Intelligent Design, on SBS TV tonight

[iceman (Mike)]

SBS TV is featuring a program about "Intelligent Design" tonight, at 8:30pm on "Dateline".

Here's the press release:

On Dateline on SBS Television on Wednesday February 8 at 8.30pm, reporter Olivia Rousset looks at the debate on “intelligent design” currently raging in the United States which has now also spread to Australia.

For more than a decade the religious right in America has been trying to challenge evolution as the explanation of human origins. Various states tried to introduce creationism into science classes until the Supreme Court ruled against it.

The latest strategy is called “intelligent design” which holds that life, right down to the individual cell, is so complex and interrelated that a “designer” must be responsible for existence. Scientists across the world see this new push as nothing more than creationism repackaged as a 'pseudo science', but in Kansas the education board has changed the definition of science to allow supernatural causes to challenge evolution in science classes. It is an extraordinary and controversial decision which is an indication of how far the religious right in America is prepared to push its fundamentalist agenda.

DATELINE joins the science class in Kansas and takes a look at how this increasingly heated debate is developing by speaking with leading proponents on both sides.

Might be worth watching for those interested in discussing it here.

[ThunderChild (Chris)]

Originally Posted by iceman

SBS TV is featuring a program about "Intelligent Design" tonight, at 8:30pm on "Dateline".

Hi Ice,

Thanks for the heads-up - I will probably give it a go if I'm not busy.
[EDIT : DOH! I'll be playing squash!]

But I must admit that I did raise an eyebrow when I saw you had posted this.
The guidelines ask us to avoid topics like politics and religion, and while I don't personally mind discussing such things, you know how heated they can become (hence the inclusion of that rule in the guidelines). I think this falls very clearly into that arena (especially since the quoted blurb made it look like it will bash anyone with that point of view - rightly or wrongly).

Anyway, I know I'm new here, so I defer to your judgement.

Cheers,
Chris

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

If ID is science, then it does not breach the forum guidelines. If it's religion, then it does. Much of the debate around ID is about how to categorise it. I'll have a look at the doco. Dateline is usually very good.

[iceman (Mike)]

Hi Chris.

Your statement is justified, given the forum guidelines. However we've had a (long) thread on intelligent design a few months ago, and I let the thread continue, with a warning to keep it on topic, respect people's opinions and don't get personal. And the same applies here.

So while I prefer to avoid topics about politics and religion, because as you say, they can easily become heated, I'm erring on the side of optimism that the members that choose to discuss it will be mature and level headed and avoid making statements with the intention of creating an argument.

[ThunderChild (Chris)]

Originally Posted by iceman

Your statement is justified, given the forum guidelines. However we've had a (long) thread on intelligent design a few months ago, and I let the thread continue, with a warning to keep it on topic, respect people's opinions and don't get personal. And the same applies here.

Well put Ice - that sounds fine.
I've been around around online forums (and newsgroups before that and BBS's before that ... ) long enough to see the potential for mischief here.
But as you say, from what I've seen, the people here seem pretty sensible about things - so fair enough. Especially if there's a history of being capable of discussing things like this nicely (which I wasn't aware of).

If ID is science, then it does not breach the forum guidelines...

As for whether it's science or religion - true, that's what the very argument is about - so (IMHO) could only escape being categorised as a religious discussion by technicality. To all intents purposes it is a discussion which can not be had without reference to religion (directly or indirectly), so the spirit of the guidelines would hold if we felt they needed to be kept.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Thanks for the reminder Mike.
Looking forward to the discussion afterwards.

[Starkler (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by iceman

So while I prefer to avoid topics about politics and religion, because as you say, they can easily become heated, I'm erring on the side of optimism that the members that choose to discuss it will be mature and level headed and avoid making statements with the intention of creating an argument.

This is interesting in the context of a statement within the SBS summary.

......It is an extraordinary and controversial decision which is an indication of how far the religious right in America is prepared to push its fundamentalist agenda.

That statement alone IMO gives a preview of from what viewpoint SBS will be covering this topic. For the record I am not a religious person, but I am all for balanced and objective reporting.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

If the program is going to be biased, there might be be another program next week favouring the other side. Dateline has done that sort of thing before.

[circumpolar (Matt)]

This topic has two interesting questions.

1. Is ID solely religion (based on faith), science (based on observation, study and experimentation) or a hybrid of the two.

2. Should it be taught in the education system.

Although ID attempts to study and explore the roots of physicality, it is still built on a foundation of religion, which is based on faith. This is the opposite of science. The two systems seem to contadict each other by definition and this is a major concern for people.

Teaching this subject in schools should be treated like scripture. A choice is made wether a child can attend class or not. It should definitely not substitute time allocated for regular class studies!!

[ThunderChild (Chris)]

Originally Posted by Starkler

That statement alone IMO gives a preview of from what viewpoint SBS will be covering this topic. For the record I am not a religious person, but I am all for balanced and objective reporting.

I have to agree with your sentiments Starkler. While I obviously have not seen the program yet, it was that quote in particular which caught my eye too and caused me to question whether it could stir up antagonism in the fourm. It smacked of being "the other side of a turf war".

I think it is incumbent on anyone who accuses someone with a different POV to be "pushing their own agenda" not to be seen doing the same themselves.

Anyway, I hope the documentary is treated completely dispassionately and without being adversarial in nature. Otherwise the writers do themselves an injustice in my mind.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Oops! I didn't realise it's on at the same time as Ab-Fab. Not watching ID doco.

[stinky]

You were better off watching Ab-Fab. Has lots more to do with reality than Intelligent Design. Show me somebody who is not smitten by religion that will take it seriously! No theory backed up by tests and empirical data - of course this is just more religious self justifiactaion.

Keep education and science in the schools and for those that want religion - go to church.

Back to Ab-Fab!

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by stinky

You were better off watching Ab-Fab. Has lots more to do with reality than Intelligent Design. Show me somebody who is not smitten by religion that will take it seriously! No theory backed up by tests and empirical data - of course this is just more religious self justifiactaion.

Keep education and science in the schools and for those that want religion - go to church.

Back to Ab-Fab!

I am a religious person (Buddhist) and I 100% believe in evolution. The problem is IMHO that some who study religion or practice it take it too dogmatically and literally and eventually some self appointed moralist will stand on their pulpits and claim that they know the 'truth'. Intelligent Design is creationism dressed up for popular consumption and trust me quite a few people believe in it.

Yes, Back to Ab-Fab

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by stinky

You were better off watching Ab-Fab.

Stinky. I agree wholly. It is some time since I have seen a really good science doco. That recent one about a mission to the planets was more entertainment than science. Carl Sagan's Cosmos seems so long ago, would really like to see something based on his book "Demon Haunted World" and how science lights a candle in the dark. It is very sad when religious propaganda is dressed up as science. I consider part of the problem to be that the Darwinian-Wallace theory of biological evolution is difficult to understand. Darwin himself was a creationist, until he considered the evidence.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

I watched the 2nd half of this short (~35 min) doco (because abfab did not do it for me tonight).

I'm in no mood for any more debates on this topic. Let me just say that my take on ID is that if you can't see the forest for the trees that is your problem. Take this as you like, because that is as unbiased as I get.

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

It is very sad when religious propaganda is dressed up as science. I consider part of the problem to be that the Darwinian-Wallace theory of biological evolution is difficult to understand. Darwin himself was a creationist, until he considered the evidence.

I agree. The problem is that to some people it is more plausable that living things were created by someone than try to comprehend the complexities of evolution. This is a problem science must fix because there are some people in very high places that holds sway to the religious right.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by mickoking

I am a religious person (Buddhist) and I 100% believe in evolution.

well, not too many Buddhists have started any wars recently......

John Dobson believes that the Universe is a Veil hiding a more fundamantal reality. I can accept this, we have a facinating and astounding Universe governed by physical laws, which may (or may not) be just a veil. This accepts the physical reality of the Univese that we inhabit and perceive. But when some of the more fundamentalist members of the abrahamic religions try to tear down my veil, and put their own in its place...not happy.

Interestingly, I understand that the Islamic world does not have a problem with evolution.

..what makes astronomy so facinating and astounding is the contemplation of those vast cold dark spaces, overwhelmingly indifferent, the universe doesn't care what we believe...

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

the universe doesn't care what we believe...

The stars don't judge either

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by mickoking

The stars don't judge either

Humans are rather good at that. The best TV series that explained organic evolution was late Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man". Many years ago. Could use a re-make, updated with DNA evidence.

The final scene of this series had Jacob Bronowski (who was an historian of science) bending down and picking up the mud and ashes of his fellow jews at Auschwitz, saying "this is where dogma leads us".

[Volans]

Dahling Sweety Dahling...oops sorry, wrong show..

Through personal experience over the years, I have come to realise that the bulk (not all) of Americans are incredibly insular to the point of being lamentably ignorant of anything outside their nation's borders.

An American once asked my mother what part of England she was from. My mother replied that she was Australian. "Is that in the south of England?" was the American's query.

Whilst I was a tour guide in Far North Qld. I was telling a young American boy about Tasmanian Devils. His mother admonished me for telling fibs - everyone knows that the Tasmanian Devil is just a cartoon character!

Last year when I was in the US for 2 weeks, I watched a fair bit of CNN. You were told about one of two things - Hurricane Katrina's aftermath or the interview with a man who wanted to become the Cheif High Court Judge (whatever the highest judge's title is). I heard NO overseas news at all.

It is these things and others which lead me to my original statement. I could not honestly care less about how insular a group of people are, however, this group just happens to be a world super power. Scary enough but what really annoyed me about last night's ID debate was something George Negus said right at the begining. About 100 Australian schools are teaching this drivel (ok..."drivel" is my word). I would dearly love to hear more about this Australian aspect.

Thankfully ID and astronomy don't mix but it does make one wonder about the broader implications of science teachings.

And I could tell you some scary stories from working in a planetarium!

Peter.