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

[canuck_conservative]

If you’re pushing I.D., then YOU are the one pushing a blind religious agenda.

‘Cuz it sure ain’t science.

[Sloth]

It's hard not to make that connection unless you're willing to identify the intelligent designer.

Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly willing to identify the designer as God. But how does "somebody made this complicated thing" automatically imply "somebody made this complicated thing instantly by magic without intermediate steps"?

[ahayes]

Take it up with Behe, CottShop. He testified in court under oath that astrology is as much science as intelligent design. From the Dover transcripts:

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.

(Bolding mine.)

[doc30]

When the accusation that ID wasn’t falsifiable was put forth, Behe gave several examples- several SCIETIFIC examples of how it IS falsifiable

Can you list some? I'd like to see them, at least the ones that aren't based on 'it's too complicated so it was designed.' That's not testable. It's scientific surrender.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Here’s a good one. Ping!

[doc30]

Cottshop, you’ve been pwn3d big time by ahayes!

[cryptical]

It's hard not to make that connection unless you're willing to identify the intelligent designer.

I think they're afraid to invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his tentacles).

[js1138]

One thing the show demonstrates beyond doubt is that Thomas More utterly failed to prepare its witnesses, and the Discovery Institute — which considered its lawyers to be the sharp end of The Wedge — destroyed 20 years of scheming with its incompetence.

There used to be a lot of chatter among cdesign proponentsists about doing the science first and then developing a legal case.

This was the worst case ever of premature adjudication.

[doc30]

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.

The fundamental problem with Behe's definition of science is that it removes the necessity of falsifiablity from the process. He removes the requirement that a scientific theory present some testable criteria. Under his umbrella, all theories are valid, even if they have been seriously refuted. In other words, a theory is still scientifically valid even if it has be falsified by testing and/or evidence. That is not the science we operate under today.

[doc30]

I think a certain type of mentallity is attracted to ID and creationism and it involves the left side of the bell curve, regardless of profession. Their scientists are over there, the school board members are over there and now it is confirmed that the lawyers come from that side of the bell curve, too.

[massgopguy]

“So I pressed the down button on the elevator an it said, “I hear you’ve been whacking around the toaster.”” - Woody Allen

[CottShop]

I’m done- I’m sure this thread will devolve into more bliand and ignorant statements in defense of the dying MacroEvolutionary hypothesis, and I’m sure more disingenious blatant scientifically ignorant misrepresentations will fill the pages to come- Have at it- The articles and the refutations of the blatant lies presented by PBS are there for you to either read or completely ignore per usual. do what ya want. If ya’ll wish to defend a seriously flawed biologically impossible Macroevolutionary hypothesis by presenting nothing more thna scientifically ignorant ad hominem attacks and outrighht blatant misrepresentations- then I suppose you have the right to your opinion. But it is non the less quite telling when you have to do so. If that’s the best ‘scienctific’ arguments you can present, then I guess it just goes to hsow how htreadbare the hypothesis of Macroevolution really is. But I’m sure some will defend it to the death with nothing but empty scientifically stunted accusations. The fact is that Miller got his but handed to him on a silver platter during hte trial, but amazingly, The bias of the judge and the influence of the ACLU were such that their objectivity was thrown completely out hte window during the ‘trial’. It was like the three monkeys who could hear see or speak no evil- Evidence? What evidence? We didn’t see any evidence- Criminey. Perhaps one day the judge monkey with his hands over his eyes will wil lremove them and see the facts objectively instead of with complete bias. but until then, I’m sure we’ll all have to endure copious amounts of bias and blatant misrepresentations ad nauseum

[ahayes]

I’m sorry Behe let you down.

[CottShop]

[[Take it up with Behe, CottShop. He testified in court under oath that astrology is as much science as intelligent design. From the Dover transcripts:]]

I don’t care what he said about astrology- The fact is that ID was on trial here and the FACTS were presented about ID which were completely ignoreed by hte judge- You’ve introduced a false and misleading respresentation of hte trial by insinuating that the trial consited of nothign more strong than a completely irrelevent comment made by Behe that didn’t affect the trials issues one iota-

Oh and Doc- pwned- Cripes- you have VERY low standards I see- thnaks for tippiong your hand and revealing your intellectual dishonesty right off the bat- go play in DC’s palypen- you’ve brought NOTHING worthwhile to htis thread-0

[weegee]

Atheism is a religion too. It is an absolute belief that there is no god.

Agnosticism says “we cannot know these things” and draws no conclusion.

[Getready]

Actually, that’s what Dembski was working on. Ways to
determine whether an item is designed(flint arrowheads, electro-
magnetic receivers, electronic signals, wall paintings, etc.) and see if the
mathematical techniques derived could be applied to
bio. systems.

I still don’t understand that as the understanding of the basic cell,
and the DNA and its’ attending structures get’s more and more
complicated with its functions, and controls, that it is
considered as evolved with no outside help. Yet a simple
electromagnetic wave, if it appears to hold some sort of
code is considered a sign of intelligent life. I guess
DNA is no longer considered as being a type of code.

Couldn’t an electromagnetic wave have “evolved” having passed through
so much of space? Don’t tell the SETI folks that, they
would lose much of their “sexiness” and funding.

[ahayes]

Let’s go back and replay this conversation.

You said ID was science.
I said, yes, if you also think like Behe that astrology was science.
You said that was a blatant lie.
I produced a quotation of Behe’s exact words saying that astrology was science.
You say you don’t care that Behe did say that and called my statement above “false and misleading”, in spite of it being an exact quotation.

I have a lot of surreal conversations at FR.

[CottShop]

[[I’m sorry Behe let you down.
]]

No Ahayes- it wasn’t Behe who let me down- it was the bias of the judge, the sham of a trail, and the blind ignorance of our school systems that have let me down- Ilk that buy the bias of the judge also let me down- I expedcted more intellectly honest discussion and judgement fro mthe system, but I see I was sadly overestimating the integrity of those who pulled the fleece over everyone’s eyes. Behe did a fine job during hte trial- when askled for evidence, he presented it, when asked for explanations, he presented them-= when asked for fair representation, he and Demski and other experts were DENIED fair representation, when asked for further explanation, they were DENIED- So yes, I was let down, but it was fro mthe legal system- not those who presented their case with compelling evidence and fulfilled the requirements of science. Sad indeed.

[weegee]

Why are FSM’s tentacles blessed? You honestly have belief in such a creature? Or do you exhibit bigotry and mock Christians?

You wouldn’t be the first, nor will you be the last. Just don’t throw me to any lions.

[weegee]

Astrology looks into the future. ID looks into the past.

The Man Made Global Climate Change crowd also look into the future but I never see condemnation of them on the PBS threads about ID.

Is it science? Or is the Global Warming Scare a doomsday cult of a different sort?