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.

 

 

[f.Christian]

To: whattajoke

waj ...

It is my strong contention that science, and all its tenets, is an important part of conservatism. We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are) and this is all part of that. The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left.


ph ...


Well stated. That is also my position.


112 posted on 04/29/2003 3:00 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)


fC ...


Overlordism ...

I'm only surprised that you publicly admit it (( you 're not joshing // tricking me ? ? )) !

"We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are)" ---


fC ...


Is that only what your worried about ... what leftist think ---

"The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left."

What's the difference between your village and hillary clinton's ?





wj ...

As has been stated here a million times, scientific debate is not meant for public spectacle. Truth be told, it's a tedious, boring exercise detailing minute facts, written out over tens of thousands of pages in hundreds of texts, journals, online resources, museum placards, etc.


fC ...

classic ... elitisim !


To: f.Christian

fC...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule (( constitutional // law ))** for the assurance technocracy and expert rule (( dictatorship // tyranny ))**.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

** .. .. .. my additions !

Boshevik monopoly (( experts )) ... social // mind engineers ---

Brainwashing (( God // Truth )) -- Indoctrination (( lies // evolution // atheism )) !

Main Entry: tech·no·crat
Pronunciation: 'tek-n&-"krat
Function: noun
Date: 1932
1 : an adherent of technocracy
2 : a technical expert; especially : one exercising managerial authority

Main Entry: tech·noc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: tek-'nä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Date: circa 1919
: government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ah so? You are then saying the founders of our country are atheistic while the founders of communistic societies are G-d fearing perhaps?

[general_re]

Evolution is a theory. It won't disprove God.

Indeed. One wonders why so many religious folks seem threatened by it, in that case...

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Evolutionists argue that amino acids randomly combined to form proteins and then cells.

I thought that Evolutionists argue that higher life forms evolve from lower or less developed life forms. How the whole process got started is less germain than how species came to be in their present forms.

The theory that amino acids randomly combined to form proteins and then cells would be called something else. What...I am not sure.

[Not Insane]

"And yes, the NOT being removed was a veiled insult, only because your response to me was one as well. "

Touche.

Regarding the rest of your post. Evolution means an infinite number of things to people. The word, as used on these threads is like a piece of warm jello, regarding definition.

I firmly accept the concept of micro evolution. The subtleties of evolutionary thinking sometimes are easily acceptable to someone who believes the Bible account of creation, and sometimes not.

One of the more interesting things in the Bible is the mention of the Behemouth and the Leviathon. Both are spoken of as though the contemporary reader had experience with them. Modern scholars have attempted to call them Elephants and Hippos, or aligators. All are preposterous. But the other explanations don't make sense, based on the world view that the same animals that exist today were all that was around then.

We don't know ANYTHING for sure about evolution. Not "evolutionists" or "creationists." And both sides are guilty of the exact same sins. I normally don't participate in these threads because they are exercises in futility from both sides, and both sides can get pretty disrespectful.

You cought me in my "insult." As a matter of fact, I thought long and hard before I hit the post button, and decided I was spending too much time on a minor decision. So you got what you got.

I will put "in a nutshell" my basic attitude about this whole thing: It is an argument between two different religious beliefs. At least one side admits it.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No, I've not. However, you might note that as the U.S. moves more and more into a socialist direction, social Darwinism comes more and more into play (socialists believe the Constitution is a "living document" - thus supporting the Darwinian view of things).

[Dimensio]

Ah so? You are then saying the founders of our country are atheistic while the founders of communistic societies are G-d fearing perhaps?

I know that it's pretty early May, but mayhaps I could nominate this for non-sequitur of the month award?

[Not Insane]

"If Descartes proved that a specific God existed, then I would love to see the proof. "

The babelfish.

Come to think of it, that proves God DOESN'T exist. 8-}

[PatrickHenry]

But my entire point was that socialists tend more towards the Darwinian point of view, while capitalists do not.

Alas, your entire point is wrong, and you will need to re-think everything. Here's a quote from a source I'm sure you think is beyond reproach:

"A review of the writings of several leading "robber baron" capitalists shows that many of them were influenced by the Darwinian view that the strong eventually will overcome the weak."
DARWIN'S INFLUENCE ON RUTHLESS LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM. (Institute for Creation Research)

[Doctor Stochastic]

You must read the works of d'Hors first. Never put Descartes before d'Hors.

[Axolotl]

Not at all, I simply said that capitalist economists have bought into Darwinism in a big way, as evidenced by their professional journals. What does that have to do with the founding fathers?

[winstonchurchill]

Idiots on parade. Again. And again. And Again.

I am sorry that your religious (substitute) belief is so endangered by the merest possibility of 'intelligent design'. Contrary to your name-calling approach, I don't think that believers in Darwin are 'idiots' -- merely scared. You shut out facts because they endanger your belief structure.

Your little theory of history as a man-made, self-starting explanation might have propped up your rebellion against God for a generation or two, but it now relies on political coercion to try to prevent on-coming generations from noticing that it has no intellectual clothing at all.

[Dimensio]

The theory that amino acids randomly combined to form proteins and then cells would be called something else. What...I am not sure.

There is no theory. There is a hypothesis called abiogenesis, but it's not yet garnered enough evidence nor applied to enough tests to warrant calling it a theory. Unfortunately, too many people think that evolution has something to do with how the first life forms came about, and creationists often play upon that ignorance as 'proof' that evolution has no answers (of course, it has no answers to a question that it does not ask!)

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The truth is that Capitalist systems can have many different forms of governments. Even the communists found that they could not get along without it. The more proper response would be comparing our republic (which was designed to work from the bottom up) to communism (which was designed to work from the top down).

Communism is very much like a religion.

[Not Insane]

"Indeed. One wonders why so many religious folks seem threatened by it, in that case..."

I cannot speak for everyone here, but the word "threatened" certainly does not apply in my case. Of course, it was right for many people under Hitler, et-all to be threatened by what adherance to this particular phylosophical belief could cause their leaders to do to them - especially Jews, Gypsies, Blacks and other "less desirables."

[Aric2000]

Never said it did, but it seems to frighten you for some reason.

[Axolotl]

We don't know ANYTHING for sure about evolution. Not "evolutionists" or "creationists.". False.

And both sides are guilty of the exact same sins. False

I normally don't participate in these threads. Me neither

...because they are exercises in futility from both sides, and both sides can get pretty disrespectful. TRUE!

Cheers, Ax

[Dimensio]

However, you might note that as the U.S. moves more and more into a socialist direction, social Darwinism comes more and more into play

Since social darwinism has nothing to do with biological evolution except that some idiots decided that a biological process could be shoehorned into social structure, I'm not sure what you're trying to do here other than divert attention from the real matter at hand.

Evolution is a biological process. Social darwinism is an attempt to apply a mistaken notion of what a biological process is into a social system. It's like trying to create an economic system based upon how gravity works. Bringing up social darwinism into a debate regarding biological evolution is nothing more than distraction.