I ordered my own copy of the DVD. I cannot wait to watch it again, and several out of 8 co-workers would like to borrow it when I get it. The common man is not so impressed with all of the minutia one might uyse to plany doubts and avoid the obvious conclusions. They understand what the important concepts are.

I am happy to report that John Lennon's widow has also dropped her lawsuit which some of you were eager to point to at the time.

I don't care how Dawkins tries to spin out of his remarks... Especially since he now has indicated a willingness (after enormous intellectual pressure no doubt) to accept the rationality of arguing for a deistic God. Anthony Flew once took the logical step in evolution himself, in light of the overwhelming emperical evidence. http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephill ... ving.thtml

Dawkins was superb here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxsQrBa0ECE

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Well, from what I'm reading, the movie is pure bullshit. Worse perhaps than even Zeitgeist.

Irriducible Complexity has been debunked. A mousetrap is irreducibly complex--take one part away and it doesn't work. However, the individual pieces have uses separate from that of the trap, and certain combinations yield a less complex trap. Every example put forward by the likes of Behe has been debunked. Any movie claiming to be factual would show this and not argue in favor of irreduicble complexity.

That they play the Hitler card automatically disqualifies this movie. True, Darwin did influence the so called "social darwinists", but they (and more so the eugenecists of Hitler's ilk) so perverted the theory as to be unrecognizable.

Really, give us something more worthwhile our time.

Expelled may well become a "cult film".

It's not likely to reach the heights of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure or Faster, Pussy-Cat! Kill! Kill! but should be on the list somewhere.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Too bad Mystery Science Theater 3000 (mst3k) ended in 1999. I would have liked to have heard what Tom and Crow thought of this 'masterpiece.'

_________________
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

It would be interesting to try to determine why the Myth of Intelligent Design survives. There is overwhelming evidence that it is simply a tactic used to hide Creationism, but you would think that after so many of the principals in the ID movement were shown to be totally dishonest and simply liars during the Dover Trial and the folk that claimed to have scientific evidence either ran away or were shown to be just ridiculous, that ID would have been ashamed to show its face.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

The topic is 'Dawkins answer' to Ben stein...

You guys are like the media critiquing Joe the Plumber. Joe the plumber isn't the issue. The issue is what Obama said.

In this case the topic is what Dawkins said, not the movie itself. Not irreducible complexity, and not sci fi. Perhaps I meandered a bit too much in the OP and you couldn't put it together for yourseves.

Do any of you ever plan to address the topic?

I have to say this..., ending every post with a complex question (a logical fallacy) is fun. I now see why jar does it.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

I should have included this in the OP. I will add it here and edit it into the OP.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephill ... ving.thtml

Now that is just an article written by someone (who as yet I am not familliar with (so I am awaiting the attack dogs rendition of her anatomy)) attending the debate who later asked Dawkins some questions. What is better (and linked from the article) is the debate itself:

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

Enjoy gentleman...

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

So what did Dawkins say?

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

No, the issue was never what Obama said. The issue was always one of how McCain can deliberately misconstrue what Obama said (and misquote), and use that misconstrual in an attempt to discredit Obama. Incidently, it isn't working.


What Dawkins said, is that directed panspermia is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. There's actually nothing particularly new about that.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why you are making a fuss about Dawkins's comment on deism.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

No that is not what Dawkins said. You may want to listen again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxsQrBa0ECE

Dawkins said,'I suppose it's possible that, ah... that you might find evidence for that (intelligent design) if you look at, the , um, at the detail... details of biochemistry / molecular biology... you might find a signature of some sort of designer. Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself had have to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process."

I agree that panspermia is nothing new. As we all know, Francis Crick (the co-discoverer of DNA) put forth the theory as well.

And although Dawkins did all but 'clearly concede' that the evidence has been found, the way he stuttered through it, and in combination with his admission as to the rationality of a deistic framework, he clearly is coming to terms with the power and significance of the challenge presented by ID.

He is a man running for any cover in an increasingly narrow corner. The reason ID persists is reason itself. (You nwr, actually have a convenient little tool to avoid the rationality of the ID argument with your post-modern assertions (from past conversations) that 'reason itself' is in question. Just dn't expect me to take seriously, the rationality or reasonableness of such an assertion.)

Progressing along now... What neither Dawkins or Crick appearently realize (behind their metaphysical naturalistic glasses), is that predetermining what the answer has to be, is not scientific at all in the empirical sense, but a philosophical presupposition. It is forcing the evidence into a predetermined pattern. And that was and is the main point of all ID. And it is the Christians reminding them that objectivity is more important that ambition and presupposition be it.



Becase it is in utter contradiction to his past statements. And it gives a clue to the intellectual corner that Dawkins is being confined to. He does have a reputation to uphold.

That is my opinion and sense of the matter anyway...

I reccommend reading the article if you really want to be sure why the deistic remarks are so relevant. Particularly in light of the follow up questioning by Melanie: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephill ... ving.thtml

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

According to your own quote, Dawkins said:


That seems to be a clear affirmation of methodological naturalism, despite your rather fanciful notion about him being "backed into a corner".

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

That is part of Dawkins talking about directed panspermia. Maybe you need to listen again.


Panspermia is far older than that.


You must have missed something.


The reason ID persists is ignorance.


Then I think you are badly misunderstanding what Dawkins was saying.

Incidently, I am not an apologist for Dawkins. In particular, I don't agree with his arguments for atheism.


I have read it. I am inclined to think she is mistaken in her view that Dawkins' views are evolving. Fundamentalists are pretty rigid in their religious beliefs, and that applies as much to fundamentalist atheists as it does to fundamentalist Christians.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

What challenge is presented by ID?

In this message Rob says:



Rob was referring to this quote which is alleged to have been made by Richard Dawkins:



Once again I have to wonder if Rob actually reads what he quotes.

Where is there any suggestion even that any evidence has been found, much less a concession?

Where is there any suggestion that Dawkins admits to the rationality of a deistic framework?

What challenge does ID present other than a total waste of time and resources?

Even if ID were true we would have learned nothing of value other than the fact that it is possible to create life.

I don't want to minimize the importance of actually "knowing" something is possible so let me expand upon that.

During the decades leading up to WWII many people all over the world were busy working on building a sustained nuclear reaction and a nuclear bomb. All of the science and all of the math said that it is possible, but no one knew for sure. However, once a bomb was exploded, all of the other researchers knew that it really was possible and found that there were actually many methods that could be used.

My point is that if we new for sure that it was possible to create life, then one of the biggest hurdles would be removed; the question of whether a task is even possible. If we knew that some other alien race or some condition in outer space or the heart of a star produced life, then we could move forward.

However even the knowledge that ID is possible tells us nothing of value beyond that.

We are still left with the methods, the steps involved just as we are without the wasted effort of worrying about ID.

We still need to work out the recipe, the process and the variations and the things we use for those tasks are still just naturalistic science.

There is no "Insert miracle here" answer that has any value.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Dawkins is not alledged to have said. The quote is right here in the last moments of a 2 minute video. It is a direct transcript that I personally transcribed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxsQrBa0ECE

And I clearly said that Dawkins did 'all but' clearly concede.



In my opinion, Dawkins is admitting that the design inference is a rational argument in light of his comments concerning deism. I am conecting the dots for myself. If you want to accuse me of reading into things what I want to hear then fine.



In the article I referenced, it is suggested: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephill ... ving.thtml

And in the video of the debate it is clear: http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/



But that is the point entirely, that life can be created, not just happen by a materialistic fluke. Furthermore any success in the laboratory by intelligent agents in creating life would only confirm that 'with intelligence' life can be created.



Oh dear sir, you have no idea how much I agree with your analysis. You are doing a superb job of deliniating the issue. I cannot thank you enough...

Without a 'we' or a 'who' (as Dawkins put it)... no miracle need apply indeed.

Will you ever learn to understand your own words?

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Nonsense. Sorry but that is simply silly, it is bullshit.

If someone runs an experiment where they reduce the temperature of water and find that below a certain point it changes states, that does NOT show intelligence is needed.

It is the same with an experiment creating life. If someone preforms an experiment that shows that under certain conditions life results that does NOT show intelligence is needed.

All it shows is that under a given set of condition life results.



Huh?

Again, do you even have a clue what you write?

What value is there to knowing there was some Designer?

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950