aziz
-
09:21:20 am on April 29, 2008 | # | |
Derbyshire lambasts Ben Stein, calling Expelled a “blood libel against Western Civilization”
-
Tag this post
Comments
Join the Discussion
Talk Islam
-
Would you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
DISCLAIMER: Please see the About Talk Islam page for fair use issues and our privacy policy.
DONATE: Talk Islam needs your support!
-
traffic stats
Willow 10:35 am on April 29, 2008 | #
I cannot believe this man is paid to do this. What tripe. He hasn’t even seen the movie or spoken with Ben Stein. Then he sets up the most outrageous red herring imaginable…the secret behind this movie must be *Saudi money*. Why? Because all bad things have Saudi money behind them, and Saudis are creationists. But wait, Ben Stein is Jewish and wealthy. Must not be that. But I sure have planted that meme right in your little minds.
Don’t get me wrong, I think intelligent design is eye-rollingly inane, but Derbyshire has managed to elicit yet more of my disgust than the theory itself.
aziz 11:06 am on April 29, 2008 | #
I don’t think that watching Expelled is really necessary to know it is tripe. So I don’t fault Derb on that. I agree that Derb has some inane ideas and assumptions, but I also don’t see him as a JAFI at all. In fact he has spoken highly, even enviously, in defense of mainstream Islam - including these words to me via email:
He also approvingly posted an email I had sent him at NRO’s The Corner.
razib 11:55 am on April 29, 2008 | #
look below the surface
i’m having lunch with john this saturday, if you want me to pass on a question willow i will….
razib 11:58 am on April 29, 2008 | #
btw, i’m sure john’s suspicion about saudis has been heightened by he fact that every other academic biologist in the western world has received a copy of harun yahya’s “book” (i’m not exaggerating). someone with serious money is behind yahya, and american creationist press’ are now doing good business reprinting their works in the muslim world.
aziz 12:16 pm on April 29, 2008 | #
razib, show him Talk Islam!
A specific question for him would be whether he thinks there is room to grow genuine conservatism under the Democratic Party tent.
Willow 12:46 pm on April 29, 2008 | #
There’s no excuse not to see or read material you plan to take an ‘expert’ stance on. Was it also not necessary to read Satanic Verses to know that the author should be demonized? A lot of people thought so. Look how that turned out. If this is the standard we’ve set for public figures then we’re right on par with the very Saudis who do in fact (I’m not disputing it) finance similar crap. It’s just incredibly dishonest.
Here’s my question for Mr. Derbyshire, then, Razib: how can we expect the pseudo-scientists and the fanatics to adhere to basic standards of intellectual honesty (ie, at least have the decency to read the book/see the film before you decide to burn it/murder the director) when we’re too lazy to do so ourselves?
aziz 1:28 pm on April 29, 2008 | #
G, I’ll grant you the Rushdie, but counter with a Truther. Surely we aren’t required to sit through the latter’s various “expose the truth” propaganda before passing judgement?
Willow 3:46 pm on April 29, 2008 | #
We aren’t if we’re average citizens who simply want to avoid propagandist pap. But I should hope that a public figure who’s made it his or her business to debunk or resist such fallacies would at least familiarize him/herself with his/her opponent’s work. When I was writing more commentary and analysis I would never have dreamed of publishing a piece about a book or a film I hadn’t even bothered to see, no matter how distasteful I found the subject. I’m not trying to set myself up as some kind of shining example, I’m simply trying to explain why I am so baffled by the fact that gathering evidence before forming an opinion is no longer standard operating procedure for anybody, including those who claim it should be…
Anyway, it’s not worth hammering any further into the ground than it’s already been hammered.
razib 6:57 pm on April 29, 2008 | #
“But I should hope that a public figure who’s made it his or her business to debunk or resist such fallacies would at least familiarize him/herself with his/her opponent’s work.”
this is a fair point. but i can attest to you that ‘expelled’ has nothing new to familiarize yourself with. the exposition is far more truncated than any creationist/ID tract in terms of details; of which john is familiar with (he was invited to any ID conference once i think). if you read any of the reviews of ‘expelled’ it’s pretty clear that there’s zero new substance, just a more polished delivery.
(and with something like this, i think by its format a film is going to add less data than print ceteris paribus)
Steve 1:42 pm on April 30, 2008 | #
Yeah, and the global warming scientists “consensus” can’t be contested or contradicted either, right? Stein’s first main point, at least to me, is that it is being forbidden to even discuss it or present it, and if you do, you get punished. IT IS FORBIDDEN, or to follow his analogy, if you are on this side of the wall, you are not allowed to think differently.
His other point was that there is no scientific answer to the question, “Where or how did life begin?” It is a simple question, but it stymied them all. And, that’s ok, but it is at that point that other inquiries, in an academic setting at least, should be discussed.
Third point was that Darwinian evolutionary theory does NOT account for facts, so the theory should be abandonded, modified, but at least debated and alternative theories or hypotheses allowed. They ARE not.
For Derb, its settled what it is NOT, so he won’t allow it. His worldview won’t permit it and won’t allow for an alternatve view in anyone else. Derb sees religious bias in Stein so Stein HAS to be off base.
I see it in Derb. Why is Derb’s bias more unbiased?