Thursday, April 24, 2008

Physician, Heal Thyself: Dembski on accusations that Darwinists were treated unfairly in the movie "Expelled"

William Dembski, on the accusations that Darwinists were treated unfairly in "Expelled":

I find it remarkable that the Darwinists are belly-aching about the treatment they received from EXPELLED producers. Our side experiences far worse. When the BBC interviewed me for their documentary on ID, they didn’t tell me it would be titled A WAR ON SCIENCE and that my colleagues and I would be portrayed as those trying to destroy science. Whereas the Darwinists were filmed in their offices and made to look professorial, they had me walking down a railroad track, Behe suspended in mid-air on a carnival ride looking ridiculous, etc. Finally, they spliced in commentary by Ken Miller ostensibly critiquing my work on probabilities, which he then was forced to repudiate since the criticisms were so patently off target with respect to my work — he attributed the fault to bad editing on the part of the BBC. I blogged on this here and here.

So, if you want to debunk dishonesty and sleaze in documentaries, the BBC is far more worthy of your attentions. The worst that can be said about the producers of EXPELLED is that they didn’t tip their hands early. In consequence, we find Darwinists with their pants down and looking unimpressive. I’m sure that hurts. Take the pain.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Even if what Dembski says is true (hard to evaluate since I have never heard of the "documentary he writes of), how does it make the behavior of the Expelled producer's ok? The Expelled people lied about the original name of the film and its emphasis to the participants and spliced in death camp footage after their interviews. Is this the Middle East where two wrongs apparently make a right?

Anonymous said...

PLEASE the Darwinists used in Expelled answered Stein on their own free will and answered his questions. whats the big deal?? If these DOCTORS and SCIENTISTS had merely looked closely at Stein's pointed question could they not see how he would use them? Are they that daft not to recognize the design of the questions? I need an answer

Martin Cothran said...

What rule of making documentaries says you can't splice in whatever you want after you interview whomever you want? Ever seen 60 Minutes? Michael Moore's movies? It's done all the time and no one ever says anything about it, but when a film advocating Intelligent Design does it, all of a sudden there's something wrong with it.

The business about the producers lying is an unfounded and unproven claim. And two of the Darwinists who were interviewed got the longest interview segments of the movie. The producers gave them a far better opportunity than they deserved.

But the point of Dembski's comment was the hypocrisy of the critics. and that holds whether the charges you apparently think are proven are true or not.

Martin Cothran said...

Oh, and one guess what ID critics would be saying if "Expelled" producers had not interviewed people from the other side.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the producers were at least lying about the name of the movie, if nothing else. They had reserved the web page domain for expelled well before they were telling everyone the name of the movie was "crossroads."

Motheral said...

The business about the producers lying is an unfounded and unproven claim.

Actually, the entire movie has been proven to be a pack of lies, and you know it. Ever hear of a guy named Ed Brayton? He's proven several times, in excruciating detail, that the entire "persecution" story is horsemuffins. Even Faux News won't touch "Expelled." That's how transparently bogus it is.

What rule of making documentaries says you can't splice in whatever you want after you interview whomever you want?

Well, generally, the word "documentary" is understood -- by the overwhelming majority of English-speaking literate people -- to mean a show that "documents" something in a coherent, factual and honest manner, without a lot of arm-waving, diversions or non-sequiturs. Your flat refusal to accept the difference between "documentary" and "fiction" once again shows how deep your intellectual dishonesty runs.

It's done all the time and no one ever says anything about it...

Really? Documentary producers routinely splice Nazi death-camp footage into documentaries that have nothing to do with the Holocaust? And everyone else routinely links their pet peeve to the Holocaust when they can't make a factual case otherwise? Would you care to give us some examples of such "routine" behavior?

(I'd point out that two wrongs don't make a right, but there's only one wrong here -- yours.)

Martin Cothran said...

Ed Brayton? Now there's an objective source. If Ed says it, it must be true!

Well, generally, the word "documentary" is understood -- by the overwhelming majority of English-speaking literate people -- to mean a show that "documents" something in a coherent, factual and honest manner, without a lot of arm-waving, diversions or non-sequiturs.

You mean you've gone around the English speaking world interviewing people and they use these exact words, unprompted to describe a documentary, huh? Have you told this to Michael Moore yet? I'm sure he'll set down his camera and slap his forehead and say, "What was I thinking?!"

The advertisements for "Expelled" made it pretty clear it was 3 parts documentary and 1 part entertainment. Anyone who can't figure that out needs another iteration of evolutionary development.

Oh, and I love it when someone gets on my blog who won't even identify himself and accuses me of being dishonest.

Motheral said...

If Ed says it, it must be true!

If Ed says it and backs it up by means of detailed statements supported by multiple links to reputable and independent sources, then it's more likely to be true than your ever-more-childish non-sequiturs and clearly false accusations. Also, you're explicitly said that truth and falsehood weren't important to you; and Ed has said no such thing.

Oh, and I love it when someone gets on my blog who won't even identify himself and accuses me of being dishonest.

And I find it boring that you hide behind irrelevant statements like this after you've been proven to be dishonest. (Also, your statement is not just irrelevant, it's false. "Motheral" is my real last name, and I'm linking to my own blog. What more identification do you need?)

Anonymous said...

I still don't understand why when Martin gets cornered on something that he starts complaining about anonymous posts. On the internet you can create a fake identity fairly easily. If someone signs a name to a comment, it that REALLY evidence that they are who they claim to be? On the internet no one knows you are a dog.

Canis Major