1. Comment #105365 by lucascantor on December 31, 2007 at 10:45 am

Ooh goody, I'll be adding this video to my presentations web page. If anybody's interested, you can find it here: http://www.lucascantor.com/lucascantor/Presentations.html

Other Comments by lucascantor

2. Comment #105377 by Lagomort on December 31, 2007 at 11:20 am

Some of that video is sorta bull-crap. For example, they seem to imply, that after the Scopes trial, creationism won out in America and ran amuck. In reality, the anti-evolution laws were broken so Scopes was found guilty, BUT most of America got, for the first time, to hear, due to this trial, how ridiculous the creationists sounded, and Biblical Creationism from the time took a huge hit. Creationism became a backwards ideology to most educated people at that time. The law Scopes was tried on was sorta swept under the carpet as an embarrassment for decades and was finally put to rest completely in about 1967.

The new movement came from the Russians, when, as the Russians pulled ahead in the space race, evolution started to get taught more heavily due to a desire of American educators to better compete with the world around us. This new teaching of evolution in a more direct way was seen as an invasion by the fundamentalist in the US, and it was at that time the new movement started to grow through the 70s, and into the 80s to the famous Supreme Court case on the issue. It was at that time creationism was deemed religion and not science, and at that time creationism changed its name to "Intelligent Design."

Other Comments by Lagomort

3. Comment #105379 by LoneStarAssman87 on December 31, 2007 at 11:24 am

Lagomort,

After the Scopes trial, Creationism was hurt in that many people saw it was BS, but people became wary of challenging it due to the large battle that would certainly ensue.

I look forward to watching this video, but to anyone who wishes to know a detailed account of this very, very interesting trial, I recommend reading '40 Days and 40 Nights' by Matthew Chapman. A very entertaining read.

Other Comments by LoneStarAssman87

4. Comment #105380 by debaser71 on December 31, 2007 at 11:32 am

hehe Behe was at Dutch Wonderland. I took my kids there.

Other Comments by debaser71

5. Comment #105383 by bluebird on December 31, 2007 at 11:57 am

Article about the current director of the Vatican Observatory:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604813.htm

Other Comments by bluebird

6. Comment #105384 by threespeed on December 31, 2007 at 11:57 am

Thanks for the video. Here's a similar film, again from the BBC, again about the teaching of Evolution in schools, but this time made in the mid-90s about a case in Tennessee. Briefly featuring Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott.

Science Friction: Creation
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL4RgEGFZWU
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WmtFmjWi90
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km78fAVzTNA
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoN0XNJ3vgg
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOrQ2Yfh58

Other Comments by threespeed

7. Comment #105387 by JemyM on December 31, 2007 at 12:09 pm

In the western world, christians fight science and science simply defend themselves with evidence. But when people start to say that the truth is optional and you can choose to ignore direct evidence it is important to fight back. We need to disarm the core foundation that teaches the controversy, and that's the bible. It is a book that makes specific claims over the history of Israel, itself and the world. But it is a physical object, not a supernatural one and it can and should be approached by science once for all.
From what we can tell by historical and archeaological evidence, the biblical timeline is not more true than any of the ancient myths and it is not even consistent with itself. The real history of Israel should be taught to people. After that point the theory of "intelligent design" is not interesting anymore.

Other Comments by JemyM

8. Comment #105388 by quill on December 31, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Why does Behe wear the exact same hat in every interview I've ever seen him in? It's like he's afraid to be seen without it.

Maybe one of us should sneak into his office at Lehigh and steal the hat--at which point I have a feeling Mr. Behe would cease to be seen or heard from in public, and scientific knowledge would be advanced.

Other Comments by quill

9. Comment #105389 by Double Bass Atheist on December 31, 2007 at 12:13 pm

We need many more videos like this one to raise public awareness. In addition, it would great if leading scientists could somehow join forces and come up with something like a prime-time TV special to re-introduce evolution to the general public in the US… and straighten out the many myths and misconceptions regarding this subject... AND most importantly, the difference between what a "theory" means to science vs. the laypersons understanding. This is one of the most annoying aspects of this debate and it comes up over and over again.
Does anyone think something like this could help, or am I just dreaming?

