Sunday, November 18, 2007

PBS "Judgement Day": The Letters

You can go here to read letters to the PBS ombudsman concerning the program "Judgement Day" that was aired several days ago. There is also a discussion of why a couple of stations did not air the program.

Here are a excerpts of a few letters:
I realize that PBS has always treated the neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution as sacred and beyond question but last night's dose of Darwin-worship was so strong and so contrary to any genuine search for truth that I can no longer consider support of public television a morally defensible practice. For years, I have defended public television among my fellow Christians for its many fine offerings for family viewing, but PBS has become so strident and so relentless in its disrespect for fair debate and dialogue on the subject of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, that I can no longer do so.

It turns out the trial was actually about whether "intelligent design" was science or not. I thought they demonstrated quite convincingly that "intelligent design" is not science.
It doesn't take a "Rocket Scientist" to figure out that if we, as humans, evolved from monkeys . . . THEN WHY? . . . Are there STILL Monkeys???
Two words...common ancester.
I am glad I have not donated any $ to KQED for many years since I would not want to contribute to the propagation of the false, erroneous, illogical theory of macro-evolution.

I have a rabbit that is acting more and more like a dog. Does that prove the illogical theory of macro-evolution?
Surely you could have interviewed prominent scientists, philosophers and theologians who could explain how the two theories are actually one and the same.
Poor Prof. Behe. Are you saying he is not a prominent scientist. Why did the other "prominent scientists" from the Discovery Institute drop out of the case?
It gave precious little air time to ID scientists who have plenty of legitimate research, but gave plenty of time towards evolutionary research.
Actually I was surprised with the detail they covered the so-called intelligent design "reseach" concerning the flagellum. Not that any actual research was done by the intelligent design "researchers".
Intelligent Design is not religion. The end of the lesson does not offer any path to eternal salvation, claim that we are spiritual beings, or delve into supernatural phenomena; it merely states a theory of the origin of humankind that people in any arena should not be afraid to discuss.
Then the publishers of "Of Pandas and People" should have been more careful covering up that intelligent design is just creationism in disguise.
It was fascinating to see those dipstick high school teachers, bolstered by the heir to the Darwin fortune explain the impossible and to the great lengths that these . . . will go to deny that there is a greater power than some . . . that passed teacher's college in some backwater . . . state.

The Darwin fortune?
Having studied the issue of evolution and creation for the better part of 2 decades, I know that creationism is based upon sound research by responsible scientists.
Wait, don't you mean "intelligent design"?

An interview with the senior executive producer of "Judgement Day"
is here.

No comments: