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.

 

 

[Ichneumon]

We all know that the attempt to separate abiogenesis from evolution is only for purposes of removing an insurmountable difficulty

Oh, "we all know that", do we?

What have you got, a dozen mice in your pockets?

[djr]

I really have to wonder why those with religious convictions, which I admire, seem to have to wager the validity of these convictions on the premise that evolution can't happen. Given how miraculous life is, why wouldn't it be able to evolve? To think that life forms can't evolve is not only to deny obvious evidence of the sort you submit, but to imply that something, namely God I suppose, would have to be standing in the way of what appears to be a natural process among living organisms.

I do not believe that Man's being made in the image of God is in any way threatened by the concept of evolution. Man's behavior - now that's a different story.

[Ichneumon]

It is not convincing because the evidence does not fit the theory well.

Oh? Where? Be specific and precise.

It is not convincing because laws of nature have to be violated.

So you say... Which ones?

It is not convincing because its supporters deliberately ignore and suppress evidence.

Yadda yadda yadda. Examples?

It is not convincing because supporters cannot defend their own assertions.

You're big on the broadly general accusations, and non-existent on the support, I see. What "own assertions" can we not defend, please?

Let's see if you've got anything better than empty accusations. Your reputation is riding on the quality of your responses.

And to avoid the usual creationist tactic of posting a link to a scattershot list of 234,858 attempts to throw things at the wall in the hopes that 1 or 2 might stick, give us your single *best* example, in your own words, in response to each of the questions.

That'll not only save everyone (including you) a lot of time, it'll let us dismiss you once and for all if your "best" examples are shown to be misfires.

[microgood]

The most troubling part of evolution for me is how things got started(sorry if this has already been covered). Somehow a cooling earth had all the bubbling pots of primordial soup, and whereas everything else on the planet follows the second law of thermodynamics, this pool cooks up a bunch of highly organized and structured matter. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.

[Ichneumon]

Although everything in the universe must have a cause/beginning,

Unsupported presumption, but I'll let it slide.

God is the Causer and Sustainer of the universe and therefore the Uncaused Cause.

Errrnnt!! Conclusion does not follow from the premise. Thanks for playing.

Sure, his origin wouldn't be via anything *in* this Universe, but you've hardly "proven" that he therefore could exist without a "Cause" of some sort, from somewhere *other* than our universe.

That should be self-evident (although *you* managed to miss it), so let's go with an illustrative thought experiment. Let's say that 50 years from now, Einstein's great-great-grandson Fred figures out the holy grail of physics, the TOE (Theory Of Everything, which ties together and explains all physical laws). Along with winning the Nobel prize, he wants to put the idea to a practical test, so he rents time on the best particle accelerator of the day, sets the equipment just right according to predictions of his TOE, hits the "commence" button, and *poof*, successfully creates a brand new universe independent from our own, complete with its own space-time system. Cool. He names it Universe Betty, after his inspirational wife.

Now, ponder the situation. Is the following statement a logical conclusion?

If Fred created time and the Universe Betty, He must have existed outside of time and the Universe Betty. Although everything in the Universe Betty must have a cause/beginning, Fred is the Causer and Sustainer of the Universe Betty and therefore the Uncaused Cause.

Is this really true? Is Fred thus an "Uncaused Cause"?

Hell no.

Just because someone/something can manage to produce a new universe from whatever/wherever they currently reside when they decide to boot up a universe, that in no way proves that they must be an "Uncaused Cause". It only proves that if they have a Cause (and as far as we know, everything *needs* a Cause), it lies somewhere *else*.

[bondserv]

Given that these conditions will arise regardless of whether or not evolution occurs, I don't see how this creates a logical link to evolution and socialism.

Russia, China, Europe, Cuba, North Korea, Canada ...

Should I continue or do you begin to get the picture.

There is a clear and present correlation. To continue to deny the facts before oneself is to remove ones credibility as an honest broker of truth.

[Ichneumon]

New DNA information cannot come from mistakes.

Of course it can.

New capitalist businesses arise from entrepreneurs.

Organisms with novel new mutations are the "entrepreneurs".

What brings a whale from a land mammal, or a bird lung from the reptile respiratory system....

Evolution.

[bondserv]

Only to humans. Wrigglers do quite well in non-maintained pools. So do tadpoles. So does algae. Niches weren't created for you; you just found your niche.

Wondering if a pool without maintenance would last 10 yrs, 100 yrs, 1000 yrs, 100,000 yrs, 1,000,000 yrs, 1,000,000,000 yrs?

Niches are subject to disapperance in short periods of time. Consider the number of recorded extinctions in our lifetimes. "Nature" has her work cut out for her!

The ratio of new life forms to extinct life forms is BAFFLING!

[Ichneumon]

That means the the newfound propaganda tool of the evolutionists, computer animation, lends nothing except imagination.

"Computer animation"?

What on earth were you attempting to say here?

[winstonchurchill]

Is this really true? Is Fred thus an "Uncaused Cause"? Hell no. Just because someone/something can manage to produce a new universe from whatever/wherever they currently reside when they decide to boot up a universe, that in no way proves that they must be an "Uncaused Cause". It only proves that if they have a Cause (and as far as we know, everything *needs* a Cause), it lies somewhere *else*.

Oh, such deep, deep thoughts. So, now, Fred is your 'causer' and he has a cause, so that proves what? Disney's "circle of life"? You can believe that nonsense if you want. I don't have enough groundless faith for that. The Bible takes much less faith than that gobblety-gook.

It is positively amazing to me what intellectual pretzels some people are willing to emulate -- just to avoid the obvious.

[Ichneumon]

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

Actually, "macroevolution" is what people call it when small evolutionary changes continue to accumulate over time to the point where large differences have taken place. For example, see post #401, which shows 50 steps small enough that they could each be called "microevolution", but cumulatively they are enough to turn a fish into an elephant -- over 500 million years of accumulated changes.

For a good introduction to evolution in general, read Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

and consists mainly of wild-assed extrapolation in the complete absence of supporting evidence.

You have been wildly misinformed. For starters, check out 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for the Theory of Common Descent with Gradual Modification

The title is slightly misleading. It's not 29+ *pieces* of evidence for evolution, it's 29+ *independent lines* of evidence for evolution, each of which has literally countless evidentiary observations which support evolution.

[bondserv]

It's simple. According to our materialistic view, all things must have a cause, nothing can come from nothing. As such, there must be a special entity that came from nothing to make it all. I believe that argument style is called "special pleading".

God claims to inhabit eternity. By definition that would make Him eternal. A concept that science has given us further incite into.

By reading the book of Job in the Old Testament, one can begin to see the consistency with which science has begun to line up with scripture. One can also learn God's perspective on your "special pleading" issue.

Many of the errors and misconceptions of science could have been quickly resolved by a scholarly read of the Bible. Most landmark scientific discoveries were inspired by Biblical literacy. You know the names, times and places.

God rewards the diligent student. Becoming literate in the Bible will not hurt you.

[Dimensio]

Russia, China, Europe, Cuba, North Korea, Canada ...

Should I continue or do you begin to get the picture.

I get the picture. You're short on science, so you're bringing up politics even though it has nothing to do with biological evolution. You've yet to establish a genuine link between evolution and socialism.

[Ichneumon]

It still comes down to evolutionists believing that billions of years of accidents are hugely more intelligent than all of the scientists in history.

Yes, exactly.

Check out the February 2003 issue of Scientific American. In it, you'll find an article demonstrating that a mere "week of accidents" (evolution let loose on a circuit design problem) is "more intelligent than all the electronic engineers in history".

It produced a cubic signal generator circuit that a) outperformed the best ever produced by human circuit designers, b) should easily win a patent, and c) is so sophisticated that no one's been able to figure out how in the hell it works yet.

There are thousands of highly intelligent scientists in Universities, at Pharmaceuticals and doing private investigative research.

Not all of them working on the same problem, of course...

One of the strengths of evolution is that in effect every single organism everywhere is in effect a test case simultaneously working on the solution to the problem, "how to better survive and reproduce". It's like the most massively parallel computer in the universe, and it's been operating for a billion years now. No wonder it's come up with a bunch of really slick results.

And billions of years of unintelligent events are supposed to be more capable of creating chemical experiments with billions of successes just to produce a simple organism.

Notwithstanding your wild overestimate that it takes a "billion successes" for just a "simple organism", the answer is, yes.

[Dimensio]

The most troubling part of evolution for me is how things got started(sorry if this has already been covered).

This has been covered. "How things got started", that is, the ultimate origins of life, is outside of the scope of evolution. Evolution does not occur until there are life forms present. Until those life forms are present, anything that happens -- including whatever process caused those life forms to appear where none were present before -- is not evolution and thus not a part of the theory.

[Dimensio]

The most troubling part of evolution for me is how things got started(sorry if this has already been covered).

I must have missed where evidence that this "God" exists, including references to tests to show its existence (and presuambly expose some aspects of this "God"). Could you be so kind as to provide a link?

By reading the book of Job in the Old Testament, one can begin to see the consistency with which science has begun to line up with scripture.

How so?

Many of the errors and misconceptions of science could have been quickly resolved by a scholarly read of the Bible

If this is the case, why not go to it. You could win a Nobel Prize or three. Go on, cite some specific examples to support your assertion.

Most landmark scientific discoveries were inspired by Biblical literacy. You know the names, times and places.

I'd really like to see a citation for this one. It seems as though you're trying to draw a conneciton between the fact that the Bible has some historical accuracy with respect to the names and locations of some ancient cities (for which the same can be said of much of Greek mythology) and science, but I'm not sure how you're making that logical connection.

[Dimensio]

He's right. Abiogenesis was removed from evolutionary theory to overcome an insurmountable difficulty. That difficulty was in the fact that evolution can only work on existing imperfect self-replicators. Since abiogenesis involves a stage where there are no existing imperfect self-replicators, it's very difficult to fit it into the theory of evolution.

The creationist lie that evolution somehow depends on abiogenesis is, as I said, as stupid and dishonest as claiming that gravitational theory depends on how matter came into existince.

[microgood]

Thanks for the info. So it really could have been something like Star Trek's Metamorphisis or many other possibilities.....

[microgood]

Thanks for the info. So it really could have been something like Star Trek's Metamorphisis or many other possibilities.....

[tortoise]

Evolution is baloney, and I am a programmer who knows it.

Heh. There is some irony here in that the hard drive in your computer was very likely "designed" by sifting random data with evolutionary algorithms. While some types of engineering are not efficiently done this way, other types have become sufficiently complex that it is more cost effective to let a supercomputer sift garbage with evolutionary algorithms in the hopes that it will "discover" a better design than to let engineers actually design it. Evolution may be "baloney", but it still randomly "designs" better components than humans can, and more technology is being designed like this every day.

I don't want to be critical, but as a programmer you should know that "evolution" is in fact a common and valid mathematical model of system dynamics that is actually used quite a bit in some applications of computer science, particularly in engineering applications.