Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“No Dinosaurs in Heaven” film purports to tell the Trooth about the intelligent design community

arroba Email


NO DINOSAURS IN HEAVEN is a film essay that examines the hijacking of science education by religious fundamentalists, threatening the separation of church and state and dangerously undermining scientific literacy. The documentary weaves together two strands: an examination of the problem posed by creationists who earn science education degrees only to advocate anti-scientific beliefs in the classroom;

and a raft trip down the Grand Canyon, led by Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, that debunks creationist explanations for its formation. These strands expose the fallacies in the “debate,” manufactured by anti-science forces, that creationism is a valid scientific alternative to evolution.

Emmy Award-winning director and science educator Greta Schiller uses her own experience — with a graduate school biology professor who refused to teach evolution — to expose the insidious effect that so-called “creationist science” has had on science education. NO DINOSAURS IN HEAVEN intelligently argues that public education must steadfastly resist the encroachment of religion in the form of anti-evolution creationism, and that science literacy is crucial to a healthy democracy.

Filmmaker Greta Schiller poses with Darwin lobbyist Eugenie Scott here. Isn’t it a bit late for all this, girls? It might have worked better before the Synthese debacle. Trailer here:

Don’t dinosaurs go to heaven, by the way? Some say all dogs do. And dogs say cats don’t. Anyone a theologian out there?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Let the atheists pay for their own schools. Mung
ba77 dating methods are not observations but interpretations with big assumptions. I say an unbiased assessment would find much more evidence is consistent with a young earth. Another thing worth considering - in the same way that the opening up of the microscopic world in modern times should have ushered in a sea-change in biology the opening up of the non optical cosmos should have ushered in a revolution in astronomy/physics/cosmology annnnd this bears on dating methods. butifnot
correction; from initial points of design implementation, bornagain77
bevets you ask: 'Do you demand contortions of the fundamental laws/constraints of biology in order to make ID work?' NO! Genetic Entropy governing all sub-speciation events and 'beneficial' adaptations, from initial point of design implementation, is correct to the fundamental laws of physics and all the evidence from biology I have seen with never a violation! ================== Peer-reviewed publications of David L. Abel http://davidlabel.blogspot.com/ The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html i.e. material processes will never encode logical information over and above the encoded information that is already present in life!!! bornagain77
bornagain77 Though I certainly do not hold YEC (Young Earth Creationist) beliefs, since they demand contortions of the fundamental laws/constants of physics in order to make the dating work Do you demand contortions of the fundamental laws/constraints of biology in order to make ID work? bevets
Though I certainly do not hold YEC (Young Earth Creationist) beliefs, since they demand contortions of the fundamental laws/constants of physics in order to make the dating work, the plain fact of the matter is that YEC's have far more claim to the right of being truly 'scientific' than materialistic neo-Darwinists do! This is since the materialist can not justify a foundation for 'transcendent truth' in their worldview in the first place. And since 'science', when properly defined, is the relentless pursuit of 'truth', then the materialist/atheist ends up ultimately denying the reality of that which he is suppose to be in search of in the first place! This materialistic absurdity plays out in a number of different ways. Here are a few examples: notes: notes: Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? (‘inconsistent identity’ of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw Can atheists trust their own minds? – William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” – Charles Darwin – Letter To William Graham – July 3, 1881 It is also interesting to point out that this ‘inconsistent identity’, pointed out by Plantinga, which leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to make absolute truth claims for their beliefs, is what also leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to account for objective morality, in that neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a cause for objective morality; The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE “Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth. As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain.” - Crevo Headlines This following video humorously reveals the bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground beliefs within a materialistic worldview; John Cleese – The Scientists – humorous video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo ============ Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place: Dr. Bruce Gordon – The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/ This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists – easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html bornagain77

Leave a Reply