UK based ID pressure group

[Mojo]

The first DVD will be going into the player soon...

I have my laptop on standby :D

Judging by that smiley, the brainwashing is taking effect already!

[vbloke]

Oh dear

Episodes 2 and 3 is all about how the bacterial flagellum "proves" Darwin was wrong and ID is right.

Michael Behe is there spouting off the stuff he was ripped apart for in the Dover trial and mousetraps.

:D

[vbloke]

That was the most painful hour of my life.

I'm busy writing up some notes about the DVD and Teachers Manual, which I'll make available soon.

Basically, the DVD "Where Does The Evidence Lead?" is split into 6 "lessons", each 10 minutes long (the second DVD, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", is essentially the same material joined together into an hour long feature) covering aspects of ID versus evolution.

Episode 1 - "Life: The Big Questions" - Darwin based his theory of Evolution after going to the Galapagos for a month and looking at Finches.

Episode 2 - "What Darwin Didn’t Know" - Michael Behe explains the bacterial flagellum and how it "can't have evolved".

Episode 3 - "Molecules and Mousetraps" - Dembski and "irreducible complexity" - why mousetraps don't work if you take a piece away.

Episode 4 - "How Did Life Begin?" - why amino acids coming together in chains to form proteins is impossible.

Episode 5 - "The Language Of Life" - Dr Dean Kenyon could not explain how proteins could replicate without DNA, nor the origins of DNA, so it must have been created.

Episode 6 - "The Design Inference" - Look at a house, it has been designed. Look at a cell, it too must have been designed.

The DVDs are produced by Illustra Media whose other work includes "The Privileged Planet" and "The Case For A Creator".

If time allows, I'll try and get some of the stuff onto YouTube.

[Jocky]

That was the most painful hour of my life

Thanks vbloke, really interesting stuff - worth all the pain!

Looks like it shouldn't be too hard to present a convicing case on why this simplistic nonsense is flawed ...

[vbloke]

That was the most painful hour of my life

Thanks vbloke, really interesting stuff - worth all the pain!

Looks like it shouldn't be too hard to present a convicing case on why this simplistic nonsense is flawed ...

I've just found another pressure group lobbying to get their voice heard in school science lessons: Truth in Pirates

[Dr B]

Truly commendable stuff Mark. I am a bit swamped at present but hope to give some feedback on this as soon as I can - keep fighting the good fight!

[Jocky]

I've just found another pressure group lobbying to get their voice heard in school science lessons: Truth in Pirates

[Aardvark]

I am sure that I have read the following on this forum.

In engineering and example of a bit of kit which is designed for purpose has the following attributes.

1 the design meets the intended application
2 the design has efficiency of materials and manufacturing costs
3 the design does not contain redundant features.

An example of a bit of kit which is adapted for purpose has the following

1 the design does not fully meet the intended application
2 The design is not materials efficent in that it contains elements that were used in previous applications
3 There are redundant parts.

This is called jury rigging.

How many parts are there in the human body that no longer have a purpose?

Nipples on men?
Tail bones?
Appendix?

Interestingly, although Mammals are considered to be the most advanced group, the mamalian eye is in many ways inferior to that of the cephalopod mollusks.

If an intellegent designer had come up with a perfect solution, would this not be applied across all applications needing this design spec?

I am sorry if this is poor logic, I am not an engineer, but I am trained in Biochemistry and Physiology.

[Araneus]

No, it's very good logic and strong argument against ID. Unfortunately, since ID is not based on logic in the first place, such an argument makes little impact upon its proponents (they probably have some waffle like "it's for a higher purpose we just don't understand").

[Admin]

I saw a lecture somewhere and the speaker was talking about 'intelligent design'. He gave a few examples of how the human body is an example of dumb design. Things like having to breathe and swallow via the same opening guarantees that some people will choke to death every year.

The best one though, was his example of "what's going on between our legs?"

What intelligent design engineer would place an entertainment centre in the middle of a sewage works?

[Jocky]

What intelligent design engineer would place an entertainment centre in the middle of a sewage works?

ROTFL

Thanks John, that has to be the best anti ID argument I've ever heard - or at least the most entertaining!

[Cuddles]

What intelligent design engineer would place an entertainment centre in the middle of a sewage works?

Further proof of design by committee. Clearly the committee for waste management and the committee for reproduction never met each other.

[Aardvark]

What intelligent design engineer would place an entertainment centre in the middle of a sewage works?

Ba..dum.........Tish!!!!

[vbloke]

I've been putting together a "Web 2.0" version of Intelligent Design which I call "intelligent designr" (I'm at work and it's a slow day...)

you can see it in all it's glory here: intelligent designr

[Jocky]

Good stuff, Mark. I particularly like the new words "hamsterma" and "complicatedness"

[nitpick]"blatantly" misspelt as "blatently" under "What about Science" - unless of course this is because hyper-bunnies from a higher dimension can't work spell checkers :) [/nitpick]

BTW, have you managed to force yourself to watch all the Truth in Science "teaching materials" yet?