Crowd-funded faith-based nature documentary hopes to offer an alternative to traditional atheist approach

Seversky claims,

The fact that he (Attenborough) does not attribute all of it to one particular god takes nothing from such wonders nor would such an attribution add anything to it. It is what it is, regardless of whether it was created or arose from natural causes.

And here is yet another shining example of Seversky, (and other atheists), living in direct contradiction to what Darwin's theory actually holds to be true. If Darwin's theory were actually true then the awe and wonder we experience when we behold beauty does not actually exist as a real quality and/or a real property that we are experiencing but is merely just another neuronal illusion that is generated by our material brain. In short, Darwinists hold that our sense of self, our sense of being an "I", is merely a neuronal illusion, and therefore Darwinists must also hold to be true that anything else we subjectively perceive as selves, i.e. as 'neuronal illusions', such as the awe and wonder we experience at beholding beauty, must also be merely neuronal illusions. Yet Seversky claimed that attributing such awe and wonder to natural causes "takes nothing from such wonders." This is simply a direct contradiction for Seversky to say this. If saying such awe and wonder that we experience at beholding beauty is merely a neuronal illusion does not take anything away from such beauty, then I don't know what else would possibly take away from it. Darwinists are literally denying the very reality of the thing, i.e. beauty, that is invoking such awe and wonder in us. But hey, don't take my word for it. Charles Darwin himself stated that, "They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”

“The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.” - Charles Darwin - 1859, p. 199 -

As Cornelius Hunter recently explained in the following paper, "For Darwin, non-adaptive design categories, (such as Beauty), simply did not exist."

The Role of Non-Adaptive Design Doctrine in Evolutionary Thought by Cornelius Hunter - April 2021 Introduction Excerpt: In formulating this argument, Darwin was well aware that he had made a significant theological commitment. He had firmly staked his theory to the utilitarian doctrine that God would design a world of perfect adaptation. For Darwin, non-adaptive design categories simply did not exist. God would not design for purposes such as beauty, variety, harmony and order. If this were not so, it would deal a fatal blow to his theory: "The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory." (Darwin 1859, p. 199) Here, Darwin makes it clear that he requires a strictly utilitarian, adaptive, creation/design doctrine. The non-adaptive explanations that natural theologians had advanced—such as that structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, for mere variety, or to delight man or the Creator (this last item was added in the sixth edition)—would be “absolutely fatal” to Darwin’s theory. In this passage Darwin makes clear that his theory is contingent on a theological claim about the mode of creation. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/4/282/htm

So there you have it. If Darwin's theory is actually true then beauty simply does not exist. Perhaps Seversky can explain to us in detail exactly how this denial of the reality of beauty we all experience first hand 'takes nothing from such wonders' as he has falsely claimed? It is also interesting to note that experiencing awe increases belief in God

Experiencing Awe Increases Belief in the Supernatural - November 25, 2013 Excerpt: Valdesolo and his colleague Jesse Graham of the University of Southern California tested this prediction by having participants watch awe-inspiring scenes from BBC’s Planet Earth documentary series or neutral video clips from a news interview. Afterward, the participants were asked how much awe they felt while watching the video, and whether they believed that worldly events unfold according to some god’s or other non-human entity’s plan. Overall, participants who had watched the awe-inspiring video tended to believe more in supernatural control, and were more likely to believe in God when compared with the news-watching group.,,, https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/experiencing-awe-increases-belief-in-the-supernatural.html

In fact, as the following study found "non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," ,,, "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them."

Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712

In the interest of encouraging atheists to 'default' to "understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made", here are some awe inspiring videos that reveal that the (real) beauty that we see in nature and biology goes far beyond what can be possibly be explained by the ‘utilitarian doctrine’ of Darwinian evolution.

Beauty, Darwin & Design – video - 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ax-lkRoES8 The Biology of the Baroque – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FothcJW-Quo

Of supplemental note:

