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.

 

 

[whattajoke]

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

Your attempt at humor actually can be used to demonstrate an oft used non-argument of the creationists. For, as you can clearly see, VHS tapes are "fully formed," as are CD's, mini-discs and dvds. Where you first had A and D (Videotape and dvd), you demanded a transitional. You jokingly came up with B and C (CD and m-cd). BUT WHERE'S THE TRANSITIONAL?? how did A get to B?

How about A+ being a videodisc? Not good enough, the creationist will carp... Where's A++? On and on and on.

Perhaps this ridiculous example will learn ya a think or two.

/wishful thinking mode>

[Not Insane]

I just have to repost this just for you:

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>

Micro- and macro- evolution are as different (actually more so) than the wind blowing the sand into the shape of a rudimentary teepee and the wind blowing the sand into a fully functioning Boeing 777.

They are only similar in that the same word is embedded in them. Kind of like "COMputer and COMmute."

[Aric2000]

Then we actually agree then, what a concept.

I do not believe that evolution denies the existence of god.

I believe that the theory of evolution uses the facts at hand and speculates logically how those facts or evidence came to be.

An evolutionist who uses the theory to deny the existence of god, is using it in a way that it was not meant to be. They are using it for their own purposes, just as many in the religious community do as well.

My belief is that if god is as all powerful as most say he is, then he is not limited in the way he might bring us about.

By setting up the physical laws that make life possible and letting that life become what it is, is NOT beyond the power of "god". To say that it is NOT possible for god to have done it this way, is placing limits upon "god" which I believe are not there.

Evolution is not a denial, it is an explanation.

[Not Insane]

---BUT WHERE'S THE TRANSITIONAL?? how did A get to B?---

Interesting that even though there are transitionals, all the steps were still INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED!

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

I've struggled with this for years. First being fully indoctrinated on young earth creationism (before it had that name), then being fully indoctrinated with evolutionary naturalism.

Never have fully sorted it out, but I have reached a few conclusions.

I. The Bible is open to some limited interpretation. Day-age, for starters. Which hebrew words are used for "made"? For that matter, look at what leading Jewish theologians say about it, its vastly different that what they teach in mainstream protestant sunday school.

II. Science itself is not anti-God. It is a study of that which God has made, and can provide a multitude of lessons about the nature of God.

III. Science is limited to naturalistic assumptions. Meaning, being based on repeatable experiments, it [i]a priori[/i] excludes the miraculous. Some misunderstand this and conclude miracles are impossible. No, they are just not subject to investigation by science, because they are by their very nature non-natural, non-repeatable.

IV. The Theory of Evolution is a mixture of good and bad science, and advocated zealously by the naturalists. The naturalists seem to think that the T-of-E removes the need for a God. Ignoring the whole question of where did the universe come from in the first place.

V. The two single biggest problems for the T-of-E are macroevolution and abiogenesis.

A) Abiogenesis, that life arose from inorganic material, is, scientifically, a discipline in shambles. A lot of time and energy spent, a lot of speculations made, and so far, nothing but some impossible speculations to show for it.

Oddly ... the impossibilities are suppressed --- the cleverness of the speculation trumpeted, and in some quarters people think its already proven.

B) Macro-evolution - perhaps a bad term. I mean to say, descent with change is proven - children differ from their parents, over time this can lead to changes in a species.

But, the assumption or speculation that this accounts for the grand diveristy of all life on the planet has not been proven, and in fact, scientifically, is a huge and largely unsupported leap. Put another way: the fossil record supports this theory very poorly.

7 posted on 04/28/2003 8:03 AM PDT by FactQuest

[whattajoke]

I read that original post and ignored it because it means nothing. And by the way, any biology teacher that would invoke a deity is horribly misguided for doing so. That's the point: Creationism or ID or whatever it'll be called next week invokes the supernatural, faith, god, etc. And that's the point!

I could be wrong, but the micro and macro designation was bestowed by a non-scientist at some point, and is quite simply meaningless in scientific forums.

Oh, and I never had a biology teacher who believed that sand, teepees, or airplanes were capable of reproduction. But you've already proven you had a pretty bad bio teacher. as RWP is fond of saying, "*&$^$% public schools."

[Not Insane]

"By setting up the physical laws that make life possible and letting that life become what it is, is NOT beyond the power of "god". To say that it is NOT possible for god to have done it this way, is placing limits upon "god" which I believe are not there."

