Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Page #7

that court case.

So people like me

are bad news

For the science lobby,

the evolution lobby.

By the way, i'm being

a hell of a lot

More frank and honest

in this interview

Than many people

in this field would be.

Man:
working hard

to keep ideas in check

Are our friends

in the media.

Morning paper!

Paper, mister?

The tendency

of the media is to side

with the establishment

Because they inherently agree

with the establishment.

Abrams:
eugenie scott,

my understanding is

That there is not a single

peer-reviewed article out there

That supports intelligent

design. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong.

You are correct.

I believe that

we get coverage,

But we always get coverage

like we're the outsider,

Not like it's

an even debate.

Filmstrip narrator:

but instead of merely

reporting news,

He analyzes it,

often expressing

his personal opinions.

We constantly deal

with reporters

Who refuse even to report

The correct definition

of intelligent design.

They, over and over again,

talk about

"life is so complex,

god must've done it."

- meyer:
let me explain--

- abrams:
admit it,

it's religion.

- it's very simple.

- you can't--it's religion.

It's a wanton distortion

of our position.

[phone rings]

City desk.

I've got

a hot story here.

You can look at

associated press stories,

And the same sentence will

appear in those stories

for 10 years:

"intelligent design says

that life is too complex."

It's called a boilerplate.

And the reporter

never reports any more

Or gets any new ways

to say it,

So the public understanding

never advances.

But what happens

if a reporter

Decides to take

a more balanced approach

to intelligent design?

There might be remarkable

pressure on that reporter

Not to side against

the evolutionists.

I thought I told you

to kill that story.

Few reporters

have learned this better

Than author and journalist

pamela winnick.

When she refused

to take sides

In an article she wrote

about intelligent design,

The darwinists

found a new favorite target.

Number one--

I wasn't christian,

I was jewish.

Number two--

I wasn't religious.

Number three--

I was not taking

A position in favor

of creationism.

I was writing about

intelligent design.

And it didn't matter.

After I wrote

that one piece,

Everything I wrote

on the subject

was scrutinized.

There were hate letters

coming into the newspaper.

If you give any credence

to it whatsoever,

Which means

just writing about it,

You are just finished

as a journalist.

Other journalists

we spoke with

Told similar stories

but didn't dare

appear on camera.

Filmstrip narrator:

and now the presses

are ready to roll.

Man:
when all other

checkpoints fail,

There's always the courts.

We have spent

an enormous amount of time

Trying to prove

to the court

What everybody

already knows,

That intelligent design

Is a particular

religious belief.

But I thought

scientific questions

Were settled

by the evidence,

Not by taking people

to court and suing them.

How do other countries

deal with such disputes?

Dr. Marciej giertych,

a population geneticist

Who now represents poland

in the european parliament,

Was able to shed

some light on this topic.

Giertych:

the censorship of

Teaching criticism

of evolution

Is and always was

much stronger in,

Say, your country,

the United States,

Than it ever was

in poland.

Why? Why would

the censorship--

That is because you have

a political correctness

in your country.

These issues

are brought to court,

And the court says

What you can

and what you cannot teach.

We want to know

what you teach,

What books you use,

how you teach it.

We never had

that sort of way

Of deciding

scientific issues

in poland.

We never had

the courts involved.

So you are saying that

As far as the teaching

of science is concerned,

Poland is freer academically

than the United States?

I think--in this

particular issue

Of evolution,

I think this is true.

But how effective

are the courts

In deciding such matters?

What about

the general idea that

intelligent design

Is doomed as a result

of several recent

legal setbacks?

I think court cases

don't decide anything.

If you look at

the scopes trial,

who won that trial?

It wasn't

the evolutionists.

It was the--

The tennessee law was upheld,

barring evolution,

And yet in the popular

imagination,

Scopes is the hero.

Inherit the wind--

that movie--

Which is really bogus history

based on the scopes trial,

Has carried the day.

These issues go much deeper

than any decision by a judge.

The evolution debate

Does seem to run much deeper

than the courts,

Much deeper even

than science.

To generate

this level of hostility,

Id must threaten something

at the very core

Of the darwinian

establishment.

Filmstrip narrator:

the entire globe

Is today the site

of a momentous conflict.

It is the challenge

of ideas.

I'm edward r. Murrow.

For a little while,

I would like to review

with you

The great conflict

of our times,

One which demands

and must get

The attention

and the involvement

Of each one of us.

This conflict

Over the principles

of evolution

Has become

a religious war.

It really is no longer

about scientific

investigation.

It is total competition

with an antagonist

Who is putting into it

Everything

within his capability.

The situation

has reached a point

Where many

of evolution's top apologists

Have switched

from defending darwinism

To attacking religion,

in what they see as a bid

To stamp out

intelligent design

at the source.

Richard dawkins

is the best example of this.

His recent book,

the god delusion,

Has sold over

one million copies worldwide.

The god delusion

Is my long-expected,

long-worked-on,

Full-frontal attack

on religion.

To me, science is about

trying to explain existence,

And religion is about

trying to explain existence.

It's just that religion

gets the wrong answer.

But is dawkins correct?

Are science and religion

really at war?

For an appraisal

of this continuing

and protracted conflict,

We can go to a reporter

Who has watched

the growing conflict

With the perception of

a trained military observer.

Oxford professor

alister mcgrath,

Author of

the dawkins delusion,

Seemed like the ideal person

to answer my question.

Mcgrath:
richard dawkins

has a charming

And very, I think,

interesting view

Of the relationship

between science and religion.

They're at war

with each other,

And in the end,

one's got to win.

And it's going

to be science.

It's a very naive view.

It's based on

a complete historical

misrepresentation

Of the way

science and religion

have interacted.

Dawkins seems to think

that scientific description

Is an anti-religious

argument.

Describing

how something happens

scientifically

Somehow explains it away.

It doesn't.

But the questions

of purpose, intentionality,

The question why,

Still remain there

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes