Nova explores one school board's decision to teach Intelligent Design.
Rarely, if ever, do I begin a review with the following statement, so please do pay attention: you should watch this week's special two hour Nova episode, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial." …
Article comments
26 - Dan
"Good, then you agree with me that the entire ID community thinks God is the intelligent designer."
Well, not if your notion of "the entire ID community" includes prominent scientists who are agnostic and atheists.
"Good, then you agree with me that the ID community is disingenuous."
I agree that both sides have disingenuous adherents.
"As Dr. Dreadful pointed out (#16), scientists do not earn their salaries by dabbling in non-scientific matters,..."
What scientific method is used in determining that an intelligent designer is off the table?
"what new ideas does the ID community offer? What is the meat of the putative scholarly discussion?"
A disappointing lack of a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution in the fossil record for one. Irreducible complexity for another.
Heck, even a bright fourth grader, being indoctrinated in the cult of evolution, might wonder what created the primordial soup that spawned the first single celled organism.
"You have got to be kidding."
I'm not the one expressing faith in theories.
27 - Dr Dreadful
Oh, come on.
Who would the Designer be if not God?
I also hazard the hypothesis that any ID-supporting scientists who claim to be atheists and agnostics... most certainly aren't.
28 - Dan
The issue at hand is whether objective scientists think the evidence supports intelligent design or spontaneous chance for the origin of life on earth. It's not the existence or non-existence of God.
Atheist fanatics, and religous fanatics try to exploit the issue as a way to impose their philosophical belief system on others.
I would think that agnostic would be the default philosophical belief system of a truly objective scientist, but I'm not inside their heads.
29 - duane
Dan (#26), good responses.
"What scientific method is used in determining that an intelligent designer is off the table?"
OK, it is "off the table," but it was never truly on the table. Steve (#25) explained pretty well, but to reiterate, ID offers nothing but a negative proposition, "Evolutionary theory is wrong." The notion that a theory is wrong is not a unique addition to the body of knowledge, because the possibility of incorrectness is the default status of any and every theory. The IDers must devise a positive hypothesis, such as "Cambrian mollusks and protohuman skeletons should be found in proximate sedimentary layers, which will demonstrate co-eval existence, which will shatter the underlying hypothesis of evolution and support our claim that ...." or something testable.
The idea of irreducible complexity is a fascinating one, and I'll grant you that as being a valuable contribution from the ID community. But as was demonstrated during the program, in the popular example of the flagellum, it seems that irreducible structures may actually be reducible while performing some kind of viable function. It is telling that it was a biologist not affiliated with the ID movement that did the research. I will agree with you in this sense: ID gadflies may inspire real biologists to emphasize research in specific areas relevant to claims of design. But the writing is on the wall, don't you think?
"Heck, even a bright fourth grader, being indoctrinated in the cult of evolution, might wonder what created the primordial soup that spawned the first single celled organism."
Absolutely. That is a problem of the first rank. Lacking a mechanism, should we throw up our hands and say, "Well, it must have been God!" or should we continue research into this area of science, maintaining some patience?
You know, astronomy is simple compared to biology, but it was only recently that a believeable theory for the origin of the Moon was devised. Prior to that, you would have been "safe" claiming that God blinked it into existence, because scientists could not explain it. Isn't it fair to conclude that much more complicated questions, such as the origin of the primordial soup, will take a bit longer to figure out?
30 - Dr Dreadful
Arthur C Clarke speculated somewhere - I think it was in 2001 or one of its sequels, but I haven't been able to find the quote - about an advanced race of beings who had progressed beyond flesh, beyond cybernetics, beyond matter entirely, to become entities of pure energy, able to manipulate the fabric of the universe itself, though they were still of the universe.
"And if there was anything beyond that," Clarke says, in one of his typically resonant sign-offs, "its name could only be God."
31 - Dan
"The IDers must devise a positive hypothesis, such as "Cambrian mollusks and protohuman skeletons should be found in proximate sedimentary layers, which will demonstrate co-eval existence, which will shatter the underlying hypothesis of evolution and support our claim that ...." or something testable."
The evolutionists positive hypothesis was that the fossil record would reveal a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution of one species giving way to another. Instead, the fossil record shows vast numbers of new species appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing. They don't throw up their hands though. Instead they say more research is needed and correctional hypothesis developed to explain the disappointment.
Instead of a negative proposition, they propose a perpetual "possible" proposition in the face of mounting negative evidence.
Negative evidence is still evidence.
The introduction of evidence that some components of irreducibly complex structures might serve alternative functions on their own is a step towards maintaining the possibility of the theory, but it doesn't necessarily trump the argument.
The crucial point of irreducible complexity, in the case of the flagellum, is that all 200 mutations would have to 1)occur, 2)be the most fit, 3)survive long enough to exist at the same time and place, in order to 4) assemble themselves into a working flagellum.
Yes, it's possible, even without components being individually viable, but how probable? In what finite timespan does this miracle occur?
This isn't throwing up your hands and saying God must've blinked it.
By all means, continue reasearch, maintain patience, but please knock it off with this "settled science" business. (not you personally of course).
What is "telling" to me is the lack of scientific integrity in scorning ID as the ugly sister of evolution. And the willful, and historically fraudulent manipulation of data to attain desired results.
Scientist's of integrity view theories in terms of probablility. But because of the political/philosophical implications they're not the loudest voices.
32 - jinyeah
If Darwin was and is right, should we still watch this documentary(I did actually).Does it mean anything to our existence? Do you care? Why?
33 - Erasmus
"The evolutionists positive hypothesis was that the fossil record would reveal a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution of one species giving way to another. Instead, the fossil record shows vast numbers of new species appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing."
You are lieing. Transitional species abound within the fossil record. A missing link between fish and amphibians? Tiktaalik. A missing link between reptiles and birds? Archeoptryx. Man and Ape? Australopithecus. The list goes on and on and on. Your side lost this debate long ago. The Earth is not the center of the Universe. Lightning does not come from Zeus. Life Evolves!
34 - Dr Dreadful
Erasmus: nice name. A reference to Charlie Darwin's granddad, right?
Good points about the transitional species, except that Australopithecus isn't really one of them. There really isn't a "missing link" between man and the apes so much as a common ancestor. In fact, some authorities hold that hominids (of which H. sapiens sapiens is the only living example) are not apes at all, but a completely separate family. The taxonomy is still being sorted out: see this Wikipedia entry for more details.
35 - Dan
"Transitional species abound within the fossil record."
Do you even know what "abound" means?
As the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, one of evolutionary theories most passionate defenders said, the "extreme rarity" of transitional fossils is the "trade secret of paleontology". And, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils".
Not that any evolutionary theory is disproven by all this. But if we can't even agree that the fossil record is a striking disappointment, what's the point of arguing?
One of the "extreme rarity" of apparant transitional species like Archeoptryx, admittedly, does bolster evolutionists hopes, but it could be simply an extinct species.
If Paleontologists could find a finely graduated chain of progressive transitional forms from dinosaur to bird, as the theory hypothesized, then we would have something. There are several specimens of Archeoptryx, but they're all pretty similar.
It's also true that animals rarely fossilize, but without the intermediate intermediaries, I'm not ready to close the book.
"Your side lost this debate long ago."
I'm not on a side. What made you think that?
Moreover, I don't dispute some degree of evolution, and natural selection. The debate is with intelligent design, or random accidental process for the origin of life.
36 - Erasmus
Dan
When we consider the age of the earth, the multitude of likely species that have ever existed and how rarely the proper conditions for fossil formation and preservation actually occur in nature, I'd say we are doing pretty well.
More to the point though, every legitamate fossil find in the last 100 years has only worked to strengthen the case for speciation through natural selection.
This "Instead of a negative proposition, they propose a perpetual "possible" proposition in the face of mounting negative evidence." . . is why I am calling bullshit. There is no evidence in the fossil record against speciation through natural selection, and the reason for what you term "the sudden appearance" of new species within the fossil record is merely that fossil formation is, and always has been, rare. But you already know that don't you.
"The crucial point of irreducible complexity, in the case of the flagellum, is that all 200 mutations would have to 1)occur, 2)be the most fit, 3)survive long enough to exist at the same time and place, in order to 4) assemble themselves into a working flagellum.
Yes, it's possible, even without components being individually viable, but how probable? In what finite timespan does this miracle occur?"
Finite timespan? We are talking about billions of years of Prokaryotic evolution here. When we conmsider how quickly bacteria reproduce, probability is no longer a real factor.
