A Q&A with Paula
S. Apsell,
Senior Executive Producer of NOVA
Q: This program tackles
a contentious issue for many people, particularly for many devout Christians.
Why did NOVA and Paul Allen's Vulcan Productions, your coproducer, take
it on?
Apsell: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial is in many ways a hornet's nest. And we had
to think long and hard before we decided to take it on. I think the real reason
that we made that decision is because evolution is the foundation of the
biological sciences. As Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the great biologists of
the 20th century, once said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in
the light of evolution."
In 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania
school board established a policy that science teachers would have to read a
statement to biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to
Darwin's theory of evolution called intelligent design. Intelligent
design, or ID, claims that certain features of life are too complex to have
evolved naturally, and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent
agent. The Dover high school science teachers refused to comply with the
policy, refused to read the statement. And parents opposed to the school
board's actions filed a lawsuit in federal court.
The trial that followed
was fascinating. It was like a primer, like a biology textbook. Some of the
nation's best biologists testified. When I began delving into the case,
it was clear that both the trial and the issue were perfect subjects for NOVA.
Q: But why would
a science series cover a court case?
Apsell: This is not just any case; it's an historic
case as well as a critical science lesson. Through six weeks of expert
testimony, the case provided a crash course in modern evolutionary science, and
it really hit home just how firmly established evolutionary theory is. The case
also explored the very nature of science—how science is defined. Perhaps
most importantly, the trial had great potential for altering science education
and the public understanding of science.
Dover's lawyers
tried to argue that ID is science and, therefore, that teaching it does not
violate the principle of the separation of church and state in the
Establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. At the end of the trial, Judge
John Jones issued a 139-page verdict supporting the teaching of evolution and
characterizing intelligent design as a religious idea with no place in the
science classroom. It was a landmark decision, all the more so because Judge
Jones was appointed by President Bush and nominated by Republican Senator Rick
Santorum.
If the decision had gone
the other way, it could have had dire consequences for science education in
this country. We know that state boards of education in Kansas and Ohio were
considering changing science standards and curriculums to accommodate
intelligent design, and they since have decided against it in the wake of this
verdict.
(Hear key excerpts from
the verdict in The Judge Speaks, and learn more about what distinguishes
science in Defining Science.)
Q: Why is this
topic—and the teaching of evolution—so important?
Apsell: Recent polls tells us that 48
percent—almost half of all Americans—still question evolution and
still believe that some kind of alternative should be taught in the public
schools. What happens when
half of the population doesn't accept one of the most fundamental
underpinnings of the sciences? Evolution is the absolute bedrock of the
biological sciences. It's essential to medical science, agriculture,
biotechnology. And it's critical to understanding the natural world
around us.
We're a country
built on our command of the sciences and technology. But we now face a crisis
in science literacy that could threaten our progress in these areas and
ultimately threaten our quality of life. So, at NOVA and at Vulcan, we feel
that understanding the importance of evolution, and enhancing science literacy
in general, are more crucial than ever.
Q: Does Judgment
Day provide a fair representation
of the trial?
Apsell: I certainly think so, and Judge Jones, who
oversaw and ruled on the case, thinks the portrayal is quite accurate. But I
would invite anyone who wants to explore this for themselves to actually read
the court transcripts, which are available, in full, through a link on our Web
site. They are fascinating.
We think intelligent
design got a fair shake in the trial and that it gets a fair shake in this
program, since this is a special two-hour program about the trial. Throughout
the six-week trial, Judge Jones gave both sides ample opportunity to present
their cases. NOVA's intention was never to retry the case. And you will
see in the program, just as in the trial, a lot of time is given to intelligent
design and its proponents. Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel of
the Thomas More Law Center, who represented the Dover School District, himself
says in our film, "We got a fair trial," and that is the story NOVA
tells.
Q: Of the three expert
witnesses who testified on behalf of Dover—Michael Behe, Scott Minich,
and Steve Fuller—only Steve Fuller appears in the program. Why did you
not interview the other two, who are among the country's leading
proponents of ID?
Apsell: Michael Behe and Scott Minich, as well as other
proponents of ID, were invited to participate in the program. We were committed
to presenting the views of the major participants in the trial as fairly as
possible. And our preference would have been to have their views presented
directly, through firsthand interviews.
However, Michael Behe,
Scott Minich, and other ID proponents affiliated with the Discovery Institute
declined to be interviewed under the normal journalistic conditions that NOVA
uses for all programs. In the midst of our discussions, we even offered to
provide them with complete footage of the interviews, so that they could be
reassured that nothing would be taken out of context. But they declined
nonetheless.
In some sense, though, we
do hear from both Behe and Minich in the program through our recreated trial
scenes; the words that our actors speak are taken verbatim from the trial
transcripts. And of course we hear directly in the program from lawyers for the
defense—Richard Thompson, Patrick Gillen, and Robert Muise—as well
as from Phillip Johnson, who is often credited as "the father of
intelligent design."
Q: Some critics might
argue that NOVA didn't present the entire trial, just parts of it biased
toward a certain perspective. How did you choose which sections of the court
transcripts to use?
Apsell: Certainly it's impossible for a
two-hour-long program to cover everything presented in a six-week trial. But
again, we worked hard to fairly represent what happened in court. Our producers
pored over all 3,000 pages of the court transcripts. We wanted to capture the
main arguments for both sides, so the attorneys' summations were key to
what we finally selected.
In winnowing down the
transcript of the trial, we made the decision to stick to the scientific
points. There were other issues at play in this case—in particular, the
factual inconsistencies in the testimony given by some members of the Dover
school board. That issue played a large role in the judge's verdict, and
we cover it, but given our limited time and NOVA's focus on science, we
chose to highlight the scientific arguments.
Q: NOVA is a
documentary series. Why do dramatic recreations at all?
Apsell: We are always cautious in making the decision to
use recreations. Kitzmiller v. Dover is a landmark case that we wanted to
cover, and there simply isn't any footage of the trial since cameras and
recording devices are banned from federal courtrooms. We decided that the best
way to tell the story was to provide direct, verbatim access to the trial
through court transcripts. Dramatic reenactment allowed us to do that.
And we use traditional
documentary techniques to put the reenactments in context. Pieces of the story
are told or expanded upon in NOVA's trademark style—through expert
interviews, state-of-the-art computer animations, and documentary footage.
Q: Do you
anticipate, in some sense, adding to the culture wars by taking on this
controversial subject?
Apsell: It's true that this subject can be very
heated and emotional for many people. The final film, Judgment
Day, demonstrates just that. What happened
in the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania was really quite sad—parents and
teachers and students all became pitted against one another. Even family
members, as we see in the film, took different sides.
But the
debate over teaching evolution is not simply a part of the culture wars.
It's a scientific issue. It's NOVA and Vulcan's goal to
help people understand the science, why it is so essential to modern biology,
and why most people believe that evolutionary science is not incompatible with
religion.
Q: Is evolution inherently
anti-religious?
Apsell: Not at all. The
view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false. Evolution
tells us is that the diversity of life on this planet could have arisen by
natural processes. But for many people of various faiths, this is perfectly
compatible with their belief in God as the creator of all nature. I personally
believe that the beauty of evolution can enhance your belief in a creator and
God.
By definition
science cannot address the realm of the divine or supernatural. This
doesn't mean that science is anti-religious.
And our program, Judgment
Day, doesn't promote either
a religious or an anti-religious viewpoint. It accurately covers a trial. And
the trial itself did not have an anti-religious viewpoint. I think it's
worth noting that both the judge and the majority of witnesses—including
scientists on the plaintiff side—are people of faith.
