Nova's "Judgment Day" Coming November 13 on PBS

Posted 12 July 2007 by Nick Matzke

From NOVA Upcoming Summer & Fall 2007 Programming: NOVA shows on PBS on Tuesdays @ 8 pm ET/PT (check local listings):

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (w.t.) November 13, 2007 at 8 pm ET check local listings One of the latest battles in the war over evolution took place in a tiny town in eastern Pennsylvania called Dover. In 2004, the local school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to their high school biology students. The statement suggested that there is an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution called intelligent design, the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and therefore had to have been designed by an intelligent agent. The science teachers refused to comply with the order, and alarmed parents filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the separation of church and state. Suddenly, the small town of Dover was torn apart by controversy, pitting neighbor against neighbor. NOVA captures the emotional conflict in interviews with the townspeople, scientists and lawyers who participated in the historic six-week trial, Kitzmiller, et. al. v. Dover School District, et. al., which was closely watched by the world's media. With recreations based on court transcripts, NOVA presents the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as "What is evolution?" and "Does intelligent design qualify as science?" For years to come, the lessons from Dover will continue to have a profound impact on how science is viewed in our society and how to teach it the classroom. Produced by NOVA WGBH Science Unit and Vulcan Productions, Inc. Additional production by The Big Table Film Company.

NOVA promoted the documentary, along with other upcoming PBS shows, in front of the critics in Los Angeles this week. Here is an account from TVBarn.com:

Meanwhile, another program that promises to make the fall interesting for PBS got its first preview. "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," an episode of "Nova" scheduled to air Nov. 13, will recreate the widely covered 2004 trial over a school-board policy in Dover, Pa., that would have required science teachers to give evolution and God-made-this theories equal time. Since cameras weren't allowed in the courtroom, "Nova" hired actors to re-enact portions of the transcript. First the O.J. civil trial, then Michael Jackson, now public television. Unlike Ken Burns, who waited for trouble to come his way, Paula Apsell, the executive producer of "Nova," and the makers of "Judgment Day" seem to have sensed from the get-go they would take a lot of abuse from the intelligent design proponents. And so, to keep it from spilling over into the mainstream press, the producers said they went to great pains representing the anti-evolution point of view, even as the Seattle organization that leads those efforts stonewalled "Nova's" requests for interviews. "If you believe that intelligent design got a fair shake in the trial, then you'll certainly believe that it gets a fair shake in this program because this is a program about the trial," said Apsell. Judge John E. Jones III (shown here portrayed by Jay Benedict), who was appointed by President Bush, ruled for the teachers who refused to teach intelligent design, and the voters turned out the anti-evolutionists in the next school board election. Jones, appearing in L.A. to help promote the two-hour program, said he didn't cut people off at the trial, and let everyone have their say. Jones quoted the journalist Margaret Talbot, who wrote after the trial in the New Yorker, "It was a science class that everybody wished they'd been able to take when they were in school."

28 Comments

Henry J · 12 July 2007

Re ""If you believe that intelligent design got a fair shake in the trial, then you'll certainly believe that it gets a fair shake in this program because this is a program about the trial," said Apsell."

Shaken, and stirred.

Nick (Matzke) · 12 July 2007

LOL!

Mr_Christopher · 12 July 2007

Any truth to the rumor that Homer Simpson is to portray William Dembski?

steve s · 12 July 2007

No, but I hear the Nick Matzke character is portrayed by Denzel Washington.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 12 July 2007

Nick your reply was simply "LOL", it should have included - Shake n Bake "and I helped"

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Louis · 12 July 2007

Inherit the wind 2!

JohnW · 12 July 2007

Any truth to the rumor that Homer Simpson is to portray William Dembski?
— Mr_Christopher

William Dembski will be played by the late Claude Rains.

fnxtr · 12 July 2007

... the aptly named "Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Courtroom".

Though Dembski is really more like Sir Robin, isn't he...

Bill Gascoyne · 12 July 2007

Actually, Claude Rains is better known as Captain Renault from Casablanca ("I'm shocked, shocked do you hear, to discover that gambling has been going on here") than as the Invisible Man.

Tony · 12 July 2007

The Thomas More Center thru the match...

Bit of a sore loser, aren't we? Funny; the TMLC identifies itself to be the "Sword and Shield for People of Faith." What exactly are those so-called swords and shields made of - cardboard?

Sir_Toejam · 12 July 2007

Thats why the Thomas More[sic] wanted this piece of crap fact pattern with ignorant defendants as a test case.

shake your fist harder, boy!

Gerry L · 12 July 2007

Oh, boy, a CONSPIRACY THEORY: The Thomas Moore Law Center people are actually MOLES for the nasty EVILutionists. They shopped around for a case and found some patsies in Dover, PA. Then they intentionally LOST the case so that their DARWINIST masters would be victorious. Wow.

Sir_Toejam · 12 July 2007

... btw, what you say would ONLY make sense if the TMLC wished to establish a baseline for a future run at a hearing with the Supreme Court.

that didn't happen now, did it.

oops.

Jud · 12 July 2007

anonymous wrote: "you have left the door open for many future suprises," and "The Thomas More Center thru the match...."

Let me guess, you'd kick our sorry evolutionist asses but you can't read the road signs to our houses?

Mark Studdock, FCD · 12 July 2007

"Margaret Talbot, who wrote after the trial in the New Yorker, "It was a science class that everybody wished they'd been able to take when they were in school.""

