Creationism

UPDATE: If it’s been edited out, it didn’t happen?!

Spread the love

Here’s an update on the post below, which I wrote on the basis of a report from a friend who attended the meeting. I’ve been having difficulty downloading the file in question, but I wrote to the four debate participants about the apparent omission. Peter Bentley got back to me as follows:

Bill,

Ths part of the debate was in jest –we all were laughing, and it was not deleted from the audio — you can listen to it yourself a minute or so before the applause right at the end. The only parts removed during the editing process were minor pauses while microphones were taken to questioners.

Peter.

================================

I reported on July 19, 2007 here at UD that the 2007 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference in London included a debate in which Richard Dawkins accused Lewis Wolpert of being a creationist, to which Wolpert responded that sometimes he wished he were a creationist (go here for my previous posting).

For some unknown reason, it now appears the last part of the debate — where Dawkins accuses Wolpert of sounding like a creationist and where Wolpert commented that sometimes he hoped or wished creationism was true — is deleted. Go here for the online version of the debate.

I plan to email Dawkins and Wolpert about this omission — I’ll keep you posted.

Lewis WolpertRichard Dawkins

6 Replies to “UPDATE: If it’s been edited out, it didn’t happen?!

  1. 1
    bork says:

    This is a shame.

    Please do keep us updated!

  2. 2
    BarryA says:

    Does this remind anyone else of the photogrpahs of Lenin and Stalin? When they had their picture taken with someone they later murdered, they would have the photo doctored to take out the murder victime, as if he had never existed.
    Some examples are here: http://www.newseum.org/berlinw.....s/main.htm

  3. 3
    rrf says:

    Slightly OT, but on the subject of evolutionary computing, it seems the Baylor Evolutionary Informatics website has been moved. I can’t find the new link. Could someone post it, please?

  4. 4

    Dr. Dembski doesn’t mention whether that part of the debate never appeared on the web at all, or was just deleted later.

    My experience, from chronicling the misadventures of the fraudulent group “The British Centre for Science Education” (http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.com) is that you should record anything interesting as soon as you see it – because if it has the potential to cause embarrassment then it gets silently deleted without a word of acknowledgement. As Dr. Dembski is pointing out, this makes you look twice as bad if you’re caught doing it: once bad for saying it in the first place, then bad again for doctoring the evidence afterwards.

    David

  5. 5
    johnnyb says:

    This isn’t nearly as bad as the fact that the AAAS, despite numerous notifications from many individuals (including myself), still gives a wildly inaccurate tally of the votes for the creation position in Oxford Union’s Dawkins/Wilder-Smith debate (for the real numbers, see here — fast-forward to the end — the whole debate is here)

  6. 6
    bork says:

    Antone know what time it is on the mp3?

    I have attempted to download the mp3 twice now and have been unable to get the whole thing.

Leave a Reply