A while ago atheists quite rightly criticized the movie Expelled for dishonest interviewing and editing. As a Christian I was embarrassed that others could produce such a dishonest movie, yet I feel exactly the same about the movie Religulous.
“Ken Ham”:http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/10/04/religulous%E2%80%94vulgar-and-blasphemous/ (who I wouldn’t normally have much time for) wrote on his blog on the 4th of October:
Some of you may recall that over a year ago, a documentary crew, under false pretenses and giving a false name of the producer, came to the Creation Museum (under construction) to interview me.
Wasn’t setting up interviews using false names something Richard Dawkins criticized the makers of Expelled for?
Next, Francis Collins (who I do have a lot of respect for) has said:
bq. But in a rambling discussion, Maher migrated into other territory where I am hardly an expert (like the historicity of the Gospels). As you could see, that was the part he chose to include, though he presented a very limited excerpt.
So dishonest editing was also used.
Isn’t it hypocritical for Richard Dawkins to advertise Religulous on his website? Isn’t it inconsistent for atheists to slag off Expelled whilst endorsing Religulous?
Posted: October 24th 2008
George Locke
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Maher himself says that all of the interviewees (every single one, apparently) were told a false account of what the film was to be and none of them knew that he was the one who would be interviewing them. I find this despicable. This kind of thing makes people unwilling to talk to journalists or documentarians at all, which is against the public interest. Shame on Maher and shame on director Larry Charles for this repugnant behavior.
Nevertheless, the crimes perpetrated by the makers of Religulous pale in comparison to what went into Expelled, as a quick visit to the website Expelled Exposed will demonstrate. The crews for both films were unethical in setting up interviews, and it seems that the Religulous crew was probably worse. The 'equivalence’ you mention ends there, however. The bigger problem with Expelled was that it presented demonstrably false information to make a case that utterly dissolves when the bad evidence is removed. See Expelled Exposed for the details.
The main argument of Expelled is that the scientific community is unduly aggressive in its stance toward Intelligent Design, but the basic premises of this position are false. Expelled Exposed does an excellent job debunking the sob stories presented in the film, so there isn’t much evidence of aggression.
Even so, doesn’t Intelligent Design deserve to be stamped out? The idea that Intelligent Design might deserve its ill treatment is given purely superficial treatment in the film. If ID is inherently bad science and promotes ignorance, then scientists would be justified in attacking it ruthlessly. The film makes no attempt whatever to assess the scientific validity of ID at any point. This is heinous intellectual dishonesty of a sort completely absent from Religulous.
Expelled is propaganda for ignorance. Religulous is just a funny movie made by an unscrupulous crew.
Posted: October 29th 2008
SmartLX www
Maher’s actions while making the film are one thing, but I would rather know whether there are dishonest messages in the film itself.
Besides the parts which are explicitly Maher’s opinion, does the film try to present evidence for something about religion which is not true?
Posted: October 25th 2008
bitbutter www
I just took a look at the richarddawkins.net site. —I saw no endorsement or advertisement for Religulous outside of the articles section— (Update: The text advert for Religulous that I overlooked has been pointed out to me).
The articles (re)published on richarddawkins.net are usually from third party sources, they regularly include pro as well as anti-religious points of view. In the case of Religulous the articles reflect a similarly diverse set of opinions. Alongside very positive reviews, negative ones can also be found.
If someone criticised the tactics used by the Expelled team, but excused the same kind of thing from the Religulous team, then I agree that that would be hypocritical.
Posted: October 25th 2008
logicel
Richard Dawkins knew that unsavory tactics used by the Expelled crew really happened because they happened to him and several of his trusted acquaintances. If Richard Dawkins knew about any dishonest tactics to get and conduct interviews for Religulous, and if such an approach really happened, then, yes, Richard Dawkins would be a hypocrite in endorsing Religulous on his website. However, the blinkered, delusional, lying-for-Jesus Ken Ham is so disreputable I can understand if even if Dawkins did know about Ham’s claims, he would not take them seriously.
As for Francis Collins’ objection to the editing of his review, I am just perplexed. Collins not knowing if Jesus really existed based on historical evidence was a most telling indication that believers are quite ignorant of very important aspects of their belief systems, therefore meriting a high place of honor in the film as the film’s thesis includes that religious believers are gullible.
If Collins consented to the interview and was told the subject of the film, he will just have to take in stride that he was not given editing rights! If he does not, then he appears to be a bad sport and a whiner to boot. He should also focus on doing research to see if there are clear indications that the subject of his worship even existed!
EDIT: As bitbutter pointed out (I just checked also), there is no official endorsement nor advertisement for Religulous at the Richard Dawkins’ website, (UPDATE: I am now noting a line of maroon-coloured text on the top center at the Dawkins site linking to an Religulous ad which I would still not consider an official endorsement. However, it is clear that Dawkins has a high opinion of the film from his own comments on the relevant threads) : just posted articles for discussions just as there are articles discussing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Surely the posting of the Expelled articles do not constitute any endorsement of the film by Dawkins as he has openly stated that it is a work of ignorance, deception, and poor film craft? Hence, posting of articles do not indicate any endorsement by Richard Dawkins.
Posted: October 24th 2008