Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial is a NOVA documentary on the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which concentrated on the question of whether or not intelligent design could be viewed as science and taught in school science class. It aired in on PBS in November 2007 and features interviews with the judge, witnesses, and lawyers as well as re-enacted scenes (no cameras were allowed in court).

WKNO-TV, the local PBS affiliate in Memphis decided not to air the documentary because of the "controversial nature" of the subject, but has since promised to broadcast it in 2008.

It was produced by NOVA and Vulcan Productions, in association with the Big Table Film Company. The senior executive producer was Paula S. Apsell, the executive producer was Richard Hutton, and the producers were Joseph McMaster, Gary Johnstone, and Vanessa Tovell. The senior producer was Susanne Simpson. Johnstone and McMaster served as directors, and McMaster was the writer.

Resources for teachers are available to help with presentation of this material to classroom students.

Response

The documentary was praised by Nature, and described as accurate by the National Center for Science Education. However, the Discovery Institute, which is considered the hub of the intelligent design movement, dismissed this positive review since the author of the Nature review, Adam Rutherford, had been allowed to prescreen the movie, and wrote a blog commentary for The Guardian that called Iowa State University astrophysicist and intelligent design supporter Guillermo Gonzalez a "crap scientist".

Variety magazine also gave the documentary a positive review, and said it was one of the year's most important television projects, that should be shown in every United States high school, and as well as in places of worship.

The Discovery Institute has produced a website critical of the PBS broadcast. Intelligent design movement founder Philip E. Johnson was interviewed by the Discovery Institute in advance of the airing of the Judgment Day program. Johnson indicated that Judge Jones found correctly that teaching intelligent design in school violated the Establishment clause of the U.S. constitution, but that he went too far in ruling on whether intelligent design was science or not. The interview is available as a podcast.

The creationist organization Answers in Genesis also negatively reviewed the production. AiG expressed disappointment that a tax-supported organization like PBS would create a documentary which unfairly allowed scientists to have the last word in discussions of evolution, instead of intelligent design promoters or creationists. The AiG review expressed surprise that there was so much resistance in Dover, Pennsylvania to requiring teachers to read a short statement in class disputing the scientific basis of evolution, and suggesting that students read the intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People. The AiG review suggested that the "separation of church and state" is not really a constitutional principle in the United States. In addition, the AiG review describes how all the examples of evolution presented in Judgment Day are fallacious, and how some of the intelligent design supporters were presented in a bad light and appeared inconsistent (except for Philip E. Johnson). AiG expressed concern that NOVA has produced a teacher's guide and that this production might be seen by school children, doing irreparable harm by exposing them to evolution. The review also was pessimistic about the future prospects for intelligent design to be accepted in school curricula. The review also made it clear that AiG disagrees with the Discovery Institute approach of not mentioning God.

A few days later, Answers in Genesis published a second review by David A. Dewitt, professor of biology at fundamentalist Christian Liberty University. Dewitt wrote that intelligent design is not creationism, since the promoters of intelligent design do not claim they are proving God's existence, disagreeing with the position taken by Judgment Day and the federal judge of Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John E. Jones. Dewitt also disagreed with the position of the documentary that evolution is compatible with Christianity, since it is at odds with biblical literalism, and disputed most of the evidence presented for evolution.

The creationist organization Institute for Creation Research (ICR) also published a review of the program. The ICR review states that the documentary was not fair and balanced and employed "falsified facts". ICR claims that the program did not mention that important Discovery Institute witnesses were not allowed to have their own attorneys present, and therefore decided not to testify, unfairly tilting the trial in favor of the evolution supporters. ICR complains that the NOVA program equates science and evolution, and the review states that evolution is not science. The review suggests that the holes in scientific knowledge must be explained by miracles. ICR's review states that intelligent design is deficient because it leaves out the intelligent designer. The ICR review dismisses the evidence of evolution presented by Judgment Day, stating it is uncertain, or just evidence of microevolution instead of macroevolution. The ICR casts aspersions on the credibility of Charles Darwin by stating that most of the finch beaks Darwin used in his studies were not acquired by him personally, but procured for him by others and shipped to him. ICR also states that Darwin lacks credibility because of allegedly racist statements he made in his book The Descent of Man. The review dismisses statements in Judgment Day that evolution is compatible with religion since, according to ICR, evolution is supposedly based on the omission of God.

Another creationist organization that reviewed Judgment Day is Creation Safaris (CS). Creation Safaris charges that the program is biased and laced with propaganda. CS also complains that the actor chosen to portray expert witness Michael Behe made him look uneasy and projected doubt. CS writes that

CS declares that whether ID violates the separation of church and state, and many other issues addressed in Judgment Day which form the basis of the judge's decision, are "irrelevant". CS states that the Dover court decision is irrelevant, since Judge Jones is unelected and only has jurisdiction in his own district.

CS rejects all suggestions that intelligent design will impede science or agriculture or industry. The CS review alleges that, instead, design-based science is far more fruitful than Darwinian science, and gives as examples, "biomimetics, archaeology, forensics, information technology". Creation Safaris claim that all the evidence in peer-reviewed books and studies presented to Behe during the trial was not real evidence, but only "speculation" because of an "apriori commitment to naturalism". CS states that "hardly any working scientist has a clue what science is", and that Judgment Day uses a "sophomoric definition of science". CS opines that no demarcation criteria exist which separate sciences such as astronomy from nonsciences such as astrology, and that it is not important that a science produce predictions that can be verified.

The CS review claims that Darwin's theory has been an impediment to science, because it led to "eugenics and racist criminal theory". Creation Safaris ridiculed the suggestion that science cannot include the supernatural in their review, and stated that no one involved with making the documentary understood the true meanings of the natural and supernatural.

The telomere in the middle of human chromosome number 2 that the documentary presented as evidence that humans and other primates have a common ancestor is rejected by Creation Safaris as being something that God put there for his own purposes, or resulting from a genetic bottleneck created by Noah's Ark. CS denigrates the policy of only teaching evolution in public school science classes as "Darwin-Only in Public Education (D.O.P.E.)".

Teacher's guide controversy

The Discovery Institute has announced that a teacher's guide issued by PBS in conjunction with Judgment Day constitutes a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. The Discovery Institute claims that the guide, called “Briefing Packet for Educators”, violates the Establishment Clause of the US constitution by suggesting discussion questions like

Randal Wegner, a Pennsylvania attorney who filed amicus curae briefs in the Dover trial, opined that

The Discovery Institute has 15 attorneys and legal scholars who are experts in constitutional law investigating this issue. In addition, the Discovery Institute has issued its own guide for teachers, called The Theory of Intelligent Design: A briefing packet for educators to help them understand the debate between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. New Scientist quotes an attorney for WGBH, who contended that the statements in the teacher's guide are covered under the right to free speech.

External links

• Judgment Day from PBS
• Watch Online