New movie on intellignet design versus evolution...

[Elrohir]

A hint: when a third-rate actor makes a genius look dumb, it probably has much more to do with deception and selective editing than anything else. That's definitely the case here.

I'm sorry but do you have any proof of that? Actually, I found that sentence you wrote pretty deceptive. The way in which you call Dawkins a genius gives the impression that he's automatically smarter than us and if anyone makes him look dumb then it MUST be some sort of deception because there's NO WAY anyone could stump the great Richard Dawkins. I despise this notion that select people are geniuses and the rest of us can't hope to match wits with them. It's completely illogical and it's what keeps these so-called geniuses in power. An argument is not proved or disproved based on who's considered smarter, but on whether or not the argument is logical and has evidence to support it. If you're going to argue for Dawkins maybe you should actually use some logic and evidence instead of opinions that are only backed up with equally opinionated articles.

[Clodius Albinus]

I did not say that geniuses can't be wrong. For instance, while I believe that most of the science behind The Selfish Gene still holds, there have been a number of thoughtful criticisms that deserve to be taken seriously. None of these critics are as well-known as Dawkins, and they probably don't have the polymath background he does, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be right.

My claim was not that because Richard Dawkins is an extremely astute and intelligent man, he must be right about practically everything (he clearly isn't), or that a far less acclaimed individual couldn't get something right that Dawkins gets wrong. My assertion was much simpler: if, in a heavily edited, didactic interview on a subject in which someone who is undeniably brilliant is extremely well versed, said person comes across as a bumbling idiot who doesn't know the first thing about the subject, selective and unfair editing is a very likely culprit. Given that the producer's perfidy and dishonesty in creating this film is heavily documented, and granted that it would be hard to mistake Ben Stein for a great scientific mind, it is, indeed, pretty much the only sensible conclusion.

But by all means, let's conclude that Darwin is to blame for the Holocaust, Dawkins couldn't pass Biology 101, and a Guggenheim Fellow is a "stupid hick who didnt understand a thing of science" [sic].

[Elrohir]

if, in a heavily edited, didactic interview on a subject in which someone who is undeniably brilliant is extremely well versed, said person comes across as a bumbling idiot who doesn't know the first thing about the subject, selective and unfair editing is a very likely culprit.

Is that actually exactly what happened in the movie?

it would be hard to mistake Ben Stein for a great scientific mind, it is, indeed, pretty much the only sensible conclusion.

Again, whether or not Ben Stein is a "great scientific mind" has nothing to do with the logic of his argument.