NOVA on Intelligent Design

[john5746]

One of the best episodes of Nova ever.

 

And it contained one of the funniest moments in Nova history, which can be summed up in two words: "cdesign proponentsists". I had to stop the Tivo for ten minutes when they called it "the missing link between creationism and intelligent design".

 

This and the part where Behe claims Astrology is science as well.

[Reaper]

This and the part where Behe claims Astrology is science as well.

 

In India they actually do consider astrology an actual science, at least from what I've heard.

[ydoaPs]

You rock dude.

 

It took you that long to figure it out?

 

 

 

ATOMIKPSYCHO IS A GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[h2so4hurts]

Does anyone know when this show will be replaying??

[ydoaPs]

Does anyone know when this show will be replaying??

 

If you have Windows Media Player, you can watch it anytime. The link is up a few posts.

[iNow]

If you have Windows Media Player, you can watch it anytime. The link is up a few posts.

 

It's actually through Quicktime.

 

Also, the "when" is contingent on everyone's local station. For the television version, see the link below. Otherwise, view it anytime with Quicktime at the link above.

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/tvschedules/

[ydoaPs]

It's actually through Quicktime.

Odd....when I set it to full screen it played in Media Player.

 

edit: I'm retarded. It's in Quicktime and Media Player

[Reaper]

Well, I just watched the show. I have to say, one of my favorite scenes was when Michael Behe was trying to claim that evolution could not account for the immune system, or that there was no published scientific work on it, and one of the lawyers not only gave him papers that were peer reviewed, but entire volumes on the subject. A huge stack of them.

 

The "cdesign proponentsists" term was just classic.

 

Another one that caught my attention was when some local church pastor was appalled at the possibility that we might see humanity in a different way, as opposed thinking about ourselves as some sort of "special divine creation" or something like that.

 

========================================

 

Throughout the whole recording I was quite astonished at how low the "cdesign proponentsists" were willing to lower the bar, and to what lengths they are willing to go to get religion in the classroom (like lying under oath, shame on you creationists). In particular, I found the Discovery Institute manifesto quite disturbing (e.g. I saw something like having ID permeate every facet of our lives, as if asking us to worship it...)

 

 

Overall, a good program.

 

Score one for the (real) scientists, and rational thinkers, and real scientific inquiry.

[iNow]

edit: I'm retarded. It's in Quicktime and Media Player

The retardation is all mine. I didn't even see the Windows Media link. This is just further evidence that the eye is too perfect to have evolved without an intelligent agent.

[swansont]

PBS comments on the reaction to the show, the fact that it wasn't shown by a couple of affiliates, and prints some letters they got in response.

 

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2007/11/post_5.html

 

Many of the letters that were complaints have "one-sided" as a major topic. Yeah, you go with the evidence. Science is kinda funny that way.

[ParanoiA]

Hmm, well I finally got to see all of this and really enjoyed it. Seems like they didn't pound home the point that I thought was the most appropriate - particularly given the context of the trial - that Creationsim or ID is really a Null Hypothesis. Is it not?

 

The way god is defined, or the lack of definition of an intelligent agent - the nontestablility of the "theory" - puts it with unicorns orbitting the central black hole of the universe.

 

It's simply not testable, so, is null. We're done - next!

 

Throughout the whole recording I was quite astonished at how low the "cdesign proponentsists" were willing to lower the bar, and to what lengths they are willing to go to get religion in the classroom (like lying under oath, shame on you creationists).

 

Exactly. It's not science - it's an alternative TO science. You have to suspend scientific legitimacy in order to accept ID/creationism. You have to ignore the evidence of evolution and in turn, regard evidence, itself, as irrelevant to understanding and proving things.

 

They repeatedly fantasize and play on emotions with bits about being "open minded" and "making way for a brand new theory" - but not based on the scientific method. They're basically complaining that the scientific method is too objective and sterile.

 

Which is exactly the point - science isn't your answer for all of your questions about life and morality, right and wrong. I see it like I see art. It is one thing, among a host of things, that all contribute to one's perspective on things. ID/Creationism is quite obviously asking you to choose faith over the scientific method.

[Mr Skeptic]

The way god is defined, or the lack of definition of an intelligent agent - the nontestablility of the "theory" - puts it with unicorns orbitting the central black hole of the universe.

 

It's simply not testable, so, is null. We're done - next!

 

Technically, ID is testable. But they have to prove that there is no natural explanation for our existance.

 

I think what needs to be done is a DNA comparison for various related species. No need to dig up crumbling old bone fragments when you have perfectly good DNA to compare. If I'm not mistaken, given enough related species, you should be able to derive the DNA of their ancestor (according to evolution). Also according to evolution, the differences should be a random assortment of mutations, duplications, and deletions. According to ID, it should look like intentionally different designs and specifically not like random changes.

[iNow]

Technically, ID is testable. But they have to prove that there is no natural explanation for our existance.

They'd actually have to prove that a designer was behind it, so in my mind, it's not testable.

 

They can, of course, make a prediction like irreducible complexity and find out that this is mistaken, but one cannot test whether or not the flying spaghetti monster designed it all.

 

Unfortunately, even proving a natural explanation does not help, since they would pivot that "a designer put that in place too."

 

Hence... null.

 

 

 

 

PBS comments on the reaction to the show, the fact that it wasn't shown by a couple of affiliates, and prints some letters they got in response.

 

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2007/11/post_5.html

 

Many of the letters that were complaints have "one-sided" as a major topic. Yeah, you go with the evidence. Science is kinda funny that way.

 

Why do you only teach a heliocentric POV when discussing our solar system? Don't your students deserve to hear all sides of the story, like Earth centered theories? :

[Mr Skeptic]

Unfortunately, even proving a natural explanation does not help, since they would pivot that "a designer put that in place too."

 

I think you misunderstood what I said. If they can prove that there is no natural explanation for our existence, then the only explanation left would be an unnatural explanation. Regardless, I think that is a moot point because if we can be naturally formed by birth, odds are that we can naturally be formed in another manner (ie, not impossible). I was just playing the God's advocate

 

 

Why do you only teach a heliocentric POV when discussing our solar system? Don't your students deserve to hear all sides of the story, like Earth centered theories? :

 

I was under the impression that all children were taught about the earth centered theories and Aristotle's idea of science without observation.

[iNow]

As history perhaps, but not as alternative.

[Mr Skeptic]

As history perhaps, but not as alternative.

 

History, and the reason that we should not repeat it.

[Pangloss]

History by itself is not a reason to avoid repetition.

[CDarwin]

Technically, ID is testable. But they have to prove that there is no natural explanation for our existance. [/Quote]

 

That doesn't suggest ID. That only suggest that our current natural explanations are inadequate. To test ID, you'd have to find actual evidence of the Designer, Its nature, etc. That's impossible. ID is worthless because it doesn't tell you anything. The NOVA addressed that.

 

I think what needs to be done is a DNA comparison for various related species. No need to dig up crumbling old bone fragments when you have perfectly good DNA to compare.

 

Don't make me find you and hit you over the head with something. DNA doesn't tell you about an ancestor's biology, its environment or really anything at all specific about it. Molecular clocks can't even be calibrated without fossils. Don't be disregarding the essential importance of paleontology.

 

If I'm not mistaken, given enough related species, you should be able to derive the DNA of their ancestor (according to evolution). Also according to evolution, the differences should be a random assortment of mutations, duplications, and deletions. According to ID, it should look like intentionally different designs and specifically not like random changes.

 

How on earth do we tell what an "intentional design" looks like when we have no idea of the nature of the designer? You could say anything looks like "intentional design."

[ydoaPs]

Here is AiG's review of the program. I almost stopped reading after they claim ID and creationism aren't the same thing. Apparently, they missed the "cdesign proponentsts" bit. It is somewhat amusing how they complain about the use of Tiktaalik as though they didn't explicitly say multiple times that the fossil was uncovered after the trial.

These post-hoc explanations are unlike predictions that can be made about the trajectory of a projectile or the function of a drug.

I guess they missed the part about the telomere in the centre of chromosome 2.

[iNow]

I find it ironic (on many levels) that he received death threats and was called an activist judge. In retrospect, it was fortunate to have a judge with his particular pedigree, since the claims of activism or bias ring so hollow.

 

Interestingly, those are the same types of actions now coming from opposition to healthcare reform... The death threats and the hollow claims. People are also apparently sending more death threats to Paul Krugman for supporting healthcare reform and for discussing how better to put our debt into context. I despair more each day for our culture...

 

 

Either way, I did bump this thread for a reason.

 

 

More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science

Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so they must have been intentionally designed, as is, by an intelligent entity.

 

But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.

 

The pieces “were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function,” said Sebastian Poggio, a postdoctoral cell biologist at Yale University and co-author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

<...>

 

Intelligent design mavens once cited flagella as evidence of their theory. Scientific fact dispelled that illusion. The mitochondria study does the same for protein transport.