Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

PBS’s Judgment Day – Don’t believe Darwin’s kludge? You just don’t understand it! Or else …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Or else … You haven’t read The Design of Life.

But first …

A friend draws my attention to “Judgment Day,” an upcoming American Public Broadcasting Service special on the Dover Trial.

In this  press release, we learn that Vulcan Productions – which produced the program for PBS –

has long been committed to the subject of evolution and its teaching,” remarked Vulcan Productions Executive Producer, Richard Hutton. “When we co-produced the Evolution series with the WGBH Science Unit in 2001, we set out to bring the richness of Darwin’s theory to life.”

Well, sure, believers have been recruited to front Darwin.

The part that intrigued me was NOVA Senior Executive Producer Paula S. Apsell’s comment: “Evolution is one of the most essential and least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science.”

What on earth does she mean?

Darwin’s theory (the one she fronts) says that life goes from goo to zoo to you in a zillion easy steps.

Mind? Nada. Purpose? Nada. Direction? Nada.

Your ancestors won the war against lesser apes. Period.

Why is Darwin’s theory supposed to be “least understood”? Is it really less understood than relativity? Than quantum mechanics ? Than Maxwell’s equations ?

I submit that Darwin’s theory is quite well understood. By billions of people. It just isn’t believed.

And that’s for good reasons. Many of the reasons will be set out in a book about to be released – The Design of Life by Bill Dembski and Jonathan Wells.

About that, ID theorist and biochemist Michael Behe has said,

When future intellectual historians list the books that toppled Darwin’s theory, Design of Life will be at the top.

Briefly, for now: The universe does show detectible evidence of meaning, purpose, and design. Lots of it.

But most people who are reading this post are forced to pay taxes to jurisdictions where it would be illegal to discuss that fact in a public school system. And money is given to public broadcasting systems that promote the opposite view.

I guess PBS is hoping that, if it fronts Darwinism energetically enough, the universe will come around to its view.

Also:
Finnish school shooter was convinced social Darwinist

Scientists terrified that people don’t trust them?

Update!: O’Leary responds to those who claim to be “offended” by mention of social Darwinism’s role in Finnish school shootings.

Comments
Nochange, "I think she means that a Christian’s intuition is of lesser power than a Darwinist’s intellect." That's a good translation, and a pretty funny one too. Thanks.getawitness
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Who is (or was) temmenicki2? I came late to the discussion and have no idea what he or she said. Is there a way to keep the history in the threads when somebody's banned or is it a software glitch?getawitness
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Speaking as a "Darwinist" of some sort, I can readily attest to the fact there are people who understand neo-Darwinism and don't accept it. Likewise, there are people who accept it but don't understand it. (In fact, I suspect that most people who accept evolutionary theory fall into this category -- the quality of public school science education in the States is utterly abyssmal.)Carl Sachs
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
“Evolution is one of the most essential and least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science.” What on earth does she mean? I think she means that a Christian's intuition is of lesser power than a Darwinist's intellect. And she couldn't be more wrong.Nochange
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
from goo to zoo to you in a zillion easy steps. - Great!! Billions of years ago there was a big bang and now I like to watch football!psullivan
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
bfast, In Quantum Mechanics you will find information defying the speed of light in something called quantum non-locality. Actually quantum non-locality also provides a vital proof for theologians, for their claim of omniscient, omnipotent Creator having ultimate control of this universe. Special Relativity also provides a proof for theologians in the fact that time, as we have it defined, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light,,, Thus establishing a physical reality for the timeless eternity that Theologians have claimed God existed in all along. As well quantum mechanics makes more sense for us when we realize that blatantly defying time and space (as QM does) is the primary presumption for a Theistic philosophy which claims creation of this material universe from a "Spiritual" Creator who is not limited by time nor space. As far as understanding complex subjects, I would have to say that quantum mechanics and relativity are BY FAR a piece of cake when compared to trying to understand the intricate reasons of why God Almighty would come to this earth to die on a cross!bornagain77
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Or else … You haven’t read The Design of Life Well, you can hardly fault us, it isn't even released yet! I am looking forward to it, though. My copy of Pandas and People is getting badly dogeared.specs
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
“Evolution is one of the ... least understood of all scientific theories" Of the well-known theories, I would say that quantum theory easily takes the cake. I have tried to gather some understanding of quantum mechanics, and have had very little luck. What I do know is that in the quantum world, everything is otherwise. It is surely seconded by Einstein's theory of relativity. I have some vague understanding of this theory, I know that as we go faster, we experience time and distance warps. I know that the theory says that it is impossible to exceed the speed of light, etc. However, I would hardly say I understand it. Of course, beyond the "well known theories" there are all of the miriad "less well-known" theories. As these the vast majority of these theories are not known by any one person, they are surely much less understood than the theory of evolution. I would therefore argue that the exact opposite is true -- that the theory of evolution is one of the best-understood scientific theories. In light of the many theories which are simply unknown by most people, it is certainly in the top 1% of well-understood theories. Of course there is a very low correlation between how well one knows the theory of evolution and one's acceptance of it. This is a a bit of a problem with the premise implied by the above statement.bFast
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Jerry writes,
The main reason why Darwin’s theory is so accepted is not that there is any evidence for it (Jack Krebs illustrated that earlier today on another thread)
I did? I don't remember writing anything resembling that remark. Could you point me to the comment you are referring to, please. ThanksJack Krebs
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
The main reason why Darwin's theory is so accepted is not that there is any evidence for it (Jack Krebs illustrated that earlier today on another thread) but that it 1) is so reasonable and 2) provides a unifying basis for all biology. In other words if it were true everything in biology and life's history would be so coherent and make so much sene. Because biology wants this coherence they believe the fiction that the theory is true. Most assume it is true without knowing why. That is why the statement "Evolution is one of the most essential ...of all scientific theories" was made.jerry
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
so temminicki....how well do you understand ID? you said: "survival of the fittest simply means that those critters that make more babies have a better chance of getting their genes into the next generation." johnson rightly pointed out in darwin on trial that this is merely a tautology. whoever survives ....survives. whoever survives also is able to bring their genes to the next generation. wow....that is brilliant! thanks for the deep insights into evolution. it is truly a complex theory eh?interested
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
temminicki2, I'd watch your step, evolution is debated on this site daily, when Ms. O'Leary makes her comments she does so with a thorough understanding of the intricacies of evolution to the molecular level! My I show you her book? By Design or By Chance? The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe http://www.amazon.com/Design-Growing-Controversy-Origins-Universe/dp/0806651776 or her other book: The Spiritual Brain http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Brain-Neuroscientists-Case-Existence/dp/0060858834/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2763420-3159839?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194474711&sr=1-1bornagain77
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
"If evolution is correct everything alive today has been evolving for the same amount of time." It not about time but the rate of reproduction. So bacteria, fruit flies should be more evolved (ahead of the race) than slow reproducing mammals.Smidlee
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Speaking of survival of the fittest, I wonder how "fit" temmenicki2's comment will be judged? ((I suspect that that least natural of "selecters", a certain davescot, will soon swoop in and notify us that both temmenicki2, and his memetic offspring are no longer with us.)) temmenicki2, it is indeed possible that Denyse does not understand evolution, but I'd like to suggest that you simply don't understand Denyse. You gave yourself away "whatever that means."Tim
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
"Why is Darwin’s theory supposed to be “least understood”?" Nice observation Denyse. You'd be right I would wager that Darwin is better understood than QM or Maxwells work by the general public. It is interesting that disagree with an idea is considered the same as "obviously not understanding it properly". I wonder if the same was said to Einstein or Lavoisier when they questioned the status quo ?Jason Rennie
November 7, 2007
November
11
Nov
7
07
2007
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply