Richard Dawkins crashing “Expelled” screening?
Just came across this blog at WordPress…apparently it got popular so quickly it even made the front page as a “hawt” post.
Due to the volume of replies, the blogger closed the comments, so I’d like to respond here at my own blog.
So ultimately Dawkins’ first complaint was irrelevant. His second complaint was that any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed by Ben Stein (and by Mark Mathis) for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy. Unfortunately, the entire audience, minus Dawkins’ posse, agreed that that the film’s main point was that Intelligent Design should be taught in conjunction with Evolution.
Dawkins’ idea of an “even-handed look” differs from the idea of teaching Intelligent Design in conjunction with Evolution. An “even-handed look”, most scientists agree, would actually NOT result in teaching both of them, as Intelligent Design is NOT scientific. See the Kenneth Miller video two posts back to see what I mean.
While the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate can spark much emotion, anyone walking away from this film will be convinced that the merits of Intelligent Design should be on the same level playing field as Evolutionary Theory.
If that’s the impression people will get when walking out, then how is it even-handed? What is even-handed about teaching people that something non-scientific should be taught in a science classroom?
This film is about the freedom of speech, the freedom of ideas and ability to express those ideas…not about whether God created the heavens and the earth.
I’m all for freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, the ability to express those ideas, etc. That does not mean, however, that one should teach something that belongs in a religion or philosophy class in a SCIENCE CLASS.
Also, the film may very well have a strong theme of freedom (I haven’t seen it, so I don’t know), but it is still ALSO a film about whether God created the heavens and the earth.
Note that earlier the author stated: “The basic premise of the movie is that Intelligent Design should be allowed equal footing as a teachable theory within academia.” The author also included the following “spoilers”. Now, I had read these things at another site, so I don’t consider them to be spoilers, but out of respect for the author who considers it spoiler material, I’ll treat it as such also. Highlight the following if you want to read:
Many scenes are centered around the Berlin Wall, and Ben Stein being Jewish actually visits many death camps and death showers. In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.
This just seems to further prove that the film is NOT even-handed, in my opinion. Appealing to such images and ideas to discredit evolutionary theory is downright dirty and Michael Moore-esque.
This blogger didn’t change my opinion. I’m still disappointed in Ben Stein.
Like this post? Email it to a friend.