Evolution is a fact.
Dr. Dreadful
Yes, I am Darwin's Grandpappy!
Seriously, let's not split hairs with Australopithecus. He may be a true transitional species, he may be just a close cousin to our real ancestor. But, frankly, the same could be said about Tiktaalik or Archeoptryx. They may be true evolutionary links between fish and amphibians or dinosaurs and birds, or just close relatives. The real point here is that intermediates exist in nature and have existed throughout deep geoligical time, as the fossil record maintains. Evidence of speciation through natural selection continues to mount, but the flat-earthers continue to bury their heads in the sand!
Make no mistake about it, anti-evolutionists are an evolving species in their own rights! Missing link: "cdesign proponentsists"
37 - Dan
"every legitamate fossil find in the last 100 years has only worked to strengthen the case for speciation through natural selection."
There are about a quarter of a million fossil species known. Darwin said there would be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps".
Even if speciation through natural selection exists, the fossil record is nothing like what Darwin envisioned. But there is a lot of excuse making.
""the sudden appearance" of new species within the fossil record is merely that fossil formation is, and always has been, rare."
Fossil formation isn't rare, (quarter million species), just the graduated transitional forms.
"Finite timespan? We are talking about billions of years of Prokaryotic evolution here. When we conmsider how quickly bacteria reproduce, probability is no longer a real factor."
Yes 4.5 billion years is a finite time span. There are a lot of possible things that aren't likely to occur in that amount of time.
Bacteria have the capacity to develop antibiotic resistance or some such, but at the end of the day, week, month, year, they remain bacteria.
"Evolution is a fact."
If simple assertion results in truth, them I'm a billionaire.
38 - Dr Dreadful
There are about a quarter of a million fossil species known. Darwin said there would be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps".
And he was probably right, but you'd have to dig up the whole planet to find them all. Off you go... enjoy.
39 - Jim Moore
Quest For Right? Does it exist?
Awhile back, a full page ad appeared in the Nashville newspaper seeking a publisher for "Quest For Right."
Over time, a publisher was purportedly found and a publication date of Fall, 2007 set. That time came and went. A new date of November, 2007 was set for publication. That has come and gone, and now a date of January 1 has been set.
Anyone want to bet on publication then?
Posts above come 1. from the author and 2. Linda followed 2:15 later.
1. November 13, 2007 @ 08:18AM " C. David Parsons
2. November 13, 2007 @ 10:33AM " Linda
Turns out that Linda is David's wife. So much for her claim of nonpromotion.
I'm a retired geologist, and I tried to get David to send me a review copy or even one chapter, but nothing was forthcoming.
On top of that he blocked me from sending him e-mail.
I'm getting some real strong vibes that this is a mere shell game, but with no bean.
40 - Erasmus
"Fossil formation isn't rare, (quarter million species), just the graduated transitional forms."
And yet every fossil yet found only provides more evidence for the theory of speciation through evolution.
I see your problem, you need to see every single species that has ever existed (at least since the Cambrian Period) on the Earth in fossil form. That is not very likely to happen, simply because the vast stretch of time we are considering here and the fact that pure chance determines whether or not conditions will be favorable for fossil formation.
Darwin was right, there are a lot of missing links in the fossil record, not because they never existed, but because most everything that dies rots!
Odds are, for most evolution-deniers who have dug in their heels, no amount of evidence for the theory will ever satisfy. You seem bright enough, I hope you're not in that catagory. If you are not convinced of the validity of Evolution across the entire spectrum of living organisms, at least consider the evolution of the horse as one example where the fossil record undeniably supports the idea of speciation through descent with modification.
Cheers
41 - duane
It's called the 'science of the gaps.' If there's a gap anywhere in what is expected to be a quasi-continuum, there will be naysayers. Kind of like saying, "OK, 1.0 and 1.1 exist, but there's no evidence for 1.05, so your number theory must be wrong." Later, the existence of 1.05 is demonstrated, and they start complaining about 1.02. Since this type of argument can continue to the end of time, there will always be deniers.
42 - Dan
Exquisitely ironic that my logical, measured, skepticism of evolutionary theory should be labled "denial" by blindly devout "Origin of Species" thumpers.
To say that the fossil record supports Darwins vision of "a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution" is roughly equivalent to belief in a flat earth.
Your high priests have already moved on.
Since the fossil record has been greatly expanded, and didn't pan out, the theory of evolution has expanded to explain it. It's called punctuated equilibrium.
The new excuse to explain why fossils don't show the gradual morphing is that under extreme environmental pressures organisms evolutionary processes drastically sped up.
I actually like this new twist. It serves the dual purpose of explaining why creatures went millions of years without evolving. Apparantly, life was a bed of roses for them.
The larger populations would, of course, be thought to be more stable, whereas the isolated smaller populations would be more subject to punctuated morphing. Since the vast majority of fossil finds would be from large stable populations, evidence of speciation through natural selection would be very rare.
study up fellows.
43 - Erasmus
"Your high priests have already moved on."
Gould and Dawkins debated this point right up to Gould's death.
"The larger populations would, of course, be thought to be more stable, whereas the isolated smaller populations would be more subject to punctuated morphing. Since the vast majority of fossil finds would be from large stable populations, evidence of speciation through natural selection would be very rare."
Gradualism or Punctuated Equalibrium be damned, we are still talking about speciation through natural selection.
and this:
"What is "telling" to me is the lack of scientific integrity in scorning ID as the ugly sister of evolution. And the willful, and historically fraudulent manipulation of data to attain desired results."
. . is still bullshit, as neither proposal (gradualism or punctuated equalibrium) requires any Intelligent Design-as you yourself have just demonstrated.
44 - Linda
Ray Ellis
Jesus was not only the only begotten Son of God but He was also the Creator as set forth in the following scripture:
(Col 1:12 KJV) Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
(Col 1:13 KJV) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
(Col 1:14 KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(Col 1:15 KJV) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(Col 1:16 KJV) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(Col 1:17 KJV) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
(Eph 3:9 KJV) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
45 - Linda
To Jim Moore:
You bet The Quest for Right exists and Volume 1 is being printed as I speak. Things were delayed at the publisher; however, you can believe that it is forthcoming and very soon. And why would we send you the manuscript before the book is even in print. It will soon be available from our website (www.questforright.com) or Tate Publishing in about 4-6 weeks. And it will hit the major bookstores online and retail book stores probably in the spring of 2008 since it has to be listed in Ingram's catalog before the formal marketing can be accomplished. Hope you'll be the first to purchase a copy, Mr. Moore.
46 - C. David Parsons
Dear Mr. Moore:
Volume 1 of The Quest for Right went to press on Dec. 6th. We expect to have books in hand 4-6 weeks. I will be happy to send you a copy at that time. The reason for the delay was due to the publisher's schedule, not ours.
47 - Jim Moore
Quest For Right is published!
I'd bet that you are very happy on the birth of your "baby."
On 10/12/07 in an earler e-mail I replied with my address to your offer to send a review copy.
I left a message at your number today saying that you can send the review copy on.
48 - Paul Burnett
The "Quest For Right" ("QFR") books are pseudoscientific babble, with no information content and no scientific validity whatsoever.
The author of this bogus "vanity-press type" publication, which is typical Young Earth Creationist pseudoscience is C. David Parsons (self-described as a "biblical scholar and scientist extraordinare").
At the QFR advertising website the only really positive review is from a preacher - not a scientist. Another review is from an editor at the publisher (!), which appears to be a "pay-for-publishing (="vanity press") publisher: Tate Publishing & Enterprises, LLC, is a "Christian based, family owned, main-line publishing organization with a mission to discover and market unknown authors."
Tate apparently "markets" only to small specialty Christian bookshops. Tate is by no means an actual scientific publishing house. (The slick ads and website for QFR are probably part of Tate's marketing ploy.) Tate also gets very bad press.
QFR's website was registered almost three years ago, on March 20, 2005, by a "David Parsons" (possibly the QFR author, "C. David Parsons"?) of Smyrna, GA. The e-mail contact for the "questforright.com" website is at "bradleybuildings.com" of Smyrna, GA. The e-mail contact for the "bradleybuildings.com" website is "Clarence Parsons." Any guesses on whether "C. David Parsons" is also "Clarence Parsons"? What is Clarence or David hiding?
49 - Cannonshop
One of the key elements of good science is skepticism. GOOD science doesn't care what you believe-that's philosophy or relgion's job. All Science cares about, (when it's good science) is "How does it work?".
