From Newsgroup: talk.origins
On 5/22/2026 9:46 AM, RonO wrote:
https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/does-story-everything- really-cover-everything/
The AIG understands that the movie was only meant to fool the rubes.
They wanted the movie to more directly reject reality and support their Biblical interpretation.-a They understood that the movie was only using
the gaps to fool the rubes with the claim that it all looked designed,
but they didn't like the fact that the ID perps obscured the fact that
the gaps that exist do not support Biblical literalism.-a They wanted the movie to more directly reject reality instead of just avoid the issue.
They should not have expected anything more out of the ID perps.
Obfuscation and denial is all that they have had for decades.
Ron Okimoto
I asked what the Discovery Institute's excuse was for not telling The
Story of Everything in it's temporal context. I gave the specific
example of the problem that it took 8 billion years to fine tune the
earth for life. The elements that make up our solar system had to be
produced by dying stars in our star poor region of the galaxy.
The explanation is that the Discovery Institute wanted to be temporally neutral, so they did not relate the story of everything, just the bits
that they wanted to highlight. This was obviously done to fool the
rubes, but Google related it as their strategy without any description
of right or wrong. Google noted that the Answers in Genesis review also claimed that the Discovery Institute was not telling the whole story,
and even used "the lie of omission" in that description.
QUOTE:
Why Young Earth Creationists Agree With Your Criticism
This exact conflict is why Young Earth Creationists accuse the Discovery Institute of a "lie of omission" or intellectual compromise [Does "The
Story of Everything" Really Cover Everything?"].
END QUOTE:
Google was referring to the AIG review linked to in the initial post
above. I do not think that the AIG called leaving out what they wanted
the ID perps to have included a "lie of omission" the AIG just claimed
that the documentary did not tell the whole story of everything, and
that this could lead to believers supporting an interpretation that was
not Biblical. I had used that term in the initial question about the documentary before asking specifics. If the material that I was talking
about had not been omitted the documentary would have destroyed young
earth creationism, and would not have been what the AIG wanted included.
What the AIG wanted the Discovery Institute to include was the usual obfuscation and denial that they use to bring the Top 3 god-of-the-gaps
into alignment with YEC (this is essentially "God did it to look that
way). What the ID perps did was employ the "lie of omission" to fool
the rubes into believing that the documentary supported their Biblical
beliefs when it would not have done that if they had told the story of everything in an honest and straightforward manner.
Google had already brought in the AIG review into the discussion to demonstrate that the AIG also believed that the Discovery Institute was leaving out details before I asked for details about what excuse the
Discovery Institute had about fine tuning of the earth for life not
including the detail of how long it took to produce just the right
combination of elements to support life on earth.
This is the whole Google answer:
QUOTE:
The Time Problem: Nucleosynthesis
The snapshot probability argument works well for abstract physics
formulas, but it fails to address physical history [Does "The Story of Everything" Really Cover Everything?]. As you noted, the early universe consisted almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.
The Process: Heavy elements essential for rocky planets and liferColike carbon, oxygen, iron, and siliconrCodid not exist at the beginning. They
had to be forged inside the cores of early stars and scattered across
space via supernovas.
The Timeline: This process of cosmic recycling and enrichment takes
billions of years to achieve the specific chemical abundance found in
our solar system.
The Location: Our solar system is positioned in a "habitable zone" of
the galaxyrCofar enough from the violent, star-dense center, but close
enough to have access to these recycled elements.
To say the Earth is "finely tuned" means accepting a highly specific, 8-billion-year-old assembly line [Does "The Story of Everything" Really
Cover Everything?].
How the Discovery Institute Navigates This
When pressed on this specific issue, proponents of Intelligent Design generally pivot their argument in one of two directions to maintain
their neutral stance:
Pushing Fine-Tuning Back to Time Zero: They argue that the laws allowing
stars to forge heavy elements were perfectly dialed in at the exact
moment of the Big Bang [Does "The Story of Everything" Really Cover Everything?"]. In their view, the "snapshot" is not Earth today, but the initial conditions of the universe that guaranteed carbon and oxygen
would eventually form billions of years later [Does "The Story of
Everything" Really Cover Everything?"].
Defending Functional Design over History: They separate the origin of
the elements from the arrangement of those elements. They argue that
even if it took 8 billion years to get the raw materials, the sudden
emergence of a highly stable solar system and a planet perfectly
positioned to hold liquid water still requires an intelligent cause.
Why Young Earth Creationists Agree With Your Criticism
This exact conflict is why Young Earth Creationists accuse the Discovery Institute of a "lie of omission" or intellectual compromise [Does "The
Story of Everything" Really Cover Everything?"].
Organizations like Answers in Genesis argue that by using these
mainstream astrophysical models, The Story of Everything implicitly
endorses a timeline where stars existed billions of years before the
Earth [Does "The Story of Everything" Really Cover Everything?"]. This directly contradicts the narrative sequence in Genesis, where the Earth
is created on Day 1, and the stars are created on Day 4 [Does "The Story
of Everything" Really Cover Everything?"].
By trying to remain neutral, the film relies on data that inherently
validates an Old Earth timeline, alienating the Young Earth community
[Does "The Story of Everything" Really Cover Everything?"].
Would you like to explore how the film addresses the origin of life
compared to the origin of the universe, or look at specific critiques
written by astrophysicists regarding this fine-tuning argument?
END QUOTE:
I will note that the ID perps included the fine tuning of the earth for
life in their description of their fine tuning gap denial (#2 of the Top
Six). Sewell split fine tuning into two gaps and put them out of
temporal order in order to keep using the Top Six to fool the rubes.
This just means that their "pivoting" to maintain their lie of omission, described by Google, is bogus and dishonest.
Ron Okimoto
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2