Flock of Dodos on Showtime on Thursday

| 8 Comments

This just in from Randy Olson. Free to forward:

FLOCK OF DODOS airing on Showtime Thursday May 17 at 8:30 EST/PST

Also, for further entertainment, check out “Pulled Punches” – a 6 minute video of material left out of “Flock of Dodos”:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/[…]as_on_yo.php

And the Discovery Institute’s mad scramble to protest the airing on Showtime:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/0[…]mmakers.html

Top quote from the “pulled punches” segment:

“My kids don’t go to public schools, what do I care?” – Michael Behe

Evidently the Discovery Institute, fans of freedom of expression that it is, is badgering Showtime with lawyers to try and block tomorrow’s viewing. I don’t think there is a chance in heck that will work, but it is always interesting to contrast actions with rhetoric.

Here is the “Pulled Punches” clip on YouTube:

8 Comments

Tivo’d

Showtime’s Bullshit episode on creationism is pretty entertaining too.

Anika Smith Wrote:

Perhaps the most outlandish error is the claim that modern biology textbooks have not used illustrations derived from Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent 19th century embryo drawings as evidence for evolution. Contrary to Olson’s film, these bogus drawings that misstate the evidence for evolution have been endlessly recycled in modern textbooks, a fact that even noted evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admitted. Yet Olson tries to convince viewers that critics of Darwin’s theory have been lying when they claim these drawings are in textbooks. But it turns out that he’s the one telling fibs.

Just keep spewing those lies, I mean it’s not like anybody has debunked this line of reasoning yet. Has anybody from the Center for Science and Culture responded to the criticisms of their claim? I saw the “Hoax of Dodo’s” video, but it’s rather unconvincing at addressing the argument. Sure, I can see the picture of Haeckel’s drawing, but what does this prove? Could you show me a quote from the textbook describing the theory of recapitulation and how it used by biologists today? It seems that would have made a better point, instead we got that lame video.

Took me a while, but then I am a pinhead:

Grady ==> Grade: D.

Triumph of the Ill.

Subtitle, The Triumph of the Will

Make the joke two or three more times, I’m sure that’ll make it funny.

I remember some of the frustration biologists had back in the 1970s and 1980s with the textbooks used in the public schools. They complained but it didn’t have as much effect as the political activities of the creationists in Texas and other states that had statewide textbook adoption procedures (remember the Gablers?). The publishing industry didn’t want to change the textbooks for fear that controversy over evolution would reduce sales. That left a lot of awfully crappy stuff in the texts that were floating around back then.

It’s ironic that the ID crowd is trying to blame biologists for something the creationists and scientific creationists were primarily responsible for. Biologists were trying to improve the texts, not engaging in cover-ups. Creationist political activity was getting in the way.

Jack Cashill’s yarn about Gould and the biologist cover-up needs to find its way into the gallery of quote-mines and fabrications that has become one of the primary hallmarks of their sleazy tactics. With these outtakes now made public, Cashill’s statement that the movie “made everyone look as they thought they looked” is clearly false. But then, given their sheltered venues in front of naive followers, they have never completely grasped how stupid they actually appear.

Just watched the show. Thought it was pretty good. Although why a film maker would bring only two cameras and one microphone to a poker party with eight people is not obvious to me.

The part where they looked in the textbooks for the embryo drawings was priceless. The guy had the books right there and made factual claims about what was in them. Not only had he not looked at the books but he didn’t even want to! That pretty much sums up ID right there.

Favorite quote was something like the evolutionists “blind reliance on truth” and the ID “belief in spite of the truth” or something like that.

I just watched the program. It certainly had its moments, but on the whole I thought it was pretty weak.

I was really hoping for a much more robust attack on creationist idiocy.

Oh, well . … . … .

What’s most poignant is a comparison of this to the film crew that cut Dawkins up to look like he had no idea what information was.

Olson held back the most damning material and their side made some up.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on May 16, 2007 9:08 PM.

ACSI v. Stearns, aka Wendell Bird vs. UC was the previous entry in this blog.

Intelligent Design and the Family is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter