RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (121) < ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... >   
  Topic: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed., Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker - A film< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,12:58   

I guess in order to let us know what the 'real issues' are Kevin could just tell us to see the movie, except, of course, they're trying to keep people like us from seeing it. Whoops.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2196
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,12:58   

Quote
Or the fact that ID is not science, has led to exactly zero scientific predictions, observations, or breakthroughs, and thus deserves to be expelled from science journals and classrooms?

Now now, that's unfair.  Someone once got a very nice pocketwatch out of it.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,13:03   

Ha Ha. All three of us wondered the same thing. I guess when something is just too obvious it makes sense.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,13:04   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 23 2008,12:58)
I guess in order to let us know what the 'real issues' are Kevin could just tell us to see the movie, except, of course, they're trying to keep people like us from seeing it. Whoops.

Like most IDists, its all about taking money from the rubes..

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,13:26   

Oh, one more:

Quote
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work.



- Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

But if you put this through the bible code I'm pretty sure you get "Darwin did it".

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,13:31   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2008,13:04)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 23 2008,12:58)
I guess in order to let us know what the 'real issues' are Kevin could just tell us to see the movie, except, of course, they're trying to keep people like us from seeing it. Whoops.

Like most IDists, its all about taking money from the rubes..

"Just see the movie when it goes to DVD this May. That'll explain everything."

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
TAG



Posts: 3
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,13:39   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 23 2008,02:49)

Hmm....Cordova, Behe, Dembski, Berlinski...

Should we be suspicious of people whose names end in vowels?

:D

And look, 3 of the 4 atheist "horsemen" have surnames ending in 's': Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris.

I never know how to make their names possessive.

I guess "Dawkins' book" is correct.

   
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,13:43   

Quote (TAG @ Mar. 23 2008,13:39)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 23 2008,02:49)

Hmm....Cordova, Behe, Dembski, Berlinski...

Should we be suspicious of people whose names end in vowels?

:D

And look, 3 of the 4 atheist "horsemen" have surnames ending in 's': Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris.

I never know how to make their names possessive.

No need.  Atheists are all commies, so they don't actually own anything.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4902
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,13:50   

There's discussion of whether the Expelledgate incident is helping or hurting Mathis and Stein over on Chris Mooney's weblog.

I entered a comment putting in with those who think that this is a win for science education and a loss for Mathis.

Quote

The short AP article linked in a comment above is just right in my opinion. The first sentence carries the message:

   BLOOMINGTON, Minn. (AP) ? P.Z. Myers was interviewed in a movie. He's even thanked in the credits. He just wasn't allowed to actually watch it.

Put me in the group who thinks that Mathis and Stein aren't going to like the lingering effects of this incident. This reads as "UNFAIR" to any but IDC cheerleaders.

Think that message isn't getting across? The answer isn't to spike the story.

If Mathis had recognized Myers and proceeded to make sure that he and his party got good seats and complimentary refreshments, sure, they'd have gotten blog posts on Pharyngula blasting the movie content, but they'd have stayed in character for the role they are claiming via the film as being advocates for an exchange of ideas. The combination of predictable xenophobia and incompetence in the screening fiasco demonstrates that all that was just an act.

"Expelled" is already being used to attempt to influence the politics of antievolution. In Florida, they had a limited private screening aimed at legislators considering two Discovery Institute-derived "academic freedom" bills that would empower teachers -- and students -- to interrupt science classes discussing evolutionary science to bring in "weaknesses" (in other words, all the usual tired, bogus religiously-motivated antievolution arguments) without repercussion. Trying to pretend that the movie doesn't exist is not the answer. Impeaching the content and the producers goes some way toward reducing the ill effects it may have. The "Expelledgate" event gives us a good tool for that purpose.

As has been noted, we'll know within a couple of months whether that actually works out for us. I'm more comfortable with having been active and failing than I am with having done nothing and failing.


I got a response from a fellow I'd never heard of before saying:

Quote

Wesley R. Elsberry: "I'm more comfortable with having been active and failing than I am with having done nothing and failing."

But it's not about what you are comfortable with, but rather what works.


This was my response:

Quote


Quote


But it's not about what you are comfortable with, but rather what works.


Well, thanks for the vote of no confidence, but I'm still of the opinion that being  active in this area leads to gains and not losses.

Of course, I suppose you may think that your careful non-presence has had more to do with what has been gained in recent years than my work in this regard. I'd disagree, though.


