O’Reilly is a loudmouthed, obnoxious, extremely conservative talk radio commentator. Ben Stein, on the other hand, is a quiet spoken, clever, humorous, very knowledgeable guy who has gone compeletely over to the dark side. He seems to make money by being a mouthpiece for any ultra-conservative project offered him.
Richard has posted an essay today on the events, the film and the deceiving tactics used by Mark Mathis, a producer of the film. Richard asks, Lying for Jesus?
Richard ask this question by saying:
I may have misremembered the details of our exchanges, by eMail and by telephone, but I vividly remember his reassuring me, over the telephone, that he was on the side of science, and he made no attempt to distance himself from my sarcastic jokes about ‘Intelligent Design’. I am reluctantly driven to wonder whether he is an inveterate liar, as well as a dreadful film-maker. Yet another example of Lying for Jesus?
Both PZ and Richard (along with others that were there and have written on the incident and film) have really handled this fantastically. I can’t help but to say, of course they lied for Jesus (or god), this is the way the modern creationist movement has continuously evolved (of course, I know Richard knows this as well). Once again they have been busted, and once again I know they will regroup to find new ways to deceive and manipulate.
I just noticed something while watching the “Expelled" trailor. When Stein says that, “everything that exists was created by loving god,” as an example he mentions animals and his profound words are accompanied by an image of a bird feeding its chick. When, however, he babbles about “the era of Darwin,” they show a cheetah killing a wildebeest. So to sum it up: animals love their babies thank to god, but they kill prey because of Darwin.
O’Reilly is a loudmouthed, obnoxious, extremely conservative talk radio commentator. Ben Stein, on the other hand, is a quiet spoken, clever, humorous, very knowledgeable guy who has gone compeletely over to the dark side. He seems to make money by being a mouthpiece for any ultra-conservative project offered him.
Occam
I’m with you on Ben Stein - if you don’t mind me giving a ‘ditto’. But let’s be charitable - he’s sincere. (He hardly needs the money.) I suppose he really is ultra conservative. Although I would have said ‘Nixonian’ on non-social issues.
He hardly needs the money.) I suppose he really is ultra conservative.
I agree that he hardly needs the money, but it seems that one characteristic of untra-conservatives is that they believe one can never have enough money so should always attempt to accumulate more.
Richard has posted an essay today on the events, the film and the deceiving tactics used by Mark Mathis, a producer of the film. Richard asks, Lying for Jesus?
It’s a very strange incident. Eugenie Scott notes jokingly in her Skeptics Guide to the Universe interview that perhaps she was also
blackballed—even more directly than PZ Myers—because she signed up for one of these showings on the WWW,
and they got back to others she knows but not her. And again she was (briefly?) in the movie.
The Ben Stein site {I was trying to figure out where these free showings actually are} includes this blog page:
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/
The links are appreciated.
The headline on this entry on Dawkins reads ”The globe’s leading Big Science atheist is ‘shocked! Shocked!’”
Now those fearless creationists are taking on something called “Big Science” - you know, like “Big Corporations,” and “Big Government.”
I understood the production company had bankrolled some high-priced ‘Swiftboaters’ style PR firm to hype this movie. If this link is an example of what they paid for, they’re definitely not getting value for money…
George, I couldn’t locate part 2 of that discussion. No matter, since Jackson’s second link contains the same interview with a small amount of supplementary detail that Mathis claimed repeatedly and got wrong.
Just to reiterate, the conversation is HERE. It makes interesting listening.
