I saw a preview for this at the last movie I went to:

http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/hitchblog/blog.html
http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/main.html


>>Pro-creationists argue that there are unanswered questions and unknown details in evolutionist and various cosmology theories. Both sides accept this, after all, these theories are measuring and explaining events that happened as much as 14 billion years ago! It’s not like remembering what you did last week.
>>
>>However, pro-creationists seem to think that pointing out that there are some questions in one theory somehow, magically, is proof of their own theory! The only “proof” offered by creationists is the argument “because God said so in the bible”.
>>
>>Why don’t the creationists demand the same level of proof and explanation from the theory of creationism as they do from evolution, the big bang, or other scientific theories?
>
>But you're trying to undermine the very base of faith... demanding proof. Who believes, refuses not only to ask for proof, but actually has to ignore any proof (regardless of it being pro or contra their belief).
>
>May I be allowed an appropriate quote here:
>
>"The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the
>oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not
>from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all
>unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to
>nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its
>carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious
>thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech
>centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical
>upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear
>you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of
>language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the
>brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel
>fish.
>
>"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything
>so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that
>some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching
>proof of the non-existence of God.
>
>"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I
>exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
>nothing.'
>
>"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?
>It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so
>therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
>
>"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly
>vanished in a puff of logic.