Demosthenes
2007-10-08, 04:39 PM
The methods used by the creators of this movie to acquire interviews with Dawkins, PZ Myers, and other prominent atheists is deplorable.
If you haven't heard already, the producers of the movie approached Dawkins under the guise of creating a documentary called Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion. It was presented to scientists as a movie that addressed the "conundrum of why, when science has provided many answers to how we all got here, millions of people still believe that God created the world." Read here for more details: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/09/was_it_fair_to_dupe_richard_da.html
I guess to get any sort of argument for intelligent design at all you have to be somewhat underhanded. That's because intelligent design itself is underhanded. How much editing must you do to make it look like Dawkins says something overall negative about evolution, or positive about creationism? Should I expect to see the infamous youtube video of "Dawkins stumped?" What a misrepresentation of the facts! It's just like Darwin himself saying the eye was too complex to have evolved. Creationists love to throw that out. They, of course, mention nothing of the next few pages where Darwin describes in quite detail a hypothetical method for the evolution of the eye.
If you haven't heard already, the producers of the movie approached Dawkins under the guise of creating a documentary called Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion. It was presented to scientists as a movie that addressed the "conundrum of why, when science has provided many answers to how we all got here, millions of people still believe that God created the world." Read here for more details: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/09/was_it_fair_to_dupe_richard_da.html
I guess to get any sort of argument for intelligent design at all you have to be somewhat underhanded. That's because intelligent design itself is underhanded. How much editing must you do to make it look like Dawkins says something overall negative about evolution, or positive about creationism? Should I expect to see the infamous youtube video of "Dawkins stumped?" What a misrepresentation of the facts! It's just like Darwin himself saying the eye was too complex to have evolved. Creationists love to throw that out. They, of course, mention nothing of the next few pages where Darwin describes in quite detail a hypothetical method for the evolution of the eye.