Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

EXPELLED makes front page of NYTimes

Categories
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I can’t say I feel sorry for these atheistic scientists in agreeing to interview for EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. When the BBC interviewed me for their Horizon documentary on ID (Horizon = the UK version of PBS Nova), they gave the ID side no warning that the program would be titled A WAR ON SCIENCE (I wouldn’t have agreed to be interviewed had I known that was going to be its title). What goes around comes around.

September 27, 2007
Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin
By CORNELIA DEAN
A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called “Crossroads.”

The film, with Ben Stein, the actor, economist and freelance columnist, as its host, is described on Rampant’s Web site as an examination of the intersection of science and religion. Dr. Dawkins was an obvious choice. An eminent scientist who teaches at Oxford University in England, he is also an outspoken atheist who has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect.

But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media.

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” According to its Web site, the film asserts that people in academia who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have unfairly lost their jobs, been denied tenure or suffered other penalties as part of a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.

MORE

>

Comments
Also I would say the producers of “Expelled” need a lesson on ID. ID does not say anything about the supernatural nor is it an inference for “God”.
Right...but when the critics encounter "ID" they hear "God." So the producers are correct about a "conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms," even though ID is silent about "God." It's not the film's producers who need the lesson, but the critics.Lutepisc
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PST
I have certainly been taped by people and appeared in productions where people’s views are different than mine, and that’s fine,” Dr. Scott said, adding that she would have appeared in the film anyway. “I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t.”
And here's Scott commenting on Richard Sternberg's treatment by the NSCE (which she heads) and the Smithsonian:
"He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."
russ
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PST
Mynym "My impression is that the film is not so much about specifying or promoting ID as it is about freedom of expression." Bingo. IMO this will draw more people attention than ID (science) will.Smidlee
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PST
Also I would say the producers of “Expelled” need a lesson on ID. ID does not say anything about the supernatural nor is it an inference for “God”. My impression is that the film is not so much about specifying or promoting ID as it is about freedom of expression. If there is a group of people who are so paranoid about theism that they become irrational bigots on that basis then the film has to show that to undermine the foundation of their bigotry given that its purpose is freedom of theological expression. Given the irrationality of bigots they apparently believe that the rules of "science" include "Panda's Thumb" type arguments which conclude in negative theology. E.g. "I know that God wouldn't do this..." or "What type of God would do this, therefore there is no God." But if their negative theology is answered with positive theology (e.g. "I think God would make something beautiful like this." etc.) then the same people say that theology can have nothing to do with science or else civilization and progress will come to an end and so on. Given the ignorance typical to bigots Panda's Thumb types probably don't even realize they are making theological claims when they argue about what God would or wouldn't do or how a God that is separate from is pure while a gardening God would be dirty, etc.mynym
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PST
I am so pleased with Dawkins et el griping about their interviews. I understand that its called gorilla advertizing. Let "Expelled" be as well advertized as possible, and if Dawkins is going to do the advertizing, great!bFast
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PST
I have watched "the war on science" a number of times. It is not crafted to put the ID side adequately. Dawkins and others gave an interview for "Crossroads". The film is now titled "Expelled". For the film makers, after talking with the people involved, the real story came out. The story is not about crossroads but cross people who want to silence those who find ID a rational inference from data. Let the mainstreamers complain all they like but we will keep telling the truth as we see it. Silence us with convincing evolutionary pathways, not censorship. Wait until we hear Dawkins in his own words. If he really said them, how can he complain? He thinks it is a war on science, we think it is a war on the one sided interpretation of evidence. We just want a fair hearing. Expelled may help restore some ballance.idnet.com.au
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PST
I would just love to have these moviemakers and authors mislead me while giving me an opportunity to widely publicize myself and my views. May they make a complete sucker out of me. May I be completely bamboozled. These Darwinists should be grateful for these opportunities to get publicity for themselves and their views. They take these opportunities for granted. And they should not look a gift horse in the mouth. Here is a related article on my blog.Larry Fafarman
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PST
To be honest, I don't have a lot of sympathy with Dawkins' claim that he was somehow misled or misrepresented, as he is more than capable of censoring and vilifying others. Way back c.1990-1993 a British author, Richard Milton, wrote a book The Facts of Life criticising Darwin. This was picked up by the editor of one of the British broadsheets, either the Times or the Telegraph , which approached him to rewrite a piece for the paper on the subject of Darwinism being dead. Richard Dawkins, however, apparently phoned the editor up to protest about it, and the article was duly spiked. Dawkins did, apparently, write his own review, published in New Scientist which attacked the book in a torrent of invective. The above claims about the film by Dawkins seem to me to smack of a similar attempt at censorship, though one of closing the stable door just after the horse has bolted.Beast Rabban
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PST
"(I wouldn’t have agreed to be interviewed had I known that was going to be its title). What goes around comes around." Ah ... so two wrongs do make a right after all. Thanks for clearing that up. [Scott: That's not what I said. See my remark in comment #1. --WmAD]Scott
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PST
“the scientific community as intolerant, as close-minded, and as persecuting those who disagree with them. And this is simply wrong.”
Perhaps not the scientific community (what is that anyway?), but definitely many scientists, university presidents and other alleged academics are very intolerant to those who disagree with them. PZ Meyers, Dawkins and E. Scott are perfect examples. Also I would say the producers of "Expelled" need a lesson on ID. ID does not say anything about the supernatural nor is it an inference for "God".Joseph
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PST
What Mr Dawkins, you didn't know what was going on? Well that'll teach you not critise my black burka!Tina
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PST
If you look up the author, you will notice she wrote an article in June about science of the soul being dead (i.e. I wonder what she would think of O'Leary's book?). On the topic at hand, let's grant their acusations. So what? Based on your belief system that we are all just a bunch of atoms bouncing around, why should I care that they deceived you? And, based on their belief system, why do they care?geoffrobinson
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PST
Perhaps both you and those atheistic scientists were naive to assume the best intentions of popular media makers. I can understand why you may resent the BBC misrepresenting their project to you. But I can't say I agree with your implication that the mistreatment you received is somehow balanced by another instance of mistreatment, regardless of who is on the receiving end. Schadenfreude is not a pretty thing to behold. [MacT: Stop your moralizing. I was happy to do the BBC interview at the time. I was not happy with what they did with it. At the same time, I did not complain about it or issue a press release. Now the other side is complaining because they got the same treatment that we get all the time. --WmAD]MacT
September 27, 2007
September
09
Sep
27
27
2007
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply