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.

[PatrickHenry]

Everyone be nice! [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[Rudder]

And the theory of evolution, which denies not only God but love itself...

No, it doesn't.

[Friend of thunder]

No, it doesn't.

Doesn’t deny God or love or both?

[Rudder]

Denies neither.

[RaceBannon]

AE Wilder Smith is probably one of the most forgotten authors, he started the ID explanation/defense in my opinion!

[Friend of thunder]

I would tend to agree, but many who subscribe to modern Evolutionary theory, deny – as a matter of faith –any divine (or supernatural) influence. If one were to allow for such an influence they would, as I understand it, be much closer to Intelligent Design then they would be to modern Evolutionary theory.

[Aric2000]

And the theory of evolution, which denies not only God but love itself, is only the path to greater alienation and ultimately the very acts of self-destructiveness which deny the intellectual validity of evolutionary theory.

Now, what does the decay of society have to do with evolution?

You don't think that maybe it is reward for babies out of wedlock? as in more children and no father= more welfare dollars. You don't think it is a LACK of personal responsibility? You don't think it is a lack of any firm foundation to grasp?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Animals still have no problem showing love and nurturing their offspring, it is INDEED a trait for survival of that offspring, but THEY have personal responsibility for raising that offspring, our social system has taken that away from many people. Why should I care for my children, they are a means to more money, or they are a means of tax credits, or they are an accident of feeling good.

They are not my way of immortality on this world, or the spreading of my genes, they are a means to cash in my pocket.

To blame evolution on the decay of society is such a weak argument that it is laughable. Evolution is science, not religion, not social studies, it is NEUTRAL on the existence of god, just like ALL REAL science.

To blame it for our societal woes is removing the responsiblity from the individual to some unpersonal thing that you happen to disagree with.

Let me give you a hint, it is NOT evolution, it is liberal socialist ideas that have become reality because my parents and grandparents WERE NOT PAYING attention!!

Free enterprise/capitalism are the closest in concept to evolution, survival of the fittest, socialism and liberalism is the exact opposite. This tells me that not only is evolution a good theory, it works in economics.

Socialism and liberalism are the problem, NOT science, and certainly NOT evolution.

You need to think hard, because you are so far off the mark it is insane.

[Aric2000]

Sorry charlie, but Darwin himself may be dead, but his theory lives on, and is getting stronger EVERY day.

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

Science can niether PROVE, nor DISPROVE the existence of god, therefore GOD cannot be used as a causation, because if it is, the theory becomes nonfalsifiable, and if a theory is nonfalsifiable, it is by definition NOT scientific.

[Aric2000]

see my last post....

[jlogajan]

And the theory of evolution, which denies not only God but love itself

This will come as a shock to the Catholic Church, which has officially accepted the possibility of evolution.

[Friend of thunder]

Science can niether PROVE, nor DISPROVE the existence of god, therefore GOD cannot be used as a causation, because if it is, the theory becomes nonfalsifiable, and if a theory is nonfalsifiable, it is by definition NOT scientific.

So if God did do it that is ‘beyond’ science? Or is it beyond the ability of science to explain?

[Aric2000]

Science deals with the natural world, not because it wants to, but because it HAS to.

Therefore, YES, god is beyond science, otherwise you would have scientific evidence instead of faith that god exists, And so far god has alluded scientific explanation, therefore it is YES, beyond the ability of science to explain....

At this point in time........

[Friend of thunder]

So, if God is real, science is not?

[Rudder]

...many who subscribe to modern Evolutionary theory, deny – as a matter of faith –any divine (or supernatural) influence.

Those with whom I'm familiar are working scientists and, as such, consider matters of faith or divine influence outside the realm of science. They consider science limited to a scope of questions that can be answered via the scientific method. ID to them awaits data before they'll give it credence as a viable theory. Until that happens, ID is outside the purvey of science.

[jlogajan]

You failed to distinguish between young-earth and old-earth creationism in your criticism.

Actually, both of them have to deny the fossil record.

And in both cases they start from the Bible and then select the details they wish to prove their assumptions.

Darwin was led to his remarkable discovery by the evidence. Since then the evidence has amassed to support his initial discovery ten thousand fold.

So in evolution we have a fossil record that agrees with contemporaneous examples of species selection. Since 1953 we've known the very structure of the genetic blueprints called DNA. And many living creatures now have their genes mapped and compared to others to demonstrate past genetic links.

Creationism and Intelligent design, on the other hand, have hand waving criticisms from poorly applied "statistical impossibilities." In general they don't as much attempt to prove their case as to poke holes in various fossil chains -- hoping against logic that therefore if they can muddy the water -- people will leap on their theory as the ONLY replacement. A logical fallacy of its own.

[Aric2000]

NO, if god is real, then he obviously built this unverse with physical laws that science is discovering.

Just because science cannot explain god, does not make science any less real or true.

[Friend of thunder]

Those with whom I'm familiar are working scientists and, as such, consider matters of faith or divine influence outside the realm of science.

As a matter of faith! If divine influence exists, it must be considered scientifically; it cannot be wished away. If God exists then God must be considered in any ‘rational’ explanation of existence. It is not scientific to say ‘I don’t believe in that so I wont consider it.’

[Friend of thunder]

Just because science cannot explain god, does not make science any less real or true.

I agree. My point is that “just because science cannot explain god” doesn’t make God any less real.

[Aric2000]

It is not "I don't believe or WON'T consider."

It is "I CAN'T consider" because the existence of god is beyond science to say yes, or no.

Until the existence of god can be scientifically shown to be true, god cannot be used by science. Because if I say that Goddidit, then I have created a theory that is NOT falsifiable, because how can I prove that god did NOT do it?

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

[Aric2000]

I won't disagree with that, and you will find that most others agree with you as well.

But god is faith based, it is NOT scientific, it is religious. and until science can scientifically verify that god exists, science will not be able to use god as a causation.