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]

Mother of all placemarkers.

[milan]

Hmmmm.

My point is that you seem to accept the inferences drawn from plate boundries, hot spots, fossil placement, etc. as evidence of plate movement, yet you apparently do not accept any inferences whatsoever from the fossil record, demonstrable speciation, the geologic column, etc. as evidence of evolution.

Nowhere on earth is the hypothetical geologic column complete in the sense of having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period. The standard column is supposed to be 100+ miles thick.

Common sense shows that the 16 miles which exists (on average; one mile), out of a total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column. The 100 to 200 miles exists as a textbook fantasy.

Should I mention overlapping fossil ranges and non-superposed index fossils. This presents a bit of a problem for the geologic column.

Lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found but they are nowhere near the magnitude of what your textbooks claim. And we can only acount for about 1% of the earths surface with these areas. If we include ocean basins we fall down to about .4%. By this evidence, you assume that the geologic column is the norm.

The geologic column is absent 99% of the time, so it does not exist in any significant amount.

[Dimensio]

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 you honestly believe that the theory of evolution makes importance of the means by which the first life forms came into existence, then you are ignorant of the theory. I noticed that you didn't address my possible scenarios for how life might have come into existence on earth, which doesn't surprise me since no creationist bothers to address it. Apparently they realise that their claim that life origins are important to the theory of evolution is false, so they deliberately ignore anything that trashes the lie.

[capitan_refugio]

Generalizations are often worthless. And your catastrophism/uniformitarianism argument is just that - a generalization. Nearly 80 years ago, W.M. Davis wrote (in "The Value of the Outrageous Geological Hypothesis," Science, Vol. 83, 1926) that substantive uniformitarianism (the implication that the materials, conditions, and rates of processes during the history of the earth have remained constant) limited thought and speculation. Methodological uniformitarianism, in other other hand implies that the laws of nature (such as speed of light, gravity, thermodynamics, properties of fluids and solids, etc.) remain in constant operation.

Unless one wishes to invoke the omnipotent intervention of the supernatural, then all reasonable people would agree that methodological uniformitarianism provides a basis for rational scientific discussion.

I know that in my profession of geology, the science has grown exponentially in the past 50 years. To think that reasonable scientists would not modify or re-think their ideas in light of new evidence is laughable. I was lucky enough to work on projects, such as the Deep Sea Drilling Project, that provided powerful evidence for the hypothesis of sea floor spreading (plate tectonics). I was also fortunate to work closely with some of the top micropaleontologists in the world. Micropaleontologists work with the smallest of "God's creations." These tiny, yet amazingly complex foraminifera, diatoms, etc. tell a story of morphological evolution unlike any in the macroscopic world. By comparing the forms observed with the depositional environment recorded in the rocks, one can observe slow, steady evolution during environmentally steady periods of time, and rapid morphological change, extinction, relocation, replacement, and re-population during periods of climatological and/or geological upheaval. The evidence is all there, preserved in all of its microscopic detail.

Which gets me back to my point. You set up a generalist strawman comparing catastrophism and uniformitarianism and drew conclusions from it. Your implicit point was that creationist world view was unchanging. (That world view is not surprising, given that it is more-or-less based on a literalist interpretaion of the Bible.)

You asked the question, "Which group had to change?" Let me restate the question as, "Which group is willing to learn and grow?"

[capitan_refugio]

You must realize that there are many practicing Christians who reject the backward-thinking tenets of "creation science." Not every Christian is a biblical literalist, especially when it comes to the Old Testament. One can be both a person of faith and a serious scientist who understands the evolutionary processes.

I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself. You, however, seem to speak in behalf of various groups. My earlier reply to you was in kind, so that you would understand.

And by they way, if you are offended by my condescending tone, it was intentional. Go back and re-read some of your posts and you might realize that same tone is present.

[milan]

SO you took a class by professors who misrepresented the theory of evolution,

Particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

A theory, which you probably know, is a well-substantiated explanation of data.

Evolution is no such thing.

Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions...now that is a theory.

[PatrickHenry]

Particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Welcome to FreeRepublic.

[PatrickHenry]

You think one must literally believe in Adam? Okay, how literal are you, really? As you probably know, there are several places in the Bible where it says that the earth does not move, and that the sun goes around the earth. What's your position on the solar system theory? Do you believe it?

[f.Christian]

What evolutionists are doing ...

is using conservative scientific rhetoric to force teach liberal tyranny (( satanism // atheism )) --- persecute others (( true conservatives )) !

[milan]

Thanks. I was told by a friend that this is quite the gathering place. But, I had just assumed that it was all about news.

[milan]

I see new people everyday in this thread. I figured it would have dwindled away by now.

[milan]

You think one must literally believe in Adam? Okay, how literal are you, really? As you probably know, there are several places in the Bible where it says that the earth does not move, and that the sun goes around the earth. What's your position on the solar system theory? Do you believe it?

Why don't you give me scripture and I will respond.

[PatrickHenry]

I see new people everyday in this thread. I figured it would have dwindled away by now.

These evolution-creationism threads have been a constant feature of this website for the 3.5 years that I've been here. There is always one (sometimes two or three) active at any one time.

[milan]

I was under the impression that it was just a conservative news forum.

I consider myself a creationist...so I should upset quite a few people. :)

[milan]

I know what PatrickHenry means. What is the f in Christian for? Just curious, if you will share.

[PatrickHenry]

Why don't you give me scripture and I will respond.

1st Chronicles, 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalms, 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalms, 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalms, 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.

Ecclesiastes, 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [Nice orbit.]

That one in bold was used in Galileo's heresy trial. Also the account of Joshua making the sun stand still.

[js1138]

surprise placemarker

[f.Christian]

I'm going to drop the FletcherC. (( 98 -00 ))-- f.Christian (( 00 -- 03 )) to full on byeltsin !