Monday, June 22, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Creationists defend Darwin film

by William Crawley - BBC William Crawley's Blog

Thanks to Nigel for the link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/creationists_defend_darwin_fil.html

On today's Sunday Sequence, the CEO of Creation Ministries UK responded to claims by one of the world's leading authorities on evolution that he was duped into appearing in an anti-Darwinian film.

Professor Peter Bowler, the author of a biography of Charles Darwin and many other books on the history of evolution, said he was interviewed for the The Voyage That Shook The World without realising that the film was being made by a Creationist group.

Professor Bowler, who has spent most of his academic career at Queen's University, Belfast, researching Darwinism, says he is unhappy to be appearing in what he regards as an "anti-Darwinian" film which offers an historically distorted portrait of Darwin. He claims that the film's narrative implies that Darwin's theory led him towards racism, whereas recent historical work by James Moore and Adrian Desmond shows that Darwin's scientific work was partly motivated by the naturalist's passionate opposition to racism.

Professor Bowler says he, along with his colleagues Sandra Herbert and Janet Browne, only discovered that they had inadvertently contributed to a Creationist film a month before the film's release. Peter Bowler also raised concerns about how the editing of his own interview could leave viewers with a false impression of his own perspective on Darwin.

Phil Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries UK, acknoweged that his organisation established a "front company" called Fathom Media, because they were concerned that experts such as Peter Bowler would not agree to take part in the film if they realised it was an "overtly Creationist" production. "At the end of the day," he said, "[when] people see 'Creationist', instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to."
...
Continue reading and links - also a clip to the film where they used parts of Professor Peter Bowler's interview

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/06/creationists_defend_darwin_fil.html

Posted: Monday, June 22, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 25 of 25 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #390000 by Szkeptik on June 22, 2009 at 7:00 am

I don't know which is more disgusting. What they do or how they have no problem openly acknowledging that they do it.

Other Comments by Szkeptik

2. Comment #390005 by mixmastergaz on June 22, 2009 at 7:19 am

I think the admission of deliberately dishonest tactics is (slightly) more disgusting. They don't even have the decency to pretend that they aren't in the business of deception!

However, I doubt whether their turgid propaganda will reach anyone other than those who already agree with its message. They only listen to each other.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

3. Comment #390009 by NewEnglandBob on June 22, 2009 at 7:28 am

Why is anyone surprised that creotards would pull these disgusting tactics? This is how they operate. They must be constantly challenged and exposed for their bullshit.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

4. Comment #390013 by Ygern on June 22, 2009 at 7:35 am

Bill Maher admitted lying too to get into some of the interviews he did for "Religulous"; although I should imagine that the moment he showed his face the interviewee knew what side he was batting for. Still, I wish he hadn't stooped to those tactics.

Other Comments by Ygern

5. Comment #390015 by ashley on June 22, 2009 at 7:38 am

You are notorious for deception, and in particular for distorting the views of those you argue with. Consequently nobody you disagree with will let you interview them.

Do you:
a) Stop lying so people might start trusting you?
b) Lie even more, so you can get interviews anyway?

If you think b) is justified, you're probably dumb enough to think the earth is 6000 years old.

Other Comments by ashley

6. Comment #390019 by Follow Peter Egan on June 22, 2009 at 7:55 am

The comments at the bottom of the link are well worth reading as well.

There's the usual polarisation between reason and fuckwittedness that's always fun.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

7. Comment #390025 by EvidenceOnly on June 22, 2009 at 8:03 am

Once you claim that the superstition of the bible is truth and nothing but the truth (the original lie) and the source of all morality that should be imposed on society, then lying for jesus with conviction is morally justified and nothing to be ashamed of.

Yet another example that superstition can never be reconciled with reason and science.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

8. Comment #390033 by CaptainMandate on June 22, 2009 at 8:33 am

jesus loves a liar

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

9. Comment #390075 by The Hogfather on June 22, 2009 at 10:58 am

"At the end of the day," he said, "[when] people see 'Creationist', instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to."

Yes, and is it any wonder that the bleedin "shutters go up" when:

a) You behave in this kind of manner- lying to get interviews, which you then in turn distort.

b) Talk pulpable nonsense pretty much all the time.

C) Continue talking about a subject that you obviously no nothing about, and then have the audacity to claim it is those who know something about that subject who are lying/idiots (delete as appropriate).

Other Comments by The Hogfather

10. Comment #390079 by The Hogfather on June 22, 2009 at 11:05 am

Whilst Bill Maher shouldn't have stooped to these kind of tactics either, at least he has the slight excuse that he was only ever making a fairly light-hearted film. These creotards on the other hand seem to be basing a substantial portion of their arguments on the information gleaned from films in which they are lying to get interviews!!!!

Other Comments by The Hogfather

11. Comment #390083 by Rich Wiltshir on June 22, 2009 at 11:12 am

We know they've a long, long history of misunderstanding and misrepresentation, surely this is just more evidence supporting the increasingly popular and accepted theory that there's nothing of substance in their drivel.

Ok, so it's annoying, but doesn't it also show what a desperate state they're in.

Other Comments by Rich Wiltshir

12. Comment #390090 by mlgatheist on June 22, 2009 at 11:19 am

However, I doubt whether their turgid propaganda will reach anyone other than those who already agree with its message. They only listen to each other.

Unfortunately this film will probably be shown to school children, by teachers who are believers, and some children will never be able to see that the film is garbage. They may never be able to accept the fact of Evolution because some of their critical though processes could be damaged by this film.

Limit the film to adults only and I would agree with your assessment.

Other Comments by mlgatheist

13. Comment #390094 by Rich Wiltshir on June 22, 2009 at 11:24 am

Too true mlgathiest. But will the film authorities concur£

Other Comments by Rich Wiltshir

14. Comment #390097 by Mr DArcy on June 22, 2009 at 11:28 am

So I take it that no new (or old) evidence has been presented in favour of ID? One poster on the above blog got caught red-handed quoting (Copy and Paste) from Kent Hovind's site regarding the eye, and how it would explode if the pressures weren't just right etc etc.

They (YECs), must, and they do, think that most people are bloody idiots. All caused by original sin of course!

Well must go now, the velociraptor needs feeding.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

15. Comment #390098 by KRKBAB on June 22, 2009 at 11:29 am

I might not hesitate to say that showing that film to children constitutes child abuse. If it is instilling patently false claims and at the same time discrediting and distorting critical thinking to impressionable young minds- yup- that's child abuse in my estimation.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

16. Comment #390128 by Pilot22A on June 22, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Surely a cautionary tale. Professor Bowler will certainly be more careful next time. He's not alone. Other people have been sucked in by these sham producers.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

17. Comment #390164 by TGarrett on June 22, 2009 at 3:27 pm

I heard they tried to get Daniel Dennett to play the older Darwin but Dan was on to them in time.

Other Comments by TGarrett

18. Comment #390203 by MM5 on June 22, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Yer I remember being shown discovery institute videos when I was 11 (something about peanut butter and life) and I still believed a lot of the arguments from it for about a year and a half after my deconversion.

Creationists have no trouble lying to children. I had a religious studies cover teacher who told my AS class that Cambridge University officially rejected evolution. It's scary that these people can indoctrinate young children.

Other Comments by MM5

19. Comment #390206 by black wolf on June 22, 2009 at 5:55 pm

"We are really disappointed that people don't want to speak to us because they fear we'll lie about what they think. Therefore we have resolved to 'lie' more often than before in order to get people to talk to us whose opinions we will then 'lie' about after recording them.
How dare they mistrust us. Christians aren't allowed to lie. Repenting of sin must be sincere, so pretending is ruled out of course. This means that whenever we lie, we don't. We're being judged unfairly.
Should anyone get any funny ideas about calling us false converts or not true Christians, they are. So there."

There is only one rule when speaking to creationists: if you don't agree with them, they will lie to you. They have no problems whatsoever constantly lying to the people they love most - their own children. So why should you even make a bump on the chart?
They are not interested in even glancing at the evidence they demand from you.
They are not interested in providing the evidence they claim to have for their assertions.

They are right. There is no other option.

Other Comments by black wolf

20. Comment #390217 by Michael Gray on June 22, 2009 at 6:40 pm

So, Prof Dawkins is not the only one to have received this duplicitous treatment.

Other Comments by Michael Gray

21. Comment #390220 by robotaholic on June 22, 2009 at 6:52 pm

...researching Darwinism...

Do they mean early forms of evolutionary theory that excluded heredity? or does that mean natural selection?

well I gotta get back to my Einsteinism research

Other Comments by robotaholic

22. Comment #390273 by mixmastergaz on June 23, 2009 at 1:29 am

mlgatheist

I hope you're wrong about that. My partner is a school teacher and she wouldn't dream of showing her students something so obviously biased. In fact, as I understand it, teachers are only allowed to expose their students to polemical material if a counter-balance is also presented to them. I've shown my (6th form) students snippets of creationist material, but then I've also shown them extracts from some of the DVDs available on this website. However, on reflection, I suppose there's a danger that faith schools may not feel the obligation to maintain balance. The thing to do, I suppose, is kick-up a fuss so that no one could watch the film unaware of its controversies, just as people rightly did about the films of Michael Moore. No one could claim to be ignorant of the highly selective and partial stance of Moore's films. We need to make sure that same can be said of this current dishonest piece of creationist trash.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

23. Comment #390333 by PERSON on June 23, 2009 at 4:59 am

I don't think showing such a film would damage critical thinking. However, it wouldn't permit it to develop.

Other Comments by PERSON

24. Comment #390480 by Contrivanced on June 23, 2009 at 11:39 am