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]

Show me the data.

ok. here is data:

45 - 3455 - 232 - 99432 - 9223 - George Washington - Leather Corsets - WPOD

Now, could you be more specific.

[Mamzelle]

re: ID is NOT scientific, never can be, because it's whole PREMISE is nonscientific. GODDIDIT is not a valid premise, because it is nonfalsifiable. )))

Hm. Now I know what ID stands for...

It is thought that we split off from chimps 5-6 M years ago...

There's lots of that nonfalsifying going on out there. And anything that can't be proven or disproven, is not science.

The real difference between the creationist and the evolutionist is that one admits he's not a scientist, and the other pretends he has no faith.

[Mamzelle]

re: If ANY theory, I don't care what it's about, or where it's from, claims, "then a miracle happened." )))

Heehee. "Hans Vavink", famous scientist.

[js1138]

Your posts would be much stronger if you actually presented sourced positions of the ID community. You have gone to great lengths to berate us for making incorrect assumptions about ID. How about you posting the basic tennants of ID, as you understand it?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Gould's theory is "punctuated equilibrium", which states that darwinian accumulation of small changes is/was invalid.

What Gould really said:

"I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.

"We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"

[Aric2000]

I will say this SLOWLY, for you, because either you are being a pain in the pasterior on purpose, or you are clueless.

ID=Intelligent Designer, why do you need an intelligent designer? because some organisms are irreducibly complex.

You need the ID to explain the IC.

It goes HAND in HAND.

Get over yourself already, I would not need to go to ANY ID site to figure this out, it is the ONLY reason that there is ID theory at all. Because a guy named Behe, looked at a flagellum, said "I am a genius and I can't figure this out, therefore it is irreducibally complex, and therefore there must be an intelligent designer at work."

Why, because Behe thought so much of himself that if he couldn't figure it out, no one else could.

Is that organism Irreducibly complex? then there must be an intelligent designer.

Would you care to try again?

If there were no "irreducibly complex" there would be NO Intelligent Design theory.

You must give us 2 answers then.

A: why is it irreducibly complex? and then PROVE that it is.

And B: Where is the intelligent designer, prove that one exists.

Neither of these claims is scientific, instead of saying irreducibly complex, science would say "we don't know, YET."

The intelligent designer is never needed, because, "then a miracle happened" is NOT used in science.

[js1138]

Darwin had no clue as the the age of the earth. I suspect he would have considered tens of thousands of years for species transitions to be sufficient, given the variations he observed and recorded.

Speed of change is also related to reproduction rate, time between generations, and fecundity. Ten thousand years is longer for rabbits than for elephants.

[js1138]

I guess that since Gould once used the word stasis, that makes me wrong. ;^)

[Last Visible Dog]

Excuse me, what I am trying to explain here is that ID is NOT science. Not an opinion, that is a fact.

And you want everybody to just take your word on this. Yeah. Right.

Philosophy, sure, no problem, religion, hey right in there with you. But scientific? Get a grip on reality.

So you are the arbiter of both FACTS and REALITY. (no, you don’t have a exaggerated sense of self-worth).

Science CANNOT prove NOR disprove the existence of god, therefore god CANNOT be used as a causation in a scientific theory.

A few hundred years ago science could not prove nor disprove the existence of electricity – does that mean a few hundred years ago electricity was not a scientific theory.

No theory of cosmology can be proved or disproved therefore this argument you keep presenting is SILLY!

Period, end of story.

Spoken like a true man of science

If science ever gets to a point where it can prove the existence of god, then hey, welcome ID to science, otherwise, forget about it.

I don’t believe ID as a concept is dependent on God – just design. You personally extrapolate that to God. All that has to be proved is the existence of design, not the existence of the designer. The great pyramids of Egypt exist yet we cannot PROVE the designer existed – does that mean the pyramids are not part of science.

Prove the existence of god, scientifically and we'll talk, otherwise we are on 2 different wavelengths.

We are on two different wavelengths - you have a closed mind and I am willing to explore new ideas. ID does not have to prove God exists – only prove design exists.

[Aric2000]

It is thought, is a MUCH different statement, then Goddidit.

The real difference between the creationist and the evolutionist is that one admits he's not a scientist, and the other pretends he has no faith.

Ahh, another one of the those, if your not a creationist, you are not a real christian, but if you understand that evolution is the best scientific theory to fit the evidence, then you are an atheist.

I have a little news for you, creationists are a MINORITY within the christian religion, most are in fact theistic evolutionists, but are not adherents to ID, because they understand that god is a faith based principle and is not and cannot be used in science.

I am a theistic evolutionist, I have my faith, but I also understand science.

[Junior]

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

You mean like the Big Bang.

The Big Bang can be explained as a stable quantum fluctuation (IIRC).  It need not have a supernatural cause.

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.

Energy (and therefore matter) is a product of the expansion of the universe.  Physicist can explain this far better than I can, however there is still no need to invoke a supernatural explanation.

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).

Ah, but electricity has a natural cause.  So does the origin of species.  ID is a supernatural cause, regardless of how you attempt to package it.

[MississippiMan]

This is one topic on which conservatives on one side of the issue behave EXACTLY like liberals. If anyone opposes their viewpoint, they quickly tag an offensive label on them so they'll shut up. You know the drill: If you question affirmative action, you're a racist. If you're opposed to portraying homosexuality as normal, you're a homophobe. If you don't believe in evolution, you're an ignorant hick. Shame the opponent into silence. That's EXACTLY how most of the evolutionists here on FR behave. Any number of incredibly intelligent and well-educated scientists believe in creation, but you'd never know it by reading the responses of this bunch.

Distract distract distract, get away from the core issue, which is the fact that they believe this infinitely complex universe happened by sheer chance. When you highlight the core issue, the absurdity of it is so very easy to see, so they must quickly divert attention. Many do it by the method exposed above. Others love to throw up links to a hundred pages of arcance "evidence" that would take anyone a week to plow through in their spare time, when that evidence is nothing more than purest conjecture at the end of the day.

Although scientific evidence does support creation, the bottom line for me is that I'll take the word of the one Guy who was THERE. And every soul reading this message right now will someday have the opportunity to discuss it with Him.

MM

Disclaimer: This is how I feel, and it is directed toward someone I believe feels similarly. Evolutionists, please save your finger strength. I've been through enough ridiculous "debates" that go absolutely nowhere, and have no energy, desire, or intent to go through another.

[Lysander]

Of course I have intelligence! It wouldn't be by ignorant design that I created the universe now would it?

[Rudder]

45 - 3455 - 232 - 99432 - 9223 - George Washington - Leather Corsets - WPOD

If you did that all on your own, then maybe there's something to said about ID.

The data I requested are those obtained by testing one (or more) of the hypotheses generated by the ID "theory," which support the concept of ID as opposed to evolutionary theory.

[Last Visible Dog]

OK, I will go a step further with you. If ANY theory, I don't care what it's about, or where it's from, claims, "then a miracle happened." Or "goddidit", it is by definition, NONSCIENTIFIC.

OK. That means ALL theories of the origin of matter are NONSCIENTIFIC because they all start with “a miracle happened” (something came from nothing, matter always existed, God did it).

OK. Now will you stop using this silly argument sense it disproves EVERY existing theory of the origin of matter?

If on the other hand it goes to a certain point, it all adds up, and then says, "we don't know, YET", then it is probably based on a sound scientific understanding.

Yeah. Right. God did it is nonscientific but DUH – I DON’T KNOW is scientific.

[Junior]

I've also found it amusing that adherents to evolution just skip by tough questions.

We may not know the answers to all your questions at the moment. This does not mean that answers will not eventually be forthcoming. And, if history is any indication, the answers will not be of a supernatural nature.

[Last Visible Dog]

I will say this SLOWLY, for you, because either you are being a pain in the pasterior on purpose, or you are clueless.

How quickly you turn to spewing insults (BTW: insults are a sign you have a very weak position and strong desire to always be right)

[Aric2000]

ID has to prove that the designer exists, OK, I'll play your word game with you.

Maybe the ID is not god, maybe the ID is an alien from another universe, maybe it's an alien from another galaxy, or maybe it's something else entirely.

I can say that we came from the grays, they came down, created all these "irreducibly complex" lifeforms and then took off into the wild black yonder of space.

So, am I gonna look at you and say, "PROVE ME WRONG?" Or are you gonna look at me and say "prove you're right".

Hint: you cannot prove that I am wrong, it is unfalsifiable, unless you can say for a fact, that the grays did not and cannot exist.

At the same time, I cannot prove that I am right either, how can I prove the grays came down and seeded the earth? Hint: I can't, it is unprovable.

It is NONscientific, just like ID.

[Junior]

Does evolution allow free will? If so, there goes the theory of natural selection.

I'm sorry, but this is a non-sequitur. How does free will preclude natural selection?

[Last Visible Dog]

The data I requested are those obtained by testing one (or more) of the hypotheses generated by the ID "theory," which support the concept of ID as opposed to evolutionary theory

I think I said about 5 times I am not arguing for ID. Why make such a silly request? I am arguing against close-minded knee-jerk evolutionists