|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/13/2007 2:12:53 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 277
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
I might give this a look. Thanks
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/13/2007 7:42:03 PM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 58
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
Also check out the resources available on this page: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/13/2007 7:48:58 PM
|
|
|
Beckett
Posts: 19
Joined: 8/20/2007
Status: offline
|
10 minutes.
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
“The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution” is a falsehood.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/13/2007 10:15:08 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
I just finished watching this piece of junk. Completely and totally one-sided. They refuse to give any thought that God has a hand in science.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/13/2007 10:56:38 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 277
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
I just finished watching this piece of junk. Completely and totally one-sided. They refuse to give any thought that God has a hand in science.
That's what church is for.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/14/2007 1:19:17 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1021
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
The courtroom reenactments were somewhat high school drama-ish, but on the whole, I enjoyed it a great deal.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/14/2007 7:26:51 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
I just finished watching this piece of junk. Completely and totally one-sided. They refuse to give any thought that God has a hand in science.
That's what church is for.
I'm not sure of your point. Evolution itself is not good science. It is a theory. Genesis 1 pretty much explains how humans were created. I had problems with the program in "Christians" saying that humans evolving from apes was okay. The Bible doesn't say that. Intelligent design still uses evolution as part of it's basis as well. Intelligent design is not creationism, from what I understood. The Nova program only sought to discredit anybody who "attacked" evolutionary "theory".
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
The courtroom reenactments were somewhat high school drama-ish, but on the whole, I enjoyed it a great deal.
While well-produced. I felt it was horribly biased. Bunch of God-haters producing the program. Of course, what should I have expected from Nova.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/14/2007 8:30:22 AM
|
|
|
VincentGrayson
Posts: 69
Joined: 5/18/2007
Status: offline
|
If you want everything unbiased, read through the transcripts here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
As best I can tell, that's got everything you could possibly want to know about the trial, straight from the court documents.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/14/2007 10:01:30 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1021
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
Evolution itself is not good science. It is a theory.
See, you should have paid more attention to the part where they described what a theory means in science. Quoting Wikipedia:
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory."
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/14/2007 10:13:07 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
I did pay attention to what they said about theories in science, but it still does not show it as fact. In short, evolutionary theory is being presented as fact in the school system "religiously" when it has never been proven as "fact".
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/14/2007 11:59:55 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1021
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
I did pay attention to what they said about theories in science, but it still does not show it as fact. In short, evolutionary theory is being presented as fact in the school system "religiously" when it has never been proven as "fact".
There is the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, the theory of continental drift.... Theory is as confident as one can be in science. Science is entirely composed of theories. Every science class, from physics to biology, teaches the currently accepted theories in those disciplines.
These theories are based on facts, and provide explanations for those facts. Things fall, continents move, fossils show change-over-time. These are facts. The theory of evolution remains our best explanation for the facts of change-over-time. Schools rightly teach our best scientific explanation in science class.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/14/2007 12:49:23 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3970
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
I just finished watching this piece of junk. Completely and totally one-sided. They refuse to give any thought that God has a hand in science.
Since ID took a butt-kicking in the case, it would be unlikely the program could have spun any other way. Remember the issue was the teaching of SCIENCE, not Sunday School.
_____________________________
Nobody ever heard of Acid Rain before we sent people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/14/2007 2:32:11 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
I did pay attention to what they said about theories in science, but it still does not show it as fact. In short, evolutionary theory is being presented as fact in the school system "religiously" when it has never been proven as "fact".
There is the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, the theory of continental drift.... Theory is as confident as one can be in science. Science is entirely composed of theories. Every science class, from physics to biology, teaches the currently accepted theories in those disciplines.
These theories are based on facts, and provide explanations for those facts. Things fall, continents move, fossils show change-over-time. These are facts. The theory of evolution remains our best explanation for the facts of change-over-time. Schools rightly teach our best scientific explanation in science class.
Seems to me that Genesis 1 remains the best explanation for created things. It's been around a lot longer that "The Origin of Species". Tried, trued, and tested.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/14/2007 10:32:37 PM
|
|
|
Beckett
Posts: 19
Joined: 8/20/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
Seems to me that Genesis 1 remains the best explanation for created things. It's been around a lot longer that "The Origin of Species". Tried, trued, and tested.
Time of existence is not a valid argument for the validity of one text over another. If it was, the Vedas, the sacred texts of Hinduism, would have to usurp the Bible's authority in your life.
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
“The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution” is a falsehood.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/18/2007 12:50:59 PM
|
|
|
bombers3602
Posts: 13
Joined: 11/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
Evolution itself is not good science. It is a theory.
See, you should have paid more attention to the part where they described what a theory means in science. Quoting Wikipedia:
"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory."
Its really that simple, and it is intellectually dishonest when the ID-Crationalist crowd use the Evolution is a "theory" argument and dont differentiate what Theory means in the scientific sense and what it means in the average Joe's life sense.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/19/2007 7:55:33 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 826
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
Seems to me that Genesis 1 remains the best explanation for created things. It's been around a lot longer that "The Origin of Species". Tried, trued, and tested.
When was Genesis 1 tested?
Anyway, the hypocracy of the school board is what stunned me. They complained that evolution is "only a theory" and yet their lawyers argued in court that Intelligent Design is a "brand new theory". They hate theories one second and claim that ID is a theory the next. Can't tell if they hate theories or not.
The other stunner was the surprise that a biology textbook was "full of Darwinism". Hate to break to to you, bub. So is biological research.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/22/2007 5:02:57 AM
|
|
|
Tychicus
Posts: 103
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Since ID took a butt-kicking in the case, it would be unlikely the program could have spun any other way. Remember the issue was the teaching of SCIENCE, not Sunday School.
Still, the program was unnecessarily biased. Nova made no serious attempt to explain what ID was, but only to ridicule it. For example, in the last episode with ACTOR BEHE they did a masterful job of pulling a comment out of context so as to associate his views with astrology. If you read the Dover transcript, you can see that Behe was referring to some questions in ancient astrology that he considered valid scientific questions in their time. He explicitly said he was not referring to modern astrology. Yet, the way Nova presented the exchange, many viewers came away with that impression.
In fact, Behe was making a perfectly valid point about the proper boundaries of science. One may agree or not agree with him. But instead of fairly summarizing this issue, Nova just used the word "astrology" to make ID look foolish. The show was full of this sort of thing. It was not necessary for Nova to spin the program this way.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/23/2007 8:33:29 AM
|
|
|
VincentGrayson
Posts: 69
Joined: 5/18/2007
Status: offline
|
True. From reading the trial transcripts, ID and its proponents manage to make themselves look foolish just fine without any help.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/23/2007 10:21:13 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7627
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
True. From reading the trial transcripts, ID and its proponents manage to make themselves look foolish just fine without any help.
I have read most of the transcripts, (including many from the depositions) and answers given by the actual scientists involved were more than proficient - the only foolishness I saw was the legal shenanigans of the prosecuting attorneys who resorted to showmanship rather than an actual exploration of the scientific questions involved.
But of course, it's a courtroom, so that is expected - which is why we don't advance scientific discussions in a courtroom.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/24/2007 12:57:35 PM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 58
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
True. From reading the trial transcripts, ID and its proponents manage to make themselves look foolish just fine without any help.
I have read most of the transcripts, (including many from the depositions) and answers given by the actual scientists involved were more than proficient - the only foolishness I saw was the legal shenanigans of the prosecuting attorneys who resorted to showmanship rather than an actual exploration of the scientific questions involved.
But of course, it's a courtroom, so that is expected - which is why we don't advance scientific discussions in a courtroom.
Hm, so you don't think Padian's direct testimony explored any of the scientific questions?
As to showmanship, that's part of a trial lawyer's job. If the defense attorneys had any show to put on, they would have done so if they thought it would sway the judge.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/26/2007 10:04:45 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7627
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
As to showmanship, that's part of a trial lawyer's job. If the defense attorneys had any show to put on, they would have done so if they thought it would sway the judge.
Of course, which is my point.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/10/2008 12:04:27 PM
|
|
|
letusreason
Posts: 869
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
{Bump}
I've been trying to figure out the significance of my local PBS stations running this program around the clock it seems lately. After election it has been show about 3 times in last week.
They aiming for culture war high ground? Lack of any other programming to fill the time slots? Other?
I am utterly repulsed by the bias and lack of other views in the content of this program and wrote PBS telling them it is not what i would want to support. It definately does ridicule quite profusely those not accepting the theorized "fact" of evoution . It pretty much drug each of the Dover school board members through the mud and gave them a documentarized tar and feathering through out the program.
And their trumpeting of tiktaalik seemed over the top imo. Why is this considered transitional automatically and not mosaic as the platypus is? Tiktaalik has more vertabrae than its ancestors or its descendants? This was certainly not mentioned in the program! Inconvenient perhaps? This seemed to be the crown jewel of the entire program and what they used for their climax.
I have watched Lee Strobel's "Case for a Creator" and think it does very well at balancing the Darwinistic premisis of the Nova special.
Anybody else seen these or comment on the strengths and weaknesses of these two programs?
_____________________________
Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial - 11/10/2008 4:13:56 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
This is old news.
However I suggest you take a good look HERE as well as the Judging PBS site's info for critiques.
PBS is notorious for presenting false information on everything it does concerning Darwinian evolution. It has a huge bias and it's Inherit the Wind version of Dover is bad.
PBS, like National Geographic and other widely circulated publishers, are entirely neo-Darwinist.
Then there's the DI's own docs on the whole Dover thing HERE
I suspect the Dover trial isn't over yet. Not in the public mind, not for IDists and, quite evidently, not for Darwinian fundamentalist propagandists like E. Scott of the NCSE (National Center for Selling Evolution) - not to mention all the ones who keep bringing back up on forums 
Think I'll make a T-shirt that says, "Gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution" and then walk around at a conference of high profile physicists and record the laughter,... or insulted reactions.
----------------------------
And for you creationists here's a good laugh = http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/ - a collection of some of the "Amazing Stories" Darwinists can come up with when trying to speculate where and why things evolved - Some are really amusing - No facts or proof required.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
