Customer Reviews

Judgment Day - Intelligent Design on Trial

5 star:		(26)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a very nicely done DVD outlining the case of Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover School Board. If you are reading this, you doubtless know the gist of the case: a handful of maverick school-board members decide to disapprove of the "standard" biology textbook (the "Dragonfly" book by Miller and Levine, which has been used for quite a while). Instead, they wnt to teach a more "intelligent-design-friendly" text and....a logal battle ensues.

This DVD is a very engaging recount of the trial's action. The most memorable part of the film - and what sets it apart from other films that profile the case - is that this one reenacts pieces of the case, using actors to read from the actual transcript. In other words, we actually get to watch the moment when Ken Miller (the co-author of the "Dragonfly book") tears the very Christian lawyer from the Thomas Moore Law Center to shreds over his "just a thoery" remark. It really happened, and now, we get to see it brought back to life. If you value science, you will find this as entertaining as I did.

While the film's goal is to primarily profile the case, it also serves as a great explanation and defense of evolution. We hear, for instance, about what makes evolution falsifiable, and some of the most recent 'tests' it has undergone (with flying colors). We get the cursory tour of genetics and how it operates as the fundamental mechanism of evolutionary theory.

But most of all, this film is about the trial. The passion of both sides is well captured through interviews with many of the participants: we hear both from board members and plaintiffs, the Thomas Moore Law Center and the ACLU. I do not want to say, hosever, that this film is balanced. (It is a pro-science program, and as such, it is very pro-evolution). It is helpful, though, to be able to put faces to names, and hear each person's perspective from their own mouths.

In the end, of course, creationism did what it does best: it lost out to science. In so many words, an astute philosopher named Barbara Forrest was able to demonstrate with conclusive evidence that Intelligent Design actually IS creationism revamped. Thus, the creationists' whole case was blown. But the emotion that surrounds this issue will doubtless be around for some time, resurfacing (and hopefully losing) many more times before it dies.

And this is a really good film to remind us all that it is battle very much alive.

While it's obvious that Nova has a bias toward science, I think the documentary did a good job of giving air time to those on both sides of the issue in this documentary on the Dover trial on Evolution vs Intelligent Design. They did dramatize court room testimony, but it was taken from court transcripts so I would assume the dialog to be fairly accurate. It was clear about halfway through that many of the opponents to the theory of Evolution had very little understanding of what a scientific theory is. They mentioned this in the documentary, but I wish that they would have given it a bit more time as I believe this is one of those fundamental misunderstandings that some have with science and how it works. Science is simply the best means we have for finding out the truth. So if Nova is bias toward science, you could say that they are simply bias toward the truth.

"Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial" ranks as among the finest documentaries I have seen on the so-called "creation vs. evolution" debate. Why? It does a most admirable job showing the cultural fissures which emerged in Dover, PA in the immediate aftermath of its pro-Creationist school board's decision to "introduce" Intelligent Design creationism into the science classrooms of Dover High School. There is ample testimony from local residents like former board members Alan Bonsell and Bill Buckingham, Dover science teacher Berta Spahr and reporter Lori Lebo, whose words dramatically illustrate the ample tensions that were present in the small Pennsylvanian town from the summer of 2004 through December 2005; tensions which erupted quite literally in a "cultural" civil war which pitted father against daughter (Lori Lebo's Fundamentalist Protestant Christian father against a daughter who was quite skeptical of his devout religious faith.) and neighbor against neighbor. There is also excellent commentary from Intelligent Design advocates philosopher Steve Fuller and retired law school professor Philip Johnson in defending Intelligent Design, but there is indeed ample, persuasive remarks in defense of valid scientific education and the validity of modern evolutionary theory as sound science from the Pepper Hamilton lawyers who were the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, and notable scientists like paleontologists Kevin Padian, and Neil Shubin, cell biologist Ken Miller and physical anthropologist Eugenie Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. Last, but not least, Judge John E. Jones III, offers a most persuasive defense of his ruling, demonstrating why his thinking was indeed original (contrary to creationist accusations of his "plagiarizing" from previous court cases) and non-activist in tone.

The most remarkable aspects of "Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial" are the excellent re-enactments of key moments in the trial by actors portraying Ken Miller, ID advocate Michael Behe, the attorneys for the plaintiffs and the defendants, and philosopher of science Barbara Forrest, taken directly from the actual courtroom transcripts. Among the most memorable scenes include those of Michael Behe's admission that astrology could be viewed as science under his expansive definition of a tenable scientific theory, his failure to admit that there is ample evidence supporting the evolutionary biology of immunology (a scene in which Pepper Hamilton attorney Eric Rothschild piles a large stack of papers and books providing this evidence on Michael Behe's desk), Ken Miller's defense of real science when questioned by defense attorney Patrick Gillen, and Barbara Forrest's devastating disclosure showing how the Intelligent Design textbook "Of Pandas and People" "evolved" from a religiously-oriented "creation science" book into one devoted exclusively to the "scientific" nature of Intelligent Design.

Without question, "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" should be purchased by anyone interested in understanding what transpired in Dover, Pennsylvania and the true, religious nature of so-called "Intelligent Design"; a scientifically discarded concept that should be regarded not only as a pernicious mixture of dead science and bad theology, but truly as mendacious intellectual pornography.

Follows the Dover, PA case where the school board required teaching 'intelligent design' along side evolution. Does a great job of presenting the history of ID, explaining why ID is not science, and uncovering a conspiracy to undermine real science. Not only did I learn about the legal case, but it also included a lot of recent data that supports evolution and debunks the ID arguements.

I recommend this documentary. While NOVA is science oriented, thus ID (creationism) doesn't get the NOVA backing (as the trial shows ID to be non-scientific) - they do portray arguments and illustration from both sides of the fence. This includes the very poor analogy of someone writing in the sand as being evidence for design just as the earth is evidence for design, etc which NOVA didn't rebut but left standing. The film progresses from the onset of the Dover incident to the verdict with interviews and dramatizations along the way.

It can be seen from other sources that creationists often twist, distort and otherwise deceive and this same behavior is caught in the Dover incident. Unfortunately, the creationists don't admit to this and just write off the judge as unfair, the portrayals unfair and the deceit as an honest mistake. The final interview with the school superintendent after the judge's decision is very revealing. The judge makes the point that you need not abandon faith to see what evidence provides us - evolution. The arguments and drama is enjoyable. Check it out...

I remembered the 2004 mess in Dover,Pennsylvania when a small town literally imploded on itself over the issue of adding "intelligent design" to the curriculum of their High School.NOVA outdoes itself in presenting all sides of the issue with interviews of the players involved, and a compelling re-enactment of the "closed" court case based on the transcripts.I honestly could not remember what the outcome of their dilemma was, so JUDGMENT DAY had me riveted to the screen.There is a lot to learn about how "science" is defined and explained.To me, evolution vs.intelligent design is a total non-issue,so for me to watch neighbor turn against neighbor,father turn against daughter,and friend threaten and lie to another friend, and religion get all mixed in fascinated me to know end.This was a real American town coming to blows with itself.The presentation is directly from testimony,so there is no bias in the presentation.The result does not show a bias, as much as it shows the problem that confronts the Constitution when it comes to these kinds of debates,and how they are ruled upon.Ultimately,this DVD showed man's inhumanity to man.To quote from a song by The Supremes,"Where did our love go?"Where Dover? Where?

I'll try to keep this short, but I have a vested interest in this subject. "Judgement Day" is a well-told documentary about the Dover trial and the cases specifically made in court. It spotlights the continual dishonesty of the Creationist movement, especially striking hard with the Creationists' own words. I was particularly amused by the fellow who, at the start of the film, was eager to have the judge decide on what was and wasn't science. When the court ruling went against him, he announced that the judge had "overstepped" by deciding what was and what wasn't science. The credibility whiplash was almost painful to watch.

So once again the Creationists and their leaders have been set back on their pins. Not long afterwards they changed their tune to "Let's Teach the Contraversy!", and I am quite sure that it won't be long before they once again charge into the courts to try to ram their religious dogma into science classes.

They just don't get it. In order for something to be accepted as science, all that must be done is a collection of evidence, a hypothesis drawn from that evidence, and then a test or series of tests designed to discover the accuracy or inaccuracy of the hypothesis. That done, the hypothesis gets published in a peer-reviewed journal, where experts in the relevant field examine the hypothesis and the tests for flaws, and try to replicate the results. If the hypotheses passes all this, then it becomes an acceptable scientific theory.

The Creationists keep trying to skip all that and want to go straight to the textbooks. They provide no evidence beyond personal incredulity, have no tests that can produce any verifiable results (and in fact don't do any research at all), and have not ever tried to submit their efforts to peer review. "Judgement Day" is a textbook demonstration of this in action, and illustrates the hollowness and idealized ignorance that characterizes the Creationist movement.

