The Expelled film performed agreeably at the box office (see link below) but just for fun google “Expelled” and “lies” and see how many hits you get from very angry Darwin fans. Apparently, a well-meaning Christian was concerned about all this steam and fog, asking, “Is it true? Did the Expelled producers really lie?”
Well, no, yes, … and no again. The term “lies” needs unpacking in the context.
As I mentioned to some friends yesterday, the Darwin fan, like other materialists, uses the term “lie” in a different sense from the traditional one with which that Christian is familiar.
To the Christian, a lie is a deliberate falsehood. In that sense, no, the producers are not lying. Darwin fans really behave as the film portrays them when anyone produces evidence or argument against their orthodoxy.
But Darwin fans themselves use the term “lie” in a quite different way. They mean any statement or piece of evidence that does not promote their party line or does not make them look good.
Their usage has nothing to do with the sincerity of the speaker or the quality of the evidence.
From their perspective, Expelled is full of lies.
But no again if you mean, does the film describe fact as opposed to fiction? It is fact.
Likewise with the claim that the Expelled producers tricked Darwinists into appearing.
The real story is this: Darwin fans expect control of the story whenever they appear in the media, and they expect to be portrayed as heroes. When that does not happen, regardless of the circumstances, they are sure they have been wronged.
Unlike many of us, the Darwin fans were apparently not even cautious* with the documentarists. Presumably, it had never occurred to them that their behaviour could be questioned by the peons who pay their salaries.
*Apparently, most were paid for their appearances! The ID guys I have heard from were not.
Meanwhile, new at the Post-Darwinist
The Expelled film: The box office and other important stuff
Expelled: Not your father’s documentary?
Earth to planet D’Souza: Check your space-time co-ordinates before wading deeper into the Darwinism-ID controversy:
Excerpt: I find D-‘Souza’s glib assertion, “Most Christians don’t care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or whether evolution can account for macroevolution or only microevolution.” troubling to say the least. Many of us oppose Darwinism because it is a false official account of the history of life, and thus a major obstacle to developing a correct account. We want to provide accurate information. If “most Christians don’t care” it is either because they do not know the facts or because they do know them, but do not mind promoting falsehoods. Either situation is a cause for concern.
New at Mindful Hack:
Art produced by animals: Is it really art?
Are there really innate ideas about God?
Why can’t philosophy alone kill off materialism? Why do we need evidence from science?
Civil rights protests force extinction of Olympic flame
Mayo Clinic co-sponsors Dalai Lama’s 16th Mind and Life conference, on benefits of contemplation or meditation
Artificial intelligence: A look at things that neither we nor computers can discover