If you are looking for examples of intolerance, look no further.
Poor PZ…associate professor Paul Zachary Myers over at the University of Minnesota has his knickers in a twist over the film EXPELLED, again. He hasn’t seen it, (it isn’t out yet) he clearly doesn’t understand the film’s premise – but he sure seems hell-bent on making sure that his readers don’t go to see it with an open mind!
And we think that we know why.
Paul is one of the stars in the film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. He’s probably remembering all of the things that he said on camera, when we interviewed him and faithfully recorded it all. That couldn’t be making him feel very good.
When the film comes out in April – we think that he’s going to have some explaining to do – and his handlers at Big Science aren’t going to be very happy with what they see and hear him say. The same goes for fellow-traveler professor Richard Dawkins, the atheist author of “The God Delusion.” He’s definitely going to be in trouble with Big Science too, once the film comes out. The truth sometimes hurts.
Big Science doesn’t like it when they can’t control the message: it’s why we made EXPELLED.
Now it appears that the associate professor Myers is regretful, and lashing out against the film again in his modest science-blog, “Pharyngula,” attempting to mitigate the inevitable criticism of his performance, in advance. His latest is a vein-popping, eyes – bulging, 3,000 word, eleven-screen diatribe posted on his website, a “critique” of a simple eight-hundred word editorial that the producers of EXPELLED wrote on Darwin Day.
From his lengthy, over-the-top screed, we can’t really sort out what it is that upset him so, but one thing is painfully obvious: he is literally sweating over the upcoming release of our film.
As well he should be.
But a three thousand –-word “analysis” of a simple eight hundred word movie-blog editorial seems like a strange way for a university-employee to be spending his time, to us. It may be he just doesn’t have enough to do… we can’t be sure. But one gets the feeling that associate professor Myers isn’t used to the idea of having to listen to folks who disagree with his gloomy, state-sponsored neo-Darwinian version of materialistic science.
Which is of course the precise point we make in “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.” It’s called freedom of speech.
Can anyone even imagine a tenured professor at a reputable university spending so much time obsessing over a film that he hasn’t even seen? That won’t even be released until April!
You would think that a supporter of academic freedom would welcome a well publicized point-of-view that challenged the reigning orthodoxy in his area of supposed expertise. And one would hope that a fair-minded associate professor would at least pay his readers and students the intellectual courtesy of seeing the film, before coming unglued over it in public. Apparently not. This is maybe the fifth time that the idle professor has written negatively about EXPELLED on his blogsite.
We wonder – why are the disciples of Big Science so unnerved by the mere prospect of a simple documentary film? What have they got to hide?
We, the undersigned American citizens, urge the adoption of policies by our nation’s academic institutions to ensure teacher and student academic freedom to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. Teachers should be protected from being fired, harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for objectively presenting the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory. Students should be protected from being harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for expressing their views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory in an appropriate manner.” Sign up here.�
February 18th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Wow… you write a post slamming PZ because he wrote a post slamming your arguments?
How…. petty. This contributes nothing to the debate.
And what’s this about lack of academic freedom? Your creationist friends over at Answers in Genesis have a post bragging about all the articles that they’ve successfully submitted to peer reviewed journals.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
Oh, and let’s not forget your friends at the Discovery Institute either. They like to remind us how many peer reviewed works they have successfully submitted:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
I’m not sure why I need to sign your petition. If an idea is scientifically valid, vetted, and competitive, then it should have little problem being published. According to the links above, the articles mentioned in the two above links have meet the criteria. Are you going to show this in your movie?
Lack of academic freedom? Pshaw.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:56 am
Now is the time to end the combative, the calculated, the arbitrary and the ‘reasoned’ suppression of thought. It is time to end the academic suppression of Big Science. I am tired of all the suppression and all the so-called, peer reviewing of what is clearly a closed-circle, planned denial of the presentation rights of ID - a theory without parallel or disproof.
Apples and Oranges…proof by design in their complexity.
Penguins and Elephants…uncles on the paternal side?
Steak and Lettuce…Bill and Diane, no doubt ?!?
Apes and Kittens…clearly the precursors to man!
I THINK NOT!
Weak arguments are cast to and fro about thermodynamics. Who has the energy to keep up with this heated diatribes? Why not have an honest discussion of thermodynamics? Why not just accept the facts as they lie?
From the manifold comes the answer. The problem is finely cut by Ockham’s razor until, but one solution remains. Argue against that statement, my friends. Can you? Will you even try?
Or do you cry:
“Out! Out! Simple-minded ignoramuses.”
