Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial 4of12

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in a landmark battle over the teaching of evolution in public schools. In 2004, the Dover school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to high school biology students about an alternative to Darwin s theory of evolution called intelligent design the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and so must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The teachers refused to comply, and both parents and teachers filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the constitutional separation of church and state. This is the trial where Behe admitted that if the definition of science was broadened to allow ID, it would also sweep in Astrology. This is the trial which saw Kenneth Miller completely dismantle "Irreducible Complexity". This is the trial where Buckingham and Bonsell went from saying "we don't know where the books came from" to the revelation that Buckingham had taken up an offering in his church, banked the money, wrote a cheque to Bonsell, Bonsell gave it to his father and his father bought the ID books. This is the trial where a number of key witnesses from the upper echelon of the Discovery Institute pulled out at the last minute and therefore would not defend the claims of intelligent Design under oath. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolution
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• dover
• miller
• behe

[toiseywoisey]

Great doc--they find hick extremists who represent Creationism so discrediting then sound "Intelligent Design", and reasonable appearing science teachers who defend Darwin.

[djarm67]

@toiseywoisey The lead intelligent design proponents from the "Discovery Institute" (still yet to actually discover anything) pulled out of the trial "after" hearing the depositions of the scientists scheduled for the trial and as such refused to defend intelligent design under oath.

[toiseywoisey]

@djarm67 Thanks for the civil reply, I suppose I should've watched the whole thing.

Even so I didn't care for the unnecessary propaganda techniques employed such as the stilted acting, and drama in the court "recreation" and question the act of putting the truth on trial before an imperfect judge.

I'm curious, Jarm what your take on "irreducible complexity" is...best.

[djarm67]

@toiseywoisey Irreducible complexity is basically a "God of the gaps" argument. We don't currently know how so it must be designed. To illustrate its inherent flaw, think of our understanding in the 17th century. What would have been deemed "IC" in the 17th C that we can now explain? i.e Nothing can actually be shown to be "IC", all that can be shown is that we can relabel anything we don't understand as "IC", later to be shown as an incorrect classification once we can explain it.

DJ

[toiseywoisey]

@djarm67

Hey thanks for taking the time! Good stuff to gnaw on.

Are you a teacher?

[djarm67]

@toiseywoisey Hi tw, we are all teachers (good and bad) it's only the subject matter that changes.

DJ

[spideylover]

Does anyone else find it funny that the Intelligent Design book is so small?

[AndrewKulcsar]

I praise these science teachers

[SqueakerAlpha]

YES ! science at high school levels is NOT the place to try to introduce hypothesis which have no support in the science community. The kids need to learn the leading theory and that science changes as new evidence is found. They also need to learn the methodology of science because it works. so evidence, hypothesis, experimentation, theory, peer review. and round and round it goes.

[1tabligh]

Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.

[1tabligh]

Absurdity of Atheism!

If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.

[SqueakerAlpha]

Proponents of the Theory of evolution (not darwinists) have 150 years of study and evidence that supports the theory. Nothing has been found that refutes it. Faith not required when you have evidence.

[SqueakerAlpha]

1. origin of life is not part of the Theory of evolution and never has been.

2. Abiogenesis is the origin of life on earth but is not much more than a hypothesis at this stage. Not something for high school students to learn.

3. There are no other theories that compete with evolution.

4. Kids can learn religion at churches , its not science so not presented in science classes at schools .

5. Intelligent design is barely a hypothesis.

[Waltham1892]

@RekindledRebelfire

And yet, they have no faith...

Evidence must have power that faith does not understand....

[RekindledRebelfire]

Why exactly won't these teachers let the kids know about other theories on the origin of life? I thought that was what the pursuit of knowledge was all about?

[RekindledRebelfire]

Jeez, I noticed the Darwinism proponents sure do have a lot of dogmatic faith in Darwinism.

[vk45de]

Robert Moore you lying bastards, intelligent design is NOT a valid theory.

[BigFatHeretic]

Oh yes indeed! Good ol' President Bush supported teaching Intelligent Design in our school science classes. He also advocated the use of torture on war prisoners, such as water-boarding. Yeah! Just like a true Christard! Next, they'll want to bring back the Inquisition!