1. Comment #88389 by JamesDB on November 16, 2007 at 12:23 pm

I actually managed to get this on tv last night before it was poster here.
I quite enjoyed it, perfect example of the ignorance of religious people especially the behe parts.
I also found it hilarious when they had the early drafts of pandas and people and in it there was the
"cdesign proponentsists"
Lazy buggers can't even fully delete the words they are replacing. Then at the end the part where the creationists are calling the judge an idiot. bah How long can we put up with this, it went to trial and has been resolved.

They need to accept the facts and stop pushing because we are never gonna stop pushing back.

Other Comments by JamesDB

2. Comment #88390 by happyatheist on November 16, 2007 at 12:34 pm

I saw this on tv the other night and enjoyed every minute of it. I was happy to see the science teachers standing up to the board members who wanted to push them to teach "intelligent design" in their SCIENCE classes. LOL!

Other Comments by happyatheist

3. Comment #88397 by bayareadude on November 16, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Thanks for posting this link! I'll be able to share this with my students now via my blog.

When I first heard about this, I contacted Matthew Chapman (whom I'd met at the Atheists Alliance Int'l conference in DC back in Sept.). He replied, saying that they'd interviewed him for it, but that he wasn't sure how good the program would be.

Personally, I thought he came off quite well. And the show was very thorough and fair. I was a bit concerned when they offered up that sound byte of Chapman saying that he was "proof against evolution" given the success of his ancestor and the fact that he was just a screenwriter. But they came back to him later and showed him for the rational person he really is.

Still reeling from the idea that we were able to pull off a victory, even though the judge was a Bush appointee. I guess there is a god after all, eh? LOL

Other Comments by bayareadude

4. Comment #88402 by jimbob on November 16, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Now we know that when the religious right talk about "activist judges" they are referring to those judges who are prepared to uphold the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Other Comments by jimbob

5. Comment #88404 by ClemIsMe on November 16, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Cursed streaming too slow. And quicktime. Bah.

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

6. Comment #88405 by quill on November 16, 2007 at 1:43 pm

What's interesting is that someone with the You-Tube username "DiscoveryInstitute" is already posting poorly-made videos labelling the Nova documentary a "hit piece" and calling PBS the "Propaganda Broadcasting Service" - yet according to Nova, the Discovery Institute was asked repeatedly to be interviewed for the project but refused each time.

I think PBS actually went out of their way to be nice to these people. If you check the program's website, Phillip Johnson was given a ten-page Q and A session to present his side of the argument in his own words, and did so. Nova's simple presentation of the facts was damaging enough to ID; they would scarcely have needed any bias to make it look ridiculous.

Other Comments by quill

7. Comment #88411 by Bruno on November 16, 2007 at 2:02 pm

I saw it the other night on TV, too. Excellent program. Nova has always been a class act. Seemed to hit all the right high points, including Chromosome #2 - I have wondered why that isn't brought up more in some of the recent debates. Come on, it's pretty close to proof positive, genetically speaking, that we humans share a common ancestor with primates. And I have yet to see a creationist try to refute it. I am also curious if Nova attracted a larger audience than usual with this one. I sent very positive feedback to my local PBS carrier as well as Nova, asking for more programming just like it.

Other Comments by Bruno

8. Comment #88418 by Michael P. on November 16, 2007 at 2:20 pm

I missed the first 40 minutes of this, but thoroughly enjoyed the rest of it, and will watch it all tonight.

I emailed Michael Behe after watching and asked him why he declined to speak. He replied that he'd had enough of Dover and had no desire to relive it.

Can't say I blame him.

Other Comments by Michael P.

9. Comment #88443 by maton100 on November 16, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Having someone lie for you from the Discovery Institute: $20

Getting copies of your Wedge Document from the printer: $10

Cdesign Proponentsists...priceless.

For everything else there is science.

Other Comments by maton100

10. Comment #88444 by phil rimmer on November 16, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Judge John Jones.



The man done good.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

11. Comment #88449 by John Done on November 16, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Why is Ken Miller played by a younger George Carlin?

Seriously, a great program.

Other Comments by John Done

12. Comment #88452 by Styrer- on November 16, 2007 at 6:02 pm

This excellent video gives me the chance to re-inforce some of my pet themes. :)

We are given incontrovertible evidence here that the faith-heads really are a desperate, disingenuous and dishonourable lot.

I waded through the memorandum opinion from Kitzmiller V Dover Area School District (for a bit of fun!) a few weeks ago, and this point simply jumps out at every specious turn of the principal faith-heads in the trial.

The outright lying, the duplicity, the bullying and the sheer arrogance of those who would have the world believe that it is we atheists who are bereft of morality are exposed for all to see.

That the faith-heads are shown to have lied categorically on oath (presumably on the bible - I wonder how they square this particular circle?) gives us about the measure, I think, of their grotesque, solipsistic religion and its effects.

How wonderfully in contrast with such a shabby and shameful crew stood Eugenie Scott at the AAI conference this year, in all her glorious atheism, and representative of the plaintiffs in this case.

There is more moral fibre in her little toe, and in that of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al. than can be found in the entire physical make-up of so many of these despicable religious lunatics.

This trial serves to strengthen my conviction that we should be re-claiming and ennobling the name 'atheist' for ourselves, particularly in regard to its hijacked implication of immorality.

I warmly endorse Veronique's proposal - atheists and non-atheists!

Indeed, we should not allow the faith-heads to force us to withdraw sheepishly from a word whose negative connotations such as they exist are entirely their own attempt, yet again, at deceitful fabrication.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

13. Comment #88464 by Goodwithwood on November 16, 2007 at 8:21 pm

" Indeed, we should not allow the faith-heads to force us to withdraw sheepishly from a word whose negative connotations such as they exist are entirely their own attempt, yet again, at deceitful fabrication"
Here Here.

This is not the end of it. These people will be back with a vengeance. This judge was obviously rational but one of the strategies of the Christian Supremacists is to slowly replace these judges. Liberty University(not) trains there lawyers in an exact replica of the Supreme Court. They have a plan. The supreme court is being stocked with religious reich judges. And the teaching of creationism is being realized through the school vouchers campaign which is a back door way of getting the government to pay for religious schools.
They are also infiltrating the military command structure, they have the air force and are working on the other 3. Taking out Pat Tilman was part of it.
Do not under estimate the power of the dark side.

GWW

Other Comments by Goodwithwood

14. Comment #88470 by Theocrapcy on November 16, 2007 at 10:52 pm

THe most despicable aspect of these faith-heads is how they utlisie the fruits of reason and science - technology, the justice system, the tenets of science, free speach - and pervert them in order to achieve their aims.

It is plain to see how vapid the religious view of life really is, and I am surprised they have lasted so long. I guess it is their strength in numbers, but that raises a number of alarming questions: not least of all, why are there so many when the evidence is so clearly in favour of secularism?

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

15. Comment #88474 by Arcturus on November 17, 2007 at 12:49 am

Just saw it ... amazing. These people are very very deluded. PZ Myers has a suitable name for them: "demented fuckwits".

This Buckingham guy is so sleazy, how could he say those things at the end to the judge. And the death threats ... and Robertson's wrath ... how can this be real? It doesn't make any sense.

Other Comments by Arcturus

16. Comment #88479 by eirik on November 17, 2007 at 2:03 am

great program, and something that a lot of people need to watch.

ftao arcturus: when did religion ever make sense? assumptions and conclusions based on religious doctrine can by definition never make rational sense imho.

Other Comments by eirik

17. Comment #88490 by olegus on November 17, 2007 at 4:13 am

This case shows that (quoting someone) "Power is not in money or in force, but truth is power."

Other Comments by olegus

18. Comment #88500 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 17, 2007 at 6:09 am

Wow. Just finished watching the whole thing. I love this kind of stuff, it helps counterbalance my own acknowledged tendency to anti-americanism, the world needs to see and hear much more of this.

