Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

I thought this might be of interest to this forum.

NOVA on PBS has produced a very good (imho) documentary about the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District case. Recall that is the case in which "intelligent design" was exposed to the court for what it is: namely, a transparent sham created to sneak religious teachings into high school science curricula.

The program not only details some of the interesting, and often amusing, evidence presented in the case, but also provides a rather good summary of the most compelling scientific evidence which supports evolution. One word of warning: you might find the statements made by the lunatics who deny evolution to be disturbing.

It appears the program will be rebroadcast by most local PBS stations at least through the weekend. Also, it will apparently be available online on the PBS site beginning 11/16. (The show might be available right now on youtube, but I can't access that site from this computer.)

ID on Trial homepage

ID on Trial webcast

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

Good reads. On the ID on Trial homepage you can read the account of the main proposer of intelligent design.

I would have loved one of the questions to be "Sir, do you know what a false dichotomy is?"

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

Quote: a transparent sham created to sneak religious teachings into high school science curricula.

Why is it a sham? Lots of things overlap in this world. Since when are parents to give up all responsibility for their children's education?

Many scientists are divided on this issue. Science isn't served by dominance of 1 area of science. Science is much too complicated and interrelated with other areas of science to hold one aspect of science as iconic over another. Besides science is almost constantly under revision. Do you think everything we are taught is always correct? Aren't people constantly learning, relearning, applying and re-applying. People can't find the mistakes if you don't teach everything. Besides what if a discovery spins off from the teaching of intelligent design?

An excerpt: "Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote: a transparent sham created to sneak religious teachings into high school science curricula.

Why is it a sham? Lots of things overlap in this world. Since when are parents to give up all responsibility for their children's education?

[/ QUOTE ]

Parents are free to send their children to privately funded schools which may set any curriculum they want. But publicly funded schools must not teach religiously based curricula.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides what if a discovery spins off from the teaching of intelligent design?

[/ QUOTE ]

no one is saying intelligent design should not be taught. They are saying ID should not be taught in a SCIENCE class in a publicly funded school.

[ QUOTE ]
An excerpt: "Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you watch the program? The idea of "Irreducible complexity" was directly addressed.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

I caught this on Monday, though I missed the first 15 minutes or so. It's a pretty good overview of the case and the people involved. I was pretty surprised at how vitriolic the defendants from the school board still are about the decision.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote: a transparent sham created to sneak religious teachings into high school science curricula.

Why is it a sham? Lots of things overlap in this world. Since when are parents to give up all responsibility for their children's education?

[/ QUOTE ]
Deliberate organised dishonesty, what that's got to do with overlap, and from people who claim to believe in a god who told them not to lie.

the ID movement is rotten to its core and everyone (especially christians) who believes in honesty should disown it.

chez

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it a sham?

[/ QUOTE ]

if you are doing research/experiments and you are unwilling to accept results that contradict your position, you aren't doing science... this is why ID fails, this is why "christian science" is an oxymoron - assuming christianity to be true beyond the realm of a mere hypothesis automatically makes you unscientific.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Did you watch the program? The idea of "Irreducible complexity" was directly addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Overall I thought it was a great program and recommend it to anyone who does not believe in evolution. However I don't think they did a sufficient job in overcoming the ideal of "Irreducible complexity". I've been thinking about starting a thread in this forum becuase it certainly is a subject worth discussing.

Stu

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

Quote: Parents are free to send their children to privately funded schools which may set any curriculum they want. But publicly funded schools must not teach religiously based curricula.

No parents are not free. Usually all education entails an expense or sacrifice of some type after they already paid for the public school with their tax dollars.

A lot of parents are taking on the burden of homeschooling now. That costs them time and effort. Time always ='s money.

People are due the education they already paid for without science dictating the terms. Science is for the benefit of mankind not the other way around.

As for separation of church and state if the Scientists want to get too anal I'm sure some Congressmen will start a new law or maybe get a grassroots National Amendment movement started to protect taxpayer's rights. There's just as much to be said that this is a science issue not just a religious issue that can be argued and exception to laws are passed by Congress everyday. If they do a national referendum and pass it even the Supreme Court won't be able to overturn it.