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

10. Comment #105390 by DAVE1618 on December 31, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Awesome doc. It was shown here in Canada. Captivating stuff and scary that people actually think like that in this day and that science is treated like the crazy uncle no one dares talk about at the holidays.

Other Comments by DAVE1618

11. Comment #105394 by BathTub on December 31, 2007 at 12:24 pm

the QT link appears to be dead.

Other Comments by BathTub

12. Comment #105411 by Gymnopedie on December 31, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Isn't the theistic (or divinely guided) version of evolution just another form of ID? I just don't see the difference between one fairy-tale and the next, except that one more closely resembles science.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

13. Comment #105414 by Gmork on December 31, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Here's what Lehigh University Department of Biology has to say about Michael "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up" Behe.

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm

"(...) The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

Other Comments by Gmork

14. Comment #105418 by Steever on December 31, 2007 at 1:43 pm

For an in depth analysis of the Dover trial, make sure to check out the book "Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul" by Edward Humes. In the interest of "fairness" Humes allows both sides to make their points, but it's abundantly clear that Humes is on Evolution's side; he provides many apt examples and summaries of the evidence in Evolution's favour. The book exposes the IDers/Creationists for the sneaky, underhanded intellectual frauds that rational people know that they are.

http://tinyurl.com/2pr6gh

Other Comments by Steever

15. Comment #105427 by Vinelectric on December 31, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Where would I read on the evolution of biochemical processes (if such a branch of science exists)?

As far as I can remember any break in the chain of glycogen, fatty acid metabolism or the electron transport chain would lead to a fatal "inborn error of metabolism".

Are such processes not irreducibly complex?

Maybe that would be the next target for creatonists. I wouldn't really mind. The evolutionary answers to Behe's challenges have strengthened my understanding of evolution and settled doubts within my heart. I don't agree with RD that the trial was a waste of time or a set back but rather a very educational excercise (if it weren't intentionally misleading).

You know what I mean!

Happy new year.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

16. Comment #105428 by MelM on December 31, 2007 at 2:24 pm

I wonder why the Vatican has Observatories?

Other Comments by MelM

17. Comment #105430 by Rational_G on December 31, 2007 at 2:27 pm

I'll bet I'm not the only one who skips the parts where the ID'ers talk because I can't stand to listen to obvious lies they are spewing.

Other Comments by Rational_G

18. Comment #105432 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Proper science only prevailed in this case because there was a sensible judge in place to rule on the case. That is less the case today than it was just a few years ago. Creationists have stated publicly that they will attempt to reinsert themselves into the public education system by running for school board and city council positions and work their way up. Some state judge somewhere in the USA will rule for ID at some point -- unless people who oppose Creationists do so at the ballot box.

Other Comments by Radesq

19. Comment #105437 by room101 on December 31, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Around the 24 minute mark the moderator states that Dembski put together a "mathematical model" to rule out evolution and "rule in" intelligence. Together, with Behe, the ID movement was now "ready to take on Darwin".

It may be simply my own lack of research, but I haven't heard much of Dembski's so-called model. Has anyone else in this forum heard of it? I had followed the Dover case pretty closely, read Hume's "Monkey Girl" book, etc., but this is the first time his model got mentioned that I'm aware of.

Why didn't this model play more of a significant role in the Dover case (other than the obvious: A). He didn't show up and B). The model is bull****).

Thanks.

Other Comments by room101

20. Comment #105456 by mdowe on December 31, 2007 at 4:56 pm

16. Comment #105427 by Vinelectric
Are such processes not irreducibly complex?

Tell me you are joking, right? Short answer: no.

Other Comments by mdowe

21. Comment #105473 by windweaver on December 31, 2007 at 5:31 pm

The following article reveals a fundamental difference between science and psuedo-science (eg ID). True scientists are willing to change their minds if new evidence emerges and do not hold to dogmatic creeds.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan/01/sciencenews.evolution/print

Other Comments by windweaver

22. Comment #105483 by righton on December 31, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Does anyone know of a scientific paper that talks about how the phlagellum motor evolved. Im looking for one about comparative biology of the protiens involved and the protiens they are homologous to. I do have pubmed access and can download one from there if you have a title.

Other Comments by righton

23. Comment #105493 by TonyA on December 31, 2007 at 6:15 pm

I'll bet I'm not the only one who skips the parts where the ID'ers talk because I can't stand to listen to obvious lies they are spewing.

Sadly, it seems that the other side must be doing the same thing and skipping the obvious truths.

Other Comments by TonyA

24. Comment #105508 by maton100 on December 31, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Oh that Behe...what a charmer! His little Irish cap and his irreducible mousetrap.

Other Comments by maton100

25. Comment #105510 by Bueller_007 on December 31, 2007 at 7:22 pm

I've gotta say, that desk Dawkins is sitting at really freaks me out.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

26. Comment #105512 by monoape on December 31, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Not saying I disagree, but one could tell the way the editorial team leans on this program by the 'duelling banjos' played after Dubya's sound bite. Ding-a-ding-ding-ding---ding-dingding.

Other Comments by monoape

27. Comment #105515 by Tack on December 31, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Dawkins made me laugh more in this show than any other time I've heard him speak. When he called IDers "yapping terriers of ignorance" I almost ejected through my nose this fine Australian Shiraz, which I happened to have been sipping at the time.

And this is priceless: "[Intelligent Design] is getting ahold only among those parts of the population who don't know anything."

Other Comments by Tack

28. Comment #105516 by righton on December 31, 2007 at 7:56 pm

I thought the duelling banjos were great. Yes this editorial leans toward the truth side.

Other Comments by righton

29. Comment #105525 by dragonfirematrix on December 31, 2007 at 9:44 pm

I have just viewed and listened to the "A War On Science." I feel warmed by the fact that we still have truth-loving people in America, who intelligently, reasonably and formidably challenge the Neanderthals of religion. Intelligent Design is nothing more than another attempt by the religious in America to force religion on everyone.

I am a computer tech, not a scientist, but I have (I think) this bit of logic to offer against "Intelligent Design," or any other deity the religious propose to explain the origins of life on our planet Earth.

Mr. Darwin is right, and evolution is a law. Evolution is the law on Earth and on any other planet.

To say it my way…

Everything is the end-result of "cause and affect." "Cause and affect," modifies generational parameters (all life on Earth) by changing the balance resulting in the permutation of organisms to the next level of "cause and affect" iteration variation, on infinitum. "Cause and affect" nets the "survival of the fittest."

Therefore, Darwin rocks!

Wayne (Forest, VA)

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

30. Comment #105526 by Eventhorizon on December 31, 2007 at 9:44 pm

What can one say? In England this is not even up for debate.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

31. Comment #105529 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Eventhorizon -- that was not the impression I got from watching the root of all evil again today. Although perhaps lesser in scale -- England is apparently not immune from fundamentalism Christian, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise.

Other Comments by Radesq

32. Comment #105532 by Eventhorizon on December 31, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Radesq
Its cetainly not but before it even gets a foothold its put squareley in its place.
Like RD says in one of his interviews, if you are religious in England you almost have to apologise for being so.
I think I'm just wondering why these things always seem to come out of America? and why they get as far as they do?
I genuinely want to be elucidated.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

33. Comment #105540 by Radesq on December 31, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Two reasons I think. First our respect for the right to free speech and free religion has created a lot of space for religion to go where it will unchallenged here (it wouldn't be politically correct to call people on their religious nonsense). Second the attack on science is part of a wider "culture war" being fomented by self-identifying Conservatives. It is as much anti-intellectual as anti-secular; this is evidenced by the oft used pejorative "east coast ivy league liberal elite".

