I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Friday, September 28, 2007

"Smile -- you're on Candid Camera"

A New York Times article by Darwinist propagandist Cornelia "Corny" Dean says,

A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called “Crossroads.”

The film, with Ben Stein, the actor, economist and freelance columnist, as its host, is described on Rampant’s Web site as an examination of the intersection of science and religion. . . . .

But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media.

There she goes again with that "ideological cousin of creationism" stuff.

The article continues,

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” According to its Web site, the film asserts that people in academia who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have unfairly lost their jobs, been denied tenure or suffered other penalties as part of a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms . . .

. . . . .If he had known the film’s premise, Dr. Dawkins said in an e-mail message, he would never have appeared in it. “At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front,” he said.

Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist who heads the National Center for Science Education, said she agreed to be filmed after receiving what she described as a deceptive invitation.

“I have certainly been taped by people and appeared in productions where people’s views are different than mine, and that’s fine,” Dr. Scott said, adding that she would have appeared in the film anyway. “I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t.”

You expect them to be honest with you? If your responses depend on who is interviewing you and why, how are you being honest with them?

These Darwinists don't understand that you are supposed to smile and say "I'll be darned" when told that you are on Candid Camera.

I wouldn't mind being interviewed by filmmakers and authors. They can lie to me all they want. May they make a big sucker out of me. May I be completely bamboozled. May they show me no mercy.

These Darwinists should be grateful for the opportunity to publicize themselves and their views. They take these opportunities for granted. And they should not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Here is another article that I wrote on the same subject.



Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>These Darwinists should be grateful for the opportunity to publicize themselves and their views. They take these opportunities for granted. And they should not look a gift horse in the mouth.<<<

Since none of their views are going to be publicized, but instead will be quote-mined to make it seem as if they hold views they don't actually hold, why should they be grateful?

Think about it, Larry. Based on what you have written here, it would be very easy for an interviewer to steer you into a discussion of whether privacy exists. What if the producer then ignored all your arguments and instead made it sound like you kept child pronography on your property? That's the level of dishonesty creationists (including biblical, scientific, and intelligent design creationists) have displayed in the past.

Friday, September 28, 2007 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger Moulton said...

Conflict Junkies

True or False: Journalists are attracted to conflict like moths to a flame.

Ben Stein is a freelance commentator who occasionally appears on CBS Sunday Morning. He narrates a new film, due out in January, entitled, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”

The film explores aspects of the conflict between science and religion arising from the controversies over Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution.

There is a good NY Times article by Cornelia Dean about the film, and the controversy surrounding it. The controversy isn't just about the subject matter of the film, but the ethics of making the film, itself. Some of the scientists interviewed for the film claim they were misled about the film's slant.

I suppose people can argue about the character of the film's slant, but it occurs to me it's slanted toward controversy. And so are the characters who step up to these controversies.

There is already a Wikipedia article about the controversial film, written by members of the controversial Wikipedia Project on Intelligent Design.

It's unclear whether these Wikipedia editors consider themselves to be journalists, but it's increasingly apparent they are attracted to controversy like moths to a flame

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:14:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

A reporter, Cornelia Dean:
"I believe in convention. I mean,
To question old Darwin
Is surely a far one:
I consider it fully obscene."

Said Dean, "There's no credible view
In all science, but Darwin is true!
For by 'credible' I mean
What most scientists are keen
To proclaim, when they haven't a clue."

She cried, "I'm a preacher for Dawkins,
With his shrill materialist squawkin's.
So I think we're machines,
And clearly that means
We're basically gadgets from stock-bins."

Friday, September 28, 2007 4:16:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

To Jim, poet laureate of anti-Darwinists --

I added the "Limericks and other poetry" label to this post.

Friday, September 28, 2007 4:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

It looks like my message pointing out that Jim Sherwood is Larry was censored. Back at it again, you lousy hypocrite?

Saturday, September 29, 2007 1:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home