"Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"


by Phillip Torrone

I like the term "Cdesign proponentsists"

As I watched Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial I couldn't help but think about all the times creationism (also known as Intelligent Design) has made its appearances throughout history... It seems when groups of people who aren't exposed to science or when there have been times in our history when we don't yet have the proper tests to prove or negate a theory some of us resort to invoking a divine entity or calling something "intelligently designed" when it appears complex. Maybe it's a failure of imagination or just a simple lack of awareness of the underlying principals of how things work which leads to a "design" argument.

At one time we believed the Earth was flat. At one time the Earth was the center of the universe. Aristotle had very convincing arguments stating the heavens moved around the Earth. The orbits of planets was believed to be circular. All heavenly bodies were attached to 56 concentric spheres, made of crystal. The Sun was the center of the universe. Copernicus suggested the Earth rotated, this idea didn't come out until he was about to die in fear of how crazy it sounded. The Catholic Church was going to torture Galileo if he kept up the nonsense about the Earth moving and not the Sun. Even Newton thought that the hand of God helped keep the planets moving around so regularly. Later (even today), some say the Earth is 6,000 years old. The Earth is few thousand million years old. If you ignore the facts, the rigorous worldwide carbon dating and testing numerous independent scientists have confirmed and choose to believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old, it's probably also hard for you to accept that although things are complex now, they started out simple. Over millions and millions of years some organisms thrived. The ones that thrived had traits better suited for their environment. These organisms reproduced more - and after many, many generations small changes become very ordered and seem "designed." Darwin called this "natural selection" and it doesn't need a designer to exist. Each time something needed "divine intervention" to explain it, but eventually it turned out that we just didn't yet understand what was actually happening. The latest case in Dover wasn't surprising and I suspect we'll see more examples in our lifetimes, hopefully less.

I suppose what disappointed me the most was that when the advocates of Intelligent Design during the trial said that the book "Of Pandas and People" had nothing to do with creationism, they lied; it turned out the original drafts were all about Creationism. After the drafts were subpoenaed (thousand of pages) it was discovered that a simple search and replace was used to change the text from creationism wording to something, well, less creationism sounding. It was changed because the Supreme Court in 1987 ruled it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in public schools. When I say "search and replace" I really mean they found examples of where the words didn't exactly get changed enough. You can see it here...

Wherever the word "creationists" appeared it was replaced with "cdesign proponentsists" - that's merely creationists without the "reation" and with "design" and "proponents" replaced in.

If you're interested, read the pages and pages of the decision the judge said--

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism"

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not "teaching" ID but instead is merely "making students aware of it." In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree."

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

I don't think we'll see the end of Intelligent Design, but it's encouraging to see our laws are being upheld despite repeated trickery. All of this doesn't mean science will answer every question, looking in to the sky on a clear night contemplating the millions of galaxies with the millions of stars or marveling at the structure of DNA brings an enormous amount of joy to me, we've accomplished so much in such little time as a species, understanding and testing ourselves along the way -- I'm excited about what the next discovery will be and hope more people find these types of things as compelling as many of us do.


I find it ironic that when pondering the reasons creationists won't accept evolution you say "Maybe it’s a failure of imagination". Quite.

Intelligent design and Creationsism both say that Someone made all the stuff.

Creationists think that Someone made all the stuff in 6 days about 6 thousand years ago.

Intelligent Design(ists) think that Someone made all the stuff very slowly, primarily by the application of processes and natural laws that someone would eventually stumble across and call "evolution".

The distinction between raw evolution(ism) and Intelligent design is that the intelligent designist thinks that there are a few clues, holes in the fabric, that make it look like there might be a point to the process, and that something similar to what we might call "intelligence" or at least "purpose" seems to infuse the entire system.

If you are a materialist, you will never be satisfied with any theory that involves looking outside of the system itself. You will always find enough peer reviews, sympathetic judges, satisfactory arguments, or sympathetic websites to pish posh the whole thing.

But pure materialism just can't explain everything: Like, where did stuff come from?

I think we will see that Irreducible complexity still has teeth, despite Dover.

By the way isn't it interesting and bizarre that some Creationsists have fallen back from literalism and fundamentalism to a pseudo evolutionist stance? That fascinates me to no end.

Like, where did stuff come from?

I don't know, but that doesn't mean it was put there by some voodoo god. Look up the definition of an "Ad Ignorantiam" logical fallacy.

Let me demonstrate: *I* am god. Now, you disprove it. You can't, therefore I AM god. QED.

See how stupid your argument becomes?


I don't think I tried to propose that stuff exists because "a voodoo god" put it there.

I think I said that "something that we might call intelligence or purpose pervades the system."

Try not to get too worked up by this idea materialists. I'm just talking about cosmology and cosmogenesis here.

Not trying to shove God down your throat... It doesn't mean you have to go to church or stop wearing makeup or give up R rated movies... or be nice... or anything crazy like that.

Just a little philosophical banter... not a sermon. I know creationists are scary people, but don't let your knees jerk too fast when someone suggests that maybe there's more to the world than raw materialism.

When suggestions that that the world may be deeper than a first glance suggests causes you to rise up to defend us all from the "voodoo god" theory... it could, maybe, just possibly... be personal.

No, no, no, its not a "failure of imagination." Its something much different -- it is the willing acceptance of a thesis on mere faith.

Once the decision is made (consciously or not) to accept the premise of divine creation, everything else falls into place for that believer.

Once that becomes your starting point, everything else is easily rationalized away as conflicting with the underlying premise. That is why no matter how much proof, evidence, reason, or logic you offer, it is irrelevant.

i understand the point you are trying to make, but you still run into the problem of interaction. this was one of decartes major problems with dualism. i agree that our view of what exists might be to constrained, but to say that there is something that exists outside of the materialist system doesn't work. the only way to resolve the problem of interaction is just to make a bigger materialist system in which your idea of purpose and a materialist view of reality exits.
so yes, there probably is more to the world than current views about materialism would suggest, but it is just more materialism. although, i prefer to call it universal unity, it sounds less dry and analytical than materialism.


You're right of course. If there is something outside of the system... well, that just means that the system was bigger than we thought it was.

But what if we have taken that greater system, and locked some of it away between some parenthesis... a subset of reality if you will. A subset that we, for lack of a better word, and cognizant of the problems with verbal symiotics call "the material world"

And then mistakenly, we think that this little part of reality between the parethesis - this part we can perceive with some of our senses... this part we have locked away from the rest - is all of reality.

Hey, maybe God isn't outside of the system. Maybe God is the system... or a Gestalt of the components of the system. Maybe God emerges from it, not the other way around... I don't know how it works, and people who think they do are deceived. But whatever God is, I'm convinced the divine isn't very much like Fundamentalist Christians are imagining it to be.

Which makes it all the more Hilarious to me that Intelligent Design (Which I happen to agree with) is Christianity's fall back position... because for Intelligent Design to be right, Genesis has to be wrong in a literal sense. Isn't the irony beautiful? Fundamentalists defending God by abandoning the Bible? All the while patting themselves on the back for giving God a hand in His time of need? Well. It's funny to me. But I understand if you don't want to laugh.

- I haven't written anything to a blog 5 times in my life probably, and here I am hogging all this space. Sorry. I usually don't see anything I like to talk about. Finally found a fun converastion.

When I say "search and replace" I really mean they found examples of where the words didn't exactly get changed enough. You can see it here...

Is the word "here" missing a link? Without it, I have no evidence that anything you say is true at all. I was expecting a link to either the court findings or the edited document itself.

The search-and-replace argument doesn't make sense to me as it is, either. Search-and-replace errors look like this: you try to replace "creation" with "intelligent design," and you end up replacing "recreational" with "reintelligent designational." But that won't ever give you a phrase like "Cdesign proponentsists." That would only happen if your original search-and-replace was searching for the string "reation," which makes no sense.


that is not necessarily correct.

in MS Word, if you type these two sentneces:

this is a sentence with the word creation in it.

this is the sentence with the word recreation in it.


then, use the find and replace tool to replace creation with cdesign proponentsists, then also, make sure you select whole word only, you get the following results:

this is a sentence with the word cdesign proponentsists in it

this is a sentence with the word recreation in it


You can also find the judge's full ruling here:


Your right, the author should have linked but a simple Google search would also find it.

From the Kitzmiller ruling:

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas
went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after
the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids
teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of
Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in
early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation
(creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were
deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes
occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and
cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word
substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words
was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes
FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and
“creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-
Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term “creation” was defined as “various forms of life
that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 32 of 139

intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” the
very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-
560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-
100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties,
notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as “special creation” of
kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86
(Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42,
Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31,
2005). Professor Behe’s assertion that this passage was merely a description of
appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence
that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation
of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.
The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic
change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after
the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence
strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.
Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from
the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.

The problem with the argument of the watch found in the field implying a creator, is that it also applies to the watch-maker himself. If you believe that a biological system such as an eye is too complex to have evolved due to natural selection, and must therefore have been created by an intelligent being, then the same argument applies to that intelligent being. If, however, you decide to allow your intelligent some sort of immunity to this argument, then you are just being arbitrary.

The eye is complex -> it was created by God
God is complex -> He was created by a greater God
No, wait...God's complexity does not imply a creator.
But the eye argument still does.

Scientists develop theories and search for data to connect the gaps. Creationists ignore data, fill the gaps with God and call it a day.


Here's another argument against the watch-maker. If you found a watch sitting in a field (we won't even go into the notion that the watch is a foreign object in a natural setting argument here) you would assume there was a watch-maker. But if there was also a cabinet, a car and a Caridgan sweater in that field as well one would assume there was also a maker for each of these and since there is very little relation (other than the fact that these are unnatural objects in a natural setting) between a combination of springs and coils formed into a time piece, a piece of wood formed into a storage compartment, a complex piece of machinery such as the automobile and a piece of clothing one would make the assumption that there are multiple creators and thus, prove Hinduism or another multi-deity religion correct, not Christianity... : )

Soooo... if God made the world, what then made God?

How about another question: If God didn't make the world what did?

Well... maybe that's just the way it works. The Cosmos makes itself without any help from any God. Perhaps singularities have to occasionally betray their loyalty to non-existence by balancing it with some existence, and then winking in to nowhere and making it suddenly somewhere, and by virtue of the profound shock of coming to be, start to assert all kinds of rules and structure on the now potentialized ether - after an eternal nanosecond when time itself hasn't even come to be becasue it's partners in the dance, gravity, mass, differentiation, so slowly emerge from the chaos, creeping out from the bottom of the well of an event horizon that defies imagination, momentum to escape building into a release of energy sufficient to materialize all that is...

See? Universes don't really need Gods to exist. They can start themselves.

But now there's a problem. If, theoretically, universes don't need causes... then maybe we could conclude that maybe Gods don't need causes either. That sounds fair.

If universes needing causes implies that God too needs a cause, as Bertrand Russel noted, then it's logical to turn it around. If universes don't need causes, then maybe God doesn't need one either.

We think we're stuck with the turtle problem. (the old story of the hindu belief that the world was a disk sitting on an elephant who was standing on a turtle.) What's the turtle standing on? And the legendary response goes that "it's turtles all the way down from there!"

But we found out that the world wasn't only not resting on turtles... it wasn't resting on anything. All of the old assumptions were in vain. The bickering - maybe it's resting on a pillar. No, maybe it's resting on an elephant. No that's silly, it floats! That's it! It floats on a giant ocean!

The truth was a whole new idea that didn't fit at all with these ideas of this on that on these on those...

So, "Nyah Nyah Nyah What made God?" is a pretty poor argument against God.

Actually though, the idea that the temporal could emerge from the timeless, and that the physical could distill out of the realm of pure thought and that teleological arguments explain more than efficient causality arguments fits way way better with what we know than your sad raw Godless Materialism could ever explain.

Darrow, thanks very much for going to the trouble to dig up the supporting evidence. I think Philip's post is a lot more convincing with that to back it up.

I still don't get the search-and-replace thing (it obviously wasn't set to "whole word," since it only replaced part of the word creationists). But it doesn't matter, I can accept that it was just a botched-up typo.

You are comparing science to faith. If you don't believe in Christianity, or God, of course you won't agree with creationism. Christians can't prove God exists, it is a matter of faith. Scientists can't prove evolution, it's a theory. This is an argument that will never have peace. Therefore, I suggest we just love one another unconditionally and try to make this world the best place possible.

Take care everyone!

Actually Jason, this article is about how the advocates of Creationism were busted lying about their intentions to push "intelligent design" as something completely unrelated.


It's too easy to use yor own argument to obliterate Evolution as well as Intelligent Design.

i.e. You say "Who made the watch-maker?" and use it as the foundation of your proof that Intelligent Design is not viable. So, can't I ask "From whence evolved the first matter?". Your faith is that matter is eternal and exempt from the theory of evolution, my faith is that the watch-maker is eternal and exempt from the theory of Intelligent Design.

For anyone to claim that Intelligent Design reeks of religion and Evolution does not is truly not viable.

I submit that faith abounds in all views on the origin of "stuff", and every view has at it's core a personal predisposition - either against a supreme being, or for a supreme being.

In the end, the truth is what it is, whether we personally believe it or not. That is pure science. And pure science can be applied equally to both views, if we are willing to leave our predispositions behind and honestly seek the truth.

PBS appears to disagree with this view, to it's shame.

zen: actually, i didn't read the whole thing, it lost me after the first couple pages and then i started skimming.

my comment was more of an overarching comment within this debate of evolution/intelligent design/creation.

love is the answer people! LOVE!


Okay. Great, Jason. You willfully ignore the facts and insert your personal beliefs to make the hard stuff easier for you to deal with. Some might say that's intellectually lazy. Thanks for making the point for me. :)

Ceationism vs Evolution poses no conflicts except to the narrow mindeded on both sides.

A scientist with religous background, for me the question of creationism vs evolution poses no conflict except for the narrow minded (Halley, Newton and Einstein would agree). Science concerns itself with how not why. Religon concerns itself with why not how. Remember that.

So when in Genesis 2:7 one reads "God FORMED man from the dust of the ground" to me FORMED implies a process taking place. Maybe evolution? And from 2nd Peter 3:8, "But beloved BE NOT IGNORANT of this one thing, that ONE DAY is with the Lord AS A THOUSAND YEARS, and a tousand years as one day."

So, read with this understanding one easily can see creation as a PROCESS, and who knows how much time that process really takes? After all, if you are eternal what is time to you anyhow?

That is why this whole debate is to me no conflict. Maybe what is described as evolution is just the observance of the process of creation. The same argument stands for how long it took the earth to form. Six days you say? Whose six days? Man-time or God-time?

I happen to believe Gensis like Revelation are both symbolic renditions about WHY the world was created and WHY it will end, both really complex. The details of HOW are meant for us to find out through scientific discovery and observance as part of our maturing as a race.

I don't personally care one way or the other... but I do find it amusing that it was amazingly one-sided. I think there are valid arguments on both sides of the fence... very few of which were presented by PBS. Another reason I won't support this organization. They usually pick an interesting topic, but really don't show both sides. I personally think evolution should be taught in schools. I think there is evidence in nature to support it. But it is not conclusive. So what does it hurt to teach another theory if you're not advocating a specific religion?

At the risk of being called "intellectually lazy" I am going to say one can argue evolution vs intelligent design vs creation until that one inevitable event - and I am not talking about the cows coming home - I am talking about death.

In the end, what does anyone gain by being "right"? The "satisfaction" of being right? I am not so sure that gets anyone very far. We have to admit that logic tells us only one side can be right - so if you are on the side that is wrong, what do you do next? Look for the next argument?

Yes, the program did a fine job portraying Christians as radical and willing to do anything, including disobeying the very God they serve, in order to advance their beliefs. I would venture a guess that more people were turned away from God during that program than were drawn to God.

I can tell you that if those professing Christians in Dover lied to advance their belief in God then that sends a contractictory message - I can already hear the "H" word coming -hypocrite.

The real issue is -one's certainty about what happens after they die. Since I have never died it would be hard for me to argue away things I know nothing about. Additionally none of us can answer for the behavior of other people -whether they lied or anything else because we all know behavior like this happens everyday and it is wrong -no excuses needed. The question everyone needs to ask themself - not in the context of whitty blog exchanges - but in their own private, personal way - "do I really know what happens to me after I die?". Now, you can either argue that question as well or maybe someday ask yourself that question and see if you can answer it. This seems like a more worthwhile pursuit - your eternal soul is at stake. Once we die, we will all find out who was right and wrong. I like to think it is better to be on the safe side.

John 3:16

I have a couple of questions for the NOVA producers. 1) Is it true that the NOVA senior executive - Paula Apsell - made the following statement "the trial had great potential for altering science education...if the decision had gone the other way, it would have dire consequences for science education in this country?" It seems that Ms. Apsell had a clear agenda to promote in this production. 2) Is it true that NOVA would not agree to the Discovery Institute's request that "all interviews be recorded for the protection of its speakers?" Perhaps this is the real reason that the Discovery Institute did not respond to NOVA's request for interviews. It was sad for me to view another very biased PBS production - but then it is what I have come to expect.

Religion: To link, To connect

this is like the Associative Property
of the Math Books, a powerfull idea!

Good Day,

vsh P.S. I heard that Darwin was
Baptised later in Life.

To the first comment I would like to say that none of my relatives that I am aware originated from the lower intelligent beast or any animal. Men have been around for a very long time. And I would like to say that prayer is a beneficial thing if only for the well being of one's hope and faith. There are many unexplained miracles where people overcame their diseases by something more than science or where someone should have died from some horrific accident. Possibly there should be a balance of intelligent design with a little of Darwan for those that are related to the lower species.

Thirty years ago I lettered an editor in Cambridge Maryland on account of a pastors prior letter spouting all the joys of Christ as opposed to the sterile evolutionists view point. It started a firestorm that lasted several weeks . . . and I see full well that things aint changed a damn bit!

Our ability to believe in utter rubbish or live in a dream world is as potent as ever and the reasons why one might want to do so have only become more obvious.

What a long, strange trip it's been; but I've kept the faith and refused the "offer" of false assed answers from a "God" that reads so much like a pissed off parent in the Old Testament.

We must always be willing to be called bad names, by otherwise good people. They are terrified and need answers NOW, But make no mistake, fudamentalist (of any ilk) will be the undoing of our planet. Hell, they just need to beat the devil till Jesus comes again - screw the ozone layer.

I'm watching the show now final half hour. The evolution crowd seemed to be ridiculing intelligent design crowd. Here are my points:

1. Examples of intelligent design-- rice, corn, tomatoes, frogs, and all geneticially engineered life forms. When a future fossil is found, evolutionists will say how nature selected the random mutation, not humans--they're not intelligent.
2. Science is religion. Every science, math, religion, etc. starts out with unprovable assumptions called postulates. Theorems are proofs based on faith-based postulates.
3. Evolution makes no predictions. What will become extinct next 100 years? What new species will arise? Evolution predicts only what has already happened.
4. Evolution is a series of circular statements. The fittest survive. The one that survives is the fittest. Fittest=survive. Survive=fittest. Makes no testable prediction...only an explanation of B followed A and B is similar to A.
5. The fittest survive by Natural Selection...not because they're the fittest but because Nature selects them for survival.
6. What is Nature? The stuff that exists outside your mind. The brain is natural but the mind is supernatural, unpredictable, unprovable. Every book is proof of the supernatural by inference. But the ink and paper are of nature.

Those genetically engineered crops were created (modified) by intelligent designers. The ID folks keep coming back to "evolution's just a theory" the way gravity is a theory. Gravity is still a theory because it's missing a piece-- what's the nature of gravity? Nobody knows. If it follows Newton's laws, we call it gravity.

In the natural world, gravity, evolution, and design do not exist. These thoeries exist only in the minds of man. The missing link of evolution is the spiritual world of awareness and meaning. Evolution is losing ground because it can't acknowledge the reality of supernatural forces that interact with nature continuously everywhere you look.

I just wanted to share my theory of how evolution postulates that intelligence and nature are mutually exclusive. Thanks.

would ask those wearing modified mousetrap-tie clasps if they thought they were proving a point that intellectual design was an impossibility by wearing those intellectually designed tie clasps, or did the clasps evolve, too? my bet, they were intelligently designed.
the fact that people did things in a deceitful manner to prove a point has no bearing on the truth. i'm quite sure someone may have deceitfully defended the idea that the world is flat, it doesn't change the truth.
i personally follow no religion, don't go to a place of worship, and yet, with no agenda, no religion to push on anyone, i sincerely find it difficult to believe that those mousetraps just evolved into existence. it takes less faith on my part to believe that they were intelligently designed. similarly, it takes less faith for me to believe that we, and this world were intelligently designed and thought into existence.

Invoking intelligent design is no different from invoking magic. It's childish and it's stupid. It certainly isn't science.

Truth. When men turn away from Truth they have nothing to say.
Jack, all things in our universe are effects of certain causes. God is ultimately the cause of all things. However, He is not an effect of any cause, and therefore He is known as the Uncaused Cause. Because He is, we are. You may want to read the church Fathers. They hashed this out over a thousand years ago. Unfortunately, our public school system has boxed our students into the “small box” of naturalism, and many can no longer think “outside the box.”
Richard, be careful – 2 Peter 3:8 is part of a passage that deals with the judgment of God, not one dealing with “heavenly time.”
I think the real issue should be “what is true?” If our students are not allowed to explore ALL the evidence and learn how to think critically about the presuppositions that are involved, then they will be doomed to live within the “small boxes” built for them by “small minds.”
Remember Blake’s “mind-forged manacles”? Perhaps it is time to seek the Truth, whatever the cost.

The basic tenant of the origin of man in evolution and the Bible are vastly different. The Bible view in Genesis is that man was made from the dirt and imparted, breathed, life from Himself to His creation,Gen 2:7.
Evolution says that life came from water,ie the sea, and after millions of years evolved into man from an ape.
I do not see how the two can be reconciled.
Evolution by its very nature says there is no God. We are just random atoms that just happened and there is no purpose to life. Or at best that God started it all and just left everything to take its own course.
John 3:16 Says God loved His crown of creation, man.

I found it very interesting that there were creationists, who claim to believe in God, that made death threats against the judge in the case, and one of the plaintiffs. Not very Christian if you ask me.

Then there were the creationist (and that's exactly what they were, make no mistake) school board members engaging in underhanded tactics ("anonymous" donation of the Pandas) book and perjury to advance their agenda. Somehow I don't think God would approve of that kind of dishonesty.

The Wedge "philosophy" of the Discovery Institute, to put it mildly, scared the hell out of me. Supplanting a totally valid, thoroughly tested scientific theory (i.e. evolution) with thinly-veiled creationism and having a plan to steer society toward a religious view made me very uncomfortable. Our founding fathers were wise to include separation of church and state in the Constitution. They knew from history that when they are not separate, people suffer. There's the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Taliban, the Ayatollah Khomeini....shall I go on?

Which brings me to my next point, the suppression of disquieting ideas. In the show, there was the burning of the mural depicting human evolution. It's funny how religious people become violent when an idea in seeming contradiction to their beliefs is presented. The church, as the author mentioned, threatened to torture Galileo if he did not recant his position that the Earth orbited the Sun. The Dominican monk Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the church for speculating on the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Ok, I think I'm finished now. Intelligent Design on Trial was an excellent program showcasing the facts behind evolution and the fallacies of intelligent design. The blog on the program was also well done.

I know this is elementary but bare with me. Below is the definition of Faith as defined by Merriam-Webster.

Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: \fâth\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs "the Protestant faith"

So now I ask anyone, how could an intelligent person create fact from faith? It is the most disturbing part of this issue. But ironically will be one of the most difficult hurdles for this country to deal with.

As a non practicing Roman Catholic who believes in God I would never try to impose my religious beliefs on others. Though it is apparent that was the intention of the school board. But what is most shocking is how people in this country will consistently try to impose religious beliefs that have no basis in fact.

Where else do we or did we have an organization that uses a common religion to generate hatred and animosity toward anyone who does not agree with their point of view?

Dover, PA?
The former USSR?

What would happen if in Dover, the majority of the School Board where Buddhists?

Reincarnation Design?

I may have taken this a bit too far by comparing a school board to the horrific scheming of Al-Queda. But then again it’s the reason why this country has the definitive separation of church and state.

I think people ignore evidence regardless the view they espouse. Those who believe in there only being materialistic explanations for life refuse to look at evidence that jars with that, just as those who believe in "creationism" dismiss evidence that there is some form of evolution taking place. The parallelism is striking. The secular "Humanist Manifesto" (promoted by evolutionists Julian Huxley and G.G. Simpson) in some ways matches the "Wedge" document...each has been held up as some sort of "Protocols of Zion" by the opposition. The fact is, most scientists interested in truth do not embrace such agendas. Therefore it was unfair, I thought, to present such a document as the agenda of the scientists who seek to find whether some Message might be discerned in Nature (as Michael Denton has admirably done in his book "Nature's Destiny," or Walter ReMine in "The Biotic Message").

Physicists seem much more open to the idea that our universe was designed by a certain WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. Those who favor materialism propose ours as being a lucky universe out of billions in some vast quantum foam, but not because of any data.

I just hope young people are not given the impression that design, simply because it is not ruled "science", cannot therefore exist as a possibility. And if not "scientifically", how then shall this possibility be examined, when it requires the evaluation of data?

I find it incredibly sad that rather than the fact of whether either ID or evolution is worthy of being taught as truth to our children in school many would rather believe a lie than fact. That the people who should have used fact to support the teaching of ID in schools resorted to telling lies is even sadder, especially when the truth would have served them much better.

The truth if anyone cares to investigate it remains that the evidence for evolution ie... Nebraska Man,Piltdown Man, Southwest Colorado Man, Neanderthal Man... were all hoaxes! Yes they were elaborate lies that were exposed as lies and yet they still remain as evidence in many textbooks today. And that remains just the tip of the iceburg.

I would like to see a return to scientific evidence returned to this discussion in our society, remember Darwin's Theory is just that Theory(!)it has not been proven scientifically, cannot be proven scientifically. I conceed that ID also cannot be proven scientifically as the requirements for a scientific proof demand it to be reproduced in a labratory setting. I would rather believe in scientific fact, and let that be taught in our schools.

Ah, there it is! Do you see it mates??!

Truth. When we "turn away from it" we have "nothing to say" Who's Truth? Why "Truth's" of course; and if you dont buy it hook, line and sinker . . . ya got nothing to say.

And that's the position all True Believers come to. It's an exclusive club and no place for the questioning, doubting mind of Science.

This is why we MUST always fight these folk; they strangle free thought and inquiry.

Anyone from intelligent design want to buy a bridge? Just make an intelligent bid.Proof of bid a must.

TGreg - you may have had exposure to some believers who do not think critically, perhaps even many believers. But you have not met "all True Believers." Are you not aware that there are many true believers who are also credentialed scientists, philosophers, educators, etc.? If you were really a free thinker, you would not "fight" against others who disagree with you. Is your free thought limited only to the opinions that support your point of view? Does the opposing side have the freedom to disagree with you?

Why doesn’t "on the origin of species" mention anything about the origin of Life?

Biologists study maps via rote memorization and simple observation with tools they themselves could rarely make. They could also report that Wisconsin evolved from Canada. They are not the authority to turn to. Real answers will come from physics and math. Stephen Hawkings would be someone to listen to. I think he has suggested his stance and I agree with him. Darwin’s theory is not proof anything but similarities ie. a Philips screw driver is derived from a standard- well who made the Philips. This was so very biased. Entropy is the key, I believe.

"Who’s Truth? ...This is why we MUST always fight these folk; they strangle free thought and inquiry." posted by TGreg

My response:

Jesus said "I am the TRUTH, the way and the life" (John 14:6), and he also said "if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

You can find Truth in Jesus Christ, but science is incapable of determining the truth about anything. That's all part of the limitations of the Scientific Method. Science will ALWAYS fall short of the Truth, and that's why we need to "crawl" out of the "small box" of naturalism.

The show caught my attention.I have 2 questions.1.did the show discuss darwins theory on the evolution of the human conscience. 2.Should'nt there be an abundance of fossil evidence supporting most or all of darwins dna mutations.

The most shocking point brought up in the documentary was the exposure of the publication entitled "The Wedge." There is a huge backward movement to force Christianity upon the world by any means necessary. It's these same forces that are marginalizing Muslims and people of other non-Christian faiths. The irony of all of these tactics is proof of the fact that fundamentalism of all types if harmful, dangerous and bad.

The Christ I know would never speak in the same manner of that deposed School Board chairman and the manner in which he assailed the federal judge. I applaud Judge Jones for taking a stand and a huge risk for standing up for the greatest document ever written, the U.S. Constitution. Our president has no regard for the Constitution and has blurred the line between Church and State to a deplorable level.

The problem with Fundamentalists is they seek control of our minds, our thoughts, our actions and our bedrooms.

I was amazed a judge could tell everyone what science could or could not investigate. If you shrink the pool of possibilities by saying science may not examine certain areas, aren't you emasculating science? It is ludicrous to say a person who wants to examine the possibility of design only does so because he is religious to begin with!

The kids that come out with this idea are hamstrung, intellectually.

PS. It took two years to make this "documentary".

Hey Phillip:

It is also how amazing it is that whenever we think we have something nailed, we find we DON'T.

What SURROUNDS DNA is now being found to have as much impact on development as the DNA itself.

Dark energy fills up 75% of the universe. Dark matter another 22%.

And the amazing thing is there are beings, such as ourselves, who possess a brain far exceeding the needs of survival to marvel at it all, and that can put two and two together, regardless what a judge says we may or may not consider to be "science".

The most shocking point brought up in the documentary was the exposure of the publication entitled "The Wedge." There is a huge backward movement to force Christianity upon the world by any means necessary. It's these same forces that are marginalizing Muslims and people of other non-Christian faiths. The irony of all of these tactics is proof of the fact that fundamentalism of all types is harmful, dangerous and bad.

The Christ I know would never speak in the same manner of that deposed School Board chairman and the manner in which he assailed the federal judge. I applaud Judge Jones for taking a stand and a huge risk for standing up for the greatest document ever written, the U.S. Constitution. Our president has no regard for the Constitution and has blurred the line between Church and State to a deplorable level.

The problem with Fundamentalists is they seek control of our minds, our thoughts, our actions and our bedrooms.

I really think the reason people hate those who at least want to consider the possibility of design is that they are afraid of what they might be forced to admit

when they put the facts together, unfettered and unafraid of what others might try to do to them because of it.

Hopefully some will at least be honestly skeptical when someone says "science conclusively disproven the notion of design". To stigmatize all people who hypothesize design as closet-fundamentalists obscures the real issue. Can science hold dialogue on this? Or will is succumb to McCarthyism, as it seems to be doing now?

Evolution vs. Creation: the debate will most likely never end. Everyone has their own beliefs and they are entitled to them, but when people start pushing their beliefs on others the constitution is also being violated. By saying that creation is wrong so you can't be taught it in school (just as if the call was opposite and said evolution was wrong and couldn't be taught) you are denying a person the right to learn what theories have existed, why they have existed, what problems there are with each theory, and you are (by not teaching these theories) allowing others to make their own decissions.
There are problems with both theories so neither of them can be proven as correct. Creation's biggest problem is that the existance of a supernatural being can't be proven scientifically and, to me, the largest problem with evolution or "materialism" as was specified above, states that everything comes from something we can perceive. If this were true, than something had to always be to start the next process. This would falsify the theory because, while it is generally accepted that matter hasn't existed forever, the theory states that something can't come from nothing. Sorry if this appears biased, it took less to explain the problem with creation than the problem with evolution.
The point of all of this is to say that we don't know which one is correct or if either one is correct. It could be that one being correct could explain how the other one works. We are all entitled to our oppinions, just allow others the opportunity to make the decission for themselves and let them learn an unbiased view of both sides and the interpretations of both.

Eric makes a good point.Darwin's Theory belongs in the science class and God belongs in the "free choice" class.Thats why its called faith.Faith is not in your DNA.No other species can choose to read the bible.Where is the mutant monkey that could blog his opinion.Your either a monkey or a man. there is no monkey-man.If there was ,Why did'nt he leave us a diary.

What I am about to write is not directly related to all the comments people have already written in response to Phillip Torrone's wonderful blog, but to a different direction entirely, that of adressing the agressiveness, even to the point of threats, of our otherwise law-abiding citizens who believe in creationism and/or intelligent design.
Simply put, these groups get way too much leeway from the scientific community. Admittedly, we do want to communicate with them, and on a reasonable level. But it cannot be on any intelligent level with them, because they do not engage in any intelligent reasoning even in their own biblical studies, which is their cornerstone.
If you want to really tackle difficult groups such as these, you do not stay on the defensive, and you do not pick apart their position from the fringes. Philophers of logic tell us the most effective way of adressing arguments is to attack the argument from its center. Tell them they do not advocate intelligence of any kind even in what they hold most dear, which is the Bible; have well respected biblical scholars take over this argument in a respectible and gentile manner, and in the end scientists should have more free time to do their scientific work.

Commenting on a web-site seen by thousands of people daily is comparable to shouting at one person across a area filled with music fans and hoping they can hear you. However, we still try to do just that when we yell at the band from the 15th row center. After watching the program about evolutionism v. creationism (intelligent design); I have decided that your company must regard those who believe that Darwin’s THEORY { I would italicize the type if I could} is not only dead wrong, but harmful; are uninformed rubes who never cracked a real science book in their lives or are some type of religious subversive out to Christianize the world, or worse yet well-educated liars who don’t care about science or truth as long as their religion is held in high-esteem. I assure you I am none of the above. I hold a simple Bachelor’s Degree in Information Technology, read science magazine’s daily, listen to the lectures of the physics professors at UC Berkley regularly ( I disagree with Prof. Muller some of the time, mostly on politics), and have been reading about the divergences of Creationism and Darwinism since I was in grade school. Hopefully this will convince you that this is no ill-informed simpleton’s reply.

First you depicted the people who fight for the equal rights of Creationism as uninformed rubes; mostly by the few board members who made mistakes in testimony or slipped the wrong words to the cameras. How is it that the Darwinists have well-lit, sharply dressed, holier-than-thou representatives that are all more than eager to tell you why Creationism is not “real science” because of it’s “lack of foundation”; and the Creationists are at home in a lazy chair, or on a golf course, or some elderly man looking like he is loosing his faculties? Did you really think that saying you tried “several” times to reach the various scientists, but couldn’t interview them because of too many stipulations would excuse their obvious absence? Anyone can see right through that thin veil.

Second, making sure to use the visualizations to push a point that Creationists are subversives who want to change the world into a pre-Scientific Revolution state was outrageous. As the attorney explained, you can make the purpose of wanting to return to a moral centered culture sound good or bad; just make sure you phrase it with ominous music and background speeches from a radio host whose father died while still in disagreement with his daughter and her jaded almost depressive angst drips from every comment. What else could you expect?

Third, the suppositions that saying you can’t have an flagella motor without even one part; but you can have a syringe missed the point of the reduction speech all together. He didn’t say you can not have something altogether different by removing one or more parts; he said you could not get the same result simply by stacking the parts bit by bit over time and generations. The program, and judge, and scientists did not disprove that at all. Instead what was said is the equivalent of saying well if I put a wheel next to a plane next to a second wheel I have the workings of a Mack Truck. No you have the workings of a plane and two wheels. Find the motor-less flagella; or better yet a partially mutated flagella with a not-so-sophisticated motor, at least compare apples to apples.

“Q: Is evolution inherently anti-religious?

Apsell: Not at all. The view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false. Evolution tells us is that the diversity of life on this planet could have arisen by natural processes. But for many people of various faiths, this is perfectly compatible with their belief in God as the creator of all nature. I personally believe that the beauty of evolution can enhance your belief in a creator and God.

By definition science cannot address the realm of the divine or supernatural. This doesn't mean that science is anti-religious.

And our program, Judgment Day, doesn't promote either a religious or an anti-religious viewpoint. It accurately covers a trial. And the trial itself did not have an anti-religious viewpoint. I think it's worth noting that both the judge and the majority of witnesses—including scientists on the plaintiff side—are people of faith.”

Not only was the program inherently anti-religious; simply on biases alone, but your very quote “Evolution tells us is that the diversity of life on this planet {could have} arisen by {natural} processes.” shows the entire and whole reason for not just teaching evolutionary theory as the entire explanation of all things on the little blue planet we call home plus the billions and billions of stars in the sky. Your quote also says that all life must come from a natural process implying that anything science can not as yet explain must be super-natural and hence religious or at lease non-scientific.

Why don’t you ask evolutionists the very questions you ask creationists? Can evolutions be observed? Can they be tested? Can there be a control group of non-evolved beings? Can evolution be re-created in the same scale or a sufficiently large scale to support all living beings evolving from something else? Aren’t these questions what makes something applicable to the “scientific method”?

Lastly, the whole case is on the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause, though upheld by many a biased judge, is wrong in foundation and practice as well as in direct contradiction to the original intent of the Constitution. [ Original Intent by David Barton wallbuilder press ] However, even if I concede the point, the Judge’s application was improper to the Establishment Clause; as saying that something exists is not an endorsement. The book merely pointed out that the choice of theory existed and what those choices were; it neither promoted nor required belief in any religion to understand the course material. The book was the equivalent to saying that things called churches exist as one of many options of buildings in which you can find yourself. If that is promoting a religious view, then why didn’t you ask how it was judges like he could rule in favor of foot-baths for Muslims and allow yin-yang symbols on clothing and jewelry that teacher’s can and do wear. Your show was biased, and perpetuated all the myths about the cannon fodder of the day, i.e. Bush Bashing, Hatred for Republicans, Anti-Religious Prejudice, and Social Elite Liberalism.

--- btw
Almost all the founding father's of science I have read about would have agreed that some Creator exists in some form. In fact, wasn't it Roger Penrose; friend of beloved scientist Steven Hawking who said that the odds of the Big Bang theory { the beginning of all evolution } was on the order of 10^10^23 or basically more than the supposed number of atoms in the universe; which is calculated to be 10^78?

-- a "closed minded" scientist

I suggest that if anyone doubts there is a creator see the dvd "the case for a creator" or go to www.LeeStrobel.com. I think that it's o.k. to debate but seek first then debate, don't go into a battle without facts.

OK OK OK I'm not really a blogger but I love the fact that NOVA (PBS) did a special on the topic of Intelligent Design and the Dover trial. First and foremost I want to assert that I am Catholic but the issue of conflict here is that I am a bit scientist. I completely disagree with ID or Creationism as having any scientific relevance. What they did in Dover is what religion has done for countless centuries and that is undermine the truth by thrusting its own beliefs and calling it science.

Why is it that those who supposedly have the most virtue are the first to lie, cheat, steal, threaten and even kill to get their point across? When questioned about it, it all becomes a slip of the tongue (or they mis-spoke). They turn around and talk about peace and love when their arguments start to fail, but in the shadows of their homes they send death threats. Is it just me or is it all very scary.

This battle as the judge said at the end of the special will go own for more generations (more then likely many many more). What I fear is what if the legal system wasn't on the side of science as it was in this particular instance. What then? If the judgement hadn't passed students would start learning religion in science class and thats just wrong.

I wonder what if as scientist we agree to teach Creationism in our classes if and only if as a compromise we taught another scientific theory that was based on a religion completely different from any religion having one God, I wonder how quickly those who are pro teaching creationism (or ID) would change their tune about having any theory that isn't based on scientific evidence taught in classrooms?

Bottom line is keep religion in sunday school where it belongs, there are more then just christian, catholics, baptist, etc... that go to these schools. A lesson like this if it needs to be taught can easily be taught at home.

As a catholic I read the Bible for its message not literally but contexually, I understand that this text was written over a thousand years ago where people couldn't identify with numbers over hundred thousand. Why cant people see a parallel with 7 days as being 7 billion, is it that hard fetched. (this last paragraph was directed to anyone christian that doesnt believe in darwinism)

I would like to see the particulars of the perjury noted by the judge, referred to in the article as appearing below, but which I cannot seem to locate. I think these matters need to be publicly examined to the end that we see what is meant by a lie. Certainly the professors of creative design do not understand what "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" means, inspite of the sincerety of their religious beliefs. I do not think they are alone.

I think the Dover case was a very sad and poignant episode showing what happens when world views collide. I absolutely agree with the judge's decision. It's very sad that the ID people showed themselves to be small-minded liars. I thought the documentary did a good job of presenting the story. The facts speak for themselves.

My one quibble was that the ID proponents (Buckingham, Bonsell) were interviewed filmed from unflattering angles in their dowdy living rooms, when most of the people on the plaintiff's side were attractively lighted in neutral settings. There may have been a practical reason for this, but it seemed an unneccessary cheap shot to me.

I came to the conclusion after watching this show, that the proponents of ID are themselves progeny of a long line of "know-nothings" that have inhabited this country. They confuse concepts like "theory" and "fact", twisting these words to serve purposes not intended. But in a real sense, this confusion is inevitable. How is a high-school drop-out to understand that the motto "Under God" does not trump the 1st amendment of the Constitution? That we are not a Christian nation and were not founded as one. How is a Christian traditionalist, raised and living only amongst other Christian traditionalists supposed to understand a governmental document of secularism and tolerance, written by, argued over, and enforced by lawyers? This raises two basic questions about the effectiveness of our society today: 1)What kind of failure of the educational system does this expose, and 2) Would this have happened if Dover had had a sizable community of Jews, or Hindus, or even Muslims?

OK, so I’m not impartial. I do not agree that ID should be taught along side evolution in schools.
But let’s meet half way...
Go ahead and have half the science class time to teach ID and then....... wait for it.....
half the Sunday school time will be devoted to the theory of evolution.
If we aren't going to keep the two separate then let’s REALLY not keep them separate.
That seems fair to me.
And the outcome of the sharing of ideas is that the children really do get to decide for themselves.
How many church leaders will go for that? Hmmmm
Otherwise be happy we live in a country where this discussion can even be held, where freedom of religion is as important as the separation of church and state.

I was very satisfied with the short reference to the Catholic teaching that reason and faith are synonimous.

The arguement of the court case was what is science and what is not. Evolution vs. Creationism is a side issue. Both sides on this blog are arguing over who has the most evidence to back up their theories. "My glass is fuller than yours." If you ask a true scientist if the glass is half empty or half full they will simply tell you the amount of liquid in the container in milliliters to the nearest thousandth, plus the size of the container, the temperature of the liquid, the temperature of the room, blah blah. The separation between church and state means no religion taught in public schools. Science belongs in a science class.Religion belongs in church.
P.S. Most of the evidence gained supporting evolution has been found by those trying to disprove it. Evolutionists don't mind alternative theories.

I would like to say that Evolution is a secular religion. It is based purely on materialism. I believe that God did create. He made man from the dust of the earth. Which evolution has a simular philosophy. Did man come from the dirt or pond water/sea? You can't test evolution just as you can test the supernatural. So why is it that evolution can be put in a higher order of untested theory than creationism/intelligent design. Talk about a closed mind and intellectual laziness. Where did the matter come from to begin with. You have to have faith either way. Faith that you believe that God or some other intelligent designer created man or faith that everything just happened. What is the difference? Everything did happen, but everything had to come from somewhere.... Where did it come from? What does your heart say? I think Darwin did have some valid points that should be explored such as adaptations/mutations, however I don't see that these adaptations would create a whole different type of species. Why aren't we still mutating into some other forms of human. Why did the mutations stop with humans? Where are the superhumans. We were supposed to come from a lower form of life to a higher, doesn't that contradict evolution? don't new species come from mutations? Which is descent? But isn't man far more intelligent than apes? Why can't life be recreated in labs using the gas formulas and pond mixtures that many have said produced life. Some one had to make that smallest life form. It doesnt take a genuis to know that there is one answer, you believe or you don't.IN A SECULAR RELIGION/EVOLUTION OR A SUPERNATURAL RELIGION/INTELLIGENT DESIGN. One note about the establishment clause It says that CONGRESS shall make no establishment of religion. The Constitution also says that there won't be a secular religion. Hum... origin of species...origin of LIFE.... RELIGION. Based on popular opinion...public opinion...SECULAR.....

