Judging Nova’s “Judgment Day”
Posted on November 14, 2007
Filed Under Worldview |
It is 4 am and I still can’t sleep. I have been tossing and turning all night. Why? Because I saw an unjust trial last night.
I watched Nova’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial”.
I am not talking about the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, the subject of Nova’s two-hour docudrama. The real Dover had its own biased problems. I am talking about the “trial” that Nova created for its viewers: a one-sided, prejudicial trial that Nova shamelessly passed off as a fair “re-enactment” of what occurred in Dover.
In their “re-enactment”, Nova conducted its own public trial: Intelligent Design v. Real Science. Any guesses who wins? When “Real Science” is on the stand, it gets an uninterrupted lengthy hearing of its position. Its proponents are presented as the good guys, the smart guys. When Intelligent Design takes the stand, its arguments are interrupted by numerous Nova cross-examinations, which get more time than the ID arguments…which, by the way, are pre-selected to make sure they aren’t even the primary ID arguments.
In the end, the ID guys are presented as foolish and ignorant. At one point, Dr. Michael Behe, who is portrayed as a mousy witness, states that a non-intelligent cause is insufficient to explain the presence of immunity systems and evolution fails to do so. The Real Science lawyers then dramatically stack up a ton of evolutionary books and articles on the witness stand declaring that all of these have indeed explained it. All Dr. Behe’s poor characterization can muster is a pathetic look of defeat followed by a squeaky plea: “Can you please take all of these books away…they are heavy.”
Shameless.
It is frustrating to witness a trial in which one side has complete control of the proceedings. It rarely leads to justice.
And, of course, in Nova’s “trial” it doesn’t. I will not take the time now to critique what Nova has unjustly done. It will do that at a later time. However, what was presented last night should not surprise us. The presence of a heavily biased agenda is abundantly apparent to anyone who would view it honestly.
Injustice stinks. Always has and always will.
By the way, if you want to know why several Intelligent Design proponents refused to take part in Nova’s interviews, Dr. John G. West has posted a great explanation here and a review of Dover here.
Comments
23 Responses to “Judging Nova’s “Judgment Day””
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear on deltackett.com until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious. While we encourage you not to make others' misspellings and grammatical mistakes an issue of debate, please do your best to double-check your spelling, use correct capitalization, and use proper grammar.
Dr. Del Tackett is president of the Focus on the Family Institute and Senior Vice President to Focus on the Family. He is also the architect and chief spokesperson for Focus on the Family's The Truth Project--a nationwide initiative designed to bring the Christian worldview to the body of Christ.
Subscribe in a reader
© 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
Someone told me about what this would be on, and he must have thought it would give ID a fair chance. What were we thinking? This is one more cultural reinforcement that if you DO NOT believe in evolution, you are clearly a non-thinking nut-case.
The fool says in his heart, there is no God!
I was also disturbed by how they portrayed the trial. I laid on the ground in my living room afterward and couldn’t believe what I had seen the past two hours. It wasn’t all about the bias, though. I was disturbed how the Creationists acted toward the people believing in Evolution. Even though the documentary may have exaggerated it, it probably still happened. I didn’t really see love shown to those who believed in Evolution. Threats and name-dragging seemed to be common in Dover, according to the documentary. Even toward Evolutions who happened to be involved in a local church.
For me, it was eye-opening to me how I may treat someone who has a differing opinion from me. Do I get defensive and say rash and hurtful statements about my opponent? Or do I love and pray for them?
I don’t understand how you think the re-enactment was unjust as it dictated the actual script from the trial, ie NOVA took the dialogue directly from the court documents. Therefore, your accusation of NOVA as one-sidedness is unfounded. The court case presented the ID proponents with opportunity to duke it out with the real scientists but some of them failed to even show up as witnesses at the witness stand, not to mentioned avoiding appearing on the NOVA program. In addition, the disguise of creationism as ID was clearly shown in the work of Dr. Forrest when she discovered the “missing link” in the previous edition of “Of Pandas and People”, implicating the religion overtone in science textbook (remember cdesign proponentists?) And that alone is clearly violating the American Constitution for the separation of church and states. Bonsell and Buckingham also lied under oath about the textbooks so that they could insert religion into science classroom. And that was a federal offense. Why can’t you IDers be satisfied with religion in the realm of its own? Why do you have to glorify God to the extent that He has to permeate into everyone’s everyday life?
From a traditional Christian perspective (ie belief in what the bible says) one should not be surprised at all by this. We know the nature of the enemy; he is a “liar” and “the father of lies”. Further “we are not unaware of his schemes”.
I’d expect the Nova program to be just as historically accurate and unbiased as the “Inherit the Wind” movie…that is not at all. Don’t forget that this movie is shown as if history to high school students, and Judge Jones said he planned to watch it in preparation for the trial.
Michael Behe: “Yes, sir. Mr. Rothschild, would you like your books back? They’re heavy.”
Straight from the court transcripts:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html#day12pm200
Evolution of the immune system. Deal with this science or stop claiming that there is no support for the evolution of “irreducibly complex” systems.
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/immune_evo_annotated_bib.html
For the uninformed, let me say that most scientists who have accepted intelligent design don’t evangelize for any religion. Their goal is to show that a scientific examination of the evidence, using widely accepted scientific principles, leads to the conclusion that there must have been intelligence in the design of life on this planet. Simply put, a design points to a designer.
The question as to who or what this intelligence is, becomes one for philosophers, not for scientists. The point being that a careful scientific examination shows that life as it exists was not the result of an accident or chance event. The mathematical odds for that exceed anything that this universe could produce.
My personal belief is that an all-powerful, all-knowing Being, referred to by Jews and Christians as God, was the designer. Some believe that earth was seeded from another planet in another system with advanced life forms. It seems to me that it takes more faith to believe in the religion of Darwinism than it does to believe in God.
One second after we die, each of us will know who was right. I’m betting my life on the God of the
Bible, and His Son, Jesus Christ.
Let us approach the subject of intelligent design with a willingness to examine the evidence and see where it leads. And let us also approach the evidence for Christ with the same willingness. It is, after all, a matter of eternal life or eternal death.
Atom Chuxky-
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other about evolution. I think the argument has become so hopelessly entangled with beliefs on both sides that objective evaluation is impossible for those of us without Lucy in our backyards - and I personally don’t find it that theologically challenging, as exclusively literal interpretation thereof seems rather recent (but maybe I’m wrong on that).
I think, however, that you’ve misunderstood the separation of church and state, which is the greater issue here. The state is the host to the public discourse, and must reserve judgement on things transcendent. The promotion of agnosticism and the shutting down of public discourse would, I would say, be counter-productive. People have the right to think and say what they want, and they have the right to plug their ears or shout back, but they don’t have the right to silence anybody else’s point of view - even for the sake of agnosticism. The state cannot take no side on any given question of transcendent reality (as it is primarily concerned with one aspect thereof: justice) - it must necessarily take all sides, implementing in law the dominant view.
I don’t believe intelligent design arguments work terribly well on their own. It seems like too much induction from too little to work with, as do most attempts to mix modernity and Christianity. However, that religion has its own realm fenced off from reality is as absurd as categorizing any belief that is not agnostic, atheistic, or apathetic as “religion.” It’s just the unnecessary (and often repressive) western privatization of faith at work. It mischaracterizes and splinters every faith but the most inefficacious individualistic blather, and disposes of legitimate fields of rational investigation before the fact (while flying in the face of postmodern critique). So I think a better question is why do you find it necessary to glorify (and indeed impose) silence on issues of transcendence when the most pressing issue facing any living person is the potential meaning surrounding his or her rapidly impending death?
Several years ago, I had the opportunity of serving on a jury. There was an instruction given by the presiding judge that impressed me. He said that until all of the evidence and testimony are presented, it is not possible to have the complete picture. A complete picture is not possible in this docudrama. Bias, minimizing and discrediting testimony one disagrees with, and suppressing the truth while glorifying one’s theories all contribute to a distorted, incomplete picture. Many in Dover are held captive by the illusion known as evolution. They need our prayer.
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with ‘Evolution News and Views’, but Casey Luskin provides an article here that points out the many errors in the PBS docudrama.
In response to Atom Chuxky:
As a Christian, I am saddened by the behavior of these people, ultimately trying to see that the God of creation gets put in his rightful place as author of life. This in no way should threaten science, as science SHOULD be the study of the created order, and in no way MUST rule out a God. I think the way creation science has “transformed” into intelligent design has not been totally honest, and as Christians, we must be above reproach.
As to your question “Why do you have to glorify God to the extent that He has to permeate into everyone’s everyday life?”…
What I think you’re asking, is why must one person’s world view be forced upon people of other belief systems in a secular or non-religious setting such as the science classroom?
The fact is, the modern public school classroom is very much part science, and part world view already. The world view being portrayed is one of humanism. No one calls it such, but it most certainly is a world view, and that which is inherent in Darwinian evolution. So if you accept this truth, you then must agree that the bully-pulpit secular science has in schools in “selling” it’s world view is absolutely unfair and violating church and state separation.
Thanks for posting on Del’s blog, and engaging those who read it to think outside their normal views.
I haven’t seen this documentary, but from Dr. T’s post and the comments, it sounds like a classic case of the “straw man” fallacy to me. It’s easy to take down a sound, valid argument (ID) when you misrepresent it. BUT, I think Christians and ID supporters are somewhat guilty of this, too. However, it is good to point it out, and think about it. Makes me think of specs, logs, and eyes (Matt. 7).
Dr Tackett, I was glad to see that you responded to this show, providing a good forum for feedback.
I was also disappointed with the outcome of this trial, but I believe it was a fair ruling. The true nature of the school board was revealed with the lying and name-calling. At that point it was very clear to me that they did indeed have an agenda of pushing their religion on the school. Religion literally means “to bind up”, which was very evident in this case.
As embassadors of Christ, we are to operate in a manner worthy of Whom we are called. This includes being holy, truthful, discerning and wise. Daniel is the perfect example - even when his life was on the line, he acted on behalf of God (not himself, the King or any man). God responded to his obedience and faith by providing Daniel with more than he needed. Perhaps the Dover trial would’ve had a different outcome if this strategy was used instead.
Immediately after the show I was deeply troubled with the evidence I saw that refuted what I learned in the Truth Project. But the more I prayed and thought about it, the more I remembered these verses… Rom 1:21-25 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
There will always be evidence for and against evolution, but quite frankly the debate will not be won in the court room or the classroom. It’ll be won through loving relationships. The bible says that one can’t understand scripture unless the Holy Spirit teaches them. The only way that can happen is by giving our life to Jesus, then once the Holy Spirit moves into our heart, He will reveal God’s truth to us. We can’t expect anyone without this relationship to understand the idea of a Master Designer because this concept is only found in God’s Word. Until someone has a personal relationship with Jesus, God will give them over to the lusts of their heart and turn their wisdom into foolishness.
I urge you not to be resentful of this trial, the judge, the prosecutor and their witnesses. Instead, I encourage you to be above the world’s standard and see this through the eyes of the Almighty Creator - after all, this isn’t something that He let slip by
I need to clarify my previous comment. While I’ve seen some ID supporters “selectively” edit interviews too, I think the Truth Project did an excellent job of first clearly and correctly representing the Darwin/evolution argument before exposing its weaknesses.
I read this and I am reminded of Christ’s trial. He stood there, silent but for a few profound statements, knowing that all that was happening was under the Father’s control… knowing that it was the fulfillment of prophesy. Yet - what more unjust trial has existed in all of time? And what must it have been like for Jesus to have Judas - someone who was with Jesus, heard His words, saw the miracles - sell you over to the enemy for money (something he was likely taking from the group anyway, according to John)? What must it have been like to walk into that “formality” of a trial after just hearing Peter deny he knew you? What must it have been like to watch the very sins that would be forgiven by His death committed right before His eyes? It serves as even further proof that He was fully God. All of that would crush a “mere mortal”. Praise God that we have a God who has wrestled with the unjust and remains victorious!
I want to thank you Kelly Whitaker for taking us back to the scripture and what the Lord has to say about these matters.
The Lord’s word is enduring, everlasting and always true for what we are facing today. I am reminded of the scripture that David wrote: Psalm 139:13-16 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
What more proof do we need, that we are ALL uniquely and lovingly made, than words from the Bible. The Bible is the only book that hasn’t been changed or altered, has stood the test of time, 1st edition only. I looked, my college science book is a 7th edition, what is yours? I know I would rather put my faith in that of the good Lord who has given us a perfect blue print for life filled with grace, love, and only one truth.
I’m participating in the Truth Project at our church. We just finished the two sessions on Science. Last night I attended a Chris Tomlin concert with Louie Giglio. He presented an awesome message and showed incredible images of the Whirlpool galaxy — at the center are dust clouds that form a cross! Also talked about “laminin” the protein substance that holds our cells together — also incredibly in the shape of a cross. The universe points to God — from the largest galaxy to the smallest detail. Simply amazing!
I wanted you to know how very much I appreciate what you are doing!
Amoung other representations in the Nova program, two stood out to me. The first, and most disturbing if true, was the misrepresentation done by Christians. Please let your “yea be yea and your nay be nay”.
The second was the “evolutionary tree” with the missing link between the fish and the flat headed amphibian. As protrayed, the gap needed to be filled.
So what happened? The scientists went out to rocks of the apparent proper age and after digging around for a few seasons, as the money was running out, found exactly what they were looking for; skeletal remains that they say fill the gap. REALLY?
I am reading “How Christianity Changed the World” by Alvin Schmidt. A quote from chapter one,”You and I would not and could not hold faith in Christ today, if many of the early Christians had not marched into the arena or toiled in the mines, unbent and uncompromised. Each time you and I meet a Christian, we are viewing a monument to the unknown early Christian martyrs”. This has changed my thinking. History is important.
As I understand it, the original concept of the ID argument was not to propose that schools teach about a religious creator. In fact, it was my understanding that’s why they went with the ID name–to separate themselves from the connotations of “creationists.” Still, the argument continuously returns to “science vs religion,” which I do not think it needs to do.
I think that the ID movement might benefit from focusing on the one great weakness of the evolution in education argument–not that its taught, but that it is taught without criticism. Simply getting schools to teach that “evolution may be wrong; other people have other ideas” would be a small but important victory.
Since schools often refuse to allow evidence that evolution may be wrong, encouraging them to do so makes the argument “science vs science,” and leaves religion out of the picture.
How does this scripture fit in to all of this debate? It frustrates me to no end to hear evolution vs. id. when theres no real way to prove it either way. I believe in God and that he created this world, and sent His only son to save us, but what can I do for unbelievers but pray?
2 Tim 2:14-16
14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. 16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,
NAS
This filled my heart with sorrow. All over the Internet intelligent design is regarded with high disdain as being the answer for the stupid and ignorant. Really, logic dictates the opposite, that Life comes from life, and not that something could come from nothing.
I’m not really sure how it got this bad…
Leah
The reason your science text is on its 7th edition is that’s how science works! That’s its strength. To critically examine evidence and alter theories as new facts present themselves. Under this process its even more amazing that Evolution has stood the test of time.
As far as the unchanging Bible. I wish it would change. Reading Judges 11:30-39 is an example of it being nothing more than Bronze Age myths and lets be thankful its just that.
And I thought I was the only one with this concern. From the start of the program I noticed the extreme bias from the NOVA team. We have a real battle to win!
Chris -
You’re saying evolution has stood the test of time?
I say that, because it’s been proven wrong (or at least very inaccurate) so many times, the theory itself has “evolved,” just as a politician’s statements can “evolve” depending upon his/her audience!
What did Darwin say? I was taught that evolution meant that things changed “gradually over time.”
Now we’re told about “evolutionary bursts” - that things change drastically and suddenly.
Why should we aim for (believe) a moving target?
Early astronomers are criticized for having thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. But after hundreds of years of study, Einstein finally (sort of) agreed with them - according to relativity, the Earth IS the center of the Universe (and, at the same time, it ISN’T).
Perhaps your theory of evolution just hasn’t evolved itself to the point of being fully correct, and will one day be in complete agreement with ID! (After all, you never quite know how these things will turn out - science proves itself wrong all the time!)
What I want to know is why “scientists” (more accurately, militant atheists) are so afraid of telling kids that there are some people who don’t buy into evolution - and that those people are not necessarily bluthering idiots or red-neck morons, but intelligent, educated people. I mean, how politically incorrect is it to say “everyone who disagrees with me is an imbecile” (which is what these Evolutionists are saying)?
I don’t think anyone here would say that it’s right to require that the Biblical account be taught as the only possible answer to the question “where did we come from?”. However, it would be nice for kids to be informed about things other than evolution, since it hasn’t been scientifically proven either.