Tim
.jpg)
Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005
|
I enjoyed the programme overrall.
They did a good job of building up Behe's bacterial flagella, with his good ol' "it won't work if all the parts aren't there" canard, which to a layman can make a lot of sense, just to knock it down so thoroughly with Ken Miller's wonderfully clear demonstration subsequently.
The same approach was followed with Dembski (is he always so spooky?). They took some time to explain his mathematical probability theory that makes the 'chances' of evolution happening (whatever that means)impossible. Again this was followed with Ken clearly explaining that if you take a deck of cards and deal out all 52, the probability of you dealing those same 52 cards again in the same sequence is extremely low. However that is entirely irrelevant; the original 52 card sequence (evolution) had a 100% chance of happening, as that is the card sequence we have today. Ken's explanation made Dembski and all his moody dice throwing look, well, a bit silly.
For me this formula of building up and thoroughly explaining the 'science' behind ID, just to then knock it down again so convincingly was a persuasive way of presenting the creation/evolution controversy (or lack thereof).
I felt that the programme could have interviewed some of the Dover board of governors on the creationist side; those that voted for the original change in the biology curriculum. They interviewed one couple who voted against the change, and one science teacher who resigned when he realised the board majority's agenda, but none on the creationist side. However I'm guessing that after they were voted out they'd be rather reluctant to grant any interviews.
Dawkins I thought came across as rather shrill, but then he usually does. It's a shame because his points are always very clear and concise, but his manner (I am RIGHT and they are WRONG) is immediately off-putting.
The moodiness in the presentation of the program with lingering shots of not very much was, I agree, unnecessary, but overall I don't think it detracted too much from the subject therein.
Anyhoo, leave it to the ever-wonderful and ever-interesting David Attenborough to sum things up beautifully at the end.
|
, but cuddly old David slagging off the creationists was a great way to get laymen on the right side.....(and indicative of the way producers were pitching this) 
