A leading intelligent design think tank says a teacher's guide issued by the Public Broadcasting System in conjunction with a program on the 2005 Dover intelligent design trial is “likely unconstitutional.”
PBS had issued the "Briefing Packet for Educators" for the two-hour NOVA program, called "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," scheduled to premiere Tuesday at 8 p.m.
Experts at the Discovery Institute say the guide promotes teaching practices that unconstitutionally injects religion into the classroom.
"They are encouraging teachers to do things like have discussion questions such as – 'Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion? Answer: Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false,'" spokesman Rob Crowther said, according to OneNewsNow.
Critics of intelligent design have often criticized the teaching as a ploy to introduce religion into schools. They charge intelligent design with touting the same beliefs as Creationism – the biblically-based belief that God created the universe.
However, proponents of intelligent design contend that while evidence from nature and the natural world suggests an “intelligent designer” is behind the creation in the universe, there is not enough scientific evidence to identify the designer as God.
“Far be it from us to accuse PBS of kind of being agenda-driven, or having an anti-intelligent design bend, but it is interesting that this is the tact they've taken and now there they are injecting religion right into the classroom,” Crowther added.
Furthermore, the guide does not provide an accurate portrayal of intelligent design, according to Dr. John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute.
"The teaching guide is riddled with factual errors that misrepresent both the standard definition of intelligent design and the beliefs of those scientists and scholars who support the theory," said West in a report by the Republican Valley.
The Discovery Institute has sent copies of the teacher's guide to 15 attorneys and legal scholars, who specialize in constitutional law, for review, said Crowther.
Crowther wrote on his blog Friday that the group will also be watching the program and posting corrections to any pieces of information that they find misleading.
Tuesday’s program will follow the federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District and feature trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, according to PBS.
Comments
BobC ---- Knowing what you got together, splain me this----------Thriving intelligently is striving (for) intelligence < that's you right> or/and continual growth pattern adjustment <evolving you evolving> thus being an (and/or of) intelligent design...... you yourself designing intelligently.... somewhat... just a lay person opining..objective view... sort of ... what ya think.
An erudite, detailed review of Judgment Day written by a scientist, titled "Judgment Day: Will it Be the New Inherit the Wind?" can be found at http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200711.htm under the date 11-14-07. The myriad of serious problems with Paul Allen's media savvy evolution puff piece are detailed here with over 38 links to related articles and further analysis of important points.
<<Anyway, you're welcome, and thanks for looking at it.>>
No problem, I haven't finished yet but there's some hard data that needs to be acknowledged and explained for sure. As I've said, if evolution is true, then I need to be an evolutionist. I think you'd agree with me that ideas have consequences and believing lies/bad ideas can lead to bad consequences, so it's important we stay on the side of truth, and that's what I want to do.
What I can't wrap my brain around isn't so much evolution as it is a first cause. If science is a search for causes, then I believe we have to ask what caused the universe. Science and logic also must admit you can't have an infinite regress of causes so you must arrive, at some point, to the first cause, an unmoved mover (to quote Aristotle) whatever that is that kicked everything off. I know you've said you don't think that the answer to this matters, but IMO it's very important. Carl Sagan simply said "The universe is just...there.", but I don't think that satisfies the question.
Anyway, you've got some good stuff in your link. I added a new post to my university's forum that contained your link and asked others to chime in with insight - it'll be interesting to see what I get back.
Thanks again.
Since Kevin Padian loves evolution even more than I do, that's not the reaction I expected. Anyway, you're welcome, and thanks for looking at it.
BobC:
<<The flat-earthers here should look at this.
http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html>>
Thanks for posting this. I've only gotten about 1/3 through it, but there's some very good points and information here. I would recommend all on this thread reading through it.
Thanks again, Bob, for posting this.
The two-hour NOVA program, called "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial", can be watched on the internet here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
The flat-earthers here should look at this.
http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html
Topekan: "evolutionary religious dogma"
Those 3 words are proof you know absolutely nothing about evolution, and it also proves you know absolutely nothing about the scientific method. I suggest you educate yourself. Read books written by real scientists instead of getting all of your information from liars for jesus. If you knew anything about science at all you would not use the words religious and dogma when talking about science.
It's not just me who has zero respect for you flat-earthers. Every biologist in the world is disgusted by the ignorance of the American christians.
For some strange reason, schumacr said: "You need first to provide rock-solid evidence of an eternal universe and matter before you can even start talking about evolution."
What does biological evolution here on earth have to do with the beginning of the universe? The Big Bang was more than 13 billion years ago and our solar system did not form until several billion years later, about 5 billion years ago. It wasn't until about 4 billion years ago that life began on earth. There must be life to evolve from before evolution can get started. That's so basic any grammar school student knows it.
You need to understand, schumacr, despite what the liars who work for the discovery institute and other christian organizations say, there is absolutely no debate in the scientific community about whether or not evolution is a fact. For more than a century, all competent biologists have agreed all life evolved and now the evidence is so massive it would be crazy to deny it. The only people who deny evolution are the non-scientists who believe everything is supernatural magic. All scientists and all normal non-scientists completely accept evolution as fact. If you deny it you're just wasting your time. You might as well think the earth is flat if you're going to deny all life evolved. The question is, do you want to admit you have been wrong all your life, or do you want to waste the rest of your life believing in the idiocy of magical creation?
Topekan said: BobC: Kansas didn't "deny evolution", despite your chest beating to the contrary. The state board of education merely wanted to include teaching of the disagreements within the scientific community with the basic tenets of evolutionary "theory". Get your facts straight, and don't just quote your evolutionary religious dogma.
I know the entire recent history of that backward state. I said earlier the population of Kansas is mostly evolution deniers and I was correct and everyone knows I was correct. Talk to anyone in Kansas and it's likely you will find out he's a flat-earther just like you are. Despite the backwardness of Kansas citizens, the current board of education in Kansas is pro-evolution because the voters who accept evolution made sure the creationists got kicked out. Your "The state board of education merely wanted to include teaching of the disagreements within the scientific community with the basic tenets of evolutionary theory" was from the previous school board and it can be translated to mean they wanted to force science teachers to lie to their students. Biologists of course have minor differences about the minor details about evolution and this leads to progress as new evidence explains how each species evolved. Biologists do NOT disagree about evolution being a proven fact. The creationists wanted to force science teachers to lie about this, and that's why Kansas was a national joke. Fortunately right now there is a sane pro-evolution school board in Kansas and hopefully it will stay that way. Unfortunately there is no guarantee the school board will again be infested with creationist hicks.
By the way, I would bet you don't even know what a scientific theory is. You're probably too lazy to look it up so I will give you the dictionary definition here.
theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of FACTS or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution has been tested repeatedly for more than a century and it's still accepted as a fact. I suggest you learn to accept it unless you want to be laughed at the rest of your life.
If it sounds to you like I have zero respect for flat-earthers you are correct. It's been more than a century since Darwin and since then the evidence for evolution has been growing every day, and it's now growing more rapidly than ever before. The genetic evidence creationists don't understand but lie about anyway is extremely powerful. That's why it's impossible to find a sane biologist who denies it. Anyone who still denies evolution deserves zero respect and he should be ashamed of himself.
fallenman -
<<in my opinion we are the mundane folk talking about a science that only bioligists have a claim to say nay or yay to.>>
I understand your point, however we need to be careful as this stance can turn into a logical fallacy (appeal to authority - i.e. you don't need to be an authority to make a truthful statement). You don't need a biology degree to reach a conclusion on the validity of macroevolution.
<<You find one scholar who denies evolution and all of a sudden we throw evolution out the window, but what about the people who rebuttle this one scholars denial of evolution?>>
I'm not sure if you're referring to my statements on Crick, but if so...Crick IS an evolutionist.
In any event, before we talk about evolution vs. design, you first have to answer the larger question: Why do we have 'something' vs. nothing at all? This was the philosopher Sartre's question and it is what needs answering first. You need first to provide rock-solid evidence of an eternal universe and matter before you can even start talking about evolution. And everything in science points to the universe having a beginning, and if it has a beginning then it has a cause. In other words, it isn't eternal.
And if the universe isn't eternal you only have one other choice for eternal existence.
:P in my opinion we are the mundane folk talking about a science that only bioligists have a claim to say nay or yay to. You find one scholar who denies evolution and all of a sudden we throw evolution out the window, but what about the people who rebuttle this one scholars denial of evolution? Why not listen to him as well?
Zeno -
Agreed. BobC recommended the book "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" to me, which I'm looking at now, but the book I'd really like to read from the atheist side isn't out: "The Arrival of the Fittest: How all that We Know Came from Nothing."
One of my other favorite quotes from Crick is: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
‘publicly stated that after examining DNA and reaching the conclusion that it is indeed a language’
I love how people claim that God does not exist, then in turn they spend billions searching for aliens via SETI and ignore the fact that we are all made up of 4-bit computer code, a la DNA. We search high and low and yet when it is found here on earth, they claim it was by happenstance and blind chance. This is much like building a computer without an operating system and waiting for it to create one on its own. Before that could happen though the computer would have to figure out how to turn itself on and then recognize all of the components within itself to come ‘alive’ and which it would then have to program itself.
‘, the only way life could have arisen on earth was for it to be planted here by extraterrestrials.’
Interesting that people claim that other life may exist and may have started it here, but it still does not resolve the question of how did they get here from there or who created them? DNA is a prime example of intelligent design, any other theory is nothing but biased ignorance in the face of reason.
<<this way, American science will be filled with theories that they were seeded by colonising spaceships from the Sirius star-system>>
You might want to check out some evolutionary history and heroes before you make that statement. Francis Crick (an evolutionist), co-discoverer of DNA, publicly stated that after examining DNA and reaching the conclusion that it is indeed a language, the only way life could have arisen on earth was for it to be planted here by extraterrestrials. So I'm afraid the 'little green men' argument is on your side, not on the side of those who acknowledge the truth about the Creator.