Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial (creationism vs evolution)

In this award winning documentary, NOVA captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, including expert scientists and Dover parents, teachers, and town officials, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" follows the celebrated federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.

Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Judge's Decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
Full trial transcript: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
Ken Miller's 2 hour talk on the trial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0CYZvaJLw
National Center for Science Education: http://ncse.com/
Intelligent Design on Trial (complete chapter from "Nonsense on Stilts" by Massimo Pigliucci) http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Nonsenseonstilts.pdf
Facts of Evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEP7Z55Z6nM
Mechanisms of Evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja6vDo2jOSc
Frequently asked questions about evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/index.html

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolution
• creationism
• creationist
• christian
• religion
• atheist
• atheism
• darwin
• science
• reason
• education
• cosmos
• dawkins
• hitchens
• apologetics
• bible
• quran
• islam
• mohammed
• dinosaurs
• dna
• debate
• Intelligent
• design
• discovery
• institute

[Casshyr]

@bellhog246 And again, over 95% of scientists, including theists + atheists, disagree with claims like "studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary". So yes i agree multiple viewpoints exist, but you shouldn't treat as if minority holds some kind of superiority over majority. In fact, if anything, majority should have superiority over minority, which historically + statistically has been correct on issues more than wrong.

[bellhog246]

@Casshyr "a mix of metaphysical + science should lead to theistic evolution, not creationism."

A lot of people have advocated this as a way to reconcile the two. I still think evolution (even theistic) falls short scientifically, assuming you mean that God started the initial conditions and let nature guide itself. There's more than one model to explain what we see today in the fossil record and studies show random mutations are insufficient to produce the changes necessary.

[Casshyr]

@bellhog246 I should clarify I myself don't agree with a complete naturalistic interpretation of abiogenesis. I think abiogenesis is true, but i am more towards of some kind of force behind it, whether it's God or super-intelligent aliens...we can't rule it out. Sorry if I wasn't clear on this before. I'm not an atheist myself. I'm more of a deist, with a mix of agnosticism.

[Casshyr]

@bellhog246 "mainstream scientists are looking at material nature and assume 'a priori' that the metaphysical cannot exist." => no, latest stats show over 30% of scientists believe in a God. They certainly don't assume metaphysical cannot exist!

And on this note, a mix of metaphysical + science should lead to theistic evolution, not creationism.

I'm sure you have heard of Michael Behe, biggest proponent of intellectual design. You should check out what he says about creationism!

[bellhog246]

@Casshyr "i rather put my trust ... in mainstream scientists"

But you DO understand that mainstream scientists are looking at material nature and assume 'a priori' that the metaphysical cannot exist.

What happens when the findings of science conflict with the presumptions of science (e.g. when science infers that information comes from intelligent desigers and there is informaiton in DNA)?

Wouldin't the 'scientific' thing to do be to revise our presumptions?

[bellhog246]

@Casshyr Remember thought that the ONLY peer-reviewed journals that address the question are those that suggest an impossibly high probability. You provided a single peer-reviewed journal article that speaks to abiogenesis but you had to provide your own interpretation of the 'implied' statistics. So the scientific evidence is far from "equal".

The skeptical community spends all their time throwing rocks at the studies that ARE published, but has yet to publish their own statistics.

[RATIONALMIND001]

What a great video. It reveals how divisive people can be to get "what they want". "It's about religion, politics and power." The exact cocktail we don't want in the USA! Such cocktails are more commonly found in underdeveloped nations and the middle east where backward people still adhere to such nonsense. It's interesting how Santorum, Bush and Philip Jonson fit into the picture and the "Wedge Strategy" and it's 20 year goals - absolutely scary in a modern world seeking legitimate answers.