I decided to break up this post into two parts because there was just too much to cover in one sitting. So, here’s part II. (See part I here.)
To start off, I can’t tell if Dean is savoring the antics of the Darwinista on the movie website’s blog, or simply endorsing, but she unwittingly shows us the weakness of the materialists’ arguments.
On a blog on the “Expelled” Web site, one writer praised Mr. Stein as “a public-intellectual-freedom-fighter” who was taking on “a tough topic with a bit of humor.” Others rejected the film’s arguments as “stupid,” “fallacious” or “moronic,” or described intelligent design as the equivalent of suggesting that the markets moved “at the whim of a monetary fairy.”
It is often said that those who can’t win an argument resort to personal attacks.
Then, there’s PZ Myers.
Another scientist who was, P. Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, said the film’s producers had misrepresented its purpose, but said he would have agreed to an interview anyway. But, he said in a posting on The Panda’s Thumb Web site, he would have made a “more aggressive” attack on the claims of the movie.
How typical. He doesn’t feel the need to attack the ideas of the movie until he finds out those ideas are supportive of ID. So, those ideas that were unobjectionable to him suddenly become objectionable once they are identified with ID, and he seems to be proud of it. This is, however, quite ludicrous. It clearly shows that he isn’t rejecting ID from scientific reasons, but because of emotional reasons; probably because he’d have to give up his materialist worldview if he accepted the evidence for design and he has too much invested in his worldview to do that.
So, to sum up, the materialists don’t bother to ask what the movie is about and can not figure out that the movie will be supportive of ID until they are told. Then, they come out of the woodwork to disparage the film even though they haven’t seen it and saw no reason for alarm during their interviews. Do we need any more proof of the bankruptcy of the materialist position?
One final note: Mr. Ruloff a director says,
He [Ruloff] said he knew researchers, whom he would not name, who had studied cellular mechanisms and made findings “riddled with metaphysical implications” and suggestive of an intelligent designer. But they are afraid to report them, he said.
With the antics reported in the film and the antics of the materialists against the film, is it any surprise? Add my name to Mr. Ruloff’s list.
Update: Apparently some materialists agree with me that Dawkins and Co. are being ridiculous.