Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nova Blatantly Misrepresents Intelligent Design
Discovery Institute ^ | November 14, 2007 | Casey Luskin

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cdesign; coyotemanhasspoken; dcbitchfest; deceit; defundpbs; intelligentdesign; pbs; politicalagendas; proponentsists; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 301-315 next last
To: ahayes
Perhaps before you mock you should look up the definition of "vestigial organ".

Please.

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution... Vestigial structures are often called vestigial organs, although many of them are not actually organs. These are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition,

Wikipedia

Did I miss anything? This definition does NOT fit the human appendix. Read the CNN article. And thanks for the trip down high school biology BS memory lane.

"When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all." --Paul Simon

81 posted on 11/20/2007 12:20:50 PM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
This definition does NOT fit the human appendix.

Please expound.

82 posted on 11/20/2007 12:22:54 PM PST by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: doc30

>> The fundamental problem with Behe’s definition of science is that it removes the necessity of falsifiablity from the process. <<

We all know that geologists, archaeologists and paleontologists have time machines to test them for falsification.


83 posted on 11/20/2007 12:24:32 PM PST by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pres Raygun
Whether SETI is looking for a code or a carrier frequency has no bearing on the fact that SETI is looking for intelligent life.

SETI is looking for a signal that has two attributes: the type is known to be a product of human activity; it has never been observed in the absence of human activity. If such a signal is observed, the first thing that will happen is that efforts will be made to find a natural, non-human cause. Pulsars are a case in point.

ID has no algorithm for determining that a finite string is the result of an evolutionary algorithm or the result of divine intervention or the result of intervention by space aliens. We could detect strings in a genome that are inconsistent with common descent, and I can recall a few years ago, seeing predictions made on these threads that such strings would be found.

In fact, the opposite has been found. Molecular biology has uncovered vast arrays of data consistent with common descent, and nothing indicating intervention to produce a species that could not have evolved via descent with modification. No pig genes in the asparagus.

84 posted on 11/20/2007 12:25:11 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

***If the geological model is so wrong, it should be easy to disprove.***

And, why is that? Do you have a credible explaination as to why wrong theories, models, etc. are easy to disprove?

Besides, you completely missed my point. Just because something can predict something doesn’t make it right. Unfortunately, macro evolution is impossible to prove since you can’t replicate it in a lab and you won’t be around long enough to observe it in nature. In this regard, it is a dead science. Evolution is no better than any other of what we now regard as false theories, pseudo-sciences, etc. LIKE Astrology.

And, what many scientists today call micro evolution, is really an example of an intelligent design. Before you answer, see if you can figure out why I might say that.


85 posted on 11/20/2007 12:26:45 PM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Great illustration of elitist thought.


86 posted on 11/20/2007 12:30:42 PM PST by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

Funny how evolutionists get away with origins being outside the scope of evolution, yet use it as an atheistic evangelism tool.


87 posted on 11/20/2007 12:33:43 PM PST by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: js1138

>> Molecular biology has uncovered vast arrays of data consistent with common descent, and nothing indicating intervention to produce a species that could not have evolved via descent with modification. <<

Wow, you might want to enter the 21st century. That notion was struck down a couple of decades ago.


88 posted on 11/20/2007 12:36:32 PM PST by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: xedude

>> Oh, and string theory has made predictions that are testable. <<

Actually string theory predicts undetectable dimensions that when they are tested for with new machinery, are simply reworked to be smaller than the new detection methods can detect. The theory always runs just ahead of the experiment to prevent falsification.


89 posted on 11/20/2007 12:39:35 PM PST by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

I’m sorry, was that relevant to my post in any way?


90 posted on 11/20/2007 12:39:54 PM PST by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
>> 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 geological layer would be re-dated to something more recent. <<

There, I fixed it for you.
91 posted on 11/20/2007 12:43:21 PM PST by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

You’re saying that ID is religion posing as science, while evolution is the same.


92 posted on 11/20/2007 12:44:51 PM PST by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
the geological layer would be re-dated to something more recent

Nope, that wouldn't solve the problem at all.

93 posted on 11/20/2007 12:45:18 PM PST by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

Yes, ID is religion posing as science.
No, evolution is not religious.
Your first post is still irrelevant.


94 posted on 11/20/2007 12:46:28 PM PST by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
That notion was struck down a couple of decades ago.

How could this have escaped the notice of the scientific community?? Please provide evidence.

95 posted on 11/20/2007 12:47:11 PM PST by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
that intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology

Sounds about right.

96 posted on 11/20/2007 12:48:33 PM PST by Psycho_Bunny (Islam: Imagine a clown car......with guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

>> Unfortunately, macro evolution is impossible to prove since you can’t replicate it in a lab and you won’t be around long enough to observe it in nature. <<

Sorry, but there are legitimate scientific endeavors that cannot be brought into a laboratory and tested. There are other methods to do science than laboratory falsification. Evolution and ID fall outside of direct falsification, as well as geology, paleontology, cosmology, archeology, and anything else that is too big, too far away, or happened too long ago to bring into a lab.

Unfortunately, both ID and Evolution proponents blindly accept Popperian falsification as the only legitimate scientific process out of ignorance. This only serves to muddy the discourse on the subject.


97 posted on 11/20/2007 12:50:44 PM PST by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

Comment #98 Removed by Moderator

To: Lord_Calvinus
And, what many scientists today call micro evolution, is really an example of an intelligent design. Before you answer, see if you can figure out why I might say that.

Its your religious belief?

99 posted on 11/20/2007 12:54:48 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070908/bob9.asp


100 posted on 11/20/2007 1:01:20 PM PST by dan1123 (You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. --Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 301-315 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson