PBS: Judgment Day

Workout notes Light yoga; nothing else.

Science/Religion/Creationism Last night I watched the PBS Nova presentation: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trail. A brief summary of what brought on the trial:

A school board being sued in a US court for questioning the theory of evolution has begun presenting its case.

Pennsylvania’s Dover Area school board requires science teachers to say that evolution is unproven, and to raise “intelligent design” as an alternative.

A biology professor and leading advocate of intelligent design told the court that evolution alone could not explain complex biological processes.

Michael Behe said he believed God was behind them.

Some parents are suing the school board, saying that intelligent design is a religious belief and should not be taught, because it violates the United States constitutional separation of church and state.

Darwin’s ‘gaps’

The Dover school board instructs its teachers to read a statement to 14-to-15-year-old students before classes on evolution, saying that Charles Darwin’s theory is “not a fact”, and that there are “gaps in the theory”.

Students are then referred to an intelligent design textbook for more information.

Intelligent design is being promoted in schools across more than 20 states in the US.

It holds that the development of life cannot be explained solely by evolution, and that the guiding hand of an intelligent force must have been at work.

Although it does not name God specifically, the theory has been adopted by some Christian groups, who promote it ahead of creationism, the literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.

‘Not a theory’

Prof Behe was the first witness called by the school board, after the dissenting parents presented their case.

He said evolution should still be taught, as “any well-educated student should understand it”, but said it could not fully explain the biological complexities of life. [...]

The BBC’s take (two videos)

My understanding this that the show will be made available on the PBS website this Friday.

One thing to remember: the legal issue here was: “does teaching ID/creationism amount to teaching religion?” After all, it is perfectly legal to teach bad science (say, teaching “the aether” or say, a completely deterministic mechanics) even if one has a religious *motivation* for doing so. The example used in the Supreme Court of the United States was that of a parent wanting the school to teach that the Roman Empire did indeed extend to Palestine (which it did) because they didn’t want their kids to doubt the New Testament’s teachings about Jesus. It IS legal to teach that type of history, and wanting to teach real history for religious reasons is ok. What is illegal is to teach religion (that is, this religion is “true”; one can, of course, teach a comparative religion class, or the Bible as literature).

My take on the show: the fact (beyond dispute) is that the major science departments in universities do NOT teach creationism/ID nor do they research it; the standard peer reviewed science journals don’t have ID articles in them either. Even if ID/creationism were somehow metaphysically true, it is not a part of standard science and does not deserve to be treated that way.

Does it bother me that many see their religious myths/superstitions as having precedence over the findings of science? It shouldn’t, but yes, it does. I grew up among such people, and frankly I want it to be a bad dream. I’d rather not associate with anyone who thinks that way. I just found myself filling with contempt when the ID advocates were interviewed.

Frankly, justice would be served by having such people live in a world of medieval science and medicine; the kind of science and medicine that prevailed when the church controlled things. Ok, no, it wouldn’t; people do indeed escape from such attitudes. I did.

The fact is that the Bible, especially the Jewish Bible (aka “Old Testament”) was around for a heck of a long time, but stuff didn’t really improve for humans (in terms of longevity, disease control, childhood mortality) until people started to look for natural causes for things. Try getting a fundie to see that though. It is a completely useless exercise, or at least it seems that way.

What lifts my spirits though is that the Dover School board that tried to impose ID was voted out!

Still, with that being said, notice how the label “Atheist” was being tossed around as if it were a slur. I find it to be a badge of honor! Of course, I am an academic, and being an agnostic/atheist is rather standard in my intellectual community. But I realize that it might be more difficult for others.

So, for you, I present (hat tip to Sandwalk)