Posted on 06/09/2003 6:07:51 PM PDT by 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.
Go to your own link. Those are observations - not cosmological theories.
Right on.
ID has long, long way to go before it can fulfill these criteria. Until that happens, science sees ID as non-existent.
The word “non-existent” is the realm of the closed-mindedness and knee-jerk reaction. “Unproven” or "unsupported" is the realm of science.
I am in no position to argue ID – that is not my position right now. My position pro-open-mind and con-knee-jerk evolutionist slogans.
Beneficial to whom? Rex cats and sphinx cats (nearly hairless and hairless) are mutations that have made them valuable and have improved their chances for reproduction. SARS is probably a mutated disease organism.
You can start a colony of baceteria from a single cell, allow it to multiply, then test the colony for resistance to antibiotics. The colony, descended from a single individual, will display varying degrees of restistance. How do you explain the differences among the individuals, if not by some kind of mutation? How is this form of mutation not beneficial to the species?
I've read most of Gould's books and most of the Nature articles from which they are taken. I've never seen anything like that. Do you have a source that isn't a cobbled together quote taken out of context?
This thread is not about evolution (more knee-jerk evolutionist slogans)
ID on the other hand, is A: NOT verifiable, because you say, irreducably complex/goddidit, that is NOT verifiable.
That is your opinion and you have not presented any supporting evidence so this claim will remain your personal opinion.
It is NOT falsifiable, when you say goddidit, how can I Prove SCIENTIFICALLY that you are wrong? HOW? You cannot.
That is silly. You claim GODDIDNTDOIT and that can’t be scientifically proven wrong. BTW: GODDIDIT MAY someday be scientifically proven – GODDIDNTDOIT can never be scientifically proven. No theory of cosmology passes this little test so stop using it – it is nonsense.
ID is NOT a scientific theory, there is NOTHING scientific about it.
That is your personal opinion – no more – no less.
BUT IT IS NOT SCIENCE!!! Are we straight yet? or are you gonna argue with me to be argumentative again?
Yep. I got it straight – you want to pretend every thread related to the origin of life or matter is a thread about biological evolution and you want to pretend your personal opinion is scientific fact. I got it straight now.
Sure, I'll go with unproven, what the heck...
The reason I can be sure you are wrong about Gould is that I have read him. He was a great admirer and defender of Darwin. Gould simply has a hypothesis that states that small genetic differences can have huge effects in the final form of a creature, giving the outward appearance of varying rates of change.
The rate of environmental change can also result in different rates of selection. The only thing Gould says taht differs from Darwin is that we now have more and better information about specific histories.
Would you please tell me how a thread related to the origin of living things does not need to deal with biological evolution? Perhaps you are arguing that ID only applies to the origin of first life, and evolution is currently opperational? Or are you arguing that eacha nd every species of anumal, plant, microbe and fungus was individually and separately designed?
I have no problem with the wording (I think it is a good idea to remove the emotion words in a scientific debate) - now do you have any supporting evidence to support your conclusion (ID is not a theory)?
First, this thread is about ID not evolution. Second that comment was directed at Aric2000 who tries to cover up the gaps in his theory by claiming he is debating biological evolution and biological evolution has nothing to do with cosmology.
BTW: biological evolution (Darwinism) says nothing about the origin of living things.
Perhaps you are arguing that ID only applies to the origin of first life, and evolution is currently opperational?
I am not arguing anything related to ID. I am arguing against close-minded evolutionists that discredit ID with positions that discredit every existing cosmological theory (yet they seem to claim it only discredits ID)
Or are you arguing that eacha nd every species of anumal, plant, microbe and fungus was individually and separately designed?
Maybe you should spend more time reading what was posted rather than trying to read minds.
I've posted the same response to two separate iterations of mc disinformation about Gould. Is this Short Attention Span Theater?
I haven't received a response to either. Just to rub it in, thare cannot possibly be a full and honest quote from Gould that casts doubt on Darwin's central themes, simply because Gould spent most of his life defending Darwin.
Let's take the first, irreducibly complex, this is ridiculous to me, no such thing, by saying irreducibly complex, and then goddidit, you freeze everything, it stops, no more to be learned. Godddidit, that's ALL we need to know.
This is still your personal opinion. Please show us evidence that all theories of ID follow the rules you created
Your case would be much stronger if you actually presented sourced positions of the ID community and sourced objections to these positions. All you do is state you personal opinion as if you are the arbiter of all things scientific.
It is dandy to present your personal opinion, but don’t pretend like it is scientific fact.
That's true, if you mean the first living thing.
As for my reading what other people say, first of all I respond to specific posts, dealing with specific issues. When I ask a question, I'm not asking for anyone to repeat himself; I'm asking for clarification.
There are all kinds of beliefs and agendas on this thread. No one speaks for the whole.
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.