In Memoriam 1942 – 2013 “Roger Ebert loved movies.”

RogerEbert.com

Thumb_feher_isten_ver2

White God

Imagine an "R" rated "Lassie" by way of "Spartacus." That's Kornél Mundruczó's "White God," a brutal but stirring fantasy about street dogs rising up against…

Thumb_1xhk6o9re7godwsywy9dokwtkjx

Get Hard

In this exuberant but ultimately simpleminded comedy, a car wash owner (Kevin Hart) helps a wimpy hedge fund manager (Will Ferrell) get ready for prison…

Other Reviews
Review Archives
Thumb_xbepftvyieurxopaxyzgtgtkwgw

Ballad of Narayama

"The Ballad of Narayama" is a Japanese film of great beauty and elegant artifice, telling a story of startling cruelty. What a space it opens…

Thumb_jrluxpegcv11ostmz1fqha1bkxq

Monsieur Hire

Patrice Leconte's "Monsieur Hire" is a tragedy about loneliness and erotomania, told about two solitary people who have nothing else in common. It involves a…

Other Reviews
Great Movie Archives
Other Articles
Channel Archives

Intelligent Design: Tried and convicted

jday.jpg


 

 

 

 

 


... of impersonating a scientific theory. The 2005 federal court case was recounted in a 2007 NOVA documentary called "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" that re-aired on PBS this week (and can be viewed online here; full transcript here.) I recommend it as a detoxifying antidote to Ben Stein's risible 2008 "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." Among my problems with that bait-and-switch doc was that it offered no evidence to suggest that ID should be considered a scientific theory any more than, say, creationism or astrology. Of course, there are good reasons for that -- the main one being that it was invented as a hasty response to the 1987 Supreme Court decision that found the teaching of creationism as science in public schools was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US. Constitution.

"Darwin's Black Box" author Dr. Michael Behe, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which promotes ID, testified under oath that his definition of alternative "scientific theory" would include astrology as well as Intelligent Design (but not creationism). It seems the irreducibly supernatural ID was born under a bad sign.

A few other highlights:

Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, explains a few reasons why Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory:

The fundamental problem with Intelligent Design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."

But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument.

In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court found that creationism is religious, and not scientific, in nature. Hardly a controversial notion -- and, indeed, the decision stated:

We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.... Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.

Intelligent Design has flopped because it does not present any theoretical scientific challenge to evolution. As ID movement leader and young earth creationist and Paul Nelson said in the Christian Touchstone Magazine (July/August, 2004):

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" -- but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

OK, let us know when you've got something. The trouble with ID all along, and one of many reasons it's been dismissed as laughable, has been that the new label was so hastily and transparently substituted for "creationism" after the 1987 Supreme Court decision that even its own proponents don't know what it's supposed to mean. One religious textbook publisher made hasty and incomplete search-replace text swaps of one term for another after the case was decided. (See "Of Pandas and People.") The evidence in early drafts included peculiar transitional typographical forms such as "Cdesign proponentsists," which became known as the "missing link" between "creationists" and "design proponents."

In the meantime, Happy 200th Birthday, Charles Darwin -- and thanks for my flu shot!

See Roger Ebert's post today: "Darwin survives as the fittest."

Popular Blog Posts

“The Breakfast Club”, 30 Years Later: A Conversation Across Generations

A film teacher looks back on "The Breakfast Club," partly through the eyes of her students.

The Melodrama Of Woody Allen’s Critical Reputation

The conversation about Woody Allen's personal and professional lives intertwining continues, but to what end?

Now, "Voyager": in praise of the Trekkiest "Trek" of all

As we mourn Abrams’ macho Star Trek obliteration, it’s a good time to revisit that most Star Trek-ian of accomplishme...

No Animals Were Harmed: The Unique Perspective of “White God”

A piece on the use of animals in film in light of "White God".

Reveal Comments
comments powered by Disqus