Paramount Takes on Intelligent Design

Martha,

Do you know what "slant" the film might relay regarding intelligent design? It is a controversial issue so it will be hard to avoid preferential treatment one way or the other.

Reply

Martha says that this is a controversial issue. It's not. The only controversy is with fundamentalist theists since science is butting its head up against their world view.

The trial was also not controvesial. Those who followed it saw how the ID crowd blew their case by lying about their intent.

Reply

The "slant"? Are you kidding? What do you ID'ers fail to get about hard, scientific evidence? If someone made a film about Copernicus and his "heretical" theory that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, what "slant" do you think such a film would take? An accurate reporting of that story would show the clergy for what they were: muddle-headed, zealots, who peddled their ridiculous blind faith over scientific fact (and no, "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means, at least not in the scientific sense). Indeed, an accurate reporting of the Dover case can only show ID'ers for what they are: inept, bungling, slow-coaches. Mere road bumps on highway to scientific progress.

Reply

"Slant" Are you kidding? How about we slant it towards reality - intelligent design creationism lost in court because it aint science, it's creationism. What other "slant" could they possibly portray?

Oh and many of the Christian pro intelligent design creationism bible thumping Dover board members are/were dishonest snakes and perjured themselves over and over while on the stand.

And how about the Discovery Institute publishing literature on how to teach intelligent design in public science classes bailed out of helping the Dover board?

How the Discovery Institute and the Thomas Moore Law Center told (hyped?) Dover that intelligent design was science and they would prove it in a court of law and not charge them legal fees to do so. But they lost and now their stuck with paying 1 million in legal fees to the plaintiffs legal team and the Thomas Moore Law Center and the Discovery Institute are nowherre to be found! They did not offer to help pay the legal fees that they helped rack up for the Dover school board. Too funny!

I can't wait to hear the Discovery Institute start whining like babies about this movie!

Reply

Ummm, no one was forced to teach Intelligent Design in Dover, PA.

However if anyone watched two pro-ID videos- "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", you would see that ID us based on scientific data.

For anyone who is interested in learning that ID is not Creation(ism) and why it is scientific, please visit:

Intelligent Reasoning

Reply

Michael and Mr. Bill: Thank you for your responses. Your predictability is enlightening.

Reply

Funny, Doug never said he was for or against Intelligent Design, just wondered from whose perspective the story would be told. It's a valid question from both sides. I doubt the pro-ID people saw themselves as purposely distorting the truth any more than the anti-ID people saw themselves doing that. If it really was that big of an argument - and in Dover, PA, I could see it might be, then both sides of the battle are probably wondering which way the screenwriter's going to lean - it's a movie, you have to have a protagonist and antagonist or it gets really boring. I think Doug just wondered which one was which in the screenwriter/producer's minds.

Nothing like taking a innocent question and turning it into a religion/politics debate, huh?

Reply

Paul said "I doubt the pro-ID people saw themselves as purposely distorting the truth any more than the anti-ID people saw themselves doing that"

Oh?

So when they lied about who paid for the textbooks "Pandas & People" they weren't distorting the truth?

So when in a public meeting they made statements about their religous purposes in teaching ID and later, while under oath, denied having made those same statements they weren't distorting the truth?

There were other examples - but dont listen to me - read Judge Jones decision, and the excellent coverage of the case from the York Daily review.

Reply

In your comment on Paramount's spec-ing up a screenplay on the Dover ID case, you say" "- does that show clever foresight or a disturbing tendency to turn every major news story into tomorrow's blockbuster?"

Supposing that such a tendency does indeed exist, what exactly is it that you find "disturbing" about it?

Reply

Paul,
You're right. Thanks for speaking up. I was just curious about the writer/director/producer's direction in this artwork. Recent polls indicate that 70% of Americans agree with the idea of teaching both sides of the controversy. But polls asside, the film industry has it's own ideas about what to produce. My question wasn't a scientific of philosophical or religious one. It was just wondering... what to tell my aspiring 17 year old director to expect at the 2007/2008 film festivals. :)

Reply

Oops the website (blog) where you can find out that ID is NOT Creation, NOT religious and IS based on scientific data is:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com

One thing people should be aware of is that geocentrism was espoused by the scientists of the time. It was "founded" in thought by Aristotle and promoted by Ptolemy. The church adopted it AFTER the Aristoleans convinced it that the Bible confirmed their science.
As for the Dover trial- it is obvious the judge held ID responsible for the lies spewed by some members of that school board. However I wonder what his reasoning was for allowing the lies spewed by the plaintiffs' "experts"...

Reply

ID is NOT Religion, and is NOT creationism? What part of 'Intelligent' and 'Design' did you not understand? Are you suggesting that ‘Design’ is not equal to ‘Create’? Are you suggesting that ‘Intelligent’ really means ‘Extraterrestrial’ or something equally silly?

ID is NOT science because it offers NO falsifiable theories. None. Not a one. It is no more science than is the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can put a preacher in a lab coat, and make him spout scientific psychobabble, but that doesn’t make ID a science.

Every single Creationist claim that ID is some sort of science and that evolutionary theory is flawed has been shot down, ripped up and burned. But ID’ers will dishonestly run away and bring up that very same discredited ‘evidence’ all over again to a new audience.

It’s like fighting an insane illusionist. He pulls a rabbit out of his hat in front of a wowed audience, and a few in the audience stand up and point out how he did it. The illusionist then runs away to entertain a different audience. When he runs out of people who don’t know how his trick works, he invents a new trick.

Educate yourself. Every claim you make has already been debunked. (Check out http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html) Put down the Bible and pick up a really ‘Good Book’ – preferably a college level Biology textbook from a University without a religious agenda.

Reply

Joe - The school was required to read a statement in biology classes that ID is alternative theory to evolution and students were referred to the ID book 'Of Pandas and People' in the library. ID is clearly creationism...read the Dover transcripts & ruling.

Reply

Oh, good- a film on the Dover trial. I sincerely hope it portrays the real and entire story, including the machinations of the religious Creationists who purposefully concealed and misrepresented their true beliefs- including the unlawful activities these arbiters of integrity in public education undertook to do so.

Their reprehensible attempt to impose their religious beliefs on an entire population should be publicly displayed as the theocratic, oppressive attempt at manipulation that it was. If the film does actually offer a factual portrayal of the events in Dover, I'll support it heartily- the more people around the country know about the tactics, actions, and motives of the so-called "ID" crowd, the more the "ID" proponents' assertion that "ID" is science and not religion will be shown to be a lie.

The public would definitely benefit from an illustration of this group's actions, and how those actions revealed its true motives. If we do not learn to recognize those motives for what they are, we'll be several steps closer to a theocratic society like Iran's. I seriously doubt that the parents in Dover, PA- or anywhere else in the US, for that matter- really want that for their children.

Reply

Calladus: what does your blathering drivel have to do with this film?

Since I'm being forced to defend my original question about film making, (which nobody on this blog have had the chance to answer) I will also defend ID theory as not only scientific, but well supported by peer reviewed publications and backed by many of the brightest minds we have in science today. It is not a religious concept, is not flawed, has not been shot down, ripped up, or burned. ID theory is alive, well, and has Darwinian evolutionists running scared - which is the real reason people like Calladus react the way they do. All he's done is shown his own ignorance regarding ID theory in particular and macro-evolutionary theory in general - which itself is so fatally flawed that Henry Gee, Chief Science Editor for the journal Nature says it (Darwinian macro evolution) “[relies] for [its] justification on authority rather than on testable hypotheses.” - "In Search of Deep Time”, p. 127.

It is Darwinian evolution driven by mutation and natural selection that is a dead, unproven, untestable hypothesis. Too bad militant religious athiests like Calladus have taken it upon themselves to defend their athiestic dogma and must stoop to the depths of dishonesty to desparately defend their childish position.

Reply

Doug-

The reason you may not have been able to understand what Calladus is talking about is that he assumed- erroneously, it turns out- that you were familiar with the basic concepts relevant to the dialogue.

Firstly, you appear to be ignorant of what in fact constitutes science- its definition, if you will- and what does not. To remedy this lack, might I suggest that you read David Goodstein's "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: How Science Works". This document does not once refer to biology, since its author is a Professor of Physics and Vice Provost at Caltech; nonetheless, he does have some experience with the practice of science. The document is located here:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/HowScien.pdf

I refer you particularly to page 7 and the first paragraph of page 8, in which Goodstein explains how scientific theories are tested in actual practice, rather than in ideal circumstances.

In order to understand pages 7 and 8, however, you will need to understand the definition of the word "falsifiable". Here, happily, I can be of more direct assistance in providing the information; the entry on "falsifiable" on the Princeton University online dictionary, WordNet 2.1- again, not associated with evolutionary theory, biology, or "ID", but still admitted to have some lexical authority- reads:
Adjective
S: (adj) confirmable, verifiable, falsifiable (capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation)

Lastly, since you now have the background to understand the document, below is a link to an explanation of the scientific method. Again, lest I be accused of referring you to someone who has an "anti-ID" agenda in mind when formulating their explanation, the link is to a source which has so far been entirely neutral on the subject of evolution, and which is universally acknowledged to have a fair amount of science knowledge: NASA.

http://whyfiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/educators/tools/pbl/scientific_method.html

Now that you have the proper context for the words you are using and the concepts you were mishandling, you can reformulate your statement so that it makes sense in the context of the general use of the English language.

If you wish to propound or defend a theory, please demonstrate a mastery of- or at least the capacity for the correct use of- the language and vocabulary in which you plan to explicate it.

Reply

Oh, and Paul- thank you for answering Doug's original question in such a tactful and balanced way.

Reply

"I will also defend ID theory as not only scientific"
No, not according to conventional definitions. This was a point made by Dr. Behe at Dover.

"but well supported by peer reviewed publications"
No, there is only one article supporting ID that has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That article was subsequently disavowed by the journal in which it was published. That was discussed during the court case in Dover.

"and backed by many of the brightest minds we have in science today."
No, not according to any scientific organization on this planet, as attested to by numerous amicus curiae briefs in the Dover case.

"It is not a religious concept"
Yes, it is, according to pretty much every ID proponent, including Phil Johnson, Bill Dembski, and Michael Behe, who essentially admitted the religious nature of ID in court at Dover.

"is not flawed, has not been shot down, ripped up, or burned."
Have you read Judge Jones' ruling in the Dover case?

"ID theory is alive [and] well"
Which is why the Discovery Institute has retreated to talking about "teaching the controversy" rather than talking about ID theory, ever since Dover.

"and has Darwinian evolutionists running scared"
You know, I know a lot of Darwinian evolutionists, and none of them are at all interested in ID. They find it boring. They're busy doing science instead.

Reply

Okay, I'll make a comment on the film.

I hope the film portrays how the ID supporters broke the 9th commandment by committing perjury on the stand. From Judge Jones’ ruling: “Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs” (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,69883-0.html)

Not suppressing that ID’ers have to lie. As we’ve seen here, they have to be dishonest to support their beliefs.

Reply

suppressing = surprising. So much for my proof reading.

Reply