Home
» Biology, Courts, Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design » PBS Airs False “Facts” in its “Inherit the Wind” Version of the Kitzmiller Trial
PBS Airs False “Facts” in its “Inherit the Wind” Version of the Kitzmiller Trial
| November 14, 2007 | Posted by The Scubaredneck under Biology, Courts, Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design |
From Evolution News and Views:
More than 50 years ago two playwrights penned a fictionalized account of the 1920s Scopes Trial called “Inherit the Wind” that is now universally regarded by historians as inaccurate propaganda. Last night PBS aired its “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design” documentary, which similarly promotes propaganda about the 2005 Kitzmiller trial and intelligent design (ID). Most of the misinformation in “Judgment Day” was corrected by ID proponents long ago. To help readers sift the fact from the fiction, here are links to articles rebutting some of PBS’s most blatant misrepresentations:
81 Responses to PBS Airs False “Facts” in its “Inherit the Wind” Version of the Kitzmiller Trial
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Did you bother to read the Amazon blog? Behe even shows how this example fits into the context of his book:
The only true objection to EoE that can be stated is that it did not include these examples, since Behe was not aware of such examples (which was not the focus of the book in the first place). So Behe was WRONG to say that such potential examples did not exist and he even readily says so! If a revision is released I’m sure Behe would discuss it…and the main points of the book would remain unchanged. Darwinists are claiming that somehow Behe being “wrong” in this instance somehow has relevance to his main arguments. Darwinists are doing the goalpost-moving, not Behe.
I’ve read Behe’s Amazon comments (where Behe has disabled comments on all except one post)and I’ve read Edge and DBB, etc., etc. The fact that Behe claims that Smith’s and Musgrave’s contention are “unimpressive” to him is irrelevant (and sadly comical) to anyone who’s perused the material with an open mind. Your mileage may differ, of course, but I still say that DBB and Edge prove nothing relevant to the discussion, and that contention is buttressed by the fact that Behe stopped doing science a long time ago, apparently content in his new role of blind man leading the blind.
It seems that some want Behe to be a god and not make any mistakes. In a way they are actually deifying him by finding only minutiae to criticize him on. I wish I was 1/3 that good.
Really? Then I’d like you to explain exactly how this example refutes Behe’s main arguments put forth in EoE.
Stanton,
Oh give me a break. We have spent hours debating the peer review literature with scientists about Behe’s book Edge of Evolution on this blog. Behe’s position was an easy to defend slam dunk every time. You clearly don’t understand the science at issue and choose to believe any bit of anti-ID hyperbole that issuess out of the camp of the hard-core Darwinists. You fall for any literature bluff that is issued, assuming it to be true. Even though critics like Miller and Caroll have been caught lying repeatedly to try to make Behe look bad.
Answer me this, if Behe’s work is so bad, why do the critics need to lie in order to give him a negative review?
If you care to debate any actual scientific issue in the Edge of Evolution, I guarantee you will lose pathetically. But my hunch is you want to stick to the hyperbole and not discuss the actual evidence.
Stanton Rockwell,
It is amazing that two different people can read the same stuff and have totally different takes on it.
I say Dr. Behe has held his own quite well and has not been refuted…I see quibbling ove minor details, whereas evolutionists need conclusive proof for evolution. You say,,, “Just look at it from this angle and squint your eyes,,,there there…tilt your head…OK NOW, DO you see it? You see I told you so. Evolution is as clear as day and you are all IDiots for not believing me!!
I’m sorry Stanton…I just don’t buy it..I want some clear cut hard scientific proof!
How about transmuting “evolving” any micro-organism of your choosing to a new microorganism or even Phyla if evolution is so clear cut and easy to see?
How about showing us a new species to suddenly appear in the fossil record since man suddenly appeared?
Why have all recorded sub-speciation events involved loss of information?
But I guess all this is besides the point for you since you already know for sure evolution is true!
Stanton
Actually, you don’t understand the issue. You are in over your head. Abbie Smith came to this blog and had her head handed to her by a poster here. It was on of the worst thrashings I have ever seen. The fact is, she has failed to identify an exception to the Edge that Behe outlined in the Edge of Evolution. The only way one can find Smith’s arguments persuasive is if you don’t really understand the issue. This was probably the case with Smith originally. But I think she eventually realized this and refused to answer a simple yes or no question repeatedly put to her because she knew she was caught.
Jehu,
It’s my understanding that Ms. Smith’s ability to respond was unilaterally terminated (she was banned, in other words) so you claims ring rather hollow. As far as understanding the issues is concerned, you know nothing about my training or education, which I will wager is a good deal further advanced than yours on the subject.
Stanton,
To illustrate how out to lunch you, Musgrave and Smith are on Behe’s Edge of Evolution, let me give you an illustration.
On page 143 of Behe’s Edge of Evolution, Behe writes that the estimated number of organisms needed to create one new protein to protein binding sites is 1020. Further down the page, Behe notes that the population size of HIV is, surprise, 1020. So according to Behe’s own thesis, HIV should be able to evolve a new protein to protein binding sites. So along come Smith and Musgrave, point out a mutation clearly within Behe’s thesis, and then declare victory when in fact they have not contradicted Behe at all.
Stanton,
Sorry. Wrong. She was banned for her rudeness but then the poster went to her blog and posed the question there and she still refused to answer it. Smith should be an embarassment to your side. She argues like a juvenille delinquent.
Anyway, if you have such vaunted “education and training” show some evidence of it.
To be fair to our more educated and vastly superior brethren Stanton, Musgrave is challenging Behe’s population count in his last response. Yet something tells me this challenge will not hold when Behe post his final response today. I believe this ploy by Musgrave is just a desperation attempt to get the numbers somewhere near the ballpark they need to be for evolution to even be considered plausible , (Since the numbers are not even in the same country as the ballpark is at the present moment)
But Hey, just squint your eyes, tilt your head, and you too can see the almighty power of evolution Jehu.
Stanton,
I already posted the link to where Smith visited and dodged the issues:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....4864%20rel=
It conveniently logs the back and forth responses that occurred elsewhere.
bornagain77,
It doesn’t appear that Behe has responded to Musgrave on that topic yet. However, the population of HIV in an infected individual is about 10^10.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/.....21/10/1902
The generation time is a day or two, so your infected person produces 10^13 per year. There are 40 – 50 million HIV positive people in the world, so in any given year the population of HIV virus in humans is about 4 x 10^20.
Behe is right about that.
Stanton Rockwell said (comment #60) –
Re:
“If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits.”
– from Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803(18)http://www.law.cornell.edu/rul.....tm#Rule803
Why should I look it up? Why don’t you tell me what it means or what you think it means?
There is no applicable legal definition of the word “receive,” so I just used the normal definitions of the word that are appropriate in this context, e.g., “accept,” “take,” “approve,” etc.. And I did give you legal definitions of “exhibit,” e.g., “a document or object shown to the court as evidence in a trial.”
Also, with no basis whatsover, the Kitzmiller opinion said that this literature “refuted” irreducible complexity: “We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”
Why not?
Behe’s final response is in
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/p.....38-2939066
Stanton,
HIV has 9 genes. It has never had more than 9.
There aren’t any new protein to protein binding sites made by those 9- that is protein to protein binding sites within the virus. Dr Behe explained he is not talking about foreign proteins.
IOW it is obvious that Abbie disregards what Dr Behe is saying and then sets out to refute something he didn’t say.
Also Dr Behe is talking about constructive protein to protein binding sites. If the theory of evolution were indicative of reality there should be a muriad of such events. Yet we are still waiting for ONE!
Stanton and Jehu,
In Musgrave’s attempt to get around Dr. Behe’s hard number of 10^10 for HIV he tries to use the smoke and mirrors of effective population size used in population Genetics. Yet I looked at Behe’ sources in His book and they do in fact take into account the effective population size that is used in population genetics to arrive at there number. So Behe’s number is thoroughly thought out and firm as a rock.
Here are Dr. Behe’s sources on page 290 of EDge of Evolution”
15. Geritti, A.M.2006. HIV-1 sub-types: epidemiology and significance for HIV management.
http://www.co-infectiousdiseas.....28!8091!-1
Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 19:1-7. Rodrigo, A. G. 1999. HIV evolutionary genetics. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:10559-61. Total body burden of the number of copies of HIV RNA is estimated to be much higher, about 10^11 (Haase, A. T., Henry, K., Zupancic, M., Sedgewick, G., Faust, R. A., Melroe, H., Cavert, W., Gebhard, K., Staskus, K., Zhang, Z. O., Dailey, P. J., Balfour, H. H. Jr., Erice, A., and Perelson, A. As. 1996. Quantitative image analysis of HIV-1 infection in lymphoid tissue. Science 274:985-89).
The effective population size is estimated at 500 to 10^5 (Althaus, C.L., and Bonhoeffer, S. 2005. Stochastic interplay between mutation and recombination during the acquisition of resistance mutations in human immunodeficiency virus type 1.J. Virol. 79:13572-78).
http://www-binf.bio.uu.nl/alth.....jvirol.pdf
16 Rodrigo, A. G., Shpaer, E. G., Delwart, E. L., Iverson, A.K., Gallo, M.V., Brojatsch, J., Hirsch, M. S., Walker, B. D., and Mullins, J. I. 1999. Coalescent estimates of HIV-1 generation time in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:2187-91.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/5/2187
You may want to take a real close look at this study Dr. Musgrave:
One of the major problems facing HIV molecular evolutionary biologists is sampling: with 10^10 virions produced daily in an infected individual, and 10^6-10^7 infected cells present,
Thus, since each virus is considered a chance for evolution to strut its almighty stuff the 10^10 replication number stands solid!
17. Coffin, J. M. 1995. HIV population dynamics in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:2187-91.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....7/5197/483
another note for you Dr. Musgrave:
These results lead to a simple steady-state in which infection, cell , and cell replacement are in balance, and imply that the unique feature of HIV is the extraordinarily large number of replication cycles that occur during infection of a single individual.
I just don’t understand your logic at all Dr. Musgrave. Your argument for limit to population size has no merit, whatsoever, since the entire HIV population of 10^10 is being replaced every day or two and each virus replication is in fact a search of variation for HIV. So the search area and population size of the HIV stands firm and is not limited as you are vainly trying to do.
In my opinion this was a desperate attempt at distortion on your part and you should be ashamed to call yourself a scientist, since apparently finding the truth has no meaning for you!
Joseph –
Dr. Behe begs to differ:
Dr. Musgrave is crowing that He has defeated Dr. Behe, Yet I don’t see his logic. First his population distortion is a blatant attempt to get around the 10^10 HIV replications per day. Thus, he is whistling in the dark to avoid facing reality on that matter since 10^10 HIV replications per day, is in fact 10^10 chances per day for evolution to strut its almighty stuff.
Since Dr. Musgrave was so blatant on this distortion, I looked at what Dr. Behe said about this binding site that Dr. Musgrave is so impressed with.
One should, however, also make some distinctions with this example. First, although there apparently are five or so copies of Vpu in the viroporin complex, that does not mean that five binding sites developed. Only one new binding site need develop for one area of a protein which binds to a different area of the same protein, to form a homogeneous complex with, say, C5 symmetry. That is all that is required for a circularly symmetric structure to form. Second, the viroporin is not some new molecular machine. There is no evidence that it exerts its effect in, say, an ATP- or energy-dependent manner. Rather, similar to other viroporins, the protein simply forms a passive leaky pore or weak channel. (4,5) This situation is probably best viewed as a foreign protein degrading the integrity of a membrane, rather than performing some positive function. And third, I explicitly pointed out in Chapter 8 of The Edge of Evolution that HIV had undergone enough mutating in past decades to form all possible viral-viral binding sites, but commented that apparently none of them had been helpful (now I know that one of them helped). This I discussed as the “principle of restricted choice”:
From my limited knowledge of the subject, it seems the protein/protein binding site he is so excited about, is actually a additional “refining” protein binding site of the one that actually allowed the HIV to gain access to humans in the first place.
Yet even conceding this point Dr. Behe comments: So the square point in Figure 7.4 representing HIV should be placed on the Y axis at a value of one, instead of zero, and Table 7.1 should list one protein-binding site developed by HIV instead of zero.
Thus Dr. Musgrave must conclusively prove the development of two more protien/protein binding sites to defeat Dr. Behe’s estimate of a limit of 2.
To me the whole debate is laughable , because the conservative estimate of number of protein/protein binding sites in a cell in Dr. Behe’ book is 10,000.
Yet in a number of replication events that far exceeds the proposed mammals split from reptiles (which requires far more than a paltry few binding sites to develop), we see this quibbling over whether zero, one, or even a few, protein/protein binding sites developed.
It does not follow logic at all for evolutionists to claim proof of principle when they have done no such thing at all.
Until evolutionists can come up with far better proof than what they are currently crowing about (one overlooked binding site), they are merely stating a conjecture of their imagination with no solid foundation in reality.
eh? Don’t fall into Musgrave’s trap of conflating the two examples of minor Darwinian evolution. The whole point is that something like this might be expected to be within the powers of Darwinism for viruses. The problem is that they’re taking the factors surrounding viruses and extrapolating that as somehow providing evidence for higher organisms even though the situation is very different.
Really, the only reason Darwinists are gaining any mileage at all on this minor issue is because it was not originally included in EoE. You don’t hear them crowing over the other minor examples of Darwinian evolution that were discussed in the book. The oddball part is that none of these examples have enough informational bits to be CSI. Even before Behe took the time to look at this example I was wondering what the commotion was about since even to me it was rather obvious after a cursory reading it would not present a challenge. So why make a mountain out of a molehill?
Bob O’H:
I just sent an email to Dr. Behe letting him know that in my showdown with Dr. Musgrave over at ERV’s blog I had already pointed out to Ian that the development of viroporin activity happened in the 20′s and 30′s, well before anyone had ever heard of HIV. Thus, if one considers the time period for which Table 7.1 was constructed, the viroporin activity should not be included.
The ZERO should remain ZERO.