An otherwise good (for us, bad for Stein) review spoiled by this paragraph.
Unlike Moore, Stein doesn’t resort to (many) cheap shots. He gives the opposition – stoutly represented by “The God Delusion” author Richard Dawkins – ample opportunity to make its case. In getting Dawkins to concede that there might be some intelligent source to life, Stein scores big.
I had to go outside and scream, as a cloud of birds shot upwards at the wretched noise I made.
Stein asked Dawkins to imagine how Intelligent Design could be possible. Dawkins fell into the dishonestly set up trap and gave panspermia as an example. As I have said before, Dawkins does not believe in panspermia (see River Out of Eden, The Ancestor’s Tale, and his Royal Institution lectures), but believes that it’s possible. The reason why it’s more possible than the Judeo-Christian god is because the aliens would have to have come about through natural causes.
OK, so panspermia would make an intelligent source of life possible, but it’s not nearly as foolish as Intelligent Design really is.
Everybody knows that Intelligent Design is just another faux name for creationism. Anybody who denies that can take a good look at my transitional fossil…
The Intelligent Design being pushed for in our schools and science is about the Judeo-Christian god creating life. Not a scientific theory that would be supported by panspermia.
The only reason why otherwise intelligent people are crediting Stein with scoring big is he’s actually managed to make good propaganda by making a fabrication shortly afterward saying “What? Richard Dawkins thinks that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific possibility?”
No, you pig-faced dumb ass. Richard Dawkins thinks that panspermia is a valid (questionably) scientific possibility since it does not ultimately postulate supernatural sky fairies. However, Occam’s razor applies to it only a little less than it applies to your fairy tale. Go back to selling eye drops, and stop demonstrating your foolish ignorance of science.