Monday, November 27, 2006

Dover Trial Heads for Silver Screen

The York Daily Record reported this morning that Paramount Pictures has hired Ron Nyswaner to author a screenplay for a movie production on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial that took place in Pennsylvania last year. The movie will be produced by Lynda Obst of Obst Productions in Hollywood. The two had followed the Dover trial independently before eventually meeting.

The question that will probably be raised is whether this film will become a modern-day version of "Inherit the Wind"--the highly glamorized and historically inaccurate film about the Scopes Monkey Trial. (It is interesting to note that Judge Jones told a reporter during the Dover trial that he was going to watch "Inherit the Wind" for historical context, completely disregarding that the film is regarded as propaganda by most historians--even evolutionists). If Nyswaner is true to his word, then this film should not be Inherit the Wind II. Nyswaner told reporters that he will use transcripts, interviews, and news coverage as background for the script.

It will be interesting to see how accurate Nyswaner and Obst get their film to be.


Jim Sherwood said...

Nyswaner is quoted on the blog of Larry Moran, the Darwin-fan, as saying "The story is about the place where faith intersects with science, where what we believe in intersects with what we know."

That is the usual Darwinist line: the unprovable dogmas of Darwin are somehow "science," are "what we know." Intelligent design theory, a powerful logical and mathematical analysis of established scientific data, is held to be simply what some people "believe." Thus the Darwinists turn the situation upside down. And the fact that many great scientists with no religious motives, such as Fred Hoyle, have disavowed Darwinism, is simply unknown or incomprehensible to them.

Jim Sherwood said...

Darwinism is an old dogma-system, a pseudoscience which generations of academics have been taught to believe in: and their belief in it is sincere, if insufficiently reflective and critical.

Scientists, professors, reporters,and judges have been taught to believe in it. Faith in Darwinism is regarded as virtually synonymous with being a conventionally "well-educated" person. Such people see it as their duty to "educate" those who for some reason are inclined to think for themselves.

The controversy over intelligent design theory pits scientists against scientists, philosophers against philosophers, and intellectuals against intellectuals. It is not "religion versus science" at all.

But one will never learn that from the newspapers, or from Hollywood. They simply repeat the conventional, "establishment" line.