Note: I couldn't see the program. I couldn't access it.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

<font color="blue"> Many scientists are divided on this issue. </font>

Why do you guys insist on lying about this? Many scientists are NOT divided on this issue! Only a scant minority are. The overwhleming majority of scientists accept evolution. Period. Stop lying!

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Many scientists are divided on this issue. </font>

Why do you guys insist on lying about this? Many scientists are NOT divided on this issue! Only a scant minority are. The overwhleming majority of scientists accept evolution. Period. Stop lying!

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what Lestat even if the scientists are as much in sync as you say I still want to hear the Intelligent Designers. People are finding out more everyday. Luckyme just found an article [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

We're probably a long ways away from them figuring everything out and I intend to give any budding scientist out there his headstart. They are my tax dollars after all.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many scientists are divided on this issue. Science isn't served by dominance of 1 area of science. Science is much too complicated and interrelated with other areas of science to hold one aspect of science as iconic over another. Besides science is almost constantly under revision. Do you think everything we are taught is always correct? Aren't people constantly learning, relearning, applying and re-applying. People can't find the mistakes if you don't teach everything. Besides what if a discovery spins off from the teaching of intelligent design?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what you are missing Splendour.

Scientists are not divided on this issue. The ID movement (formerly the scientific creationism movement) has framed the public, especially Christian, perception of the issue to make it seem so, but it's just not the case. Evolution is one of the most well supported and tested theories in all of science. Very few scientists actively disbelieve its conclusions, and the ones who do always seem to do so for theological reasons.

Also, ID is not science. It makes no hypotheses or testable prediction. It attempts to retrofit weaknesses of evolution and gaps in evidence as support for ID. It creates a false dilemma that either evolution or creationism is correct, and since we haven't found evidence to support X, Y, and Z being a product of evolution, evolution must be false and thus by default ID is true.

The public ID/evolution debate isn't about teaching "both sides" of the issue, it's about blatantly lying to children in support of religious ideals. One side wishes to cloud the issue with doublespeak and, unfortunately, they're very good at it.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

Yep, what the above poster said.

Scientists are not divided on this issue. If you stick to the position that they are Splendour, then you have nothing to do in this thread. Sorry to be so blunt but it is true. People have tried to explain this to you dozens of times but you simply don't listen:

'Good science is not about proving yourself right. It is about trying to prove yourself wrong and failing.'

Until you accept this principle anything you claim about science and anything you claim about scientists can't be taken seriously. So please reread it until you do.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote: a transparent sham created to sneak religious teachings into high school science curricula.

Why is it a sham?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no scientific theory of ID, no peer-reviewed publication record, nor any university research being conducted. It's nothing more than a repackaging of creationism to attempt to make it more politically viable. In other words, it's a sham disguised as science.

Compare it to, for example, continental drift, which became part of the theory of plate tectonics. When continental drift was first proposed, it wasn't accepted by most geologists. Rather than lobby school boards and speak at churches, the proponents of continental drift published evidence. Eventually it was accepted by virtually all geologists, and is now taught at the high school level.

Why don't the proponents of ID proceed the same way?

[ QUOTE ]

Lots of things overlap in this world. Since when are parents to give up all responsibility for their children's education?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand what is a non sequitur? Nobody is denying a parents' right and responsibility to educate their children. Any parent is free, for example, to teach astrology to their kids as "science." (Or send them to a private school which does.) That doesn't imply it's appropriate to teach astrology in a public school science class, since astrology is not part of any accepted mainstream scientific theory.

[ QUOTE ]
Many scientists are divided on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. There is no scientific controversy at all regarding evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think everything we are taught is always correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every scientific theory is continually being revised and considered potentially falsifiable according to any new evidence. So what? That doesn't mean schools should cast universal doubt over all of science, or start teaching pseudo-scientific nonsense as an "alternative."

[remainder of your rant snipped.]

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

Scientists may indeed be in dispute over the "how" of evolution, e.g., was natural selection the driving force, but not over whether or not evolution occurred. I think there's a pretty solid consensus on that.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, what the above poster said.

Scientists are not divided on this issue. If you stick to the position that they are Splendour, then you have nothing to do in this thread. Sorry to be so blunt but it is true. People have tried to explain this to you dozens of times but you simply don't listen:

'Good science is not about proving yourself right. It is about trying to prove yourself wrong and failing.'

Until you accept this principle anything you claim about science and anything you claim about scientists can't be taken seriously. So please reread it until you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh what you said is starting to make sense.
This article corroborates what you are saying:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/07...ew-of-science/

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

<font color="blue">You know what Lestat even if the scientists are as much in sync as you say </font>

But it's not a matter of "even if...". There is no "IF". They ARE in sync as I say. And you don't have to take my word for it. Do a little research for yourself.

It's one thing to believe in god, but you don't have to embarrass yourself when it comes to evolution and science.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

Did you see my link above Lestat? Its a very enlightening link.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Many scientists are divided on this issue. </font>

Why do you guys insist on lying about this? Many scientists are NOT divided on this issue! Only a scant minority are. The overwhleming majority of scientists accept evolution. Period. Stop lying!

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what Lestat even if the scientists are as much in sync as you say I still want to hear the Intelligent Designers. People are finding out more everyday. Luckyme just found an article [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

We're probably a long ways away from them figuring everything out and I intend to give any budding scientist out there his headstart. They are my tax dollars after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please join a PTA and try to figure out how to get infinity potential explanations for biodiversity into a science curriculum. Should change your tune a bit.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
John Robbins has pointed out that there are at least five logical difficulties with science, i.e., five reasons why science can never give us truth:2



[/ QUOTE ]

The article fails to address that there is no reason to believe the Bible gives the truth.

The entire articles also starts with the premise that science is useful only for manipulating God's world... the author loses all credibility since he's basing his theories on an illogical and unproven premise.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Equations are always selected, they are never discovered. In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point of water. Since water hardly ever boils at the same temperature, the scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not dictated by the data. Then too, the average he chooses is just that, that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve through the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist draws only one. What is the probability of the scientist choosing the correct curve out of an infinite number of possibilities? The chance is one over infinity, or zero. Therefore, all scientific laws are false. They cannot possibly be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Methinks someone needs a basic lesson in statistics.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

it boggles the mind that even Splendour thinks this article is meaningful.

By the way, Splendour... he states, "Truth is found in the Scriptures alone; the Bible has a monopoly on truth."

He states this as if it is a fact. Where has this been proven? Am I crazy to believe that even you can see why he blows all credibility by attempting to make a rational argument and then writing a statement that has not even remotely been proven factual?

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

I guess it's enlightening if you're hard up to be enlightened. To me, it's little more than propaganda (I'm referring to the the article by Gary Clampton).

Science is not about finding truths. It's about developing theories on how the physical universe works. Science doesn't seek to prove. It seeks to disprove through rigorous attempts to falisfy the very theory that is put forth!

FYI - Not only has evolution withstood over a hundred years of attempts at falsification, the theory itself has become even STRONGER as new information has become available. Information that Darwin couldn't have even dreamed about when he first formulated his theory!!! I'm referring of course, to advances in molecular biology.

As I've went over countless times with NR, evolution only relates to god insofar as it quashes a believer's antiquated views about his god. Otherwise, it has nothing whatsoever to do with god or religion.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

Lestat,

you have the greatest avatar i've ever seen

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

Why did you pick Donald Rumsfeld as your avatar Lestat?

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you pick Donald Rumsfeld as your avatar Lestat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just thought it was funny. Nothing profound or anything.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

Thought you were a Bush fan or a hardcore Republican. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thought you were a Bush fan or a hardcore Republican. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

did you notice Rumsfeld is rolling a joint?

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thought you were a Bush fan or a hardcore Republican. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

did you notice Rumsfeld is rolling a joint?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't sure if it was a joint or regular tobacco cigarette. Some old timers roll their own cigarettes.

Re: Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)
 

[ QUOTE ]
They are my tax dollars after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most important aspect of this discussion, since as Lestat tried to point out, there in fact is no dissent or division in the scientific community about evolution.