The argument for God from beauty can be stated like this, 1. If God does not exist then beauty does not objectively exist in the ‘eyes of man’ but it is merely illusory. 2. Beauty does objectively exist in the ‘eyes of man’. 3. Therefore God exists. Beauty and the Imagination - Aaron Ames - July 16th, 2017 Excerpt: Beauty… can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this ‘idea’ of beauty were not found in the Mind in a more perfect form…. This consideration has readily persuaded men of ability and learning… that the original “idea” is not to be found in this sphere (Augustine, City of God). https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/07/beauty-imagination-aaron-ames.html The Reason Why God Is the Beauty We All Seek - Sept. 4, 2019 Excerpt: God loves beauty. As Thomas Aquinas asserts, God “is beauty itself”[1] St. Anselm argues that “God must be the supreme beauty for the same reasons that He must be justice and other such qualities.”[2] As the contemporary theologian Michael Horton so aptly states in his book The Christian Faith, “God would not be God if he did not possess all his attributes in the simplicity and perfection of his essence.”[3] The reason why we gravitate toward beauty is because God created us in his image.,,, In a chapel sermon titled, “Can Beauty Save the World,” Albert Mohler explains, "The Christian worldview posits that anything pure and good finds its ultimate source in the self-existent, omnipotent God who is infinite in all his perfections. Thus the Christian worldview reminds us that the “transcendentals”—the good, the true, and the beautiful—are inseparable. Thus when Psalm 27 speaks of the beauty of the Lord, the Psalmist is also making a claim about the goodness of the Lord and the truthfulness of the Lord. While we distinguish God’s attributes from one another in order to understand them better, we must also recognize that these attributes are inseparable from one another.[19]" Mohler goes on to state, “Our job as Christians is to remember the difference between the beautiful and the pretty,” because pure beauty is found in goodness and truth.[20] When we gaze upon ascetically pleasing objects or witness kind deeds in this world, we are at best seeing imperfect versions of the pure beauty that can only be found in God. https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/reason-why-god-is-the-beauty-we-all-seek

Verse

Psalm 27:4 One thing I ask from the LORD, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple.

bornagain77

@6 Seversky Perhaps, as an atheist, you find his shows enjoyable. I've seen some and the nature is beautiful and I can still appreciate the Creator through it, but the constant bowing of the knee to Darwin is annoying! I would much prefer the films of Discover Institute and of the John 10:10 project on nature. Short films that clearly point to the Creator and are free of Darwin worship. tjguy

I don't think that there are any documentaries about life on Earth which exceed those narrated by Sir David Attenborough in their vivid portrayal of its wonders, nor any that exceed him in the sense of awe and excitement he clearly experiences in face of such wonders. The fact that he does not attribute all of it to one particular god takes nothing from such wonders nor would such an attribution add anything to it. It is what it is, regardless of whether it was created or arose from natural causes. Seversky

I'm really looking forward to nature documentaries that aren't simply Sunday Schools for Darwinism. I'd be delighted if they stuck to what people can observe and what we've been able to find out. Even in a fallen world, poisoned by evil, there's still amazing design and beauty in nature. AndyClue @3, I agree with you. While I'm filled with joy and wonder at God's genius in nature, I'd appreciate it if all inferences and allegories were left out. Scientific understanding is in constant change (except, of course, for Darwinism), but the Bible and the truths it contains does not change. Hitching the two together is a bad idea for that very reason. For those who aren't convinced, try watching a science documentary from 60 years ago and then imagine Bible verses attached to it. A great example or counterexample, is Metaphysics of Blood - Hemo the Magnificent, 1958 - old science cartoon that shows the triumphal progress of science over superstition and how confident scientists were in 1958--as they are today, as well! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jednp7wU6bs -Q Querius

Plus, many Americans (74%) who enjoy nature programming also find meaning in religion. Perhaps the most important poll finding was that 84% of those willing to invest in new TV shows believe that God created the earth.

That makes a lot of sense and I'm glad someone figured it out. I notice even with blind-watchmaker science shows on the beauty of nature, the ordinary people I know never think that evolution had anything to do with what they see. The beauty of nature is always a reflection of God - even when the show subtly denies that. Putting some ID stuff in there and some subtle jabs against Darwin should work very well. Silver Asiatic

The atheist approach is also faith-based :-) I hope the documentary will be grounded in intelligent design and not degenerate into christianists indoctrination propaganda. I've seen enough darwinists preaching their faith to me in documenatries. I don't need village christianists quoting their favourite bible verses. AndyClue

The emphasis on "your own backyard" is important. Reshaping science has to start with direct personal experience, unfiltered by media or teachers or books. If the experience requires a school lab or a CERN to get results, it will be dominated and shaped by university and government doctrines. Carver's rules: Look about you. Take hold of the THINGS THAT ARE HERE. Talk to them. Let them talk to you. polistra

I hadn't seen this. Thank you! I have enjoyed the Chosen immensely. We also do classical conversations, so double bonus! zweston