• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design on PBS

Starrman

Graduate Poster
Starrman
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
1,171
Last night I caught the last half hour of Unlocking the Mystery of Life on PBS. The 30 minutes I saw was completely one-sided in favor of ID, so I was wondering if there was any balance in the first half. Then I went to TV guide on-line so I made sure I had the right title for a post, and from the synopis below it seems like they purposely left out all of the criticisms of ID. Did anyone here see the entire show? If so, were you as dissapointed in PBS as I was?

TV guide online synopsis:

Unlocking the Mystery of Life
60 min.
An examination of the “intelligent design” theory of evolution, which posits that “an intelligent cause” was involved with the creation of life on Earth. The overview includes interviews with experts Paul Nelson, Stephen Meyer, Dean Kenyon, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Jed Macosko and Scott Minnich.

Category: Science & Technology
Release Year: 2003
 
There was a thread about this recently, but I haven't found it yet.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link - I figured it was but couldn't find it.

I will take your advice and write the station.

Thanks.
 
Why did PBS let this foolishness into their program schedule?

Fundraising not going as well as planned? (Hey - a sponsor with cash!!)
Wackazoolian Apologetic agents have infiltrated PBS? (pods in the basement growing copies of PBS managers)
Too much Cabernet at the PBS Xmas party? (I promised to do WHAT??)
Bribes? (Hey buddy, there's a g-note for you if you air this tape)
 
ThirdTwin said:

Clearly there's a not-so-hidden agenda going on here.
Click to expand...


Yes, and you can clearly read it in the Constitution...it's called free speech.
 
Is PBS sponsored by government money?

Could supporting a religious-based "theory" be seen as a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment?
 
...Sadly, I think many here would, but I could be wrong, hopefully I am.
 
What I want to know is what PBS's mission statement is. I've got a hunch that a program on ID probably would go against same. I mean, if their mission statement is "We exist to educate the public," than this program clearly goes against said statement. However, if their mission statement is just "We exist to provide anyone who wants it with a public forum," than I'll agree that this is a simple free-speech issue. That doesn't make it morally right; it just makes it legally right.
 
rwald said:
What I want to know is what PBS's mission statement is. I've got a hunch that a program on ID probably would go against same. I mean, if their mission statement is "We exist to educate the public," than this program clearly goes against said statement. .
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that a scientific theory is not open to critique?
 
csense said:

Yes, and you can clearly read it in the Constitution...it's called free speech.
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone saying anything about this being a free speach/censorship issue. It seems to me this is a thread about what PBS SHOULD be broadcasting, not about what they CAN broadcast. Since the program is junk, they shouldn't air it. That's a pretty simple statement, and the only basis for disagreement is if one thinks the program is not junk (but again, that has nothing to do with free speach). What to do about the fact that they HAVE aired it, and may air it again, might be a little more complex. But since they're largely viewer-supported, they are receptive to viewer feedback, and viewers who don't like this sort of programming should contact PBS to let them know they think it's junk and not worth airing. Then hopefully then they won't air such junk in the future.
 
I'm suggesting that ID is not a scientific theory.

And if you mean, "Is evolution open to critique?", I would suggest that it is, but that the show in question wasn't a "critique" of evolution, but rather completely ignored the arguments supporting evolution. If it was a fairly balanced show which actually tried to explain the evolution vs. ID debate from a logical point of view, I would have much less problem with it.

[edited to remove extraneous word.]
 
csense said:

Are you suggesting that a scientific theory is not open to critique?
Click to expand...

I think he's suggesting that the program is full of junk. The concept of intelligent design and irreducible complexity are interesting philisophical concepts, but they are NOT scientific concepts. There is no definition or test for irreducibe complexity that can be used to distinguish what features are irreducibly complex and which features could evolve on their own. Nothing about any of it is testable in any way, even in principle. It does not therefore qualify as science, EVEN IF it turns out to be correct. To pass it off as science is therefore giving false information, regardless of whether it is correct.

But of course, there's no reason to think that it is correct. It does not help explain the observable world, rather it substitutes one mystery (how do complex systems evolve from simple ones) with another one (who or what is God, and what's he up to?) that fits better with certain people's preconceived notions of reality.
 
I'm suggesting that ID is not a scientific theory.

So what

I'm hesitant to say this, but you seem to be implying, ever so softly, that only scientists, preferably atheist, can critique a theory.
 
If the theory claims to be a scientific theory, than yes, I would say that only people who comprehend science should critique the theory.

If the ID people want to admit that their theory isn't scientific, than it's fine to have non-scientists discussing it. But until they admit this, than I see no problem with requiring an understanding of science to discuss science.
 
Ziggurat said:


"I think he's suggesting that the program is full of junk..."
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of that, and basically you feel the same way, which you are entitled to.
Don't you think the viewers also are entitled to their own opinion...by watching it.
 
The thing is, we here on the board generally have a greater understanding of science, so we can watch it objectively and say, "It's full of junk."

We fear for those who don't understand science, and who wouldn't recognize the junk for what it is.
 
If the theory claims to be a scientific theory, than yes, I would say that only people who comprehend science should critique the theory.


And who decides who those people are


If the ID people want to admit that their theory isn't scientific, than it's fine to have non-scientists discussing it. But until they admit this, than I see no problem with requiring an understanding of science to discuss science.

If you find fault with their methodology, which is what science is, a method, then you're free to critique them...but first, we have to find out if you're qualified.


[edited for grammar]
 
csense said:

Yes, I'm aware of that, and basically you feel the same way, which you are entitled to.
Don't you think the viewers also are entitled to their own opinion...by watching it.
Click to expand...

But it's not a question of entitlement either. There is way more information out there in the world than PBS can ever air, even discounting the stupid, worthless, or incorrect stuff. PBS producers and managers therefore MUST serve as sort of editors, deciding which stuff is worth spending broadcast time and resources on, and which stuff is NOT worth spending time on. If they broadcast this piece of junk, that means that they DIDN'T broadcast something in its place that could have been worthwhile. So people being entitled to watch the show isn't an issue. They can form whatever opinion they want of it, I'm not claiming otherwise. But given that the show is junk, the PBS should have aired something else in its place, something that had some real worth.
 
Well, they have to put such things to air, even if they are wrong, just on the principle that if they withhold this, they can withold other stories in the future that you agree with but those in power disagree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom