Science on TV Evolves : Intelligent Design Hits Prime Time

BreakPoint ^ | 9 June 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

In the years that BreakPoint has been on the radio, I've had some strong words about our nation's public television broadcasting system, PBS. Two years ago, for example, I criticized PBS's airing of a deeply flawed series on the theory of evolution. That series was inaccurate and one-sided, leaving out any mention of the scientific evidence that supported the theory of intelligent design.

But today I've got good news about PBS to report. And this is news where you can make a real difference.

Over the past few weeks, here and there around the country, some PBS stations have been broadcasting the one-hour science documentary "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." This program tells the story of the biological theory of intelligent design. Using interviews with scientists and philosophers, computer animation, and location footage -- from such sites as the Galapagos Islands -- "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" describes the emergence of an alternative theory to strictly naturalistic evolution.

Naturalistic evolution, you see, credits all the amazing diversity and complexity of life solely to mindless natural causes, and that's how PBS science programs usually explain biology. That's "usually" as in "the sun usually goes down at night." You'd search fruitlessly if you tried to find PBS presenting the scientific case for a different viewpoint than Darwinian. And so airing "Unlocking the Mystery" points to a significant breakthrough.

The documentary tells such a good scientific story that, earlier this year, PBS made the program available to all of its national affiliates. Local stations could download the program from a satellite link, and -- if they so decided -- put it into their schedules.

Stations in Oklahoma and Michigan have already done so, and in a couple of days, PBS affiliates in Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Texas will broadcast the program as well. You can contact BreakPoint (1-877-3-CALLBP) for the days and times of these broadcasts.

Airing "Unlocking the Mystery" on taxpayer-supported public television is great news for intellectual freedom and openness in science. Most Americans learn about new developments in science from TV -- shows like the long-running PBS series NOVA. A well produced TV documentary can take complicated scientific theories and make them accessible and easy to understand -- even fun to watch. For young people, science that might be boring in the classroom becomes fascinating when presented imaginatively on television.

But TV can also exclude scientific ideas if they're deemed too controversial or likely to upset the scientific establishment. Challenges to Darwinian evolution have been seen just that way, religiously motivated and therefore suspect. But science suffers as a result, because there is plenty of evidence that does challenge Darwinism, and the public needs to hear both sides.

So here's what you can do. Call your local PBS station if it hasn't scheduled "Unlocking the Mystery," and encourage it to show the program. Send them an e-mail. If they've already shown it, let them know you appreciate their willingness to present alternatives to Darwinian evolution -- and that you'd like to see more of such programming in the future.

[Last Visible Dog]

If I cannot prove, scientifically that a theory is true or false, it is not and cannot be a scientific theory.

Using your logic there is no scientific theory for the origin of life and the creation of the universe. (because currently none of these theories can be proven true or faluse by science)

You are misunderstanding how science works. Theories are often "outside the realm of science" - that is the POINT!!!!!!! If science can already prove a theory – is it a theory? NO!!!!!!!!!

Using your logic, science can only study things that are already proven (making it impossible for science to discover anything new).

Basically, you are using unscientific, broad-brush statements to try and unscientifically discredit a theory. You apply rules to other people’s theories that your own theories cannot sustain. I think that can be called scientific hypocrisy.

[Aric2000]

Unproven theories are NOT outside of the purvey of science.

OK,you just said they weren't outside the purvey of science.

Don't be silly, all theories start "outside the purvey of science"

And here you said they are, so, please which is it?

I hate it when you do this to me, so I try not to do it back, but when you put OPPOSITE opinion in the same sentence, I gotta ask, what the heck are you talking about?

And I will go over this with YOU ONE MORE TIME, we are talking BIOLOGICAL evolution, which does NOT include cosmology, and ID, whcih claims that diversification and the life we see about us, came because GODDIDIT.

A theory that claims that goddidit, WILL NOT replace a theory that does not, UNLESS, A: the theory that does not is somehow disproven, then another theory that doesn't use GODDIDIT, will replace it, or B: we will hav scientific evidence that god does indeed exist.

In the meantime, ANY theory that uses GODDIDIT as an explanation has a place, it is called philosophy, and or religion, UNTIL you can scientifically verify that god exists, then I will allow that they can come into the hard science. Until then, they can stay where they are.

[Last Visible Dog]

NO matter WHO the designer is, it is NONFALSIFIABLE, therefore it is NONscientific.

WRONG! Just because it currently is "nonfalsifiable" does not mean it is nonscientific (the position COULD be proven - this renders your statement null and void) and currenly ALL theories of the origin of life, matter, the universe are "nonfalsifiable"

Until you can prove that an intelligent designer exists, then you are stuck with a NONscientific theory if you use an intelligent designer to explain it.

You really don't understand science. What you are saying is "a theory is nonscientific until it is proven"!!! Do you understand that would mean nearly EVERY theory in nonscientific.

Taking you logic further - science can only create theories that are proven. That has got to be some of the silliest logic!

That is your premise, and it is NOT scientific, therefore your theory falls into the same category.

Using your logic, NO theories related to cosmology are scientific.

[Last Visible Dog]

Irreducibly Complex is a MISNOMER, just because we do not know how it was done now, does NOT mean that GODDIDIT, which is what you are saying in ID theory.

Did you EVER study logic?

Just because we do not know does not mean it is impossible that GODDIDIT. Your logic works just as good in both directions therefore it cannot logically be used to discredit one position.

[Last Visible Dog]

ID is an interesting concept, but crappy science. That's why we evolutionists dismiss the science.

I have yet to see you "evolutionists" dismiss ID in a scientific way - all I see non-scientific "Is not! Is not! Is not!” Elementary school playground banter. The "scientific" arguments presented by many "evolutionists" are usually silly non-scientific positions that also defeat their own theory.

I am not arguing for and against anything - I am just tired of the knee-jerk silliness from "evolutionists"

[Last Visible Dog]

Actually, it does. When taken to its obvious conclusion, ID presupposes a supernatural "first cause."

You mean like the Big Bang.

Think about it: If the Intelligent Designers were, oh say, little green men from Zeton, how did they come to be? Who were their designers? Who designed the designers? Ad infinitum.

But some scientific theories are based on the concept that matter always existed. You have the same problem on your side. Either matter always existed or it was created – your theories don’t escape this paradox.

ID cannot escape such a supernatural conclusion, and as the supernatural is, by definition, not science (which only deals in the natural), ID cannot be scientific.

Electricity was seen as supernatural a few hundred years ago therefore the same statement could have been made about electricity (and it too would have been false)

[Last Visible Dog]

We don't skip them, we are just not afraid to say, "We don't know YET."

So let us get your logic straight.

Your theories are "scientific" but they are based on the premise "we don't know" - ID is “nonfalsifiable” therefore it is not scientific. So, using your logic – if ID simply stated “we don’t know” then it would be considered “scientific”

Yeah.

Right.

[RogueIsland]

I always thought that theories were advanced to explain observed phonomena, not for prediction.

Actually, theories must be predictive as well as explanatory.

[Rudder]

Don't be silly, all theories start "outside the purvey of science"

And until ID provdes data that's where it will stay, all silliness aside.

[Last Visible Dog]

Youare going for that whole cosmology thing again, we are talking ID theory, and Biological evolution. They claim that ID will somehow replace evolution, and it won't.

I guess the word cosmology freaks you out because it limits your weasel room. ID is a cosmological theory - so don't play the "we are not talking about cosmology" game again. ID does not replace evolution (per se). BTW: I am arguing for open minds, not ID.

Can you go get a life and quit trying to argue ENTIRELY different points?

This thread is about ID - a cosmological theory. I am sorry this ruins your knee-jerk pro-evolution slogans.

I am talking ID, and BILOGICAL evolution and you know it.

Well maybe you need to find a thread on "BILOGICAL evolution" (you don't have much original material do you - just a few silly slogans)

Quit trying to turn this into another of your pissing matches please, because it is not only dishonest, it's STUPID!!

You jump into every thread remotely related to evolution with the same tired silly slogans (not matter how inapplicable) and you have the nerve to claim others are dishonest.

[Last Visible Dog]

And here you said they are, so, please which is it?

THINK!!! Unproven theories are the HEART of science therefore not outside the "purvey of science" even if the content of the theory is outside the current "purvey of science"

Clearly you argue to be argumentative

[Aric2000]

I argue to be argumentative?

So far you have responded to almost EVERY ONE of my posts, because for some odd reason, you ACTUALLY think that ID is science. When any scientist would look at it, and say. no evidence, no predictons, no nothing.

It is nonfalsifiable because god is used as it's MAIN causation. God is not scientific, and never has been.

Any theory that says "goddidit" is by definition, NON FALSIFIABLE. because you cannot prove nor disprove the existince of god.

Prove that god exists scientifically, then we can talk about god being used as a causation, but you can't.

Hint: god is a religious concept, there are NO facts to back up that god exists, it is a matter of faith, it is NOT scientific.

Again, ID has it's place, it is called philosophy religion, just as a lot of cosmological theories are more philisophical then they are scientific.

I argue to be argumentative? damn, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[Last Visible Dog]

And until ID provdes data that's where it will stay, all silliness aside.

I have no problem with that statement.

My position is pro-open-mind. All theories of cosmology have weak foundations (scientifically speaking) therefore ALL of them can be defeated with the positions "evolutionists" present - I am arguing for people to keep an open mind - all of the current theories can be shot down. Keep your mind open - I would love to see our "evolutionist" friends spend more time presenting positive statements rather than obsessing on attacking all position that are different than theirs.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I know this may be splitting hairs, but I believe that a theory can be used in making predictions, but the theory itself only describes a set of observed phenomona. For example the General Theory of Relativity describes the relationship between energy and mass. It does not predict anything. Using the theory, however, we are able to predict the ability to build an atom bomb.

[f.Christian]

cb ...

the poster child for Reason ... ?

fC ...

Scrambled brains -- science --- evolution ... cracked shells !

Some kind of strange mad cow (( ah2 )) science disease !

[js1138]

Using your logic there is no scientific theory for the origin of life and the creation of the universe. (because currently none of these theories can be proven true or faluse by science)

Good of you to notice. You are correct.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Thanks for your reply--at least you acknowledge that prpgressive creationism is distinct from the young-earthers. As to your other assertions, I'll leave that argument for another day.

[PatrickHenry]

All theories of cosmology have weak foundations (scientifically speaking)

The standard model in cosmology exists only because it is rather well-supported by evidence. The Four Pillars of the Standard Cosmology.

[PatrickHenry]

General Theory of Relativity describes the relationship between energy and mass. It does not predict anything.

To the contrary, one of GR's predictions was famously tested when the predicted deflection of starlight was first observed during a solar eclipse.
Eclipse in 1919 helped confirm theory of relativity.

[Rudder]

In science theories summarize available data, are coherent and are based upon the results of hypotheses testing. A theory in science is not merely a hunch based upon a single observation or experience, but rather the end-product of a lengthy series of investigations on the same topic. In order to qualify for a scientific investigation, ID should first generate hypotheses, test these, analyze the data and proceed again and again, ad nauseum, until a bona fide, full-fledged and heuristic theory can be amassed. Then, and only then, does the fun begin--a theory which generates numerous, related hypotheses, all of which are testable by the scientifc method.

ID has long, long way to go before it can fulfill these criteria. Until that happens, science sees ID as non-existent.