It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PBS/NOVA online - Intelligent Design on trial

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Very interesting documentary, provides an insight into the motivations of many IDers (or cdesign proponentsists, heh) and the depths some people will go to get god into the science classroom.

www.pbs.org...

Also, some good science in there, such as transitionals and relationship between apes.

Currently a school board in Florida is speeding headlong into the same situation as Dover was. I'm shocked that these people just don't appear to get the point - I think the saying goes something like those who don't know their history are condemned to repeat it. This includes million $ court costs for myopic and idiotic religiously motivated school boards.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


thank you thank you thank you a thousand times over!

i've been meaning to watch this, but i don't have PBS in Malta.

star and a flag for you, good sir.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
i just watched it and was amazed at how well done and concise it was. especially the inclusion of just the right about of science in there.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I watched it also. Thanks very much for the link. I'd heard about it coming on PBS a little while back, but I forgot to TiVo it. I'm just happy that at least *some* people (yay PBS!) understand that putting things online gets you brownie points.

However, I found the Dover school board's actions very worrisome. While I read about the case as it was unfolding, it's another matter entirely to hear those school board members talk about it in their own words. I think it very well illustrates the fact that those types of religious people have absolutely no interest in understanding anything, and they see any attempt to explain the natural world as an affront to their fragile beliefs. It's very disturbing how hard they'll try to force their "magical" explanation on students, just to validate their own beliefs.

Let's hope we can soon come to an end on this stupid debate once and for all.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by shoran
 


yeah, i didn't realize how bad the situation was either. it's incredible to see how the one former member of the school board reacted to the judge's decision "he's a (expletive deleted)"

and how things happened in the first place
including them using PERJURY



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
yeah, i didn't realize how bad the situation was either. it's incredible to see how the one former member of the school board reacted to the judge's decision "he's a (expletive deleted)"

and how things happened in the first place
including them using PERJURY


Yep. I loved how he said something like, "He's a clown! He's not a good Christian!" Because, I guess in this guy's mind, it doesn't matter how you break the law. As long as it's in the name of fundamentalist Christianity, it makes you a "good Christian".

What's funny is that they also don't see how actions like those aren't so far removed from those of the fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East who do just about everything they can to force their brand of religion on the population.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by shoran
 


yeah

you know, it's kind of odd... none of the creationists/"IDists" have commented on this thread yet....



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Interestingly enough, I also just learned that the Discovery Institute plagiarized a video that Harvard made on the inner workings of the cell. They took Harvard's video, stripped out the copyright information and narration, added their own "pro-Creationism" narration, and then put the video out as their own. That's a big no no. I'm glad that it was Harvard's video, though; the top law school in the country.


There's definitely nothing intelligent about intelligent design. They should rename it something like, "We believe people are too stupid to understand complex things. So instead, we've attributed everything to magic, and feel that answers all our questions."



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by shoran
 


yeah

you know, it's kind of odd... none of the creationists/"IDists" have commented on this thread yet....


For a good creationist assesment, go to Judgment Day: Will it Be the New Inherit the Wind? 11/14/2007
creationsafaris.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by shoran
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Interestingly enough, I also just learned that the Discovery Institute plagiarized a video that Harvard made on the inner workings of the cell. They took Harvard's video, stripped out the copyright information and narration, added their own "pro-Creationism" narration, and then put the video out as their own. That's a big no no. I'm glad that it was Harvard's video, though; the top law school in the country.


There's definitely nothing intelligent about intelligent design. They should rename it something like, "We believe people are too stupid to understand complex things. So instead, we've attributed everything to magic, and feel that answers all our questions."



Were you this upset when it was demonstrated that federal judge John Jones in the case copied his "masterful ruling" almost directly from the ACLU? See Judges’ Copying of ACLU “Highly Frowned Upon” by Courts According to Legal Scholars www.discovery.org...


As to the current dilemma of the Discovery Institute and plagerism, I will wait and see what 'evolves'... If they are truely guilty of knowingly plagerizing, then I would agree they should be punished... I'd like to see more facts first, however.


[edit on 26-11-2007 by cre8id]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

In evaluating this film, it is essential to first toss out the irrelevant material. There was a lot of that. Consider a short list of vignettes the film focused in on that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether Darwinism alone is science and deserves exclusive treatment in public education, or whether intelligent design can be treated apart from religious implications.

creationsafaris.com...

In evaluating the article linked above, it is essential to note that the NOVA documentary was actually focusing on the events of the Dover trial, and had little to do with whether Darwinism is science (which it is), but the religious nature of ID and the school board's motivations were most definitely relevant.

So, essentially, the rest of the article is poop. This was a landmark case, it has thrown out teaching ID in the science classroom, just like it's ugly sister - biblical creationism.

Science classes are for science, not religion.

And the second post on Judge Jones' ruling is just more BS from the DI. This is what 'proposed findings of fact' are for in such cases, the judge accepted the argument from the opponents. The cdesignproponentsists lost.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cre8id
Were you this upset when it was demonstrated that federal judge John Jones in the case copied his "masterful ruling" almost directly from the ACLU? See Judges’ Copying of ACLU “Highly Frowned Upon” by Courts According to Legal Scholars www.discovery.org...


I'm not familiar with it. However, I'm not "upset" about anything the Discovery Institute does aside from spread ignorance and stupidity. But, plagiarism is plagiarism, regardless of who is plagiarizing whom.



As to the current dilemma of the Discovery Institute and plagerism, I will wait and see what 'evolves'... If they are truely guilty of knowingly plagerizing, then I would agree they should be punished... I'd like to see more facts first, however.


Here you go



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
PBS is one of the best online sites. They have some great programs on there. I really like Frontline and Nova.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by shoran

Originally posted by cre8id
Were you this upset when it was demonstrated that federal judge John Jones in the case copied his "masterful ruling" almost directly from the ACLU? See Judges’ Copying of ACLU “Highly Frowned Upon” by Courts According to Legal Scholars www.discovery.org...


I'm not familiar with it. However, I'm not "upset" about anything the Discovery Institute does aside from spread ignorance and stupidity. But, plagiarism is plagiarism, regardless of who is plagiarizing whom.


I agree... IF the Discovery Institute actually plagerized.




As to the current dilemma of the Discovery Institute and plagerism, I will wait and see what 'evolves'... If they are truely guilty of knowingly plagerizing, then I would agree they should be punished... I'd like to see more facts first, however.


Here you go


I have written a couple of emails to Casey Luskin, Program Officer, Public Policy & Legal Affairs, Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. His response so far indicates that, "...to my knowledge, Discovery Institute has neither authorized nor received nor is making use of any presentation that used that animation. We have had nothing to do with creating or selling a DVD of that animation, nor do we have anything to do with placing that presentation on Google Video."



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

In evaluating this film, it is essential to first toss out the irrelevant material. There was a lot of that. Consider a short list of vignettes the film focused in on that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether Darwinism alone is science and deserves exclusive treatment in public education, or whether intelligent design can be treated apart from religious implications.

creationsafaris.com...

In evaluating the article linked above, it is essential to note that the NOVA documentary was actually focusing on the events of the Dover trial, and had little to do with whether Darwinism is science (which it is), but the religious nature of ID and the school board's motivations were most definitely relevant.

So, essentially, the rest of the article is poop. This was a landmark case, it has thrown out teaching ID in the science classroom, just like it's ugly sister - biblical creationism.

Science classes are for science, not religion.

And the second post on Judge Jones' ruling is just more BS from the DI. This is what 'proposed findings of fact' are for in such cases, the judge accepted the argument from the opponents. The cdesignproponentsists lost.


It appears to be more of a case of judicial activism to me... and it is documented that the judge copied large portions of the brief from the ACLU, no matter how you try to dismiss it.

As to DI, they tried to support the case on behalf of the local school board members trying to defend ID in the classroom, but they were not the instigators of the case. No matter what my personal feelings about who the school board members are or their motivation, it appears activist judges have stretched the legal system to new totalitarian lengths to brand people as being "guilty" or "innocent" of violating the establishment clause because of their beliefs... that would have been news to Thomas Jefferson who, as president, approved federal funding to buy Bibles and send Christian missionaries to the native Indians.

But if beliefs are motives to establishment, are atheists guilty of trying to set up a secular state and perhaps murder millions because of Stalin or Chairman Mao? No. Are Darwinians guilty of extreme eugenics because Hiter justified his bigotry with social Darwinism? No. IDist are NOT the same as creationists no matter what has been ruled and ID does not require that the designer be supernatural, although that would be the logical and ultimately necessary inference in a universe of finite time and space.

Of course, if someone really wants to know what the Discovery Institute thinks of teaching ID in schools, one should go to the horse's mouth insted of listening to flatulence from the other end. Go to www.discovery.org... and download the PDF file of their "Briefing Packet For Educators" which states. "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. However, if you voluntarily choose to raise the issue
of intelligent design in your classroom, it is vitally important
that any information you present accurately convey the views
of the scientists and scholars who support intelligent design,
not a caricature of their views. Otherwise you will be engaging
in indoctrination, not education."



[edit on 27-11-2007 by cre8id]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by cre8id
It appears to be more of a case of judicial activism to me... and it is documented that the judge copied large portions of the brief from the ACLU, no matter how you try to dismiss it.


Heh, so a Shrub-appointed conservative judge is now an activist.

Using 'Proposed findings of fact' is normal in court decisions. It took me 2 mins to find this for one court in the US:


Rule 14.5D Proposed Findings of Fact.

At or before the hearing, the petitioner shall provide the Court with proposed findings of fact, in separately numbered statements, which are necessary for the grant of the relief requested. The findings shall be incorporated in the proposed final decree.

linky

OK, see, they will be 'incorporated in the decree'. If the judge wanted to use all of the findings of fact, that's cool, indeed they 'shall be' used in some way. It's not an issue.

Even when a judge adpots the 'proposed findings of fact' without any other ruling, it has been found to be acceptable.

The DI are spinning more BS, and you are just spouting the party-line. Wesley Elsberry even showed that it's only 38% of the whole ruling from the 'proposed findings of fact'

austringer.net...

The DI are some of the biggest liars and hacks you could find, but lying for jesus is acceptable, no?

[edit on 27-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by cre8id
It appears to be more of a case of judicial activism to me... and it is documented that the judge copied large portions of the brief from the ACLU, no matter how you try to dismiss it.


Heh, so a Shrub-appointed conservative judge is now an activist.


If he was biased against ID, yes.



Using 'Proposed findings of fact' is normal in court decisions. It took me 2 mins to find this for one court in the US:


Rule 14.5D Proposed Findings of Fact.

At or before the hearing, the petitioner shall provide the Court with proposed findings of fact, in separately numbered statements, which are necessary for the grant of the relief requested. The findings shall be incorporated in the proposed final decree.

linky

OK, see, they will be 'incorporated in the decree'. If the judge wanted to use all of the findings of fact, that's cool, indeed they 'shall be' used in some way. It's not an issue.


Again, yes, it is an issue if the judge is predjudiced in the case to start with. The main issue that DI makes is one of bias... the copying of such a vast majority of the ACLU paper does make one pause.



Even when a judge adpots the 'proposed findings of fact' without any other ruling, it has been found to be acceptable.

The DI are spinning more BS, and you are just spouting the party-line. Wesley Elsberry even showed that it's only 38% of the whole ruling from the 'proposed findings of fact'

austringer.net...


DI does NOT say it is 90.9% of the whole ruling. Even your link which disputes the 90.9% figure gives at least a 66% match FOR THE PORTION in question. Here is what DI said:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
...In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.

...

However, a new analysis of the text ... reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording written for him by ACLU attorneys.

In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken verbatim or virtually verbatim from the proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones by ACLU attorneys nearly a month before his ruling.11 Jones essentially cut-and-pasted the ACLU’s wording into his ruling to come up with his decision. ...

Judge Jones’ extensive borrowing from the ACLU did not end with the words of ACLU lawyers. He even borrowed the overall structure of his analysis of intelligent design from the ACLU. The ACLU organized its critique of ID around six main claims, and Judge Jones adopted
an identical outline, discussing the same claims in precisely the same sequence. ...
~ www.discovery.org...

The DI report also has side-by-side comparisons.

So NOW who is distorting the truth?



The DI are some of the biggest liars and hacks you could find, but lying for jesus is acceptable, no?


No, lying for Jesus is not acceptable, but apparently distorting for Darwin is.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cre8id
I have written a couple of emails to Casey Luskin, Program Officer, Public Policy & Legal Affairs, Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. His response so far indicates that, "...to my knowledge, Discovery Institute has neither authorized nor received nor is making use of any presentation that used that animation. We have had nothing to do with creating or selling a DVD of that animation, nor do we have anything to do with placing that presentation on Google Video."


I never said they placed it on Google Video. However, I know if it was likely that I was going to be sued by the most prestigious law school in the United States, I'd deny everything as well. I've not been able to find much additional evidence regarding their alleged transgressions. So, I guess we'll have to see how it pans out and whether or not the claims have merit.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by cre8id
If he was biased against ID, yes.

...

Again, yes, it is an issue if the judge is predjudiced in the case to start with. The main issue that DI makes is one of bias... the copying of such a vast majority of the ACLU paper does make one pause.


In the same way any judge who throws out a case, yeah, he was biased. He made a judgment. That's what judges do.

It is normal for a judge to use the 'proposed findings of fact' of those with whom he agrees with.


DI does NOT say it is 90.9% of the whole ruling. Even your link which disputes the 90.9% figure gives at least a 66% match FOR THE PORTION in question. Here is what DI said


But it doesn't matter. That is what judges do. They can use proposed findings of fact in such a way.

You and the DI have nothing. It's just more whinging of a dying political movement.

So, we have 90% against 66%. One uses a computer algorithm, the other the amazing subjective assessment of Casey Luskin and an 'MS Word' word count. The judge did not take the PFoF as a whole, he only used about half of the document.

But, as I said, that's what judges do. This is why they have these documents. Even if he used every single part of the PFoF verbatim from start to finish, it is not really an issue. It is of no consequence.


Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU.


More DI media complaints BS.

Thus, for example, there is no peer-reviewed research in support of ID. The article in the biological society of washington journal subverted the normal procedures of peer-review by what we could call an 'activist' editor, eventually being removed from the journal all together.

Even bleedin' Behe & Snokes doesn't support ID. It was a lame attempt at a negative argument against evolution. There is a difference.

The judge rejected their claims. That's why they think there are errors, just like a thief moaning that he robbed nowt.


So NOW who is distorting the truth?


You and the DI. PFoF are normal procedure, the judge did nothing wrong. The DI are clutching at straws and throwing their dummy out the pram.


No, lying for Jesus is not acceptable, but apparently distorting for Darwin is.


I didn't think people like Behe were big on Darwin, ask him about HIV and evolution, heh. Hope to see a corrigendum to his book soon, his research skills are pathetic for an academic...

[edit on 27-11-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by cre8id
It appears to be more of a case of judicial activism to me... and it is documented that the judge copied large portions of the brief from the ACLU, no matter how you try to dismiss it.


It could also mean that the ACLU is simply right.
But, I always love how when somebody disagrees with a judge's decision, it's "judicial activism". Their power only extends as far as its legal limits. He may have overstated his opinion somewhat given the scope of the case, but I don't think that's anything but his opinion.



As to DI, they tried to support the case on behalf of the local school board members trying to defend ID in the classroom, but they were not the instigators of the case. No matter what my personal feelings about who the school board members are or their motivation, it appears activist judges have stretched the legal system to new totalitarian lengths to brand people as being "guilty" or "innocent" of violating the establishment clause because of their beliefs... that would have been news to Thomas Jefferson who, as president, approved federal funding to buy Bibles and send Christian missionaries to the native Indians.


If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the Discovery Institute pretty instrumental in the Dover school board's relabeling of "Creationism" as "Intelligent Design"? I can't recall if they were pointed to the Discovery Institute by a third party, or if the Discovery Institute approached them after hearing about the school board's intentions. Either way, I think the intentions of the Discovery Institute are pretty clear.



But if beliefs are motives to establishment, are atheists guilty of trying to set up a secular state and perhaps murder millions because of Stalin or Chairman Mao? No. Are Darwinians guilty of extreme eugenics because Hiter justified his bigotry with social Darwinism? No. IDist are NOT the same as creationists no matter what has been ruled and ID does not require that the designer be supernatural, although that would be the logical and ultimately necessary inference in a universe of finite time and space.


This is pretty silly. If ID says that complex organisms/processes/etc. are too complex to have evolved naturally and, therefore, must have been designed ... then who designed the designer? I'd imagine the designer would have to be even more complex than what it designed, so...



Of course, if someone really wants to know what the Discovery Institute thinks of teaching ID in schools, one should go to the horse's mouth insted of listening to flatulence from the other end. Go to www.discovery.org... and download the PDF file of their "Briefing Packet For Educators" which states. "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. However, if you voluntarily choose to raise the issue
of intelligent design in your classroom, it is vitally important
that any information you present accurately convey the views
of the scientists and scholars who support intelligent design,
not a caricature of their views. Otherwise you will be engaging
in indoctrination, not education."


I downloaded the referenced PDF and read through a little bit of it. But, I don't expect ID promoters to call it religion, otherwise it'd be called Creationism. Either way, it's still fundamentally supernatural in nature. They continue to call it a scientific theory, but there's absolutely no science involved, there's no scientific theory, there's no testable evidence, there's nothing but "maybe", "what if", and "This is too complicated for me to explain, so I'll attribute it to a higher power." The theory of evolution isn't flawless, but it is a scientific theory nevertheless.



new topics




 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join