Google
Custom Search

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Reviews, reviews: Denyse O'Leary's reviews of recent books and movies relevant to the intelligent design controversy

Before this arts site got started, I had been reviewing movies and books that are relevant to the intelligent design controversy at the Access Research Network site, so here are intros and links to the ones this blog's users might enjoy:

March of the Penguins: Why was there such a fuss about the "intelligent design" implications of this film?

Should you permit your children to see March of the Penguins? Not if you want to raise them as unquestioning Darwinists.

What the Bleep Do We Know?: Well, somehow, I don't think we know this, anyway
This film addresses the reasons, based in quantum mechanics, for doubting the radical materialist view of the universe. I'm all for that, but I don't quite think this approach is the answer, and here's why.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose: Why was this tale of devilry opera linked to intelligent design theory The only connection - but it is an interesting one - is the film's discussion of what happens when an apparent truth cannot be accepted by a society that is committed to an ideology.


Science fiction: Rob Sawyer takes on intelligent design in The Calculating God

What if the aliens land and they think the universe shows evidence of intelligent design? Even more remarkably, they are much more interested in Toronto (Canada) than Washington or New York? Why?

Darwinian Fairy-Tales: Why evolutionary psychology is nonsense

In Darwinian Fairy-Tales, agnostic Australian philosopher David Stove minces evolutionary psychology. The problem is that it is true to Darwinian theory but not to human experience.

Tech guru George Gilder: Why ID is onto something!

One thing I learned from covering the ID controversy is that intelligent design makes many more converts among engineers than among biologists. I think that is because engineers have a much clearer grasp of the critical question, "how, exactly." They must put processes that work exactly into action every day. So, for example, if six different processes involving cellular machinery of hundreds of molecules in size must randomly self-assemble by means of natural selection, what, exactly, is the probability of success in given time frame? addresses Darwinism in this light.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My review of sci-fi great Rob Sawyer’s novel, The Calculating God , which addresses the concept of intelligent design.

My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.
Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment will be accepted if I think they contribute to a discussion. For best results, give your name or some idea who you are and why we should care. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Who links to me?