Here are common or garden american citizens, fighting tooth and nail for rationality, good sense and truth, with the final outcome hinging on a Bush appointed republican!!! Holy sheet!!!

The American system of government, and constitution has it flaws, but it came up trumps here. Go USA!!!

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

19. Comment #88522 by bpabbott on November 17, 2007 at 10:16 am

I haven't seen this get much press regarding the attempts by some in Orlando (FL) to introduce ID into the classroom.

I hope some of you can help change that :-)

http://www.local6.com/news/14613621/detail.html
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-evolution1607nov16,0,5409733.story
http://www.orlandoweekly.com/features/story.asp?id=8273

Apparently my neighbors in this city didn't bother to watch "Judgement Day" ... perhaps I'll have the opportunity to see a rerun 1st hand :-(

Ben

Other Comments by bpabbott

20. Comment #88527 by JFHalsey on November 17, 2007 at 11:45 am

Finally watched it; great program. The "missing link" fossil between creationists and design proponents was so funny I actually laughed out loud.

There's not much I can add that hasn't already been said about this topic, but I would like to offer some bit of hope: I was raised as a YEC; indeed, I volunteered with our local creationist chapter to put on a creationist TV show on our local cable. But when I finally got so fed up with evolution and wondered "just how can these people still believe this in the face of all the evidence?!", I actually went to read what the real scientists were saying about evolution and realized that I'd been lied to my entire life (I was homeschooled and so missed even a high school-level biology education).

Logical evidence and reasoning can triumph over indoctrination and bias.

Other Comments by JFHalsey

21. Comment #88533 by D'Arcy on November 17, 2007 at 1:15 pm

The insidious tactics and stategy used by the IDers remind me of the methods advocated by Lenin as "boring from within". In Lenin's view a lie told with the right motives was no longer a lie. Lenin of course completely emasculated Marx's ideas in his quest for political power in Russia.

Incidentally Marx had written to Darwin in 1859 to congratulate him on his book Origin of Species.

It strikes me as ironic that in the "land of the free" the Christian creationists are using the same tactics as the arch enemy, Lenin, used to further his objectives.

The dishonest attitude shown by the creationists is shown by their willingness to accept and use the latest science insofar as it suits their ends, but to try to undermine any science that conflicts with their holy book.

I would say "bah humbug" but it's not that close to christmas yet.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

22. Comment #88535 by phasmagigas on November 17, 2007 at 1:34 pm

theres a rather strange desperation in the ID brigade, something childlike/ish, did one guy towards the end of the show actaully shed a few tears??(my reception is terrible and i couldnt quite tell) with the notion that evolution took away mans dignity, what an absolute fool.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

23. Comment #88541 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 17, 2007 at 3:46 pm

check this out ... pretty good. I done found myself a torrent for it!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0297188/

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

24. Comment #88542 by liberalartist on November 17, 2007 at 3:55 pm

I have 5 nephews in school - 4th to 9th grades. I am going to buy them "Growing Up in the Universe" for Christmas because I worry that they don't know enough about science. I see so many college students who come to school believing they will be doctors or scientists and they can't handle the curiculum, because science just isn't being taught well enough any more in this country (USA). That School Board member was a fine example of the ignorance that is perpetuated generation after generation in this country. ID may have lost this battle, but they are regrouping and will be back - looks like Florida may be next!

It astounds me how people can embrace religious ignorance over rational science in a time when we have so many scientifically based problems - global warming, AIDS, pandemics...etc. We have never needed science more than we do today.

and kudos to that judge for being reasonable and logical and for truly understanding the rule of law. But that circus bit was funny.

Other Comments by liberalartist

25. Comment #88552 by windweaver on November 17, 2007 at 6:48 pm

I agree with other posters about the despicable nature of many ID propagandists. One of the worst has to be William Dembski. Here he is revealing his ultra-conservative biases and singing the praises of extreme right-wing bigot Ann Coulter (my emphasis added):

Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism
William Dembski
I'm happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters.

. . . Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us:

**Its sacraments (abortion)
**Its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
**Its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal)
**Its clergy (public school teachers)
**Its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
**Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of such spokesmen as Cindy Sheehan and Max Cleland)
**And its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly refutes the lie that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: It is bogus science.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called "gaps" in the theory of evolution are all there is — Darwinism is nothing but a gap.

After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as one hoax after another. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious nuts and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom.

Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with their refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

Other Comments by windweaver

26. Comment #88558 by Jack Rawlinson on November 17, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Just watched this. What a joy to see those mendacious, devious creeps take such a solid kicking. But the warning at the end is important: there are lots of them out there and they won't go away. So it's vital we stay prepared and ready to take on whatever variation of their pet superstition they come crawling back with next time. This is a war that will last until the innate spiritual cowardice of the religiously-inclined dies out. And that will take a long, long time. Warn your children.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

27. Comment #88561 by JFHalsey on November 17, 2007 at 7:22 pm

BTW, in Chapter 6 (I think), they talk about how gorilla's, chimps, and orangutans all have 24 chromosomes, whereas we have 23. Ken Miller said that if we didn't find evidence where two chromosomes had merged to form one, explaining where that missing chromosome went, then the evolutionary theory of the common descent of man would be wrong.

I don't understand how that works. Can a species not just lose a chromosome? Or might our common ancestor not have only had 23, and only the other three primates developed the 24th one? I don't know enough about chromosomes to understand the issue. Can someone help me out?

Other Comments by JFHalsey

28. Comment #88564 by ICONIC FREEDOM on November 17, 2007 at 8:15 pm

"ROBERT MUISE: Is intelligent design based on any religious beliefs or convictions?

MICHAEL BEHE: No, it isn't.

This was an astounding statement with little light shed on it but with enormous implications.

"Is Creationism not predicated on the idea of god and the 6 days of creation or is the hypothesis based on another scientific idea?"

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

29. Comment #88565 by ICONIC FREEDOM on November 17, 2007 at 8:19 pm

windweaver - yes, Ann Coulter, that abundance of intellect housed in the guise of "the nervousa". What "breathtaking inanity" she spits at the world.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

30. Comment #88566 by chuckgoecke on November 17, 2007 at 8:29 pm

It seems to me that one of th ID/creationist arguments against evolution is the beauty, wonder and complexity of life on Earth. The argument is like saying, I (personally) can't comprehend how the complexity of the life on Earth arose or developed, by whatever means, therefore it must have been created by someone much bigger and smarter than me. Is this not the Argument from Personal Increduality, one of the lamest, weakest and crappiest arguments in all of rhetoric and debate? The only thing this kind of argument affirms is the weakness of the argumentors mind.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

31. Comment #88568 by chuckgoecke on November 17, 2007 at 8:57 pm

JFHalsey wondered if species can loose a chromosome. I'm not a geneticist, and its been a while since I've had a Molecular Genetics class, but I think that loss of a whole chromosome would be a mutation that would be instantly fatal, assuming that every chromosome has at least one actual gene on it that creates an essential protein. The telomere/centromere search was a brilliant solution of the ape-human relation problem. People may not realize that besides the typical things that can cause minor mutations(single or localized base pair change), such as radiation or bad chemicals(diesel soot), I think some viruses can go into cells, insert themselves into the genome or snip and cut chromosomes apart, and re-assemble them, naturally doing what genetic engineers are doing now. Like most mutations these huge changes are almost always fatal, but occasionally... A really big non-fatal and favorable change might occur ...whalla Stephan J Gould's punctuations.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

32. Comment #88570 by room101 on November 17, 2007 at 9:36 pm

I echo Goodwithwood's sentiments/warnings. Places like Liberty U. et al, along with a right-leaning Supreme Court could potentially make things difficult for the secular side. The next president could potentially appoint 2 justices. Almost makes me think of voting democrat for that sole reason alone. Don't know how much longer Stevens (and maybe Ginsberg) have.