“Away with the enfeebled morons who barely smart enough to breath!”
“Get your hands off of my knowledge!”
Sir, it is not your knowledge!
What evidence gives one the right to dictate a truth and to deny a theory? That is correct - no evidence. How dare you place induction over the principle of deduction? You who have the grace of a mind. Are we not MEN? No, you would say that we are MERELY de-evolved steps on the path to something greater! Carbon dating?! How does one trust radioactive decay? You say it is a random process? The random answers that it generates are just as good as rolling a pair of dice against eternity and will prevail just as well.
Fine. Proclaim or debate. Let us take the freedom to debate or be Expelled!
Mark Witt
(Hetero Sapien)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
February 18th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Let me explain everything to you: people tend to get upset when what is either barefaced lies or inexcusable ignorance is spouted by other people. People get upset at 9/11 conspiracy theorists and homeopaths. Your blog post on Darwin Day was either intentionally deceitful or you don’t know enough about history to intelligently blog about it.
The fact is that in your post you either lied or simply displayed your ignorance. That is a fact that any educated, intelligent person who reads your Darwin Day blog post can plainly see. This public revelation quite understandably upsets (or at least annoys) you. Why not correct your errors?
“But one gets the feeling that associate professor Myers isn’t used to the idea of having to listen to folks who disagree with his gloomy, state-sponsored neo-Darwinian version of materialistic science.”
It’s also understandable that you don’t read P.Z. Myers’ blog. Myers regularly challenges creationists and intelligent design advocates. He just recently debated Discovery Institute Fellow Geoffrey Simmons on KKMS radio: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/was_that_fun_or_what.php
“You would think that a supporter of academic freedom would welcome a well publicized point-of-view that challenged the reigning orthodoxy in his area of supposed expertise.”
How would you expect a pharmacist to react to a film advocating homeopathy? How would you except a political scientist to react to a film arguing that 9/11 was inside job? How would you expect a historian to react to a film that makes the case that the Holocaust never happened? There are crackpot ideas on thousands of subjects, in every field. As far as I or scientists can tell, intelligent design is yet another crackpot idea, different only because of its roots in conservative Christianity. However, as always and as goes without saying, you are welcome to present positive evidence for intelligent design. The sooner the bettter. A documentary film seems like a strange, impractical medium for this, but I won’t nitpick. For the record, the same offer is extended to all homeopaths, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and Holocaust deniers.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Thanks for the post, we are looking to see the movie here in Romania. Any ideas when we could do that?
By the way…in this article the first link it doesn’t work. I mean the Paul Zachary Myers link.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I don’t get the problem you have with what PZ said. He just pointed out a few errors you people “inadvertently” made, right. You want to promote free speech, but it appears the only free speech you want promoted is that which agrees with your agenda. I also love the use of Hitler, who was a Catholic, never excommunicated, who continually invoked God in his speeches, and led a predominately Lutheran and Catholic nation to commit atrocities and ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale. They were simply doing God’s work, Gott Mitt Unz! I find it hard to believe that Ben Stein would promote creationism/intelligent design which is a part of a religious philosophy that holds the Jewish people in such utter contempt and hates the Jews almost as much as the Catholics. The various Christian churches, Catholic or protestant, have had a long history of anti-Semitism way before Darwin was ever born. I guess kill the dirty Jew Christ killers is ok with Mr. Stein. One of the main reasons we have the separation of church and state in this country is because of religious intolerance between the different religious sects, the same intolerance that is still alive and well in this country today. I attend the church of my choice. My church does not believe in creationism. I would find it horribly offensive that my children would be forced to hear a false religious teaching in a public school being passed off as science. Lincoln freed the slaves only in South, not the North, this was done to keep Great Britain form entering the Civil War on the side of the South, a simple political maneuver to help preserve the Union. ID is simply not testable, has no reproducible test methods, has demonstrated a total inability to produce any positive knowledge, and other than being a political pawn used by the GOP to pander to a radical right wing political sect has demonstrated no value what so ever.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Let’s see…last time I checked there was a prohibition against lying in the Christian faiths. Something about it being one of the 10 Commandments from God to Moses.
You told PZ the film was for one thing but yet you use it for something else entirely.
Doesn’t that make you a…
LIAR!
And even better, you’re lying for Jesus.
I thought lying made the Baby Jesus cry.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Actually I think this rather shows the fear and desperation of the IDiots behind EXPELLED. That they are casting about for any desperate example of so-called “intolerance” that they are forced to hold up an example of a blog post (a BLOG POST) as the “Big Science Office of Inquisition”. Hahahahaha! If a scathing blog post is the worst criticism you morons have to endure I don’t think your whining about oppression holds much water.
