« Pictures Would Have Helped...and a More Humble Tone too. | Main | Babies Are Punishment? »

March 31, 2008

Comments

unfortunately, Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyer give a radically different view of what happened and theirs has a very real ring of truth about it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in ID, but after reading Dawkins version of events (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins),and PZ Meyers version of events (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php) I'm gonna have to believe the evolutionists on this one.

I absolutely agree that they never should have misrepresented themselves, if that is indeed what happened. I was really bothered when I first heard about that a couple of days ago. But if it's true they were given all of the questions in advance, and they agreed to all of them, I feel somewhat better about the situation..but not happy. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't comment yet on whether or not they were unfairly portrayed.

I can also say (having worked in the film industry for many years) that films do have working titles by which they do all their business, even if the final title has already been thought of, so that's nothing unusual.

What a busy blog metalman777 linked, 1624 entries...this is no small dispute. The anti ID, evolution believing community is prolific.

Brad B

I tried reading Dawkins article that metalman777 linked. I made it about half way through when I decided it was unlikely that I would learn anything more important from it and just skimmed the rest.

It doesn't seem to be his claim that his views were misrepresented. Primarily he just doesn't like the films conclusions.

Typically he wastes lots of space with the name calling. The man is a sad case. Dawkins' hubris and condecension amazes me. Often, he relies upon these attitudes, and not scientific reasoning or logic, to attack those who disagrees with him. When he has to deal with formidable opponents in person (such as Alistair McGrath) he can't get away with it as he does on the blogs. Check this link for an example.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews

I think Dawkins sets a very bad example for anyone in this regard and ironically serves, in my opinion, to undermine the reputation of scientists in the process.

It makes no difference to the arguments presented by the film if Mark Mathis is a jerk or lied about the purpose of the film (I am not saying this is true). Dawkins should know this but if he doesn't he should take a break and review logical fallacies.

It is though, a good illustration how character, style and attitude will influence how people receive an argument. It bring to mind the Aposltle Paul's advice:

2 Timothy 2: 24-26
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose him, if God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

I see this with Alan Keyes. He can take good arguments and make them look bad or unappealing just by his attitude and style!

Having seen "Expelled" I would say that Myers was not at all unfairly portrayed in the film. He is what he is...bombastic. His intolerance and disrespect of theists is well-known, and it shows up in a big way in the film. IMHO, Dawkins was intellectually flattened by Stein, but in a fairly genial way. Stein asked some questions that Dawkins is never asked by the compliant mainstream media. His bumbling on one of the most important questions (which I won't reveal here) was astonishing. The audience at the screening responded with a collective WOW.

The comments to this entry are closed.