John Cartmell wrote:
They certainly made some critical errors in the program - at times dumbing
I would say they made soem errors! The biggest one was the complete
lack of objectivity. The opening 15 minutes were a load of dire
warnings about this new "dangerous" idea. Then we had a summary of the
beliefs of Intelligent Design, which were then dismissed with a
metaphorical wave of the hand but very little scientific backing. Then
a further 10 minutes of dire warnings about how this idea would bring
the end to scientific accomplishment as we know it if it became more
widely believed.

Which is of course, all bo**ocks. Because science has never been
hindered by people questioning its beliefs. Indeed, we learn the truth
by challenging each theory and honing them over time as our ability to
observe and interpret the evidence improves.

I thought the rebuttal of ID given in the programme was extremely poor,
and, if one were to edit out the interviews with the various
scientists, the programme might have actually been quite a good
promotion of ID.

Any programme which claims it is balanced, but interviews four times as
many opponents as proposers to an arguement is at best dishonest.

I have to say I'm not entirely convinced by ID, but it would at least
be nice to have a balanced, rational perspective on it rather than
another of Dawkins' infamous tirades against religion.

To my mind, this is not about religion. It's about science. There are
massive problems with Darwinian evolution by natural selection, at
least on a macro-scale. Surely the sooner we can recognise this and
start looking elsewhere, the better. Science should never bury its head
in the sand!

The Jesuit had it right: the ignorant ideas of creationists are a menace to
Creationism Intelligent Design!