More on Judgment Day

| 20 Comments

The Sunday Arts section of the New York Times has a long, positive review of Nova’s upcoming “Judgment Day” show.

Also, I have just heard that Kenneth Miller will be interviewed on NBC’s Today Show on Monday morning, opposed by Steve Fuller. Note to Today Show staff: make sure you give Fuller decaf. Update: this segment of the Today Show has been canceled at the last minute. So, never mind.

20 Comments

Following up the infamous Steve Fuller “decaff” comment in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dov[…]l#day15am318, I was stricken with the transcript’s typographical errors, such as “bowl work” where “bulwark” was obviously meant, or “incite” where “insight” was obviously meant, or “Baron (Switzerland)” where “Bern” was obviously meant, or “Aernst Mach” where “Ernst” was obviously meant. Is this the final version of the court transcripts? Do they proof-read these things?

I was also stricken with the struggle of a non-scientist historian-philosopher-sociologist being taken in by the “sciency-sounding” pseudoscientific drivel of intelligent design creationism, not able (because he is admittedly not a scientist) to separate it from actual science, and then trying to fit it into the framework of actual science as he understands it. And it is tooth-gnashingly revolting to read, in his admitted ignorance of actual science, Fuller’s comparing of Behe and Dembski to Einstein.

The transcription is done live by the court reporters, and their machines are much more complex than normal keyboards, I think they are phonetic or something, plus they are typing into a computer which is matching up words. So sometimes “weird” words end up as something that “sounds close.”

E.g., there is a point in the Minnich transcript where he says the word “theodicy”, but the transcript has it as “the Odyssey.”

One could proofread the whole thing but it would be a major, major job, and then you have diverging transcripts that have to be edited separately etc. Ideally one would come up with an HTML solution where typos could be pointed out and then someone could click a button to see the original, or corrections, as they see fit.

PS: Will fix “decaff” – I thought it was “decaf”, then I looked at transcript and figured it must have 2 fs…sigh.

I’m sure that one of the excuses in the back rooms of the Discovery Institute is that it wasn’t their first string on the witness stand. Just look at how they treat Behe like some type of idiot savant that can play the piano. They ignore his mental deficiencies, and just keep remarking on how well he can play the piano. The ID advocates with half a brain bailed out and ran.

that was because only one person typed it and that as fast as possible …we’ll forgive the typos for how fast it was posted on TO

I can’t wait to watch this documentary!

The New York Times review alludes to the “missing link” term found in Of Pandas and People:

Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, provides a dramatic moment when she is shown searching for creationist ideas in documents provided by the defense. She realizes that “Pandas and People,” the book that advocates of intelligent design recommended as a supplementary text, had undergone a change after the United States Supreme Court ruled, in 1987, that creationism was a religious doctrine with no place in public schools. All references to “creationism” had been changed to “intelligent design.”

As many now know, the term found was “cdesign proponentsists.”

Perhaps the ID documentary should be called: “Creationist Copyeditors: No Intelligence Allowed.”

Nick (Matzke) said:

[snip]

> One could proofread the whole thing but it would be a major, major job, and then you have diverging transcripts that have to be edited separately etc. Ideally one would come up with an HTML solution where typos could be pointed out and then someone could click a button to see the original, or corrections, as they see fit.

[snip]

The simplest solution is to throw the transcript unto a wiki and let total strangers fix it. Unfortunately, these strangers could claim copyright on their improvements. The simplest thing to do is to make editors click a box forcing them to agree that they dedicate their work on the transcript into the public domain. One could also use a CreativeCommonsLicense.

It is a bit sobering to think that the nastiness of certain “Christians” initially biased Paula Apsell of Nova (which is supposed to be showing what commercian channels do not) against covering the issue.

Gee, do you think Ben Stein could be persuaded to do a movie covering the expulsions of evolution from schools, commercial media, and the attempts to prevent PBS from covering evolution? Somehow I think not.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Nick and everyone:

I’m guessing what you’ve got here are what we lawyers call “dailies” … transcripts prepared quickly (usually overnight) so that they can be used during the rest of the trial. The “finished” transcripts won’t usually be prepared unless there is an appeal (and someone pays still more money for them). Even then they may have errors in uncommon words like “theodicy,” though the parties can agree to corrections.

So apparently Steve Fuller got cold feet, or laryngitis, or some other intelligently designed disease. Maybe the rot has started…

So apparently Steve Fuller got cold feet, or laryngitis, or some other intelligently designed disease.

Wouldn’t that be malaria?

No, actually I didn’t get cold feet. I am sitting in a hotel room in New York waiting to see why the plug was pulled on the Today segment. It may air tomorrow. I have seen Judgment Day and I’m more than happy to talk about it on national television with Ken Miller.

I have seen Judgment Day and I’m more than happy to talk about it on national television

LOL. Perfesser Fuller would gladly talk about his anal cysts on national television if given the opportunity.

Steve Fuller: So will you be able to rationalize for us how a certain non-scientist historian-philosopher-sociologist got taken in by the “sciency-sounding” pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism, and was not able (because he is admittedly not a scientist) to separate it from actual science, and then tried to fit it into the framework of actual science (as he understands it)?

Could Dr Fuller update us on the scientific advances within the Intelligent Design domain since Kitzmiller? I’m curious about what kind of scientific experiements are being done in ID labs accross the country.

As an expert on science and Intelligent Design I’d like to know if Dr Fuller can also tell me what exactly the scientific theory of Intelligent Design actually is. Bible school teachers like William Dembski and even the Discovery Institute have only given us

Thanks in advance!

I can see why people on this blog believe that intelligent design is the product of chance-based processes. And who knows, maybe with a few billion years, some intelligence may emerge here?

Steve Fuller said: “I can see why people on this blog believe that intelligent design is the product of chance-based processes.”

Cute typo, Steve. Did you by any chance mean to say “evolution” instead of “intelligent design”?

To Steve Fuller:

I’m not willing to wait a few billion years. Could you please provide your view of why intelligent design is worth supporting when the guys that used to be running the obvious religious Teach ID creationist ploy are currently running the bait and switch on any creationist rube legislator or school board that pops up and wants to teach ID?

If you disagree that the guys that ran the teach ID ploy are running the bait and switch scam, what are these guys doing at this time? What do the school boards end up with when they have wanted to teach ID since 2002?

What happens to any creationist legislator or school board that has wanted to teach ID since the Discovery Institute first ran the bait and switch on Ohio in 2002. Why is it that the only ones that haven’t taken the switch or dropped the issue was Dover?

Do you deny that the same guys that wrote the Wedge document, used to shout the praises of ID and used to bet that teaching ID would pass the constitution test are the same ones running the current “teach the controversy,” or “critical analysis” creationist ploys?

What is your explantion for what happened to ID if it was the science that was important? Have you seen the public face of the replacement ploy? Why can’t the replacement even mention ID ever existed? Isn’t that strange when the same guys that used to advocate teaching ID are running the replacement?

Ron Okimoto

Holy cow after watching the show I’m convinced Steve Fuller may be the dumbest man alive. And why was he posting here and not at UD with fellow tard William Dembski?

Seriously, I though Fuller was down right insulting. He must think we’re ALL stupid and not just the creationists that lap up his 3rd grade analogies.

After watching Steve Fuller’s performance on the NOVA program I am even more sure that the Discovery Institute’s excuse to their monetary supporters, for their abject failure in Dover, is that their first string wasn’t involved. The only guys that stuck it out were the ones too stupid to get out of it. They only have to point to the performance during the trial and snicker while the take more money from the money bags. All the ID supporters needed their own lawyer, not just the guys that ran. Some lawyer with the responsibility to stand up and tell their client that he doesn’t have to answer that question on the ground that it will incriminate him of being terminally stupid.

I’ve always wondered what Dembski and Meyer would have done with their own lawyers. Can you plead the fifth if you are only supposed to be a science expert? It would have really been a fiasco if those guys started answering every question with “I’m sorry that I can’t answer that question on the grounds that it might incriminate me.” Could Dembski have refused to answer questions about his involvement with the FTE if it was going to cut into his book profits?

Heck, Meyer may have had to plead the fifth if he was asked why they fobbed off the Wedge document as a “fund raising” document in order to pretend that they didn’t have religious motivation behind perpetrating the teach ID scam. He would have had to explain why it was better to claim that they were committing fraud and had lied to bilk money out of unsuspecting creationist rubes rather than admit that ID was just a bogus creationist scam that they were running.

He would have had to explain why it was better to claim that they were committing fraud and had lied to bilk money out of unsuspecting creationist rubes rather than admit that ID was just a bogus creationist scam that they were running.

Can a catch-22 be intelligently designed?

Henry

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on November 11, 2007 2:38 AM.

Flew, Varghese, Schroeder: What a Company! was the previous entry in this blog.

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe (Part 2) is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter