I watched this on PBS in Anchorage, Alaska. I was already riveted, but my jaw dropped when they said on public TV that only intelligent design could explain these technically advanced features that all have to work together to make flight possible.
This video also covers the incredible migrations of Arctic Terns, one of my favorite birds, especially to photograph. They migrate from the arctic to Antarctica, flying many times further than the distance to the moon and back in their ~30-year lifespans!
So why can’t intelligent design be taught in public schools; though, the myth of macro-evolution is taught as fact?
God bless!
jeff
– –
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s05koz6adzw]FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Trailer
Illustra Media | Published on Sep 16, 2013
FLIGHT: THE GENIUS OF BIRDS is the first episode in Illustra Media’s new series THE DESIGN OF LIFE. This remarkable documentary explores the evidence for intelligent design as revealed through the biological systems and mechanisms that make avian flight possible. Photographed in North America, England, Peru, Greenland, and Antarctica FLIGHT celebrates birds and the miracle of life in the skies.
The DVD & Blu-ray are available for purchase now – visit www.illustramedia.com for more information. Use Coupon Code YTIM15 to save 15%!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GR9zFgOzyw
Related:
DVD available at Amazon here
Richard Forrest
Firstly, intelligent design “theory” explains nothing. It is simply the God of the gaps argument cloaked in sciency-sounding language.
Secondly, we have excellent explanations for the various characteristics associated with flight in birds from evolutionary biology and biomechanics.
ID should not be taught in science classes because it isn’t science.
i
Jeff Fenske
Intelligent design explains everything.
So how do you explain flight happening by chance over time, when all of these extremely complex mechanisms must be fully functioning for flight to occur? The chance of this happening is nil.
Macroevolution shouldn’t be taught in public schools because it’s not science either. It’s a belief system, a religion based on the belief that God didn’t design life, so we must invent a substitute, and then teach it as fact, teaching students that the Bible can not be trusted, and that man is the highest being in the universe.
Those who push the brainwashing of children are in serious trouble with God.
RIchard Forrest
I suggest that you educate yourself in evolutionary theory. All you are doing is regurgitating misinformation gleaned from creationist sources which misrepresent, distort and lie about science.
I suggest that if anyone is in serious trouble with God, it is those who deny and lie about his creation because they have embraced a shallow dogma promoted dishonestly and which reduces God to a bundle of paper covered with ink marks.
Jeff Fenske
Richard,
All you are doing is saying there is a non-God explanation, but you don’t say what it is, because there isn’t one.
I know how the game is played. I attended secular college and saw the intimidation + lack of evidence + none of the facts that disprove macro evolution.
Our public education system is a brainwashing, disinfo system that teaches little children that they are nothing but animals, and God didn’t create them. The Bible can’t be trusted. So why not just act like the animals.
And that’s what we now have — a lot of people acting like animals, and they can’t even defend the belief system that made them think that way — because it’s a bunch of hot air — a lie from Satan.
Everyone will reap what he sows. God will judge all of us in regards to what we’ve done personally, and those who deceive children are in huge trouble.
RIchard Forrest
All you are doing is saying there is a non-God explanation, but you don’t say what it is, because there isn’t one.
There are numerous sources of information which provide detailed and testable explanations.
I know how the game is played. I attended secular college and saw the intimidation + lack of evidence + none of the facts that disprove macro evolution.
…though evidently you weren’t paying much attention.
Our public education system is a brainwashing, disinfo system that teaches little children that they are nothing but animals, and God didn’t create them. The Bible can’t be trusted. So why not just act like the animals.
So unlike the past in which Bible-believing Christians instituted slavery, conquered large parts of the globe, committed terrible atrocities against indigenous populations (Christopher Colombus is responsible for the genocide of millions), waged wars over which version of Christianity is the correct one which caused the deaths of millions of people and so on.
Everyone will reap what he sows. God will judge all of us in regards to what we’ve done personally, and those who deceive children are in huge trouble.
So how do you think that God will judge those who lie about science to promote a dogma which reduces him to a bundle of paper covered with ink marks?
Jeff Fenske
Most ‘Christians’ haven’t and don’t actually follow Christ to be real Christians. Jesus said: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
Again, all you do is claim there is proof out there. I wasn’t presented anything convincing in college, and you’re not presenting anything at all except claims.
And I absolutely did pay attention. What we were taught was an abomination, and students were afraid to question because of peer pressure. The only thing that made sense was the peppered moth theory, but the moths just changed color, and still stayed moths.
You guys are teaching myth as science.
RIchard Forrest
Most ‘Christians’ haven’t and don’t actually follow Christ to be real Christians
So now you are claiming to be the arbiter on who is and who is not a Christian?
Were you elected to this position?
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
Quite so. Do you think that people who lie about the universe they believe their God created and reduce God to a bundle of paper covered with ink marks will go to heaven?
Again, all you do is claim there is proof out there.
I haven’t made that claim. I have said that there are explanations for the phenomena for which you claim that there is no explanations. Science doesn’t offer proof. It offers provisional explanations for phenomena which can be observed and measured, and does so with the understanding that any such explanation is subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. You may find this unsatisfactory, but it is because of this that science has advanced our knowledge and understanding of the universe more in the past century than in the previous hundred millennia of our existence.
Reject science if that is what your religious dogma demands, though there is a certain irony in the fact that you are using a device made possible by the findings of science to communicate that rejection.
I wasn’t presented anything convincing in college, and you’re not presenting anything at all except claims.
It’s not my job to educate you, especially as I am pretty sure that you have no interest in an education on science in general, and the subject of evolutionary biology in particular. If you want to criticise a whole field of science, I suggest that it’s up to you to find out what scientists working in that field have written and said so that your critique carries weight rather than simply exposing your lack of knowledge of the subject.
It is a fact that explanations for the evolutionary origins of bird flight have been proposed by scientists working in the relevant fields. Those explanations are supported by evidence, and have been tested by the acquisition of further evidence. You may find those explanations unsatisfactory, in which case it’s up to you to learn what those explanations are and to identify their inadequacies. Denying that they exist merely demonstrates that you lack knowledge of the subject,
And I absolutely did pay attention.
If that is the case I can only suggest that you had a very poor teacher.
What we were taught was an abomination, and students were afraid to question because of peer pressure.
Then I can only repeat my suggestion that you had a very poor teacher. Any decent teacher welcomes questions, as does every scientist. Science advances because people question accepted theory. It doesn’t advance if people pose questions which demonstrate only their ignorance of accepted theory.
The only thing that made sense was the peppered moth theory, but the moths just changed color, and still stayed moths.
As a matter of idle curiosity, what do you think that evolutionary theory predicts that they should be?
I’ll give you a hint: nested hierarchy.
Jeff Fenske
Richard,
<i>Most ‘Christians’ haven’t and don’t actually follow Christ to be real Christians</i>
So now you are claiming to be the arbiter on who is and who is not a Christian?
Were you elected to this position?
<i>“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”</i>
Those are Jesus’ words. And this is more of what Jesus and others have said about who goes to heaven in the New Testament:
Who-Goes-To-Heaven Scriptures — Narrow is the Way | Who are the Children of God? — “There is therefore now *no condemnation* to those who are IN CHRIST Jesus, who don’t WALK according to the flesh, but ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT.”
<i>Again, all you do is claim there is proof out there. </i>
I haven’t made that claim. I have said that there are explanations for the phenomena for which you claim that there is no explanations. Science doesn’t offer proof. It offers provisional explanations…
“Provisional explanations” that make no common sense to try to explain away God, teaching an anti-Christ religion in public schools that isn’t even based on science, but myth.
You guys so want to believe that God didn’t create this that you end up believing nonsense.
Reject science if that is what your religious dogma demands, though there is a certain irony in the fact that you are using a device made possible by the findings of science to communicate that rejection.
I love science. What you are teaching is not science, but a religious belief system that rejects the Creator as being the designer. You can’t explain how birds evolved from a rock, because you can’t. All you can do is cite big words to try to wow and intimidate, but you have nothing. Nothing. Your words are empty. Why do you fight against the goads? You will meet your Maker someday, and He will judge you for lying about this important subject, deceiving people.