The bible doesn't tell you how it works, folks, anymore than the label on the back of your watch tells you how THAT works.
The whole "Evolution/Intelligent Design" debate is about the label on the back of the watch, not how it works.
The "Irreducible Complexity" argument is argument from ignorance-though it does provide some impetus for real scientists to push more deeply and not sit on their laurels or just mark time, just as restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research stimulated the development recently of a means to create them in the lab, thus short-cutting around the whole morality debate there.
Skepticism makes Scientists work harder-and that's for the good. I somewhat believe that Galileo would not have been as thorough if the Church had said "Yah boy, you're right, you're always right..."
Unlike Faith, in science, BEING right isn't the same as being able to PROVE you're right by the process of Elimination. Without the ability to prove or disprove, your idea in science is just speculation. In Faith, the cornerstone is being right, damn the proof otherwise. Faith is about belief without supporting evidence-that's what makes it FAITH. It's what makes something a MIRACLE and not just "Oh, really neat trick!"
When people manipulate scientific terms and hardware to support faith, regardless of whether it's Intelligent Design, man-made Global Warming, or Phrenology (the study of bumps on people's heads to determine their character, intelligence, and tendencies), it is pseudoscience-it generally involves cooking the books and ignoring counter-evidence that does not support the hypothesis. This book cooking can run from the elements of the Flagellum argument to simply only submitting one's papers to those who hold the same (or similar) views, to presenting a model designed to elicit a reaction, that involves observations, but whose experimental results can be obtained by inserting random numbers in place of the observed numbers.
Good Science requires repeatable experimental processes, that do not ignore contributing factors, and whose outcomes reinforce the hypothesis put forward without external adjustments. If you can't test it, it isn't a valid theory.
If it can't be tested, it isn't science.
50 - Gail
I would like to know how someone can judge The Quest for Right when they haven't even read it. That's real fair criticism. You're so afraid to read it, all you can do is mock it. First read it and then you can say something about it. You can buy it from our website at www.questforright.com. Until then, keep your opinions, your mockings, and your taunts to yourself. You are just making a fool of yourself. Twenty-six years went into this book so how can you call it all a bunch of babble. Yours is the babble. Creation science, the real physical science of cause and effect, is the only kind of science there is. The smoke and puff of evolution, quantum physics, electronic interpretation, etc. is going to be just that. Puff and smoke. Believe me, God will not be mocked!! He will be the Victor!! And the DAY OF VICTORY is right around the corner.
51 - Linda
By the way, Paul, before you say Tate Publishing gets very bad press, you'd better go to that page and read ALL of it instead of just the first post. The guy who posted it recanted his criticism of Tate in the end. And every author who posted on there had only praise for Tate Publishing. You need to quit bad mouthing people when you know nothing about them. You're being used by the devil in case you didn't know it. Nothing you have stated yet is TRUE!! That says to me you're being used by the devil since lying is of the devil. You must really be running scared from something. Could it be God? Or are you afraid evolution is on its way out? People who have nothing to hide don't go about lying about people and companies without even knowing the facts. Why not try making some nice kind remarks for a change?
52 - kam
i so tire of people comparing evolution to religion. its like they are so stupid they dont understand all of the evidence presented. and how many times do people have to be told that "theorey" in scientific terms doesnt mean the same thing as it does in the usual gramatical context...
so many bloody idiots on this planet. i give up in trying to explain shit to em. let them live in their fantasy world of fingerbolts and creation.
53 - C. David Parsons
In addition, Darwin was a FLAMING HOMOSEXUAL. Do you want your kids to learn theorys by a raging
HOMO? Fags want to insert there penises into other mens anuses. Is that what you want taught in
public schools? Sounds like it to me. Have fun in hell.
54 - Dr Dreadful
#53:
Has to be some college kid pissing about. Has to be.
Or are there really people that insane yet are still allowed to use computers?
55 - C. David Parsons
Dr Dreadful I'm surprised that your mom was allowed to have kids. I'll bet your Black.
56 - Dr Dreadful
Hmm - like Fred Phelps, but without the panache...
57 - Dr Dreadful
And C., I'll let you bet my black if I can bet your red. But save some money for the slots later when you're too hammered to play the tables.