This proves why Intelligent Design is really just creationism with a new name and how creationists have tried to subvert scientific progress by manipulating the facts for a religious agenda. This is happening all over the world today, but this trial exposed the ID movement for what it is and shows why.

This documentary does a good job of presenting the issue in the space of an hour. Michael Behe refused to be interviewed for it but other creationists from the Discovery Institute and the Dover school board are interviewed as is Judge John E. Jones III.

The one thing that comes across is that this documentary could have been much stronger in tone that what it was. At Kitzmiller v. Dover the creationist cream of the crop (five of whom didn't even turn up), not only lacked a morsel of scientific rigor (any peer-review at all), and admitted this under oath, but acknowledged that they where wrong and conceded that their irreducibly complex models could have evolved. They rejected their own creationism and embraced evolution. This is not mentioned in the program so I feel it wasn't tough enough but even with what is here much of it will surprise, especially how underhanded the whole creationist agenda was with their wedge strategy.

It also reveals that evolutionists received death threats. So did the Judge.

This is a good documentary on the topic, however I also recommend BBC Horizon A war on science - 2006 for even more detail and live footage of some of the events.

The film documents the 2005 trial of a group of parents and teachers in Dover, PA. who sued the school board accusing them of violating the constituional separation of church and state. The dispute, which divided this small community of 20,000 into two very polarized groups, started when the school board required science teachers to read a statement to students that Intelligent Design (ID) was a viable alternative scientific theory to the theory of evolution and that books were available in the library which would give students more information about ID. These books had been anonymously donated to the school and became an integral part of the trial later on. The trial attracted national and international attention. An attorney for the plaintiffs stated, 'This is the case I've been waiting all my life for..". The success of the plaintiffs rested on being able to prove two statements. One, they had to prove that ID was not a scientific theory according to generally accepted scientific principles. Two, they had to prove the school had religious motivation or purposes in requiring that ID be presented to students. The trial last six weeks and literally divided families in the community as people took sides. If you like legal movies you will enjoy the strategies of both sides as they make their cases. It was a fascinating trial. The trial was decided by a judge who was appointed by the Bush Administration which clearly had an ID bias. If you're interested in evolution versus ID, you will also find this fascinating. Remember, it is ID that is on trial, not the theory of evolution. Did this trial answer the questions forever regarding ID or was it a referendum on the Dover school board? You can decide. As the trial demonstrates, the science and faith communities are still far apart in understanding each other and recognizing the limitations and strengths of both. At the end, a couple surprise discoveries create a 'Perry Mason' style finish. Worth watching no matter which side of the debate you find yourself on. WWW.LUSREVIEWS.BLOGSPOT.COM.

As a Phd scientist, I can say that a lot of people (and certainly some of the reviewers) don't really know what constitutes science and what does not. It's also true that there is disagreement amongst scientists over what constitutes 'truth', 'reality' or a whole host of concepts that are not directly measureable. and THAT is the key word: science is about observables. If it cannot be measured it does not exist. and ofcourse people will misinterpret that statement too: 'does not exist' means does not fall within the boundaries of nature/ existence that are typically occupied by science.
And to clarify further - 'science' does NOT equal 'truth'. In addition, people don't really understand what a theory is. We are all familar with the 'theory of gravity' and yet, even though it is a theory, rest assured if you drop an object it will fall!
These people who advocate ID first need to understand what science is and what it is not before they start making uneducated comments about it.
Science operates on a 'truth by consensus basis'. That is, some 'fact' is generally accepted to be correct once sufficient evidence is collected. BUT that fact is never completely true - it is simply the best explanation put forth at the current time. For example, people continue to push the limits on the theory of relativity with additional experiments/ meausurements. why do they bother if relativity is accepted to be true? Partly because the underlying model proposed by Einstein works under certain conditions which may not always work. The applicability of the model is limited by the mathematics of the model.
A good example of where science has gone haywire is String Theory. To my knowledge, none of that stuff is directly measureable so why do we bother!?
To summarize: Science is not 'truth'. It is not 'reality'. It is a tool (consisting primarily of the english language and mathematics) that we use to interface with the physical world. It also works. ID does not and therefore cannot be taught alongside science. It can certainly be taught but not WITH science. People don't seem to understand the difference and this is a shortcoming of the education system: people may study chemistry and physics but that doesn't mean they necessarily understand what science actually is!