Not to mention, it may not have been to smart of you to hightlight PZ’s post, since it demolishes so magnificently so many of the blatant errors and outright lies contained in your “Darwin Day” post. But hey, if you want to help people more easily find out where Ben Stein and pals are lying, more power to you!
February 18th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Having read the PZ Myers’ piece you refer to, I have to say that though it is strongly worded, it does raise some very astute criticism of your original piece.
And I find it interesting that your post above does not address any of Myers’ criticism - but merely complains about the fact that he took time to write it.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am
For a response to this blather from Myers, see here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/more_empty_posturing_from_rulo.php
February 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I think the film will be unwatchable crap. Whatever cheap suit you put on it, ID is still religion. It has no place in a science curriculum.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:32 am
If you guys are all about ‘academic freedom’ and open discussion, why are you requiring journalists to sign nondisclosure agreements before screening the film? Why are you setting up ‘press conferences’ where the only people who get to ask questions are Focus on Family, christian radio, etc.?
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE?
February 18th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Are you people serious? Did you even read the blog post you are whining about? In his “lengthy, over the top screed” Dr. Myers simply points out all of the factual errors, logical fallacies, and outright lies contained in your ridiculous Darwin Day post. Your only rebuttal seems to be that it is that it was too long to keep your short attention spans. But why should we expect any better from this pit of intellectual dishonesty and stupidity.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Thought police huh…..
I would like to know why my last comment disappeared.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am
He’s probably remembering all of the things that he said on camera, when we interviewed him and faithfully recorded it all. That couldn’t be making him feel very good.
When the film comes out in April – we think that he’s going to have some explaining to do – and his handlers at Big Science aren’t going to be very happy with what they see and hear him say.
I see PZ Myers has offered to host the entire unedited video of his interview on his site, or it could be put on YouTube or Google Video. That would show him, wouldn’t it, if it’s as damning as you say. So why don’t you take him up on it. I’ll be looking forward to see you put up or shut up, with the entire unedited interview available online. So when will that be ready? It should only take a couple hours, tops.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Does academic freedom work both ways? Would you for example, be against the firing of someone for just mentioning a talk on the strengths and weaknesses of Creationism?
February 18th, 2008 at 11:08 am
The funny thing is, You just ask what he has to “hide”. You just ask it. Why? What do You have to hide? I mean, if You know it, just tell it. Don’t just ask rhetorical questions. That’s what PZ Myers did in his blog. He didn’t ask what was wrong about Your Darwin day statement, he simply wrote it down. So everyone can read it and judge on his own. So if You don’t like Myer’s response to what You wrote, why don’t You simply write down what You think is wrong about it? Then, everyone can read what You think and judge on his own. THAT’S freedom of speech isn’t it?
You write that Myers is frightened about what the audience will see from his interview once the film is released. Do You have any evidence for that? I mean, what leads You to think he is frightened? His postings make a very self assured impression on me. At least, he cites facts, and Your posting contains only statements with no facts at all. I guess You just want to make people want to watch Your movie.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:15 am
There’s no content in this post. Why not address the actual issues raised by Myers–that your previous post was filled with lies and misinformation–instead of counting words. But then, that would be intellectually honest, and we’ve seen that’s something you’re just not interested in.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Big science doesn’t like it when they can’t control the message? Is that why they make members of the media sign non-disclosures before they are allowed to review papers? Oh, wait - that’s movie reviews, not science reviews. My bad!!!
February 18th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Free speech is dandy just so long as you aren’t using it to criticize cdesign proponentsists.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:25 am
You guys should try actually addressing what PZ Myers said rather than just trying to claim that he’s silly for writing a long rebuttal to you. In other words, you should try making an argument rather than a propaganda document.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:26 am
To the producers –
Who protests too much?
I read your prior post, “We’ll take Lincoln Day over Darwin Day…any day”, and I also read Dr. Myers’ response, “Ahistorical garbage from the producers of Expelled”.
You start your current post by saying “If you are looking for examples of intolerance, look no further.”
You are right about that, because it is apparent that your current post is a perfect example of the “intolerance” you decry. There were numerous factual errors, and mis-statements in your “Lincoln” post. Most glaring, perhaps, was that you wrote (and now, apparently edited,) that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was from the Bill of Rights, when an elementary school student ought to know that it was from the Declaration of Independence.