Other Comments by Radesq

34. Comment #105541 by Eventhorizon on December 31, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Radesq
I know what you mean - it seems a lot of folk in England are afraid of offending too.
Im 100% behind freedom of speach but I'm more interested in why people show such credulity. I understand how one is free to say what one will but that doesnt expalin why people would take such things seriously.
(edit) what is the Ivy League?
Oh and happy new year too.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

35. Comment #105548 by Shane McKee on January 1, 2008 at 12:07 am

Vinelectric, irreducible complexity is not a barrier to evolution. The cdesign proponentsists would like you to think so, but it is not. It's a straight fallacy.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

36. Comment #105549 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 12:09 am

Happy New Year to you as well. The ivy league are a group of colleges & universities here in the USA that are held to be prestigious -- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. So named because of their ivy covered buildings.

Other Comments by Radesq

37. Comment #105550 by Eventhorizon on January 1, 2008 at 12:16 am

Right I should have Googled that and found out...and these universities lean towards liberalism?

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

38. Comment #105556 by Summer Seale on January 1, 2008 at 1:15 am

"Proper science only prevailed in this case because there was a sensible judge in place to rule on the case."

The judge in question is actually a Republican judge appointed by a Republican and religious president. =)

Just because somebody is a "conservative" on some issues does not automatically make them a fool. I wish some people here would remember that from time to time. =)

Other Comments by Summer Seale

39. Comment #105563 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 2:28 am

Rasdeq: "Happy New Year to you as well. The ivy league are a group of colleges & universities here in the USA that are held to be prestigious -- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. So named because of their ivy covered buildings."

I've somewhere inthe long past heard this explanation as well but checked it out some time ago and was told that the "Ivy" referred to the Roman numeral IV, there being at one stage four top universities in the USA.

It's a sort of American equivalent of the term "Oxbridge" or the "Four Ancient Scottish Universities" but nowdays includes other top American universities rather than just the original four.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

40. Comment #105564 by AdrianT on January 1, 2008 at 2:55 am

I wonder what proportion of the Discovery Institute's budget goes on research, and what goes on public relations?

Here is a link to the PR agency that helped get the DI's message to market - it has a very impressive list of past and present clients....

http://www.crcpublicrelations.com/clients.aspx

Other Comments by AdrianT

41. Comment #105569 by Vinelectric on January 1, 2008 at 4:12 am

shane McKee

I agree but I can't put a finger on where I went wrong on this one. A bacterial flagellum offers an extra survival advantage but a biochemical process is essential for life. One faulty component in a metabolic pathway results in a disabling condition (e.g Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) or limits life expectancy to early childhood (e.g Tay Sach's disease). Without that no evolution takes place.

mdowe
I'm not joking. You either know the answer or you don't!!

Seriously, how do you support life with half a Krebs cycle? If it turns out that bacteria/protozoa have simpler versions of these cycles I'd be relieved. Otherwise I'd have to ask those interested in Abiogenesis.

Anyone out there trained in Biochemistry? please help...

Other Comments by Vinelectric

42. Comment #105571 by Steve Zara on January 1, 2008 at 4:32 am

If it turns out that bacteria/protozoa have simpler versions of these cycles I'd be relieved.

Indeed they do. It is called the glyoxylate cycle.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #105573 by Vinelectric on January 1, 2008 at 4:36 am

Thanks Steve
Enjoy the cool soggy afternoon!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

44. Comment #105577 by kev_s on January 1, 2008 at 4:59 am

Re: Comment #105483 by righton

Does anyone know of a scientific paper that talks about how the phlagellum motor evolved?

You could start here and follow some of the references.
http://talkdesign.org/cs/flagellum_background

Other Comments by kev_s

45. Comment #105578 by eno on January 1, 2008 at 5:01 am

Excellent edition of Horizon, thank you for sharing as I missed it when it was on.

