- #36
That's not to say that the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents have packed up and called it a day; instead, they seem to simply be changing tactics. Recent developments indicate that the next wave of anti-evolution agitation will take a two-pronged approach. The first will be to try to foster doubt regarding evolution during high school education, while the second aims to explicitly carve a space for ID proponents at the college level by pressuring for their inclusion as a form of academic freedom. We'll take a brief look at both of these developments.
while the second aims to explicitly carve a space for ID proponents at the college level by pressuring for their inclusion as a form of academic freedom
yenchin said:They should teach about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster" too. ~RAmen :rofl:
Moridin said:For those of you who have not been able to see the two-hour documentary "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial", either because you lived outside the US or were busy, PBS has posted the entire thing on their website, freely available to the general public:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
The two-hour program is split up into 12 chapters, each about 10 minutes. Have fun!
Darwinism: A new PBS docudrama aims to discredit intelligent design | Mark Bergin, World Magazine
A new NOVA docudrama, slated to air Nov. 13 on PBS and available for online viewing thereafter, purports to articulate an established definition of science, one that excludes intelligent design. Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial follows a landmark federal lawsuit in 2005 that pitted ACLU-backed parents against the Dover, Pa., school district. At issue was whether the inclusion of a brief statement on ID in the ninth-grade biology curriculum amounted to establishing religion in the classroom. Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it did.
Because no cameras were allowed in the courtroom during the trial, NOVA created dramatic reenactments of the proceedings with actors quoting lines from the case transcripts. Filmmakers also interviewed attorneys, school board members, scientists, and local teachers and parents. Conspicuously absent: interviews with fellows of the ID-advancing Discovery Institute, several of whom testified at the trial.
Paula Apsell, NOVA's executive producer, claims Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and other institute fellows declined to participate in the project. But Behe, Minich, and Stephen Meyer say they were excited for the chance to share their views when NOVA first approached them early last year. But negotiations over interview procedures broke down when Apsell refused to allow a Discovery Institute representative to record the exchanges for public release should NOVA use any statements out of context.
Apsell instead offered to provide Discovery officials with complete footage of the interviews provided they signed away any right to make it public. Rob Crowther, the institute's communications director, told WORLD that arrangement defeated the purpose of holding NOVA accountable. "We have had some other experiences with the media where we've been edited and kind of sliced and diced," he said. "NOVA didn't want to be held accountable."
The docudrama's accompanying education packet for teachers claims, "There is no scientific controversy about the existence of evolution," a statement that glosses over the critical difference between macro and micro evolution. The packet further contends, "Intelligent design advocates have never attempted to test their own work through basic research or submitted papers to peer-reviewed journals." That charge suggests NOVA has shifted genres from documentary to fiction—with hired actors, to boot.
I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.
The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program.
There’s a big question within the intelligent design community: "How did the design get in there?" We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up. That's where we are. There are lots and lots of questions that are now open to re-examination in light of this new paradigm.
I had two tasks: to demonstrate to Judge Jones (1) that ID is creationism, thus a religious belief, and (2) that Of Pandas and People is a creationist textbook. As part of the evidence for my first task I included the words of two leading ID proponents, Phillip E. Johnson and William Dembski. Under direct examination by Eric Rothschild, I related Johnson’s definition of ID as “theistic realism” or “mere creation,” by which he means “that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.” [27] To that I added Dembski’s definition: “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” [28] If the judge had heard nothing except these two quotes, he would have had all the evidence he needed that ID’s own leaders regard it as not only creationism but also as a sectarian Christian belief. But I had much more, such as CSC fellow Mark Hartwig’s 1995 Moody Magazine article in which he referred to a 1992 ID conference at Southern Methodist University as a meeting of “creationists and evolutionists,” calling Dembski and Stephen Meyer “evangelical scholars.” [29] During these early years, when they needed money and supporters, ID proponents openly advertised both their religiosity and their creationism.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
Ultimately, then, we shouldn’t be startled by the alienation of academic non-scientists from science and technology, nor by the churlishnish with which they address such issues. Steve Fuller is merely an extreme case, an outlier. He represents what a widespread attitude may become when infused with mega-oses egotism and self-regard, and when maximally saturated with the desire to belittle and condescend to the much-hated scientific community. Fuller has perpetrated a dreadful book, but as a tantrum, it is exemplary. He may draw some cautious admiration from his colleagues for the operatic brio of his histrionics. But it seems to me doubtful — and this is a very good thing — that any large segment of the science-studies community, nor of the larger “academic left” will join him in the attempt to find comrades-in-arms in such venues as the Discovery Institute or the wider Intelligent Design movement. Figures like Johnson, Dembski, and Behe, not to mention Ahmanson and Monaghan, burn all too visibly with a searing desire to inaugurate a Godly polity that will be as intolerable to the postmodern left as to conventional liberals or secularists. These guys are just too scary, even for those academics who have heretofore flaunted their disdain for orthodox science. Fuller, I’m afraid, will just have to go it alone.
NeoDevin said:I sometimes wonder if there would be as much discussion if they had simply called it the law of evolution to begin with...
Puzzled, the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film's co-producer, why he and Stein didn't interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying "Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily." In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line.
Despite these falsehoods, by far the film's most outlandish misrepresentation is its linkage of Darwin with the Holocaust. A concentration camp tour guide tells Stein that the Nazis were practicing "Darwinism," and that's that. Never mind those belt buckles proclaiming Gott mit uns (God is with us), the toxic anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, the ghettoes and murderous pogroms in Christian Europe centuries before Darwin's birth. No matter. It's all the fault of evolution.
Why is all this nonsense a threat to science? The reason is Stein's libelous conclusion that science is simply evil. In an April 21 interview on the Trinity Broadcast Network, Stein called the Nazi murder of children "horrifying beyond words." Indeed. But what led to such horrors? Stein explained: "that's where science in my opinion, this is just an opinion, that's where science leads you. Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people."
B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
For the record, we do not propose that intelligent design should be mandated in public schools, which is why we strongly opposed the school district policy at issue in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
Should public schools mandate Intelligent Design?
No. The priority of the ID movement has long been focused on developing the theory of intelligent design through scientific research, scientific publication, and other forms of scientific discussion and does not seek to push ID into schools. In today's politically charged climate, attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will only hinder fair and open discussions on the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about ID to teach about it accurately and objectively.
LightbulbSun said:Excellent job by NOVA. All of these creationists appeal to emotion. One of them said it hurt his dignity that we came from smaller life forms. Aw, poor baby's dignity was hurt. Another stupid claim was because they didn't understand it that it must be false. Reza Aslam in a book discussion with Sam Harris pretty much echoed the same statement. It's lazy, pathetic and stupid.
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s signing of a transgender anti-discrimination bill points up the lunacy that ensues in a world without design (see here).
. . . . Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.
In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.
Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource.