Blast from the past: Inside the Law

Way back in 1996, NCSE Board President Kevin Padian (and professor of Integrative Biology at UC Berkeley) appeared on the WNET show, "Inside the Law". This episode focused on the law and religion, and how it related to evolution vs. creationism.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Inside the law
• NCSE
• Padian
• evolution
• creationism
• intelligent design
• Darwin

[TeenTwinkTween]

Creationism is not a science - period. It amazes me that this is even being debated in the 21st century.

[patricknelson]

It's false to claim creationism is science -- nobody has put forward any credible scientific peer reviewed publications which have integrated the concept of a creator or intelligent design. So, yes it's an alternate viewpoint, but it is not science and therefore doesn't belong in a science classroom. Evolution isn't an ideological indoctrination - it's a scientific theory which stands upon facts, not just ideas, goals, expectations, etc (an ideology).

[FiverBeyond]

He he he... ah, 1996, with Dr. William Dembski arguing in support of "Creationism". Odd that by the time we hit 2005, Dembski was no longer supporting "Creationism" and instead was supporting "Intelligent Design".

I wonder what made him change his mind?

[5m1nutes]

OK, but lets teach evolution in the church - just to be fair. Why is evolution censored in the church?

[capoman1]

"Let the controversy in?" In other words "We tried to get creationism in through the front door, the legitimate way, and FAILED; So now I think you should let us in the back door!" As others have stated, "what controversy?" Why is evolution the ONLY scientific theory or principle that needs some "controversy?" Why not teach the controversy in gravity or reproduction? Teach that some people also thing that "the stork delivers babies?"

[capoman1]

Dembski is very well spoken, but he is unable to directly address a point; instead he has to fall back on some shaky analogies, such as Seti, but that doesn't get to the SPECIFICS like the other speakers are. The other speakers make great points; like science teachers should NOT teach that Genesis or religious origins are just a "competing theory" or more correctly a "hypothesis;" that is a very valid point that relates to religion and science.

[HarshColby]

Painful to watch Creationists claim ID isn't a religious doctrine. There's no science in "Creation Science", and even they know it.

[tctheunbeliever]

Wow, can these a-holes twist things. It was so satisfying to see these lying snakes get their asses handed to them at Dover. Judge Jones specifically remarked on the dishonesty of these SOBs.

[Tabris2112]

Why should a high school student decide about scientific theories? Why should a 13-year indoctrinated old boy debate about things scientists (with the proper knowledge and preparation) have worked and agreed on the conclusions for centuries? So, why don´t we recruit some 15-year old astronomy club kids to design the next generation of space shuttles? Because the science we have to teach in schools is the one the scientist community acknowledge, not any statement anyone tosses out...

[kommissarw]

Demsky "Why is ignorance such a bad thing..." ok so its out of context but I'm amused.