Darwin historians not misrepresented

CMI ^ | July 25, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

The whole article is about how the CREATIONISTS PRODUCERS DID NOT MISREPRESENT THE STATEMENTS OF YOUR TEMPLE OF DARWIN CO-RELIGIONISTS. So by all mean, please demonstrate where they twisted their words, and I won’t call you a typical evo-liar for Darwin’s anti-science creation myth.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

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.

Soooo...creationists repeatedly secure interviews with scientists under false pretenses, and then edit the results to make the scientists look foolish. As a result, scientists become wary of giving interviews to creationists. And that makes creationists some kind of victims? Wow, okay, sure, whatever you say.

But I do like "Lord Haw Haw." I used to read about him in the Sgt. Fury books:

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

So you eschew name-calling such as "Liars For Jesus," and refuse to indulge in those types of tactics.

I try to. I will point out when someone is promulgating untruths, and might even call them "lies," but I try to avoid labeling the person a "liar." My hope is that once they learn what they're saying is false, they'll stop saying it, and the label implies a permanent state of being.

[tpanther]

Actually no. I’m sure there’s enough blame to go around but don’t pretend it’s 100% the creationists fault and please stop whining if a fraction of evo tactics are used against them.

Lord Haw Haw...LOL! the English nazi propogandist, speaking of course in the heavy British accent about the Brits losing war efforts, etc.

Shoot, I wonder if he survived the war?

[YHAOS]

"It's about the morality of ambush interviewing and then deceptively editing the answers."

Is that what happened here? Have you read the interviewees' description in the July Newsletter of the History of Science Society, vol 38, No 3? Have you read the account of the controversy in CMI? Have you seen the film? Can you demonstrate how the interviewees statements were deceptively edited? You've now made the issue a question of the morality of your propagandist use of loaded words to deceptively describe an event that has not developed to your liking.