The problem with this is that the personal belief system is contingent and vulnerable to refutation. These are not good characteristics to have in a personal belief system, and why I would recommend a classical one every time (i.e., the usual suspects, or failing that a very open agnosticism).

I am sure Denyse will provide a pithier and more accurate answer.

1. What is a “Darwinist?”

2. Please define religion.

I was asked, in effect, why should natural selection be different from gravity, why should we take someone seriously when they say gravity might not operate over here.

My answer of course was that people try to destroy theories of gravity, and of course Einstein succeeded and now we have a theory of gravity that explains why the sun’s gravitational field allows us to see stars that are behind the sun.

Gravity is in the field of knowledge for scientists so they are in the business of attacking theories of gravitation.

Michael Behe clearly thinks that natural selection should also be in our field of knowledge and would like to make the theory fit for purpose by trying to characterise it–find out where it works and where it can’t and so on. However, as we know, it is not in biology’s field of knowledge but stitched into its medthodological and metaphysical fabric.

So, instead of trying to knock down NS and characterise it we see this compulsive activity of constantly reaffirming it like a jealous lover.

The firm is “that PR thing” and the publicist is Danielle Iversen.

I ended up getting interviewed by the Beeb, on the steps of the Royal Ontario Museum, new wing.

Nice fellows, really, and I felt badly for the interviewer, as he needed me to say I opposed the showing of the Darwin film. I must have disappointed him.

Why should I, of all people, oppose it? I am a free speech journalist here in Canada. I even had to write the government to find out if I am on the Human Rights Commission head’s “enemies” watch list.

So, the heck I would oppose the showing of some film I didn’t even know existed until yesterday morning, that sounds like just the usual Darwin industry sludge.

My interviewer asked me if I’d go to see it, and I said, sure if someone gives me a ticket [hint, hint].

Otherwise, I’ll rent it when it comes round in DVD. Seeing films at home is cheaper, easier, and more time-efficient, especially for making notes and, uh, popcorn nuisance avoidance.

If they are trying to understand the controversy then that is another matter. they will be looking for lucid presenters for both sides–there will be a confluence of interests all round.

Cabal: one thing we know from the ID controversy is that science is certainly a cover for atheistic religion. There is just no other possible explanation for the marked and pervasive pathological irrationalism we see coming from a body of professionals that prides itself on its rationality, objectivity and desire to get at the truth, no matter what established ideas have to be sacrificed. When it comes to certain faith-based assumptions intimately connected with philosophical materialism (e.g., that all living were created through natural selection) this professed love of truth and knowledge has been shown to be utter bunk.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

Darwinism, in popular culture, is atheism with an aura of science.

If that is a fact, I suggest it is because popular culture is more influenced by religious propaganda than by science. Who cares about science when afterlife is at stake?
Otherwise, it would be more like science without religion. (Incidentally, that’s what science is all about.)

I’m afraid I have to agree. When the BBC held their recent Darwin celebrations, they defined those who advocated ID as those held by ignorance, having nothing to contribute to the ‘genuine’ understanding of the issues. Theistic evolution is virtually assumed amongst the majority of theologians and public ‘christian’ comment on the topic here, so those of us who want to question this view who live here are unheard, save as a n example of folly. The BBC are top of the list for such an attitude.

Just make sure they don’t provide you with a Dawkins moment.

Nahh, not likely.