Regarding the excellent NOVA program: What astounds me the most is that the ID'ers are still making the same arguments they made prior to not only the court decision, but also after all of the refuting evidence that has rebutted their claims. Yet weeks, months, years later - there they are. Doing talk shows, writing books, etc. - still touting that there can be "design inferences" made in nature and then siting the flagellum as their example. Absolutely mind-boggling.

It reminds me, wasn't there a saying: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results."

Other Comments by room101

33. Comment #88579 by dan w. on November 17, 2007 at 11:51 pm

"PASTOR RAY MUMMERT: Teaching the traditional evolutionary Darwinian concept that man evolved from lower forms of life, that's almost a slap in my face. That takes the dignity away from humanity as far as I'm concerned what gives dignity to man is that every one of us are made in the image of God. He is the creator. And he created the world with intention and with design. It upsets me deeply that now in our educational system we are indoctrinating our young people to think differently about humanity."

--

It would take this guy months to understand how anyone could view that statement as hypocritical.

Other Comments by dan w.

34. Comment #88582 by Flagellant on November 18, 2007 at 12:10 am

I watched this; it's an excellent programme. I'll bet we in the UK will be seeing it soon. I wonder how much attention it will attract in the US - I've just heard that Huckabee is doing well... Aaargh!

Goodwithwood 88464 and room101 make a fair point about the Supreme Court; it has a dramatic influence on US attitudes and values and a change in stance will have a tremendous effect, not just at home but worldwide.

If I were in the US, no matter what my political leanings, I would vote for whichever presidential candidate was most likely to preserve a pro-science, non-religious, disestablished complexion to the Supreme Court. I hope that you free-thinkers can pull it off but I'm worried for you.




Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

35. Comment #88613 by ICONIC FREEDOM on November 18, 2007 at 3:42 am

Flagellant - I'm concerned, as well. Both Alan Dershowitz and Paul Kurtz, at the CFI Conference last weekend, made the comment about the danger of both political parties in such a hurry to pontificate and witness their religion to their constituency.

In a most astounding moment, a panelist said that Obama has been involved with Ken Hovind and some others but in spite of that she's supporting him.

Why go to a conference on Secular Society if you're willing to be a hypocrite. It was more stupidity, one of many that weekend.

Even Hitchens mentions in his video event at the Freedom From Religion Foundation on October 13th (on the web through youtube) that Free Inquiry magazine, instead of promoting secularism, gives the impression of those who uphold secularism, separation of church/state, are hard-leaning democrats; it's theater of the absurd.

BTW, I'm not sure which candidate endorses science the most, none seem to speak to the subject.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

36. Comment #88614 by ICONIC FREEDOM on November 18, 2007 at 3:46 am

D'Arcy - oh, go ahead, say bah humbug, it's worth it at any time during the year. : )

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

37. Comment #88617 by ICONIC FREEDOM on November 18, 2007 at 3:49 am

If you want to hear something ironic, listen to Dershowitz on parts 1 & 2 of this debate:

Alan Dershowitz on religion pt. 1


Alan Dershowitz on religion pt.2

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

38. Comment #88625 by ICONIC FREEDOM on November 18, 2007 at 4:54 am

Here's More Hitchens:

Hitchens FFR"

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

39. Comment #88631 by Marcus Hill on November 18, 2007 at 5:17 am

chuckgoecke: "I think some viruses can go into cells, insert themselves into the genome or snip and cut chromosomes apart, and re-assemble them, naturally doing what genetic engineers are doing now. Like most mutations these huge changes are almost always fatal, but occasionally... A really big non-fatal and favorable change might occur ..."

