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.

 

 

[Dimensio]

The proof is flawed, as it has a basis in special pleading. It seems (and correct me if I am wrong) that Descartes is arguing that because he has an idea of an "infinite formal reality" that the subject of this idea, God, must exist because an idea must have a cause with as least as much reality as the idea. However, it seems as though he's defining his God as having the attributes to which he ascribes it and then asserting that it must exist because of the attributes he's given it. Unfortunately, there's no evidence that the "cause" of the "idea" that he has of "God" is anything other than his own imagination.

[f.Christian]

To: DWPittelli

You're missing the point. The whole idea of individual liberty is rooted in rebellion, in the idea that "No one has the right to tell me what to do!". Evil began when Lucifer cried out his eternal non serviam to God in Heaven, and to this day human beings follow in his footsteps, refusing to submit their own wills to any authority.

Rebellion is pandemic in our society; everywhere, people cry out for freedom from Church, State, parents, teachers, or anything else that denies them the satiation of the senses or the deification of the Self. The worship of the goddess Liberty has become our national cult; piety towards our Creator and loyalty towards our ancestors (i.e. traditionalism) have been cast aside by our culture. Confronted with the majesty of God and His Law, we turn instead to the worship of the golden calf of that makes us happy -- our own selves. But there is no happiness there. There is no freedom there. There is only us, enslaved to our nerve endings for all eternity.

The freedom promised by this world is an illusion. Every man who "liberates" himselves from the Yoke of God only chains himself to the millstone of his own desires. The way of Self, as both Our Lord and the Buddha pointed out, is the most abject slavery of all. Only by dying to Self -- by renouncing the illusion of individual liberty and submitting our wills to God -- can we hope to live. In a very real sense, the only way to be free is to become a slave of Christ. "He that loses his life for My sake shall find it."

Only by acknowledging Jesus Christ as our LORD -- not our buddy or our peer but as our absolute Master -- can we ever be free. Christianity is a religion of humilty, not pride; of submission, not of independence. Only by throwing away our pride, by humbling ourselves before God and the authorities he institutes here on Earth (even when it hurts!), and by dedicating ourselves to obedience, order, and our duty can we ever cast of the shackles of unquenchable desire and truly be free.

"Where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty."


23 posted on 05/01/2003 1:40 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)

To: B-Chan

Very good ... protestant -- Christian -- republican -- hawaiian --- any questions !


27 posted on 05/01/2003 2:02 PM PDT by f.Christian (( The separation of state and religion means ... ideology // whacks --- NOT God ! ))

[Last Visible Dog]

Evolution is occuring in microbial poplations my lab 20 feet away, in tubes, as I speak. People study genetic changes in populations all the time...and watch them happen. Evolution is occurring and has occurred; this is an inescapable fact.

Isn't that micro-evolution.

As I understand (and I could be wrong - this is not my vocation): Micro-evolution is scientifically provable while macro-evolution (or evolution as cosmology) is not and consists mainly of wild-assed extrapolation in the complete absence of supporting evidence.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Not really. The original comment was made equating socialism and creationism. I am contending the opposite.

[Not Insane]

"An entire branch of science brushed off as assinine..."

As presented in some of it's forms, "evolution theory" is indeed scientific research. In many of it's forms as presented here, it is dogma. It is the latter to which he is referring.

[Aric2000]

Here we go, so we use evolution as an excuse to deny god?

Incredible leap there.

So you agree with tactic #378, I suppose you do, since you just used it.

Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, SCIENCE cannot use god as a causation, because god cannot be PROVEN to exist, therefore to use god as a causation would be unscientific.

Get it?

so, are you saying that ALL hard science, is a way to deny god?

That is what it sounds like.

Again, I will say this until you religionists get it.

Science CANNOT use god as a causation, WHY? Because you cannot scientifically PROVE the existence of god.

When the existence of god is SCIENTIFICALLY proven, then science can use it as a causation, until then, to say not using god is a way to deny him, is ridiculous.

[LiteKeeper]

:-)

[Dimensio]

Label it any way you like, I'm with WinstonChurchill on this one.

WinstonChurchill's position is one of incredible arrogance. Assume yourself right, assume that your opponents know that you are right and then invent reasons for them to oppose what they know to be right. It doesn't allow consideration that your opponents really don't believe as you do. Even getting away from the false dichotomy of "Christian/evolutionist", which implies that all evolutionists are non-Christians (a falsehood in itself), I have little patience for people who honestly cannot grasp that, to me, their God is no more believable than any of the other gods proposed throughout the thousands of years of human history.

[Dimensio]

Loan it to an ardent evolutionist, and maybe he can cause it to evolve into a DVD.

Whee. Strawman.

[Remedy]

Would a CD or mini-disc be a presumed transitional link?

[Dimensio]

Nothing in science can be proven. Science can never do anything regarding God until you define God in such a way that it has no supernatural elements.

[Right Wing Professor]

The microevolution/macroevolution distinction is a false one, cooked up by those creationists who can't deny real-time demonstrations that evolution occurs, but want to try to pretend that the origin of species is somehow different in kind rather than degree.

[Aric2000]

Time for a little break for me, this is getting insane. pun intended!! LOL Be back to help later, if I haven't just been making it worse....;)

[RomanCatholicProlifer]

No, since the begining of his proof begins with:

Ex nihilo nihil fit(from nothing comes nothing; something does not come from nothing; more reality cannot come from less reality)

Begining his cause with that presupposition eliminates any logical fallacy.

[Not Insane]

Well, yeah, but... I mean, if there is Micro-evolution, then there MUST be Macro-evolution. At least, that's what my biology teacher said. And he seems pretty smart.

He said this God stuff is for stupid people.

</sarcasm>

[f.Christian]

b-c ...

Rebellion is pandemic in our society; everywhere, people cry out for freedom from Church, State, parents, teachers, or anything else that denies them the satiation of the senses or the deification of the Self. The worship of the goddess Liberty has become our national cult; piety towards our Creator and loyalty towards our ancestors (i.e. traditionalism) have been cast aside by our culture. Confronted with the majesty of God and His Law, we turn instead to the worship of the golden calf of that makes us happy -- our own selves. But there is no happiness there. There is no freedom there. There is only us, enslaved to our nerve endings for all eternity.

The freedom promised by this world is an illusion. Every man who "liberates" himselves from the Yoke of God ... only chains himself to the millstone --- of his own desires (( delusians )) * * . The way of Self ... (( evolution )) ! * *

... * * ... my additions !

[BMCDA]

Oy vey!! Which part of strawman didn't you understand?

[whattajoke]

Just as tiny little sand particles make up a beach, lots of tiny "micro-evolutions" make up a so-called "macro-evolution." Do you deny sand makes a beach? Of course not.

the "micro/macro" semantic nonsense is another tool of creationists who have been confronted with too much evidence to completely write off. Another recent invention of the gang who spins these tales.

[Not Insane]

"Here we go, so we use evolution as an excuse to deny god?"

Absolutely! Many do!

"So you agree with tactic #378, I suppose you do, since you just used it."

Why, yes, I do.

"Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, SCIENCE cannot use god as a causation, because god cannot be PROVEN to exist, therefore to use god as a causation would be unscientific."

I agree.

"so, are you saying that ALL hard science, is a way to deny god?"

Nope. In fact many of those most involved in bioligical sciences are Christians.

"That is what it sounds like."

It's not what I meant.

"Again, I will say this until you religionists get it.
Science CANNOT use god as a causation, WHY? Because you cannot scientifically PROVE the existence of god."

I agree. Most open minded evolutionists I've read admit they are trying to explain what caused certain obvious facts, as well ad verify they are correctly interpreting the facts (which jaw bone goes with which scull). It is the evolutionist apologist "lay people" who try to turn this into a dogmatic "evolution did it, not God" argument.

"When the existence of god is SCIENTIFICALLY proven, then science can use it as a causation, until then, to say not using god is a way to deny him, is ridiculous."

I agree. Funny thing is, one can take that route while all the time being a strong Christian that firmly believes in ID.

However, many are, in their own small way, using the findings of these well meaning and sincere scientists to do just that. They may not be as powerful, but these individuals are using the information, in their own small way, just like characters such as Hitler did. It is what is in the heart that counts.