Tale of Two Creation Films Denied First Amendment Rights on Darwin's Anniversary

HUNTSVILLE, AL, Nov. 25 Christian Newswire -- Two creation films called "inappropriate" were denied the opportunity to be shown in government facilities this week--which marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". While the intelligent design film "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record" has not been granted permission for a showing in California, "The Mysterious Islands", a new 90-minute Vision Forum film that challenges Darwin's evolution by taking audiences back to engage the enchanted Galapagos Islands, has enjoyed a victory and will premiere as previously scheduled tonight, Nov. 25, at 6:30 PM, at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL.

"We want to commend the U.S. Space and Rocket Center ("USSRC") for allowing equal access to its facilities for a private screening of 'The Mysterious Islands' this week," said a jubilant Doug Phillips, executive producer of "The Mysterious Islands". Phillips and his crew--his son Joshua Phillips, Dr. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research and Jon and Andy Erwin, the award-winning production duo who shot and produced the documentary--have been traveling the country screening the film since its release on Nov. 12, with key members making the trip on the "Galapagos Ark" Tour Bus.

"Knowing that the USSRC was a government facility, we contacted attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) for assistance," Phillips continued about legal action that led to the victory. In a letter dated Nov. 23, 2009, Daniel Blomberg, ADF litigation counsel, informed the USSRC executives that their "refusal is in direct violation of Vision Forum's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights," and he highlighted the fact that the USSRC had shown two pro-evolutionary films, "The Magic of Flight" and "Blue Planet", at their facility. The USSRC responded to ADF's letter within hours of receiving it and is now cordially allowing access for a screening of "The Mysterious Islands". Though the film is premiering with short notice in Huntsville, hundreds have already registered to attend at: http://events.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e2mzzpjzfd3e5dcc

"The Mysterious Islands" documents Phillips as he leads a team of Christian scientists and investigators to the Galapagos Islands to engage with the amazing creatures Darwin chronicled during his storied trip to this island chain aboard the HMS Beagle in 1835. Seen through the eyes of 16-year-old Joshua Phillips, who joins his father and noted researchers like Dr. John Morris, "The Mysterious Islands" is the story of one boy's search for answers to a great controversy of the modern world. The fast-paced adventure combines cinematically breathtaking footage with high adventure in its quest is to determine whether the Galapagos Islands are a laboratory for evolution, as Darwinists claim, or a showcase for the biblical account of creation.

Along the way, "The Mysterious Islands" examines intriguing questions that Darwin failed to answer, or that he just got wrong: Why do the animals on these islands appear to have little fear of man? Why have some of the creatures of the Galapagos developed such unusual characteristics--are these phenomena evidences of evolution or something else? Does natural selection produce new kinds of animals, or just variations within the same kinds?

Meanwhile, the fate of the other film "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record" hangs in the balance. The California Science Center (CSC) has not yet reversed its decision to allow a showing at the museum's IMAX Theater.

As long as the "pro and con" are based on objective, scientifically supportable arguments, that is correct.

Great, we are in agreement; but then why is there no debate in government schools? You will never see in a text book the following:

The truth about "Lucy:"

• Lucy, as mentioned before, has many detractors, it is a wonder why she is even mentioned as an example of Evolution; Lucy being important because of her “ability” to walk upright. First, Lucy’s pelvis was in forty different pieces when found. When they finally put it together, they found it did not fit the model of an upright hominid, so they shaped the “distortion” to fit the correct model (Donald Johanson, Ansestors, pgs. 64-65, 1994).

In a conversation on a NOVA special, Johanson states the following:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html

We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.

OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.

DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.

OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.

DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours.

Second, Brian Richmond and David Strait (eminent paleoanthropologist) of George Washington University identified similar morphological features on two early ‘hominids’, including Lucy:

“A UPGMA clustering diagram … illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers (Richmond & Strait, Nature404(6776): 382, 2000 ).”

Third, Charles Oxnard (Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC) reinforces the fact that Lucy is not in between ape and man, that the uniqueness of Lucy makes her an improbable candidate for the Evolutionary line of man (Charles E. Oxnard, Professor Biology & Anatomy, USC, AMERICAN BIOLIGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May ’79, pg. 274). In 2001, Dr. Meave Leaky (part of the great Leaky family) states:

“It is impossible to tell whether we are more closely related to Lucy or K. pltyops. There is too much missing from the fossil record since then (Cohen, Who’s your daddy? New Scientist, pg 5, March 2001).”

Then there is the trouble of trying to retract what Richard Leaky, renowned anthropologist, stated in 1983 that the scull of Lucy was so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made out of plaster of paris (The Weekend Australian, magazine section, pg. 3, May 1983),” let alone what kind of species she belonged to. To this date, no true scientist could tell you that a real “transitional” fossil, or “missing link,” has been found. Scientists freely admit that there are still too many gaps in the fossil record (Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980).

Facts about “Lucy” from Evos, none from non-Evos; and this is just a start.

I've seen the ones in my area (Southern CA); all have Lucy in them in a positive light with no controversy. I can safely deduce that the majority of government schools have the same thing.

How much space in the text book was given to "Lucy"?

Generally, artifacts are never "perfect" examples of evidence. All of them will have potential for interpretation based on "pros and cons", and whether that artifact supports or contradicts a particular theory is based on examining the entire body of evidence that artifact presents, weighing the "pros and cons" on both sides and determining if that body of evidence, considered as a whole, does more to support or contradict that theory.

You can build a compelling case for or against just about any theory based on evidence from artifacts by using every possible interpretation of the data from either side - pro or con - and disregarding the possible interpretations of the same data from the other side.

In order to make a fair assesment of whether the infomation you've provided should have been included I need to know what all the information is, and exactly how much was included in those text books.

If the entire body of evidence overwhelmingly points to Lucy having walked upright and there are very few possible interpertations of the evidence that contradict that conclusion, the claims of bias are suspect.

The use of terms like "evos" and the word "scientist" as pejoratives and referring to them like they are some kind of monolithic organization is nothing more than YEC rhetoric.

Your condescension is vapid; I could take being called a YEC the same way. I have not used the word scientist; as a pejorative unless it is combined with "elite", "elitist" or "elitism" if I'm not mistaken. In any case, Evo is shorthand, so is Creo, ID'er, Big Banger or BB's, etc.; live with it, I do with your inferring belittlement.

Here is an idea for you; if you don't like what is taught in school don't send your kids there.

Here is an idea for you; if you don't like what is being stated by Creo's, BB's, ID'ers then don't read or write in Free Republic.

Do like I did and send them to parochial schools where you can manage what they are taught and not taught.

The problem is not whether or not what is liked or disliked in schools, stop avoiding the problem. You asked,What "problems" would you discuss? I set down the first problem, what is your answer to it?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.