Not sure why that bears saying. Art doesn’t require facts and facts don’t require art either, but that doesn’t disparage art in any way.
Nobody ever tried to teach my kids that life began with Whistler’s Mother in art class.
Holy shit. For the first time ever, I am willing to consider that it’s possible – just possible – that FOX News isn’t entirely staffed with people of… less-than-average critical thinking skills.
Roger Friedman is a pretty liberal guy; however, his critical thinking skills no better than the average gossip columnist.
I don’t understand your non sequitur. What does it have to do with the fact that nothing requires faith but faith? You can sub practically any word into the very bland assertion that “Faith doesn’t require facts and facts don’t require faith”, and it would be true. It’s like saying faith is bad because French dressing is sweet.
From here
The collection includes links to reviews of the film, as well as articles about the film and interviews, Dawkins among them.
I think I misunderstood what you were saying, then.
My point is that few, if any, of those other things you can sub in result in people getting all uppity about whether or not you can teach science.
Heck, if I felt like it, I’d try looking up what John Derbyshire of the National Review thought. Despite his conservatism (many in areas I completely disagree with him in), he’s a staunch foe of Creationism. I’m sure his thoughts would be amusing.
Some selections from Dawkins’ review of the movie. Ellipses and [brackets] indicate my own editings of the original (though not intentionally to change any meaning).
Dawkins’ in the film attempts to explain to Stein some of the flaws in I.D. “logic”, most notably a “who made the watchmaker?” type logic- that if the world is too complicated to have arisen spontaneously then its designer must be moreso. To do this he mentions the tongue-in-cheek possibility of space aliens seeding life on Earth as a rhetorical device:
And in conclusion-
He also discusses much of the PZ Myers being evicted controversy.
My previous post was not well-written nor well thought-out.
Consider Ben Stein, speech writer for Nixon, bit or a cult figure, a serious fellow. He is darn eccentric on evolution. Consider Noam Chompski, linguist, college professor, swell guy. A bit eccentric in his political views.
A person can be a heck of a guy in a number of ways, can be supremely talented in one part of life, and still be shockingly obtuse in other ways.
Y’s’pose they stuck this bit in there on purpose, hoping for just such a cease-and-desist order they could then mischaracterize as persecution?
</tinfoil>
I’m not that skeptical. Not quite.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. I just saw an interview with Stein on Hannity & Colmes*, and he actually said, and I quote verbatim:
“Hitler was a lineal descendant of Darwin.”
He then hastily added something about “not that Darwinists now are Nazis” (I’m paraphrasing), to which Colmes actually asked the question I was thinking:
“Then why did you bring it up?”
This in turn brought about several, long, painful seconds of defensive hand-waving:
“What are you implying, Alan? I didn’t say Darwinists were Nazis! You’re the one who’s implying that! I never said that!” (again, paraphrasing)
Not enough :rolleyes: in all of Shermer, IL for this travesty of pseudo-intellectual discourse.
I also like how he missed his ironical usage of his opponents’ terminology (“lineal descendant”) in his weak-ass Godwinizining efforts.
*Why, yes - watching H&C at 2:30AM does help me get to sleep. Self-animated gasbags have that effect on me. Thanks for asking.
Damn. These kinds of things make me almost irrationally angry. People use poor logic and then, not only do they think they’ve proven some point, they’re actually smug about it.
The premise at the start of that trailer seems to be that, since we can’t as yet explain how life began, then it must have been started by some supernatural power.
At one time we didn’t understand anything about lightning. Was that lack of understanding proof of Thor?
If apparent design requires an intelligent designer, then who designed the designer?
I know all of that’s been said on here a million times, but it bears repeating any time the subject comes up.
The designer was not designed because he is undesigned.
I hope I fought your ignorance, because, if not, you will burn in Hell.
Well then, can we change the name of the movement to Unintelligent Undesigner?
This would explain the existence of the Uncola.
And Nickelback.
No, no…that proves the existence of a malevolent demiurge…
Is that better or worse than a malevolent Demi Moore?