Too bad I can't actually reach "flippertie" to reply since the hyperlink she left leads me to the blog she already suggested I check out-- which I did.
I also have to say, even though we apparently disagree, that I really appreciate her even, respectful tone-- which is something I don't tend to see in most atheistic darwinists.
Anyway, here is her comment and my reply:
dont believe everything you see in the movies - especially propoganda pieces like this. Dawkins does not believe aliens (or god) started life on earth. He was responding to a very specific 'science fiction' type scenario put to him by Ben Stein. The movie producers then cut and edited the interview to make it seem like those were his views. For Dawkins side of the story, and the way he and others were lied to and tricked into taking part in the movie you could google "Dawkins Expelled Crossroads Ben Stein" or look up the website ExpelledExposed.com
Dear flippertie: In having productive discourse, there must be give and take. As such, I will concede a few unarguable things, hoping you are willing to do the same (rather than staunchly entrenching oneself in a position that cannot be reasonably or rationally defended-- thereby losing all credibility). That said, & having visited your suggested sites, I concede:
-- Although there are two sides to every story, there may have been "false pretenses" by the film-makers in setting up interviews with scientists they KNEW would disagree with them. However, have you considered that had the producers laid claim to who they were and what they were doing, they would NEVER have been granted ANY interview with the opposing personalities? ...and THUS, would actually have ADDED EVIDENCE to the point that there is a stonewalling & ignoring of voices who would discuss ID? And IF the producers had been granted interviews as "adversaries", would the darwinist scientists have been as CANDID as they were? They would not have been at all! And they are proving it by their offended reactions.
Trying to claim moral high ground here while basically admitting that their answers might have been different if they knew who they were talking to (ie, their OWN duplicity) is ludicrous.
-- Editing does happen in any movie. I read Dawkins' blog recall of the interview & his quote. The point of his UNCUT quote-- which is rife with "I suppose", "probably", "perhaps", "possibly", "possibility", "might" & "could" (in other words, clearly stating personal detachment from the theory yet ALLOWING FOR IT)-- is that he believes aliens seeding life on earth is POSSIBLE (however 'improbable', as his blog later claims he meant)... "an INTRIGUING possibility" no less! Yet the idea of God is IMPOSSIBLE as he clearly states over and over and over again. No matter how Dawkins spins it, his logic allows for aliens & disallows for God. Period. No one can rationally argue that point based on his own quotes.
-- Whether "Expelled" had another working (or 'sinisterly veiled, false') title when pitched to the interviewees or not is pointless. Articles, books, movies, documentaries, taste tests, blind studies, etc. do it ALL THE TIME. Foreknowledge skews the results. Scientists especially know this.
And actually, with all Dawkins et al's whining, it frankly strengthens one of the movie's points that said scientists say quite different things about their theories when caught off guard!!!
-- Although there are two sides to every story, there may have been "false pretenses" by the film-makers in setting up interviews with scientists they KNEW would disagree with them. However, have you considered that had the producers laid claim to who they were and what they were doing, they would NEVER have been granted ANY interview with the opposing personalities? ...and THUS, would actually have ADDED EVIDENCE to the point that there is a stonewalling & ignoring of voices who would discuss ID? And IF the producers had been granted interviews as "adversaries", would the darwinist scientists have been as CANDID as they were? They would not have been at all! And they are proving it by their offended reactions.
Trying to claim moral high ground here while basically admitting that their answers might have been different if they knew who they were talking to (ie, their OWN duplicity) is ludicrous.
-- Editing does happen in any movie. I read Dawkins' blog recall of the interview & his quote. The point of his UNCUT quote-- which is rife with "I suppose", "probably", "perhaps", "possibly", "possibility", "might" & "could" (in other words, clearly stating personal detachment from the theory yet ALLOWING FOR IT)-- is that he believes aliens seeding life on earth is POSSIBLE (however 'improbable', as his blog later claims he meant)... "an INTRIGUING possibility" no less! Yet the idea of God is IMPOSSIBLE as he clearly states over and over and over again. No matter how Dawkins spins it, his logic allows for aliens & disallows for God. Period. No one can rationally argue that point based on his own quotes.
-- Whether "Expelled" had another working (or 'sinisterly veiled, false') title when pitched to the interviewees or not is pointless. Articles, books, movies, documentaries, taste tests, blind studies, etc. do it ALL THE TIME. Foreknowledge skews the results. Scientists especially know this.
And actually, with all Dawkins et al's whining, it frankly strengthens one of the movie's points that said scientists say quite different things about their theories when caught off guard!!!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment