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.

 

 

[PatrickHenry]

What good is a proto eye or a proto feather?

How Could An Eye Evolve?.

[Dataman]

What does that have to do with my religion?

If you don't understand what you said, there is nothing I can do to help.

[Aric2000]

No, dataman, you do NOT understand what I said.

It had NOTHING to do with my belief or non-belief in a religion.

I stated historical and geneaological facts, and then you claim that it is my religion.

Sorry, but facts do not a religion make.

You have no clue what my religion is, and I ain't gonna tell you, because you wouldn't have a clue of understanding about it either.

You are indeed clueless, your posts make that extremely obvious.

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent- it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a bargain for you. no checks please. Cash and in small bills"

From the notebook of Lazarus Long

Yes Dataman, in small bills please.

[carl in alaska]

"This proves nothing except that you are unable to comprehend the fact that because the theory deals with existing life forms, it has nothign to do with how those life forms came into being.

This class went beyond the emergence of the very first primitive single-celled life form and also covered the "evolutionary process" that could change this first life form into more complex early single-celled organisms. What I'd like to know is where you got the idea that I am "unable to comprehend" the theory of evolution. That is a rather harsh rebuke given to someone about whom you know essentially nothing. If there's something bothering you in your life that's making you angry, send me a private Freeper mail and maybe we can talk about it offline. God Bless you my friend.

Carl in Alaska (currently in California for a few more weeks)

[carl in alaska]

"Carl, even if you had a Ph.D. in Biology you would still be wrong"

When did I say that I'm never wrong? I just post my beliefs here like everyone else and I do not claim to be infallible.

[metacognative]

People who cannot see the difference between predictable physico-chemical tendencies toward equilibrium and the claims of darwinites [molecules to Man] exasperate me and I see no sense in continuing to point out the obvious: snowflakes are not living cells and comparisons are ridiculous.

[Not Insane]

I'm really, and honestly surprised that anyone would seriously argue this point, other than to point out that it is a generalization. Don't you remember all the articles and teaching about the gradual formation of our solar system; the gradual transformation of animals into new and distinct species? That's all thrown out now.

Knowledge trumps speculation - and we don't know what we'll know 20 years from now, that will trounce current "speculation."

[carl in alaska]

Sorry, I misread your post. I though it said "you could still be wrong", which has a different meaning. Now I understand what you meant. I've been losing some sleep lately over business with some lawyers (not a big deal really), and it's affecting my concentration.

[whattajoke]

People who cannot see the difference between predictable physico-chemical tendencies toward equilibrium and the claims of darwinites [molecules to Man] exasperate me and I see no sense in continuing to point out the obvious: snowflakes are not living cells and comparisons are ridiculous.

So you promise never to invoke the "tornado in a junkyard" garbage like so many creationist do? Thank you.

So you are saying that non living things (snowflakes) are capable of un-intellingent "design," but living, replicating cells are not? That sounds kinda backwards.

[Last Visible Dog]

Evolution within species is a scientifically reproducible reality.

Evolution between species is not.

Evolution as Cosmology has become dogma – a secular religion.

Observing micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Man has learned to fly – I guess that means we evolved from birds(or flying insects or bats or Rocky the flying squirrel) – if not, there is more to change than a single evolution cosmological theory. Evolution within a species makes scientific sense and is scientifically verifiable – this is not the case for macro-evolution.

Like I said, evolution as cosmology has become dogma and the adherents of this dogma often have very closed minds. Many orthodox evolutionists and evangelical atheists think that accepting the reality that there are problems with evolution as a complete cosmological theory means they have to accept there is a god – this is not correct and is pretty much a phobia.

Evolution as cosmology is theory – it could be true and it could be false. It has plenty of problems. The “big bang” was a turd in the punch bowl of the cosmological evolution party – a singular event that created the universe does not work in a cosmological evolution theory – unless you say “a miracle happen” then evolution took over (to be honest, that is the same theory those that believe in God hold: a miracle happened then the laws of nature were created). Exposing problems in one theory NEVER supports another competing theory (many orthodox evolutionist just don’t get this).

I choose to believe evolution is a piece in the puzzle – not the entire puzzle. There is more to this picture than currently meets the eye and I am not going to pretend theory is fact. For some strange reason, thinking like this makes orthodox evolutionists and evangelical atheists very uncomfortable.

[Last Visible Dog]

Another Point: You can not go into a truly intellectual debate with predetermined assumptions but evangelical atheists and orthodox evolutionists do just that. When debating cosmology these people assume there is no God therefore they build their side of the debate on a fallacious foundation. There is no scientific proof that God does not exist just as there currently is no real scientific proof that God does exist. When one assumes God does not exist – they are in error right out of the gate (and this does not prove God exists either)

Disclaimer: I am currently agnostic. I am not truly convinced there is a God but I am not ignorant enough to assume there is not a God. I also believe it is possible the intelligence that might hold the universe together has little in common with man’s concept of God.

[whattajoke]

perhaps each scientific journal article should contain the footnote, "Or maybe Goddidit." After all, He may have created you, me, and everything we see last tuesday, right? Scientists ignore the supernatural in their work because they simply must. What good would lab work be if the caveat, "It may be divine." was part of every single experiment?

Where are these "orthodox atheist" churches you speak of. Where's my tax break for "belonging?"

I don't feel the need to address your tired old Micro/Macro non-issue. Please feel free to go back through this very thread to read up on such issues. Especially the lovely example re plate tectonics and our new pet theory of "intelligent drift." I think that snarky little example proves something. If not, we'll continue.

What makes us "uncomfortable" is the continued efforts of religionists to get their supernatural beliefs into the public schools. Creationists, under any nom de plume, are liars and deception artists. Their beliefs don't make me "uncomfortable" in the least. Their methodology does. I'm still waiting for some media hungry Buddhist or Hindi or something in one of these states (AL, KS, etc) to push for his creation myth in their schools. I can't believe it hasn't happened yet.

Oh, and Icarus, Congrats on that flying thing... none of us other mere homo sapiens have quite figured it out yet. (seriously, I can't imagine where you got that snippet from.)

[balrog666]

Not-even-vaguely-uncomfortable placemarker.

[f.Christian]

History and science has been taken over by liberals and freaks --- evolution ... BRAINWASHING // INDOCTRINATION !

[longshadow]

lunatics-on-the-loose placemarker

[Lurking Libertarian]

Evolution within species is a scientifically reproducible reality. Evolution between species is not.

Observed instances of speciation.