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]

[and c) is so sophisticated that no one's been able to figure out how in the hell it works yet.]

This is an ironic weakness of evolutionary algorithms and the like. They could produce incredibly powerful artifacts but they'd be so complex we couldn't understand how they work.

The other irony is that scads of creationists would immediately take it as evidence of "design".

The interesting thing about evolutionary results (in the lab, and elsewhere) is that they often produce solutions which are "counterintuitive". Some researchers speculate is that the reason is that human designs are constrained to "humanlike" thinking processes, which often involve building devices out of modular components, which interact with the other components in straightforward, linear ways.

Evolution, on the other hand, is perfectly free (and in fact quite likely to) produce solutions which are wildly "messy" in the sense that every part may interact in multiple (and practically unpredictable) ways with countless other parts. In mathematical lingo, its solutions are apt to be chaotic and non-linear (which almost by definition *aren't* intuitively obvious to human understanding).

Consequently, evolutionary solutions often appear "alien" to us and hard to understand, and at least thus appear to be the result of some super-genius designer, when in fact they're just a result of brute-force trial-and-error, refined by mechanistic selection.

So perhaps the creationists might want to keep that in mind the next time they marvel over some "amazingly complex" or "intricate" biological process. The fact that we find something hard to understand doesn't necessarily mean it's brilliant -- it may just mean it's non-intuitive to us because it's not the way *we'd* think to put something together, but natural processes are under no obligation to produce things the "obvious" way.

[microgood]

The point being that these types of systems are actually capable of producing the necessary molecules found in living organisms and are energetic and active enough in the catalytic sense that it is a constant cauldron of molecular synthesis

Cool and interesting, but that sounds like primordial soup to me. And producing the necessary molecules found in living organisms is a far cry from producing a living organism. The complex structure I just cannot see bubbling out of some geothermal puddle. Look at the complexity of a single cell organism.

[Ichneumon]

Then maybe Darwin should have called the book What happens after The Origin of Species instead of The Origin of Species?

No, it's why he called it the "Origin of Species" instead of the "Origin of Life". He was writing about how the various species arose (originated).

Actually, don't blame Darwin, blame the folks who abbreviate his actual title (I'm guilty as well). In the 19th century tradition of long-winded book titles, the *actual* title he gave his book was, "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

That's more specific, and more to the point of what he was focusing his attention on.

The very last line in "Origin of Species" speaks clearly about his understanding that the origin of life itself was distinct from the evolution that has taken place since:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

(Incidentally, that last word in his book is the *only* time he uses the word "evolved" or "evolution" in the book. He probably didn't intend for that word, which he was using generically, to become the name/label for his theory, but there you have it.)

[bondserv]

I have read an article on Newtons supposed non-Trinitarian views, but the quotes they took from his book were not clear that he denied the divinity of Christ. I believe I read the same article that you are seeming to describe (with a few additions that I may have missed, namely Newtons denial of the divinity of Christ)

It appears that Newtons fear was of corruptions of scripture that were tied to trying to reinforce the trinitarian position, not that Jesus wasn't God.

The quotes from his book that I have read (I have not read the book) seemed to say he didn't think the trinity was clearly spelled out in the scriptures and that scholars may have added text to reinforce or clarify the doctrine of the trinity, therefore if it wasn't clear, sans the corrupted text, he could not spell it out as a doctrine.

I wish I could get my hands on a copy of the book to know first hand Newtons positions in the context of his analysis.

[Ichneumon]

Thank you for posting information I already knew. Was there a point to it?

In all likelihood, though, the incredible evidence of design in this process was not discussed.

With good reason, because there's no clear "evidence of design" in it.

[microgood]

I am learning more all the time. Thanks.

having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one

Does evolution go back to a single cell or just that evolution began once life began?

[Dimensio]

If the end has eternal life in store, the fear of failure and death are significantly diminished. Adventuresome capitalistic behavior becomes more attractive. Fiefs no more, no matter the consequences. Be gone you Red Coats!

So you draw a link between evolution and socialism, someone else draws a link between evolution and capitalism, both of you provide little more than conjecture to support the assertions and I still say that biological theories don't make for good political science and that the failure or success of a political ideology has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of any biological theory.

[Dimensio]

Isaac Newton believed that the Bible is literally true in every respect. Throughout his life, he continually tested Biblical truth against the physical truths of experimental and theoretical science. He never observed a contradiction. In fact, he viewed his own scientific work as a method by which to reinforce belief in Biblical truth.

Okay, so Newton believed that gravitational theory was backed up in the Bible. Honestly, I don't see it. Just because he might have claimed that it was the case doesn't mean that it's really spelled ou in the Bible.

[bondserv]

Irreducible Complexity

Michael Behe has upset the comfort of the Darwinists by highlighting a design attribute that he terms "irreducible complexity." Consider, as an example, the familiar household mousetrap in figure 2.

This simple device consists of five essential parts: (1) a platform which holds (2) a hammer driven by (3) a spring when restrained by (4) a holding bar until released by (5) a catch. This basic design has defied attempts to simplify it further, or to reduce its complexity. The significant feature is that with only four of the five parts one cannot catch 4/5ths as many mice! Its function depends on each of its essential elements, each of which involve substantial precision in their specification. "Natural selection" cannot operate until there is something to select from.

Behe then presents an example of "irreducible complexity" from nature by reviewing the tiny motor that powers the flagellum, which propels a bacterium through the water:

Figure 3: This tiny mechanism, positioned to penetrate the bacterium's protective outer membrane, consists of over 40 parts - each of which are essential to its functioning. Figure 4 presents a functional equivalent: with any of its 40 parts missing, this mechanism would not be functional and would be a casualty in the processes of "natural selection" postulated by the Darwinists. The bacterium, dependent upon its locomotion, would be likewise.

So how did it come about? All the Darwinists can do is assert rather than explain.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

The Miniature City

Darwinists love to postulate the "simple cell." With the advent of modern microbiology, we now know "there ain't any such thing." Even the simplest cell is complex beyond our imagining.

As Michael Denton has pointed out, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world."

The "simple cell" turns out to be a miniaturized city of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design, including automated assembly plants and processing units featuring robot machines (protein molecules with as many as 3,000 atoms each in three-dimensional configurations) manufacturing hundreds of thousands of specific types of products. The system design exploits artificial languages and decoding systems, memory banks for information storage, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error correction techniques and proofreading devices for quality control.

All by chance? All without a Designer? (How do you define "absurd?")

When I was at the Ford Motor Company, one of our proudest assets was the famous River Rouge Plant in Dearborn. It was the largest totally integrated manufacturing facility in the world. With 97 miles of railroad within the plant, raw iron ore and limestone entered one end; the necessary steel, glass, and paint were manufactured within the facility. The entire cars (including the engines on automated lines) were fabricated within the plant, and new Mustangs came out the other end. Yet this entire complex pales in comparison to the elegant high order of design demonstrated in the simplest cell, which can also replicate itself in a matter of hours.

Link to article

[Ichneumon]

Oh, such deep, deep thoughts.

Thank you.

So, now, Fred is your 'causer' and he has a cause, so that proves what?

It proves that Dataman's presumptive conclusion was not a logical necessity, there are other possibilities.

Disney's "circle of life"? You can believe that nonsense if you want. I don't have enough groundless faith for that.

Come back when you understand what I actually wrote. For possible elucidation, look up "gedanken experiments".

The Bible takes much less faith than that gobblety-gook.

Oh, give it a rest. The logical flaw in my post is... what?

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

Again, feel free to point out any flaw that you believe resides in my post. Your general amazement at what you imagine to be my motivation just doesn't cut it as an actual rebuttal.

My point, if you ever care to actually address it directly, is that the creator of a space-time universe need *not* necessarily be an "Uncaused Cause". He might be, he might not be. But contrary to Dataman's presumption, it's *not* an ironclad necessary condition/conclusion. He's begging the question.

If that point's too complex for you, there are plenty of other threads you might feel more at home in.

[Ichneumon]

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

...because...?

[Ichneumon]

Russia, China, Europe, Cuba, North Korea, Canada ... Should I continue or do you begin to get the picture.

Yes, you should continue. At least to the point where you actually start making an argument which connects your random observations. So far you seem to think that just naming countries constitutes some sort of inescapable conclusion.

There is a clear and present correlation.

Between... What? How is this alleged correlation demonstrated?

To continue to deny the facts before oneself is to remove ones credibility as an honest broker of truth.

What "facts" would those be? "Europe" may be a place, but what sort of unspecified "fact" about it do you believe supports your vague point?

[bondserv]

Key phrase.
He never observed a contradiction.

I notice that the many advances in science attributed to Newton suddenly come down to the insignificant "gravitational theory". WOW.

Another evolutionists attacked him for having seeming unorthodox Christian doctrine.

[Ichneumon]

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

Here's a quick intro to the topic.

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.

Sigh -- not the "second law of thermodynamics" fallacy again... You should find this educational.

I'm interested in your thoughts on that.

It's 4am. I'm not sure I have any worthwhile thoughts left at this time of the morning. Check out those links, and if you have any questions let me know and I'll tackle them tomorrow.

[bondserv]

What "facts" would those be? "Europe" may be a place, but what sort of unspecified "fact" about it do you believe supports your vague point?

I refuse to continue to comment on this subject. Come on guys, give me a break.

[Dimensio]

He never observed a contradiction.

This is meaningless. I could bring up several hundred literary works that do not contradict various known scientific theories. This does not mean that the literary works in question 'support' the scientific theories.

[bondserv]

Evolution denies the current evidence which supports a diminishing number of viable life forms due to extinction.

For some reason we can read the tea leaves left in the ground, but we should ignore the present evidence under our noses.

If you have read my posts this evening you will see some of my reasoning for a common sensicle disbelief of evolution.

I do not ask you to agree, only consider.

[Ichneumon]

Well ... just remember this story:

Do I have to? It makes my smarminess detector cringe.

It has a biologist(?) misstating physics just so the Believer can smugly twist Genesis 1:1 all out of shape to pretend to match, all as a cheap attempt to get a "Hallelujah" out of an uncritical audience.

Whoever thought that one up should be ashamed of themselves.

[bondserv]

This is meaningless. I could bring up several hundred literary works that do not contradict various known scientific theories. This does not mean that the literary works in question 'support' the scientific theories.

We are talking Newton here. Not some flash in the pan wacko at a Liberal University that will be disproven tomorrow.

[Dimensio]

We are talking Newton here. Not some flash in the pan wacko at a Liberal University that will be disproven tomorrow.

I am aware of whom you speak. I've yet to see any support for your assertion that the Bible is the foundation for many current scientific theories. Lack of contradiction is not the same thing as 'support'. I see little in the Bible that directly contradicts the theory of relativity, but I don't think it wise to claim that the Bible provides support for it.