First, let me say that I greatly enjoyed the program in many ways and that it answered several questions I had about both ID with irreducible complexity, and what responses have been given out regarding certain questions, including those endlessly fascinating flagellum.
Allow me to explain what the reference is, for all those who missed the show and may not get a chance to see it at a another time.
A book that was to be presented as being for “Creationism” had been later rewritten to mention only “Intelligent Design.” (A key point for the prosecution was that ID was really only “repackaged” Creationism. The firm legal precedent was that including Creation in curriculum was unconstitutional for public schools.)
This was discovered, along with a manuscript in which the older term (for all practical purposes) for ID was imperfectly changed in the rewriting. I gather that the book was published with the imperfect correction fixed, but the manuscript showed beautifully that where “design proponent” was inserted the typist left in a “c” and a trailing “ist” from “creationist.” Case closed.
On top of that, one of the cDPists, had been recorded in a speech in which he meant to say ID, but was unable to recall the term, this being in the early days of the term. So he said “Creationism” instead. On the stand he referred to such being a “human mistake.” It no doubt was. But the response was that it could also be called a “Freudian Slip,” which the fellow no doubt found irritating, as he quibbled with the classification.
I found the end part to be very disturbing, especially in terms of the death threats against the judge. He had been only doing his job, and doing it very well.
No doubt the fine folks who threatened the life of the judge carefully read his decision beforehand, and comprehended the reasons for his decision, wouldn’t you say? :rolleyes:
Faulty adherence to any principle corrupts the soul. Be careful that you respect science. Science demands that you question it, doubt it, search it with a fine tooth comb for errors and mistakes. It doesn’t want its theories defended by governments and angry mobs. It is designed to be corrective. Once you’ve made it into dogma, science will become indistinguishable from religion.
Are you alleging that anyone in particular is making science into religion or heading down the path of a particular theory as dogma, or are you just offering this warning here in this thread for no particular reason? If it’s the former, you should man up and make your claim clearly for us to evaluate, instead of couching it in passive advice.
However, the ID people of course know full well that ID is just creationism in a thin disguise designed to circumvent the law. They don’t care. They don’t care about ID, either. They want creationism to be in the schools, and they will come up with more and more clever ploys in their attempts to get around the first amendment. A few more Bushes in the WH and they’ll just plow right through it.
That this is going to continue to be a battleground was, of course, alluded to by both the judge and, IIRC, Johnson.
I addressed a specific remark about “faulty adherence to religious principles”. It was made in this thread.
The scientific method, of course, is based on the philosophical principle of falsification — a principle which is itself not falsifiable. Science is designed to find out what is false, not what is true. Once its findings are declared to be true, it has become a dogma. Otherwise, once Newton has shown that f=ma, there is no need for an Einstein.
Actually in defense of Liberal, he is just saying what most scientist would say. Even one of the scientist on the show actual said something similar to this last night. The scientist of course avoided the mention of “corrupts the soul”. But in its meaning, I have to agree with **Liberal ** on this one.
Jim (There you go, who would think that I would ever defend Liberal?)
The content of your post is a warning against science becoming dogma. My question was whether you were alleging that this was happening. Is the answer that you are not alleging this?
That’s why I love science so much and defend it so ardently. It is the perfect empirical epistemology. I despise it when science is pitted against faith as though a person must choose one over the other. Science can explore God no more than prayer can explore gravity. Warning bells always go off for me when I encounter a remark like the one to which I responded. Thanks for “manning up”, as some would put it, to defend the philosophy of science, What Exit?.
Well, I’m not on trial here, and I’m not obligated to answer your questions. But as a courtesy, I will reiterate that I addressed a specific remark. If that answer doesn’t satisfy you, then you simply must settle for an unsatisfactory answer. I’m not going to be drawn into a piss-fight over whatever it is that you’re on about.
Jesus. I asked a simple question about your statement. What’s so hard about answering it? Don’t get pissy at me for trying to figure out what you’re on about.
Take it to the Pit, Richard Parker. Your “simple question” was packed with innuendo about what I was “alleging” and whether I was “warning” someone and how I should “man up” about it. Stop being all coy with your intentions. Read What Exit?'s post, and kindly get the hell off my back.
I don’t doubt that Dex will be summoned in shortly to shut me up even though so far, this thread has had precious little to do with the art and production values of the documentary and plenty of crowing and woo-hooing about evolution beating out ID. It’s making science look like the accident prone guy in a circus act who had something to prove, and everyone is releaved when he didn’t fall down.
I’m respectfully requesting one more time that you stop zeroing in on me here. There is nothing “hard” about answering your question. I have answered it. Twice already. If you have nothing new, then leave me alone. You’re verging on stalking.
Let’s stop the pissing contest. It seems to me that both of you read an insulting tone into a post, when none was intended. Richard: I agree, Liberal’s initial statement was perhaps cryptic, but needn’t be read as “passive.” He has, however, now answered your question.
Liberal: The word “alleging” is not necessarily an insult, although it can be used as one. I don’t think it was in this case.
It’s always difficult to read “tone of voice” into a posted message. I once had a well-intended “thank you” read as a sarcastic insult. So, let’s please try not to infer ill-will in other posters?
And, for everyone, if this is a discussion about evolution, it belongs in Great Debates. If it’s a discussion about the TV documentary, it stays here.
If anyone is interested, Prof. Ken Miller covers the same material in his talk The Collapse of Intelligent Design. The actor who played Miller in the NOVA courtroom reenactments was nowhere near as riveting a speaker.
The NOVA interviews with ID proponents (not so much the board members but the townspeople) really brought home for me the sincerity of their belief. I still don’t understand it.
I think we should teach logic in the early grades.
ETA: My roommate once said, “I think God wants you to think.”
I think philosophy of science classes are a great idea! That said, I suspect forcing kiddies to choose between classical empiricism and critical rationalism before they know what either means might not be all that useful.
Well, two things: (1) there’s a lot more to learn these days, and (2) like other things taught to children, the concepts can be simplified. I’m thinking mainly of teaching things like falsification, and how it underlies the scientific method of inquiry. Then, kids can be taught how scientific experiments are devised, conducted, and validated. And finally, only after that, they can do the experiments they now do in school. Except that now they should understand them much better.
Such a class would more likely be about discovering the basics of the scientific method. Here’s a sample, assuming a class of 3rd graders: Have a demo with various objects placed in a tank of water and play “Will it float?” with the kids. After a few attempts, have them advance theories about what determines whether or not an object will float. You’ll get a lot of wrong ideas, but help the kids clearly define what they’re saying (e.g. “Things that are heavy sink.” “OK, so if something is over a certain weight, it will sink; lighter than that it will float?”), then produce an example that contradicts their supposition “Hmmm…but don’t large ships float, and they’re heavier than this penny that sank…”).
Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually kids will get the idea that their notions should be bumped up against reality in a controlled way, an important plank in the scientific world-view. Starting them off by defining “buoyancy” and “density” would be the wrong approach.
A really tricky teacher would–as soon as the class had developed a firm idea of buoyancy–drop a geode into the water. The class might at first be amazed that a rock floats, but the smart teacher would use it as an opportunity to show that–even when contrary to common sense–scientific principles remain consistent; we don’t need to say the stone is “magical” to explain what is only an apparent contradiction.
NOVA is, IMO, the best science show on TV, hands down. I’ve never seen a bad one, and their are dozens of outstanding episodes. This one is 2 hours, so I’m excited to see it. Maybe sometime this weekend.
The Memphis public television station WKNO wouldn’t air this episode!
I stick up for Memphis all the time, I watch a fair share of public telelvision, and NOVA has been one of my favorite shows since I was a kid. But today, I say fuck this city.