Think about that statement for half a second....

The dover trial which equally aired both the arguments for and against ID is "the science class that everybody wished they'd been able to take when they were in school." Unfortunately, due to the outcome of the dover trial, people will not be able to take such a great course.

Wow....?

WhySquared · 12 July 2007

Unrelated, but I'm not sure where else to post this.
Has anyone read this?

"Butterfly shows evolution at work"- from the BBC

Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly.

Roger Peritone · 12 July 2007

"Margaret Talbot, who wrote after the trial in the New Yorker, "It was a science class that everybody wished they'd been able to take when they were in school."" Think about that statement for half a second.... The dover trial which equally aired both the arguments for and against ID is "the science class that everybody wished they'd been able to take when they were in school." Unfortunately, due to the outcome of the dover trial, people will not be able to take such a great course. Wow....?
— Mark Studdock

Of course they will: that's why the National Center for Science Education and the Talk Origins Archive. both have links to the court transcripts. To the guy who said that the scientists are leaving it to the courts to figure out what science is: no. All that happened at Dover was that both sides had their claims examined and cross-examined by the opposing side. If ID had any real facts to back it up, it would have come out in the trial. Instead, on close scrutiny their claims about evolution fell apart, and their "predictions" about ID also fell apart. Kind of what happens in peer review, only the ID people avoid it, for now obvious reasons.

Red Right Hand · 12 July 2007

William Dembski will be played by the late Claude Rains.

ROTFLMAO! That's a good one!

"Even the moon is frightened of me, frightened to death! The whole world is frightened to death!"
- Claude Raines, The Invisible Man, 1933

Yep. That fits Billy to a "T".

stevaroni · 13 July 2007

Inherit the wind 2!

Actually, with the DI involved it's more like "Inherit The Windbags"

snaxalotl · 13 July 2007

If the creationists are too weak willed to listen to what science tells them (as opposed to bullies in pulpits), and ignore reality until the point where reality is forced upon them by the courts, they have left the door open for many future suprises

Richard C · 13 July 2007

Does any one know if this programme will be screened in the UK under the banner of Nova's BBC equivalent Horizon? I believe Nova and Horizon are joint WGBH/BBC productions?

Nigel D · 13 July 2007

If scientists are too weak willed to convince the public of what science is, and leave it to the courts to tell the public what science is, you have left the door open for many future suprises.
— anonymous

First off, thou name-caller, scientists are not weak-willed. Science is bloody hard work and it does not pay well. It takes either an inordinate amount of luck or a very strong will to establish a career in science. Second, scientists have other things to do with their time, like, oh, do science, maybe? Plus, most scientists at universities have teaching responsibilities too. So, telling the public what science is is mostly left to (I'm sure some of you guessed this already) . . . science teachers. Yes, if you paid attention in your high-school science classes, you will have at least a rough idea of what science is. However, as in any field, some practitioners are better than others. Additionally, science teachers have a hard enough job actually getting their students to learn enough science to meet the required standards, never mind instigating philosophical discussions about what science actually is. Finally, when the whole science community starts issuing statements about something that is not science being touted as science, what the hell else are scientists doing, other than trying to tell the public what is and is not science? You obviously didn't pay attention, so how many others also did not listen? Nonetheless, many scientists have gone to the trouble of writing science books aimed at a more general audience. These "popular science" books are very difficult to write, because they require the description of concepts that are often complex and subtle in normal everyday language.

Nigel D · 13 July 2007

The Thomas More Center thru the match; they are a Catholic organization and the Catholic Church never supported Intelligent Design.
— anonymous

Is your use of "thru" in place of "threw" a sign of laziness, or are you really trying to win your argument through illiteracy? Any road, your statement implies that churches other than the Roman Catholic Church do support ID. I'd like to see some evidence for this. I believe that, apart from the creationist fundamentalist fringe, no serious church would support ID. Why? It's pretty simple: because denying the science forces your congregation to make a choice, between science and God. I can envisage a great many towns where this would significantly reduce the number of bums on seats in church. The alternative is that the church accept the science (for which there is, after all, an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence), and leave their congregations to make up their own minds about how God fits into the world as we find it to be. For example, I have no trouble with the concept of God having created the Universe at the Big Bang and, being omniscient and omnipotent, set things up in that brief instant to develop into the world as we find it today. There is no evidence to support this view, but it at least does not contradict what we know to be true. Any church that demands that rational, thinking members of its congregation deny a scientific consensus about how our world operates is effectively asking those members to leave.

Nigel D · 13 July 2007

Actually, with the DI involved it's more like "Inherit The Windbags"
— stevaroni

LOL

dre · 13 July 2007

Every time I read comments like anonymous's, sprinkled with gems like "thru" and "suprise", I can't help but think of the horribly awesome movie Idiocracy. If you have not seen it, please do, and all of the topics that are debated here will be seen in a new and tragic light. I believe the movie is, in fact, a vision delivered straight from the future (by Hollywood, no less!) in order to convince us to mend our ways.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 13 July 2007

with the DI involved it's more like "Inherit The Windbags"

(^_^). Of course, we have already got a smell of the Divine Wind.

Mark Studdock, FCD · 16 July 2007

Do you guys really think that "Inherit the Wind" was accurate?

If so...wow!?! Yet, I am not amazed.

Sir_Toejam · 16 July 2007

If so...wow!?! Yet, I am not amazed.

you're not amazed you reached a conclusion not in evidence? shocker.