Re: Theatrical Review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Quote:
The criticisms of ID are not scientific

Quote:
Not particularly, since I listed three completely different definitions of ID from mainstream sources. Nothing from the Discovery Institute or the ID Network or organizations with an ax to grind.

Quote:
Only a crazy person with an insane agenda would blame Hitler's actions on science,

Quote:
Give me a science doc that debunks Darwin in depth and we'll talk. Otherwise, propoganda.

Quote:
Denton proceeded to develop an evolutionary cosmology, the point of which is that there is abundant evidence for common descent and it is equally clear that evolution is directed and programmed. Indeed Denton affirmed two things--and this is apparently the thesis of his book now under contract at Simon & Schuster--that humankind literally is the point of creation and he is the end product of a divine design.

Quote:
In this book, the mechanisms of the living cell as revealed by modern biochemistry are described with enough detail to give some inkling of the mind-boggling complexity going on in even the simplest life. Then the question is asked, could this complexity, or even a fraction of it, have come about by chance? It's a good question, because that's all the evolutionist has to work with. Natural selection, the supposed miracle-worker of evolution, doesn't work until a cell can reproduce itself (and that requires tremendous complexity). Could chance build one of the hundreds of proteins needed for life? One gene of DNA? What are the chances of getting a whole set of genes or proteins for the simplest conceivable organism, even if we allow all possible concessions to make it easy for chance to succeed?

Quote:
Against this background, I turned to David Stove's Darwinian Fairy Tales with some interest. Unlike the other authors I've mentioned, the late David Stove was a philosopher (University of New South Wales) and not a scientist. In spite of the whimsical, jokey nature of his literary style - more akin in places to Jerome K. Jerome than to A. N. Whitehead - his intention is deeply serious, namely the philosophical absurdities in neo-Darwinian theory. In pursuing this intention he focuses particularly upon the work of Richard Dawkins, probably the most widely known populariser of neo-Darwinism. Before dismissing philosophy as being peripheral to science, we should remember that the popularisation of science depends to a great extent upon the use of terms and ideas that carry meaning to the layperson. These terms and ideas may have a powerfully persuasive quality when used by the popularisers of science, but if we look into them and find that words are misused, that the logic is faulty and that conclusions are incorrectly drawn, we can recognise the potential damage of the misinformation concerned.

Quote:
That particular definition of moral agency can be used, and has been used, to justify any behavior.