</i><i>What we were taught was an abomination, and students were afraid to question because of peer pressure.</i>
Then I can only repeat my suggestion that you had a very poor teacher. Any decent teacher welcomes questions, as does every scientist. Science advances <i>because</i> people question accepted theory. It doesn’t advance if people pose questions which demonstrate only their ignorance of accepted theory.
There is actually a lot of hate and anger behind this subject, and it doesn’t just come from the teachers — but from the students who have had, or have been involved in abortions, and feel guilty, and so much want to believe there isn’t a judgment. Many are willfully sinning, and desperately want to believe this nonsense. They’ll hate anyone who raises their hand. It can be felt.
I’ve also attended two university debates by professors from both sides, and have seen more on video. The hate and anger was off the charts, coming from both the evolution teaching professors and those in the audience on that side.
It really is a fierce, spiritual battle, and has hardly anything to do with science.
I’m okay with intelligent design not being taught in public schools as long as macro-evolution also is not taught. Both are religions that can’t be scientifically proven. But the evidence fits the creation model very tightly — which most people are never allowed to learn, including the effects of the Genesis flood. Nor are they allowed to learn the evidence that refutes evolution.
It’s all a bunch of lies. You have nothing but agenda driven, intentionally fabricated lies.
Evolution professors are all slick liars.
[video] An atheist professor converts to Christianity — “I COULD BUFFALO A STUDENT when I felt myself getting a little bit in trouble.” “This conversation with the young lady went on for approximately 3 hours.”
RIchard Forrest
“Provisional explanations” that make no common sense to try to explain away God, teaching an anti-Christ religion in public schools that isn’t even based on science, but myth.
They are not trying to explain away God. They are explaining the origin of flight in birds. Some of the leading researchers in the field are Christians who believe in God.
You guys so want to believe that God didn’t create this that you end up believing nonsense.
This has nothing to do with belief in God. It is to do with the fact that contrary to your assertion, there are explanations for the origin of flight in birds. If you find such explanations unsatisfactory, you need to address the evidence and argument on which they are based, not just deny that they exist.
I love science.
I suggest that what you love is a fantasy version of science bearing little relationship to actual science.
What you are teaching is not science, but a religious belief system that rejects the Creator as being the designer.
If you think that an honest interpretation of the evidence from the universe you believe your God created, which has been tested using the tools of science is rejecting God, I pity your crabbed and narrow dogma.
Evolutionary biology is considered to be science by every scientific journal relevant to biology. What do you know about the nature of science that the editors of those thousands of journals don’t?
You can’t explain how birds evolved from a rock, because you can’t.
Nobody has ever proposed that birds evolved from a rock. The evidence shows very clearly that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. If you have a better explanation for that evidence feel free to educate yourself in the subject and offer it.
All you can do is cite big words to try to wow and intimidate, but you have nothing. Nothing. Your words are empty. Why do you fight against the goads? You will meet your Maker someday, and He will judge you for lying about this important subject, deceiving people.
I suggest that I am not the one with nothing to offer here.
There is actually a lot of hate and anger behind this subject, and it doesn’t just come from the teachers — but from the students who have had, or have been involved in abortions, and feel guilty, and so much want to believe there isn’t a judgment.
I suggest that the hate and anger comes from creationists such as yourself and as is demonstrated in your posts. Most evolutionary biologists I know, whether they believe in God or not, find creationism at best a bad joke, at worst a damaging attack on science motivated by a religious and political agenda and promoted by a bunch of liars and charlatans.
Calling evolutionary biology a religion shows only that you are ignorant of evolutionary biology.
Evolution professors are all slick liars.
A lie is a statement made in the knowledge that it is false and with the intent to deceive. As you have no evidence whatsoever that any “evolution professor” has lied, you are bearing false witness – a commandment which creationists apparently doesn’t apply to themselves.
I have been reading creationist sources for many years, and have yet to come across any which does not base its arguments on misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods. From the context of some of those falsehoods, it seems inescapable that the author knew that they are false, which makes it an outright lie.
Here is my analysis of a number of creationist sources identifying such dishonesty: http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/
if you think that I am mistaken in any of the instance of misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehood I identify, feel free to offer evidence that I am wrong.
If you refuse to do so, it implies that you condone such dishonesty.
Do you think that God will take kindly to people who lie in his name?
Anonymous
I went and read the first page I came to when I clicked on Richard Forrest’s link: http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/, and found it quite revealing to say the least. On the page titled “Creationism and Truth,” Mr. Forrest gave his assessment on Creationists, Christian Fundamentalists, and those who believe the bible literally. In summary, Richard proceeded to allege, label, categorize, judge, (and as a whole) describe Creationists, Christian Fundamentalists, and those who believe the bible literally, as….
1. as having nothing to do with science
2. as wanting strict censorship of science in school
3. as engaging in dishonest propagandizing
4. as deliberately deceitful people who lie purposefully for political and financial gain
5. as lunatics if they live ouside the U.S.A.
6. as bombastic charlatans
7. as horrifying people
and finally,…
8. as a threat to the world
After reading this, it’s obvious R. Forrest has no shame in makiing unsubstantiated claims that he can not, will not, and clearly DID NOT support with any shred of evidence to back them up. Just as obvious was his disturbingly warped mindset toward those he disagrees with. His so-called “assessments” were filled with loathsome contempt, and seething disdain, that portends the rage he undoubtedly displays on the next page entitled, “A Message For Creationists,” where he opines how “infuriated” he was toward bible believing Christians, and Creationists.
No, ….Unlike Mr. Forrest’s self assuredness that his site bolsters his support of evolution, I’m instead fully assured he completely discredits himself and his views with his illogical and nonsensical tirades directed toward the millions of Christian believers worldwide.
So please,… As Richard Forrest “invited” me to read his obscure site, ..I glady second the invitation to all those reading this now to click on the above link to his site, and see for yourself that it is one of the best writings to DISCREDIT evolutionists and their false theory.
Richard Forrest
So, characteristically the creationist poster has address none of the evidence for creationist dishonest I present, and from which I have formed my opinion that creationism is deeply and systematically dishonest, but resorts as ever to ad hominem attacks. Contrary to the blatant falsehoods in this post, any claim I make is substantiated by evidence, and as I have presented some at least of that evidence on the very site which i referred, I can only wonder what is gained by such an outright lie.
Evidently, as seems to be the case with creationists, this creationist coward hiding behind the cloak of anonymity finds dishonestly acceptable provided it comes from other creationists.
What do you think it tells us about the moral and intellectual values of creationism that it can be, maintained only by lies?
Anonymous
Richard asking, “So now you are claiming to be the arbiter of who is and whio is not a Christian?” in response to Jeff quoting Jesus in the book of Matthew where Christ was quoted earlier as saying FEW will enter heaven, clearly shows either how little Richard reads the bible or his inability to comprehend scripture. This readily explains why he probably doesn’t have the honesty of untellect to grasp the simple fallacies of macro-evolution.
RIchard Forrest
I suggest that I have a far better grasp of the concept of evolution than you do.
Do you think that people who lie about the universe they believe their God created and reduce God to a bundle of paper covered with ink marks will go to heaven?
Anonymous
Establishment so-called scientific community is full of bigoted ppl who are closed minded toward anything but their religious evo theory ..(see Ben Stein’s movie, “Intelligent Design NOT ALLOWED”).. who would never take the time to read the plentiful books written by numerous accredited scientists who support the intelligent design theory of science.
RIchard Forrest
Establishment so-called scientific community is full of bigoted ppl who are closed minded toward anything but their religious evo theory ..(see Ben Stein’s movie, “Intelligent Design NOT ALLOWED”).. who would never take the time to read the plentiful books written by numerous accredited scientists who support the intelligent design theory of science.
If ID is a scientific theory, why are ID proponents demanding that we redefine the fundamental nature of science so that their “theory” can be considered to be science?
The scientific community includes people of all sorts, some of them bigoted, most of them not. It also includes many Christians who are just as opposed to creationism in all its forms – which includes ID, of course – as any other scientist. Here is a critique of ID written by one such Christian:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-asher/a-new-objection-to-intell_b_4557876.html
It is not closed-minded to reject the claim that religious dogma attempting to evade US law against the teaching of religion in schools by using sciency-sounding words is science. I suggest that it’s what any honest person would do. I further suggest that if the proponents of ID are prepared to lie under oath – which is what they did during the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial – anything they say should be treated with caution.
Or do you share the apparent belief that if you are a creationist it doesn’t matter if you lie to promote your agenda?
What do you think God will say to people who lie in his name?
Anonymous
Edited response for movie title error – Establishment so-called scientific community is full of bigoted ppl who are closed minded toward anything but their religious evo theory ..(see Ben Stein’s movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” – 2008).. and would never take the time to read the plentiful books written by numerous accredited scientists who support the intelligent design theory of science.
Anonymous
For those with a sincere heart to be educated and informed of things not truthfully mentioned to the masses within the higher circles of establishment education, media, press, and the like: Please watch the movie, “Expelled; No Intelligernce Allowed” narrated by Ben Stein to start exploring the revelation that most ardent establishment evolution supporters have a bigoted attitude toward Intelligent Design/Creationist scientist, and have actively discriminated against or harrased such people within their fields of expertise in an attempt to silence those scientists important discoveries that run contrary to evolution theory. It will be well worth your time and a real eye-opener.
Richard Forrest
Have you ever made to the effort to find out if Stein presented the position of scientists honestly?
Doesn’t it concern you that many of the scientists he interviewed have said that they were lied to about the nature of the film he was making?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
Or do you take the view apparently shared by many creationists that it’s fine to lie to promote their agenda?
Anonymous
For those with an open mind seeking the truth, pay NO attention to the many false allegations, distortions and lies Richard Forrest has written on this one particular post, or the few pro-evolution/anti-creationists sources that he cites to back up his uninformed assertions.
Richard Forrest
I have not lied, and I suggest that such unfounded accusations of lying demonstrate yet again that creationists have no compunction about bearing false witness.
I have presented evidence for dishonesty in creationist sources. You and other creationists have simply ignored that evidence – which is typical behaviour of such people, as they ignore any evidence which shows that their dogma is contradicted by the evidence from the natural world.
By ignoring that evidence you are condoning the dishonesty.
What do you think it tells us about creationists that rather than addressing the evidence for dishonesty in what other creationists have written they bear false witness against those who point out this dishonesty?
Jeff Fenske
Anyone who believes that flight evolved by chance from a rock is a fool.
Richard Forrest
As no scientists has ever suggested such a ludicrous idea, so what?
Does it really not occur to you that if you want to offer a rational critique of any scientific theory you need to learn and understand the nature of that theory?
Anonymous
To no one’s surprise, Richard’s false accusations of dishonesty and bearing false witness made under comment #7, would have instead been true, ..IF only they had made against evolutionists and NOT creationists. And supposed evidence from admittedly closed-minded, antagonistically biased sources that favor evolution (like scientific american), ..ARE in truth, ..to be “simply ignored” (as Richard puts it), ..because those sources are simply false and willfully ignorant in their views concerning Intelligent Design and Creationism.
Second, ..Virtually ALL of Richard’s accusatory questions directed towards creationists in general, (up to and including the last one), are ..sadly and ironically enough, ..better suited to be addressed to HIMSELF and evolutionists alike.
Lastly, to Richard himself,… Your debating tactic of using RHETORICAL QUESTIONS to punctuate your points and end your responses is not nearly as effective as you think it is; ..especially since you’ve grossly overused it on this post. People are fully aware and are not so easily pursuaded to your point of view by the use of this tiresome, unclever, school course writing tactic. So incessantly posing these type of questions only makes you appear to be some kind of annoying, elitist, know-it-all.
Richard Forrest
To no one’s surprise, Richard’s false accusations of dishonesty and bearing false witness made under comment #7, would have instead been true, ..IF only they had made against evolutionists and NOT creationists
If you think that my accusations are false, address the evidence.
Just to remind you, you can find them here: plesiosaur.com/creationism
If you can’t demonstrate that my accusations are false by addressing that evidence, you are bearing false witness.
What does the Bible say about bearing false witness?
Or is that one of the parts you don’t interpret literally?
By the way, this is not a rhetorical question. It is an invitation for you to demonstrate with something other than empty rhetoric and unfounded accusations of dishonesty that my conclusion that creationist sources are deeply and systematically dishonest is unfounded.
By the way, resorting to personal attack, ignoring the evidence for dishonesty I have presented, and responding with empty bluster reminds me very much of an anonymous, dishonest and cowardly poster who has been banned from several boards for obnoxious behaviour. As I remarked to that particular individual, feel free to carry on in this vein, It demonstrates more clearly than any words of mine the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of creationism.
Anonymous
Richard accusatorally asks above, “What does the Bible say about bearing false witness?”
and,..”Or is that one of the parts you don’t interpret literally?”
But earlier he says, “So unlike the past in which Bible-believing Christians instituted slavery, conquered large parts of the globe, committed terrible atrocities against indigenous populations (Christopher Colombus is responsible for the genocide of millions), waged wars over which version of Christianity is the correct one which caused the deaths of millions of people and so on.”
and,..”Do you think that people who lie about the universe they believe their God created and reduce God to a bundle of paper covered with ink marks will go to heaven?”
So in light of those 2 earlier quotes he made that CLEARLY reveal his obvious antangonism toward the validity of the Bible and Christianity in general,..Isn’t it ironic that the questions he posed concerning the Bible to myself and creationists are in fact based on the FALSE presumption ..that Richard himself is agreeable with the Bible as God’s Word, and that the book has ANY validity whatsoever??
In truth, .No, it is beyond irony, …It’s actually, ..HYPOCRISY!!
Once again, for the last time,… As a whole, ALL the accusatory questions and statements made previously by Richard towards Creationists, should instead be directed towards himself and evolutionists, since they are in fact, and ironically enough, perfectly suited to be addressed by the other side of this issue. And unlike Richard, the author of this site long ago here on this thread, took Richard to task and covered in detail the evidence for Intelligent Design and against evolution that he has willfully chosen to ignore. So the only “bluster” and “empty rhetoric” referred to above lies with Richard, since he only uses unabashedly biased, and closed-minded, pro-evolutionary sources like the huffington posts and scientific american to support a mindset rooted in denial to blindly see the evidence of God’s creation, or to open-mindedly look for it. But of course, this is par-for-the-corse, so there’s nothing more to be done but let Richard continue to take stances and propose leading and rhetorical questions without merit.
Finally,
Richard postulates that I am akin to, “an anonymous, dishonest and cowardly poster who has been banned from several boards for obnoxious behaviour.”
Really?? …Oh, I get it now. …That’s SO FUNNY!! HAHA ..For a moment there, I thought you might actually be serious about claiming that someone who simply disagrees with you in a cogent and rational fashion should be labeled “cowardly” or “obnoxious.” ..and that it was actually possible for you to be that overly sensitive and thin-skinned as to believe such illogical, fantasy-land garbage. But this is so beyond the pale of scope, that I must conclude you’re only pulling my leg, and there’s no way you could present yourself as even more annoyingly ultra-moralistic when you continue with your tiresome overuse of rhetorical questions. So I’ll just conclude you got an unexpectedly great sense of humor, and leave it at that.
Jeff Fenske
“I will give thanks to you,
for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful.
My soul knows that very well.”
– Psalm 139:4
Anonymous
Amen
DA
“Intelligent Design” IS NOT science. It is a fabrication by creationists to pose as science.
This has been proven in a court of law. Doesn’t your religion teach something about
bearing false witness?
Jeff Fenske
“Intelligent Design” is as much science as “Unintelligent Design.”
Neither can be proven in a laboratory or scientifically observed. Both are beliefs based upon the evidence or lack of evidence.
It just takes more faith and perhaps willful ignorance to believe that this level of intelligent design happened by chance from nothing.
jeff