How is it “intolerance” to write a response to errors, lies, and nonsense? How, in any way, did that response impede your freedom of speech? Doesn’t the fact that you were able to produce this movie, and publish this website clearly show that your freedom of speech is not being denied? How many government authorities have shown up at your offices, or homes preventing you from completing this project of yours? Have there been any representatives of “Big Science” breaking down your doors? I don’t think so.
What this latest post of yours does show is the further evidence that your continued rants are really nothing more than part of the continued effort to shamelessly promote this manufactured and artificial argument of a vast imagined conspiracy.
If you really do believe in freedom of speech, why don’t you participate in the debates you have been invited to attend by members of the scientific community? Could it be because you would have to lie and obsfuscate like Geoffrey Simmons of the Discovery Institute did in his recent debate with Dr Myers? Simmons said in that debate “The fossil record is more incomplete now than it was in Darwin’s day”. Is is intolerent of me to think that Simmons is a fool for saying such nonsense?
You said “EXPELLED will open your eyes to the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin’s theory”, but you refuse to offer any such evidence. Reviews of your movie indicate that no such evidence is presented. But all you can do is attack a blogger, screaming “intolerance!” and “What have you got to hide?”, instead of producing the evidence you claim that would invalidate the accusations.
A glowing review from “Focus on the Family” will no doubt get you good attendance at the movie, but it won’t succeed in proving your fabricated arguments.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Ben Stein, if there is anything that will need explaining is your big claims made in the movie and in your blog. Where’s your explanation Ben? You make some big claims backed up by poor fallacies and quote mining.
If anyone wants to hear a real review about the movie, check out: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html
This is probably will not be posted because “Big Ben Stein” wishes to unfairly suppress the freedom of speech. If he cannot suppress it, he surely does a great job insulting it. The “whopping 3,000” word blog is just attempting to break down your straw man arguments. (Honestly, the 3,000 words consisted of many direct quotes from your blog).
This is probably will not be posted because “Big Ben Stein” wishes to unfairly surpress the freedom of speech.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:37 am
.
.
.
.
.
From a spam e-mail for EXPELLED:
“Learn how to DEFEND BELIEF in God based on SCIENTIFIC
evidence.”
There you have it!
ID is RELIGION and not science, ACCORDING TO THE MAKERS OF THIS MOVIE.
.
.
.
.
.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:37 am
From a spam e-mail for EXPELLED:
“Learn how to DEFEND BELIEF in God based on SCIENTIFIC
evidence.”
There you have it!
ID is RELIGION and not science, ACCORDING TO THE MAKERS OF THIS MOVIE.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Mar Witt wrote: [snip]…let’s just call it something.
Aren’t you supposed to be out of town? In any case, I saw you lips moving but all that came out was “butter-flavored towels,” “plaid monkeys,” and something about “shimmy cars.”
February 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Grow up, you Expelled guys.
What is it you’re wanting? To have a big gold star stuck on the refrigerator so we can all see what a great job you guys did in a dreaming up a scientifically-sounding theory? Come off it. The reason your work has never been accepted by the scientific community is because it’s groundless.
You’re using the same Orwellian tactics that AiG, DI, and the other “Big Creationist” organizations use to try and manipulate people. Two words for you: “Full Disclosure.”
If you can’t hack it without intentional deception and smoke-and-mirrors tactics, then perhaps you should be in a different line of work. I hear there are some religious organizations that are looking for people with your talents!
February 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I don’t understand why PZ Myers would be angry at having his comments recorded for posterity, even if he didn’t know in advance what the theme of the movie was going to be. As long as no one edited his comments and as long as they gave him a chance to air his views, he should be grateful. If, after having been a university professor for many years, he is not yet ready for prime time, then he never will be.
The only thing I can conclude from his reaction is that he is sorry that the world will find out what he really thinks. I wish some movie producer would ask me what I think and give me a chance to communicate on a stage like that. Is there anyone here who would not welcome such an opportunity? If I ever get my fifteen minutes of fame, I will not begrudge the media outlet that provides it.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The Stupid… It burns
February 18th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Since when is scathing, accurate criticism a tool of “Thought Police”? I always thought that Thought Police would wield, you know, actual persecution and attempts to control the media. You know, like nondisclosure agreements and press conferences where questions must be approved beforehand.
I wish I could say that no one in the world is stupid enough to fall for these shenanigans, but there’s always someone stupider that I estimate to be possible.
Meanwhile, why don’t you actually addressing what PZ wrote, instead of spouting thought-stopping cliches?
February 18th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
A challenge to the producers of “Expelled” that can prove they’re not afraid of the unvarnished truth: release totally unedited the video interviews with Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, and let us decide whose argument reigns supreme. As long as there’s even a hint that you manipulated interviews by creative editing, your credibility will remain at nil. You’re not afraid, are you?
____________________________________________
February 18th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
o it’s nice when you can interview someone under false pretences then attack them for being angry about it when they clearly aren’t.
here’s to the underdog! the badass, subversive cdesign proponentsists - who lack both morals and a genuine case.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Post: “Why are the disciples of Big Science so unnerved by the mere prospect of a simple documentary film? What have they got to hide?”
It’s really rather simple: intellectually responsible people don’t like to see the propagation of falsehoods. Your movie is clearly one big lie; that much is clear from the trailer, the extant reviews, and this blog. Scientists have absolutely nothing to hide; they want to educate. That’s why P.Z. and others want to shed as much light your misguided project as possible. (And why he’s happy to post your entire interview of him on his site.)
“a three thousand –-word “analysis” of a simple eight hundred word movie-blog editorial seems like a strange way for a university-employee to be spending his time, to us.”
This just shows that you have no idea what’s involved in an honest exchange of ideas (or in education, for that matter). When someone says something misguided and false (as in the post P.Z. was responding to) the thing to do is point out in detail how it is misguided, and to correct the falsehoods. You, on the other hand, do not respond to a SINGLE ONE of P.Z.’s criticisms. Why? Because you don’t care about truth, or about defending your claims (nor do you care about understanding the science you attack).
You’re pathetic. Your behavior here indicates why so-called Intelligent Design has no place in the academy: as a movement, it’s dishonest, ill-informed, confused, and intellectually irresponsible.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I guess academic freedom is a one way street….
“Nancey Murphy, a religious scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., said she faced a campaign to get her fired because she expressed the view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but “so stupid, I don’t want to give them my time.”
Murphy, who believes in evolution, said she had to fight to keep her job after one of the founding members of the intelligent design movement, legal theorist Phillip Johnson, called a trustee at the seminary and tried to get her fired.
“His tactic has always been to fight dirty when anyone attacks his ideas,” she said. “For a long time afterward, I would tell reporters I don’t want to comment, and I don’t want you to say I don’t want to comment. I’m tired of being careful.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html
February 18th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“Big science”, huh? Doesn’t Big religion tower of little, rational science, in both pushing agendas and controlling messages? I’m a little confused, please clarify.
And PZ Myers deserves nothing but praise for his tireless effort to expose liars and kooks for what they are. Your over the top attacks on his spare time are detestable.
Please, if your going to attack the man, grow some “cajones,” post the unedited video or address the points he made in that eye-popping, “bulging” 3,000 word post.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Myers is probably “obsessing” over this because he’s IN THE MOVIE. Your people who interviewed him did so under false pretexts, so he wasn’t aware that this was an anti-evolution movie when he agreed to do it. The movie he was interviewed for had a different title and premise. This is completely dishonest.
And people who preview the movie have to sign non-disclosure agreements? Oh, and YOU GUYS are arguing that the SCIENTISTS are blocking criticism?
Additionally, Myers has spoken with at least one person who has seen the movie, and discovered that his interview was cleverly EDITED to make him look bad.
How ethical!
February 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Nice try. Get the evil evolutionists all hot and bothered because you attack PZ Mysers and maybe they’ll pay money to see your creationist propaganda. What’s the matter, not enough fundy churches taking you up on your offer to bribe them to force their kids to see your movie?
Too funny!
And do you plan to make the entire PZ interview available so PZ can put it on his website?
Finally, how many theaters have signed up to show the movie? Any so far?
February 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
It seems that PZ Meyers and minions are scurrying like cockroaches when the light gets turned on! Its obvious that he was filmed being an pompuos, arrogant, blowhard spewing his hateful rhetoric. He’s now embarrassed that He will be exposed Nationwide for all the world to see,…what a no class, closed-minded, prejudice scientist looks and sounds like. He is a perfect example for the film. Next time he should think twice before vomiting his opinions everywhere!
.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Since you are clearly so interested in getting the truth out there, you will surely take up PZ on his offer to host the entire footage of his interview on his web site. I can’t wait to see it so that we can all assess for ourselves why PZ should be sweating!
Thank you for your courageous commitment to truth!
February 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I agree with Madoc. I think by now the motivation is to get anyone interested in seeing the movie. Why not address the issues? Why complain about the lengthy rebuttal?
