Dear Bruce Bennett:

Bruce Bennett at the New York Sun has written a nice piece of propaganda about “Expelled,” which lacks any sort of journalistic merit. I have written a comment pointing out the fallacies in the piece. However, the comments are moderated and, if the article’s lack of perspective is any indicator, my comment will likely never see the light of day on their site. Therefore, I happily reproduce it here, word-for-word.

Nice Hit-Piece
There are quite a few things that need to be pointed out here. It is clear, first of all, that absolutely no attempt was made at actual journalism. It seems that you have accepted one side's account of events at face value with absolutely no fact-checking and without making any attempt to allow the other side a rebuttal. As such, this piece is nothing more than propaganda.

Here are some verifiable facts. First, Richard Dawkins' attendance of a screening of the film was in no way "contentious." Both he and Professor Myers were attending the screening in the same way that most of the attendees there were: by filling out a form on the movie's website. Prof. Myers was removed because only his name was on the form, there not being a space for guest names. Therefore, only his attendance was able to be foreseen. Thus, PZ Myers' ejection from the screening was nothing more than Orwellian quieting of dissent, the very actions that the film purports to fight against, put into practice by its creators.

Furthermore, Intelligent Design is in no way whatsoever a science and therefore should not now or ever be treated as one. That isn't to say, as the article states, that God shouldn't mix with science. It is only to say that science is the non-biased study of naturally-occurring events through rigorous testing and observation. A hypothesis is put forward and tests are carried out to see if the hypothesis is viable. These tests are NOT meant to reinforce the hypothesis, they are meant to TEST it. The quest is for knowledge. In science, disproving a hypothesis is as valuable as proving it would be. There is no dogma in any real scientific field, the study of evolution included. "Intelligent Design," on the other hand, starts with a preconceived notion and actively seeks to prove that notion, ignoring evidence that is contradictory to that view. That is not science. If there were, in fact, any solid scientific evidence to support the deliberate design of biology, the scientific community would be all over it. This still would not answer the question of how the designer came to be, however.

A couple more factual errors in the article: The animation of the inside of a cell that was "commissioned" by the filmmakers? Actually just stolen from David Bolinsky and Harvard. See here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/147

Mr. Dawkins' "flustered" comment in which he posits his own creation theory was, in fact, followed with the comment that, even if there were a creator, you still need to explain how he/she/it/they came about.

And as for evolution's "inflexible Darwinian dogma," this is simply a comment that can come from nothing but an absolute ignorance about evolution and science in general. Even Prof. Dawkins does not state empirically that there is no God. As it is impossible to disprove anything, the possibility must be left open, though the probability is ridiculously small.

I hope that, in the future, you might seek to express your views within a story without the cowardly tactic of obfuscating the dissenting points. A journalist of any degree should seek to present a balanced argument, and a commentator of any conviction should not fear to put forth his views in such a context.