HOME PAGE
Movie Videos
Films by Year
Films by Director
Films by Actor
Films by Actress
Films by Alphabet
Film Characters
Film Franchises

TOP 100 MOVIES in 2007!


2013 MOVIES
2012 MOVIES
2011 MOVIES
2010 MOVIES
2009 MOVIES
2008 MOVIES
2007 MOVIES
2006 MOVIES
2005 MOVIES
2004 MOVIES
2003 MOVIES
2002 MOVIES
2001 MOVIES
2000 MOVIES
1999 MOVIES
1998 MOVIES
1997 MOVIES
1996 MOVIES
1995 MOVIES
1994 MOVIES
1993 MOVIES
1992 MOVIES
1991 MOVIES
1990 MOVIES
1989 MOVIES
1988 MOVIES
1987 MOVIES
1986 MOVIES
1985 MOVIES
1984 MOVIES
1983 MOVIES
1982 MOVIES
1981 MOVIES
1980 MOVIES
1979 MOVIES
1978 MOVIES
1977 MOVIES
1976 MOVIES
1975 MOVIES
1974 MOVIES
1973 MOVIES
1972 MOVIES
1971 MOVIES
1970 MOVIES
1969 MOVIES
1968 MOVIES
1967 MOVIES
1966 MOVIES
1965 MOVIES
1964 MOVIES
1963 MOVIES
1962 MOVIES
1961 MOVIES
1960 MOVIES
1959 MOVIES
1958 MOVIES
1957 MOVIES
1956 MOVIES
1955 MOVIES
1954 MOVIES
1953 MOVIES
1952 MOVIES
1951 MOVIES
1950 MOVIES
1949 MOVIES
1948 MOVIES
1947 MOVIES
1946 MOVIES
1945 MOVIES
1944 MOVIES
1943 MOVIES
1942 MOVIES
1941 MOVIES
1940 MOVIES
1939 MOVIES
1938 MOVIES
1937 MOVIES
1936 MOVIES
1935 MOVIES
1934 MOVIES
1933 MOVIES
1932 MOVIES
1931 MOVIES
1930 MOVIES
1929 MOVIES
1928 MOVIES
1927 MOVIES
1926 MOVIES
1925 MOVIES
1924 MOVIES
1923 MOVIES
1922 MOVIES
1921 MOVIES
1920 MOVIES
1919 MOVIES
1918 MOVIES
1917 MOVIES
1916 MOVIES
1915 MOVIES
1914 MOVIES
1913 MOVIES
1912 MOVIES
1911 MOVIES
1910 MOVIES

Subscribe To This Site
XML RSS
Add to Google
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My MSN
Subscribe with Bloglines
 

INTELLIGENT DESIGN VS EVOLUTION, 2007
Movie Reviews!

Search 1,000 of MOVIES
CLICK and WATCH MOVIES ONLINE!
WATCH VIDEO MOVIE REVIEW:
2007 MOVIE BESTTOP 100 MOVIES from 2007


See the LIST
2007 MOVIE BEST2007 MOVIE BEST

See over 400 genres of films of 2007

 MOVIES by ALPHABET

See over 10,000 plus films!
 Every movie from 2007

See over 200 plus films!

Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
To Evolve is Human, To Create Divine?

Intelligent Design Vs Evolution, creationism, dover pennsylvania, jen frankel

Judgment Day:
Intelligent Design on Trial
(2007, TV)
Dir: Gary Johnstone, Joseph McMaster

I suppose it's appropriate that Darwin's theory has itself been under evolution since its publication in 1859. This is just good science; anyone who follows the introduction of a new theory knows that scientists are the hardest on each other when it comes to poking holes in a hypothesis.

Sometimes I think the very existence of creationists in what I like to think of as a predominantly rational world may actually poke a bit of a hole in the idea of natural selection. But then, maybe the tenacity and stubbornness shown by creationists is an evolutionary trait as desirable in its way as the opposing thumb.

The tenacity certainly comes out clearly in the documentary "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial." You probably know more about the 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial" dramatized in the play and film "Inherit the Wind" than about the far more recent and relevant 2005 case in Dover, Pennsylvania. I certainly did.

No one following the recent U.S. primaries this spring could have failed to note the preoccupation with religion in Pennsylvania. Nowhere is the "great divide" between the right and the left more evident. People define themselves here by their beliefs and their associations, and passions run high on both sides.

It was here that a school board member in Dover, with the stated intent to make his county a better place, proposed that intelligent design be taught alongside evolution, in the interests of fairness. A text was suggested, "Of Pandas and People," which could help students understand that the theory of evolution was just that, a theory, and that there were other schools of thought.

What followed culminated in a six-week trial in which the parents of several students in Dover took the school board to court over the introduction of something that seemed like a very thinly disguised attempt to bring religion into the classroom in the form of "Creationism minus God."

On trial was the concept of what makes something science, and what constitutes the religious slant that the Founding Fathers specifically barred from entry into law.

Representing the plaintiffs were lawyers of the ACLU. They dismantled the common claim of creationists that evolution is largely unproven and in question. One of the major counter-arguments to Darwin's theory is that there are large holes in the fossil record where natural selection states there should be evolutionary links, something the ACLU team was able to discredit entirely. Many of these "missing" links are no longer missing at all. Scientists, by digging at the right strata representing the time they expected to find transitional creatures, have been rewarded again and again with exactly the fossils they hoped to find.

Possibly the most potent argument brought forward was the idea in science that a theory actually carries more weight than a fact. A theory, they said, is a body of facts - any of which might be true or not true - built up over a period of time and surviving stringent testing.

So evolution stands up, when new evidence or new technology comes to bear, in a way that few theories have.

The defendant case, in response, claimed a very lax definition of science in order to have so-called intelligent design considered as such, and found itself forced to accept that, by its own definition, astrology was as valid a science as what they were trying to prove.

The Republican judge, elected by Bush, was nonetheless convinced and offered a decision that barred the teaching of intelligent design permanently in Dover, on constitutional grounds.

I admit, at the midpoint of the program, I began to believe that the judge would hide his decision behind the constitutionality of the separation of church and state, and manage to completely avoid ruling on whether or not intelligent design was at all valid.

But the decision went as far as the ACLU could have dreamed, and I'm sure further than they expected. In essence, the judge said that intelligent design was indistinguishable from creationism except in name, and that to teach it would be a violation of the Constitution. But he went farther, and stated that intelligent design was in no way scientific, and as such had no place in a science classroom.

What was striking, though, was the absolute insistence of the proponents of ID that they were only trying to make the world a better place. It still stuns me when I hear this, from the mouths of people who actually perjured themselves on the stand during this very trial, in this case by denying knowledge of who had donated a number of ID texts to the high school in Dover.

The kind of double-think that allows a person to claim to be a good Christian while willfully breaking several of the Ten Commandments - in this case "Thou Shalt Not Lie" was prominent - remains a source of great perplexity for me. I cannot possibly see any goodness, for example, in justifying the suspension of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" so that it ceases to be a crime against God to murder a doctor who performs abortions.

But good old Pat Robertson probably puts it best into perspective with his dire warning to Dover after the decision: "Don't be surprised if there's a disaster... because you've turned your back on God."

A God like that I don't want anywhere near a school, or me, thanks very much.


back from intelligent design vs evolution to jenstuff

Google


footer for Intelligent Design vs Evolution page