H.G. Wells, theistic evolutionist?

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...../503280301

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"

“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.