The docuseries is called “The Riot and the Dance”:
The vast majority of scientists and nature documentary filmmakers view the earth through an evolutionary lens. The team behind “The Riot and the Dance” points to a just-released poll showing a hunger for another side of the nature equation. A HarrisX online survey of 2,028 adults conducted Aug. 12-14 found several factors in the show’s favor.
For example, 40% of Americans would be willing to invest in TV content that appeals to them, which is the core of Angel Studio’s crowdfunding model, witness past successes like “The Chosen” series and “Dry Bar Comedy.” 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.
Christian Toto, “Faith-based nature docuseries bypassing gatekeepers thanks to crowdfunding” at Just the News
There are two earlier films in the series. Here’s the trailer for the current one:
Here’s the trailer for the first one:
And the second one:
Here’s a documentary on the series’ goal: Making the films you’re not really supposed to make.
I hadn’t seen this. Thank you! I have enjoyed the Chosen immensely. We also do classical conversations, so double bonus!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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.
Seversky claims,
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.”
As Cornelius Hunter recently explained in the following paper, “For Darwin, non-adaptive design categories, (such as Beauty), simply did not exist.”
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
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.”
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.
Of supplemental note:
Verse