“Dogma, like the Big Bang theory?”

I noticed something odd in the “intelligent design” complaints about Nova’s TV show about Kitzmiller vs. Dover Schoolboard. It’s funny how some anti-evolutionists go on about how scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it would have meant a beginning to the universe, but now they embrace it since it replaces God. That’s an odd choice of example.

In rushing to tar science with the “dogma” brush, they don’t mention that the Big Bang and the Steady State theories both generated predictions, which were experiments in the laboratory of nature: we could look for expected results. In fact, everyone got down to work making observations and drawing up new hypotheses to test. That went on for about thirty years. At at the end of that time, the Steady State theorists, notably Fred Hoyle, threw in their hands and said, “We give up, you guys have the evidence on your side.”

In other words, it worked the way science is supposed to work, not like the vampire of Creation / Creation Science / I.D., which continually rises from its grave along with the disproved canards such as “blood clotting is irreducibly complex” or “the flagellum is irreducibly complex” or “all those changes would have to occur without incurring any benefit before you got something that could be selected” or even, “Mutations must occur with the end product in mind.”

Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design & Young-Earth Creationism

I missed the Judgement Day dramatization of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover federal trial, but in celebration of the occasion I’m linking to a couple of videos of one of its heroes, scientist Eugenie Scott.

%d bloggers like this: