Tonight's NOVA is on Creationism.

[turbo]

It starts at 8:00 Eastern here, and should be a pretty interesting show. Work with Creationists or related to some? You might want to pay attention to this show. Hopefully, NOVA's treatment will be in-depth and not reek of outright nay-saying and dismissal.

 

[Loren Booda]

NOVA here in DC is about Kilimanjaro.

 

[Cyrus]

NOVA here in DC is about Kilimanjaro.

I didn't know you were also in DC?

 

[Mororvia]

I didn't know you were also in DC?

I am too! But I'm a minor player in the PF community :)

 

[D H]

NOVA here in DC is about Kilimanjaro.

NOVA here in Houston is about fractals.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The standard OPB [PBS] in Oregon has the Nova about Creationism at 8 PST. But that's on Direct TV which doesn't show the other three stations now available as a digitial broadcast... I guess the point being that PBS is now broadcast on multiple stations in many areas, with optional programming that might include NOVA.

 

[turbo]

RATS! It's a really good show, so far.

 

[Redbelly98]

NOVA here in DC is about Kilimanjaro.

In his inaugural address, our president promised to restore science to its rightful place. I guess they don't want him to find out about the Creationist show.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Eggo

Watch the Program

This two-hour program is divided into 12 chapters. Choose any chapter below and select QuickTime or Windows Media Player to begin viewing the video. If you experience difficulty viewing, it may be due to high demand. We regret this and suggest you try back at another time.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

 

[Cyrus]

Oh, I've seen this about a year ago.

 

[Loren Booda]

It's good to know I'm not the only DC (sub)urbanite on PF. Actually, I've read of one now and then over my years on the forums. Lots of Beltway Bandit physicists, it would seem.

 

[Gokul43201]

Eggohttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

If that's it, it's pretty old. And if wikipedia is right, it (not sure if it was only NOVA, or the actual scientists in the trial) messes up some of the science about the bacterial flagellar motor.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=190610

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If that's it, it's pretty old.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=190610

Yep, on the TV directory it says the program first aired in 2007.

 

[binzing]

You can find the rest from there...IMO much better then downloading each clip.

 

[Loren Booda]

If that's it, it's pretty old. And if wikipedia is right, it (not sure if it was only NOVA, or the actual scientists in the trial) messes up some of the science about the bacterial flagellar motor.

Give them 39 lashes.

 

[NeoDevin]

If that's it, it's pretty old. And if wikipedia is right, it (not sure if it was only NOVA, or the actual scientists in the trial) messes up some of the science about the bacterial flagellar motor.

The point they were trying to make on the show, and in the trial (I believe) is that the flagellar motor is not an example of irreducible complexity, rather than to claim that "that was how it evolved". I could be mistaken, it's been a while since I watched the program.

 

[binzing]

Give them 39 lashes.

With a flagellum?

 

[Gokul43201]

The point they were trying to make on the show, and in the trial (I believe) is that the flagellar motor is not an example of irreducible complexity, rather than to claim that "that was how it evolved". I could be mistaken, it's been a while since I watched the program.

It's been over a year for me too, but if I recall correctly, they specifically mentioned the toxin secretion system as a precursor organelle to the flagellum. Whether that was what was actually said in Kitzmiller or was just an oversimplification produced by PBS for the sake of TV-friendliness is something I know nothing about.

 

[NeoDevin]

It's been over a year for me too, but if I recall correctly, they specifically mentioned the toxin secretion system as a precursor organelle to the flagellum. Whether that was what was actually said in Kitzmiller or was just an oversimplification produced by PBS for the sake of TV-friendliness is something I know nothing about.

Or it could be that that was the theory at the time, and the information on wiki was realized later. Could be any number of things, and I don't have time to try to look it all up. If anyone else has more information, feel free to share.

 

[LowlyPion]

Insofar as the legal case was concerned, I don't think it wasn't the science that was pivotal, so much as the ability to show that the Penguin and People book itself had evolved in representing Creationism in earlier drafts and discovering passages that had been changed in wording to intelligent design.

With a clear trail of evidence that the manuscript had been re-purposed to express the Creationists own evolving thought on how to wedge it into curriculum, the creationists failed because of their own failure to design their legal position intelligently. They simply made it too easy for the Judge to identify the violation of the Establishment Clause. (That of course and the perjury on the part of some of the witnesses trying to forward the case. Courts are predisposed to discard all of such testimony.)