Too much?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,13:55   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 23 2008,13:50)
Too much?

Not Enough. One day soon, I'll be retired. Then I'll fight these liars full time, for free.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,14:04   

Stein on the The 700 Club lays it all bare:

Robertson: Is this something in your heart? I mean were you just an actor for this movie?

Stein Oh no no no, its very much in my heart. I've always questioned Darwinism because darwinism leads to Social Darwinism, the belief that some races are superior to other races, and that the superior races have it as their moral duty to eliminate the lesser races, and that means my fellow Jews, and of course African Americans, Indians, Aborigines - just kill them, they're worthless the only people that count are the master race like the Germans or the Danes.

And, there could have been no Holocaust without Darwinism, that's my view. So I've always had my suspicions about Darwinism.

But Darwinism explains so little. It doesn't explain how life began. It doesn't explain how gravity works to keep the planets in their orbits. It doesn't explain how thermodynamics works. It doesn't explain how physics and the laws of motion work.

And you know I saw that scientist you had up on the TV before I came on, who said it's been tested and restested...

No one has ever observed the evolution of a single mammalian species. They've observed evolution within species, but a new species, no one has ever been able to observe that or find fossil record of it.

Robertson: Why do they try to suppress it, that was the theme of your movie, Expelled!, that one man was expelled from a teaching position...

Stein Oh! More than one! Dozens! Dozens and dozens have been expelled or lost their grants or been humiliated for even mentioning the possibility there could be an intelligent designer in the universe, who created the universe, and created the heavens and the earth.

And I think people want to suppress the idea of an intelligent designer - I call the intelligent designer God - because they think if there's a God, I'm going to be held morally accountable.  If there is no God, if it all happens by accident, random mutation and natural selection, I'm not responsible, I'm just a creature of my genes. But if there is a God, I'm morally responsible, I'm in deep trouble here.

Robertson: But this is pervasive, what that movie showed, pervasive right across the academe.

Stein Oh, very pervasive. If you were to stand up, if you are say an assistant professor at Harvard, and you stood up and said, "You know we have no evidence for how life began, a perfectly reasonable hypothesis is that there is an intelligent designer, always was and always will be, and he created life," you would be out of there on your ear so fast it would be insane. If you were on a Ford Foundation grant and you said, ah, "We don't know how the planets stay in their orbits, we don't know how light beams began, we don't know how energy began, we don't know how matter began. A perfectly reasonable hypothesis is that there is an intelligent designer."  You'd loose your grant like that [snaps fingers].

Robertson: Well why? There is, you know, they said we see that scientists created some test tubes and they put some amino acids and they played electricity on it and therefore we had some primitive cells but that, that...

Stein They didn't get it, they had no life at all. You see, Darwin never hypothesized about how life began, and he said, maybe, possibly there were organic  elements and lightning struck them, that was the only thing he ever said, that was in a letter to someone. But people have run electricity through every kind of inorganic compound you can mention, and they NEVER get life from it. Never, ever ever.  So that doesn't work.

Life didn't come from a mud puddle; life came, it seems fairly clear to me, from an intelligent designer. But I'm willing to agree I could be wrong, I'm often wrong. I'm very often wrong.  But give us free speech. Give us free speech. Don't fire us because we question a doctrine that doesn't even mention - I mean, Darwin didn't mention astrology, astronomy rather.  Darwin didn't mention physics. Why can't we question whether Darwinism accounts for those things too?  

Robertson: You can't be a true scientist unless you do.

Stein You have to try do disprove your own theory if you're a real scientist.

(badda-bing)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,14:07   

Thanks Bill.

Related:

http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwi....hi.html

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
kevinmillerxi



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,14:17   

The "real" issue, or at least the one were talking about at the time, was journalistic integrity. But you know, maybe I'm being too hard on Ms. Dean. Perhaps objectivity is like certainty--unattainable.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,14:18   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2008,12:17)
The "real" issue, or at least the one were talking about at the time, was journalistic integrity. But you know, maybe I'm being too hard on Ms. Dean. Perhaps objectivity is like certainty--unattainable.

You still haven't explained how she failed to be objective.

What specific part of that article would you change ?

It's simple question.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,14:18   

Okay, so let's pull "Journalistic" out of it. At a basic level, why does she have to have it and you don't?

Nice sidestep of all the other points, BTW.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,14:49   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2008,14:18)
Okay, so let's pull "Journalistic" out of it. At a basic level, why does she have to have it and you don't?

Nice sidestep of all the other points, BTW.

Because he's the underdog, and Michael Moore did it first.

If I'm wrong, Kevin, please tell me why. It's basically what Mathis has been saying for a while now.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,15:05   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2008,11:54)
Hey Richard: As I said on my blog, as a documentary filmmaker, I'm under no obligation to be objective. As a journalist supposedly reporting the news for a major daily, Cornelia Hunter is.

Is there an obligation to be truthful at least?

Apparently not.

Crocker...

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,15:08   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2008,12:42)
Oh wow, you caught me, guys. Pants down and on fire! Anything to avoid the real issue I guess.

Real issues?

You mean like Crocker getting canned for being a crappy teacher and peddling lies in class and NOT because she was just trying to present 'both sides'?

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1045
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,15:45   

Quote (Reed @ Mar. 22 2008,22:37)
@glen yeah, I noticed that after the fact (see my next post after that one), but I still can't edit, so there it is ;)

Thanks, I just saw your "@glen" today, and went back and saw your caveat.  Nicely done.

Btw, editing is rather easy, you just sign in, and on the post you wish to edit is an "Edit" button (only when you've signed in, however).  Just click it, and you'll get a screen that lets you edit.

Added in edit:

Unless, of course, you mean that for some reason you are somehow prevented from editing, the paragraph above on editing would be totally superfluous.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
ERV



Posts: 329
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,17:05   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2008,11:14)
More on the video:

http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwi....8005920

 
Quote
Duae: We created the animation in conjunction with an animation studio and several cell biologists. It is a completely original work. The only similarity I can see between it and the Harvard animation is that it may portray one or more of the same cellular processes. But as far as I'm concerned, no one has copyrighted any cellular processes--at least not yet. I'm sure Craig Venter would like to. :) If Dawkins had stuck around to read the full credits for the film, he would have known this. It has nothing to do with the Illustra animation.

Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 23, 2008 at 08:09 AM

*looks at Kevin*

*smiles, trying desperately to hide her fangs*

Please do keep it in, Dear Kevin.

  
kevinmillerxi



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,17:56   

Reed: Have answered your question on my blog. Added 2 my original post.

  
Badidea



Posts: 7
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,18:31   

It's truly amusing, Kevin, that you would accuse folks of dodging the point.

While I've yet to see it myself, I very much doubt that there is a single accusation your film makes that has not already been decisively refuted long before anyone had ever heard of your production.  If so, please feel free to enlighten me on what's new that you bring to the table.

We've already given the ginsu treatment to your every move: it's seems like your basic strategy is to try and promote your claims but avoid as much as possible any actual discussion of whether or not they hold up.  

For instance, you present several cases of claimed illegitimate discrimination in the film against ID proponents.  And yet, as far as I can tell, your film isn't even just giving a biased take on these incidents, you basically don't even inform your viewers what the controversies were over.  In the Sternberg section I have seen, for instance, the core issues over which Sternberg was criticized (that the paper was well outside and bizarrely the journals subject scope, that he snuck it in during his final issue as editor without consulting anyone else despite it being obviously controversial, etc.) were never mentioned.  Are they/will they be in the final film?  

Will what Carolyn Crocker actually taught in class: the specific claims she made, be mentioned?  Are you prepared to defend these claims as accurate?  That horse ancestor fossils are "the same" as the modern day hyrax (it isn't)?  That only one Archeo fossil has ever been found, and that it was suspected as a fraud (all wrong), or that it being a bird is somehow inconsistent with it being a transitional form (it isn't).  Because if not, isn't it a little pathetic to present her as an example of discrimination before you've completed defending her from the charge of simple incompetence?

Do you even TRY to defend her on that count, or do you simply ignore the entire matter?

And so how can you purport to make a case that Sternberg was wrongly treated if you never even discuss the actual merits of the case, even to defend him?  I mean, it's almost as if you guys have no clue what it was all about in the first place.  You have Stein bizarrely claiming that the controversy was because Meyers' paper "merely suggested that perhaps we aren’t mud and lightning after all."  Except that Meyers' paper never discusses any such thing: it's all about the Cambrian explosion: the closest it comes to talking about the origin of life is talking about the basics of multicellularity: i.e. nowhere close.  Did you or Stein or anyone on the production even READ the article in question?   If you can't even summarize what it said accurately, how the heck can you judge whether or not it was legitimate science?

Likewise, do you guys ever discuss the many good rebuttals made as to why the paper was without merit in the film?  If not, how are you engaging the issues at all, even to defend the claims of the ID movement?

The core issue you guys dodge again and again is that science inevitably involves judgments of merit: whether claims hold up to the evidence, and whether they formulate themselves in testable manners susceptible to examination and confirmation.  As far as I can tell, you never wade into this core issue, not even to defend ID.  You simply imply that criticism of ID as being BS is oppression, end of story. But you can't dodge this question.  Either ID really is good science or it isn't.   If the mainstream scientists are correct, then you guys have no leg to stand on.  

According to even favorable reviewers, you never even really explain what claims ID makes: it's just some vaguely associated with God thing based on the idea that stuff is really really complicated. How can people possibly judge whether ID is good science or not if they don't even know what claims it makes in the first place?

And do you not quite get the irony that your own religious story is the one that involves things being formed out of the mud via magic, while the scientific endeavor is to explain very specific chemical mechanisms and processes that would have played a role?

Again and again: we can take your every claim.  We're happy to explain why you're wrong.  Your film and its star, on the other hand, don't seem to be up to the debate.

--------------
The Bad Idea Blog - Science, Skepticism, Silly

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,19:26   

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!] :p

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." :p

--------------
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

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,19:51   

Quote (Art @ Mar. 23 2008,14:43)
No need.  Atheists are all commies, so they don't actually own anything.

da, tovarisch.    
i about busted a gut laughing at that one.
dasvadanya, droog.  :)

  
k.e..



Posts: 3885
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,20:02   

Stein who seems to be suffering from post Holocaust blues owes avowed christian Joseph Goebbels some thanks.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

“Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character”

The child learns from the master of modern political multi-media propaganda.

Stein may also learn Propaganda is just another name for Religion, which has far more genocides on its hands.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,20:09   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2008,15:56)
Reed: Have answered your question on my blog. Added 2 my original post.

You say:
                 
Quote

Note how she creates the illusion of balance by quoting both sides. But what she is actually doing is setting up the Expelled folks as targets and then using PZ, Dawkins, and Eugenie to knock them down.

Yes, Cornelia Dean quotes them as saying bad things about your movie, and gives them the last word. However it's clear that she's quoting, and you haven't identified any part of the "knocking down" done that is factually incorrect. Or actually any of the story that you claim is factually incorrect.

The story certainly makes the Expelled group look bad, but the main reason is their own actions. Turning someone who is featured and credited in a film away from a screening makes you look bad, regardless of what excuse you come up with. It makes you look especially bad when you are found to be lying about about the reasons and circumstances.

The "We are all having a good laugh" bits certainly favor the PZ/Dawkins side, but the fact is the situation is funny, and the participants are laughing about it.

It's clear she isn't sympathetic to your side, but it seems to me she got the basics facts right, and treated the core of the story honestly. That's pretty good by the standards of journalism today, and far from the blatant spin job you claimed.

But this whole issue is minor compared to the complaints about the film itself. You could start with BadIdeas.

  
TAG



Posts: 3
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,20:30   

Kristine, thanks for elaborating that part!

This nasty mix of stupidity and dishonesty spewing out of the creationist machine is making me sick.

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,20:45   

Quote (TAG @ Mar. 23 2008,19:30)
Kristine, thanks for elaborating that part!

This nasty mix of stupidity and dishonesty spewing out of the creationist machine is making me sick.

It's classic projection.

Okay-doke, everyone, here's my summary of the film:

ID is science - but it's not science, because science is not really science without religion, and ID is religion. Religion and science are not at war - but they are, because liberal and mainstream theologians believe in God and accept evolution, but we can't have that. But we can have that - through ID! Which is science! Which is the universe being created by God! Which is not science but the same evidence being seen by both evolutionists and ID theorists! Which is really a culture war!

Got it? Good. :p

--------------
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

  
Badidea



Posts: 7
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,21:04   

Quote (Reed @ Mar. 23 2008,20:09)

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2008,15:56)
You could start with BadIdeas.


No no: it's just BadIdea, because I can only handle one at a time without falling into desperate despair.

--------------
The Bad Idea Blog - Science, Skepticism, Silly

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2008,21:23   

No doubt many of you would have read  Dawkins' review of the movie. I wonder if Kevin will include this and enlighten us where it was unfair? I think that it might have been too facty for him.

  
  3612 replies since Aug. 12 2007,07:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (121) < ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]