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....
If he had known the film’s premise, Dr. Dawkins said in an e-mail message, he would never have appeared in it. “At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front,” he said....
Mr. Stein, a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times, conducts the film’s on-camera interviews. The interviews were lined up for him by others, and he denied misleading anyone. “I don’t remember a single person asking me what the movie was about,” he said in a telephone interview.
Walt Ruloff, a producer and partner in Premise Media, also denied that there was any deception. Mr. Ruloff said in a telephone interview that Rampant Films was a Premise subsidiary, and that the movie’s title was changed on the advice of marketing experts, something he said was routine in filmmaking. He said the film would open in February and would not be available for previews until January.
It should be noted that the NYT writer exposed a serious bias against ID by the following, fallacious paragraph...
There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature.
There is a ton of credible scientific challenges to the theory of Evolution, and "main stream science" or as Stein's movie calls it "Big Science" censors anyone who questions the dogma of Evolution.
Interesting that the NYT has never had any problem with Michael Moore's overt deception in every singe one of his mockumentaries.
The basic premise of the documentary is that "scientists" has actively censoring the debate, so getting them to be honest on camera would require deception. As long as their words are not taken out of context, then they really have no legitimate gripe. They aren't presented on the documentary as supporting ID, but as opposing it. Moore tricked a wounded vet into saying things that made him look like he opposed the war. There's a big difference there.
It's one thing to claim to favor free speech, but it's another to censor it, and openly cry foul when you are "tricked" into participating in a debate you want censored. That exposes their true agenda.
Posted by Danny Carlton at September 28, 2007 8:27 AM
Comments
Can you please point out some of the "ton of credible scientific challenges to the theory of Evolution"?
Thanks,
Dave
Posted by: Dave at September 28, 2007 10:49 AM
Evolution does not purport to explain 'how we got here' so in that sense it is not a counter to religious superstition and fantasy.
In any case, it does not matter how we got here.
We're here and we're messing things up real bad.
Posted by: King Panteen at September 28, 2007 7:12 PM
"It should be noted that the NYT writer exposed a serious bias against ID..."
Quite honestly, ID is not a credible scientific challenge to Evolution. It is and has been an attempt to re-introduce the Christian view of creationism back into public schools. ID is garbage pseudoscience that provides a literal deux ex machina for anything that can't presently be explained by real science.
That being said, it is true that there is typically an unfair backlash against anyone attacking the theory of evolution. On the other hand, ID proponents often mistakenly jump on any weakness in evolution theory as a "win" for ID. Perhaps if ID could actually provide some real evidence as opposed to simply attacking evolution, they would be taken a little more seriously.
Pointing out the weaknesses in a theory and testing them out helps to improve our understanding of the world. So I don't have any problem with pointing out deficiencies in evolution. But ID doesn't provide a scientific answer to evolution's weaknesses, it simply allows you to dump the unexplained at the feet of whatever diety you happen to worship.
Posted by: DanC at October 1, 2007 9:04 AM
I think that the deception detracts from any credibility that this piece could have ever had.
Yes, Michael Moore is an idiot, but I don't see what he has to do with anything other than the fact that he is a liberal. In the context of your statements he is a completely external entity.
I would be quite angry if I had agreed to have my work presented under a certain context and that was shifted without my consent. I don't think it is hypocritical to be selective about the things you associate your name with.
It takes a lot more "faith" to believe the THEORY of Evolution than to believe the Bible. To deny creationism is to deny God, pure and simple. The very first verses in the Bible are, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
There is a reason these are the very first words: you either Believe of you Reject God.
I will offer you proof that evolution is totally off base -- the life and events of Charles Darwin. Anyone who studies Darwin and who studies the Bible (God) will have very little problem knowing which account seems more plausible.
As for me, I will always choose God --- you just can't go wrong making that choice.
Posted by: Willie at October 15, 2007 12:06 PM
"To deny creationism is to deny God, pure and simple. The very first verses in the Bible are, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
So, in other words, Creationism is correct because the bible says so. You're using religion to validate religion, and presenting it as proof.
Pure and simple, that's faulty logic. I also like how you capitalized 'theory' in your post...I hate to break it to you, but creationism is a theory as well.
As for exactly why it requires more faith to buy into evolution than creationism, you've got me stumped. Evolution theory uses science to try and explain the beginnings of life. The bible says God did it. One of these uses experimentation and research to try to improve itself, and the other is completely faith-based.
"As for me, I will always choose God --- you just can't go wrong making that choice."
Unless the catholics are wrong.
Posted by: DanC at October 23, 2007 2:46 PM
Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not.
If you do not believe this, you either do not understand what scientific theory means, or you have a weak grasp of reality.
Posted by: Santogold at October 23, 2007 5:07 PM
"Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not."
I'm assuming this is aimed at my comments. I never said creationism is a scientific theory...it isn't...it's a religious theory.
I'm simply questioning the previous poster's assertion that it requires more faith to believe in a scientific theory than a religious one. It seems to be a particulary ludicrous statement, without any rational support.
Posted by: DanC at October 25, 2007 7:37 AM
You are wrong about the NYTimes treatment of Michael Moore. Even when they say good things about his movies they always qualify it with comments about how they also know how it is biased or has factual errors...even though they never actually point these errors out.
Posted by: joseph at October 26, 2007 2:18 AM
Post a comment
NOTE: I am under no obligation to preserve the incoherent mutterings of illiterate morons. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but make sure you actually know what you're talking about, or your comment will be removed.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://jacklewis.net/weblog/nav-commenters.gif)