Tonight's NOVA is on Creationism.

  • Thread starter turbo
  • Start date
In summary, this show is about the Kili mountan and the legal battle that was fought over whether or not it should be labeled as a Creationist site. It should be an interesting show, as the treatment should be in-depth and not reek of outright nay-saying and dismissal.
  • #1
turbo
Gold Member
3,165
56
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
NOVA here in DC is about Kilimanjaro.
 
  • #3
Loren Booda said:
NOVA here in DC is about Kilimanjaro.

I didn't know you were also in DC?
 
  • #4
Cyrus said:
I didn't know you were also in DC?

I am too! But I'm a minor player in the PF community :)
 
  • #5
Loren Booda said:
NOVA here in DC is about Kilimanjaro.
NOVA here in Houston is about fractals.
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
RATS! It's a really good show, so far.
 
  • #8
Loren Booda said:
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.
 
  • #9
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
 
  • #10
Oh, I've seen this about a year ago.
 
  • #11
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.
 
  • #14


You can find the rest from there...IMO much better then downloading each clip.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #17
Loren Booda said:
Give them 39 lashes.

With a flagellum?
 
  • #18
NeoDevin said:
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.
 
  • #19
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #20
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.)
 

Related to Tonight's NOVA is on Creationism.

1. What is the topic of tonight's NOVA episode?

The topic of tonight's NOVA episode is on Creationism.

2. What is creationism?

Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms were created by a divine being or deity, as described in religious texts such as the Bible.

3. How is creationism different from evolution?

Creationism differs from evolution in that it believes in a supernatural creation of the universe and living beings, while evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life through natural processes such as natural selection.

4. Is creationism considered a scientific theory?

No, creationism is not considered a scientific theory as it cannot be tested or proven through scientific methods. It is considered a belief based on faith and religion.

5. What is the controversy surrounding creationism?

The controversy surrounding creationism lies in its conflict with the scientific theory of evolution and its inclusion in public school science curriculum. Some argue that creationism should be taught alongside evolution as an alternative theory, while others believe that it has no place in a science classroom due to its lack of scientific evidence.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
587
Replies
1
Views
116
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
873
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
887
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
490
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
788
Back
Top