Richard Dawkins' Documentary Tactics Part 2: Root of All Hypocrisy?
This is from a press release from Premise Media Corporation, producers of the movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed:
The producers of EXPELLED are particularly amused by Dawkins's complaint that the name of the film was changed from "Crossroads" to "EXPELLED" suggesting that this re-naming was a deception. Dawkins is well aware of the fact that movie titles change. When he was interviewed for EXPELLED he made the comment that the title of his anti-religion documentary, "Root of all Evil?" was chosen as a replacement for the original title late in the process.
Who is deceiving whom? It appears that Dawkins is indeed "learning to laugh" at the concept of moral responsibility . . . or any prospect of moral consistency.
I keep finding Richard Dawkins is the source of heaps of irony. The fact that he commented on changing the title of his own film during the interview for Expelled, oops, I mean Crossroads, is exquisite. Think that clip will make the final cut?
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 11:30 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
It's not about the name being changed. It's that they lied to him about why they wanted to interview him. If they had said, "It's called Expelled and it's about intelligent design.' They had already registered the domain name so they knew what it was going to be called.'
Everyone knows that Dawkins would not have participated if he'd known the topic, and for good reason. Participating in a debate about intelligent design would give off the impression that there is actually a debate within the scientific community about the validity of evolution.
There is no such debate. ID has zero evidence support it, no peer-reviewed papers, and it doesn't explain anything. It just says, 'We don't know and we never will.'
Adam,
They accurately told him the subject area of the film- the intersection of science and faith. I have already posted on that. They did exactly was most documentary filmmakers do and what most investigative journalists do. They told him the subject area but not their editorial perspective.
The rest of your post consists of bald assertions of your opinions (which I think are demonstrably false), which are worth nothing unless you address the substantive arguments of ID proponents.
Post a Comment
<< Home