Several scientists are claiming that they were misled about a new intelligent design film, the New York Times reported. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says that he was asked to be interviewed for a film about the intersection of faith and science to be titled "Crossroads." Instead, the film, which will be released next year, is now titled, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," and is about academia’s alleged intolerance and suppression of those who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes. "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," Dawkins said.
Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist who heads the National Center for Science Education, said she is willing to appear in films in which people’s views are different from hers. "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t," she said.
But a producer of the film denied that there was any deception about what the film was about, and said the film’s name change was just a marketing decision.
If the filmmakers were a bit deceptive, is that OK, given that Michael Moore does that? Or would that go against the religious views the film promotes?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
"Childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured." — President Bush, touting national test scores Wednesday, providing a nice companion to his famous 2000 quote "Is our children learning?"
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Bill O’Reilly is under fire for some recent racial comments, but some of it has been taken out of context. O’Reilly tried to relate on his radio talk show how a couple of experiences showed him how we share the same American dream, regardless of race, and how rap stereotypes aren’t representative of African-Americans.
Some liberal critics have taken the comments out of context to make them seem more offensive — such as his surprise that eating at a restaurant in Harlem was like eating at any other restaurant in New York City. But the New York Times media blogger argued this was no “Imus Moment.” O’Reilly’s comments, he argued, show how sheltered O’Reilly has been and may possibly reflect a "casual racism," but that they were intended to report his conversion to a new way of thinking.
Still, as one blogger sarcastically applauded: “Congratulations, Bill. It took you half a century to figure out that Flava Flav does not represent the behavior of all black people. Next week perhaps you’ll learn that every Jewish person doesn’t act like Jackie Mason and every white person doesn’t act like Larry the Cable Guy.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
In 2007, a time of terrorism and identity theft, no one should be able to vote without showing a photo identification card. That only makes sense, right? But some voting rights activists persuasively argue that because there are costs associated with acquiring a photo ID, such a mandate is an unconstitutional poll tax that disenfranchises voters. There is enough confusion about the issue in state courts around the country that it comes as a relief that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on Indiana’s voter ID law. Given the leanings of the Roberts court, some voter ID opponents aren’t hopeful that justices will see things their way, but the court’s consideration is warranted.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
When all the facts are in, the death of Sedgwick County fire Lt. Bryon Johnson may be judged an unavoidable freak accident. But it’s appropriate for authorities to have launched three investigations into Johnson’s electrocution, which occurred as he fought a grass fire ignited by a power line downed when a truck hit a utility pole. And it’s not too soon to take away one essential lesson from the tragedy: Drivers should never ignore detour signs.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
