Oops he did it again

5uspect

Looks like Dawkins is in Creationist hot water again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2179047,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Dades

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

I don't know which is more disturbing - the movie, or the promo image of that old guy in a school uniform.

No doubt 90 minutes of very selective editing, dubious statistics and quotes taken out of context.
A bit like Michael Moore, in fact.

Dave!

What pathetic people . . .

pH

Can Dawkin's honestly say that everyone interviewed for "Root of all evil?" knew the title of the program and exactly what it was about? Maybe be can, I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't.

The film is the obvious tactic for the theists to take next - "big religion" is now being oppressed by "big science", censorship ... yada yada yada ... but they can't say that because ID has nothing to do with God right? Oh wait maybe it does ... well they're still oppressing us ... think of the children!

No matter what some talking heads they've rounded up for a documentary say, it's been established (and even a conservative US court agreed) that ID is *not* a scientific theory. As an argument they're picked a losing one from the start. At present only a couple of atheist scientists are actively anti-religion', I'd say the majority just have no interest in the religion/science debate, but an attack like this on the integrity of the scientific community will force many more into the debate.

They're idiots, they've picked a losing argument "ID is science - ZOMG we're being oppressed" and want to have a huge public debate about it! - excellent - who's got popcorn?

Zombrex

"Just thinking about her ... sweet sweet ... can ... I just had to have her ... sweet sweet ... can"

:rolleyes:

What is BIG science btw?

Zombrex

What is interesting is the new tactic that the Creationists are taking now since they hit a brick wall with all their other ones.

Suddenly scientific standards (good) are considered censorship (bad)

You want to teach an unscientific theory in your class room? Well if people say no then they are censoring you. You don't get your unscientific paper published in the latest Nature magazine? Well, you are being censored.

It is actually a quite clever, and even more insulting towards science and the concept of freedom of speech (since they aren't being censored at all).

MrJoeSoap

My head hurts, that guitar riff just goes through me. Try watching the trailer and ignoring it...

pdebarra

Wicknight wrote:

"Just thinking about her ... sweet sweet ... can ... I just had to have her ... sweet sweet ... can"

My thoughts exactly

Who is the guy with the Irish accent in the trailer?

5uspect

I guess Big Science is an attempt at a slur just like Big Pharma. Most scientists are only concerned with making money where as a few rebels care about the "truth". Cos lets admit it, it you renounce religion you get a pay rise from Satan...

I'll see ye all at the country club this weekend so?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

awesome, a creationist version of 'what the bleep do we know'.

this is going on the dvd list

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

I loved that trailer. A few seconds of Ben complaining that ID wasn't allowed into the classroom, then a few shots of dignified scientists explaining that ID was nonesense. I don't imagine something I'd have directed would have looked very much different

Although:

Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental random chance.

Idiots.

Dave!

Do you think maybe they just don't understand evolution so that's why they want it out of the classroom -- so that they don't have to try to teach it? That would also explain why they keep coming out with gems about accidental random chance...

Scofflaw

DaveMcG wrote:

Do you think maybe they just don't understand evolution so that's why they want it out of the classroom -- so that they don't have to try to teach it? That would also explain why they keep coming out with gems about accidental random chance...

Possibly - I certainly haven't seen a single article (or post!) that demonstrates any understanding of evolution. Still, I think the pathology is more deeply embedded in their psyches than that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Acid_Violet

Complaining about supporters of Intelligent Deisgn not getting academic posts, unfortunately they don't realise there's a very good reason for that.....

Orion

5uspect wrote:

Looks like Dawkins is in Creationist hot water again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2179047,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Quote the opposite. If they misrepresented then Creationists are in Dawkins hot water.

[edit]I love the credits:
"Featuring a CAST OF THOUSANDS" !!!!!!oneeleven

Orion

Acid_Violet wrote:

Complaining about supporters of Intelligent Deisgn not getting academic posts, unfortunately they don't realise there's a very good reason for that.....

Lack of intelligence perhaps

5uspect

Macros42 wrote:

Quote the opposite. If they misrepresented then Creationists are in Dawkins hot water.

[edit]I love the credits:
"Featuring a CAST OF THOUSANDS" !!!!!!oneeleven

Sure, but for those who don't know the creationist tactics Dawkins comes off worse here.

stevejazzx

Basically our clever questioning scientists were easily duped...and it's a bit revealing actually. I mean surely if they, their agents or lawyers had of read the samll print in the paperwork for the release forms they would have a noted a clause saying that the title of movie was not set and they were agreeing to release their image and content to the producers for this movie regardless of the title. Looks like they got an easy paycheck and didn't bother following up on the project. Otherwise Dawkins would sue for breach of contract assuming there is one there looks like there is no breach of contract per se so all he can do is moan about it now. Whereas it appears more caution from him on the outset would have prevented this.
And I imagine there must be a contract if he was specifically interviewed for that movie.
And boy does it look awful.

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote:

Otherwise Dawkins would sue for breach of contract

They are being sued, no?

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

They are being sued, no?

Oh..I didn't see that..

Zillah

Nor did I possibly, I can't find where I originally got that impression...

mcgarnicle

After watching that trailor I have to ask, is this some satirical piss take of ID? I mean at one stage Ben actually makes the point that his ID friends would have been allowed make such claims freely back in the time of Galileo when, as he implies, challenging the status quo was more acceptable than today in our Nazi-Darwinist society of closed minded fascists.

Seriously, this has to be a joke