8 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

NOVA PBS program entitled "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" about the Dover school district's case in court. (and all of the things surrounding it)

An excellent program in my opinion, showing many of the underhanded tactics that creationists (Intelligent Design folks) use. Ken Miller and many others are featured in the video.

http://video.google....729062613200911


For more information: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

[eternaltraveler]

It's a disgrace we still have to deal with this bull.

It proves how fundamentally dangerous people are who have absolute beliefs.

[lucid]

Well, Just watched all 2 hours of it. Not a bad watch. It was really just a creationism stomping though. (a guilty pleasure of mine)

They don't even mention Abiogenisis which is not fully proven. Read excerpts from the wiki link to see an overview of criticism. (ps: I think abiogenesis occured, but no one agrees on exactly how it happened or where etc... and no I'm not dumb and know the brunt of the most of the versions of the theories of Abiogenesis, and they are all pretty awesome :thumb: )

They also don't deal with a fundamental issue being that: If someone wants their kids to be dumb and ignorant it should be their right. More broadly, it is not the job of the judge or the government to determine what children should be exposed to or taught (a problem with public education and another reason I support the voucher system as an alternative). It is the job of the parent while the child is young, and as soon as the child gets old enough to use the internet, he/she can educate him/herself. That said its frustrating dealing with creationists, there are a couple in my fraternity at Georgia Tech where as it really takes mountains and mountains of willfully imposed ignorance to believe that the earth is <6000 years old.

So to clarity my position:
*Inteligent Design doesn't come close to passing muster as 'science'
*The Abiogenesis part of evolutionary theory certainly isn't as close to being as well prooven as other parts of evolutionary theory.
*The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating what kids should learn. (Another nice reason for vouchers)

Edited by Live Forever, 06 December 2007 - 08:03 PM.

[Live Forever]

Well, Just watched all 2 hours of it. Not a bad watch. It was really just a creationism stomping though. (a guilty pleasure of mine)

They don't even mention Abiogenisis which is not fully proven. Read excerpts from the wiki link to see an overview of criticism. (ps: I think abiogenesis occured, but no one agrees on exactly how it happened or where etc... and no I'm not dumb and know the brunt of the most of the versions of the theories of Abiogenesis, and they are all pretty awesome :thumb: )

They also don't deal with a fundamental issue being that: If someone wants their kids to be dumb and ignorant it should be their right. More broadly, it is not the job of the judge or the government to determine what children should be exposed to or taught (a problem with public education and another reason I support the voucher system as an alternative). It is the job of the parent while the child is young, and as soon as the child gets old enough to use the internet, he/she can educate him/herself. That said its frustrating dealing with creationists, there are a couple in my fraternity at Georgia Tech where as it really takes mountains and mountains of willfully imposed ignorance to believe that the earth is <6000 years old.

So to clarity my position:
*Inteligent Design doesn't come close to passing muster as 'science'
*The Abiogenesis part of evolutionary theory certainly isn't as close to being as well prooven as other parts of evolutionary theory.
*The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating what kids should learn. (Another nice reason for vouchers)

They didn't need to address Ambiogenesis, because all they were discussing is evolutionary theory. That is decidedly outside the scope of evolutionary theory. (evolutionary theory just discusses how and why things change over time, and offers proof to show how it happens. It says nothing about the origin of life, that is not "evolution" by definition.) They were basically arguing evolution (that species can change to new species over time through natural selection) over "Intelligent Design" (shown to be creationism with a new name in the program).

My favorite part of the whole story was when the school officials who were in support of teaching Intelligent Design in the school district were all voted out, and ones in favor of evolution were all voted in. (showing remarkable and surprising intelligence by the voters) This was done even before the decision of the trial had been announced.

Overall, just an excellent program all around, in my opinion.

[zoolander]

Don posted a link to the video in another thread. I really enjoyed it. It was a great general overview of the ID (creationism) vs. Evolution case.

ID (creationist) got the hammering that they deserve

[Live Forever]

Don posted a link to the video in another thread. I really enjoyed it. It was a great general overview of the ID (creationism) vs. Evolution case.

ID (creationist) got the hammering that they deserve

I think he posted a link to the PBS site with info on it. I don't believe they don't have the full video there, though. (unless I missed it)

[platypus]

They also don't deal with a fundamental issue being that: If someone wants their kids to be dumb and ignorant it should be their right.

Why? Don't the kids have any rights?

[eternaltraveler]

It says nothing about the origin of life, that is not "evolution" by definition.

Of course it does. There are plenty of non-living processes that evolve. Abiogenisis was simply such a process evolving into "life". "life" is a loaded term anyway. Most people have deeply vitalistic views of what constitutes "life" when it's just just an arbitrary point on the continuum of the complexity of natural processes.

[lucid]

Most people have deeply vitalistic views of what constitutes "life" when it's just just an arbitrary point on the continuum of the complexity of natural processes.

Well said.

Of course it does. There are plenty of non-living processes that evolve. Abiogenisis was simply such a process evolving into "life".

Agreed, and as you say later, there is no clear line where 'life' begins. While it is possible to talk about more recent speciation without any reference to abiogenesis, both the study of 'biologogical evolution' and abiogenesis are the studies of the history of life and how the earth has come to bear its current life forms.

Furthermore, if we as a society agreed that only 'biological evolution' should be taught in school, then the next question to await would be: 'should we teach abiogenesis?' So obviously, Abiogenesis is relevant.

Hence the broader question which our society should have to deal with, is: How do we control what ideas are passed down to our children through their education?
And it applies much more broadly than just science: to other fields including:
*History (Do we want to have our public schools read Chomsky with their standard text books?)
*Our general curriculum
As I see it, the question becomes: Do we want to have the government regulate a single answer to what the young are taught in school, or do we want to have options and get to pick?
To me the answer is clear. I sound like a broken record, but I think that the real solution to the evolution v ID problem is the voucher system. (http://en.wikipedia....School_vouchera)
If I were a young earth creationist then I may or may not want my kid to be taught evolution in school, so I would send them off to a christian school and that should be my prerogative. (However I am thankful every day that I'm not a YE Creationist)