The board members at Dover were trying to make a positive impact on this world and all of it's moral decay, maybe they used tactics that weren't very Christian... at least they tried to stand for something good...some people are trying too hard to sell Darwin as FACT and push That down MY CHILDREN'S THROAT!

"...shall not bear false witness..."

This Tuesday, November 13, 2007, I was watching "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" on PBS. It is a documentary following the lawsuit of 11 families against the school board in Dover, PA which tried to force teaching “Intelligent Design” in ninth grade of the local public school. I have heard the argument before, and every time my thought was: “How is it possible in this day and age for such ignorance to exist?” This time I had the same thought again. But this time it was only my first thought. As I kept watching and listening to the arguments of the sides, a new disturbing picture materialized in my mind. It was a gruesome and disturbing picture. I had just realized that what seemed like a silly argument of overly religious but honest people was just a face for one of the most cynical exhibits I have ever witnessed. The ugly truth that glared at me from the TV screen this Tuesday evening was: The Creationism or the so called “Intelligent Design” is neither a scientific theory nor religious insanity. It is only disgusting politics skillfully hiding behind the faith.
I won’t waste yours and mine time to argue about the “scientific value” of the “intelligent” creationism. It is just insulting to person’s intelligence that someone out there would actually believe that we are so stupid, that such a badly made up story would make any sense. I just feel bad about the people forced to side with such dishonesty. I understand why they think they need to do it – because of loyalty to their faith. Perhaps, they think that any argument against the political view of the church leaders is going to make them bad Christians.
The point I am trying to make is not religious or political. It is purely moral - all the good people, Christians or not, respect values like honesty, goodness, and truth. And when these values are violated, it hurts all of us, regardless of religion.
First of all, can someone explain to me how could possibly God and the faith benefit from the “help” of fabricated fake science? What I saw in that film was a disgrace to the moral of the Christian faith. It is against the legacy of Jesus Christ and it lowers the faith’s purpose to a disgusting tool for gaining influence. If you truly believed and trusted God’s ways, you should not be trying to “enhance” His influence trough lies and manipulation. This is the politicians’ game. Not Christians’.
It just did not seem that the goal justifies the means in this case. Not if the goal is promoting Christian moral and faith. Does that mean that the goal is different than what we are supposed to believe? Like for example gaining or keeping political influence. If you think about it, this is what it appears to be; otherwise they would have done it differently or not done it at all. This is not fighting for the Truth as it is being presented by the “intelligent” creationists – it is simply trying to re-capture a lost market share. It feels good to dominate. It is empowering. And it is probably very annoying if you don’t have the plain field tilted your way anymore. Apparently, to help “spread the word” the regular church members in the town were fed the good old hatred against infidels and atheists. Hatred has a great uniting power and is so easy to sell: Even if you have failed in any other aspect of your life, being part of a special group gives you a sense of belonging and improved self-value. Once you’re in, it is only natural to fight for the status quo. Even if you have to act against your faith’s most important principles.
Speaking of principles, what should really matter? How about faith, hope, love, and truth - the basic Christian values? The Faith is about the soul. Using it for any other purpose is a cynical and disgusting crime against everything good and pure. You can’t just cheat your way into being right. God does not need anyone to make up ridiculous theories in His name. If someone think that lying and hate mongering leads to salvation, they are up for a big disappointment.
The 9th commandment clearly says not to “…bear false witness…” and there are no “intelligent” disclaimers to that. At least not yet.

To discard the study of creation from our institutes of understanding and learning is equally as shortsighted as not allowing freedom of expression in a forum. The separation of religion clause was intended to protect Americans from the controlling hand of religion such as the founders experienced with the church of England. I fear most Americans do not understand the intentions of this 1st amendment segment, which is to preserve men, women, AND children's natural born RIGHT to practice whatever "if any" religion they choose. The drafters wanted to assure that a state imposed national religion did not emerge, not prohibit religion from being discussed in a public venue.

My daughters public school recently hosted a native American ceremony at a going away party for an instructor. Is this not a means of teaching religion in a public school? Is a benediction at a high school graduation ceremony a religious teaching?

Can any of the fancy hat folks in this forum explain in their own words how we humans came to be? I think not. Did we evolve through natural selection from a puddle of amino acid? If the earth were any closer or further from our sun we likely would not exist. Did this position and ideal atmosphere evolve through natural selection? Who knows for sure? Certainly the self important scientist and teachers who present evolution as the "end all" "know all" enlightenment of human existence do not. We do know that we humans are intelligently different from all the other creatures in this world. This difference provides the ability to use logic in a way that animals and creatures cannot. How did we humans gain this enhanced capacity over the monkeys and fish we evolved from?

Perhaps mans desire to believe in a creator is his own evolution? Perhaps a higher power designed this world to evolve? What is flawed in this theory? Why can we not discuss this in a public school? This magistrate has liitle understanding of the Constituion he swore oath to. Hmmm, to whom did he swear said oath? Darwin?

"God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country."

Can any Darwin book thumpers cite which great American scientist made the above quote 'without looking it up'.

Okay, I just finished watching the Judgment Day program and reading through most of the comments posted on this site.


1. Why is the evolution side so afraid to let another viewpoint be discussed in our schools? Are our schools places of learning or indoctrination sites? Sounds to me that it's not "religionists" who are trying to shove religious ideas down people's throats, but evolutionists who are trying to ram a theory, yes, a theory down our kids' throats. (So, who is intolerant now?)

2. Why is this matter so important to people on the "religionist/Faith/Christian" side? Because of what the Bible, the Word of God, says. The Bible clearly teaches that there is going to be a Judgment Day for all people who have ever lived. Those who have put their trust in Jesus Christ as God incarnate and as the ONLY Saviour of sinful men's souls, will live eternally with Him in Heaven. Those who reject Him, will be separated from Him and all that He stands for forever. By indoctrinating our kids with the false teaching of evolution, a theory that contradicts the Bible and denies the Creator God, you are planting doubts about this One true God into their minds. This can prove to undermine their belief in God and cause them to fall away from the faith,i.e. cause them to be offended. Jesus warns those who teach false doctrines and cause people to fall away with these words: And remember Jesus cannot and will not lie:

"It is impossible but that offenses will come, but WOE unto him through whom they come. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the sea than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17: 1-2

The most extreme and eternal consequences await those who mislead others, especially children. I truly hope this puts this most important matter into better perpective.


I am just as sincere in my desire not to have religion pushed down my children's throat. But I felt it was important to expose them to several churches as they grew up and from time to time they went with friends to more still. We discussed their experiences throughout. We had copies of the bible in the house and they were as available as all the other books we owned. My children were given the opportunity to choose their own path. They read voraciously and there were probably two times I told them they couldn’t read a particular book.
I never thought they needed to be exposed to religion in school. That’s what churches are for. When’s the last time you had a scientist knock on your door and offer to straighten you out about your beliefs?
By the way, within our family there are Methodist, Jewish, Buddhist, southern Baptist, atheist, born again and agnostic believers and non believers. Quite a group and all are welcome to believe what they believe and practice as they choose. But, it is not acceptable to ram any of it down any one's throat. Discussion is good. Tolerance is good. But it isn't the religion that holds this large family together. It is love. Personally I don't think the two are joined at the hip.

I missed the majority of the NOVA program, but hope to weigh in on what I consider an underlying conflict to what led to this trial. ID-believing parents have just cause for concern about the textbook material presented to their children in schools that their taxes fund. Written material, if myopically endorsing conclusions based on theory laden with inadequacy and speculation, theory purporting to explain "scientifically" the very existence of the children themselves, is typically presented as fact to these children who typically themselves have less wherewithal or less or a chance than an adult to sift fact from fiction for themselves. The satisfied-with-Darwinism element of our political sphere unfortunately remains a step ahead of those who find fault with it, and thus we see desperation tactics among those who seek correction to academia and equity to the tax-payer.

A bit of irony:

I am a scientist and I very much appreciated the objective approach of the program. At the end comes the conclusion that evolution is a theory well supported, and still tested, as all scientific model should be. Most importantly, it put aside intelligent design which intents to describe nature with an ideological purpose; obviously the anti-definition of science.

However, the program closed with the antithesis as came a commercial for the sponsor DOW: "he human element. Nothing is more fundamental, nothing more elemental."

I hope there is no wedge theory involved here ;)

Would someone show me a fossil in transition from one form to another? Why does human records only go back about 8 to 10 thousand years? Could it be the world is only 6 thousand years old like the Bible says? Why do evolutionist refuse to allow creationism to be taught? I thought the free exchange of ideas was what this country was built upon. Why do all cultures of the world have a flood legend? I watched Judgement Day last night. It was decidedly infavor of the evolutionist.I expected no less from PBS. If people would be true to themselves they would have to admit that there is no way Evolutionary theory could possibily be true. Why are we worried about man causing the extinction of some species? Natural Selection would say these endangered species were selected for extinction. Just use your common sense. The definition of science is something that can be observed, and can be replicated. Evolutionist can't do this. It takes "Faith" to believe in evolution. Sounds like evolution is a religion to me. Think about it.

Creationism Stole Intelligent Designs Drivers license and credit cards. You've got the wrong man!

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.

Which one is most different from the other two. Which two are most similar?

Intelligent design and Evolution are almost the same thing.

Creationism is based on mythology. (nothing wrong with that of course... but it ain't science)

Now, creationsists who have been denied the opportunity to promote mythology as science tried to use a back door by borrowing the legitimacy of Intelligent Design and stealing it's name in order to keep to keep pushing Mythology.

Don't blame Intelligent Design for that!!!

So why the antagonism between Evolution and Intelligent Design? Isn't Intelligent Design pretty much just evolution plus?

Evolution with a first cause thrown in, a small dash of purpose, and maybe what looks like a cosmic nudge here and there? Beyond that? Same thing!

Evolution and Intelligent Design should be friends... they're just a nice mix of HOW with a WHY

Rejecting Intelligent Design because some Fundamentalist hicks stole it's ID and used it's credit cards is not fair to an elegant explanation.

I am not sure where the believers of the intelligent design theory get their ideas? This show revealed in many ways that the theory of evolution is not just a theory, its a fact. The people who believe in the god theory have no science to back it other than the believers. It also showed that many of the people in this Pennsylvania town, who believe in evolution also believe in god, which is fine. For the man who lied under oath and also quit the school board and moved away, his belief in religion seems to only apply as long as he is right or at the forefront or the winner. I believe for him to lie, in religious or intelligent beliefs is brobably a sin. The religious or intelligent beliefs in god as the creator is just a belief, with no scientific proof. The beliefs only apply under each peoples version or writing of their bible.

As I watched the end of this program I was struck by the fact that here we are - yet again - with one or more zealots, claiming either implicitly or explicitly to be doing God's work. Some of them were shown to be duplicitous at best. Moreover, some of those who apparently support these folks and/or their position show their true colors by making death threats against the judge. The disconnect is startling and I just don't understand how they justify these things in their own minds. Perhaps we should just call it like it is clear, acknowledging that logic has no place in their world view, nor in their internalization of the religious views they claim to hold so dear.

Kudos to the Court (J.Jones) for its decision in the "Design Intervention" case. The steady erosion of 'separation' of church/state is increasing and must be guarded lest it disappear. The rise in fundamentalist beliefs that impinge on the rights of others, is clearly contra to Constitutional guarantees. It is most frightening that, in America, death threats against the judiciary whose responsibility it is to protect those guarantees, is expressed by those of religious convitions.

Regarding ID. It was my understanding that the roots of ID lay in the nature of the physical universe. The uncompromising precision of various universal constants, from the speed of light, to the weight of an electron, to the gravitational constant, and a whole bunch of others; any of which if altered resulted in unstable universes which would quickly collapse. Did I miss something here? Check out the facts. It was a setup!

Having lived through this challenge in Dover and being a part of the movement to rid our school of these rock dwellers, I felt the science discussion in the NOVA presentation a very well done piece. I was shocked in this community by the hatred showed by the "Christians" toward those who didn't believe in their particular faith. Never once did the administrators of the school pay heed to the warnings of the community, and when any of us spoke out we were condemned as "bad" Christians" or "stupid". There were no death threats made to the ID group, only the plaintiffs....I hope any interest in this whole story will lead people to read the full manuscript -both depositions and trial- to feel the full impact on this community. I also would urge all of us to beware. These hateful people are everywhere and their intolerance for science and what it proves is toxic.

The issue here is not evolution vs. intelligent design, but teaching more than just one perspective on life and its origins which PBS did a horrible job in disecting the argument for teaching something other than evolution. Basically, PBS was completely biased and all but mocked intelligent design and its proponents. Evolutionists can argue using the establishment clause as a shield that keeps intelligent design out of tax payer funded education, but just as the establishment clause doesn't promote one religeon over another, it also doesn't promote a lack of religion either. Simply put, the argument here is about open debate, which the evolutionists it appears, are far more unlikely to accept. So much for your liberal, tolerant idealism.

One critical point that was not covered in the Nova program or in the trial is the racist overtones of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design argues that polygenesis (all creatures occuring simultaneously) rather than from a single source as the basis of life. In the 19th century, polygenesis was a basis for the Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson which upheld segregation of races in public places.

Polygenesis is also central to the argument for the use of eugenics for conducting ethnic cleansing. Eugenics played a central part in the extermination of other races by Nazi Germany.

I not only feel that evolution or science was on trial but religion as well.I for one have had my foundation rocked.I now know the evolution theory is saying their is no higher being. When religion was in the scools you didnt see the kids shooting each other and teachers running off with the students.Their was respect for our teachers and didnt have to fear for their lives.I must say that the theory of evolution made me realize that all the years that I was taught to think their was a higher being I now know their is not one!This program was right on target.But in return I now dont have to give to people in need or the poor this is evolutions way of cullion the weak! Enjoy your life do as you want because their will be no repercusions at the end of life.

Some of you still don't understand, you still want to append supernatural meanings to life without any reason other than what your bible told you. That morals MUST have come from god, or knowing all of a sudden that being descended from the same ancestor as a primate will make you less moral or feel bad about yourself.

Whether you like it or not creationism is in NO WAY a science or a testable theory. How does saying something magically appeared get us cures for cancer? Stop being so blatantly ignorant. Science is about finding out about all the laws that govern the universe to the best of our ability and using that understanding to push toward even more understanding. Religion is simply stagnant and will never get us anywhere and has never gotten us to where we are today, science has. If religion had any form of logic to it, then I could consider some of your arguments that science is also a religion, but religion is inherently illogical (faith).

This entire evolution vs. creationism/religion/ID debate has been about blatant intolerance of any other view but your own. I know you'll say that science is intolerant of any other view but it has that luxury because science is NOT a religion. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence, and that pretty much sums up the entire failure of ID.


You do not "believe" in a theory. That is why it is so powerful, you allow it to be potentially wrong. The doubt is what drives science. Faith is blind.

I find it intersting that Darwinist treat dissenting voices exactly like the church did in the middle ages. No one is allowed to have an opinion that runs counter to thier philisophical position that there can be no designer and everything must happen by chance. (All dissenters will be burned on the stake of television editting) Nova's presentation proved that they were not interested exploring the possiblity, and thier only interest was to kill all discussion on the topic. Where was the rebuttal from the school board's lawyers? Why was Dr. Behe's courtroom character shown as a bumbling fool while all the evolution experts are brave and confident characters with answers that cannot be disputted. The defense refutted irreducable complexity at length, yet the tranistional fossil discussion was taken as fact, as if there could be no error in the finding. Nice editting. In the end the judge is won over in the 'right' thinking, and Nova proves it was 'right' all along. The sad part is that this universe is a very complex place, and when you consider all the things that have to happen to just allow life, much less in the abundance we see, never mind the physical laws that need to exist and 'evolve' that it can't be due to random chance. But that discussion cannot be allowed as Nova has clearly shown.

I can see why PBS broadcast this show --because the judge ruled on the side of evolutionists. Would PBS broadcast "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel (mentioned by Susi above)? I don't think so.

In addition to the above DVD title, I also recommend to everyone 3 books by Lee Strobel: "The Case for a Creator", "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith." Mr. Strobel has a legal background, a former atheist who became a Christian after his search for the truth led him to the undeniable conclusion that creation, Christ and the Bible are true.
I also recommend the writings of Ravi Zacharias (rzim.org), a Christian apologist.

Evolution is a theory, and a poor, illogical, irrational, immoral one. There is no clear, irrefutable proof for evolution. As Jack wrote above, it takes faith to believe in evolution. It's an excuse that many use to deny God. I believe J.P. Sartre (French philosopher) was one who found in evolution a convenient excuse to deny God's existence.
If man "evolved" from apes, how come there are still apes and monkeys co-existing with us? Why have they not all "evolved" into men?

"Scientists" (in quotes, because most, if not all, anthropologists, archeologists, do not follow the scientific method in explaining things--they have a preconceived notion as to what a fossil/archeol. find signifies) have not found the supposed "missing link" because there is none. After all the digging worldwide that has been done for centuries, uncovering the remains of dinosaurs and many fossils, if there was a "missing link", it would have been found already.

"Survival of the fittest" follows from evolutionary theory. Evolutionists, to be logical and true to their faith,
should see nothing wrong with what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., did in the genocide of millions of people. Since the exterminated ones were "weak", in terms of evolutionary faith, evolution proponents should all just shrug off these murders as being inconsequential (which is how the ones responsible for the murders saw them). But most don't, and the reason is we know those were atrocities. We know to murder another human being is wrong because we have consciences given to us by our Creator.

Just because we want to believe something, doesn't make it true. Man does not create truth. There is Absolute Truth. Truth pre-existed the first man. Just because a person does not believe in God does not mean God does not exist.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life."

One of the, many, things I find so infuriating and exasperating about ID/Creationists/etal (besides duplicity, hypocrisy, intolerance...)is the willful, smug ignorance so often in evidence among these people. I suspect, fairly or not, that often these are the same people who couldn't be bothered to pay attention in their own H.S. biology class, found it all too boring and not worth their time, and marginalized those who did; now, as ill-informed adults, they feel ENTITLED to take it upon themselves to inflict their blinkered, malformed miopic perspectives on their and other's children-and then blame the underfunded, unsupported science curriculum they've hobbled into the bargain. I believe it's less the state of science education or even education itself in these here United States, as it is a deeply inculcated suspicion and hostility for inquiry, curiosity, and the inquisitive and the curious--this is woven into the warp and woof (:\)of American culture from a very young age--hence, we get Dover and an incurious frat-boy for Pres @ the dawn of the 21st Centy.

Thanks for regurgitating the propaganda from the "documentary" there Keith. I'm sure none of us picked up on those subtle clues.

In regards to this comment:

"It’s funny how religious people become violent when an idea in seeming contradiction to their beliefs is presented."

It has nothing to do with religion or religious people. It has to do with the fact that the people perpetrating these acts are idiots. It has nothing to do with being a religious person. There are plenty of atheists who do stupid violent things because of their beliefs. Malcolm X perpetrated and taught violence against whites... not because of any religious belief, but because of his own beliefs and ideas. And we've all got our own beliefs and ideas... some of them dumber than others. You might've had one or two yourself. And some dumb people use those as a basis for violence... this has nothing to do with religion.

I was impressed with your program but disagree with the decision that was made by the judge. The one topic that has been totally ignored is freedom of speech. The intelligent design has much more evidence that it was allowed to present in the courtroom. However, as always, the work of these highly credited professionals is ignored and marginalized. But the courtroom discussion should not be held hostage and confined to the courtroom. It is not a matter of introducing religion to students it is a matter of free speech. Freedom of speech has been eroding in America for some time. When will this issue be discussed? One simple question. Why is it a crime to hold up your hand in a science classroom and ask about evidence that criticizes evolution? Where can students get resource material if they wish to analyze genetic code and it’s limitations, bio-chemical reactions and the boundaries , etc. a little more closely if not from organizations such as the Discovery Institute? To not allow these questions students have fallen seriously behind in the scientific education. Also, the lawyers successfully tied creation science and intelligent design. If you were to read Lee Strobel’s book A Case for the Creator, you would see that the theory of evolution is closely tied to the religion of atheism. Not every evolutionist is an atheist but not every Christian is a catholic. No difference! There is already a state sponsored religion in our schools and that religion is atheism.

Bravo NOVA & PBS. Creationism and Intelligent Design threatens science, in the same way that christian fundementalism threatens the nation as a whole. Matters of "faith" should be kept at home, and have no place in either education or government. The "panda book" should have been read and discussed at Sunday school, not in a secular learning environment. I take issue with those who thought the program to be one-sided. I feel after 150 years of absolutely no contradiction to evolution theory by a GREAT DEAL of well designed,substantive testing, indeed brings evolution closer and closer to FACT. If someone feels that the show did not give a fair representation regarding the argument provided by the defense, I haven't seen any proof of it here in any discussion. If anything, it further confirmed the ignorant, defensive, and objectionable behaviors of the christian crowd; death threats and all. I applaud every effort to remove religion from both government, and educational systems.

In all of the comments I see excoriating evolutionary theory, as in the program last night, the question remains unanswered or inadequately supported: where's your evidence? Cite us chapter and verse (sic), wax as eloquent as you please about your faith (good for you!), the question remains: where's your evidence? This is an evidence based proposition. You gleefully skewer and dissect the putative faulty evidence for evolution, without being curious and investigating outside your favored texts, i suspect; yet, all is smoke and mirrors to hide, if not your true agenda, then your own unwillingness to open your minds to evidence, and be enlightened. Surely, that is what your God and Saviour wanted for so noble a being.

I watched the program last night and was reminded of a short question and answer exercise taught in grade school:
Q: Who made me?
A: God made me.
Q: Who made God?
A: God is, was and always will be.
Creationism is pure religious faith. No science involved in intelligent design or creationism at all.
By the way, who said the Bible was written by God or inspired by God? It's just a very interesting speculative anthology written by a group of imperfect human beings. Hardly an information source to be used as proof of anything.

We, as scientists or as believers, are but children with severely limited comprehension of the whole. We speculate on the whole, knowing in our hearts that our speculations cannot be entirely correct. This act of speculating is triggered in us by an infinite variety of motives.

1. In this special, motivated by a complex of TV ratings and evolution bandwagonism, PBS stated that ID was on trial. This, they knew, was not true. It was a school board that was on trial. To some, God was on trial, as always. This media dissembling, now an unfortunate given in our lives, can polarize viewers and become a destructive wedge between us.

2. Scientists, who otherwise use good evidence to support Natural Selection, too easily slip out of character and use Natural Selection as the proof of Evolution as the origin of man. This is fallacious and not different from those who would deceive others to promote their belief in God. In our material existence, proofs of ID/Creation and Evolution will both break down. So, these two approaches are and will remain divergent mind sets. Whether you call a religious or evolutionist mind set "science" -- for these purposes, neither is a science.

3. Believers and Scientists need each other. They differ because they were created/naturally selected with different tendencies. Truth is truth in one big whole. Believers need Scientists to probe every more meticulously our material existence in order to explain away superstitions, etc. Scientists need Believers to probe ever more deeply into the spriritual existence in order to give life depth of meaning.

4. Expressing our true feelings with precise language reflects our better nature. Why don't scientists agree to carefully separate their discussions of Natural Selection from their speculation on the origins of man? Why don't religious people talk about only what they really know as regards God, sin, and ID/Creation. To refine our own individual belief systems and charitably regard persons who don't share them are better choices.

5. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution doesn't seem to figure into the question of this special. You and I and our community can have a mind set, a set of values, without establishing a State religion. The Dover School Board has the right to establish curriculum that fairly and evenly reflects the values of their constituents and the truth as they know it. This has a tangential inference to involvement with the Establishment Clause, but strictly speaking, State religion is not the issue. We would be better served by hearkening to non-discrimination, truth, and enlightenment than to continually overusing the Establishment Clause.

This blog is all over the map, but I'll try to address the issue that was addressed in the NOVA episode and the trial in question. Does ID belong in a science class? The answer is no. ID is not science.

I think it could be argued that ID could be taught in a philosophy class. I attended a public university, and was educated on many views of the universe in philosophy classes.

Proponents of ID need to do some research, and come up with evidence and experiments. That's what defines science.

And to the people who say "Evolution is just a theory", you are truly ignorant. Please look up the definition of scientific theory. Changing the definition of terms to suit your own agenda make you look stupid. By the way, gravity is also a theory, so we should dismiss it too since it can't be proved without a doubt.

If you folks at PBS were trying to fool anyone into thinking that the "On Trial" documentary was an objective or unbiased look at any of the subjects surounding the events at Dover or the people involved, please realize that you're not that clever, nor are we that gullible. Your bias was obvious to my 12 year old. Trotting out Darwin's great great grandson...laughable if it weren't so manipulative. I was struck again, while watching, by the pride and folly of the "experts" who claim to understand their origins with their evolved-from-mutations brains. How do they know that their brains evolved right, anyway? I also find it disheartening that in a country in which the existence of objective truth is denied in most institutions of "higher" learning, the one unsubstantiated "truth" that must be defended by silencing all other voices is darwinism. How shallow and how cowardly. Indeed, how unscientific! Some of us have learned, not just the darwinist party line, but also of volumes of geological and fossil evidence for a younger earth. Unfortunately, that evidence is kept in the back rooms of most museums and obscured by slick "tree" and "ascent" diagrams originating in the imaginations of those for whom darwin simply MUST be right. Is a scientist who refuses to look at a variety of evidences really a scientist? If the pro-ID board members at Dover lacked integrity, I still will not bow at the altar of naturalistic darwinian religion. Bravo to the scientists who courageously step out of the herd and reject the party line!

Science class is for teaching science. Creationism, to my knowledge, doesn't exactly follow scientific method or scientific principles. Comparative literature doesn't, either, and you wouldn't teach it in a science class either, would you? Any time you start claiming some supernatural force (usually Judeo-Christian in nature, disguised or no) as a cause of something, you start veering into religion, which is better served being taught in an actual religious class.

Sorry, cdesign proponentsists, but you have no place in a science classroom.

As for those who claim science and evolution are some kind of science, well. You've got a point - it is a way of thinking. However, I'm pretty sure there aren't too many obvious hallmarks of religion in science - no one worships in front of a statue of Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species isn't quoted at weddings, and penitence for disobeying the laws of nature (whatever those may be) doesn't involve stoning or self-flagellation or anything like that.

I know I'm being facetious, but come on.

the post that said gravity was a theory must be nut. Gravity is a physical law. If we can do away with the 2nd law of thermodynamics only then could evolution even be considered. Explosions(the big bang) do not create order!!!! hello??? anyone who thinks so is truly decieved. Matter breaks down. I challenge anyone who believes in evolution to present one single example of a life form evolving to a higher order. If anyone who believes in evolution would produce a single fossil of a life form in transition to a higher life form it would help your evolution friends to win more of these discussions. Evolution is not rational, it is not science.I am open minded. I find so called science proving the Bible to be right with every new scientific discovery. Call evolution what it is, "A Religion".

Evolution bandwagonism?! Is there also a Gravity cabal? a Round-Earth conspiracy? an Electromagnetic Spectrum cult? There's certainly a lot of confusion about how scientific knowledge is assembled, as well as the Establishment Clause!! A community most certainly doesn't have the 'right' to "establish" its creed/faith/religion as the 'truth' for all to adhere to, however it's gussied up as 'science'; particularly where a captive audience of children is concerned! The stated purpose of the Establishment Clause, as well as the entire Bill of Rights, is to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. This was the point of Bush-appointee Judge Jones's opinion. Lay the Bible down for a moment, read the Federalist's Papers, our founding docs-and PROVIDE SOME TESTED, WELL REASONED EVIDENCE, for your...crintelligent designeationism.

As to the notion that Ms Apsell had a "clear agenda" in producing this show to promote science education in this country, in the face of a medieval, millenialist, desire to stop science...well, get it on!

Q: What Religion was being proposed
in The Intelligent Design Theory?

religion: To Link, To Connect!

The School of Linguistics should be
helpfull here, since people are
debating, discussing Semantics.

Constition , & Declaration of Independence

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights,

f/m Declartion of Independence
2nd clause.

Amendment IX
U.S. Constititution

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights)
retained by the people.

Printing Books, covering both Theories
seems to be balanced, enhancing Choice
and Freedom of Thought.

However, CENSORING ID seems to be a have
a Motive Itself i.e. censorship.

Motive vs Motive

The value judgements seemed not to be
relevant, moving away from Detachment
Objectivity, clear sight, etc, etc.

religion: To Link, To Connect

The Associtive Property of the Math Book

A powerful idea !

Anyone interested in what the Creator has to say about the matter?


Thanks NOVA & PBS! Your programing helps intelligent people like me, see the reality of things and learn. I agree 100% with Phillip Torrone, R Schier and others. Darwin was a genius and his theory is now being confirmed and proven by DNA. On the other hand the pushers of intelligent design/creationism have still to prove that "god" exists and then push their so called theory. Theory ? , I would say agenda. Most of us know that faith and religion are a multibillion dollar business and those boxes of books that appeared at Dover School, were not donated by their publisher, they were sold ! So you can see that there is a lot of people that can benefit economically from religions. Further more, I could even say that religion is as profitable or more profitable than science. No wonder they want to push this into schools. They want the brain washing to start really early (more effective). So we are talking about science and faith. One belongs in the classroom and the other one in church.

Thanks NOVA & PBS! Your programing helps intelligent people like me, see the reality of things and learn. I agree 100% with Phillip Torrone, R Schier and others. Darwin was a genius and his theory is now being confirmed and proven by DNA. On the other hand the pushers of intelligent design/creationism have still to prove that "god" exists and then push their so called theory. Theory ? , I would say agenda. Most of us know that faith and religion are a multibillion dollar business and those boxes of books that appeared at Dover School, were not donated by their publisher, they were sold ! So you can see that there is a lot of people that can benefit economically from religions. Further more, I could even say that religion is as profitable or more profitable than science. No wonder they want to push this into schools. They want the brain washing to start really early (more effective). So we are talking about science and faith. One belongs in the classroom and the other one in church.

So you can see that there is a lot of people that can benefit economically from religions. Further more, I could even say that religion is as profitable or more profitable than science. No wonder they want to push this into schools. They want the brain washing to start really early (more effective). So we are talking about science and faith. One belongs in the classroom and the other one in church.

Scientists, who otherwise use good evidence to support Natural Selection, too easily slip out of character and use Natural Selection as proof of evolution as the origin of man. This is fallacious and not different from those who would deceive others to promote their belief in God. Material proofs of ID/creation and evolution will both break down. So, these two approaches will remain divergent mind sets. Whether you call a religious or evolutionist mind set “science” — for these purposes, neither is science.

Where do colors come from? How high is up? How small is small? Can we go infinitely smaller? Infinitely larger? What are the boundaries of the universe? Is there something on the otherside(s)? Is awareness only three dimensional? Which came first the chicken or the egg? The DNA or the protein? When did the first ape realize cognition? I think, therefore I am... not an ape. Poor ignorant evolutionists are products of indoctrination by a government school system that continues to devolve into a secular cesspool. It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad to see these pathetically myopic self-important scientists pontificate on their mastery of an illusion. True evolution is putting off the corruptible, and putting on the incorruptible, evolving out of this three-dimensional morass into something much more sublime. Jesus is pointing the way, wake up monkey boy!

Still no proof of evolution! Still not a single example of a transitional species from one species to another!

Again we are faced with someone who wants to push their religious view on everybody in their geographial area. I personally enjoy my own private relationship with the all mighty, was raised to know right from wrong, and do my best to treat people this way. I have been alot of places in my life and have seen how religious fanatics and their followers work. I say this to them all" We all share the same god" Your way of doing it is the only difference! I explained this to the people I worked with from every country on this planet, and I have found that when I give them their space to have there religious beliefs, they have found it in themselfs to do the same for me once we come to the fact that we are the same, and sharing the same god. The fact it seems to me is that most religious people do not want to believe we evolved from ape's because that would make us all the same, and then this crap about one race, or religion being better than any other falls apart. Geograpic location is partly to blame, but the main issue is just inntolerance in the belief that one religious view is better than another, why can't we all just enjoy what feels right in our heart to each of us, and let your neighbor do the same. Until the human race learns this simple fact, we will continue killing each other in the name of a "God" we all share. I am glad after all this to say that it was a good thing that this science class will still only teach proven facts and theories instead of creation beliefs no matter how you lable them.

I don't see that intelligent design is by mandate a religious viewpoint, although it could be one.
Could the designer/creator(s) being alluded to be something other than a deity that we have no proof of, yet may exist, such as spirits of some nature or even an advanced alien civilization.
I also wonder how one can explain the big-bang theory. All of our limitless space...where did it come from...was it always there? The energy and matter that produced this gigantic explosion that formed all of the millions of solar systems...where did it come from? All this order came by random chance? Energy can become matter and matter can become energy, but neither can be destroyed.
Food for thought, or do we have all the answers neatly boxed in?

PBS is to be commended for showing that "Intelligent Design" is a bogus theory of proponents of creationism. These faith-based individuals reveal themselves to be impervious to deductive reason and ignorant of the development of the theory of natural selection.
One often neglected historical fact by even enthusiasts of the theory of natural selection is its simultaneous elucidation by Darwin's contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace, another naturalist, had collected and studied species in the Amazon basin and in the Malay Archipelago. He wrote a paper on the subject of natural selection and sent it to Darwin in 1858. Darwin graciously suggested that they both present their findings at a meeting of London's Linnaeus Society in June of 1858. Darwin's seminal work "On the Origin of Species" was published the following year.
It is ironic to note that Charles Darwin graduated from the University of Cambridge with a degree in theology.
Darwin was also born on the same day as Abraham Lincoln- February 12, 1809.

Hi, Just wanted to say you used the wrong form of the word "principle" in the opening paragraph. It is not principal as in a guy who runs a school.

Also, evolution is removed and separate from any religious beliefs. You can be an atheist or a devout reborn pentacostalist and still accept the theory of evolution. If you don't, you are profoundly ignorant of your own ignorance.

So your mama was a chimp, and your great great granddaddy was a lizard, do you still drag your knuckles monkey boy? Evolutionists, are so stupefyingly gullible, nearly total spiritually ignorant, easily blinded by the deceiver. Do you look forward to an eternal dirt nap, or does burning in hell forever sound better? Wake up monkey boy! There is only one way out of the mess we're in on this small planet - Jesus said, "I am the way". Believe it, don't wait! >> [/*\]

Johannes Brahms, musical composer of undisputed genius, said the following on the definition of "genius":

"Here again, we have to look to Holy Writ for the answer, and we find it in John 14:10, which has already been quoted this evening. 'The Father that dwelleth within me, he doeth the works.' The real genius draws on the Infinite Source of Wisdom and Power as Milton and Beethoven did. That is in my opinion, the best definition of genius. Jesus was the world's supreme spiritual genius, and He was conscious of appropriating the only true source of power as no one else ever was, although Beetoven and Milton realized too they were tapping that same source in a lesser degree. It is all a question of degree."

(Abell, Arthur M., Talks with Great Composers, Citadel Press, ISBN 0-8065-1565-1, page 66.)

I doubt Darwin, as a genius in this same sense, even if he may have grown angry at God at some points, would want us to use his legacy as a tool with which to ridicule or deny God.

From what I have read, it is so obvious that every one started his argument on the basis of his FAITH. And I believe that's how our humans think about things. If my dearest mama taught me of God when I was a baby, then the truth must be it and I should try my best find evidence to defend it through my life, right? How many of the God-believers start from the very beginning of thinking by assuming nothing - no God for example. My point is, if you think about the outside world for a moment without getting God involved, you are ready to do SCIENTIFIC works. If God is in your mind, you are not talking about SCIENCE! Please reserve it at home or in church. Dover case is nothing more than saying that AT SCIENCE class, the school should teach SCIENCE. If you want your kids to believe Creationism , that's fine, teach them at home or church. That's all. Why? Because Science from its birth is separated from any religious belief. When a scientist (i.e. Einstein) talked about God and science relation, he was talking about Philosophy not Science. Don't be confused!


You are the reason why I don't believe in Jesus, because I don't want to be in the same group with your kind - behaving exactly opposite of your God!

By the way, please don't show your ignorance of science at extreme, who said Evolution predicted your grandparents are monkeys? If you lack scientific training and knowledge, just go to school to learn. Do you know that it is the SCIENCE that makes you different from a monkey?

What truly bothers me is that the tactics used by the Taliban so despised by "civilized" society were the same used by "Christian" fundamentalists to try and intimidate those pressing forward with the law suite. Death threats, derogitory gossip, and believing in that that can be proven as myth, are not christian in intent. We are headed for the "Dark Ages", better make sure your caldron is in working order.

Ceationism vs Evolution poses no conflicts except to the narrow mindeded on both sides (2)

...And so like I've been saying,the tool of religion (Christian and otherwise) is for addressing WHY while that of Science is for addressing HOW. Don't try to drive nails with a screwdriver or turn screws with a hammer. We don't have a unified field theory to join the two yet. Use the right tool for the right purpose and you will have none of these energy wasting conflicts.

If we assume an intelligent designer then it is through science we learn about the artist by observing his handiwork. If you observe something that runs contrary to what you believe then likely it is your interpretation of the belief that needs to be re-addressed, not the fact of observance. That part I'm on the side of science with. What you believe should not be so rigidly structured that it causes you to disregard what you observe. That is the problem Copernicus and Galileo had to deal with.

As we lean more it may be that a convergece of religous beliefs and science will naturally come about, perhps as the leading edge phyics of cosmology matures (love those Nova features by the way)in the guise of Philosophy, the nebulous tie (if any) between religion and science. Until then just put your energies towards productive purposes and give eveything time to work out.

(See, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this.)

I found Nova's Judgment Day to be as riveting as it was frightening. At a time when our political leadership is ranting and raving about the consequences of religious belief as the basis of governance in the Islamic world, to then provide tacit support for the teaching of Creationism in our own public schools, demonstrates the triumph of hypocrisy over reason . To me, the real hero in this story is Judge Jones - an example of courage and decency that many of his fellow Republicans could do well to emulate - rather than attack. That he and his family now require protection is an outrage in a country that continues to lecture the rest of the world on democracy and so called civilized behavior.
Bravo Nova!

I find it extremely interesting that the "creationists" and "creative design" proponents do not know how to counter evolution. The "evolutionists" always get the other two kicked out by going to court and yelling "religion"! Yet, the fact is, the provable fact, is that science, evolution and all its parts are part and parcel of a religion also. And, from their own writings, as was done on the pbs special, one can easily prove beyond any doubt, much less "reasonable", that it is a religion pure and simple. Thus, evolution must be thrown out of our educational system and science system, just as the other two are. Otherwise, the courts are forcing a religion upon the American people. There is no question of this, just denial. But, it is easily proven by their own words. Now, prove me wrong. You can't.

My dear Bryan, maybe I would be flattered if I were the sole (soul) cause of your disbelief in Jesus, however, I am not. You might as well say you don't believe in Napoleon, or Aristotle or Casear (pick one) or any other well documented person from antiquity. I guess that's not what you're saying, maybe you're saying you simply don't believe in what He taught, or what was written about Him in the Bible. That is simply because you refuse to seek the truth with an open mind. By the way, I do have scientific training and knowledge (two degrees to show for it). Might I suggest you take some statistics and probability courses, before you build your theory on a foundation of mirage and quiksand. It is a complete utter farce. Wake up descendant of an ape-like ancestor! (I prefer monkey boy.) Pleasant dreams Bonzo! ;)

One wonders if the Discovery Institute will turn to rewriting The History Channel?


Look there is one way and one way only to look at this whole issue!! God is supposedly perfect in every way, shape, and form. Therefore God cannot create anything imperfect! God obviously made a big mistake but wait ------thats not possible! Therefore there is no God! You religious nuts need to get a clue!!

"Poor ignorant evolutionists are products of indoctrination by a government school system that continues to devolve into a secular cesspool. It would be hilarious, if it wasn’t so sad to see these pathetically myopic self-important scientists pontificate on their mastery of an illusion"


This statement is quite hypocritical. I believe the writer suggests that we should opt to devolve into a theocratic cesspool instead. Ever think that the chicken and egg came at the same time? Please, if you're going to brag about 2 science degrees, lets see them put to a bit of use. Your assume the bible is "truth" in your response to Bryan, and you throw "statistics" and "probability" around within the same breath. Curious application of science indeed......

Creationists listen carefully---- Your God is perfect and can only predictably create perfect things!! Well considering the fact that nothing is perfect-- therefore your God does not exist!! Listen Walt, Porter and Jack Shit you 3 def have no clue--- read other books besides your Bible!!!!

Regarding the Atheists' connection to and reliance on Evolutionary Theory:

Any of the universes' primary atomic activity other than PURE/True "random" activity is a fallacious platform to begin with. Atomic activity is no more random than a space shuttle. Moreover; mere random-"ness" must imply -currently unrecognizable, and/or yet imperceivable potential tendency toward organization-
However convoluted, this would be a more pure, objective scientific statement regarding "random-ness," relative to pure random play. But this kind of objectivity is a big time argument killer. It is a state of objectivity-politically unattractive.

The theory of evolution due to its reliance on random-ness is a lame prop at best for a true existentialist Atheists' belief structure. Moreover,if the universe only functions primarily as true pure chaos and pure random, and all that would appear as sustainable illusionary design comes from accident and sequentially non beneficial calamitous activity which only organizes itself in sustainable reality out of anomalous mathematical improbabilities, then all of the notions about life and meaning and truth and what we say, and care about; What we adhere to, cling to and attempt to conceptually convey as ideas...... one ear to another.... have no worth, value or meaning scientifically.

Nothing written is of real worth. According to this theory/philosophy, there is no good, bad, or moral truth. Deception and perceived truth, peace, violence, sickness, health,life or death have no value scale above or below relative to each other and cannot be prioritized, according to the dictates of -random generation evolutionary science-

This imploding philosophy leaning on evolution as "material origin" in and of itself, with suggestions of meaninglessness, as a result, logically must not dis-include the Atheist, replete with obedience to this habituated belief structure. Nor must we ignore the meaninglessness of any focused expenditure at promoting social liberation or improvement of society including the notion that preventing the forced spread of Christianity has any value whatsoever.

The moment an idea becomes a priority, it attains a relative value in the cosmos makes itself available for perception through the senses of the observer.

But in this nihilistic scenario, neither believer or non believer or anti-belief- believer has a case worth conveying. "Worth" -value -liberation and freedom etc. are scientifically non testable notions and therefore silly and unreal ignorant illusions.

If one thinks a Christian nation is dangerous; Just wait until a decidedly Nihilistic one appears. (not that there's anything wrong with that...)

Nothing written is of real worth. According to this theory/philosophy, there is no good, bad, or moral truth. Deception and perceived truth, peace, violence, sickness, health,life or death have no value scale above or below relative to each other and cannot be prioritized, according to the dictates of random generation evolutionary science

By Lanny

Please stick to your philosophy...this vaccuous post only reinforces the notion that theology is just a bunch of holes; this post says nothing. Get over it, the dinosaurs existed, and at best, religion is a harmless collection of fairy tales; at worst, it threatens the world as we know it.

The smallest particles, quarks etc., have always existed as have the laws that govern their behavior.

Do not confuse this story with people having honest questions regarding the origin of the cosmos (which we all have)
Which also allows for deluded people to read their own bigotries into these stories & then pronounce them as the word of god.


Hey Folks! Evolution and Intelligent Design aren't mutually Exclusive and BOTH are theories. Theories are only good untill they can verifiably be disproved. If proved, we usually call them Laws. Lets think and reason instead of trying to hold back information and discussion on either topics. "THE TRUTH IS IN THE WHOLE"--Ayn Rand

Just Google calling.

Post a comment

Ground rules for posting comments:

  1. No profanity or personal attacks.
  2. Please comment on the subject of the blog post itself.
  3. If you do not follow these rules, we will remove your post. Keep it civil, folks!