Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
In September 2005 I attended the beginning of the now famous Dover, Pennsylvania, evolution vs. intelligent design trial. I was present for opening arguments by both sides. And I also was in the courtroom for the testimony of expert witness Ken Miller, a well-known evolutionary biologist and author from Brown University. Throw out your TV-drama influenced notions of the assured-lawyer-with-nervous-witness interaction. Miller easily parried every attack by the lawyer for the intelligent design side.
On November 13, the PBS TV program NOVA debuted a two-hour episode devoted to the Dover trial. It included re-enactments of some of the most compelling sections of the actual courtroom testimony, including some of Ken Miller’s. And the segment in which witnesses clearly show the evolution of the intelligent design textbook from its creationist origins is ironically delicious. The NOVA show is repeated numerous times this week. It’ll also be available in its entirety at pbs.org/nova/id starting November 16th.
—Steve Mirsky
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentI can't see the meaning clearly,but I will keep trying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe guy who wore the modified mouse trap as a neck tie clip was trying to show that if you take away certain parts of something it can still function as something else, therefore proving evolution... what about the MILLIONS of examples of things that if you take away just one part it doesn't serve ANY function at all? Ooooh, you atheistic evolutionary morons just keep that out huh? Oh, and by the way, both the original and modified mouse traps were DESIGNED, not evolved. WHOOPS, forgot about that part huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere are all the GRADUAL transitional species today? I mean, there's MILLIONS of species of fish and other sea life and I don't see them walking out onto the beaches, do you?
What good is a semi-formed non-functioning part? That would fit into the gradual transitional model right? I mean, you evolutionists are saying that enough random mutations occur at the same time to create a fully functioning part that is beneficial? Wow, what kind of math class did you guys attend to give such odds?
i think that the ¨ID¨its pseudoscience because it doesnt prove anything its based on the mere guest taht an intellegent desing its created by a superior being based only on conjectures not on actual facts.,i think its undercover religion and you know that the constitution separates state and religion and you know that schools are property of the state.also if it we were created by intellegent designer(god) .,dont you think he should made a better job?im talking obout the suffering in the world, all the tragedies,what kind of god creates you and then it puts everything against you?its against all logic,if god is omnipotent therefore if god wants, god does, but why god does not do?because he cannot do? or he doesnt want to?because if he cant theres no god because he has to be omnipotent and if he doesnt want to what kind of god is he?having in him the power to erradicate all the sin, suffering,tragedies and made us perfect in tha way that we didnt have any knwoledge of sin or hate why didnt he do it ?are we its little playtoy?,if he exist he had the power to do it why he didnt do it ?why wait for the rapture if he could did it in the begining?its he having fun with us if he exist?so if any religion can show me the existe of god in irrefutable way?not in conjecture,not in faith because you know what they say about faith (that faith can move mountains)but also create were they are no mountains! but in a logic way i like to hear it.P.D. just remember galileo when he discover that earth wasnt th center of the universe,what did the church did?just because the bible said that earth was te center of the universe,the church almost killed him,saing tha he was a heretic,and who was right teh word of him or the bible?thats why religion and science will never be together in hand,because religion its a dogma and science open to all posibilities!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligionists who base their beliefs in 'creationism" or "intelligent design" and reject evolution don't seem to understand the Bible they claim is the inerrant word of God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould they learn to read, they might see that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve in Eden) is an ancient story of mankind's evolution.
To understand see the excellent article "What the Bible Tells Me at:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=4537
Dr. Miller was not trying to "prove" anything. Anyone who tries to say that science "proves" anything clearly does not have a grasp of what science actually is. Science uses hypotheses and natural or experimental information to either support or refute those hypotheses. This in turn can give us a better understanding of how and why our world functions the way it does. All Dr. Miller was showing through his mousetrap tieclip was that something that APPEARS to be irreducibly complex (and therefore completely functionless unless it is whole) can in fact be useful when parts are missing. That is all he showed, nothing more and nothing less. Take from it what you will, but the logical conclusion shows just how ridiculous the claims made by ID proponents such as Mr. Behe (yes, he may have his Ph.D., but that does not make him a doctor in my book) are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd THAT is what Dr. Miller did prove.
Natural selection, deserving better critiques than "irreducible complexity," might benefit from the challenge of the "evolved self."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe case was over before it began, as the case was labeled 'creationism'. Creationism was already thrown out by the Supreme Court. The sad point is that the scientists never addressed the fact that THERE ARE GAPS. Gaps that Darwinism can't explain. Gaps documented by many scholarly scientific journals. Why can't science classes discuss the problems with a theory. That's the foundation of the scientific method. The funny thing is that you talk about the Scopes trial, yet you don't present even that honestly. The evolutionists in Scopes were arguing for competing views to be presented.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile Darwin discovered a great variety in the Finches of the Galapogos Islands, they remained finches (and still do). When has Darwinism every proven the development of a new genus?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with Miller's theory that parts from one 'machine' might be borrowed (by chance) to some other function is absurd. I agree that it can happen, but where is the reproductive machinery to propogate the new function to survive? It isn't there. The next instance of the part being used that way will again be by quite low probability random events. The 'design' encoded in the DNA, and the machinery in the cell define what the next copy will look like, not how parts are being mis-used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComments are useless if you truncate the conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreation or evolution, either probably wrong. Time flys and the Leaning tower of Pisa proved Aristotle was wrong and will be Darwin proved wrong, however, as far as i know, God never right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this