Over at Raw Story, feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte has written an interesting post, New Darwin Documentary Shows Creationists Aren’t Dumb. They’re Fearful, about a new HBO documentary, Questioning Darwin, which features interviews with creationists. Marcotte comments: I agree with the New York Times reviewer that the creationists are presented non-judgementally, but as these clips amassed by Gawker make clear, the creationists do all the work for you anyway. There’s a pastor explaining he would have to accept it if the Bible said “2+2=5″ and people talking, over and over again, about the strategies they have to employ to shut down their minds in the event that they’re presented with an opportunity to think more broadly. The major emotion that comes Read More ›

[youtube YrGGNaHblJQ] Crowe Tweets Pope Francis and invites him to watch [creationist] movie Now “Noah” star Russell Crowe is trying to reach a higher power, beseeching Pope Francis on Twitter to watch his upcoming biblical adventure, which is based on the Noah’s Ark story from the Book of Genesis. Addressing the pontiff as “Dear Holy Father,” Crowe on Monday tweeted, “#Noah film. Screening?The message of the film is powerful , fascinating , resonant.” Crowe followed up with a tweet aimed at his own 1.37 million followers, writing, “given his environmental focus/scholarly knowledge, trying to screen #Noah for Pope Francis.” Crowe also asked his followers to retweet his previous message. Francis, who boasts 3.7 million Twitter followers (@Pontifex) and more importantly Read More ›

It would be an interesting debate as to whether legal decisions by juries are considered science. Does anybody really care whether a jury verdict is called science or non-science? Was the verdict against Jodi Arias for killing Travis Alexander science? Or how about the conviction of Bernie Madoff, is that science? Isn’t it more important that the verdicts delivered are correct and faithful to the facts? Whether the inferences and verdicts can be labeled science or not seems to be extremely irrelevant in the scheme of things. In similar fashion, that has been my view about the debate whether ID is science. A case can be made either way, and if we let something as flimsy as Darwinism and multiverses Read More ›

This was such a non-news item at the time because the movie bombed so badly most didn’t even realize there was a movie. It hit theaters November 29, 2013. ‘The Unbelievers,’ With Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on a triple-continent series of public engagements, Gus Holwerda’s unforgivably superficial documentary is too busy drooling over its subjects to flesh out their body of work. … Too slight to persuade, “The Unbelievers” is also too poorly made to entertain. The rational roots of atheism deserve a much better movie than this. Total Worldwide Gross = $14,000 😯 [youtube ZxDLkoK8vQQ] HT Mike Gene

The section of interest starts at 12:30 where Dawkins is asked, “what would it take to make you believe in God.” Short answer by Dawkins, “nothing”. He presumes if he saw a miracle it would be a hallucination or technologically advanced aliens. This is a change from his previous claim that his mind could be changed. [youtube qNcC866sm7s] NOTES 0. Dawkins response reminds me of some of the Darwinists at UD responding to questions about 500 fair coins. Even if they saw credible evidence of design, they’ll find a way to disbelieve it, whereas by contrast they’ll rush to accept the most flimsy explanation in defense of mindless evolution and mindless OOL. 1. Regarding hallucinations, HT selvaRajan for finding the Read More ›

The following are being added to UD’s glossary: “Miller’s Mendacity” Miller’s Mendacity is a particular type of strawman fallacy frequently employed by Darwinists. It invariably consists of the following two steps: 1. Erect the strawman: The Darwinist falsely declares that intelligent design is based on the following assertion: If something is improbable it must have been designed. 2. Demolish the strawman: The Darwinist then demonstrates an improbable event that was obviously not designed (such as dealing a particular hand of cards from a randomized deck), and declares “ID is demolished because I have just demonstrated an extremely improbable event that was obviously not designed.” Miller’s Mendacity is named for Brown University biochemist Ken Miller and is based on his statements Read More ›