I was initially impressed that Bill Maher interviewed Francis Collins, the brilliant scientist who led the human genome project and who has written eloquently about being both a believer and a scientist. But in the movie, Collins seemed uncharacteristically confused, as he discussed the accuracy of the Bible, a topic I'd not seen him comment on before. I suspected some slippery editing so I asked Collins about the interview. He emailed me:
"I thought my interview with him was going to be about the so-called controversy between science and faith, and whether someone could both believe in God and evolution. I was willing to discourse on that.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.
If Maher were seriously interested in hearing a discussion on this topic, he might have lined up an interview with someone like N.T. Wright.
So yes, I felt a bit misused. But I guess no one would claim this was an attempt to find the real truth."
I wonder whether we'll hear about other examples of deceptive editing besides this one and the misleading John Adams quote I mentioned earlier. Religulous is a comedy based on making believers look foolish. Yet while he attacks the intellectual dishonesty of religion, his movie seems to be chock full of it.
UPDATE: The original proposal from Maher's production company said the "documentary" would be a "journey toward understanding," focusing on the "human genome and its relationship to his faith. Not really the way it turned out.
Full email below the fold.
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:02 PM
To: Metcalfe, Heidi
Subject: Bill Maher Interview Request - Dr. Francis S. CollinsThank you for taking the time to speak with me earlier.
I wanted to detail the project for you further and now I have the most up to date information.
Ideally, we would like to secure an hour or so of Dr. Collins' time in DC on either January 25th or 26th. This interview does not necessarily need to be at the Institute as we have decided to focus on "The Language of God". The interview will likely be in the same vein as his interview on the Colbert Report - but as I"m sure you are aware, Bill has a unique style and wit. Also, as a documentary film, we are approaching this project as a journey toward understanding during which it is crucial to consult experts from a variety of fields.
Dr. Collins' explanation of the human genome and its relationship to his faith will express a key point of view on the subject. We are very hopeful that he may have some time to sit down with Bill during the 25th or 26th. We will do our best to work around his schedule.
We are in talks with distributors and intend on a theatrical release internationally. Please let me know as soon as possible Dr. Collins'
availability and contact information so that we can secure the interview.Thanks so much!
Best,
Chelsea
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Francis Collins is brilliant, but he is a scientist and not a New Testament expert. There are thousands of experts who could give good evidence for the historicity of the Gospels, but Bill did not talk to them. His expertise lies in the ability to believe in both God and evolution (I personally believe both). I think that if we do not acknowledge that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity, then there will be a lot more ignorant folks in our faith.
I'm a Christian and I admit that I do not have certainty in what I believe, but atheists don't either. That's where faith comes in. You make a conscious decision to believe one this or another based on experience, personal preference, etc. I do have a great deal of evidence that shows belief in God and Jesus is very justified, even though there is never certainty when it comes to this kind of history (and yet we still believe in Julius Caeser and Alexander the Great).
People rarely believe one thing or another because of intellectual evidence (or lack thereof). Bill Mahar is no exception, and he sees what he wants to see in the religious community. it is a lot easier to argue against a group if you characterize them as ignorant. Christians do the same thing with atheists, and the best way to have dialogue is to avoid these sweeping generalizations.
I had my testimony and lost it on here somehow; anyway, people like bill mayer has a long way to go to un-convince me of the saving grace of Jesus Christ[30 years saved].
@Michael Heath
Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence for the New Testament's historical authenticity. Email me if you want it.
So a scientists also believes in creationism. The scientist bases his religious beliefs on the Bible and says creationism is scientific. When questioned why he doesn't use the scientific methods to examine his religious beliefs that's an attack? He's unable to justify his most strongly held beliefs and that's somehow not fair?
As far as the bible being accurate, it's not at all:
For people with such "extreme beliefs" it is actually funny to see that the bible is bugged beyond belief from the beginning to the end.
• What is meant by what is written there? ("Son of a carpenter" means actually "Philosopher")
• Is the translation correct? (In many cases there are gross inaccurancies, like translating "You shall not murder" as "You shall not kill")
• Was the translation altered on purpose (For example replacing both "God" and "Jesus" by "Lord" to push the doctrine of trinity)
• Is the overall meaning translated correctly? Nope, look at all the translations of Daniel 1:9.
• Are there no contradictions? Although all contradictions can be explained away, an unpleasant taste stays when 1 source says "2 persons" while the other says "1 person"
• Is the writing correct? (In some cases there are spelling errors that can aberrate the meaning)
• Is the scripture by the one or is it a fake (many Paulus letters are said to be complete fabrications)
• Is it actually written somewhere what the priest says? ("Abortion" is not mentioned once in the bible)
• How reliable are the sources? Paulus was a murderer and the other writers didn't witness Jesus with their own eyes. (The gospel was written 100+ years after Jesus). Don't forget that early Christians were thrown into the arena to be eaten. This is usually interpreted as "They died for their strong just belief" but you can also argue "They were freaking terrorists trying to subvert the country". Thus you are reading texts written by guys like like Osama bin Laden. A doubtful source for truth.
Unfortunately, macroevolution and Christianity are incompatible beliefs. Macroevolution relies on the death principle (over billions of years), to produce the diversity of species. Christianity says that most species, and certainly man, existed before death came into the world. "The wages of sin is death", and we are only saved from that fate by the redeeming work of Christ on the cross: "but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus".
Now, microevolution happens every day, and is not incompatible with Christianity. Bugs develop resistance to pesticides, birds grow longer or shorter beaks to adapt to thier food supply, and we can select varieties of wheat to have bigger yeelds. But bugs do not turn into rats, beaks do not become elephant trunks, and wheat does not turn into corn. Their are limits to change in the biological world, and even Francis Collins should be honest enough to admit that. But he has books to sale, and he has to meet with the president, and he has a billion dollars of research stimulus to handout, so it's in his best interest to compromise the truth.
As far as the historical accuracy of the Bible, there is no book of ancient orgins in existence today which has more textual support and secondary source valiation than the Bible. People want the Bible to be not true so that they can have sex with whomever they want, believe whatever they want, and behave however they want, and still feel good about themselves.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.