Posted on 07/25/2009 9:17:59 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Opposition to creationists and intelligent design proponents has a lot in common with the way the global warming alarmists work.
Ad hominem attacks, a huge system financing the squelching of opposition opinions. Just a really ugly atmosphere not representative of science or inquisitiveness at all. I can hear Al Gore saying, “The debate is over.” In science, we should all have enough humility to admit that the debate is never over. History is filled with “known facts” being overturned as scientists gain greater understanding.
Are you saying that these scientists would parse their interview based on the identity of the producers of the movie rather than the subject of the movie? Worse, that they will refuse to lend their expertise based on the orientation of the producers? An interviewee, you know, no less that a reviewer, does not endorse a movie by his participation. The reviewer can, and often does, pan a movie, should it merit that reaction, and the interviewee would base his responses on his knowledge of the subject, not the identity of the producer . . . Wouldn’t he?
”Face it, this film is a dud and no amount of feigned controversy is going to resurrect it.”
Well, we presently have no basis to judge whether or not this film is a ‘dud’ other than your declaration and the declarations of others, who are passionately opposed to the movie ever seeing the light of day. Unless, of course, you’ve actually seen the film. Have you?
Furthermore, it seems that if there is any ‘controversy’ (feigned or otherwise) surrounding this movie, it’s being kicked up by the film’s antagonists. If anything is likely to increase the viewership of a movie it would be ‘controversy,’ so that effort strikes me as being rather counterproductive. Likewise, describing the controversy you’ve kicked up as ‘feigned’ seems kind of, well . . . not smart.
”Maybe creationists would be able to get interviews with scientists if they didn't insult them . . . ”
Based on what everyone is saying, getting interviews with scientists under any condition doesn’t seem likely. It’s a devastating reflection on the Science Community that the film’s producer had to admit that he didn’t reveal anything more about the production company than he had to, in order to assure an unbiased and professional reaction from the scientists he interviewed. Before you condemn the producer, look to the beam in the scientists’ eye.
And did they find out anything damning through their deception? In the CMI article, the movie's director goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the scientists' quotes are accurate. As far as I can tell, they didn't reveal any deep dark secrets. Besides, secrets about what? Darwin's life and thinking? That's in his books!
Face it, they deceived when the didn't have to. Maybe if creationist filmmakers didn't already have a pattern of deception, scientists would trust them more.
Wouldn't you, if Michael Moore came to interview you? Given creationists' well-established pattern of quote mining and selective tape editing, they'd have been fools not to.
You make it more difficult to distinguish creationists from Islamists. You can't accept science in your churches/maosques, yet you want to assert your radical religion on children in public schools.
Creationists, Mike Moore, Sascha Baron Cohen: they all do it.
Your headline is quite misleading, if you actually go to the website you’ll see that the three science historians were deceived into contributing and then found what was presented was distorted.
We were led to believe that the movie was being made to be shown as an educational film on Australian broadcast television and possibly elsewhere. Fathom Media was revealed to be a subsidiary of Creation Ministries International when publicity for the movie began to appear on the internet.”
Previously, William Crawley, a blogger for the BBC, reported (June 21, 2009) that Bowler was “unhappy to be appearing in what he regards as an ‘anti-Darwinian’ film which offers an historically distorted portrait of Darwin” and that he along with Browne and Herbert “only discovered that they had inadvertently contributed to a Creationist film a month before the film’s release.” Phil Bell, the CEO of Creationist Ministries UK, acknowledged that Fathom Media was established as a front company, explaining, “At the end of the day ... [when] people see ‘Creationist’, instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to.”
Crawley added, “I asked Phil Bell if this method of securing an interview was ‘deceptive’. He said: ‘Well, it could be called deceptive.
If you have to lie about why you want an interview and hide who you’re representing through front companies perhaps you need to seek guidance on morals and ethics from a higher authority.
I think I recall the same thing claimed about ‘Expelled’.
It’s funny, the people that lie, distort and sue to silence and shut down debate and would never give an honest answer to anyone because their cult simply won’t allow them to do it, whine when they perceive their own tactics have been used to expose them.
project much?
Opposition to creationists and intelligent design proponents has a lot in common with the way the global warming alarmists work.
