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]

[[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.
]]

Not playing htis little rabbit trail round and round- this is my last reply to htis issue- Behe’s OPINION about astrology and ID have ABSOLUTELY nothign to do with FACTUAL evidences of the actual science itself- Behe is welcome to his OPINION outside of ID, and I could really care less what his opinion is about it, it is the FACTS of ID science that interest me and nothign esle. Behe could beleive God is an eternally alive orange for all I care- but it’s his FACTS about intelligent design present in nature that are the issue and the heart of ID and NOT his outside OPINION- comprende?

[ahayes]

So when I said above that Behe said astrology was science and you said that was a blatant lie, you were mistaken?

[swain_forkbeard]

How about this?

The evolution of more complex life forms from simpler forms through natural selection neither imples nor denies the existence of God.

Are we all happy now?

[GreenOgre]

Can someone please answer the following in less than 250 words without referencing religion and how I'm going to hell for asking these questions.

How can you test ID?
You can test the Theory of Gravity and Quantum Physics, why not ID?

What proof is there of ID being real?
"Saying Darwin is wrong doesn't mean you are right. There is an option that both could be wrong."

If there is intellegent designing going on, who is the designer?
What mechanisms does the designer use?
Does he/she like Elvis or Roy Orbison, Beatles or Rolling Stones?

[longshadow]

Merry Kitzmas to the "Cdesign proponentstists."

[Bruinator]

We do, its called church.

[Bruinator]

Whatever it is, it is the truth.

[FastCoyote]

“We got news for ya:

ID is NOT, in any way, a science, or scientific.

It has no way to test its “theory”, does not explain how things got the way they are, and offers ZERO evidence to back up its assertions.

IS IS simply creationism by another name.

Admit this truth and move on.”

I can make much the same argument for Big Bangism. Please provide evidence from before the Big Bang.

I think science and intelligent design are quite compatible. You obviously haven’t read Goedel’s incompleteness theorem.

[js1138]

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.

He can work on it all he wants. Evolution is a computational algorithm. The genome is a finite string. Any finite string can be reached very quickly with a simple ratchet algorithm that accumulates successful tosses of the die. As a mathematician, he should be embarrassed proposing otherwise.

[weegee]

I can agree on that. There are those who’ve said that belief that God was creator also means believing “young Earth”, man and dinosaurs co-existing, etc. etc. which it does not.

I won’t even defend ID as science. I haven’t looked into it. But belief in God as Creator is a belief in “creationism”.

Some would have it that we must deny any role from a creator. I would not venture to make any determination in a school setting as to the nature of that creator but to insist on denial of a creator is to preach atheism, itself a faith based belief system (religion).

If God was sprang forth from the Big Bang purely by accident (or evolved from space dust). What is to rule out the existence of “other” gods by similar origins?

But as the original poster said, all of this is neither here nor there is PBS misrepresented the case in their “report”.

[ahayes]

The FSM was made up to make fun of ID’s coyness about naming the Designer. In the absence of any information about the Designer, it’s possible that it was a FSM.

The only reason to find the FSM offensive is if ID is really just a front for creationism and the Designer is the Christian God, while IDers are not openly stating this in order to appear objective.

[Pres Raygun]

Thanks for posting the transcript. If you read the context of his remarks, Behe is simply saying that at one time astrology was a legitimate scientific theory that required testing to validate. That validation failed, but before science made the effort to validate or invalidate astrology it was a legitimate area to investigate. IDers may have jumped the gun by pushing their theory before they have found a way to test it, but I don’t see why at this point in time it is not a legitimate field of inquiry. String theory and much of modern particle physics are not at the moment testable, but they are legitimate areas of scientific investigation. Opponents of ID seem to want to stop ID before it even has a chance to get going.

I have a few questions for those who believe the Theory of Evolution. How could the TOE be falsified? What predicitons does the TOE make that are testable? Is SETI a legitimate scientific enterprise? Is it possible to detect the existence of intelligent extra-terrestial life through their radio emission?

[Bruinator]

I suppose your intelligence is much more superior to those “over there?”

[weegee]

Show evolution in motion. Show us your test. < /devil’s adovocate >

Also, Science is so certain as to when and how life began but they are stumped when asked to define when life BEGINS in the womb. Why is that? There certainly are millions of pregnancies every year. Why is it that it is so difficult to determine when life begins?

A. Politics.

[swain_forkbeard]

Goedel’s work may not be complete, but at least it’s internally consistent.

No, wait...

Goedel’s work is complete but contains internal inconsistencies.

I can never make up my mind on this one.

[Bruinator]

Not exactly. Religion denotes faith in a higher power. Athiesm does not exhibit faith in a higher power. It exhibits faith in the common man. That is blasphemy.

[js1138]

Yet a simple electromagnetic wave, if it appears to hold some sort of code is considered a sign of intelligent life.

The "code" is not what SETI is looking for. SETI looks for a carrier signal, most likely one with no "code" at all. Such signals are commonly made by humans, but never yet observed in the absence of humans.

Archaeology involves the same kind of search for objects matching ones known to have been produced by humans but not known to be produced in the absence of humans.

Since we have no examples of intelligent designers of life systems with which to compare, we have no living objects known to have been designed.

Some ID proponents argue that we are beginning to design life. Interestingly, the kinds of things we do to increase the yield of crops, or their resistance to disease, are precisely the kinds of things we don't find in the absence of human intervention. The genomes found in living things form a nested hierarchy matching the presumption of common descent.

[Stashiu]

I would agree that Christians are unfairly targeted for derision and persecution. Some crosses are worth bearing. Just don’t think this is one of them.

The Bible is a much better tool for spiritual development than historical development. I think that science and faith are very supportive of one another, not in conflict. To try to re-mold the Biblical story of creation into a science, is intellectually dis-honest and spiritually un-necessary.

This attempt of Intelligent Design reminds me of some forms of mysticism that try to attribute the actual words of the Bible to do what is essentially fortune telling. I doubt that was the intention of the writers. Wisdom is not so hidden in the Holy text. Science was not the objective. Spiritual explanations of events and phenomena are not inherently in conflict. Neither, degrades the other.

[Bruinator]

Sort of like ALgore and his minions using global warming as a means to get the masses to adhere to his global view. Why doesn’t he say it plainly, “I am superior and you must adhere to my world view.” I use globabl warming to scare the people and get the “smart, yet gullible” people to follow my lead. He is just a bad example of the Dr. Evil type charlatans.

[raygunfan]

you:

We got news for ya:

ID is NOT, in any way, a science, or scientific.

It has no way to test its “theory”, does not explain how things got the way they are, and offers ZERO evidence to back up its assertions.

IS IS simply creationism by another name.

Admit this truth and move on.

ME; YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPERATION SCIENCE AND HISTORICAL SCIENCE, AND IF YOU DID, YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING.

BUT, IM GLAD TO SEE YOU FOLLOWED BY ORIGINAL POST:

1. CREATIONISM IN DISGUISE

2. ITS NOT SCIENCE

3. REPEAT ONE AND TWO LOUDER AND LOUDER.