[after being show that Ben Stein manipulated video footage in order to put words into Richard Dawkins' mouth]
So you say he edited the tape...so you don't think Dawkins is in fact, hostile to a rival doctrine? I think he is...I think he's afraid and doesn't want to share the research money with someone who doesn't come to the same conclusions as him. That's what I think. and he is hostile no editing needed.
32 comments
So it's just fine to edit a tape to make someone appear to be saying what you think he might say, even if he really didn't?
Seems like that would fall under "bearing false witness."
Dawkins doesn't decide who gets the research grants. Who told you that?
Maybe your side should, y'know, do some actual SCIENCE instead of trying to criticise your opponents (and lying to do so) and you might get some research money, too.
What if I had, say, Kent Hovind (from a series of cut together shopt of ghis seminars) say "I am a fraudulent conman". We all know he is one, but that would prove it, right?
brilliant quote from that excressence of a video:
"and in this Darwinian era, questioning the status quo seldom goes unpunished"
In this era?
Putz calling the kettle black.
And, no, he doesn't have to share the money!!
I have a funny story.
Someone came onto my blog complaining that I should watch Ben Stein's movie before I made a judgment about ID. I asked him if I would see any new evidence presented that I hadn't heard a thousand times already, and he assured me I would.
He did not, however, tell me that it was new because it had been fabricated by lying creationists!
So... It's okay to edit because the fundamental message is preserved? That fundamental message is that Dawkins want competition for grants from people who don't come to the same conclusions?
The problem here is clearly that most "Christian Science" groups come with conclusions in mind. Scientists are building on and testing the conclusions of those who came before, and when needed changing or scrapping them. Making sure to always report their findings as clearly as they can, so that anyone who understands the ramifications of their work can agree or disagree with them knowledgeably.
This is how the video goes:
Dawkins: As a scientist, I am (cut to a different view of his face) pretty hostile to rival doctrine.
Now, I can imagine Dawkins saying that he is pretty hostile to lies and fabrications posed as science. He would never say he was opposed to a rival doctrine, because that implies religion on his part. It's obvious that it's purposefully cut that way to make it sound like Dawkins is admitting that evolution is a religion, which he would never do.
@demondoco:
My comment was directed more toward the original post, as I have heard that charge against Moore.
I did see a brief news piece on it though in which Moore took quotes from differing meetings/speeches from Charleton heston and made it seem like it was the same speech - the particular I remember is it made it seem like Heston was saying something inflammatory directly in response to the Colombine shooting when in fact he made the statement much earlier.
I have not seen the film in its entirety, so I'm withholding my judgement - but the clip I saw seemed to hold water.
I point I was making is that the original poster probably would have been outraged at Moore while he expresses sympathy to Stein - who is doing similiar creative editing.
He, Stein, manipulated the tape, read edited, to make Dawkins say words he never said because he doesn't like his way of thinking. Now, who's the hostile?, how can be sure that he is as hostile as Stein wants him to?, if no edited is needed why did he have to do it?
Isn't that basically a red herring?
"Okay, Ben Stein quote-mined, but Dawkins is STILL evil!"
I watched a little of this Stein thing on you-tube exerpts. I was out fast as this whole thing was an appeal to get religion back in schools and goverment and how Christians were being persecuted because they can't have that.
Heard it all before, bullshit premise, bullshit science, all of it bullshit.
How much did Stein have to do with production? Wasn't he just a paid 'Name' announcer? If he was deeply involved I've lost any respect for him but if he just read it for a big paycheck he should denounce the film and apologize.
Dawkin is hostile to fundementilists as they're are a clear and present danger to peace, freedoms and science.
He has stated many times that he has no problem with moderate Christian (or any other moderate belief)
He's speaking out against those religions that control politics and those trying to be THE power. Hence his hatred of Fundie America and his assertion that these people must not be given an inch in their plan
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
