EXPELLED makes front page of NYTimes
| September 27, 2007 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Intelligent Design |
I can’t say I feel sorry for these atheistic scientists in agreeing to interview for EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. When the BBC interviewed me for their Horizon documentary on ID (Horizon = the UK version of PBS Nova), they gave the ID side no warning that the program would be titled A WAR ON SCIENCE (I wouldn’t have agreed to be interviewed had I known that was going to be its title). What goes around comes around.
September 27, 2007
Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin
By CORNELIA DEAN
A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called “Crossroads.”The film, with Ben Stein, the actor, economist and freelance columnist, as its host, is described on Rampant’s Web site as an examination of the intersection of science and religion. Dr. Dawkins was an obvious choice. An eminent scientist who teaches at Oxford University in England, he is also an outspoken atheist who has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect.
But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media.
The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” According to its Web site, the film asserts that people in academia who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have unfairly lost their jobs, been denied tenure or suffered other penalties as part of a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.
>
43 Responses to EXPELLED makes front page of NYTimes
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@lotf
ID is about design and teleology. Most variants of theism I know have design concepts at their heart (God created the universe). ID is a broad-tent movement. A proponent of ID sees signs of intelligence in nature. That’s all.
As a Christian, I would have to say we can disagreements over theology and non-theological issues without rancour. Disagreement is not the same as rancour.
My heart bleeds for these poor, victimized Darwinists.
Once they’re done with the “we were fooled!” rhetoric, the interviewed personalities in question will move on to “My statements were taken out of context!” once the movie comes out.
Of course, they won’t bother providing the context to clarify the issue, mainly because they really will not have been taken out of context.
If the evidence is so overwhelming for Darwinism why should they worry at all???? Why can’t they just naturally select and mutate a bacteria into another type of bacteria or even phylum, and get the whole debate over with….
Oh yeah that right… No concrete proof of evolution is just one of the few minor problems they are working on…..But rest assured Darwinism is true!!!!!….Don’t dare question it boy or you career is over buddy…Toe that line!!!!! OR ELSE!!!!!
Dawkins and PZ were duped into being interviewed by Stein because they really believe that only fools would look at the issue and come out in support of ID. Maybe they are wrong.
Mr Dawkins says,”At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front”.
Well I say, “He’ll just have to learn the hard way what Research means!”
Is Dawkins classifying anyone who believes in a god acting in history as a creationist? Is Ben Stein a creationist? I know he Jewish but is he a creationist or does he believe in a higher power?
Tina said:
Mr Dawkins says,”At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front”.
Does that make Ben Stein a Jewish “creationist”?
From the article:
Dr. Scott said, adding that she would have appeared in the film anyway. “I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t.”
I want everyone’s help here as I try to understand what Dr. Scott meant. Does she mean that had she known the interview was for an ID friendly movie-maker she wouldn’t have participated? No. She says she would have participated anyway. So, why did she want to know who the movie makers were? Are we to assume that she would have said things differently? If the answer to that question is “Yes”, then it sounds like there are at least “two” versions of what Dr. Scott would say about evolution on camera: one for ID-unfriendly movie makers; and one for ID-friendly movie makers. The question I need your help with is this: Does all of this imply that despite the fact that Dr. Scott protests she wants people to be honest with her, that she has two versions of Darwinism she tells depending on the questioner?
If, OTOH, the answer to the above question was “No”, that her answers regarding Darwinism wouldn’t have changed in the least, then why does she complain that she felt the movie makers weren’t being honest with her? I wonder if Dr. Scott is being honest with herself.
http://www.pulitzer.org/cgi-bi.....ow+Winners
The above URL will take you to the Pulitzer Prize page for NY Times reporter, Walter Duranty. Duranty made a name for himself whitewashing the “Terror Famine” created by Stalin to starve millions of Ukrainians for resisting collectivization. Duranty was blackmailed (it was later discovered) into reporting in the NY Times that Ukrainians were doing just fine, without mentioning that “Uncle Joe’s” government was confiscating their food.
This is the legacy of the NY Times, that they have never (as far as I know) surrendered the Prize won by publishing propaganda in service of Stalin’s genocide.
In press conferences, do politicians ever ask a questioner’s reason for asking a question? Wouldn’t the politicians sound silly if their first response was, “why do you ask?” And politicians get into big trouble for giving different answers to the same question. These Darwinists are making themselves look foolish by whining that they were “misled.” I have already taken the Discovery Institute’s Casey Luskin to task for denying Monkey Girl author Edward Humes a full interview.
[...] broken the story of its existence last August. I watched it pitch and roll through accusations of trickery, a threatened lawsuit over plagiarism and a real one over intellectual property, production delays [...]
[...] The Darwinists have all the pop science journalists on auto dial. They need only ring them up and bitch. Indeed, that is precisely what Richard Dawkins did. One might have expected a professor of the [...]
[...] Dawkins told The New York Times that Expelled was misrepresented to him, and that he would not have taken part, had he known Ben Stein’s sympathies. But [...]