Comment on BBC`s “War on science”

Well, well, well… BBC is concerned about the ID movement. They see it as a threat to science. So they did this “A war on science” documentary. And it seems that they take Intelligent Design as a “a new explanation”, although in the end they conclude that is just another form of creationism. It is the same old story, “a battle between faith and knowledge”, some kind of strange panic feeling being projected (when they state “the beginning of a dark age in science”). I am not that concerned. Are they worried? The video is worth watching, I would say… in the end the creationist do get some kind of publicity. Some kind of irony against the scientist can be felt and the editing of the video is clearly meant to influence the viewer`s sub-consciousness (like for example putting a very happy tune when stating that the creationism was finally banned from the curricula).
Creationist scientist who appear on this video: Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, William Dembsky. As you see, la crème de la crème… They talk about two important issues – the principle of irreducible complexity (by which he means that a system composed form various interacting and interdependent smaller parts could have not ‘evolved’, so that it would not have been able to develop while already functioning) and mathematical probability.
The evolutionist response is given by Kenneth Miller (who gives a reasonable answer in my opinion on the flagellum issue, but messing up with the message to the American people), Richard Dawkins (who is 99% percent “wright”) and of course all time superstar David Attenborough (I have to admit that he has a good point at the very end of the video, when stating “if you find something that you don`t understand, you can say that it was created by a divine spirit, …but answers nothing really. It simply says we don`t know”).
Another annoying thing was the so called set up for Cardinal Christoph Schonborn pro-Intelligent Design speech. The cardinal`s position is well known. So I consider that that was pretty low on BBC`s account. And the explanation of the Vatican`s Astronomy Observatory`s employee was hilarious: “If the pope [John Paul II] were living, he never gotten away with it”.

Some of the ideas (by the narrator) that lack irrefutable scientific support can be read below (please watch video for context):

“Natural selection explained how life evolved form the first simple organisms”.

[Natural selection is a process by which some of the favorable traits (which assure a greater adaptability to the changing conditions of the environment) in the parents are passed to the next generation and become more frequent in the phenotype of that particular organism. The better adapted organisms are more likely to survive in the environment and their population replaces the old one. In the end, the species can become very specialized, and it`s power to adapt if new environmental condition emerge drops. So it is very like too become extinct. Or to evolve, which has not been observed up to now, nor can be easily predicted having regard of the genotype constraints. Of course, mutations could interfere…. bla bla]

“The survival of the fittest allowed the species to change and developed until new species arrived, over billions of years, the diversity on earth”.
[That is quite a shortcut over them billions of year] 🙂
“They doubt that natural selection can produce the complexity of life”

[That maybe a careless statement. What produces in fact the complexity of life? Natural selection is a fact, we see it at work day by day. But what makes life be so complex? That`s a hard one for me… ]

Watch the video here: