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 a deistic God. Anthony Flew once took the logical step in evolution himself, in light of the overwhelming emperical evidence.

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

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.

In this case the topic is what Dawkins said, not the movie itself.
[...]
Do any of you ever plan to address the topic?

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.

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.

But that higher intelligence would itself had have to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process."

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.

The reason ID persists is reason itself.

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.

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/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml

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.

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."

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?

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.

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?