Ad hominem attacks, a huge system financing the squelching of opposition opinions. Just a really ugly atmosphere not representative of science or inquisitiveness at all. I can hear Al Gore saying, “The debate is over.” In science, we should all have enough humility to admit that the debate is never over. History is filled with “known facts” being overturned as scientists gain greater understanding.
Are you paying attention Stultis?
And of course you are spot on Rocky...Chrissy Fit Matthews on evolution calls it “settled science” and went into another of his spittle fits exclaiming so.
Wow-wee!!!!!
It's not my fault...maybe if that girl wasn't wearing such revealing clothes...
Wouldn’t you, if Michael Moore came to interview you? Given creationists’ well-established pattern of quote mining and selective tape editing, they’d have been fools not to.
Uhhhh Michael Moore more fits the evolutionist profile, just like algore, or pretty much any liberal.
I’m not afraid of Michael Moore. Are you? But why ask me? Why would you rely on the word of a Liar For Jesus?
It develops that the interviews did not turn out as badly as some of your more hysterical brethren in this thread would have us believe. Nothing like what one would expect from a Michael Moore type. It seems that the interviewees were treated rather well.
From the Newsletter of the History of Science Society, vol 38, No 3, July 2009, the interviewees had the following to say: “Had we known the true origins of Fathom Media, we probably would not have contributed, but the producers do have a point: if academic historians refuse to participate when movements they don’t approve of seek historical information, these historians can hardly complain if less reputable sources are used instead.”
In the newsletter article, the interviewees complained that “Peter Bowler’s description of Darwin’s later views on racial inequality is used in the film, but not Bowler’s account of Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s thesis that Darwin was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery.” Yet the interviewer, Steve Murray relates that in the interview Prof. Bowler made no reference to the thesis of Desmond and Moore, and he offers a copy of the transcript in support. Whoops! Apparently scientists can be misspoken sometimes too. Or, is it going to be your contention that none of this can be believed and that Murray is just another Liar for Jesus?
Murray then goes on to deal similarly with a second allegation of equally questionable accuracy. Should you wish, you can check that out using the links provided in this thread. All-in-all, it would appear that the interviewees were treated rather well and that the producers found their contributions to be praiseworthy.
I don’t know. Maybe it’s just a bit of undigested beef that’s causing the feeling, but it looks to me that someone has come to pick a fight.
What a bizarre comparison. You're really comparing declining to be interviewed with sexual assault? Sometimes I really wonder about you.
Besides, I'm not the one making excuses around here: "Oh, they didn't really lie, they just concealed the facts." "They had to lie or the interviewees wouldn't have talked to them." "It's okay because they're trying to expose the evos' secrets." "It's fine, because the evos do it too." It's like a bunch of first-graders.
No, but I would certainly try not to give him anything he could twist.
But why ask me? Why would you rely on the word of a Liar For Jesus?
I'm sorry, I hadn't realized you were lying. I assumed your post represented your actual opinions.
It develops that the interviews did not turn out as badly as some of your more hysterical brethren in this thread would have us believe.
I agree, insofar as I believe the director is telling the truth. If the script matches the transcripts as well as what's in that story, I think the interviewees are overreacting a bit.
Mike Moore=Evolutionist like you.
Sascha Cohen=Evolutionist like you.
The Evos are the ones who act like Islamic terrorists. Indeed, the greatest mass murdering scumbags in history were all evolutionists.
Actually they were communists - collectivists. This is something they have in common with any group that wants to assert control over the individual. The killing was not about idiolgy, but about control. It can be taken to an extreme by religionists such as Islamic Indonesians (strong believers in Creation) who slaughtered several hundred thousand Roman Catholics in in East Timor during the late twentieth century. Christian Europeans took their priests with them as they hacked their way through North America, Africa, South America, and Asia during the 18th and 19th Centuries. The real victim is the indivisual who wants to be left along from all these mad dogs who want control.
No Lord Haw Haw I’m illustrating the absurd by being absurd...if you blame the victim enough and as often as you’re doing here, I figure the only way you can see it is by giving you such extreme examples.
Not holding my breath though.
So you eschew name-calling such as "Liars For Jesus," and refuse to indulge in those types of tactics. Duly noted. I'll keep that in mind.
Why do Creationists not consider the moral dimension?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.