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 ...
A population of aphids consists of green and red individuals. Green breeds with green and the offspring are roughly 1/2 and 1/2. Red breeds with red and still 1/2 and 1/2. Interbreeding green and red makes 1/2 and 1/2.
A predator is introduced into the system that eats the red aphids because they are easier to see against the green foliage. Through a few generations only green aphids are born from the mating of green and green aphids.
This is the perfect example of evolution that can be done withing the lifetime of a human. A distinct difference in a population brought on by exterior influence.
If evolution does not exist, then why don't we see bear fossils mixed in with T-Rex? Ohhhhh.... Someone or something spontaeously created a new species of bear when the T-Rex died out.
Abortion has no bearing on ID.
Find serious flaws in the superposition of the geologic column.
Find, for example, a group of human fossils in unquestioned Cambrian deposits. Find a fossilized dinosaur older than 65 million years with a human in its stomach.
On the other hand, knowing where in the world certain geological deposits are found allows you to make predictions of which fossils can be found there. Paleontologists are doing just that: they figure out what fossils they need to fill gaps, find deposits of the correct age, and after some searching they usually find the fossils. That is using the theory of evolution, as well as geology and other fields, to make predictions. Fulfilling those predictions further reinforces the strength of the theories.
.
Can't wait to see "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." This will be required homeschool viewing in our household. Later, PBS.
they are still aphids, they were aphids before and aphids after....
show me something wasnt an aphid, that gradually became an aphid..
im not asking for much, just evidence.
***On the other hand, knowing where in the world certain geological deposits are found allows you to make predictions of which fossils can be found there. Paleontologists are doing just that: they figure out what fossils they need to fill gaps, find deposits of the correct age, and after some searching they usually find the fossils. That is using the theory of evolution, as well as geology and other fields, to make predictions. Fulfilling those predictions further reinforces the strength of the theories.***
Did you know that there is a model of the solar system with the Earth in the center which can predict the position of heavenly objects fairly accurately. Yet, the model is wrong. We know that today.
That sounds positively Confucian. You are as one who is wise, Grasshopper.
I’m with you on evolution being visible within a human lifetime, but I think your example is not quite right.
A demonstration of evolution requires more than a shifting percentage of existing alleles.
Fortunately it is possible to start a colony of bacteria with a single individual and follow the mutations as the colony adapts to changing conditions.
Lifetime. Er... uh... don't know why I know that. Nevermind.
I think you're reading into it. Let's go a little bit further in the transcript:
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.
(Once again, bolding mine.)
By the usual definition astrology was not, is not now, and will never be a scientific theory.
I have a few questions for those who believe the Theory of Evolution. How could the TOE be falsified?
That's an easy one. The most commonly mentioned example is the Cambrian rabbit. If we were to find a fossil of a rabbit in Cambrian strata, half a billion years before rabbits appeared, that would be a major problem.
The problem for anti-evolutionists is that every single line of inquiry leads to the same conclusion--descent with modification produced all living organisms. If evolution were not true, we would expect to find all sorts of contradictory data. Phylogenies based upon genetic evidence would be irreconcilable. Anti-evolutionists usually respond to this by saying that God used a common blueprint to make similar organisms, but many similarities cannot be explained in this way. Examples include chromosomal translocations that occur in related species and not others, common gene duplications, and endogenous retrovirus insertions (if God didn't want primates to be able to make vitamin C it would make more sense for him to have not given us that gene instead of inserting a viral DNA sequence into the middle of it to break it).
Note that many intelligent design proponents do believe that common descent is real and that the universe is very old.
What predicitons does the TOE make that are testable?
Many. One was the prediction that we would find a fish that has tetrapod-like traits, and that this fish would be likely to be found in certain strata in Canada. The archaeologists went forth and dug, and found Tiktaalik. Following the discovery of Gogonasus other scientists have predicted new tetrapod finds in Australia, based upon fossil evidence and the distribution of the continents in the Devonian.
I'll join with many scientists and say that following the discovery of dinosaurs with protofeathers and with veined feathers, we will find fossils of dinosaurs with more intermediate feather types. These will most likely be found in the Yixian strata in China because many animals were fossilized here with excellent preservation of details that are usually lost, such as feathers.
Is SETI a legitimate scientific enterprise? Is it possible to detect the existence of intelligent extra-terrestial life through their radio emission?
In my opinion yes, in others' opinions no, but the consensus is that it's likely to be fruitless anyway you cut it.
Oh, yes. I just see the logo as I’m speeding by on my remote. :-D
ID is fairly weak for that to be possible. It never was more than a thought experiment, a what if.
Did you know that there is a model of the solar system with the Earth in the center which can predict the position of heavenly objects fairly accurately. Yet, the model is wrong. We know that today.
If the geological model is so wrong, it should be easy to disprove. Have at it. Creationists should try doing science instead of whining and (as the Dyscovery Institute) does) hiring lawyers and PR flacks. Did you notice the description of their new offices? No laboratories in the description anywhere. But, probably room for a dozen more cubicles for their crack propaganda pushers.
I think it is telling that the major proponents of ID, the hot new scientific theory, are not doing any science -- it is all a PR effort. (Maybe they know deep down that science is right after all!)
Remember how the appendix was considered a "vestigial organ"? They're still pushing the crackpot theory on Talk Origins and Biology on-line.
A vestigial process that extends from the lower end of the cecum and that resembles a small pouch.Newsflash: Purpose of appendix believed found.
And tonsils?
My favorite one is the "fact" that the coccyx is a leftover monkey tail.
Evolution puts the funny in science™
Your argument that we have no examples of life designed by known intelligent designers to compare with life on earth, begs the question. There are no quasars on earth to examine, yet we have no problem with scientists defining what a quasar is and then identifying such objects in space.
I won't argue that ID doesn't have a long way to go, but to argue that ID by its very nature is unscientific appears to me to be an a priori approach to science.
ID can in principle be validated empirically by finding algorithms that can with a high level of accuracy identify objects that are known to be designed by humans and then using the same algorithms to correctly identify organic and inorganic objects.
We know that such algorithms exist, because we can easily make such distinctions everyday, using algorithms running in our brains.
There's a leap of cosmic proportions in that assertion.
Perhaps before you mock you should look up the definition of "vestigial organ".
The facts weren't ignored. The judge just wasn't as easily swayed by the evidence as you are. Creationism, by any other name, has its basis in religious faith and as such has no place in a science class.
[quote]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.[/quote]
The only reason why astrology used to be considered “scientific” was because no one knew any better. These days, those people who believe the magic that the positions of planets dictates your life are rightfully considered dumb. It never made any predictions other than the made up consequences of Uranus being in Taurus.
Science is great because it tends to shake out the good and bad ideas. If it’s testable and reproducible, the theory will stand. The alternatives to evolution do not provide this foundation. Is it any wonder why they don’t have any acceptance? It’s not about who yells the loudest on the internet, but who has the correct ideas. The Church suppressed the heliocentric view of the solar system and even imprisoned Galileo because of his support of it. They controlled what was “correct”, but in the end the truth comes out.
The difference in the evolution controversy is that the currently correct and scientific argument is already out there, but a small minority has a non-scientific alternative. This wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t reflect so poorly on the state of science education in the US.
Oh, and string theory has made predictions that are testable. Most of particle physics is also testable.
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.