Kristine
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (TAG @ Mar. 22 2008,20:31) | | Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 20 2008,22:49) | | Mark Mathis made a big spiel about "let's be open to new ideas and have a debate." So Dawkins stands up, and these open-minded people laugh at him. |
Hi folks, I just registered here coming over from the RDF forums. I'm a little late to the party following this crazy story. I just had to ask about this part of Kristine's report. What were they laughing at Dawkins about? I don't understand what happened. He just asked why PZ was kicked out, right?
Thanks! |
What were they laughing about? Good question! That question is right up there with why these folks kept saying in the Q&A that ID was science, and then slipped back into saying "we need to teach creationism in our public schools so that we can keep up with Japan's and Europe's SAT scores" without the producer correcting them. [They teach creationism in Japan and Europe. Right!] 
Basically, they were laughing because this film engages in rapid-fire editing during Stein's "interview" of Dawkins so that they caught his every stutter (the editing was a kind of stutter itself) and chopped up his answer so that it made no sense.
Even more nefarious in my opinion is this little "cartoon" of Dawkins in a casino, pulling the handle of a slot machine while saying, "C'mon Mother Nature, do your stuff?" and then flying into a rage and kicking the machine when he loses. Yeah, the audience laughed at that, too. People brought kids as young as six to this film. (I didn't even know about Nazi Germany until I was in junior high.)
1. Dawkins asked why PZ Myers was thrown out, and Mathis said he hadn't been invited. The audience laughed.
2. Dawkins explained what he had been trying to get across in that chopped-up interview, and the audience laughed.
3. Dawkins related the circumstances under which he was approached for the film, and the audience laughed. Why? Well, number one, they apparently don't get out much... Number two, because these YEC home-schoolers, who kept referring to ID as "creationism" without any correction by Mathis, obviously enjoyed laughing at a world-famous scientist in the same way that this film is trying to ride that same scientist's coattails to fame and fortune by mocking him. [Mathis kept saying to Dawkins, "You've done all right for yourself!"] In other words, this is science envy from the science illiterate.
Oh, hi, Kevin.
| Quote ( kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2008,10:54) |
Hey Richard: As I said on my blog, as a documentary filmmaker, I'm under no obligation to be objective. |
Thanks for that incredible quote. That pretty much sums up Expelled right there! That’s the best sound bite against ID I have heard yet. You are a poet when you’re not using archival footage of two men hitting each other, Nazis, shots of Stalin while John Lennon's "Imagine" is playing, and other cheap stunts. (Did you think it was Lenin who wrote the song?)
Now that you're here, I am going to ask the question that I asked you before: Since Ben Stein claims to not be a biblical creationist, is he proud to be publicly associated with someone like Ken Ham?
All these excuses about the "real issue" reminds me of therapists in the 1970s who would tell women that they had the "wrong kind of orgasm."
--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr
|