You're thinking of Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs). Much more frequent than any beneficial changes from them are neutral changes which can propagate on the back of unrelated beneficial changes or randomly. ERVs actually provide some really good evidence for evolution in the form of the "twin nested hierarchies", since they leave evidence not only with their presence but with where they have inserted themselves in the genome. If you use the fossil record to determine where various branches of the tree of life split off, you can make predictions that ERVs found in the genes of living species would follow that pattern. For instance, since chimps split from the human line more recently than gorillas, you'd expect every ERV shared by humans and gorillas to also be present in chimps. This has turned out to be the case, with the tree constructed from the fossil record closely matching the one constructed by analysis of ERVs.

This is evidence that should be pushed as hard as Chromosome 2, IMO. Unless the "designer" was being deliberately deceptive, what possible reason would there be for putting these useless bits of DNA in such a precise pattern as to indicate common descent?

Other Comments by Marcus Hill

40. Comment #88636 by bluebird on November 18, 2007 at 5:25 am

Great program; glad it's posted here :)

Professor Frans de Waal nominates as 2007 Time Magazine 'person/s of the year', "All the brave biology teachers of this nation who teach evolution despite the opposition they encounter...they arm their pupils with the knowledge they need ...".

Other Comments by bluebird

41. Comment #88638 by keith on November 18, 2007 at 6:26 am

JFHalsey,

I don't understand how that works. Can a species not just lose a chromosome? Or might our common ancestor not have only had 23, and only the other three primates developed the 24th one? I don't know enough about chromosomes to understand the issue. Can someone help me out?

I'm as clueless as you when it comes to how we lost a chromosome. However, this must have been the case since the alternative would mean that the other three apes: the urangutan, the gorilla and the chimp would have had to gain a chromsome, all independently of each other, which would be too remarkable a coincidence. Remember the order in which each species split: first urangutans (leaving the creature that would later become gorillas, humans and chimps), then gorillas split (leaving the creature that would become chimps and us), then the chimps and us parted company. (Chimps and bonobos parted company later still). If you assume that all of these apes had only 23 chromosomes when they branched, then you need a complicated reason to explain why all three later added an extra chromosome independently.

Sorry if that was a bit long-winded.

Other Comments by keith

42. Comment #88642 by catchy_nick on November 18, 2007 at 8:06 am

The movie was pretty good. I was a little annoyed when their "feeings were hurt" when people were calling them "Atheists". Its such an offensive word isnt it? I wouldn't be offended if someone called me a Christian. Fuckers!

Other Comments by catchy_nick

43. Comment #88643 by Logicel on November 18, 2007 at 8:17 am

In choosing Behe as a means to implement his 'wedge strategy,' Johnson would have been better served by choosing Emma Bovary's hubby, Dr. Charles instead. IDiots can't surmount such ineptitude with mere 'misspoking' (euphemism for simple, old fashioned lying).

Bonsell mutters about how he just wanted to return to his community the good things it had given him, supposedly by 'misspeaking' frequently, and by not recognizing that his good fortunes in life will not be possible for his children if teaching of science is diluted with nonsense. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic people--Bonsell, Buckingham, Robertson, Johnson. Yuck.

The Christians who fought for evolution are so problematic for me, including the scientist, Ken Miller. Just because they can compartmentalize the cognitive dissonance from embracing both religion and science, does not mean others can do it. And as long as these 'moderates' cleave to faith as a virtue, the ones that can't compartmentalize will be encouraged to do something they can't handle--belief without evidence.

Anyways, kudos to these religious believers who did fight against the inanity which is ID.

Other Comments by Logicel

44. Comment #88647 by Greybishop on November 18, 2007 at 9:19 am

dan w. posted this quote:

"PASTOR RAY MUMMERT: Teaching the traditional evolutionary Darwinian concept that man evolved from lower forms of life, that's almost a slap in my face. That takes the dignity away from humanity as far as I'm concerned what gives dignity to man is that every one of us are made in the image of God. He is the creator. And he created the world with intention and with design. It upsets me deeply that now in our educational system we are indoctrinating our young people to think differently about humanity."

I agree that it would take the good Pastor months (if ever) to see the irony in the statement. To clear it up for him, I posted this in the forums:

"Teaching the traditional creationist concept that man was created by God, that's a slap in my face. That takes the dignity away from humanity as far as I'm concerned. What gives dignity to man is that every one of us are evolved beings, with a grand and wondrous lineage that truly boggles the mind. There is no creator. Humanity struggled to consciousness and intelligence in a world without intention and without design. It upsets me deeply that now in our educational system you are suggesting that indoctrinating our young people to think differently about humanity is a noble idea. Evolution showcases the nobility of struggle. Creationism makes humanity out to be nothing more than a toy for a petulant and lonely child."

Other Comments by Greybishop

45. Comment #88649 by thirdchimpanzee on November 18, 2007 at 9:44 am

bravo Greybishop.

Its so frustrating to deal with religious apologists who think their deities dignify our existence, whereas the exact opposite is the case. Its further irony that so many of the conservative Christians come from the tough-love, "God helps those who help themselves" school of thinking.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

46. Comment #88654 by walk on November 18, 2007 at 11:13 am

Scooter,

Thanks for the great links. Dershowitz was fantastic! Hitch, brilliant!

Other Comments by walk

47. Comment #88656 by NMcC on November 18, 2007 at 11:35 am

Brilliant stuff!! Extremely educational and informative. The graphic illustration of the similarity between the bacterial flagellum and the Yersinia Pestis, the bacterium that causes the bubonic plague, was superbly done and, at a stroke, demolished the entire 'case' for 'intelligent design'.

I'd recommend reading the typescript of the two interviews with Philip Johnson and Ken Miller.

Miller is excellent and provides his usual robust defense of Darwinian evolution. How this man is able to reconcile Roman Catholicism with his scientific knowledge is a total mystery to me…but…anyway…

Johnson is all over the place in his interview, and reveals his real motivations for all the world to see: basically, having become a christian in response to his mid-life crisis, he hates the idea that science doesn't start off with a belief in the existence of the supernatural and work from there. This is Johnson's main complaint, as far as I can determine, and all the rest of his 'case' as expounded here is just fluff and filler.

What about this for a most revealing sentence from Johnson:

"A philosophy of naturalism or materialism is what generates the Darwinian theory."

Really? Darwin started out with a 'materialist' philosophy did he, and simply 'discovered' (nudge nudge, wink wink) the evidence he wanted to find to bolster his nefarious machinations? And then, having discovered this evidence, inexplicably, decided to sit on his theory for the next twenty years – even though it backed up the 'materialist' philosophy he sought to bolster in the first place!!

Is it possible that a relatively well-educated 12 year old would make a more stupid comment on Darwinism? I doubt it.

And this from the Godfather of IDiocy himself!!

Other Comments by NMcC

48. Comment #88658 by Shrunk on November 18, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I wonder if anyone knowledgeable of the American legal system can explain how severe a blow this actually is to the creationist movement. If any other school board in the nation attempts to put ID on the curriculum, is it now sufficient to simply cite the Dover verdict as a precedent that proves such an action to be illegal? If so, the creationists are going to have a hard time repackaging their doctrine yet again without leaving evidence that it is simply a rewording of creationism/ID.

Other Comments by Shrunk

49. Comment #88665 by phil rimmer on November 18, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Scooter,

Fantastic Dershowitz link! Thank you so much.

It is he, the good judge and the honest folk of Dover (those prepared to stand up for truth at great personal cost) that remind me why I fell in love with the US decades ago.

On to Hitchens now (I think he fell in love too)....

Other Comments by phil rimmer

50. Comment #88685 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 2:04 pm

via pharyngula i linked to the pbs ombudsmans post show discussion.

The letters from the cdesign bunch are very revealing, there arent that many posts from the cdesign lot on these forums but at least those that do find time here are willing enough to have their assertions and arguments sliced and diced and shared accordingly and some like 'revcort' admit theres a lot he doesnt know (indeed i feel he was finding some of the biology very interesting and revealing), the posts to PBS are just what youd expect from debate virgin creationists, false arguments blended with interesting writing styles and more false arguments.

Other Comments by phasmagigas