PBS Embarrassment: Ridiculing Scientists Who Are Asking Important and Interesting Questions
In response to a comment to this post about the PBS NOVA show "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design," I had this to say:
As has been noted elsewhere, much of the evidence for evolution at trial and in the show missed the point. ID proponents are generally not "anti-evolution" as they are portrayed. They acknowledge that at least microevolution is proven to occur, and that there is some evidence for macroevolution. They only say that some aspects of the biological world are better explained by design than by known natural causes, like random mutation and natural selection.
Did anyone at the trial give a full, complete, plausible account of how the bacterial flagellum could have come about solely through random mutation and natural selection? I think not.
The more important point is that these are the questions scientists should be asking, and it is only happening now because ID proponents are asking them and pointing out that the answers are not obvious. For this, the scientific community ridicules them and wants to ban them from scientific discourse. Is this how science should operate?