Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 06.27.2006 /
I ran across this program yesterday. It seemed very relevant to last week’s discussions here and on Hemant’s site about ID and evolution.
Here’s a summary of the program from the BBC’s website: Horizon: A War on Science.
Whereas Dawkin’s two part series was one long diatribe against faith, I didn’t find this program to be. I appreciated that both scientists against ID and ID advocates were interviewed in the program. Was the program biased one way or the other? The UK Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship certainly think so.
I found the historical information in the program very interesting, especially the parts about how the ID movement originated.
If you have time to watch this (it’s almost an hour long) I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Comment by: Julie Marie
1ok. thats two times in one week I’ve wished for a new cable for local channels. I think its time to do something about it. (which means another entry on the “honey do” list ;))
Comment by: Ir
2Ummmm, UK channels are not ‘local’ ;)
I’m not aware this was aired in the US.
But go ahead and get a new cable so you can watch local channels!
Comment by: Julie Marie
3thats what I get for reading in the dark. BBC is a bit different from PBS, now isn’t it?
Comment by: Julie Marie
4oh good grief Ir. I didn’t even realize you had put the documentary up for viewing. For some reason I thought it was just an odd picture. I’ve got to quit blogging before my first morning coffee.
Comment by: Siamang
5I wish we had television that good in America.
We have to wait until the movie about Dover to get such a good chronicling of the events.
I followed the Dover case quite closely, and I really wish they’d have covered more of the lying that had occurred. The Judge in the case (a lifelong republican, appointed by George W. Bush, btw) found that the christians on the Dover school board had perjured themselves multiple times and were lying under oath.
From the opinion of Judge Jones:
They talk about the opinion of Judge Jones in the case being very thick. One of the reasons it was so thick was the Judge Jones didn’t just rule on the legality of teaching ID. One of the great parts of the trial was that they delved into the science, and it was up to the ID folks to actually show what science (if any) they had to support their hypotheses.
They utterly failed, and the blistering opinion written by the judge shows that.
Comment by: Julie Marie
6I wish we had a psychologist in the group. I’ve read research regarding what happens in a group atmosphere that allows it to turn off the caution lights when they are about to transgress into immoral territory. (M. Scott Peck, People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil) I can’t remember all of his points, but “groupthink” and isolation were part of it. I read the book as the Abu Ghirab debacle was unfolding and wondered if Dr. Peck’s recommendations had been followed, if that travesty could have been avoided. (he had been commissioned to study and report on group evil by the gvt, if I recall correctly)
I wonder if similar triggers are at work here, that would allow otherwise upstanding citizens to lie and misrepresent in order to achieve their goal? I’m not saying the school board was evil; but they did act deceptively. Not good. Caution lights should have gone off. Lying under oath is a bad idea, morally as well as practically.
Comment by: Siamang
7Let’s call it “group moral failure” in this case, to be nice.
That sounds like a terrific book. Gotta put that on my list, Julie Marie.
I think the best way to combat that kind of groupthink isolation is to listen to outside voices. Kind of a reality check.
Comment by: Eliza
8Ooh, I’d love to watch this video, but don’t have time tonight.
The Dover decision is a must-read for anyone interested in ID/evolution debate in US. The .pdf file of Judge Jones’s decision in the Dover case is here, in .pdf format (or here, in html format. It’s 139 pages, and fascinating to read between the chunks of legal jargon (the lawyers among you may like those chunks better than I ;) ). There’s a large and interesting chunk - maybe 40-50 pages - that investigates the claims and evidence for/against ID. Then, on page 93, Judge Jones lays out “a detailed chronology of the events that transpired in Dover…” - from there on, it reads like a soap opera!
