NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

[Kesh]

This week's episode of NOVA is Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. It is scheduled to air Tuesday, November 13th at 8 pm Eastern. The show includes interviews with important figures in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, plus "dramatic reenactments" of the trial itself.

Of curious note:

Michael Behe, inventor of the specious meme "irreducible complexity" and guiding light of the intelligent-design movement, refused to participate. His testimony — the cornerstone of the defence — revealed a definition of science so loose that it includes astrology.

- review from Nature magazine, quoted on Pharyngula

Further, it appears the Discovery Institute is huffing up over the educational packet that NOVA has sent out to educators, claiming it may violate the Constitution.

[Disinfo Agent]

My turn to say "ToSeeked", though it's nice to have a new thread for this.

[Kesh]

Actually, that thread is why I started a new thread.

[KaiYeves]

Get 'em, NOVA!

[Noclevername]

Further, it appears the Discovery Institute is huffing up over the educational packet that NOVA has sent out to educators, claiming it may violate the Constitution.

A TV show's mailing violates the whohuhwhat? Specious is too kind a word for that!

[Kwalish Kid]

While PBS is at arms-length from the US Federal government, it is probably still bound by certain rules about what Federal funding can and can't do. (Like go to faith-based programs, charity or not, but I digress.)

However, it is hard to argue that the Nova documentation infringes on any religious position, especially since the position of most ID and Creationist supporters seems to be that they will hold particular religious positions regardless of any scientific claim. Simply presenting these claims shouldn't influence that stance.

[Noclevername]

Isn't this (speaking of unConstitutional behavior) covered by the separation of church and state? Science classes should teach critical thinking and objective examination of evidence. To make ID or Young Earth fit in, they must eliminate that, and science class winds up being about rote memorization of textbooks. Mindless acceptance of whatever authority tells them becomes the only lesson learned. The exact opposite of what science is about; discovering and confirming things, based on evidence and testing.

[Gillianren]

While PBS is at arms-length from the US Federal government, it is probably still bound by certain rules about what Federal funding can and can't do. (Like go to faith-based programs, charity or not, but I digress.)

But only a very, very small fraction of PBS's budget is from the US federal government. Most of it--about 2/3--is from Viewers Like You. (Not Viewers Like Me, however, as it's from Viewers Who Have Money.)

[Noclevername]

U.S. public schools are also paid for by taxes. Far more so than PBS. Can't have it both ways.

[KaiYeves]

The exact opposite of what science is about; discovering and confirming things, based on evidence and testing.

Well said! Now if only I could convince the kids in my school of that. Biology is "my least favorite class, because it's so boring" as one of my friends put it.
It is not boring! It is essential to being a citizen of a democracy and preventing yourself from being conned!
But then, if I shouted what I put in italics up there, they'd all decide I was too wierd to be friends with.

[Gillianren]

U.S. public schools are also paid for by taxes. Far more so than PBS. Can't have it both ways.

Undoubtedly, and there's no excuse for teaching religion in a science class.

[danscope]

It's about time ' intelligent design ' get's spanked in public and has it's
illogical pants pulled down. Hard to believe that kind of ignorance can
supposedly flourish in a modern world. Hurumphf !
Press on PBS !!! You bring light into the world.

Dan

[Van Rijn]

Further, it appears the Discovery Institute is huffing up over the educational packet that NOVA has sent out to educators, claiming it may violate the Constitution.

I was trying to find where they actually explained why, but I didn't turn that up in a google search. Here, apparently, is the packet (pdf file):

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/m...d-briefing.pdf

I don't see it, unless they're going with that tired old "evolution is religion" routine.

[Maksutov]

I didn't see anything in there either. Unless one is opposed to science, which is pretty much what the "Discovery Institute" is all about.

I've always thought the "Discovery Institute" should be renamed the "Dogma Institute" with the slogan "Why try to discover, when we already know everything?"

Love the editorial cartoon. Also the ironic use by PBS of "Judgment Day".

BTW, I've yet to see a scientific definition for "irreducible complexity".

[Ronald Brak]

BTW, I've yet to see a scientific definition for "irreducible complexity".

Definition - Irreducible Complexity: I'm right, you're wrong, nah-nah-nah!

[Noclevername]

Definition - Irreducible Complexity: I'm right, you're wrong, nah-nah-nah!

That belongs in the dictionary.

From the comments under the article:

The sheer tenacity of obviously incorrect fanatics in the face of data is so consistent I suspect humans are just wired for it.

I'm thinking of adding that one to my signature.

[MAPNUT]

"The NOVA/PBS teaching guide encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," says Dr. John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute.

The Institute has sent the PBS teaching guide out to 16 attorneys and legal scholars for review and analysis of its constitutionality."

First they decide it's unconstitutional, then they send it to lawyers for review.

[NEOWatcher]

From the OP article...

"The teaching guide is riddled with factual errors that misrepresent both the standard definition of intelligent design and the beliefs of those scientists and scholars who support the theory," adds West.

For instance? Says who?

[Noclevername]

From the OP article...

For instance? Says who?

It's just part of their "We're such a persecuted minority*" whining. Background noise.

*By the Liberal Media(tm), naturally.

[Disinfo Agent]

"The NOVA/PBS teaching guide encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," says Dr. John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute.

That's so funny, coming from those who have been desperately trying to inject creationism into evolution teaching! If only they would practice what they preach.

[Kesh]

BTW, I've yet to see a scientific definition for "irreducible complexity".

There isn't one. "Irreducible complexity" states that certain organs are too complex to have evolved naturally, or that they depend on the existence of other organs and would have had to develop simultaneously with that organ, with no intervening forms. ID-ers claim that this is not possible, hence the organ is "irreducibly complex" and evidence for some form of intervention by an intelligent designer.

Of course, it's a load of bunk. Their entire technique is based on ignoring intermediate forms in favor of claiming "spontaneous" formation of organs, to make it appear as if magic and support their religious background.

[KaiYeves]

It's about time ' intelligent design ' get's spanked in public and has it's
illogical pants pulled down. Hard to believe that kind of ignorance can
supposedly flourish in a modern world. Hurumphf !
Press on PBS !!! You bring light into the world.

Well said.
"ID? We don't got no ID. We don't need no stinkin' ID!"

[Dave Mitsky]

Well, I was at the Dover trial so I'll be watching but I suppose Ben Stein won't be.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=57840

Oddly enough, this movie is being advertised on BAUT.

Dave Mitsky

[Click Ticker]

First they decide it's unconstitutional, then they send it to lawyers for review.

Well - that's kind of the way it has to be. If they are of the opinion that it might be unconstitutional, it would be better to delay distribution until they can confirm things one way or the other. Violating the constitution is likely not the best place to practice, "better to ask forgiveness then permission."

[Click Ticker]

That's so funny, coming from those who have been desperately trying to inject creationism into evolution teaching! If only they would practice what they preach.

"If we can't play - then we're going to make sure nobody can!" Isn't that just the way of things?

[Jason]

Have any of you ever thought it might be a good idea to have some of ID's criticisms of evolutionary theory discussed in the classroom? Even if only to point out where they fall short?
How can you teach critical thinking about evolution without any actual criticism?

[Alasdhair]

Why give credibility to what amounts to a bunch of malevolent nutters? More original, apposite and well-thought-out criticisms of natural selection were included in The Origin of Species and have been raised and dealt with in the scientific literature since. "Teach the controversy" is a particularly insidious tactic of ID proponents as any controversy is entirely of their own creation. To the well-informed, the matter was settled over a century ago.

[Jason]

Hardly any serious researcher today believes that Shakespeare didn't write all the plays commonly attributed to him, yet the theories of those who present other possible authors were taught in my Shakespeare classes during college.

[Disinfo Agent]

Intelligent Design is not a coherent theory. It's just a collection of misguided objections.
Still, I don't think the problem is discussing creationism in science classes, exactly. The real problem is in presenting ID and other creationist ideologies as being equally valid alternatives to mainstream science, when in fact they are not.

[CodeSlinger]

"Teach the controversy" is a particularly insidious tactic of ID proponents as any controversy is entirely of their own creation. To the well-informed, the matter was settled over a century ago.

Exactly. If you acknowledge the noise ID'ers make, they say "see, the 'debate' on evolution is not settled yet!" And if you don't, they say "see, they're trying to cover up the 'debate' on evolution!" Nothing can shake their belief in the existence of of a 'debate' over evolution. Which bears a striking resemblance to their belief in the existence of certain entities.