PBS Offers Intelligent Design Documentary

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.

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.

Thanks for the link. I read it as well as the one from PH. It reminds me a great deal of the arguments put forward by ID's. Mostly wishful thinking. Nothing is presented that would convince a skeptic. It seems written to convince those already believing in Evolution. What the argument boils down to is this: early creatures had light patches (light sensitive cells) which confered a slight advantage allowing them to survive and multiply. Natural selection over time kept choosing the best mutations of these survivors, ending up with our current eye. Basically, what they are arguing is that since we have eyes and early life forms didn't, then somehow with the magic ingredients of luck and time, eyes with all their current complexity evolved. ID'ers will say that we have complex eyes because God made them that way. Evo's say that it is from time and blind chance. Both sides are happy with their explanations and walk away convinced that the other is either wrong or crazy. But nothing is offered that will convince a skeptic, who is uninvolved in the God/Evo dabate. The links still don't address my main point: that sight is only possible when a complex system works perfectly. And I don't see how an entire system can evolve. And where are the mistakes of evolution? I would think that one eye would be better than none. Where are the fossils of one-eyed creatures that replaced their blind rivals for a time before being pushed aside by the better endowed stereo vision competition?

Mostly wishful thinking. Nothing is presented that would convince a skeptic.

The purpose of that link (How could an eye evolve) was not to convince you. Rather, it was to puncture one argument of ID "theory," which claims that an eye cannot evolve by mutation and natural selection. "No way it could happen."

That's the claim, which opens the door to the ID "solution" to this "impossible eye-evolution problem." It's very important to be clear at this point. ID says that eye evolution is impossible. That's a big claim. ID rests on that foundation. If there are cracks in that foundation, ID is a "theory" that purports to solve a "problem" which doesn't even exist.

What that link does is present a way in which eye evolution could happen (with some examples of species at different stages). That's all the link does. We're not trying to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this is exactly the path taken. That's not necessary (and it may not be possible, given the lack of fossil evidence for tissues like eyes). All that is necessary to puncture the ID claim is to show that there is at least one comprehensible natural path that could have been taken by evolution. There may have been others, but here is at least one. (And ID "theory" says there are none.)

Any evolutionary path is, by the nature of things, improbable. Your own existence is improbable. Any of your ancestors could have taken a different turn at just the right moment and you wouldn't be here. The odds against you -- or anything else -- are astronomical. Yet here we are. And after billions of years, eyes are here too. And although improbable, even highly improbable, it's not impossible. Thus the threshhold requirement for ID "theory" fails.

Just out of curiosity, how would you introduce the pressure to evolve to something better if you're not setting up goals for the program? Assuming that life will survive another billion years, and that life continue to evolve, it would be impossible to predict coming creatures without clearly defined pressures (goals in the program). I've played with a program called DarwinII which is a bit more complex than the applet (like a Life game on steroids), which does a better job of showing evolution. It is however not suitable, because of its complexity and size, to make a java applet out of it.

Maybe you need to look at the website again...and then read what I wrote about it again because, you are putting words in my mouth and distorting what I said.

No, I don't think so. To wit:

That specific program is not a good representation of blind chance. It is a terrible representation. Nothing blind about it.

It's not supposed to be, and only an idiotically literal reading of the web page makes it into such. Obviously, it's not about blind chance. Guess what? Neither is evolution.

This applet's ability to guess phrases doesn't prove that evolution happened, of course. (There's plenty of evidence for that anyway, with or without my help.) But you should think of this applet when you hear someone claim that "blind chance" couldn't possibly have produced something as complex as, say, a hemoglobin molecule. When the results are subject to non-random pressures, "blind chance" can do a lot more than your intuition suggests.

Hey, notice those quotes around "blind chance"? Does that mean anything at all to you? Does it trigger some faint thought in your head, such as "hey, maybe they're not being entirely literal here"? Does preceding "blind chance" with "non-random pressures" have any effect on the meaning of the sentence? Is English your second language, or your third?

No? Still don't get it?

Sorry, the problem here is your inability to parse idiomatic English and understand what is meant by basic punctuation in context, not the program or the web site. You think they were speaking literally about 100% random processes, when neither evolution or this program are any such thing. The only straw man here is the one you're proceeding to kick the stuffing out of by claiming that this program is supposed to be something other than what it is.

The context of my comment was a conversation about whether computer models of genetic algorithms can demonstrate that evolution is possible and probable. I say that they can't, because all such models require an objective(s). Software never writes itself.

I don't believe in Evolution but those who do must believe it has a goal because "Natural Selection" requires criteria. I don't believe nature can select (anymore than gravity) but if it could select, it would require criteria - a goal or goals on which to base it's selection.

Ichneumon said:
For evolution to occur, there has to be some method by which variations are "graded" in some fashion by whether they are more or less "successful", and this has to affect their reproductive rates. In nature, that takes place by the sheer fact of life itself -- those individuals which are better suited to survive long enough to reproduce (and reproduce successfully, and/or more often) are the ones who are going to pass on more of their genes than the ones who do so less successfully.

Molecules just don't assemble themselves in ever increasing complexity by accident and trying to get software to evolve is a fools errand.

Please explain to us the "lab work" used to support cosmological theories - ANY cosmological theory

Please cite a credible definition of "scientific theory" that explains why a scientific theory can ONLY rely on laboratory experiments as a source of supportive evidence.

Please keep in mind that the critical "experiment" that lead to the acceptance of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was NOT done in a laboratory. It was done by observing the apparent location of stars during a solar eclipse.

Please keep in mind that "repeatable" does not necessarily mean "lab work."

Yes. And the theory of the solar system was initially accepted because of telescopic observations of the phases of Venus, which were predicted by the theory.

Please cite a credible definition of "scientific theory" that explains why a scientific theory can ONLY rely on laboratory experiments as a source of supportive evidence.

I did not introduce the concept of “lab work” into this thread – somebody else did – they were trying to support their belief that the concept intelligent design must be ignored based on the inability to do lab work. It makes not sense to me (that was the point of my retort) – so please address your question the one the presented that position

I totally agree – please address this comment to the person the interject the concept of “lab work” into a debate on cosmology.

Please keep in mind that "repeatable" does not necessarily mean "lab work."

Speaking of “lab work” in this context is a tad bit silly – that was the point of my retort.

Please keep in mind all cosmological theories are nothing more than theories (and will always be theories unless we perfect time travel) – be it orthodox Darwinism or Christian fundamentalism.

Tell me where I can verify that scientists are creating DNA...not just re-arranging it.

Go to google.com and type in 'custom DNA synthesis'. You can buy your own custom synthesized piece of DNA for 50 cents a base, on a 200 nmol scale. Be the first on your block to own an entirely new and unique piece of DNA, personalized to spell out your name or fave sports team! (as long as the name contains only the letters ATC and G). Chances are, if you choose a random 30 base sequence, that piece of DNA does not exist in any genome of any organism that ever existed anywhere on earth. If you're a creationist, you're playing God! (If you're an evolutionist, I can't imagine what the point is, so that's one for the creationist side!).

http://www.alphadna.com/

Note, I am not affiliated with this company.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.