NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS

[Lullaby Chainer]

Watch a preview.

You can watch the entire series online on November 16th.


Vent your excitement here. It almost looks like they're going to be siding with evolution overall.





(This is in the debate boards because once it airs, it should serve as a starting point for a debate.. whether directly about the series or the subject manner of such)

[Jack]

It really should be in entertainment, but we'll see what develops.

[Chris]

Great news.

[Osborn F Enready]

Should be a hoot.

[Winter wind]

What spectrum of intelligent design?

[Nemiroff]

Awesome thanks for the heads up, I love nova when they have an interesting subject.

[rez]

Quote by: Winter wind What spectrum of intelligent design?

There is only one type of Intelligent Design.

[Osborn F Enready]

That was an EXCELLENT episode of Nova, and I enjoyed it immensely.

ID is a joke!

As was put forth since its "creation", ID is just another underhanded attempt by religious fanatics to supplant real education with religious nonsense in our schools.

[Maryjane]

Agreed Osborn!

paraphrasing...

from a minister...to believe in evolution would take the dignity out of man, therefore I can't believe in evolution...

That makes no sense...you are the same person you were before the discovery of evolution, just more educated in the field of biology. Unless, of course, you consider the dignified christians who wrote death threats to the judge and plaintiffs in the case.


From a plaintiff..."you won't be able to get some people to accept evolution, it goes against their belief that they are a creation of god. And if they aren't a creation of god, they won't get into heaven to see their loved ones again and THAT is more important than the constitution or truth"

Leave it to Pat Robertson....
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there."

[Athena]

Quote by: Isherwood It really should be in entertainment, but we'll see what develops.

Isherwood, I am very glad you considered needing information before making a judgment!

Right on, Lullaby Chainer. I am so glad you caught this program and realized some of us would want to ooze our enthusiam for this show. I think I would like to have a private copy of this program, because I am a slow learner, and it had so much to say about what defines a theory and what defines scientific thinking verses theology. I was very impressed by these distinctions, and strongly believe the theist who declined to speak on the program, realized their mistake when they got a better understanding of what a theory is and what qualifies as science.

A better educated public, would make a huge difference, and I am angry that Christians have prevented us from having a better education for so long. Not only have they retarded us in science, but also destroyed our understanding of democracy, by taking credit for it as though they created it. I mean, the enforced ignorance really hurts. How dare they prevent me and my children from accessing science, to protect their theology. They have retarded our whole nation, and perpetuated injustice. :( whoops I think I am ranting. deep breath). I look forward to the day when the masses understand science and what it has to do with overcoming evil in this world.

[Osborn F Enready]

Here is a link Athena:
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS

[Athena]

Quote by: rez There is only one type of Intelligent Design.

Now here I have to argue the point. I contemplated this a lot while watching the show. As everyone knows, I argue in favor of, reason, as the controlling force of the universe. I can agree with the ID argument, as long as the bible is interpreted abstractly, instead of concretely, and we accept biblical stories and a mix of myth, history and parables, written from the restricted point of view of Hebrews and Christians.

Using Ciciero's understanding of God and morals, is vital to democracy. If there are not universal laws, then we can not rule ourselves with reason. That leaves only power, those in power against those who are not in power, and such destroys any possibility of democracy. This complete denial of God, and universal laws, is the greatest evil of our times.

Does anyone see a difference between accepting Cicero's concept of God and universal law, and being a theist? Our liberty depends on a concept of God and univerals law. Without that, there is no reason, only power struggles. That destroys everything we value.

[Athena]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Here is a link Athena: NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS

Thanks, I put that in my favorites and I hope it doesn't disappear in a week. I still want my own copy of the show. :) we have to make special efforts to understand things, when our brains get weak.

[Osborn F Enready]

I taped it on VHS tape. It would be hard to watch this type of "ammunition" go unused in the argument of religion vs reason.

A couple of issues I must point out about this case:

The people who claim that lying is immoral, lied to get their message in schools, before kids, using kids as a pawn to their objective ends.

My observation still stands true through this trial, which is that religion is one of the most effective means of controlling people who have the "unfavorable" ability to put faith in the mystical, above faith in reason and people of reason.

Its almost as if religious people are proof of evolution, showing what happens when "bad traits" aren't "removed by natural selection".

If natural selection was allowed to work, the "reasonable" people would step aside, and let the people who put faith ABOVE reason, war for the last and final time, until all religious people are dead.

People who value some fictional after-life more than the life we all share, are threats to all who we share this life with, since nothing is sacred in this life. The TRUE meaning of selfishness....

What benevolence COULD come from such monstrosity?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready People who value some fictional after-life more than the life we all share, are threats to all who we share this life with, since nothing is sacred in this life. The TRUE meaning of selfishness.... What benevolence COULD come from such monstrosity?

So all people who even hold semi-religious beliefs are selfish?

On paper I could agree that believing in an afterlife could make you less concerned with the current life, but just as many religious fanatics and uncaring atheists have likely made life miserable throughout history.

Is the whole series available to watch yet? I'll watch tonite after classes. I always enjoyed debate and justic dramas.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: So all people who even hold semi-religious beliefs are selfish?

I didn't intend that to be an absolute statement, more a different line of thinking to be approached on the topic.

What could be more selfish and "sinful" than to hold your own "guaranteed" place in some so-called, supposed after-life as more valuable than the only life you have ever known since being alive, and ever will know until you are dead.

If the "placement" in the after-life could be construed as an end to be ascertained by "erasing" those who oppose its advocated lifestyle in this life, it's obviously the epitome of selfishness, closed-mindedness and absolute distrust of anyone not "like you".

Do you not see some issues worth consideration there?

Helio said: On paper I could agree that believing in an afterlife could make you less concerned with the current life, but just as many religious fanatics and uncaring atheists have likely made life miserable throughout history.

Certainly, and no "group" has any two individuals that are the same, even twins.

I am not proposing there is a "saintly choice" with which perfection is the norm of all who inhabit the group. I am saying that placing value on the mystical above that which is tangible, factual and observable is Devolutionary, not evolutionary.

Religious fanatics tried to stop proof coming out of almost every major scientific advance known to man, and this is simply another step to discourage the inevitable explanation through science of mans entire existence having no "hand of a creator" other than nature itself. Religion is simply a good attempt at men, controlling the will and lives of other men through the written word, and an exercise in replacing reason with faith, nature with (a) god, and progress with stability through authoritarianism, based in negatives.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I didn't intend that to be an absolute statement, more a different line of thinking to be approached on the topic. What could be more selfish and "sinful" than to hold your own "guaranteed" place in some so-called, supposed after-life as more valuable than the only life you have ever known since being alive, and ever will know until you are dead. If the "placement" in the after-life could be construed as an end to be ascertained by "erasing" those who oppose its advocated lifestyle in this life, it's obviously the epitome of selfishness, closed-mindedness and absolute distrust of anyone not "like you". Do you not see some issues worth consideration there?

Yes, I do. If you take away all the outside influence and personality and just view the basis of afterlife vs no after life then the no afterlife person has more reason to be productive in increasing the worth of the world around them.

Still I doubt most people really think as objectivly as that about life. Religious fanatics might cry foul about oil dependency and hummers while atheists might cry foul about taking away the rights to gas guzzlers. Personal opinion and upbringing tend to sway our attitudes more than the base relgion or lack of one.


On the subject above as a libertarian I'd guess you support peoples rights to drive what they want?

Well wouldn't that be in a strictly objective view selfish? If you want to drive a 1967 GTO with 7 mpg as your daily driver isn't that selfish in a world of limited resources?

In that case I could say that anyone who believes the rights to liberty and freedom are selfish in a global world. Yet we still believe strongly in these ideals.

I would say its not the paper that is selfish, its the people. Religous or political there are good and bad apples on both sides.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: Still I doubt most people really think as objectivly as that about life.

Perhaps a result of interfering in "Natural Selection"? For hundreds of years science has been hesitant to attempt to "squash" religion out of the public forum.

Perhaps our biggest problem with reaching our next evolutionary step is that we still allow reason to be de-railed by accepting mystical faith arguments at all?

Natural selection has everything to do with our "enviroment" shaping us. Perhaps we can't make that next step while being constantly distracted by fanatics demanding science prove a negative?

I personally find it offensive when people admit they place faith in the unobservable above faith in the observable.

Helio said: Religious fanatics might cry foul about oil dependency and hummers while atheists might cry foul about taking away the rights to gas guzzlers. Personal opinion and upbringing tend to sway our attitudes more than the base relgion or lack of one.

Wouldn't that all go to support the theory of natural selection, and the fact that our enviroment shapes us as much or more than we shape it?

Helio said: On the subject above as a libertarian I'd guess who support peoples rights to drive what they want?

As a Libertarian, I support peoples right to believe as they see fit, individually. I draw the line of that tolerance at the point it leaves the individual, and becomes "policy, law, treaty or any legal form that can affect others".

Helio said: Well wouldn't that be in a strictly objective view selfish? If you want to drive a 1967 GTO with 7 mpg as your daily driver isn't that selfish in a world of limited resources?

As selfish, or less selfish as the people having more kids in a world of limited resources.

Helio said: In that case I could say that anyone who believes the rights to liberty and freedom are selfish in a global world.

You could hold that opinion, as I could hold many in opposition. By natures law, force would prevail. When force becomes an issue, regardless of group, men resort to natural law if they are the focus of suffering they view as unjust. One man may view suffering the loss of liberty as equal to suffering the loss of life, while another may not. This is why reasonable men place reason before faith, propaganda and arguments that can't be substantiated by science, facts and or proof that demands credibility.

Helio said: Yet we still believe strongly in these ideals.

These ideals are an attempt at justice that is equal to all who fall under the threat of force.

Helio said: I would say its not the paper that is selfish, its the people. Religous or political there are good and bad apples on both sides.

Agreed. However, as a philosophy, religion is obviously and permanently faulted.

[Maryjane]

Helio,

From the link:

Come back (here) November 16 to watch the entire program online here.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Perhaps a result of interfering in "Natural Selection"? For hundreds of years science has been hesitant to attempt to "squash" religion out of the public forum. Perhaps our biggest problem with reaching our next evolutionary step is that we still allow reason to be de-railed by accepting mystical faith arguments at all?

Nobody knows how society or the human mind will evolve further. I will agree that religious fanatics have no place but I still respect the less members who can accept science while still holding faith.

To believe that even loose faith holds us back somehow seems less human and more machine like. To say we could advance according to reason is borderline with handing over our free rights and opinions to a dictatorship or logic and reason which defines how we must think and feel.