PBS Offers Intelligent Design Documentary

CREATION - Evolution Headlines ^ | 04/28/2003 | Illustra Media/CREATION - Evolution Headlines

[Remedy]

According to Illustra Media, the Public Broadcasting System uploaded the film Unlocking the Mystery of Life to its satellite this past Sunday. For the next three years, it will be available for member stations to download and broadcast. In addition, PBS is offering the film on their Shop PBS website under Science/Biology videos (page 4).

The film, released a little over a year ago, has been called a definitive presentation of the Intelligent Design movement. With interviews and evidences from eight PhD scientists, it presents strictly scientific (not religious) arguments that challenge Darwinian evolution, and show instead that intelligent design is a superior explanation for the complexity of life, particularly of DNA and molecular machines. The film has been well received not only across America but in Russia and other countries. Many public school teachers are using the material in science classrooms without fear of controversies over creationism or religion in the science classroom, because the material is scientific, not religious, in all its arguments and evidences, and presents reputable scientists who are well qualified in their fields: Dean Kenyon, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Steven Meyer, William Dembski, Scott Minnich, Jed Macosko, and Paul Nelson, with a couple of brief appearances by Phillip E. Johnson, the "founder" of the Intelligent Design movement.

Check with your local PBS Station to find out when they plan to air it. If it is not on their schedule, call or write and encourage them to show the film. Why should television partly supported by public tax funds present only a one-sided view on this subject, so foundational to all people believe and think? We applaud PBS's move, but it is only partial penance for the Evolution series and decades of biased reporting on evolution.

This is a wonderful film, beautifully edited and shot on many locations, including the Galápagos Islands, and scored to original music by Mark Lewis. People are not only buying it for themselves, but buying extra copies to show to friends and co-workers. Unlocking the Mystery of Life available here on our Products page in VHS and DVD formats. The film is about an hour long and includes vivid computer graphics of DNA in action. The DVD version includes an extra half-hour of bonus features, including answers to 14 frequently-asked questions about intelligent design, answered by the scientists who appear in the film.

This is a must-see video. Get it, and get it around.

---

Intelligent Design Gets a Powerful New Media Boost 03/09/2002
Exclusive Over 600 guests gave a standing ovation Saturday March 9 at the premiere of a new film by Illustra Media, Unlocking the Mystery of Life. This 67-minute documentary is in many ways a definitive portrayal of the Intelligent Design movement that is sweeping the country. Intelligent Design is a non-religious, non-sectarian, strictly scientific view of origins with both negative and positive arguments: negative, that Darwinism is insufficient to explain the complexity of life, and positive, that intelligent design, or information, is a fundamental entity that must be taken into consideration in explanations of the origin of complex, specified structures like DNA. The film features interviews with a Who's Who of the Intelligent Design movement: Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Stephen Meyer, Dean Kenyon, William Dembski, and others, who explain the issues and arguments for intelligent design as the key to unlocking the mystery of life. The film also features nearly 20 minutes of award-quality computer animation of molecular machines, manufacturing plants, and storage libraries of elaborate information - DNA and proteins at work in the cell, climaxing with a dazzling view of DNA transcription and translation.
In his keynote address, Dr. Paul Nelson (who appears in the film), gave reasons for optimism. He said that Time Magazine, usually solidly Darwinian, admitted just last week that these Intelligent Design scientists may be onto something. U.S. News and World Report is also coming out with a piece on I.D. And Stephen Meyer, who also appears in the film, could not be at the premiere because he was on his way to Ohio (see next headline), armed with copies of the film to give to the school board members. Nelson said that scientists should not arbitrarily rule design off the table. "Keeping science from discovering something that might be true is like having a pair of spectacles that distorts your vision," he said. "It does profound harm to science." He described how Ronald Numbers, evolutionist, once told him that design might be true, but science is a game, with the rule that scientists cannot even consider the possibility of design; "that's just the way it is," he said. (See this quote by Richard Lewontin for comparison.) Yet design is already commonly considered in archaeology, cryptography, forensics, and SETI, so why not in biology? Apparently this arbitrary rule has become a national controversy. Intelligent Design, says Nelson, is finally removing a "rule of the game" that is hindering science. If the reaction of the crowd at the premiere luncheon was any indication, Unlocking the Mystery of Life has launched a well-aimed smart weapon at the citadels of Darwinism.

We highly recommend this film. Copies are just now becoming available for $20. Visit IllustraMedia.com and order it. View it, and pass it around. Share it with your teachers, your co-workers, your church. You will have no embarrassment showing this high-quality, beautiful, amazing film to anyone, even the most ardent evolutionist.

 

 

[balrog666]

50 years ago, Creationists were catastrophists and evolutionists were uniformitarian. Everyone is now catastrophist.