There were 2 people who pushed the Dover ID decision through. Alan Bonsell won election to the Dover School Board; in his campaign, and at school board retreats (first in 1/2002, soon after he took office) he said his #1 agenda was to introduce creationism, and #2 was school prayer. He was Chair of the board’s Curriculum Committee by fall 2002, and met with the district’s biology teachers in fall 2003, expressing his concerns about teaching of evolution - noone had ever met with them before about this. In 2003-04, another board member, William Buckingham, contacted the Discovery Institute, spoke w/ them, received a DVD, videotape, and a book; Discovery Institute lawyers gave a legal presentation to an executive session of the school board that year. In 2004, Bonsell became school board president, and he appointed Buckingham the Chair of the Curriculum Committee. Pages 103 & 105 give a number of anti-evolution, pro-creationism, and pro-Christianity (to exclusion of other religion) statements made by Buckingham, who blocked the purchase of a new biology textbook for which the board has approved funds.
In mid-2004, some Board members (those 2, I’d guess) began making statements in public board meetings in favor of teaching ID/creationism. (Their wording changed from creationism to ID around 6/2004.) Parents and journalists attending those meetings objected. Buckingham’s wife made long anti-evolution speeches from the audience.
Buckingham made the biology teachers put copies of the ID book “Of Pandas and People” in their classrooms as a requirement for him releasing the funds to purchase new biology texts, which the students really needed. (He didn’t authorize purchase of the biology text they wanted, which had been previously agreed upon.) He asked for donations at his church for this purpose, bought the “Pandas” books with those donations, and had them put in the classrooms. (Neither he nor Bonsell said anything about the source of the money during deposition for this trial, in 1/2005, apparently despite questioning which was applicable.)
On page 117-119, Jones details how the Board voted in fall 2004 to have students made aware of problems with “Darwin’s theory” and of alternate theories including ID - through a curriculum change process that was different in several ways from their usual procedures. The vote was 6-3. Science teachers spoke up at the meeting and said it was being railroaded through, and warned the Board that ID was creationism and couldn’t be taught legally. Interestingly, there was no discussion of what ID was at that meeting, and several Board members later said (at trial) that “they lacked sufficient background in science to evaluate ID, and several of them testified with equal frankness that they failed to understand the substance of the curriculum change adopted” at that meeting. Jones’ decision says on page 121, “Conspicuously, Board members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID….as she indicated on multiple occasions, [one member] deferred completely to Bonsell and Buckingham.” At trial, the school superintendent said he thought ID meant that “evolution has a design.” The Board never heard from any scientist or scientific organization (but they heard from the Discovery Institute and another pro-ID group, for legal consultation).
All in all, it sounds like Bonsell (board president) and Buckingham (chair of curriculum committee) pushed it through, with the help of 4 people who didn’t think much about it & who might have been swayed by comments from Bonsell and Buckingham about how this was the American thing, or the Christian thing, to do.
Two members of the Board who voted against the measure resigned at the end of the meeting. The resignation statement of one, Casey Brown, said that some members had been marginalized and ignored, and that she had been asked twice in the prior year, by another board member, if she was “born again.” The third Board member to vote in opposition, who had tried to use parliamentary methods to delay the vote and to allow statements from Dover science teachers (but failed), resigned at the next Board meeting, saying (p. 125) “I was referred to as unpatriotic, and my religious beliefs were questioned. I served in the US Army for 11 years and six years on the board. Seventeen years of my life has been devoted to public service, and my religion is personal. It’s between me, God, and my pastor.”
Makes you wonder how something like this could happen despite parents, science teachers, journalists, and 3 of the 9 board members being against it…determination of the 2, and unwitting complicity of the other 4 board members, it seems.
Comment by: Ir
9Siamang, Horizon is similar to Nova in the US and if I’m remembering correctly, I think Nova sometimes uses Horizon programs.
However, I would be surprised to see Nova use this one, due to the content.
It was fun to see all the clips of David Attenborough. When I lived in England he was the guy who made all the nature programs (maybe he still is). His programs were awesome. He would get such amazing footage that we’d joke about how rare animals seemed to come up to him and do whatever they did in front of him just for his benefit.
I noticed that Dawkins was on form, pulling no punches (as usual) ;)
Comment by: Julie Marie
10How could it happen? Monstrous certainty. I am sure those 2 board members thought they were doing the right thing and that because of it, they would win. Their certainty blinded them to the immorality of lying as persuasion.
The whole thing makes me very sad. I know it makes many more angry rather than sad, but for me, the prevailing emotion is sorrow. To have such a rigid view of God that it cannot withstand valid input from “outsiders” does not bode well for those believers. Within a generation (two at most) they will either have to relax their view or lose their belief or retreat to communes in the wilderness.
Comment by: Ir
11Eliza, thanks for the information about the Dover case. (FYI to people who haven’t watched the program: the Dover case is featured in it)
Yes, it does seem so.
It’s a good illustration of how a determined majority can push something through if the majority doesn’t get mobilized to oppose them.
I suppose that’s good news when we’re in a minority and an important reminder when we’re not.
Comment by: Ir
12I wonder if they consciously lied or whether their determination to achieve certain goals pushed them across a line into being deceptive without them being consciously aware that had happened.
That doesn’t make it ok.
Comment by: Julie Marie
13You are right, its not okay…I had not meant to imply otherwise.
It would be interesting to have an interview with the 2 board members in say, 5 years…when they’ve had time to reflect on the sordid mess.
But at least it dragged the ID movement out into the open for those of us like me who didn’t know; the creationist essay on Pastor Tims website was an absolute shocker to me. As people read about the case, the manipulations will be exposed. I think theres a lot of us out here who, like the members on the school board who were swayed by the chairman, just don’t know enough.
Comment by: Ir
14Oh, you didn’t - sorry, that wasn’t directed at you. I just wanted to be clear I wasn’t saying it was ok if they didn’t consciously lie.
It would be interesting - it could be encouraging or disheartening depending whether they seem to have learned anything through or since the experience ;)
Yes - getting something into the open can be very helpful.
Comment by: everett
15education is the best way to teach every aspect for children. personally i think all views should be examined in school not just one theory. there are over 10 different theories out there for the beginning of life. teach them all let the children decide for themselves.i don’t think one person’s theory better than the next. i believe what i believe because of my upbringing and belief system. that is our choice in life.
by teaching all the theories out there not one group could complain about the other. isn’t that what education is all about.
Comment by: Ir
16everett, should we teach that the earth is flat because some people believe it is?
Or is it ok to apply some sort of ‘quality control’ to what we teach?
Comment by: Eliza
17Origin of life, 10 theories, hmmm. I suppose there’s little enough data than anything could be possible.
Here’s an idea. Have kids in a classroom brainstorm how life began, taking an evening to read about it and ask their parents if they don’t have ideas (or all the ideas seem to be the same). If they still are all the same, have the kids contact people of various ilks - scientists, pastors, teachers in other religions, hmm who else - and ask about their ideas. The teacher can do some guidance, telling them to look further if there’s a big one they’ve missed, but shouldn’t be the one suggesting specific theories.
Post the list. Have the kids indicate the one they “believe”, if applicable. (Many might vote for one of the theories. Some kids might not cast a vote.)
Have each kid take one idea, one theory…but one that they don’t believe, and research it - look it up, talk to people who believe it. Have them write it up and present that theory in as persuasive and referenced manner as they can. Have them ask each other questions, ask what proof or clues there are, discuss what proof would be useful to support that claim.
Videorecord it, and consider playing the recording for the parents (ok, that’s probably not going to fly alot of places around the country).
Comment by: Siamang
18I like those ideas, Eliza.
Comment by: everett
19ir, i think we should teach every angle of every thing. by educating people in all aspects of an issue they can make up their own minds. when i lived in the united kingdom for three years and learning what they taught them was a real eye opener. the never lost the revolutionary war or the war of 1812. they were taught that they couldn’t afford to keep fighting so they just left. did you ever read that in an american history text book.
i had a professor in college that thought slavery was a very minor factor in the civil war which was true in my opinion. personally we should have never had slaves of any color or race. so don’t think i am a total kook. personally i think the government went from having slaves in the south to calling it minimum wage but that is for a whole different debate.
i do believe teaching every aspect of every subject allows us to free our minds and think for ourselves. i do believe we all have choices in life to believe what we want. i was in the military to fight for those freedoms we all have here in the united states. the freedom to choose a doctrine or creed. or to educate one in all aspects of life so they can make more informed choices.