Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

A modern Scopes trial


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 09 February 2013 - 01:38 AM

Here's a NOVA documentary on the Dover, Pennsylvania school board trial on Intelligent Design. Well worth the watch,


#2    ouija ouija

ouija ouija

    .

  • Member
  • 12,996 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:34 AM

Okay, I'm 40mns in but I'm giving up for now because it's 2:30am here and I have to got to bed! Will finish it tomorrow. Thanks for posting this.


#3    ouija ouija

ouija ouija

    .

  • Member
  • 12,996 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 February 2013 - 10:56 PM

Just finished watching it. I was only vaguely aware of this trial at the time; I suppose I shrugged it off as being something peculiarly American ..... and it's certainly that! Frightening that there are people in the 21st century who want to take the general population back hundreds of years to a place where they are God-fearing again. Obviously that situation gives them a lot of power, being the self-appointed mouthpieces of 'God'.

I felt very sorry for the population of Dover. I bet some of the rifts will never heal ..... be passed on from one generation to another(think Northern Ireland). :hmm:


#4    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:30 PM

Yes, what's also scary is that President Bushpublicly spoke out in favour of Intelligent Design. Good thing they have functioning legal system in the U.S.


#5    ouija ouija

ouija ouija

    .

  • Member
  • 12,996 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:34 PM

Oh my goodness! There must be joke in there somewhere connecting 'George Bush' and 'intelligent design' :lol:


#6    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,273 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 11 February 2013 - 05:09 AM

Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design as argued by Dover, I have just two words for them - "cdesign proponentsists"

My idea of "Intelligent Design" is along the lines of what science actually says - our current best understanding is evolution.  But the cause that started evolution right back at the beginning of Time, was God.  Hence Intelligent Design.  My usage of the term here is very different to Dover, though.

I'm just starting to watch the video now, not sure when I'll get to finish it, I won't watch it all at once  I don't think.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#7    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 7,464 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:05 AM

PA

Quote

  My usage of the term here is very different to Dover, though.

Yes, that has come up in other threads. The Dover court found that the "Intelligent Design" curriculum offered by the school district was literally the same, up to mechanical text-processing search-and-replace of specific terms, as a "Creation Science" curriculum that had already been ruled constitutionally impermissible to teach with tax money.

Obviously, however, "intelligent design" is a perfectly fine English-language common noun phrase. It could mean different things to different people. It could even mean something secular when applied to biology, since there is no scientific basis for asserting that intelligence requires a personal agent.

The reality, though, is that there is no political controversy about a science teacher discussing whether evolution by natural selection could itself be an example of intelligence. It can surely be viewed as a calculation, and has been in the genuine scientific and engineering literature. As with human cognitive capacity, it is interesting to ponder whether so viewed, it might shed light on the Church-Turing thesis or its application to real computing. Properly presented, high school students might even find that sort of thing engaging.

There is also no motivation for the likes of the "Discovery Institute" (an American advocacy group, but which has affiliates and allies in other places) to promote that kind of "intelligent design" instruction. The scientific (as opposed to legal) critique of DI's variety of ID is that it misstates the relationship between the evidence and the theory it aspires to replace. In other words, what capital ID asserts as fact isn't true.

One of the worries is that, sooner or later, DI or someone similar, will find some constitutionally permissible version of "id" which retains the false critique of natural selection, without any nod or wink that "God did it." Lying (and I have already explained to you elsewhere what I mean by that word, and I mean lying here, too) about science is not unconstitutional.

That will be one ladydog of a fight.

Posted Image

#8    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 11 February 2013 - 03:41 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 11 February 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design as argued by Dover, I have just two words for them - "cdesign proponentsists"

Yeah, how's that for a smoking gun? Good bit of detective work.


#9    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 11 February 2013 - 03:44 PM

View Posteight bits, on 11 February 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

One of the worries is that, sooner or later, DI or someone similar, will find some constitutionally permissible version of "id" which retains the false critique of natural selection, without any nod or wink that "God did it." Lying (and I have already explained to you elsewhere what I mean by that word, and I mean lying here, too) about science is not unconstitutional.

That will be one ladydog of a fight.

Intelligent design, as laid out in the court trial simply raises questions of irreducible complexity, it has no coherent alternative theory. The Discovery Institute video showed species blinking into existence fully formed. It reminds me of this cartoon.


Posted Image


#10    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 11 February 2013 - 03:55 PM

Well its obvious that animals were intelligently designed -- not.  They function for a little while and then inevitably fall victim to predation or accident or malfunction or infection or some cancer or other.  In the meantime they live lives of fear and hunger and brutality.  It's a jury-rigged system, exactly what you would expect from a natural process operating without intelligence or compassion, driven by entirely competitive processes and making do with whatever happens to become available.


#11    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,273 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 11 February 2013 - 04:25 PM

Well, I've finished watching the video, I enjoyed it.  It had some thought provoking points, the Dover school board was definitely out of line and justice was finally done.  On the whole though, I'm not certain the creators of the video were entirely unbiased in what they chose to edit into those two hours.  I didn't get any feel that enough time was spent looking at cross-examination of the Plaintiff's case.  One could (and did - at least I did) get the impression that during the whole trial when the Plaintiff put forth their argument, that at no point did the Defence put up a counter-argument or cross-examine.  The video spent the first hour and a bit on the circumstances of the case and the Plaintiff's argument.  We did not hear a single Cross-examination from the Defence.  I doubt the Defence chose not to cross-examine.  They allegedly weren't there to disprove evolution, but surely they would have tried to expose some of the "gaps" they claim were inherent in evolution.

By contrast, the next 20-30 minutes of the video discussed the argument for the Defence, and in total difference to the first section, every piece of evidence submitted by the Defence was given ample rebuttal time.  

Did the Defence simply accept everything the Plaintiff said, nodded and smiled and then sat back and did nothing?  Surely not.  But since I'm left with the impression that they did, I cannot help but feel that the creators let slip their own personal bias into the video.  But as I said, I enjoyed the video and it certainly got the point across about the tactics used by this group of people in Dover who wanted to insert religion into their classrooms.

~ Regards, PA

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#12    ouija ouija

ouija ouija

    .

  • Member
  • 12,996 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 February 2013 - 05:17 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 11 February 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

Well its obvious that animals were intelligently designed -- not.  They function for a little while and then inevitably fall victim to predation or accident or malfunction or infection or some cancer or other.  In the meantime they live lives of fear and hunger and brutality.  It's a jury-rigged system, exactly what you would expect from a natural process operating without intelligence or compassion, driven by entirely competitive processes and making do with whatever happens to become available.

I am stunned by the simplicity and truth of this statement!  Thanks :tu:


#13    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 11 February 2013 - 05:18 PM

What I also found interesting was the expert testimony from the cell biologist Ken Miller, who wrote the textbook that the ID'ers had issues with. Miller made the identification of the missing chromosome in humans look easy. But geneticists had to examine all 3 billion base pairs to find it.

Here's a 4 minute video of Miller explaining how the defense offered no resistance or cross examination when he explained this finding.

http://www.youtube....h?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

n.b. Miller states at the end that he is a Roman Catholic and does believe in a designer, but not a deceiving one. He interprets his faith with something he calls biologos, which is the subject of his book, Finding Darwin's God.


#14    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,273 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 11 February 2013 - 05:34 PM

View Postredhen, on 11 February 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

What I also found interesting was the expert testimony from the cell biologist Ken Miller, who wrote the textbook that the ID'ers had issues with. Miller made the identification of the missing chromosome in humans look easy. But geneticists had to examine all 3 billion base pairs to find it.
Yeah, I stumbled across that video about three or four weeks ago.  At the time I didn't realise it was referring to Dover, but I Bookmarked the page for future reference anyway, the simple point that evolution predicted that we'd have a fused set of chromosomal base-pairs says much for the validity of the evolutionary theory.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#15    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 18,692 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 12 February 2013 - 10:59 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 11 February 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

Well its obvious that animals were intelligently designed -- not.  They function for a little while and then inevitably fall victim to predation or accident or malfunction or infection or some cancer or other.  In the meantime they live lives of fear and hunger and brutality.  It's a jury-rigged system, exactly what you would expect from a natural process operating without intelligence or compassion, driven by entirely competitive processes and making do with whatever happens to become available.

Actually, while I am an evolutionist this doesnt make sense to me. We can't ascertain the purpose or parameters of any designer by looking at the finished product alone. When my wife observes nature like a flower or a humming bird, she is asolutely convinced that only god could create things of such beauty grace and functionality. In her faith, nature was once perfect, like man, and the nature we see today is a chaotic, decadent version of the original nature found in eden. And so, observation can lead to different conclusions, depending on individual world views and knowledge.

Humans design planned obsolescence into manufactured goods, something which makes no sense unless you understand the connection between constant growth and consumption in modern economies

I find it hard to understand why evolution as a process doesn't produce more effective results, but i acknowledge this is a  result of my limited knowledge of the intricacies of evolutionary process.

What i am trying to say, is that the present condition of the world is not evidence for either process, unless we have more information. Evolution provides that information from the past, to support itself, while belief in a creator god  relies on faith, not evidences. Thus i accept evolution rather than creation, despite knowing a real and very powerful god.

Edited by Mr Walker, 12 February 2013 - 11:04 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users