Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
Some of you may already be licking your chops in anticipation of tomorrow's (Tuesday 11/13 8pm EST) PBS special called Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.
Others may be upset and ready to complain of bias.
I expect the program to be enlightening, educational and entertaining. As you can see from the second trailer posted, not everyone is happy about this event. The Discovery Institute is doing it's best to predispose creationist proponents towards their usual anti-science mindset.
NOVA Program on Intelligent Design Biased, Not by Chance but Because They Designed It That Way
As NOVA’s website points out, Paula Apsell, senior producer for NOVA’s propaganda piece on intelligent design, Judgment Day, felt “compelled” to make the docudrama. Journalists are usually only “compelled” to report on events by their editors, or by the newsiness (timeliness, proximity, impact, conflict, etc) of a specific issue/event.
So, why were Apsell and NOVA compelled to make this program?
Apsell: If the decision had gone the other way, it could have had dire consequences for science education in this country.
Clearly, Apsell has an agenda. Judge Jones ruled that the Dover school board could not require students to hear a statement about intelligent design because intelligent design is not science. According to Apsell, had he ruled otherwise, the consequences would have been “dire.”
Dire: adj. dir•er, dir•est, having dreadful or terrible consequences; calamitous.If Apsell really thinks this, then it's no wonder she felt compelled — compelled to make a docudrama that misrepresents what the theory of intelligent design is and ultimately presents only a one-sided, biased view of intelligent design. A decidedly negative view.
The article goes on to complain in detail how unfair PBS was and that the Discovery Institute genuinely wanted to cooperate, but was unable because of PBS's overwhelming bias. These people must be professional victims. I have never heard so much whining in such a small space.
The middle of DI's rebuttal is about how unfair ABC's Nightline interview with Dr. Stephen Meyer was.
Out of two hours discussing mostly intelligent design theory, what did Nightline include in their extremely biased program? A couple of seconds and seven words of Dr. Meyer's, taken out of context and completely misrepresentative of his views. Instead of airing anything substantive from a thoughtful discussion about the identity of an intelligent designer, Nightline sliced and diced the interview to come up with a moment when Dr. Meyer said he thinks the designer is God.
No kidding. Dragging the name of the designer out of the ID crowd practically takes waterboarding. I have to admit, I am impressed by how long they can continue speaking and not actually answer a simple question. Most politicians wish they were that gifted.
The last part of the article just made excuses as to why the DI chose not to participate. These people are slick. The made up reasons are pretty transparent, but heavily sugar coated in legalese. They say they will be watching the program carefully and will post "corrections" to the misinformation that PBS will be sure to disseminate. I can't wait.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
DI
Hi Dirk. Ive looked into the Discovery Institute and I found out that they are not in favor of teaching ID in schools. I also heard an interview with one of their fellows (Paul Nelson, I think it was) and he said ID shouldnt even be called a theory. (I suppose they do use the word theory colloquially and not technically.) Dr. Nelson says ID is not even a baby theory. They need to do more research and experiments to be able to come up with a coherent theory in the same vein as Evolutionary theory. What it is is a whole body of diverse information and intuition in search of a coherent theory. Basically, ID says 'Things look designed so our hypothesis is that it probably was designed.' It's the same intuition we have when we look at something and know right away if somebody made it or not. That's what theyre working on. IMO, that's pretty reasonable. You really can't a priori reject an intelligent agent from your hypothesis. Famous atheists like Fred Hoyle believed in some intelligence behind things (though he denies that this intelligence is God), so does Francis Crick who backs Directed Panspermia (not just random panspermia) as an hypothesis to the origin of life on earth. The physicist/cosmologist Andrei Linde surmised that the Universe couldve been created by some nerd in his basement in some other Universe. They came up with these 'silly' notions because of the evidence before them. I heard this is what eventually turned Antony Flew, even to the extent that he called this intelligence God, unlike Hoyle who denied God even though he accepted some sort of ID.
A lot of the DI people have a religious belief, but they point out that there is no scientific evidence as to the identity of the designer. I suppose this is analogous to a murderer not leaving fingerprints at a crime scene. You know someone machine gunned that bullet-riddled body in the gutter but there is no evidence to point to the culprit.
As to their marketing of their ideas, you have to admit theyre pretty slick. Ten years ago the mainstream scientists wouldnt give them the time of day. Now they are forced to engage them.
The Wedge Strategy
Hi Jeg,
Thanks for your thoughts and opinions, but I am gonna have to respectfully disagree with much of what you just said.
Wrong. The PBS documentary I wrote about is all about how the DI wanted Intelligent Design taught in schools. It's about a famous case here in the US called Kitzmiller v Dover. The DI was paying the lawyers bills and paying for expert witnesses to be flown in.
What made you think the DI doesn't want ID taught in schools? Sounds like someone has been lying to you.
I don't know Nelson, but I would be very suspicious of anything he spoke about given the DI's track record of deception. One of the funny things I think you will see if you ever get a chance to watch this PBS documentary out there in the Philipines is that in Kitzmiller v Dover, it was said that by Michael Behe's definition, ID was a scientific theory the way astrology is a scientific theory.
So, I guess I agree that ID isn't a theory. However, I should point out that most scientists think ID is a joke.
Look, because of your predisposition to god belief, I am not surprised these types of ideas are appealing to you. But don't expect a non-believer like myself to get caught up in every kooky new idea religious people come up with. ID has been given more than a fair look by scientists and flat out rejected. That's not good enough for the religious zealots. They will stop at nothing short of creationism being taught in schools no matter what fancy name it's given.
If you have time, Eugenie Scott gives a great talk on the history of how creationism has morphed into ID over the past two decades.
I disagree. After a while, and many sneaky attempts to push creationism into our schools, I do think it's fair for me to reject new psuedo science crapola like Intelligent Design, out of hand. You really think it's unfair for me to reject this stuff after religious apologists do it over and over and over? C'mon Jeg. At some point you've gotta give me a break and respect the fact that I am not interested in your religious beliefs. I am not trying to push atheism on you. No one is making you read UTI. Don't try pushing your beliefs on me. Deal?
I am sure if you look hard enough you can find all sorts of differing hypothesis and crazy ideas on every subject imaginable. If there is something specific about Hoyle or Crick or Panspermia you want me to look at, please link to it. I respect you enough to at least give it a read and try to keep an open mind, although you should know that Panspermia is common theme in popular Sci-Fi books.
I believe you have been misled so I am not angry with you personally, but what the Christianists' have done to Mr. Flew is despicable and really pisses me off! Anthony Flew is an 84 year old man who is not in possesion of his complete faculties and has been exploited by some very inscrupulous Christians. You can read about it in the NY Times or here or here or here or a hundred other places.
I think it's pretty safe to say all or 99.9% of DI people are religious. Sometimes I hear one of them say, "but this one guy is agnostic," as if that is some legitimizing trait. Agnostic means they don't know if god exists. A person can still be an agnostic theist.
And what do you mean, they don't know the identity of the designer? Who do you think they mean? This is lawyer doublespeak. I expect more from you Jeg.
Yes, I do admit they are slick and tricky and deceiptful and untrustworthy and despicable. You are proud of this? Making educators and scientists fend off religious zealots and their science stopping fairy tales? I wish you would reconsider your pride and redirect your support to making this planet a better place rather than sending us back into the dark ages.
Deal
First of all:
We've had this deal ever since I first came here. I thought it was a given. But it's good of you to reiterate this unspoken agreement for the newer visitors, atheist and theist alike.
Now for the other stuff. Correct me if Im wrong but DI specifically opposed the Dover school board's teaching of ID. What they did at the trial was defend ID as a science but not the school board's right to teach it. I agreed with the Dover decision when it came out that the board wanted to use ID as cover to teach the kids about creationism. But I thought the judge overstepped his jurisdiction when he basically rendered a decision on the definition of science. What science is can't be defined by legal fiat. It's why we have university courses on philosophy of science--because philosophers are still arguing about it. If it can be defined by a court decision, then all those courses on philosophy should stop.
You were correct that ID appeals to me because I accept the possibility of an intelligence other than the human sort, but it appeals to me because of one other reason: it's downright heretical. Theories like that appeal to me I guess at an aesthetic level. I find the notion of the heretic, or underdog, or one-man-against-the-system very appealing. I am wary of government, corporations, and other institutions that may be deceiving us and curtailing our freedom, including mainstream science. I tend to look at them with suspicion. Besides, scientific breakthroughs always come from the heretics and not from the orthodoxy.
Thank you for holding me in such high regard. I dont think I deserve it, but I certainly appreciate it. This is what I mean: The theists among them do know the identity of the designer but they do not know the identity of the designer through science. I understand your confusion since you believe science is the only source of truth, whereas I believe otherwise. When some ID guy says, 'I believe the designer is God (or Dagon, or the Emperor Zorg)', theyre not making a scientific statement. Theyre making a theological statement. Leave scientific stuff to science, and theological (and philosophical) stuff to theology (and philosophy).
As for the links to Hoyle and Crick, I can point you to that font of human knowledge, Wikipedia. In Dr. Dawkins's God Delusion, he specifically devoted a chapter to answering Fred Hoyle's 747 argument for design. I found it interesting that he chose to refute an argument from a fellow atheist.
Im not proud of DI's marketing skills. Im not unproud of it either. If indeed they are deceitful, then I am duty-bound to condemn them, but I am not convinced (and neither am I not unconvinced) that they use deception. I just dont have the information to render a judgement on their ethics since not being a scientist, I can't evaluate what theyre saying. Like I said, they appeal to me not just because of the soundness of their findings.
I'll go look at the NYT article on Prof Flew you pointed to. But then again, I'll be looking for Prof. Flew's reply to the NYT article too if I can google one.
(Here's a site dedicated to the scientific exploration of panspermia. And here's a Slate article on Andrei Linde's nerd-in-the-basement. And you might find an interview with Kurt Vonnegut interesting as well.)
Judgement Day review
Jeg-
Good stuff. Lot's to think about. By the way the program was great. It will be available online here Friday, Nov. 16th. I hope you can find the time to watch it.
I was more or less speaking metaphorically. I know you are not here in the US actively pushing ID on school children. What I meant, was that I was hoping you would recognize ID as just another form of creationism and stop supporting it, in general.
I have no idea why you think this. The Discovery Institute calls itself "the biggest proponent of intelligent design." Did you take a look at the Wedge Document?
Here is a small part: "Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences."
It seems pretty clear that their goal is to replace evolution with creationism or as they are calling it, intelligent design. You yourself said, ID is not even a theory or a baby theory, yet the DI clearly has already made up it's mind and wants to replace good science with their untested-unreviewed-religiously inspired-pseudo scientific intuitions.
I have a much different take. The judge rendered his opinion grudgingly and took several weeks to do so. Remember this judge was carefully hand picked by our born again president, George W. Bush. The judge had no choice but to render this decision because he was faced with mountains of evidence not only in the validity of evolution, but the weakness of ID and the clear attempts at deception by the Dover school board members themselves. During the trial it was also made crystal clear that even the textbooks being proposed "Of Pandas and People" had been the very same textbooks promoted by creationists previously. They just went thru the book and swapped the words "creation" with "intelligent design."
The judge didn't decide the definition of science, he did however decide that ID falls way short of what mainstream scientists considers science. The Discovery Institute's main witness, Mike Behe, was forced to admit, that by his definition of science, astrology would also fit the definition.
Okay. I also root for the underdog and sometimes prefer unorthodox solutions myself, but I draw the line at bad science. I have no use for bad science and that is what ID is. I guarantee, if you watch that PBS program, you will see in detail just how flawed ID really is. They did a good enough job, that even a non-scientist like me, can understand that ID is little more than wishful thinking. PBS also was able to convey just how powerful a theory and how overwhelming the evidence is in favor of evolution.
In this country, scientists are always fighting with the Bush administration. Bush appoints mining lobbyists to guard the environment, he appoints airline executives to oversee the clean air policies and appoints creationists to head planned parenthood. The Bush people were actually caught red handed suppressing a NASA report on Global Warming. In my country, the Republican party is the enemy of science. Hopefully, you have a better government than we do.
You're welcome and of course I hold you in high regard. I have never heard you outright lie like so many other Christians. It's too bad more cannot be honest like you. And to clarify, it's not so much that I believe science is the only truth, I think that god-belief is antithetical to truth. Throughout human history, all of the thousands of things we thought were supernatural like lighting or disease or earthquakes, we now have natural explanations for. Never once, has it gone the other way. No natural phenomena has been discovered to actually be supernatural. Does that make sense to you?
Perhaps after watching the PBS documentary you will change your mind? I will continue to sound the alarm and make people aware of the DI's activities. Some people will listen and some will stubbornly deny the truth if it conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs. There is nothing I can do about that, but at least I am trying to fight for reason over faith instead of the other way around.
Thanks, I will take a look. I like Sci-Fi and I have always loved Vonnegut.
Dirk
Judgement Day and Wedge
Thanks for the link to the PBS show. I hope I can catch it. And no I havent seen the Wedge document. I'll take a look at it, too.
Im not really an active supporter of ID on scientific grounds since I dont know enough of the science. Theyre talking about molecular biology and enzymes and things like that, way over my head. Like I said, their appeal to me is more aesthetic. It's also what attracts me to UTI even though Im not an atheist. A small minority fighting for their political rights... good stuff, man. I'd like to see how it turns out. But if the ID people do have something concrete to show the scientific community, then Im all for it. In fact Im rooting for them to back their ideas up with real data. They have to go through the wringer like all new ideas. The reason Im pointing to all those atheists who harbor some sort of ID view is because it's really not an atheist-theist debate but a small rebellion within the scientific community that we as spectators have appropriated as an interesting topic, and the creationists have appropriated as something else. In America I suppose it's seen as something more sinister, but here the discussion is hardly causing a stir. Being a predominantly Catholic country, most people are ok with evolutionary theory. Its mostly the evangelicals here who hold a literal view of the Genesis story anyway.
Im not really an active
Defense Mechanism
mcmillan-
Thanks for pointing out Behe's miniscule publications list. That is just another reason to doubt the validity of his ideas and it's something that would not have occured to me to look for.
Yes, the god of the gaps argument seems to be very persuasive to some people. I am starting to understand that for people like my friend Jeg, it's not so much about the science. It's more about wishful thinking. ID is a self fullfilling prophecy to many people and the Discovery Institute takes full advantage of this.
In my earlier conversation with Jeg, he even admits that he wants ID to be true. I'm starting to think of ID as a christians defense mechanism against questioning their faith. I think the Creation Museum is a similar christian defense mechanism. They need a good story to sell to the masses, rather than good solid science.
Very good.
mcmillan, thanks for that - many of us are not scientists, and are out of our depth when confronting a line of BS from the DI and friends. It's good to get some solid insight from someone in the field.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Science != ????
I've had a couple of discussions with ID types and it's really pretty easy to counter anything they say by repeating this simple statement:
I like to remind them that not all that long ago they would have been in the "intellegent earthquake maker" camp because it used to be god who made those until we learned more about geology.
Post new comment