And with this statement you confirm that we are on the same page.

[Not Insane]

" and is quite simply meaningless in scientific forums. "

No, it's not.

[f.Christian]

SOUPERSTITION ... baloney science (( atheist // evolution )) ---

A smart God // science doesn't -- can't evolve ...

evolution (( Godless )) is inherently stupid --- impossible !

[Sloth]

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.

Indeed... a blind man can only have the idea of a rainbow explained to him... refraction of light, etc. For him, there is no sensory input from a rainbow, and he has no way to test its existence. Thus, he has the option of trusting those who describe it to him, or dismissing it as so much superstitious nonsense. According to many on here, it would be unscientific for the blind man to even consider the existence of color, since it is unfalsifiable to him.

[whattajoke]

I did qualify my statement with, "I could be wrong." (something rare here, I know). So please, back up your statement.

[longshadow]

explanatory placemarker

[Not Insane]

"So please, back up your statement."

For the purposes of this forum, I think the last two paragraphs (beginning with "B) Macro-evolution") in post 225 covers it succinctly enough.

[winstonchurchill]

I did e-mail a request and here's the response I received,

"Thank you for your interest in KVIE Channel 6 and our programming. At this time KVIE Channel 6 does not have Unlocking the Mystery of Life scheduled. I will be glad to add this program to our list of requested programming. Again, thank you for your interest in KVIE Channel 6."

Sounds positive. I suspect that they don't get a lot of specific requests for programs which PBS has offered.

[Dimensio]

Begining his cause with that presupposition eliminates any logical fallacy.

That presupposition does not eliminate any logical fallacy. His "proof" is a special pleading argument that the idea of an infinite God implies the existence of a real infinite "God". He does not explain why his idea of God implies anything more than that he can conceive of an idea of God.

[Dimensio]

Interesting that even though there are transitionals, all the steps were still INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED!

Well, yes, but the whole analogy was invalid in the first place because VHS tapes, DVD discs and anything that might be considered "in betweet" are not imperfect self-replicators. Heck, they're not even perfect self-replicators.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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

That's exactly what I mean. Apples and Oranges.

[whattajoke]

You are using an f.christian post (though not his words, I understand, but still...) you are using an f.christian post to back up a statement.

/uncontrollable shuddering>

[B-Chan]

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

Again, I will say this until you materialists get it: one cannot scientifically prove that "scientific proof" is the only way to prove anything. There is no such thing as "scientific proof" anyway, since science is not about proving things. Science is the process of observing things using our physical senses and reasoning from these perceptions to form hypotheses about the nature and attributes of the physical universe we seem to inhabit. Please note, however, there is no way to objectively know anything about the physical universe except through sensory impressions, which exist in the mind -- and are therefore subjective. In fact, there is no way to demonstrate that what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell outside of ourselves is really there at all; we take it on faith that a universe exists external to ourselves, but there's no way to objectively demonstrate that such a universe exists. (We could all be dreaming, for example; there's no way to know for sure that we're not.) Therefore, to use your terminology, one cannot scientifically PROVE the existence of anything at all; as with all systems of thought, materialism (such as you espouse) is ultimately based on blind faith.

As honest skeptics, we are forced to doubt the existence of everything not objectively demonstrated to exist. But, since we can only perceive the universe through our subjective sensory experiences, it necessarily follows that we must doubt the existence of that universe as well. With this in mind, it is obvious that the only things we can know for sure are things we experience directly, without the use of our subjective senses; in other words, we can know for sure that we ourselves exist, because we directly experience ourselves existing from moment to moment -- Descartes' famous "I think, therefore I am" -- and, since we know that we exist, we can know that Existence exists -- in other words, we can know that the very Essence of Being exists. We call this Essence of Being itself God -- that necessarily self-extant Entity by which all other real things have being. ("I AM that I AM").

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.

When the existence of Aric2000 is SCIENTIFICALLY proven, then Aric can claim to exist. Of course, since all the knowledge I possess regarding Aric2000 is subjective sensory impressions, there's no way to objectively demonstrate that Aric2000 exists. (I believe that you exist, of course, but I do so as an act of faith; I cannot "prove" it.)

Of course you know that you yourself exist, Aric. But can your scientifically prove it?

[balrog666]

This one.....

No, no. Not what proof; which god?