http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2686
A Review of the PBS NOVA Television Documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by two A.P. staff scientists: Dr. Houts holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT and serves as the Nuclear Research Manager for NASA’s
Marshall Space Flight Center; Dr. Fausz holds a Ph.D. in Aerospace
Engineering from Georgia Tech and serves as Engineering Project Manager
in the Space Systems Development Division of a subsidiary of SAIC.]
On September 26, 2005, a trial began in the federal court of
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in which 11 parents charged the Dover Area
School District with violating the establishment clause of the First
Amendment of the
United States Constitution, thus infringing on
their civil rights. Partly at issue was a resolution, passed by the
Dover Area School board by a 6-3 vote, that stated:
Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of
other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent
design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught (Jones, 2005, p. 1).
The board passed this resolution on October 18, 2004. Also mentioned in
the suit was the board’s vote on November 19, 2004, to require that the
following statement be read to all 9
th-grade students in the Dover Area School District, beginning in January, 2005:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test
of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new
evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory
exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a
well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open
mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to
individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district,
class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency
on Standards-based assessments (Jones, 2005, pp. 1-2).
On December 20, 2005, United States District Judge John E. Jones
III
delivered a 139-page ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. Not only did
the judge give the plaintiffs the declarative relief (stating that the
establishment clause of the First Amendment was violated) and injunctive
relief (forbidding the Dover Area School District from maintaining
their
ID [Intelligent Design] policy) that they
asked for, he also stated in his ruling the monumental conclusion that
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.
Almost two years after the conclusion of these federal proceedings, the
PBS science series
NOVA
devoted an episode to a discussion of this landmark case, originally
broadcast on November 13, 2007. The program may occasionally be re-run
on
PBS and other networks, but is also viewable in its entirety on the
NOVA Web site (
NOVA, 2007b). This article will examine the reasons given by the
NOVA executive producer as to why she saw fit to draw attention to this anecdote in
U.S. history, discuss the impact of the Dover decision on society and education, as related in the
NOVA episode, and critique the substance of the program, which
NOVA has titled
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.
PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM
On the same Web site where
Judgment Day can be viewed (in 12 parts), there is a “Q&A” mock interview with Paula S. Apsell, Senior Executive Producer of
NOVA.
This Q&A provides a fortuitous opportunity, before viewing the
program, to understand what motivated its production. The first question
to which Ms. Apsell responded was, “This program tackles a contentious
issue for many people, particularly for many devout Christians. Why did
NOVA and Paul Allen’s Vulcan Productions, your coproducer, take it on?” Ms. Apsell stated:
I think the real reason that we made that decision is because
evolution is the foundation of the biological sciences. As Theodosius
Dobzhansky, one of the great biologists of the 20th century, once said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (NOVA, 2007a).
Ms. Apsell also responded to the question, “Why is this topic—and the
teaching of evolution—so important?” Her full response to this question
was:
Recent polls tells us that 48 percent—almost half of all
Americans—still question evolution and still believe that some kind of
alternative should be taught in the public schools. What happens when
half of the population doesn’t accept one of the most fundamental
underpinnings of the sciences? Evolution is the absolute bedrock of the
biological sciences. It’s essential to medical science, agriculture,
biotechnology. And it’s critical to understanding the natural world
around us.
We’re a country built on our command of the sciences and technology.
But we now face a crisis in science literacy that could threaten our
progress in these areas and ultimately threaten our quality of life. So,
at NOVA and at Vulcan, we feel that
understanding the importance of evolution, and enhancing science
literacy in general, are more crucial than ever (2007a).
Understanding what motivates someone to exercise their creative energy
can be very useful in deciphering elements of their product that may be
otherwise difficult to analyze. This is especially true when considering
a controversial subject like
ID. Ms. Apsell’s comments indicate a strong bias towards evolution (i.e., against
ID),
which will prompt us to look for that bias in the program content.
Correspondingly, this review will be equally blatant in responding to
both the motivation and content of the
NOVA program.
For example, Ms. Apsell quotes one of Theodore Dobzhansky’s statements,
which is actually the title of one of his papers (Dobzhansky, 1973).
The quote does faithfully represent Dobzhansky’s view, as evidenced by
the following excerpt from that paper:
The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable
if the Creator has created the living world not by caprice but by
evolution propelled by natural selection. It is wrong to hold creation
and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way (3:127).
