Posted on 05/02/2003 10:26:29 AM PDT by 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
03/09/2002We 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.
PUBLIC B.S. "gets it" - Intelligently Designed Films
Why can't you?
Answer:
The evolutionist strawman, indoctrinated with circular reasoning, fed with half-truths, conditioned to side-step, unbearably burdened with proof, extrapolated circumstantial evidence into a spontaneously generated smokescreen and follow one of their own red herrings right off the bluff into the bandwagon. Momentarily dazed and not to be deterred; strawman finally comes to his senses and commences an ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, loaded with ridicule, non-sequiturs, attempted humor and glittering generalities - repeatedly citing Big Lie authorities, to intimidate anyone disagreeing with the Best-in-Field Fallacy, of 'particles to people' EVOLUTION.
Media Bias Stifles Creationists' Scientific Findings, Perspective He explains that the secular media -- which he describes as atheistic and anti-Christian -- publishes most anything it can that appears to indoctrinate people and "hits against the Bible."
CREATION : EVOLUTIONARY ARROGANCE (SHAMAN ALERT) One writer laments that even after the pope reaffirmed the commitment of the Catholic Church to evolution in 1996,
40 percent of American Catholics in a 2001 Gallup poll said they believed that God created human life in the past 10,000 years. Indeed, fully 45 percent of all Americans subscribe to this creationist view.12
But why would the public favor creation? Only a statistical minority of the "general public" attends church and Sunday school. Could it possibly be that evolution is so contrary to evidence and common sense that people intuitively know that evolution is wrong? And could it be that many of these have studied the evidences for themselves and thereby found that evolution is not really scientific after all?
Loosening Darwin's GripA poll released in May 2002 by Zogby International found that nearly eight out of every 10 Ohioans supported the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms where Darwinian evolution also is taught. A survey by The Plain Dealer newspaper in Cleveland offered similar findings: 74 percent of Ohioans said evidence for and against evolution should be taught in science classrooms, while 59 percent said intelligent design should be included in origins study.
How Does the World View of the Scientist & the Clinician Influence Their Work? Some, like Thomas Kuhn in his widely quoted "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," have argued that the scientific process is less than an objective critical empirical investigation of the facts. They claim the work of scientists is greatly influenced by their culture, by social and psychological environment, by what Kuhn calls the "paradigm"--that is to say, the preferred or prevailing theories, methods and studies of that particular discipline, and above all by their world view--their specific beliefs about "the order of nature." Kuhn writes that two scientists with different views of the "order of nature" . . . see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction . . . they see different things and they see them in different relations to each other." And we might add that they tend to see and to accept those data that conform to or make sense in light of their world view. So evidence exists that the world view of scientists and the presuppositions that view implies may influence not only the problems scientists choose to investigate but also what they actually observe and fail to observe.
[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]
No they don't...the first replicating forms were probably RNA based, and did not have proteins. RNA has self-catalyzing properties and many RNA structures (e.g. ribosomes) are truly ancient.
evolution, as I have said many times is ANTI-SCIENCE.
The central point of science is the discovery of causes and effects and materialist evolution denies it. It proposes random events as the engine of the transformation of species.
This is totally unscientific, it is an attack on science which in order to expand human knowledge and human health and living standards needs to find the causes and effects of how our Universe functions.
Randomness answers nothing and leads to no discoveries.
In fact it opposes scientific inquiry and is a philosophical know-nothingism.
That is why evolution has been popular with the masses and virtually ignored by scientists.
It is ... pseudo-science --- for morons.
With a few words such as 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' it seeks to make idiots think they are knowledgeable.
We see the idiocy of evolution and evolutionists daily on these threads. That is why they all repeat the same stock phrases, throw a few links (because they cannot even understand the concepts being discussed), but never give any facts showing their theory to be what they claim it is - the center of science. If it was, they should have no problem doing so. It is not, that's why they cannot.
sop ...
The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.
g3 ...
It may be a theory, but it is not a scientifically supported theory which is what evolutionists claim it to be. Anybody can have a theory about anything. It is whether a theory is valid that is the point. So you have not given any evidence for your side. All you have done is indulge in rhetoric, but you have not shown that evolution is science or have in any way refuted my statement that evolution cannot in fact be science because of its central proposition that 'evolution just happens'. Such is not science.
539 posted on 03/13/2003 8:59 PM PST by gore3000
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.
The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 21].
Evolution is a science, and I am a scientist who studies it.
Many of the masses pick up on it, like they picked up on gravity, because it is undeniably true. There is as much evidence for evolution having occurred as there is that the earth goes around the sun.
You only brought up one substantive point...about randomness. Mutation may be random, but evolution is not. Many sciences deal with events that are influenced by random events (e.g. statistics and probability, quantum mechanics). Does the fact that mutations are random also make genetics a pseudo-science? Who's the moron here?
Check out the history of these ID guys, they are all creationists that think they have found a useful wedge.
No, they were not probably just possibly.
Still, doubts remained because scientists had never been able to find a ribozyme that could synthesize the nucleotide building blocks from simpler precursors. Although scientists could propose ways by which the four RNA bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil) and the ribose-phosphate sugars could have arisen spontaneously on the early Earth, these prebiotic reactions do not seem to be sufficient for linking the base to the sugar phosphate--the critical step to making nucleotides.
In this study, Whitehead scientists took the approach of making 1,000 trillion random RNA molecules go through test-tube evolution to find those that could catalyze nucleotide formation. They found three different families of ribozymes that synthesize a nucleotide by linking the base to a sugar phosphate--a reaction similar to those used by proteins in contemporary metabolism.
"These ribozymes make only one nucleotide, and that is not enough. But the fact that they can do this is encouraging, and we plan to try further evolution to see if we can make them better and more efficient," Professor Bartel said.
Haven't they always been liberals trying to paint the missing-chromosone crowd as Joe (GOP) Six-Pack?
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.