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]

Before this thread dies, I want to point out that there are unanswered questions about scriptural literalism. See #775, 758, and 750, originally addressed to shawne. I don't mind if these questions remain unanswered. I'm just pointing out the current status.

[milan]

But those passages won't go away, notwithstanding all the spinning and tap-dancing. If you're a scriptural literalist, give me *your* opinion. Never mind what you can see through a telescope.

Wow. Tough crowd. Okay my opinion:

You have chosen 5 passages out of a book that takes most people 6 months to a year to read...unless they dedicate quite a bit of time to it. You have also taken 4 passages that are almost completely identical. The Bible is repettative. The last one is obviously different. *literalist* does not mean without context. *literalist* does not mean lacking in sense.

So, all 3 of your top passages...because the 4th speaks for itself.
No one can change the enormity of what God has done...even a nuclear holocaust could not move the planet from its place in the heavens. Does that mean it is standing still? No. It means that no human, or other gods that the Jews (at the time) worshipped, could undue what God has done.

Psalms, 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.
This is obvious. But, in case it is not for others: You can't remove the earth...at least it won't be done by any that the Bible is directed at. Could a large asteroid? Sure! Has it? Not yet. Any belief otherwise would be conjecture.

And the last one:
Ecclesiastes, 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The last one made me laugh. If I ask you, or any of the billions of people on the earth, "where does the sun rise?" How do you/they respond? They point or they say "in the East." And does it not go to the place that it arose? Behind our planet. Forget about our point of reference. Isn't the sun neatly tucked behind our planet when it goes down. Just because our point of reference (when we once thought we were on the planet in the center) and beliefs have changed (thanks to Galileo), I don't believe the sun has changed. It still rises and sets. And no one has moved earth yet.

Joshua made the sun stand still? This is called a miracle. They are throughout the Bible. I cannot believe some, but refuse to belive others. Is there a scientific explanation, like the orbit of our planets? I don't know. The Bible says that the sun stood still...as far as I am concerned, it stood still. No idea how God did it...honestly don't care.

Christains believe that God created everything, correct? Immeasurable space created at His hand. I don't think making daylight last for a full day would really challenge Him. It lasts for many months in some parts of our globe.

What I really find amazing here is that some evolutionists are claiming to believe in God, but then think it impossible for Him to do miracles. If you believe in Him, and say Genesis, etc. is parable or just pretty story, not to be taken literrally ,isn't He still God. Didn't He still use some mechanism to create us, some mechanism to create everything. Wouldn't that be the biggest miracle of them all? How difficult would it be to make daylight last for a day?

[milan]

Before this thread dies, I want to point out that there are unanswered questions about scriptural literalism. See #775, 758, and 750, originally addressed to shawne. I don't mind if these questions remain unanswered. I'm just pointing out the current status.

Sorry...I don't get much time with the computer. My responces may take a bit.

[milan]

There is a small percentage of the FR membership who insist that conservatism requires Biblical literalism.

Ah. I believe people are free to believe as they wish, but good discussion is nice. :)

It is not up to me to judge people...and I don't.

[milan]

Could someone reply to 742? Someone may have but I missed it. Not alot of time on the computer.

[PatrickHenry]

My view of the "immovable earth versus the solar system" issue is this. In Galileo's time, those passages I quoted earlier from scripture were taken very literally. The Joshua episode and the passage from Ecclesiastes were used at his trial. He was found guilty of heresy for teaching that the earth orbited the sun. The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633.

Galileo's book on the solar system was banned, and Galileo was put under house arrest for the remainder of his life (around 6 or 7 years, as he was then in his 70s).

Today, no one reads scripture that literally -- at least not regarding the motion of the earth. There are some very clever reasons now given for this, but the churchmen who prosecuted Galileo were clever too, and the bible hasn't changed. Yet somehow, our understanding of those passages has changed, and we now regard them as metaphorical. Why? Because science has taught us that they can't be literally true. And no one runs around (like they used to do) saying that you can't be a Christian and also believe in the solar system. Nor does anyone run around demanding equal time in classrooms for the geocentric model of the universe. The Church officially pardoned Galileo in the 1960s (about 330 years after his conviction). These things take time.

In my ever-so-humble opinion, it is the same with Genesis and evolution. But it takes time for folks to adjust to the fact that they have been reading some passages too literally. The Pope (for those who care) has recently addressed this issue: Message from the Pope, 1996 (re evolution).

After Galileo, it took generations for our understanding of the bible to be reconciled to the solar system. Today, not only Catholics but also many Protestants have no problem with evolution. I suppose the same reconciliation with evolution will come to all denominations. But not right away. Anyway, we've had this problem before (with Galileo) and we got through the crisis. We'll get through the problem of evolution too.

[PatrickHenry]

No one answered my #733.

I'm not a programmer, so I can't really respond.

[metacognative]

I'm disappointed a right wing professor has so little class and dignity in a conversation, but I'll try to answer nice.
Obviously they follow physical laws. However you can explain the structure [and construction] of a crystal or..what is it?..a bournier vortex..with physics and actually create them. Can you do that with a living cell or is there somehting else going on?
Now do you see a difference?

[metacognative]

see #790..at least your trying to learn

[BSunday]

Who put those properties there?

[BSunday]

Actually, the Bible says the earth is round, there are springs in the sea, all rivers flow to the sea, and the earth hangs upon nothing. Scientific enough for ya? Or do I need to point out that what the Israelites were forbidden to eat were things that we now know are bad for us, bottom feeders, and carrion.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Great post, worth bumping to the top.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm disappointed a right wing professor has so little class and dignity in a conversation

I'm puzzled what you thought lacked class and dignity. Do you expect reverent awe for your every unsubstatiated assertion?

However you can explain the structure [and construction] of a crystal or..what is it?..a bournier vortex..with physics and actually create them. Can you do that with a living cell or is there somehting else going on?

I have no idea what a 'bournier vortex' is.

By this criterion, there was 'something going on' with DNA 50 years ago, since we did not then know how to synthesize it; but there is nothing going on now, since now we can synthesize it. You can't deduce a scientific principle from our inability to do something. We can't build a planet either, but that doesn't mean planets don't obey physical laws.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

FYI, from AIG:

"Dawkins’ weasel program does not generate any new information—the information was completely specified in the target phrase. The target phrase is effectively a mould that is used to shape the virtual species. Perfect selection that is goal-based hammers this ‘species’ until it is forged into the likeness of the predetermined target. There is no mould that natural selection can use. The program uses many such unrealistic assumptions that all contribute to making evolution look easy, even inevitable. When the parameters of Dawkins’ weasel analogy are modified, it can be seen how carefully Dawkins chose the values for the parameters. Far from demonstrating how inevitable evolution is, the program presented here can be used to show that in realistically sized genomes error catastrophe is a major hindrance to the speed at which evolution could occur, even when ignoring all the other unrealistic assumptions. With realistic mutation rates, the program shows how slow evolution would be, even given the remaining unrealistic constraints, such as perfect selection."

Found here: http://answersingenesis.gospelcom.net/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v16n2_weasel_program.asp

Enjoy!

MM

[js1138]

There is nothing blind about this program. If there are not strict rules governing programs, they crash. Programs have to be confined and controlled.

The weasel program may be silly, but I suggest you take a look at the recent Scientific American issue with the cover story on evolutionary programming. This is not a game, but system that has produced novel electronic circuits that can be patented. They are improvements over anything produced by humans and contain design features not yet understood.

[js1138]

Medved, if I remember correctly, is an atheist who rejects evolution and believes that modern humans were genetically engineered by space aliens from Neanderthals.

There you go again, polishing his resume.

[js1138]

Don't forget pigs: yummy, yummy pigs.