My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Its all very depressing, really | Main | "The church always is changing" »



The lunatic is on the grass
The lunatic is on the grass
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs
Got to keep the loonies on the path
The lunatic is in the hall
The lunatics are in my hall


Movies often change names in post production.

I wonder how Dawkins' answers would have been different had he known that the film would contradict his personal philosophies. Surely his truth is his truth - does it change depending on who who asks the questions?


The movie was subject to evolutionary forces, perhaps chaotic and seemingly random, and yet Dawkins seeks to introduce some intelligent cause for the change.

Is marketing a science? This is the question we must first answer, before attributing a malevolent intelligence behind the final product.

david winter


You keep using that stupid rehorical technique and it's getting annoying. Evolutionary forces are not random. Please stop it.

Danyl Mclauchlan

Dawkins feeling the heat?

I guess it's only a matter of time before Ian starts blaming Richard Dawkins when he can't find his car keys.


Sorry David, I can't. I'm just wired this way. In fact, I suddenly feel persecuted. Ooh. Ahh.

Although I did say "seemingly" random.


david winter: LOL!

Or are you serious?

david winter


The mutations that drive evolution are random but the interesting bits of evolution (adaptation) are driven by the decidedly non-random survival of those mutations.

Zen's vague and whispy sounding arguments about books/movies/whatever arriving from seemingly 'random' 'chaotic' processes ignores the non-random nature of natural selection.

I should probably have said natural selection is not random because some forces (like genetic drift) in evolution are decidely random. One shouldn't fall into the natural selection = evolution trap.


It seems article's author is deliberatley misleading the readers. ID proponents keep repeating that it has nothing to do with Creationism and people seem to keep ignoring them.

The fact that current scientific enquiry has confessed to being purely materialistic means that they can't see evidence of an Intelligence when its right before their eyes because they have decided it can't be there. Isn't that an unscientific prejudice?

As I've said before, New Zealand's top evolutionary biologist told me that "evolutionary studies and ID have a lot to learn from each other" and that evolutionary science has great difficulty accounting for the "gaps." I just have an interest in this stuff and am no kind of scientist, but he is.

John Boy

If the evolutinist die hards are complaining about deception they are certainly qualified to being masters at it themselves. Presumably the film will reveal the interviews and let the watcher decide rather than deliberately misquote the interviewees to further an agenda. Dawkins and his mates can take a note of that as its more than they do for the ID guys.

It appears from reading "Darwin Strikes Back" that the ID proponents are generally seeking no more than exploration of the science. Sounds OK to me.


Thank God the cry of the lost keys didn't set you off too, David. Or perhaps we should have followed Fugley's critique, and done the whole thread based on Pink Floyd Lyrics? Like they were somehow more accurate in their criticism?

Run to the bedroom and in the suitcase on the left you'll find my favourite axe to grind...

...careful with those keys Eugene...

Danyl Mclauchlan

As I've said before, New Zealand's top evolutionary biologist told me that "evolutionary studies and ID have a lot to learn from each other" and that evolutionary science has great difficulty accounting for the "gaps." I just have an interest in this stuff and am no kind of scientist, but he is.

You didn't catch his name, by any chance?

Sam Finnemore

I would also like to know the name of this recognised uber-expert.


You know Sam & Danyl - I'm disappointed by this, I really am. What's the world coming to when three strangers can't trust each others' word on a blog? I feel miffed - I really do - there's almost a suggestion that I may be deliberately prevaricating. Frankly I consider it beneath me to dignify your tirade's with an intelligent response. I bid you good-day.


Oh darn you guys, you know I can't stay mad with you!

Here's the gist of an email (tarted up a bit) I sent to TV3 when John Campbell performed a drive-by shooting - or what is so laughingly termed these days, an "in-depth investigation" - on Mr Wishart when he was "interviewed" on the subject 2 years ago.


Last year I attended a debate between a Seven-Day Creation Scientist and three proponents of the Evolutionary standpoint. One of those supporting the evolutionary position was Dr. David Penny, New Zealand's leading evolutionary scientist and winner of the Rutherford award for Scientific achievement. Dr Penny impressed me as being a man concerned with the facts rather than defending an ideological position - even though as a supporter of ID I strongly disagree with the evolutionary view.

After the debate I approached Dr. Penny and asked him what his views were on the ID theory of Irreducible Complexity. He surprised me by saying that ID scientists and evolutionary scientists had a lot to share together that could help us all get closer to the truth. This is because Evolutionists have real problems in explaining the problem of the "gaps" in the believed progress of evolution from one genus to another and ID has something to offer in this area.

He went on to say that each form of life fulfills its designed purpose. At this juncture I was genuinely surprised and pointed out to him that he just used the word "design", to which he said "yes, that's right". So here is New Zealand's leading evolutionary scientist stating that there is design present in the universe and that Evolutionary theory has problems explaining the one thing that is commonly taken to be its given - how things evolve from one type of life to another! I hope you find our exchange as enlightening as I did.

I am quite sure that Ian Wishart would have explained the ID theory of Irreducible Complexity during his interview yet it is a great pity that you did not see fit to air his explanation ...

[Ian had] a prime example of Dr. Behe's theory of Irreducible Complexity which would have provided a thought-provoking discussion point if the goal of the programme was actually to provoke thought and enquiry. Sadly it is obvious that this was not the goal, the programme seemed to have no higher aim than to stigmatise the already much maligned "new-right Fundamentalist Christians". This is entirely unworthy of both you and of a science which, as Dr. Penny explained, has much to offer in the field.

I am not so naive as to think this email will be published on the programme, yet I do think it would be ethical of Campbell Live to revisit the subject on an appropriate and professional level.

usabikes (esq.)

And needless to say they did not revisit the topic or ask Dr. Penny his opinion. Rational enquiry obviously has no place in today's news media.

Are we all happy now? :)

Sam Finnemore

usabikes: I'm sorry if I offended above with what must be one of the shortest and mildest tirades in history... :P

So the man has a name. And now I shall go and read up on him.


To save you the trouble, Sam:

"Professor David Penny, an outstanding academic who is internationally recognised for his research in computational and theoretical evolution. Professor Penny’s prominence within the scholarly community has been recognised through the awards of the Rutherford Medal in 2004 and the Marsden Medal in 2000. He was awarded the Fellowship to the Royal Society of New Zealand in 1990." - Massey Uni press release


..................................... crickets.......


Drive by reporting, I like that.
So that's why De Furhrer who must be obeyed called him "That Creep".


Dr. Gerald Schroeder takes apart the probability theory of random chance evolution (or whatever the proper term is for this):~

"Noble laureate, Professor of Biology, Harvard University, the late George Wald, may have provided us with the answer to this wonder when he wrote "Life and Mind in the Universe" in the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology symposium 11 (1984):

"It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities – that both questions [the origin of consciousness in humans and of life from non-living matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality – that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life….

This is science, not theology, speaking. But it is also theology.

"In the beginning was the logos [logos –logic, intellect, word]" (John)."

Some really brilliant material here.

The comments to this entry are closed.