“Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope.”
P.J. O’Rourke

Of course, the only people who shoot cows with high-powered rifles are the idiots who can’t tell cows from deer.

No. They just know that if you give someone many minutes of “talk”, they will find a way to twist your words in order to distort them.

“I think it’s rather premature to argue about something that hasn’t been released yet.”

Fine. Then let’s argue about all the lies that appear on their website. Wait – that’s a fact – there cannot be an argument. “ideas suppressed” LOL This is the time of the Spanish Inquisition and heretics are put in prison or worse? silly silly silly

“it can’t be any more biased (or untruthful) than the recent Moore or Gore documentaries”

And you wish to register approval of such terribly biased “mockumentaries”? Let’s mock 100 years of biological research? stupid stupid stupid

“But, I at least hope for truthfulness.”

If they were truthful, they wouldn’t waste their money on this topic. The truth is sooo boring, no one would bother to go see such a movie. An editor, as his last act, gets a off-topic article published and suffers NO consequences except that real scientists are really irked. How exciting! A professor fails to publish, gets no grant money, and teaches no students – then fails to be granted tenure. How exciting! NOT.

A review of the “director’s cut” by one side indicates that it is very biased towards the other side.

So, who’s to say which side is biased more than the other?

If the other side had really known what the bias of the film would be, it is very likely that they would have declined to be interviewed.

Really? Are they that insecure? Or, would they have changed in any way what their answers to the questions were?

Let’s just take a deep breath, be patient, and let the film be released. I think it’s rather premature to argue about something that hasn’t been released yet. Besides, I would expect a documentary to be biased. And, as I said above, it can’t be any more biased (or untruthful) than the recent Moore or Gore documentaries. But, I at least hope for truthfulness.

A review of the “director’s cut” by one side indicates that it is very biased towards the other side.

The purpose of the film is to make political mountains out of some tiny molehills. If a lawsuit won’t fly, make a film.

“I can’t wait to hear what he, and the others on all sides of the issue, have to say.”

But you will be hearing what the director has allowed the other side to say. Take an hour of film using a misleading title and edit it to say what? Person X interviews someone on the other side and asks question Y. Then Ben Stein is shown in the film asking question Z. Then part of the answer to question Y is shown as the answer to question Z?

If the other side had really known what the bias of the film would be, it is very likely that they would have declined to be interviewed.

“We all believe that the universe operates by sets of rules.”

Maybe so, but my definition of supernatural is something that operates outside of the “natural” rules. Do you have some good “supernatural” rules? Rule 1: don’t create a worldwide flood without a good reason. Rule 2: don’t create a new species if it will cause the extinction of more than 10 existing species. Rule 3: don’t send that hurricane to Florida if thay have already had 2 bad hurricanes this year. These rules seem rather arbitrary to me.

It would be helpful if every discussion started with a definition of terms.

But I see these possible stumbling blocks to clear discussion terms (on various sites):

1. CREATIONIST – formerly used to describe persons who believe in literal 24 hour days, and would be of the Christian faith. Other Christians might have somewhat different views of HOW God created the earth.

2. CREATIONIST is also used to describe anyone in the “intelligent design” tent. This could include an agnostic, a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, and others. These people see some kind of “intelligent designer”. Once again, they need not subscribe to one particular faith, or even any faith.
————
I have read various posts where people assume a “creationist” is just LURKING AROUND THE CORNER with a big NET to set up a THEOCRACY. (The people with this fear obviously have forgotten or never learned the full history of this country!!!)

Ben Stein, a devout practing Jew with a movie coming out about designer versus no designer and censorship of the discussion, would be a “creationist” under definition two but NOT under definition one.

I’ve read people who have blurred the two “CREATIONIST” definitions criticize him by assuming he’s something he’s not – some one of the Christian faith with a specific view of Genesis that I don’t think Stein may hold. (Actually I am not sure of Stein’s EXACT view of HOW God did it.)