Re: One last bit about "Expelled"

On May 10, 10:09=A0pm, Tyler Trafford <ttrafford+use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Ken McElhaney wrote:

> >> Search for "Toward the end of his interview with me".
>
> > Seems Dawkins memory is different that what he presented on film.
> > Since it was a continuous shot from when Stein asked the question and
> > all through Dawkin's answer, there was no cutting or "tricks" (I've
> > been a videographer for more than twenty years, I've seen all the
> > tricks and used them myself on occasion). Dawkins gave an answer not
> > prefaced by any "I must have been feeling magnanimous that day" tone.
> > Since all he had to say was "No, I cannot imagine how any form of
> > Intelligent Design could play a role." and that would be that.
>
> Of course it's possible! =A0It just not probable.

I agree, Dawkins just doesn't know how to shut up..:)

> > Instead, he gave an answer that certainly seemed serious to the point
> > where he virtually backtracked towards the end by stating that this
> > "alien race" must've began by some non-Intelligent Design means.
>
> Backtraced? =A0It's an important point; otherwise it would be like
saying
> that life began with my parents. =A0True for me, but hardly an ultimate
> origin.

He made a flat statement, then backed up by trying to say that this
"alien race" did fit the Darwinian theory about it's origin.

He looked like someone who spoke him mind, then realized that what he
said would make a decent case for "I.D." so naturally he ran like a
rabbit.

> (The problem with this "ID" vs Darw^H^H^H^HScience debate is that one
side=

> says "not falsifiable" and expects the argument to be over, and the
> other side can't be bothered to look up what the word means.)

Umm, no. Taking the thrust of the film into context, the problem with
"I.D" vs. "Darwin" is that one side can't prove it and the other
doesn't want it proved.

Ken