Today's New York Times has a story up on the upcoming Ben Stein "documentary" on the alleged persecution that ID proponents face in the academic world. The NYT article quotes a number of scientists who were interviewed for the movie (including Scienceblogs own PZ Myers) as saying that they were told that the interview was going to be for an entirely different movie.
Bill Dembski posted something about the article, with a brief comment of his own:
I can't say I feel sorry for these atheistic scientists in agreeing to interview for EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. When the BBC interviewed me for their Horizon documentary on ID (Horizon = the UK version of PBS Nova), they gave the ID side no warning that the program would be titled A WAR ON SCIENCE (I wouldn't have agreed to be interviewed had I known that was going to be its title). What goes around comes around.
They shouldn't complain about what was done unto them because somebody once did something like that unto you. Way to show that good old Christian attitude, Bill.
- Log in to post comments
Because he has such high standards for civil discourse. (fart noise)
It's a wonder how he keeps all that persecution complex contained under that sweater.
Short answer - He could not be any more toolish...
Big Question: How Will Dembski Bring Teh Crazy Next?
For the answer, go to ATBC
Feel free to read and respond
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46fbe70c…
Note how specific Dembski's example is. While it's possible that the Horizon producers did not let him know what kind of tone the program would take, all Dembski says is that they didn't tell him what the title would be. Heck, I doubt the title was settled when his interview was conducted.
There's a difference here; Horizon (formerly a great show, not anymore) may not have expressed the title of the movie, but the Expelled producers explicitly said that they were making a different film. PZ was told that he was being interviewed for a documentary regarding the "disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement." In reality he was being filmed for a production on supposed supression of ID views.
In other words, quite a big difference.
I find Dembski fascinating. He's obviously a clever and educated guy (he has PhDs, after all). However, his social skills seem to be subzero. He knows absolutely nothing about how to behave towards his fellow human beings. Doesn't this look like some sort of Asperger syndrom ?
It's possible Dembski didn't realise that the Horizon show would be hostile to ID, but if so, it says more about his intelligence and self-awareness or lack thereof than about Horizon. ID is a war on science and in most of the world everyone understands that now - see the various pronouncements by EU governments, including the UK's. The Wedge document is perfectly explicit about that, even before you go into the substance of ID, which is all about stopping inquiry.
I can't say I feel sorry for these atheistic scientists in agreeing to interview for EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. When the BBC interviewed me ... they gave the ID side no warning that the program would be titled A WAR ON SCIENCE ... What goes around comes around.
That would be more of a reason for Bill to feel sorry for them rather than a reason for NOT feeling sorry for them, wouldn't it? Oh yeah I forgot they're atheistic scientists.
I swear this is like something right out of STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, or maybe from THE LEMON GROVE KIDS MEET THE GREEN GRASSHOPPER AND THE VAMPIRE LADY FROM OUTER SPACE.
Quiz for Dr. Dembski:
Cite the source for the following quote:
What does this have to do with Bill Dembski?
I dunno. I'd like to think that I'd have a little empathy towards those who were wronged in the same way that I was wronged, especially since the individual who was wronged had nothing to do with wronging me. Maybe it's because all of the "atheistic scientists" are part of the same cabal as the BBC in driving the evolutionist conspiracy...?
This is the same kind of "logic" that leads to different ethnic and/or religious organizations around the world to murder citizens of the other side because of percieved wrongs done to some of the in-group. I know that's an extreme statement, but if you follow Dembski's comments to their logical conclusion, I think you'll agree.
Please ignore my first comment. I read it as:
"The NYT article interviewed a number of scientists abot the movie..."
I guess my reading comp. needs a tuneup.
Jeeze. And that should be "about", not "abot".
So in short, Bill's answer to the immoral creationist is a childish morality of "something bad happened to me so I don't care if something bad happens to other people."
DragonScholar--
You meant 'immoral evolutionist'? (If you did, it was a rather pleasant Freudian slip.)