Blog RSS Feed
Judgment Day: the Intelligent Design trial in Pennsylvania
by Many of us who try to bring science to the public started doing so because of some issue that we felt was being presented either badly, or perhaps not emphasized enough in mainstream science writing. I first started thinking about this issue around a decade ago. I was living in Ohio at the time, and a big push was beginning to have "intelligent design" (ID) taught in high school classrooms. At that point, I wasn't very familiar with just what this "intelligent design" was, so I began reading about it, acquainting myself with authors such as William Dembski, Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson et al., as well as about previous fights to insert creationism in its various forms into public school curricula.
As a scientist, the whole thing ticked me off. Though it sounded good on the surface, it took just a bit of scratching to see that ID was little more than a reincarnation of other forms of so-called "scientific creationism:" inserting God into science, and especially biological science, in an effort to discredit the theory of evolution. The problem was, however, that a lot of people wouldn't get to that scratching step--and many journalists at that point in time were writing stories that didn't emphasize the minute acceptance ID had in biological circles.
So, I became more active in promoting good science education, beginning in my hometown, my state, and eventually around the web. A few years ago I joined the group at Panda's Thumb, a blog focusing on science education and especially challenges to that (with the creation/evolution "debate" at the front and center). Last year, I helped organize a Darwin Day event in an effort to celebrate good science, and also helped put together a symposium on religion and science, focusing on evolutionary biology.
One of the speakers for that conference happened to be a teacher from a small school district in Pennsylvania named Jennifer Miller. While little, the district had attracted major attention over the past few years, as the site of the first court battle testing the teaching of intelligent design in schools: Kitzmiller v. Dover. The outcome was a crushing blow to the ID advocates and their hopes to have their material taught in public classrooms.
If you've not followed this story to date--or if you have, but are still craving more--NOVA will be airing a documentary on the trial Tuesday November 13th (today!) The program has already been favorably reviewed in Nature, and has the ID supporters complaining bitterly, so it must be good!
Tags: evolution, Intelligent design, NOVA
5 Comments
+ Add Comment
November 14, 2007 5:24 AM
Jim
The show was thoughtful and well constructed. I think the goal of science is to propose a theory and test the theory with repeatable tests to validate or debunk the theory. What shines out in this presentation is the scientific way the presenters told the story, bringing evidence and tests that pushed against the idea of ID. Well done PBS! It had us talking about the show well into the night and again in the morning. I still cannot stop thinking about subject in the most scientific way.....testing, probing, debunking, and theorizing.
November 14, 2007 1:07 PM
Dan
Well lets see, Darwin theory is unproven yet. So why are we so religeosly defending it?
Lets defend facts, and debate theories. ID is an alternative theory to Darwinism, it's not any less scientific.
The contingent of people defending it, that's another story. I am sure we can find all source of things we don't like about anyone pushing any theory. Why shoot the messenger?
November 14, 2007 1:13 PM
Tara C. Smith
Hi Dan,
Do you have any comments specific to the show, or perhaps particular criticisms of evolutionary theory? Otherwise, since you claim ID is "not less any scientific" than evolutionary theory, perhaps you can put forth some testable (or better yet, tested and affirmed) hypotheses that ID provides?
November 14, 2007 9:53 PM
Ann
As a devotee of etymology and words in general, I cannot understand why no-one brought up the fact that the very word "design" indicates a designer. "Design," as a verb, indicates action. Who, then, can we assume, is performing the action? It seems to me that question is easily answered. To "design" living beings of such complexity would require at least god-like powers. Therefore, unless you're willing to credit such ideas as the "seeding" of life by extra-terrestrials, the very name "intelligent design" not only implies, but states, that the theory's proponents are talking about a God. I was amazed that this was not discussed.
November 14, 2007 10:02 PM
Tara C. Smith
Ann,
That's certainly been discussed many a time whenever ID comes up. Their argument is that yes, it can even mean ETs are the "designer," though they acknowledge that most of the ID proponents believe it to be the Christian god. However, because they don't specifically say as much in most of their literature, they argue that it therefore doesn't endorse any particular religious view--and thus that it should pass constitutional muster. What Forrest and others showed was that, contrary to the DI's claims, ID was a direct descendant (with little modification!) from earlier forms of [strictly Biblical] creationism--thus killing the DI's claim.
Post your comment