Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science on TV Evolves : Intelligent Design Hits Prime Time
BreakPoint ^ | 9 June 03 | Chuck Colson

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; denialoffact; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,481-1,493 next last
To: Friend of thunder
It is indeed unscientific to deny God. It is unscientific to deny anything you cannot prove or disprove, or have no scientific experience of, directly or indirectly.

Personally, I believe in God, but cannot think of any scientific way to prove that God exists. A lot of very intelligent people have been trying for a very long time to come up with scientific proof that God exists. So far, they haven't been able to do so.

My opinion is that they shouldn't try. God exists, believe it or don't, and is unknowable except by faith.
61 posted on 06/10/2003 1:41:26 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
>>for many famous examples there no remotely plausible path has been proposed<<

Oh, how sad. We can't figure it out, therefore God did it?

That's it? Just throw up your hands and give up?

Good, throw up your hands, and worship blindly. You don't belong in a lab, anyway, if that's your reaction.

Not everybody does belong in a lab. You don't have to check your faith at the door to enter a lab, and you don't have to check your brain at the door to go to church.
62 posted on 06/10/2003 1:49:16 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
f.Christian, with all due respect, you do realize that you are not exactly the poster child for Reason, don't you?
63 posted on 06/10/2003 1:53:57 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: 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.

That is their problem. It is not a statement made or implied in the theory of evolution (despite gore3000's lies to the contrary).
64 posted on 06/10/2003 2:14:56 AM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Friend of thunder
How does science test for God? If you can answer that, there's probably a Nobel Prize, a Time Magazine cover, and just about any grant you can ask for in it for you.
65 posted on 06/10/2003 3:28:03 AM PDT by Junior (How do stormtroopers use the restroom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
Intelligent Design doesn't presuppose God!

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

66 posted on 06/10/2003 3:32:36 AM PDT by Junior (How do stormtroopers use the restroom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

PLACEMARKER
67 posted on 06/10/2003 3:59:55 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
How dare they challenge our precious dogma with new evidence! What do they think this is? Old fashioned science?
Don't they realize that Darwinites have all the Final Answers?! We don't need intelligent minds or whatever!
68 posted on 06/10/2003 6:23:02 AM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Didn't Gould say the fossil record shows stasis, not upward change? By the way, where is a complete fossil column..not just a put-together collection of rock deposition?
69 posted on 06/10/2003 6:29:07 AM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: highpockets
"The simple mans idea of science. What a relief that anyone without an education can claim understanding of that which they have no idea about."

I have found any number of adherents to evolutionary theory who can't answer the simplest of questions. They just believe in it because some guys who claimed to be smart told them to.

Just goes to show there are believers on both sides of the issue that are simple and uneducated.

As to the other side of the coin, you know full well there are well educated men and women who adhere to the theory of ID. You would be disingenous to claim otherwise.

70 posted on 06/10/2003 6:35:35 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
"Creation "evidence" happens to be about as convincing as evidence for flying saucers and extra sensory perception."

To the adherent to evolutionary theory, of course.

To the adherent to ID theory, claims about evolution are about as convincing as evidence for flying. . .well, you get the picture.

In the end, it all boils down to what one chooses to believe.

71 posted on 06/10/2003 6:37:09 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6
"Failing to distinguish between them is an inadequate argument."

It's all the argument they can muster.

72 posted on 06/10/2003 6:38:26 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"because you do not know how it was done, is an excuse, NOT science."

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

73 posted on 06/10/2003 6:40:51 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
"If God created us all, why do so many parents behave as if they think their children are worthless?"

God allows free will, and many choose poorly.

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

74 posted on 06/10/2003 6:41:39 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
If you have blue eyes, or brown eyes, is that due to free will? Is it a moral choice?

Evolution has nothing to do with will, period. Nothing to do with free will, nothing to do with the lack of free will, otherwise known as predestination.

We don't will ourselves to evolve, it just happens. But it's not due to moral choice or the lack therof, it's physiological.

75 posted on 06/10/2003 6:56:21 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Depends on your definition of 'scientific'. The original meaning more or less meant to search for truth (a rough explanation, to be sure, but valid nonetheless). Nowadays a highly formalized series of methodologies are used to test theories empirically.

But your 'falsifiability' premise cuts both ways. There is no evolution experiment which can be separated from ID. There is no way that you can falsify the concept that evolution is non-ID in origin.
76 posted on 06/10/2003 6:57:19 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
>>I've also found it amusing that adherents to evolution just skip by tough questions.<<

Irony alert!

Evolutionists, when faced by questions to which they have no answer, say "we don't know yet, but we're trying to find out."

IDers, when faced by these same questions, say "if we can't explain it, it's proof of Intelligent Design."

In terms of scientific content - ID loses.
77 posted on 06/10/2003 7:03:06 AM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Everyone be nice!

I'll try to be nice, but I quit watching PBS science shows more than a decade ago when NOVA gave us (in a single season, I believe) The Pinks and the Blues, a gaping show on ESP and another gaper on UFOs. I found it odd that when they dealt with theoretical physics they always managed to present three or four contrasting opinions, but when it came to feminist doctrine and mystical BS, they gave the show over to true believers.

78 posted on 06/10/2003 7:49:21 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
Suppose they decode some of the "junk DNA" all human genomes carry, and find that it is a "signature" -- a set of coordinates relative to galactic clusters that identifies a solar system, say, or a chapter from Genesis. I think this is extremely unlikely, but it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE and would constitute good enough proof that an intelligence had designed (part of) our genome.

Oddly enough, something pretty much like that happens in Carl Sagan's book, Contact (but not in the movie). You may rest comfortably that such a possibility crosses the minds of lots of skeptics, including myself.

79 posted on 06/10/2003 7:57:49 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
Didn't Gould say the fossil record shows stasis, not upward change?

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?

80 posted on 06/10/2003 8:05:23 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,481-1,493 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson