Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Roger Ebert weighs in on ID


Yes, Roger Ebert, the movie reviewer, has now weighed in on ID — and in a review of The War of the Worlds, no less:

And, when you think about it, that’s kind of like the unsupported assumption behind Intelligent Design – that things have turned out the way they have (so far) because it was inevitable that they should; that an overriding, interventionist intelligence guided events so that they would result in the world as we see it today; and that the course of history and biology could not have gone otherwise because it was all planned in advance. The assumption is that evolution has been pointed toward this moment, rather than the present being just another point in a still-ongoing process with no “destination” in sight.

Evolution sees the current state of things as the outcome of the previous forces and conditions that shaped our existence, and that it’s possible much or all of it could have turned out another way entirely — and might yet still. The world as we experience it is result of trial and error, with no fixed goal or destination in mind but natural selection and adaptation to ever-changing circumstances.

For the entire review, go here.

I would like to paraphrase da Vinci here (taken from Charles Nicholl book "The Flights of the Mind". Those who merely quote - in the sense of follow or imitate as well as cite - are "gente gonfiata": they are, literally, puffed or pumped up by second-hand information; they are "trumpeters and reciters of the works of others". Srdjan
God and natural selection, hand in hand H.G. Wells, theistic evolutionist? The Panda's Thumb
Well, that settles it. nostrowski
Here we go again; Emerson compares the writing of a movie to ID, and uses the following as an example, where he asks us to imagine Cruise's character as a gene or an inherited trait: """As Ray dodges extermination willy nilly, while those to the left, right, front, and back of him are evaporated by death rays and snatched away by deadly tentacles, we know he’s not going to snuff it because … well, because he’s Tom Cruise. A plane just happens to crash land on the house in which Ray and his kids are spending the night. He and his kids make it onto a ferry -- and make it off again. A flaming train goes by them. So, those things are interesting. Improbable, sure, but those are the kinds of events you make movies about. Spectacularly dangerous stuff happens to Ray, and all around Ray(which is what makes him a worthy protagonist; if he just sat at home and trembled it could get pretty dull) -- but he takes a bashing and keeps on dashing toward the predetermined finish line."""" I believe his analogy is excellent. Imagine someone trying to attribute Cruise's survival amid this carnage to luck, chance, or contingency. But this review (not by Mr. Ebert, although he is the editor) at least talks about the movie in question, unlike this one http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050328/COMMENTARY/503280301 Charlie
Speaking of Kimodo Dragons The title of this post refers to a Burton family inside joke.  It is shorthand for a blatant attempt to change the subject without any plausible pretext whatsoever.  For a good example, see the end of this movie review of "The War of the Worlds" Burtonia Blogs
From the review: "Because the filmmakers know how the story ends, they are able to work backwards and forwards to be sure it comes out the right way . . ." Sounds eerily familiar to neo-Darwinists who, like filmmakers, already "know" how the story ends, and thus invoke hypothetical just-so stories that have no basis in biologic reality to make sure it "comes out the right way." "Science fiction" has taken on a whole new meaning. morpheusfaith

Leave a Reply