Those Rotten IDists and Their Tricky Movies! (Part II)

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.


3 responses to “Those Rotten IDists and Their Tricky Movies! (Part II)

  1. Their complaints are ludicrous. As I said in the blog comments to someone whining about this:


    Keep up the tantrums. Your only reasonable complaint would be if the producers perform deceptive editing, which has yet to be seen. Giving an accurate soapbox to such as P.Z. Meyers is simply a public service. Wouldn’t you want his wisdom to be better known? Or is giving more publicity to the opinions of Meyers, et al violating some sort of private cosa nostra? Shouldn’t his heartfelt opinions, accurately conveyed, only help your side? If not, why not? You seem mighty afraid of something. Perhaps Meyers should simply take the brave step of stifling his opinions if he thinks they will not be well received. But that seems kind of dishonorable. Really, where is the problem here?

  2. Don’t be ignorant. The full text of the letter to PZ Myers and others has been posted. The movie was misrepresented to them, from the name of the movie, to the production company, to who was making the film. Myers was soft on the kind of stuff you’ve been posting here in the movie, talking more about evolution than discussing the issues relavant to an Evolution/ ID debate.

    But then again, this post is exactly the kind of cherry picking of facts that I’ve come to expect from the ID movement.

  3. professorsmith

    The production company presented is a subsidiary of the company that is putting out the movie. There’s no offense there. Ben Stein did the interview, so Myers can’t claim that he didn’t know who was making the movie. And, movies change names all the time. This is nothing more than whining.

    The part you should be defending doridoidae, is Myer’s quote about he would have more aggressively attacked the premise. As I pointed out, that should have nothing to do with what should be factual answers in an interview. This is nothing more than an emotional negative response to ID science, not one based on empirical science or facts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s