It seems obvious that if science was taught in schools in a better and more positive manner then perhaps we wouldn't have these disillusioned pious nincompoops manipulating others that a god designed everything.

There is certainly a war on science and it seems to be coming from America.

Other Comments by eno

46. Comment #105580 by Paula Kirby on January 1, 2008 at 5:19 am

In addition, it would great if leading scientists could somehow join forces and come up with something like a prime-time TV special to re-introduce evolution to the general public in the US… and straighten out the many myths and misconceptions regarding this subject... AND most importantly, the difference between what a "theory" means to science vs. the laypersons understanding. This is one of the most annoying aspects of this debate and it comes up over and over again.
Does anyone think something like this could help, or am I just dreaming?

Yes, I agree it could help, Double Bass Atheist, and the good news is that on one of the other threads on this site I read that RD is making a programme about evolution for Channel 4. And I'm sure Channel 4 will try very hard indeed to get it shown on US TV too - though whether they succeed or not is another matter! Let's hope they do.

You're so right: too many people don't understand what the theory of evolution actually is, and then dismiss it as untenable because the distorted version they've got in their heads is - quite literally - incredible.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

47. Comment #105582 by V'Ger on January 1, 2008 at 5:33 am

I was dissapointed that the narrator kept reffering to evolutionary steps as 'chance' - and yet they did not point out how wrong this assertion is!

Other Comments by V'Ger

48. Comment #105585 by gregonomic on January 1, 2008 at 5:37 am

room101 (comment 20):

It may be simply my own lack of research, but I haven't heard much of Dembski's so-called model. Has anyone else in this forum heard of it?

Dembski espouses the idea of "specified complexity", which, by his definition, is anything that's too complex to have arisen by chance, and must have been created by an intelligent designer.

He also once claimed to have invented an "explanatory filter" which could distinguish between designed and non-designed structures. I haven't heard much about that lately.

Competent mathematicians, notably Elsberry and Shallitt, have debunked most of Dembski's ideas, although I'm not sure why they bothered - most of Dembski's calculations regarding biological structures are based on assumptions which are simply laughable.

Why didn't this model play more of a significant role in the Dover case (other than the obvious: A). He didn't show up and B). The model is bull****).

He was supposed to be a witness at Dover, but withdrew before he was due to testify, allegedly because the Thomas More Law Center wouldn't allow the Discovery (sic) Institute witnesses to have their own lawyers. Popular opinion leans towards the argument that it was pretty obvious from the outset, and especially so after Micheal Behe's testimony, that the defense was dead in the water, and that the Discovery (sic) Institute couldn't afford to be associated with such a disastrous loss, so it withdrew all of its fellows.

Of course, (B) is also correct.

Other Comments by gregonomic

49. Comment #105587 by epeeist on January 1, 2008 at 5:44 am

Comment #105437 by room101

It may be simply my own lack of research, but I haven't heard much of Dembski's so-called model. Has anyone else in this forum heard of it? I had followed the Dover case pretty closely, read Hume's "Monkey Girl" book, etc., but this is the first time his model got mentioned that I'm aware of.

Have you seen the article on the Panda's Thumb site - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/04/desperately-eva.html

Other Comments by epeeist

50. Comment #105589 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 5:54 am

Summer Seale at 39

In the particular post about the Dover case. I warned against Creationists attempting to gain political power -- not Conservatives. Although I am a Liberal I understand Conservatives and Creationists are not the same and that Conservatives are not all fools. I would submit that my belief is however that in the USA Religious Conservatism has just about sucked all the oxygen out of that branch of political thought leaving the more Libertarian or fiscal Conservatives without much say in matters of importance to Republican politics. That is what I allude to further down in the posts and where I get more partisan/ideological about who is at war with science. I think Conservatism has to be wrested from Religious zealots in the US if it is to have any legitimate say in political matters. You are free to disagree of course.

Other Comments by Radesq