Ben Stein's movie

[WillingToDie]

I have yet to see it, however I have read numerous bad reviews, criticizing its approach as a whole, such as misrepresenting facts, making warped arguments etc. I have no interest in seeing it.

[artsylady]

I have read numerous bad reviews, criticizing its approach as a whole, such as misrepresenting facts, making warped arguments etc. I have no interest in seeing it.

Are you a Christian? Why would you trust the biased liberal anti-Christian media?

[nebula]

I have yet to see it, however I have read numerous bad reviews, criticizing its approach as a whole, such as misrepresenting facts, making warped arguments etc. I have no interest in seeing it.

Pay attention to the review sources; were any of them reviewers that would be friendly to godliness in general?

Why don't you read this review -

http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/...pelled2008.html

[WillingToDie]

I have read numerous bad reviews, criticizing its approach as a whole, such as misrepresenting facts, making warped arguments etc. I have no interest in seeing it.

Are you a Christian? Why would you trust the biased liberal anti-Christian media?

I have yet to see it, however I have read numerous bad reviews, criticizing its approach as a whole, such as misrepresenting facts, making warped arguments etc. I have no interest in seeing it.

Pay attention to the review sources; were any of them reviewers that would be friendly to godliness in general?

Why don't you read this review -

http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/...pelled2008.html

Wow, they give the movie bad reviews, so they must be biased, right?

Never mind the fact that these reviews simply point out blatant factual errors or convenient omissions of fact.

[artsylady]

Wow, they give the movie bad reviews, so they must be biased, right?

Of course they are biased. I totally expect that the media will bring us horrible reviews from a film that points to a belief in God.

Never mind the fact that these reviews simply point out blatant factual errors or convenient omissions of fact.

The same reviewers are probably the ones who will give Michael Moore's films or that ridiculous Jesus Tomb two thumbs up.

[WillingToDie]

Wow, they give the movie bad reviews, so they must be biased, right?

Of course they are biased. I totally expect that the media will bring us horrible reviews from a film that points to a belief in God.

Never mind the fact that these reviews simply point out blatant factual errors or convenient omissions of fact.

The same reviewers are probably the ones who will give Michael Moore's films or that ridiculous Jesus Tomb two thumbs up.

The fact is, a documentary that contains blatant factual errors, half-truths, and outright lies is a bad documentary, regardless of what the doc sets out to do. This is why I dislike Michael Moore's films, and why I have no desire to see this one.

[artsylady]

The fact is, a documentary that contains blatant factual errors, half-truths, and outright lies is a bad documentary, regardless of what the doc sets out to do.

I have seen a few secular reviews that state that it is eye opening, and they do give it higher accolates than others, but yes, of course, most will state things like the above. That is exactly what I would expect.

But what specifically did you hear? What factual errors, or lies or half truths?

[jeffnevins]

Ah. The similar topic in Apologetics>Science has spun off-topic, so I'll check here for on-topic movie info.

I put off seeing it, and now Iron Man is out... and Narnia 2. Can't see all three.... Hmm.

[WillingToDie]

The fact is, a documentary that contains blatant factual errors, half-truths, and outright lies is a bad documentary, regardless of what the doc sets out to do.

I have seen a few secular reviews that state that it is eye opening, and they do give it higher accolates than others, but yes, of course, most will state things like the above. That is exactly what I would expect.

But what specifically did you hear? What factual errors, or lies or half truths?

The one that comes to mind (and this is off the top of my head, I'm sure if I were to do a google search I could find more, and in more detail) is the story of the editor who ostensibly lost his job because he published an article that supported ID. The movie fails to mention that he was working on a limited engagement contract, and he would have left that particular journal regardless of whether or not he published that particular article.

[artsylady]

The one that comes to mind (and this is off the top of my head, I'm sure if I were to do a google search I could find more, and in more detail) is the story of the editor who ostensibly lost his job because he published an article that supported ID. The movie fails to mention that he was working on a limited engagement contract, and he would have left that particular journal regardless of whether or not he published that particular article.

This is from Wikipedia. If you want a great example of a biased resource, this is it. Anyway, this is their explanation.

Richard Sternberg

Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy

Richard Sternberg, a Staff Scientist for the National Center for Biotechnology Information and fellow of the intelligent design advocacy group ISCID, also has an unpaid research position giving him facilities at the Smithsonian Institution. Six months after he gave notice of resignation from a temporary unpaid position as editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he circumvented the journal's reviewing process to include a paper by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer which argued that the development of phyla during the Cambrian explosion was not fully explained by evolution. The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.[54][55]

In the movie Stein states that the paper "ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began". He claims that Sternberg was "terrorized" and his "life was nearly ruined when he strayed from the party line while serving as editor of a scientific journal affiliated with the prestigious Smithsonian Museum of Natural History."[56] The journal is not affiliated with the Smithsonian, and Sternberg still has his research position.[57] Stein claims it was the "most egregious" case and "He lost his job",[58] but the NCSE noted "the worst that happened to Sternberg is that people said some unkind things about him in private email to one another. Since the same can be said of almost every person, it