Re: Smithsonian to screen ID-friendly film - for free

ROTFL. This is getting funnier and funnier Denyse. Yes those dumb
darwinists created a controversy by claiming that the SI was warming up
to ID, robbing the DI of much of the legitimacy and somehow Darwinists
are dumb... The SI has withdrawn its much coveted co-sponsorship and is
returning the money. All that is left is a private showing of a movie in
an SI museum to a select group.

As far as Denyse's objection of Darwinists not having seen the movie,
Wesley Elsberry has commented

[quote]

Interestingly, ID advocates daily go about ignoring scientific research or claiming that it doesn't exist, the vast majority of which they also "have NEVER SEEN".

Doesn't seem to give them the least pause, does it?
[/quote]

Unless the movie is reversal of the flawed PP arguments, having read the book and the surrounding hype should be enough. Even Denyse admitted that the movie was about ID arguments... Remember...

Read more about why PP is flawed from a scientific perspective http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001086.html

Let me quote from Douglas Adams

[quote]It’s rather like a puddle waking up one morning— I know they don’t normally do this, but allow me, I’m a science fiction writer— A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: “This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly… I mean really precise isn’t it?… It must have been made to have me in it.” And the sun rises, and it’s continuing to narrate this story about
how this hole must have been made to have him in it. And as the sun rises, and gradually the puddle is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking— and by the time the puddle ceases to exist, it’s still thinking— it’s still trapped in this idea that— that the hole was there for it. And if we think that the world is here for us we will continue to destroy it in the way that we have been destroying it, because we
think that we can do no harm.
[/quote]

Especially, the two presentations by Kyler Kuehn, one of which was presenteded at American Scientific Affiliation 2003 Annual Meeting

So perhaps Denyse may help us understand her conclusion that Darwinisn
is certainly wrong, when the vaste amount of evidence supports Darwinian
theory and there is little or no evidence to suggest that it is wrong?

Could Denyse explain? Or are we 'Darwinists' to dumb to understand this

Denyse's endzone fumble was quite impressive, the subsequent spin however is even more fascinating.

Denyse O'Leary wrote:

>Smithsonian to screen ID-friendly film - for free
>
>See
>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
>(go to other blogs from here)
>
>"As far as I am concerned, American Darwinists are as dumb as a bag of
>hammers. Or, as we say here in Toronto, Canada, "smart like streetcars." By
>assailing the Smithsonian in droves over the showing of an inspiring film,
>which the vast majority of them have NEVER SEEN, which suggests that there
>is meaning and purpose in the universe (well, hello!), they have managed to
>create a situation where the Smithsonian must now screen the film for free.
>" - Denyse O'Leary, Toronto
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jun 2 11:47:43 2005