Those Rotten IDists and Their Tricky Movies!

There’s an article in the NY Times today by Cornelia Dean that is rather interesting, apart from the boilerplate comments by the author that, “There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth,” which is demonstrably untrue.

Anyway, it seems that “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” the movie about the persecution of ID advocates in academia ia ruffling a few feathers.  It seems that Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, and PZ Myers are all interviewed in the film, and now they are crying foul.  Dawkins says he wouldn’t have appeared had he known what the film was about.  So, obviously these three were lied to about the premise behind the movie, right?  Right?  Oh wait, no, they simply didn’t even ask what it was about.

Mr. Stein, a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times, conducts the film’s on-camera interviews. The interviews were lined up for him by others, and he denied misleading anyone. “I don’t remember a single person asking me what the movie was about,” he said in a telephone interview.

So, maybe they were misled by those tricky IDists and their changing film title, because no one does that, right?  Right?  Oh yeah, movies do this all the time.  Most films go through a name change.  Who can forget that cultural and box office juggernaut, “Snakes on a Plane?”  That title was never intended to be the actual title of the movie.  The only reason that title was retained was because of popular support for the title.  Lots of movies change titles, this is nothing new.

They even go so far as to complain about the tone of the website?  This is nothing more than advertizing.  I don’t know why they would be upset by that.  But the worst part is yet to come, and I’ll cover that in part II.


13 responses to “Those Rotten IDists and Their Tricky Movies!

  1. Pingback: Those Rotten IDists and Their Tricky Movies! (Part II) « Professor Smith’s Weblog

  2. . . .demonstrably untrue.

    Really? Why couldn’t the ID advocates demonstrate that in court, when they had the chance?

    What evidence do you have that you failed to bring forward for the Pennsylvania trial?

  3. Mr Darrell:

    You — sadly but plainly — don’t want to face the fact that over in Dover, the design case faced a Kangaroo court, manifested in a 90+% ACLU copycat ruling in the relevant parts — blatant mistakes, obvious misrepresentations and all.

    In short, Judge Jones’ ruling has little or nothing to do with the state of the issue on the merits. But, a lot to do with institutional power games in defence of a manipulative shadow-show — as Plato long since aptly described too many ruling elites. (Onlookers interested in looking on the merits might wish to glance at my own modest introductory summary, which is linked through my name and below.)

    And since you are a frequent commenter on ID blogs, if you are “unaware” of this pr5oblem with the Jones ruling, it is by failure to do basic due diligence.

    Cho man, do betta dan dat. [Cf 2 Cor 4:1 – 2, on your confession in earlier comments in this blog.]

    GEM of TKI

    PS: Prof Smith, passing through, and saw this one.

  4. Speaking of copy cat: Your claims are plagiarized from the creationist boards. They also demonstrate an amazing lack of understanding of how proposed findings are used in civil suits. Your claim is false, and so long after the trial, I can only assume it is made in bad faith.

    We have evidence rules in federal courts, which is why creationists keep losing there. It was a fair tribunal (no appeal, by the way, by anyone), as attested by everyone but the sore losers.

    Judge Jones’ ruling went right to the heart of the merits of ID, since both defendant and plaintiff asked that be done.

    What in the world are you smoking? Can it possibly be legal?

  5. professorsmith

    Mr. Darrell,
    Again I have to ask you to conduct yourself in a more civil manner. I do not like censorship, but I will ban you if you persist in your abusive comments. And, yet, accusing other commenters of smoking illegal substances is abusive. If you want your comments to be taken seriously, I’d suggest that you stop with the attacks and deal with the issues.

  6. Fair manner? Do you defend the assault on a good Christian, Republican federal judge in the previous post?

    Get off it. You allow all sorts of maligning of people you choose not to like, and then complain when we point out the complete, slanderous fantasy.

    Stop defending slander. Get a Christian backbone and stick up for the facts. The previous poster owes an apology to Judge Jones. Get on demanding that, will you?

  7. professorsmith, I’m serious, you know. The guy made false allegations about a public official — no crime, but I think such unpatriotic, bigoted claims should not go unrebutted at least.

    My last line should have produced at least a smile. I’m giving the guy an out — maybe he was stoned, instead of just mean and nasty as his attack on Judge Jones. His accusations against Judge Jones are slanderous, since, were they true (which they are not), Jones would be guilty of a crime. If you endorse those allegations, just say so.

  8. professorsmith

    Mr. Darrell,
    I see no reason to point out that Jones is a Christian or a Republican since those attributes are completely irrelevant.

    As to allowing “maligning of people you choose not to like,” I’m going to have to ask you to defend this statement. I see no instance of Kairosfocus accusing Judge Jones of committing any crime.

    Finally, you’re “He started it” defense is rather childish, don’t you think?

  9. You allow maligning of Judge Jones. Kairofocus accuses him of bias on the bench, of deciding a case on something other than the law. That’s illegal and a violation of judicial canons.

    You refuse to take Kairofocus to task for these false allegations, instead criticizing me for pointing out his mean-spirited falsehoods.

    That is what I’m referring to.

    No, I didn’t say “he started it.” I merely point out that you, in an unfair, unChristian and unjust manner, criticize me for standing up for the honor of our system of justice, and for correcting error.

    Don’t you think it terribly offensive to defend slanderers and liars? Why not just deal with the issues, instead of sidestepping them all the time?

    At least you should point out the errors in Kairofocus’s claims.

    Unless, of course, you wish to perpetrate the ignoble hoax. Surely that is not what you wish.

  10. professorsmith

    I’ve done no such thing. I’ve allowed Kairosfocus to disagree with the ruling. Apparently to Darwinists like yourself, it’s impossible to disagree with the ruling without maligning the judge? So be it. It’s not a hoax, it is his opinion, which is shared by a great number of people. My opinion has already been stated on an earlier thread, so I feel no need to go into it.

    As to your “standing up for the honor of our system of justice” I’d like for you to step down off the soapbox and realize that you are just a man.

    On the other thread where you are commenting, you received your final warning. This thread shall also serve as that, since I was not able to warn you before you posted to both threads. More uncivil behavior from you will result in forcing me to moderate your posts, at least, if not outright ban you.

  11. Final warning taken. I’ll not linger. Dust off the sandals, the slime may take a bit longer to shed.


  12. Pingback: More Breaking News With No Evidence! « Professor Smith’s Weblog

  13. Pingback: That’s Classy Right There « Professor Smith’s Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s