Wooooooooooooo-hoo, time to change your meds!

Or maybe your name.

[Axolotl]

"What do any of those people have to do with the theory of evolution?" They used it to support their various versions of genocide.

Oh please, don't damn evolution because nutjobs abuse it. You might as well blame christians for the crusades or the inquisition. Karl Marx thought Darwin supported his view of the world, and so did Hitler...they can't both be right. They are just mapping things onto their ideologies...you can't blame Darwin for that.

[forsnax5]

All theories can be put in a nutshell. Which shell is used depends on whether the person filling the shell agrees or disagrees with the theory.

So who do you like? Dembski? Behe? Neither one of them has anything to say about HOW...

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It's the nature of the beast. This doesn't mean that evolution is without merit. Evolution can be part of the process. Be that as it may, all evolutionary tools have an insurmountable ID bias. ID cannot be proven to be false. Any experiment showing the validity of evolution also, by its very nature validates ID.

[Not Insane]

I agree with the first half of your post. Jesus said as much when he said an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

The second half of your post was an exercise in building a straw man, dousing it with gasoline and applying a match. It makes a nice warm fire, but addresses no real issue, other than those made by creationist Children. The creationist ADULTS pose questions and issues with a bit more meat.

Your arguments do play well in grade school however.

[balrog666]

ID cannot be proven to be false.

Only in exactly the same sense as "Last Thursdayism" cannot be disproved. So what else is new?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Stalin was an anti-Darwinist and had the Darwinists executed.

[Dimensio]

I have no proof God exists? Sure I do. Open your eyes. Billions upon billions of life forms. Earth is perfect to sustain life. Happen by accident? A couple flukes here, a little bit of chaos there...whatever.

What are you arguing, that the 'proof' of this God is in the fact that life on this planet exists and that Earth is "perfect" to sustain life? I think that you are putting the cart before the horse. Consider that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for life to come about on a planet that would not sustain life. I don't really see that life exists on a planet that can sustain it as a great miracle. Your proof amounts to little more than argument from incredulity, and even then you fail to demonstrate how you leap from your personal incredulity to a God with any specific attributes other than 'ability to create life on Earth'.

[Not Insane]

"True, but to have the concept requires that someone has a frame of reference. Are you saying that ID proponents have a frame of refernece, perhaps through some extra sensory perception, to have discerned between 'designed universe' and 'not designed universe' and that any lack of comprehension is simply the result of physiological limitations amongst a certain percentage of the population?"

No, I am saying they are like the creatures without eyes who BELIEVE the creature with eyes that explains, in an obviously limited way, the concept of light and dark.

Others choose to simply think all this light and dark stuff is baloney since it cannot be proved.

Of course, one side IS right. The idea of light and dark either exists or it doesn't.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is the atheist philosophy. Darwin, Gould, Eldredge, Dawkins, Huxley, Haeckel, etc., etc. were all atheist evolutionists. Evolution specifically denies the Bible as we see abundantly in this thread also. Evolution is materialism and the basis of Communist 'scientific materialism'. It is a direct attack not just on fundamentalists, but on all Christians. Atheists have forever been ... cowards (( #361 )) --- who refuse to admit their true beliefs in order to subvert the faith of good Christians.

361 posted on 05/01/2003 8:28 PM PDT by gore3000

[Doctor Stochastic]

If there are rules, then ID is implied.

Why?

[Axolotl]

Stalin was an anti-Darwinist and had the Darwinists executed.

Yet Marx thought Darwin supported his world view..neat eh?

[Aric2000]

I think that you need to take the NOT off the front of your nick.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Mostly the ID'ers just claim that processes that they themselves cannot understand need intelligence. We must assume that the ID'ers cannot grasp these processes because again, they themselves say so.

[Not Insane]

I haven't had tv in quite a while. I turned it on for two days during the war to see visuals. It was a waste and I yanked the wire back out. Even PBS was silly. If I want to know about the cosmos or anything else, I read a book or hit the internet. I haven't got time to WAIT AROUND for some show to come on and then spend an hour gleaning what I could have read in ten minutes.

PBS is WAY overrated.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[Dimensio]

Read their writings, listen to their ravings. They were very much social darwinists.

Social darwinism is an idiotic attempt to apply a biological mechanism to politics. The arguments for social darwinism have nothing to do with biological evolution, because social darwinism is a complete misapplication of the theory and I strongly suspect that many of its proponents are merely trying to persuade the ignorant of the 'merits' of such a system by exploiting their lack of understanding of evolutionary biology and its proper applications. I ask again, what arguments for evolution can you provide to support your assertion?

Social darwinism is no more an argument against evolution than the September 11, 2001 attack is an argument against religion.