From ENV:
As the news hammers home to us, young people are especially vulnerable to poisonous, Internet-mediated messages. That’s one reason Discovery Institute has teamed up with a gifted cinematographer who wanted to create a new video series, Science Uprising, that would be relevant to viewers in their thirties and younger. The series will launch on June 3, with new episodes to be released weekly through July 8.
An Edgier Style
The new series will have an edgier style than anything we have produced in the past. What does that mean? Take a look at the trailer…Science Uprising is premised on the idea that a majority of us share a skepticism about the claims of materialism — the claims that people are just “robots made of meat, with a really sophisticated onboard guidance system,” lacking souls, lacking free will or moral responsibility, having emerged from the ancient mud without purpose or guidance. And yet, however skeptical we may be, the media labor intensively to correct our skepticism. Popular science spokesmen like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson insist that people are anything but designed children of a loving, intelligent creator…
Each episode features a masked narrator. Why? Because much of the burden of resisting materialism falls to scientists and others in the universities who have been made to fear speaking out in favor of the design hypothesis.
Scientists and scholars who have spoken out, pulling the mask off materialist mythology, share the truth with viewers. From episode to episode, they include chemist James Tour, philosopher Jay Richards, neuroscientist Michael Egnor, biochemist Michael Behe, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz, physicist Frank Tipler, and others.
Why do you read my comments and even comment on what you are not interested in then?
Is it safe to say that you are contradicting yourself, again?
Maybe thinking “what kind of stupidity is J-mac writing now?”
Being curious about the depths of your stupidity and lack of self-awareness is not the same as being interested in your opinions. But, since you cannot read for comprehension, I should not be surprised that you don’t understand the difference.
I agree, though it seems to me some people use the word “ quantum “ as some sort of magical conjuring word which dispenses with the need to explain how quantum things do what they do.
Thanks , I will look it over.
True. That’s why I often ask for the justification or the mechanism how QM is involved.
If quantum mechanics is at the very foundation of matter and life, do you think DNA is any different?
Hi everyone,
For what it’s worth, I thought the video was pretty slick.
I’ve grown leery of arguments purporting to demonstrate the astronomical improbability of abiogenesis, but I have to say the team of scientists assembled by the Discovery Institute is starting to look more professional, these days. Apparently, the Brazilian wing of the ID movement is injecting it with new vitality. Marcos Eberlin’s new book Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose had endorsements by three Nobel Prize winners. Evidently the guy knows how to fight. It wouldn’t surprise me if we start to see a North-South split in the scientific world on whether methodological naturalism should be a guiding principle in scientific research.
EricMH
Good point. For what it’s worth, what do people think of J. R. Lucas’s paper, Minds, Machines and Gödel? See also here