So you are just saying the Michael Mooreons got a taste of their own medicine?
No, and that's what so frustrating about this. The "Michael Mooreons" weren't even the target. Who was targeted? The University of Iowa, the Smithsonian Institute and other academic institutions along with the "main bad guy" Richard Dawkins.
I don't know Dawkins, but I've read his books and enjoyed them, though I reach different conclusions at the end than he does. And one thing I know about Dawkins personally is a rather touching detail. His only child was born with Multiple Sclerosis. According to Ben Stein, Dawkins wants people like this "euthanized" so that our lives and our gene pool isn't troubled by their existence.
Instead, Dawkins and his wife dedicated themselves to this child. They rotated sabbaticals and time off to make certain that one of them was always with her. Dawkins had the means to simply warehouse the child in a nice nursing home or to hire out a staff of full time care givers so that he wouldn't be troubled with this "inconvenience."
But he and his wife nurtured their child. Their daughter was born with such a severity of disease that there was no hope that she would live even until puberty. What happened though was the stuff of real family love. Dawkins and his wife nurtured this "wasted" and "useless" life giving her such inner strength the she lived well into her twenties. The fact that the young lady lived - and not only lived but thrived in the midst of such adversity tells me that she must have been loved a great deal by her parents.
So, if you were a film maker - why would you go out of your way to slam a guy like Dawkins and try to tie him in with Hitler's mania for death? Dawkins has proven himself in the area that matters most to me - as a father.
No, and that's what so frustrating about this. The "Michael Mooreons" weren't even the target. Who was targeted? The University of Iowa, the Smithsonian Institute and other academic institutions along with the "main bad guy" Richard Dawkins.
I don't know Dawkins, but I've read his books and enjoyed them, though I reach different conclusions at the end than he does. And one thing I know about Dawkins personally is a rather touching detail. His only child was born with Multiple Sclerosis. According to Ben Stein, Dawkins wants people like this "euthanized" so that our lives and our gene pool isn't troubled by their existence.
Instead, Dawkins and his wife dedicated themselves to this child. They rotated sabbaticals and time off to make certain that one of them was always with her. Dawkins had the means to simply warehouse the child in a nice nursing home or to hire out a staff of full time care givers so that he wouldn't be troubled with this "inconvenience."
But he and his wife nurtured their child. Their daughter was born with such a severity of disease that there was no hope that she would live even until puberty. What happened though was the stuff of real family love. Dawkins and his wife nurtured this "wasted" and "useless" life giving her such inner strength the she lived well into her twenties. The fact that the young lady lived - and not only lived but thrived in the midst of such adversity tells me that she must have been loved a great deal by her parents.
So, if you were a film maker - why would you go out of your way to slam a guy like Dawkins and try to tie him in with Hitler's mania for death? Dawkins has proven himself in the area that matters most to me - as a father.
You mean an atheist has the fruit of the spirit? That's weird!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
No, and that's what so frustrating about this. The "Michael Mooreons" weren't even the target. Who was targeted? The University of Iowa, the Smithsonian Institute and other academic institutions along with the "main bad guy" Richard Dawkins.
I don't know Dawkins, but I've read his books and enjoyed them, though I reach different conclusions at the end than he does. And one thing I know about Dawkins personally is a rather touching detail. His only child was born with Multiple Sclerosis. According to Ben Stein, Dawkins wants people like this "euthanized" so that our lives and our gene pool isn't troubled by their existence.
Instead, Dawkins and his wife dedicated themselves to this child. They rotated sabbaticals and time off to make certain that one of them was always with her. Dawkins had the means to simply warehouse the child in a nice nursing home or to hire out a staff of full time care givers so that he wouldn't be troubled with this "inconvenience."
But he and his wife nurtured their child. Their daughter was born with such a severity of disease that there was no hope that she would live even until puberty. What happened though was the stuff of real family love. Dawkins and his wife nurtured this "wasted" and "useless" life giving her such inner strength the she lived well into her twenties. The fact that the young lady lived - and not only lived but thrived in the midst of such adversity tells me that she must have been loved a great deal by her parents.
So, if you were a film maker - why would you go out of your way to slam a guy like Dawkins and try to tie him in with Hitler's mania for death? Dawkins has proven himself in the area that matters most to me - as a father.
What? First, Dawkins home life has absolutely zero bearing on the movie Expelled (get serious). Now for the nice guy Dawkins who goes after really nice people (like those who believe in God, and those who disagree with Atheistic Materialism which happens to be philosophy and not science). Are we talking about the same Richard Dawkins who has a daughter named Juliet Emma Dawkins (who I don't believe is suffering any serious illness)? The same Richard Dawkins who divorced her mother, Eve Barham? The same Richard Dawkins who so proudly sent Juliet the following letter when she was 10 years old?:
Just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same Richard Dawkins. But once again, it wouldn't matter if Dawkins was a prince or a jerk who would send his 10 year old daughter a letter trying to convince her there is no God (readers can decide that one), it has zero bearing on the movie Expelled.
I have just returned from seeing Ben Stein's flick "Expelled." It really was the propaganda piece that I had heard it was. One thing to look for when you watch is Ben's changing hair style. It's obvious that the film was made over at least two disparate time spans. He goes from close cropped to quite a bit fuller, back to close cropped. I like Ben, but I think he's been taken for a ride on this one.
Also the funding is still a bit hazy. The Washington Times (owned by the Unification Church), the Discovery Institute in Seattle (Moonie funded) and the outspoken Moonie evangelist Jonathan Wells are all featured prominently.
The opening "Expelled" victim, Richard Sternberg of the prestigious Smithsonian Institute is really played up. "Those people" (evilutionists) drove this poor man from his respected position at the Smithsonian and "nearly ruined his life..." The truth is far different, of course. Richard Sternberg was an unpaid research assistant at the Smithsonian - he didn't even have a "job" there to lose! And further, the article that he rushed into print that caused the minor furor and embarassment was never reviewed by any one other than himself; a clear violation of the publication's peer review policy. The guy seems to have basically lied to Ben Stein and the film's producers- or they were all in on the deception together. And this after he lied to the editorial board and the journal's readers. It's hard to feel sorry for this guy.
The propaganda around here is coming from you, not the movie. First, a quick quote from Richard Sternberg's website:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternberg
I hold two PhDs in the area of evolutionary biology, one in molecular (DNA) evolution and the other in systems theory and theoretical biology. I have published more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications. My current areas of research and writing are primarily in the areas of evolutionary theory and systematics.
In the case of the Meyer paper, I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy.
The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial criticism and feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper in response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."
Following my resignation in October 2003, a new managing editor for the Proceedings was selected in May of 2004, and the transition from my editorship to the new editor has taken place over the past few months. By the time that the controversy emerged I was finishing up my last editorial responsibilities. Thus, my stepping down had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper.
Are you suggesting that there were congressional investigations simply because there were a few mean emails? Ridiculous. For anyone interested, you can read the congressional reports at the site, and much more. Here's the link:
Linear Mode
