question is hardly irrelevant to whether it should be taught in science class, and the defence agreed to have question answered by the trial.

Dembski was not a defendant; he was asked to testify as an expert witness. Name another case in which an expert witness has demanded personal counsel.

Dembski was not denied counsel; he simply wasn't offered reimbursement. Hardly surprising considering he wasn't a defendant.

[CottShop]

[[That’s because he’s not the one really saying them, he’s merely repeating what he’s been told to say.]]

Yes I know- it just gets tiring refuting the same clap trap time and time again. They ask for - no make that demand evidence, they get it, they ignore it, they incessantly parrot the same accusations time and time again as though the evidnece was never given. It’s like “Na na na na boo boo, I can’t hear you” when it comes to dealing with the lies and half-truths and misrepresentations time and time again.

[doc30]

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!

You need to review what happened and how the legal system works. People providing expert testimony are not defendants. Demski wasn't the defendant and legally, not entitled to counsel. Once you figure out who was taking who to court, then you can discuss the Dover case. But if you simply can't keep track of the plaintiffs and defendants, how reliable is the rest of your information on this case?

[CottShop]

Doc- you know full well there are evidences- many evidences for irreducible complexity, and these strongly indicate that an intelligent causation was needed for their completed construction and couldn’t have arisen piecemeal through millions of years of biological mistakes-

Evidence? Knock youself out

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm -

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yet-another-irreducible-complexity-no-brainer-twisted-ropes/

pages and pages discussing irreducible complexity and debunking hte idea that small incremental biological mistakes could ever hope to create such intelligent design and functionality in a piecemeal stepwise fashion:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/search?cx=013434914035204888226%3A0xp8mwev7vk&q=irreducible+complexity&cof=FORID%3A11#1031

there are plenty more to be found on the web- Knock yourself out reading htem- you claim to ‘be waiting’ for evidence, but while you wait- ID scientists are publishign hteir research results all over hte world- While you ignore what is published, ID science continues to punch holes in the religious belief that says Macroevolution is possible ‘if given enough time’ to apparently jump impossible hurldes.

[CottShop]

Excuse me, I mispoke about who was defendents- but if that’s the best counterargument you cna offer, then whatever- the fact is that Demski DID have a right to competent council, yet was denied it by a judge who liked the incompentency of council for the plaintiffs.. Any person- plaintiff or defense, has a right to competent council

[ahayes]

Dembski was not on trial. He was a witness. My dad was in court as a witness last week. Strangely, he did not require a lawyer. Surveys of friends who also know people who have acted as witnesses reveals zero (0) witnesses who towed a lawyer to court.

[js1138]

I never said that they did- You are correct, ID made a mistake hiring him, and they recognized the mistake too late, but were denied their basic right to new council- even wards of the state who are assigned council can fire their council at ANY time they choose and have other council given them- yet in one of them most important trials in history, the defendants weren’t allowed competent council?

Thomas More is a law firm, not a person. You appear to be the only person on the planet who thinks the Dover school board tried to fire or replace its counsel during the trial. Kindly provide your source of information.

I will admit that a major law firm that allows two of its defendants to perjure themselves is somewhat deficient in witness preparation. And selecting the Discovery Institute to provide the expert witnesses wasn't much of a help either.

Given the facts of the case, a competent legal counsel would have advised settling out of court and avoiding a possible precedent. But in the end it is probably best to get the inevitable over with. It saved Ohio, Kansas and Georgia a lot of time and money.

[js1138]

For some reason my last post pinged doc instead of cottshop.

[CottShop]

that’s swell- but your dad was not facing a judge who completely ignored scientific evidence for ID, nor was he at risk of having his case magled by an incompetent lawyer

[ahayes]

I don’t know the judge’s sentiments on ID. :-D

My dad did not consider the case “his” case. He was there simply to provide information.

It’s possible the defendant’s lawyer was incompetent, but his competence or lack thereof had nothing to do with my dad’s job.

I can’t foresee any situation that would require my dad to have a lawyer while witnessing in court.

[doc30]

You linked to speeches and non-scholarly sources. You have yet to produce actual evidence. References such as those don’t carry as much weight as the astrology section in the newspaper. Nothing there goes beyond a philosophical level and amounts trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Nothing wrong with ID as a philosphical concept, but it simply isn’t science.

[doc30]

Thanks, I was beginning to wonder if you thought CottShop and I were schizophrenic extremes of the same person. Oh the horror!

[CottShop]

Desmki asked for competent council and was refused- you can find his accounts of hte trial over on his blog at uncommondescent.com (it might be .org- can’t remember right off)

Not that I expect that you’ll read any of hte following, but here’s just a snippet of the activism and bias of the judge and the lies of the defendents:

Judge Jones ADMITS to the activist nature of his ruling:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html

What Nova WON’T tell you about hte Dover Trial:

http://www.discovery.org/a/4300

Judge Jones FLAT OUT LIED about ID 3 times in order to make his biased ruling:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/3_myths_about_the_dover_intell.html

Why ID is NOT a religious ‘agenda’ and is infact a true leigitimate science:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/principled_not_rhetorical_reas.html

How Ken Miller FALT OUT LIED during hte trial- yet amazingly, Judge Jones accepted the lies of Miller, and IGNORED the evidence he requested from ID:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/francisco_j_ayala_and_kenneth.html

Another Dirty Little Secret in the History of Darwinism:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/another_dirty_little_secret_in.html

The fact is, the Kitzmiller decision isn’t wearing well even among legal scholars who are critical of intelligent design.”

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/montana_law_review_features_ex.html

Ken Miller’s long history of lies and deception before repeating htose same ‘qualities’ in court in Dover trial:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/a_list_of_selected_responses_t.html

Judge Jones’ incompetence: “The Separation of Powers in Establishment Jurisprudence: Arnold H. Loewy Gets What Judge Jones Didn’t”:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/loewry_gets_the_separation_of.html

There’s much more- let me know whne you’ve read these- I’ll post more when you’re ready!

[CottShop]

[[Nothing wrong with ID as a philosphical concept, but it simply isn’t science.]]

And Macroevolution has had 15o + years to provide somethign more substantial than a philisophical concepot, yet it’s wholly accepted as Science?

The examples given are not philisophical, they are factual findings thta show that removing one element renders the whole systems useless and no functional, and could not have been assembled piecemeal over many millions of years- to suggest that they could have been incrementally assembled is nothign but a philisophical wishful thinking- So I guess by your own standards of what does or does not constitute science, Macroevolution falls so far outside the field of science as to be no more worhty of concideration than Astrology- Well done!

[CottShop]

[[I can’t foresee any situation that would require my dad to have a lawyer while witnessing in court.]]

No? If your dad were a witness for the defense in the dover tiral, and the lawyer was incompetent, and your dad knew that the case, and evolution were at risk, your dad certainly would require competent council - as well, if your dad’s reputation were at risk of misrepresentation by an incompetent lawyer, then he most certainly would need his own council- Plantiffs and Defendendts both have a basic right to competent council