In the first place, the idea that creation was either by “caprice” or
by evolution is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of a
“bifurcation” or “binary argument.” By creating the image of a
capricious God as the only alternative to evolution, Dobzhansky thereby
makes the godless theory of evolution appear more attractive. The idea
that God would have created the Universe impulsively and without purpose
(as implied by “caprice”) is completely foreign to the minds of most
creationists, who believe that He created deliberately and with full
design intent (purpose)—a third option Dobzhansky ignored. In addition,
Dobzhansky does not appear to be sure whether evolution is God’s method,
or “Nature’s.” Should we conclude from his statement that nature is, in
fact, Dobzhansky’s god? One paragraph prior to this quote, he also
states: “Only a creative but blind process could produce...the
tremendous biologic success that is the human species....” On the one
hand, he infers purpose and direction, calling evolution a “method” of
God (or nature?); then, on the other hand, he states that it could only
be a “blind” process. These statements suggest that Dobzhansky may have
been highly confused, indeed.
Dobzhansky’s mental confusion notwithstanding, there are many who we
believe would take great issue with Dobzhansky’s philosophy, as well as
Ms. Apsell’s proclamation that “evolution is the foundation of the
biological sciences.” For one, Louis Pasteur would certainly disagree.
Pasteur formulated and thoroughly tested the
germ theory of disease,
invented inoculations, as well as the cure for rabies, and developed
the process of pasteurization. Did Pasteur give credit to “the light of
evolution” for his overwhelming scientific contributions to the welfare
of mankind, as Dobzhansky implies that he must? On the contrary, Pasteur
stated, “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work
of the Creator” (as quoted in Tiner, 1990, p. 75).
Pasteur also empirically established, to the dismay of naturalists, the
Law of Biogenesis,
which states that life in the natural world only comes from life. With
regard to this accomplishment, Pasteur stated: “Never again shall the
doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow that
this one simple experiment has dealt it” (1864), and it has not
“recovered” to this day. Pasteur further confounded the spontaneous
generation crowd, now called chemical evolutionists, with a discovery
involving the phenomenon of
chirality. This is
the observation that certain organic molecules exhibit asymmetry,
dubbed right- and left-handedness, and are mirror images of each other.
With respect to this asymmetry, Pasteur discovered that all molecules
associated with living things are single-handed, instead of a 50/50 mix
of both types, as with most substances. Pasteur identified this as a
defining characteristic of life, a characteristic that remains an enigma
to scientists (evolutionary scientists, anyway). This discovery
rendered the idea of life emerging from non-life, as hypothesized by the
chemical evolutionists, statistically
impossible.
It is also interesting that Ms. Apsell equates a lack of belief in
evolution with “a crisis in science literacy that could threaten our
progress in these areas and ultimately threaten our quality of life.” We
have already mentioned Louis Pasteur, a “science illiterate” by Ms.
Apsell’s definition, who has contributed overwhelmingly to “our quality
of life.” Other “science illiterates” (a.k.a. creationists) who have
significantly benefited mankind in their work include Francis Bacon, who
first postulated the scientific method utilized by all scientists
today, Carolus Linnaeus, developer of the classification system used by
all biologists today, Johannes Kepler, who formulated the laws of
planetary motion and confirmed the heliocentrism of our solar system,
James Clerk Maxwell, father of the modern science of electrodynamics,
and Isaac Newton, who formulated the law of universal gravity and
formalized the field of dynamics with his laws of motion. The list of
“science illiterates” who have contributed substantially to “our quality
of life” is neither short, nor cloaked in obscurity. Thus, the
motivation behind this
NOVA production reveals
either the naiveté or deceitfulness of those who blindly accept the
philosophical premises of evolution, and eagerly embrace the movement to
establish Darwinian evolution as the dogma of science education.
AN EPIC BATTLE
With their agenda firmly set, the makers of
Judgment Day
proceeded to cast the judicial proceedings that culminated in Judge
Jones’ December 2005 decision as a conflict between the gallant forces
of (scientific) truth and the wily imposter of creationism, deceitfully
clothed in the disguise of “Intelligent Design.”
Chapter 1 of the on-line version of
Judgment Day begins with the narrator stating: “In October 2004, a war broke out in the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania” (
NOVA, 2007d). Following a few innocuous statements by
ID proponents, the narrator further states:
But many Dover residents and an overwhelming number of scientists
throughout the country were outraged. They say intelligent design is
nothing but religion in disguise, the latest front in the war on
evolution (2007d).
Shortly thereafter, Judge Jones appears, stating, “It was like a civil
war within the community, there’s no question.” The word “war” is used
three times within the first 10 minutes of the program. In addition, the
word “battle” is used four times in this same segment.
Not unexpectedly, the producers of the program do not leave us in the
dark as to who they think the “good guys” are in this “war.” Consider
the following sequence of statements from the program transcript, also
posted on the
NOVA Web site:
BILL BUCKINGHAM (Dover School Board Member): To just talk about Darwin to the exclusion of anything else perpetrates a fraud.
NARRATOR: But many say intelligent design is the fraud.
KENNETH R. MILLER (Brown University): Intelligent design is a science stopper.
KEVIN PADIAN (University of California, Berkeley): It makes people stupid.
NARRATOR: Eleven Dover residents sued their
school board to keep intelligent design out of the classroom. And almost
overnight, Dover was catapulted to the front pages of the nation’s
newspapers and the front lines in the war on evolution (NOVA, 2007c).
Note that the statement of Bill Buckingham, one of the Dover School Board members in favor of
ID, is countered by three statements, including one by the narrator himself, while the outrageous statement, “It [
ID] makes people stupid,” is not even challenged. In fact, every statement by an
ID
proponent in the introductory segment is countered, while statements by
evolutionists are more numerous and simply left to stand at face value.
Though in her Q&A, Ms. Apsell insists that “it [
ID] gets a fair shake in this program,” the introductory segment alone casts significant doubt on the veracity of this claim.
The characterization of
ID as an enemy in the
“war on evolution” worsens, however. Chapter 3 of the on-line version of
the program, titled “Introduction to Intelligent Design,” begins with
the story of Lauri Lebo, a journalist covering the trial:
NARRATOR: Lebo began reporting on the
controversy. But her interest in the issue was not just professional, it
was also personal. Lauri’s father had been the owner of a local radio
station, but the oldies format wasn’t paying the bills, and the electric
company was about to put him off the air.
LAURI LEBO: The next day a gentleman came in
who belonged to a local church...wanted to lease programming on the
radio station and offered to pay a decent sum of money. And overnight
the radio station became a Christian radio station. My father became
born again (NOVA, 2007f).
Later in the program, this story is revisited with the following:
NARRATOR: As the legal teams battled it out in court, the clash between intelligent design and evolution was taking a toll on Dover.
Local newspaper reporter Lauri Lebo sat through every day of
testimony, and the conflict began to drive a wedge between Lauri and her
father.
LAURI LEBO: He believed that God really should
be in science class. He did not believe in science, and he was all
worried about me and...because I believed in evolution. And he said, you
know, “Well, do you really believe that we came from monkeys?” At that
point, I was pretty burned out from the trial, and I didn’t really have
the patience that I probably should have had with him, and I just said
yeah, I mean, you know? “Yeah, I do believe in evolution, Dad,” you
know? And so we’d fight every morning.
If you believe in heaven and hell, and you believe you have to be
saved, nothing else could possibly matter. Not the First Amendment, not
science, not rational debate. All that matters is that you’re going to
be rejoined with the people you love most on this Earth (NOVA, 2007i).
The narrator’s leading statement that the “clash” was “taking its toll
on Dover” makes the reason for including this anecdote more than clear.
Not only
ID, but Christianity as well, was
portrayed as a subversive element—a plague spreading through Dover,
driving “a wedge” in Lauri Lebo’s family and in the Dover School Board.
According to the program producers, the enemy in the “war on evolution”
is apparently not just
ID, but also the Christian
faith that drives it. It should come as no surprise that one of the
final comments in the program, made by
ACLU
lawyer Witold “Vic” Walczak, is: “The issue is certainly not over. One
of the things that we’ve learned is that the opponents of evolution are
persistent and resilient. And they’re still out there” (
NOVA, 2007j). Ominous words, indeed!
SCIENCE VERSUS RELIGION?
A core issue in this conflict, as well as in the trial itself, is the
question of what constitutes “science.” Clearly, evolution is portrayed
as being scientific, while
ID is not, according to the program producers and Judge Jones’ decision. The judge’s ruling explicitly stated that
ID
is not a scientific theory; but is that really the issue? Since
Darwinian evolution holds a monopoly with regard to the study of the
origins of life within most of our classrooms, perhaps the more relevant
question is whether evolution is truly science, or, as Judge Jones
described
ID, religion in disguise.
For example, a fundamental premise of evolution is that life
spontaneously arose from non-life. This premise goes against every
related fact we know about biology, especially the Law of Biogenesis,
empirically and brilliantly established by Louis Pasteur. This point and
others demonstrate that evolution, far from being “one of the
fundamental underpinnings of the sciences,”is, in fact, a complete
affront to science. Unfortunately, our society has become so willing to
sacrifice anything (including science) on the altar of atheism that we
now teach as scientific “fact” an atheistic theory that we
know does not fit the facts.
The simplest life is far more complex than anything man has ever
created. Would we allow our schools to teach as scientific “fact” that
space shuttles randomly assemble and launch themselves? As absurd as
that may sound,
it would be more logical than teaching as scientific “fact” that life spontaneously arose from non-life.
With great effort and expense, people assemble and launch space
shuttles. However, with even greater effort and expense people have been
unable to create anything close to what is considered “simple” life.
Ironically,
NOVA and other pro-evolution
organizations that claim to be “scientific” typically do not even
mention this obvious problem. This fact is glaring when
Judgment Day
features three different segments designed to overwhelm us with the
alleged evidence in favor of Darwinism: Chapter 2, “What is Evolution?”
(2007e), Chapter 5, “The Fossil Record” (2007g), and Chapter 6, “A Very
Successful Theory” (2007h). Yet, not one of these chapters mentions the
fact that Darwinism requires spontaneous generation, nor discusses how
it could have happened in spite of infinitely impossible odds.
Evolutionists’ strong desire to suppress evidence and discussion,
evident in their vigorous opposition to the decisions of the Dover
School Board, is yet another indicator that their belief system has
little to do with science, and is merely another false religion.
When dealing with evolutionists, it may be more useful to point out that the theory of evolution is
not
scientific, rather than trying to convince them that biblical
Creationism is scientific. No theory of origins is observable, testable,
and repeatable, which places the theories outside the realm of
operational science, as the
NOVA program and
Judge Jones claim regarding Intelligent Design. Even though the evidence
strongly favors biblical Creationism, as defined, we cannot claim that
it is operational science.
It is also interesting to note that most of the arguments currently put
forth by evolutionists and the media are completely irrelevant to the
debate. The most prevalent example is the use of natural selection as
supposed evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. Both biblical
Creationists and evolutionists rely on natural selection, so the process
is not a discriminator between the two worldviews.
CHURCH AND STATE
The crux of the legal case in the Dover trial was the accusation that
the Dover School Board had violated the establishment clause of the
First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution—at
least, the recent “separation of church and state” interpretation of
that clause. It is outside the scope of this review to delve deeply into
questions of constitutional interpretation (see
Miller, 2006;
Miller, 2008). Nevertheless, the Framers of our
Constitution
never intended for this amendment to impact the decisions of popular
government at the Dover, PA (state or city) level. In any case, we will
consider the issue of violation of the establishment clause within the
context of the liberal First Amendment interpretation that is prevalent
today.
The most remarkable statement in the
NOVA program was in Judge Jones’ ruling:
Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent
design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their
presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief
in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general (NOVA, 2007j).
It may be within the scope of the judge’s authority to make a determination that
ID
is not science, and that the Dover School Board members who introduced
the issue were motivated by religious purpose, but to make a statement
regarding fundamental religious and theistic belief goes far beyond any
semblance of judicial prudence. It is crucial for every American to
understand the full implications of this statement. According to the
judge’s statement, now law, the idea that evolution could be considered
antithetical (an opposing theory) to religion “in general” is “a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false.” This is absolutely stunning—and
frightening.
The Founders of our nation believed that religion is essential to the
survival of popular government (see Miller, 2008). The recent liberal
interpretation of the First Amendment seeks to remove this influence
from government—to the detriment of our society. Judge Jones takes this
one step further, however, asserting that the authority of judicial
review (government) should have influence over religious thought in
telling literal Genesis creationists, who reject evolution, that the
bedrock foundation of their religious belief is false. Realizing that
religion has been made impotent to challenge liberal constitutional
interpretation, the legal ramifications of the ruling are positively
alarming, as the ruling turns the intent of the Founders regarding
freedom of religion on its head. It is no wonder that Judge Jones
predicted that he would probably be labeled an activist judge because of
the ruling.
Shortly after reading the statement above, Judge Jones made another statement in the program:
In an era where we’re trying to cure cancer, where we’re trying to
prevent pandemics, where were [sic] trying to keep science and math
education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and
teach bad science to ninth-grade students makes very little sense to me.
You know, garbage in garbage out. And it doesn’t benefit any of us who
benefit daily from scientific discoveries (NOVA, 2007j).
Clearly, Judge Jones has strong feelings that impacted the scope and
language of his ruling, and may have even influenced the decision
itself. Richard Thompson, a Thomas Moore Law Center attorney and
representative of the Dover School Board in the case, commented:
I think, first of all, you have to say we had a fair trial. I’m just
disturbed about the extent of his opinion, that it went way beyond what,
what [sic] he should have gone into deciding matters of science (NOVA, 2007j).
This observation is an understatement. And we should not be less
concerned about the extent of the ruling regarding matters of science,
than we are about its precedent for judicial interference in matters of
religion. Judge Jones stated in his ruling, “Those who disagree with our
holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge” (2005,
p. 137). We mark it as such because the facts presented above justify
that claim.
THE WAGES OF COMPROMISE
Judge Jones not only believes that evolutionary theory is consistent
with belief in God and “religion in general,” but also sees no problem
with establishing his belief via the federal judiciary. How did we get
so turned around in our society that religion is not allowed to have any
influence on government, or public life for that matter, but a judge
can dictate what creationists should believe (or not believe)? Consider
the following statement from the Q&A with Ms. Apsell (
NOVA, 2007a):
Q: Is evolution inherently anti-religious?
Apsell: Not at all. The view that evolution is inherently
anti-religious is simply false. Evolution tells us that the diversity of
life on this planet could have arisen by natural processes. But for
many people of various faiths, this is perfectly compatible with their
belief in God as the creator of all nature. I personally believe that
the beauty of evolution can enhance your belief in a creator and God.
By definition science cannot address the realm of the divine or
supernatural. This doesn’t mean that science is anti-religious.
And our program, Judgment Day, doesn’t promote either a
religious or an anti-religious viewpoint. It accurately covers a trial.
And the trial itself did not have an anti-religious viewpoint. I think
it’s worth noting that both the judge and the majority of
witnesses—including scientists on the plaintiff side—are people of faith
(NOVA, 2007a).
Notice that Ms. Apsell does not claim any personal religious belief. In
fact, when she says, “this is perfectly compatible with
their belief in God,” and “I personally believe that the beauty of evolution can enhance
your
belief in a creator and God” (emp. added), she leaves the impression
that she shares neither of those beliefs. Notwithstanding, she feels
perfectly justified in prescribing religious belief to others: “The view
that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false.” And with
respect to the program not promoting “an anti-religious viewpoint,”
significant evidence to the contrary has been given above.
Now consider the following excerpt from the first chapter of the on-line version of the program:
ALAN BONSELL: I personally don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. I’m a creationist. I make no bones about that.
NARRATOR: Creationists like Bonsell reject much
of modern science in favor [of] a literal reading of the Bible. They
believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that God created
everything fully-formed, including humans, in just six days.
Although most mainstream religions made peace with evolution decades
ago, many creationists still see evolution as incompatible with their
faith (NOVA, 2007d).
Notice how the narrator claims that “Creationists...reject
much
of modern science” (emp. added) and “most mainstream religions made
peace with evolution decades ago.” Unjustifiable, unsubstantiated
generalizations such as these are often used to marginalize specific
groups—in this instance, Bible-believing creationists. We are told that
we are outside the “mainstream” and that we reject “much of modern
science.”
No doubt, some religious evolutionists truly believe that there is no
conflict between creationism and evolution. Perhaps though, there are
some who hold no religious views, yet see no conflict between evolution
and creation, because they desire a non-confrontational, subtle method
of subjugating religious belief to modern scientific thought.
Judgment Day wraps this viewpoint in a blanket of anti-Christian sentiment.
Those who first compromised biblical creationism with evolution have,
without a doubt, opened a Pandora’s box of anti-religious abuse. Indeed,
they have catalyzed the very process that has flipped our society on
its head, giving place to scientists, judges,
TV
producers, and even atheists, who desire to dictate to devout people
what their view of creation ought to be. We are paying a severe price
for their compromise of the simple truths of God’s Word. And what we
have witnessed until now is certainly only the beginning.
CONCLUSION
The conflict between evolution and creation is a very real clash of
worldviews that has highly tangible implications for society, the
church, and the very survival of our form of government. The
NOVA program
Judgment Day
explores this conflict from the perspective of an evolutionist
worldview. This fact is clear from the statements of Paula Apsell in the
Q&A segment on the
NOVA Web site. In light
of her bias, we should not expect the program to be fair to Intelligent
Design, much less to a creationist worldview, even though it alleges
objectivity. The program’s lack of fairness to
ID, creationism, and even Christianity, has been documented in this article by examples from the program’s own transcripts.
This leads to the conclusion that the purpose behind the making of
Judgment Day
was to build on the momentum of the Dover Trial to gain further ground
in promoting Darwinian evolution in opposition to biblical creationism.
This intent is evident in Ms. Apsell’s lament that so many people still
reject Darwinian evolution in spite of its domination of public
education for decades. In the spirit of true Orwellian doublespeak, she
refers to this rejection of evolution as “scientific illiteracy.”
In support of its purpose,
Judgment Day goes to great lengths
to marginalize those who dare to question Darwinian evolution and those
who choose to believe in biblical creation. Momentum for this purpose is
derived from the presiding judge of the Dover Trial, Judge Jones, who
stated that the creationist views of the Dover School Board members who
supported
ID were “utterly false” because those
beliefs are based on the “assumption” that evolution is “antithetical”
to a belief in a supreme being, or religion itself. By establishing a
judicial view of “religion” as defined by that which is not antithetical
to evolution (“establishment” in First-Amendment verbiage),
NOVA is empowered in their pursuit to further marginalize those who disagree with them by the full authority of the
U.S. government.
It cannot be overstated that a major contributing factor in the ability
of evolutionists to marginalize creationists is that many creationists
have marginalized themselves by accepting evolutionist views, in spite
of empirical and biblical evidence to the contrary.
NOVA capitalizes on these compromises as primary means to promote its agenda through the
Judgment Day
program. The most important thing Christian creationists can do, while
engaged in this clash of worldviews, is accept God at His word, and
esteem His Word above “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20)—and
to encourage others to do the same.
REFERENCES
Dobzhansky, Theodore (1973), “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,”
The American Biology Teacher, 3:125-129, March.
Jones, III, John E. (2005), “
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al., v. Dover Area School District: Memorandum Opinion,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf.
Miller, Dave (2006), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War (Part I),”
Reason & Revelation, 26[6]41-47, June, [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2942.
Miller, Dave (2008), “Christianity is in the
Constitution,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3800..
NOVA (2007a), “
Intelligent Design on Trial/Senior Executive Producer’s Story,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/ID/apsell.html.
NOVA (2007b), “
Intelligent Design on Trial/Watch the Program,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/ID/program.html.
NOVA (2007c), “Transcripts/
Intelligent Design on Trial,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID.html.
NOVA (2007d), “Transcripts/
Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 1,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_01.html.
NOVA (2007e), “Transcripts/
Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 2,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_02.html.
NOVA (2007f), “Transcripts/
Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 3,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_03.html.
NOVA (2007g), “Transcripts/
Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 5,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_05.html.
NOVA (2007h), “Transcripts/
Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 6,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_06.html.
NOVA (2007i), “Transcripts/
Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 9,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_09.html.
NOVA (2007j), “Transcripts/
Intelligent Design on Trial Chapter 12,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/NOVA/transcripts/3416_ID_12.html.
Pasteur, Louis (1864), “An address delivered by Louis Pasteur at the ‘Sobonne Scientific Soiree’ of April 7, 1864,” [On-line],
URL: http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~alevine/pasteur.pdf.
Tiner, J. H. (1990),
Louis Pasteur—Founder of Modern Medicine (Milford, MI: Mott Media).
The
more worldly and ungodly American society becomes, the more devout
Christians will be criticized and persecuted for their beliefs and
actions. One popular criticism that has been levied against Christians
in recent years involves the Christian home. Allegedly, Christian
parents are guilty of brainwashing their kids. Before children are old
enough to digest for themselves all of the evidence for God’s existence,
the Bible’s inspiration, or Jesus’ deity, some Christians (though sadly
not near enough) are ingraining these beliefs into their children.
Faithful Christian parents regularly and systematically teach their
children fundamental Christian teachings without apology. Is this not a
form of brainwashing? Is it not “forcible indoctrination”? How do
Christians respond to the “brainwash” accusation?
It
was 2004 when 6-year-old Alex Malarkey was plunged into a coma by
injuries sustained in a car accident. After waking two months later, he
claimed he had seen angels who took him to heaven to meet Jesus. Six
years later, Tyndale published a book by the boy, co-authored with his
father, titled The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven, which became
an instant bestseller, even spawning a documentary DVD. Now, at the age
of 16, Alex has retracted his claims and, thankfully, is urging people
to return to the Bible for the only reliable source for information on
the afterlife (Zylstra, 2015).