Because they’re afraid to expose the unsupported ideas purported in the movie. See… I did it also, not very nice isn’t it?
Wasn’t it better for me to address the complains raised on the blog entry, and not speculate on the possible cowardice of the authors? Or on the ulterior motives of not addressing any point raised?
February 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
If all this crap is (as I presume) simply a cheap way to promote your film, I warn you that I will download the torrent and you’ll never see a dime from me.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Utterly shameful. The Producers are totally misinterpreting what Professor Myers said. Get off your high horse and RESPOND TO HIS CRITICISMS. Not one of you did that.
Epic fail.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Wow I just read the PZ article that inspired you to write this one. PZ freaking took you guys down, pointed out the lies in your original article, and showed how dishonest you are. And all you reply with is his article was 3,000 words and he’s going to get a spanking from “big science” when your movie is released?
Ha ha ha too funny! You guys crack me up.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
PZ MEYERS is an embarrassment to himself and the scientific community!! He does not concern himself with what comes out of his mouth! That is the height of his arrogance and prejudice!
Its just sad that our tax dollars have to support such idiots who spew their drivel without concern of a backlash! Now the Nation will see him exposed for the sad example of scientist he really is! He is just one Bad apple trying to spoil the whole bunch!
PZ MEYERS is the poster child for bad Science!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/more_empty_posturing_from_rulo.php
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 18, 2008 9:51 AM, by PZ Myers
“And actually, I don’t remember precisely what I said in the interview, nor am I concerned about it. I get interviewed on this stuff all the time, and I say what I think without concern”.
.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Why not count words? Counting words is quite illuminating in this case. By all means, let’s count some words.
MS Word reports a word count of 3056 for the entire post. Of that total, 977 appear to be direct quotes from your post, as revealed by deletion of PZ Myers’ paragraphs and running word count again on what remains. That means that PZ Myers wrote 2079 words, not the “three thousand” that you claim. So, according to you, 977 == “eight hundred” while 2079 == “three thousand.” Do you play as fast and loose with all your statistics?
Three thousand versus eight hundred sounds like (very roughly) a four-to-one response to your post, which makes it sound much more like the foaming-at-the-mouth that you are trying to depict. In reality, the ratio is much closer to half that: two thousand words of rebuttal to one thousand words of original. Why would you distort this ratio so grossly?
Clearly you are trying to leave a particular impression in the minds of your readers. The impression that I am left with is: a) you are as dishonest this time as you were in the original which PZ rebuts; and b) for a bunch of “scientists” you can’t even count. Is this an example of the care that you take with your data?
Congratulations on embarrassing yourselves yet again.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
# Jim Moore Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am
“I see PZ Myers has offered to host the entire unedited video of his interview on his site, or it could be put on YouTube or Google Video. That would show him, wouldn’t it, if it’s as damning as you say. So why don’t you take him up on it. I’ll be looking forward to see you put up or shut up, with the entire unedited interview available online. So when will that be ready? It should only take a couple hours, tops.”
Philip says:
No! let the little monkey ancestor squirm!
.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Knickers in a twist? He pointed out line by line how dishonest you guys are: stuff you guys apparently cannot refute, since you don’t even try to respond to anything substantive that was said.
As he noted, the fact that you said so many stupid things that it took to 3000 words to delve through it all reflects poorly on yourself, not any erstwhile debunkers (Darwin sucks because he was racist, we much prefer Lincoln! Except we aren’t going to mention that he was exactly as racist, as was everyone in that era!). I doubt even fellow creationists are likely to buy the idea that there’s something strange about the targets of a hit-piece film responding to its claims. You’ve accused scientists of a vast conspiracy of silence and persecution: since most think that this accusation is nonsense, they are going to say so. You guys throwing punches and then whining about how other people respond in kind is downright lame.
And the fact that you guys seem hellbent on painting criticism as persecution is, well, just sort of pathetic. Real scientific debate is rough and tumble stuff: extremely critical, and often extremely biting.
Apparently, the arguments of creationists and Intelligent Design folks can’t survive in that sort of environment. So, instead, you want all sorts of special protections and respect that no other scientific position gets. All preserve your ever-do delicate beliefs. You want to claim that ID is scientific, but when it gets raked over the coals on the evidence, you scream that you don’t deserve such treatment, because this is your religion we’re attacking! You need to have it one way or the other guys.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Just think…This film will reach more people in one day, then PZ MEYERS and R DAWKINS would ever reach in their entire lifetime.
The producers of this film and those behind Intelligent Design are very smart. Science had 150 years to try and prove evolution and ultimately they did a piss poor job! This film will expose the pseudoscience of evolution in one single stroke!
Coming to a Theater near you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
What a sad day it is for Christianity when the idolatry of biblical so-called literalism is being promoted as an alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning.
But, even with regards to Creationism, the bible has two creation stories. At least one of them must be untruthful.
World-centric, man and woman created at the same time, no garden of Eden, plants on the land created before lights in sky, Sabbath.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1-2:3%20;&version=31;
Man-centric, man created first before plants, garden of Eden created before other plants, no Sabbath.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:4-3:21;&version=31;
The rocks tell us the order was lights in the heavens, then plants on the land, then man, which is a third story without evidence of divine action, magic or talking snakes. There may have been divine action and magic and talking snakes, but then apparently evidence for the above does not fossilize well. The rocks give a very detailed history and show that some species which flourished for very long periods of time are not with us, and that new species would arise, similar to preexisting forms but distinct. The rocks also show that rocks from the sky fall from time to time, like the thing that made the crater near the Yucatan.
The pattern of life we see today shows a great deal of relatedness. In fact the tool we use to solve the “Solomon problem” of true parentage is one of the same tools we use to demonstrate this common descent. Furthermore, all the tools, from rocks to DNA show the same pattern. And while rocks and DNA won’t give use exact dates like “The second Thursday of March, 24,040,288 BC” they agree roughly on the same timeline.
Just like the bible’s two different stories show that it contradicts itself, and is unreliable in some respects, the story of the rocks and the DNA could be proven wrong if it contradicted itself. If a human skeleton was found in rocks prior to the K-T boundary, if trilobites were found after the K-T boundary, if there was a fossil of a monkey with feathers or a mammal with a wholly exotic RNA transcription code, if any of these happened it would prove that common descent can’t be the end-all answer to the diversity of forms. But buried in the DNA of every creationist is a genetic mark which exactly resembles the ends of two different ape chromosomes spliced haphazardly together, demonstrating that ape and man had a common ancestor.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:30;&version=31;
February 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
That couldn’t be making him feel very good.
Dear Ben & Company,
Don’t be a poop head. I too would be worried about how you may edit the film to distort and remove context in an effort to support preconceived notions. Let Dr. Myers host the interview in its unedited entirety on his website for all to view and discuss. You could link to the post and we could all have at it. Or is there no intent on behalf of Expelled to have an open and honest dialogue? Isn’t that the point of your film, to foster intellectual honesty?
Sincerely,
February 18th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
When you originally interview Myers you claim you didn’t misrepresent yourself or the nature or position of the final released film.
So why, again, should he suddenly be worried about what he said, assuming you interviewed him in good faith?
What I’ve seen here:
1/ You misrepresented yourself when interviewing Myers
2/ You lied about it when called on it
3/ You think your audience is so mouth-breathingly ignorant that they won’t catch these shenanigans, so much so you’ll post self-recriminating garbage like this gem and think you’ll get away with it
If there is a designer, he’s sending you guys to a special place for this travesty.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Freedom of speech, coming from a bunch that literally delete, censure of sue any criticism agains their fabled pseudoscientific point of view, that being ID, which is only a bunch of religious pretentions, is more like a joke than anything else.
I would really like to see the full Myers part, unedited. Liars tend to edite that kind of video for it to say what they want to say, instead of what it was really sayd in the first place. What a load of crap!
February 18th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“Can anyone even imagine a tenured professor at a reputable university spending so much time obsessing over a film that he hasn’t even seen?”
I can.
Especially when the makers of the movie have a history of lying, deceiving, and twisting people’s words into unrecognizable nonsense.
If you had pulled a stunt like that on me - lied to me to get me in this movie - I would definitely have been pissed as hell too.
I would most likely have spent a significant portion of my cash to sue you, just to show you what happens when you mess with the wrong people.
But Myers might not have that much money to throw away at liars like you. So he does what he can do: Tell the truth about your despicable actions.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
You all attacking creationists and that it has nothing to do with science should read “I dont have enough faith to be an athiest”. This book is full of science that puts athiesm in a bad light and those who support it. Quotes from top athiest debators who say we are here basically do to luck which doesnt hold water in my opinion at all. It uses cosmological evidence, teleological arguments, antrhopic principle, the moral argument and much more from corroborative evidence from scientists, agnostics and even goes to help prove how reliable the Bible is as well.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
.
.
philip Says:
“This film will reach more people in one day, then PZ MEYERS and R DAWKINS would ever reach in their entire lifetime.”
Ah, so THAT is why they have to PAY people to see it… LOL.
The interest in actually seeing the movie is so low that people who see the pre-screenings have to sign an NDA to NOT give away the garbage that it is!
.
.
.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
It really boils down to no person on earth can so beyond a shadow of a doubt that creationism is completely wrong and no truth to it at all cause like i said, the people you follow rely on “luck”.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I wanna know how I can on the “Intelligent Quote of the Day.”
February 18th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Things must be desperate on the Explelled front. First you “win” the Philip E Johnson “award” (ha ha) and now you’re attacking PZ Myers simply to generate some buzz for your creationist film.
Are advance sales going that badly for you? I wouldn’t worry too much, no doubt many fundy churches will want to show your movie in their basements. Well as long as you bribe them or engage in some sort of kick back scheme.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
You people are pathetic, paranoid, disingenuous liars.
You have to run from reality and truth to create a scenario about Professor Myers who you initially interviewed under false pretenses. He honestly and rationally critiques the falshoods and lies you presented and your only recourse is to invent his supposed motives because you cannot argue the facts.
“No intelligence allowed?”
It’s more like “No intelligence or integrity here.”
February 18th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
You complain about academic freedom, but then ignore the very forum in which much of peer review happens? Responding to criticism is *exactly* what is expected of those engaging in the forum of science, and it’s *exactly* what you’ve failed to do by giving a petty description of PZ’s criticism and highlighting the word count. And really, word count? Did you actually read the part where he gave a number of references and criticisms, thus requiring 4 times the space of your completely incorrect post?
As much as I don’t expect an honest debate from your side - even your short video preview is dishonest - , if you think the video footage of PZ is so damning and want to increase openness in this debate, release the full footage unedited. The only thing you have to lose is exposing what I would presume to be selective editing, as the testimony of a biology professor at a small/mid-sized campus isn’t terribly valuable intellectual property.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
PZ MEYERS WILL BE EXPOSED FOR HIS TRUE SELF FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE!
mojoandy Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
When you originally interview Myers you claim you didn’t misrepresent yourself or the nature or position of the final released film.
Philip says:
Philip says:
So what your saying is that PZ MEYERS is an unethical, Bold two-faced Lier that need’s to be warned as to be ready to project something he’s not?
Nah no need to warn him, Just let the world see what a pompous, arrogant, blowhard scientist looks like when caught being themselves!!!
.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
It seems PZ MEYERS has sent his students over here to defend him! I hope He at least gave you extra credit for your homework assignment!
I cant wait to see how much of a fool he made of himself
in front of the nation!
.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
rpenner Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
What a sad day it is for Christianity when the idolatry of biblical so-called literalism is being promoted as an alternative to evidence and fact-based reasoning.
philip says:
The fact that you think ID is religious speaks louder about your ignorance, than whatever else you posts!
.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Wading through the implication that his criticisms of your blog entry are baseless because your film hasn’t been released to a general audience (this is a non sequitur), it seems that you are just trolling for interest in your film. You are selling two messages simultaneously:
(1) You will see PZ Myers say terrible things if you pay us! (2) You will see that he didn’t if you pay us! The first message panders to creationists, and the second message baits PZ’s readers to see the movie in spite.
It’s interesting because you will succeed in baiting PZ and his readers into arguing with the contents of the implications of your message, which I suspect you don’t care much about, and in so doing obtain cheap advertising, which I suspect is you do care about.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Oh, frabjious day, calloo, callay! Another war between science and religion!
There was that war between Ptolemy and the church, then there was that war between Galileo and the church, and then there was the Tycho Brahe dust-up and then Newton postulated sinfully imperfect eliptical planetary orbits. Throughout all this time there were the fights and proclamations by the religionist that the earth was flat because that’s what the “holy scriptures” said.
Then along came the biggest enemy of the holy religion of all time: Darwin. The “I’m no monkey” proclamation is just the latest war.
Religion lost every one of those battles and they are about to lose the big one.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Philip: you write an awful lot for apparently saying very little. What, precisely, do you find pitiful about accurate criticisms of anti-science garbage? I assume you think they aren’t actually accurate, in which case the honest and rational thing to do would be to point out *why* they’re wrong, as opposed to what you and this blog/movie are doing, which is petty, superficial criticism that ignores the actual point.
So, how was PZ wrong?
February 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
philip, if you’re so sure that PZ’s scared of that interview getting out, why are the ID bloggers so afraid to have the unedited interview posted? Why the delay? PZ’s perfectly willing to post it now, if they’ll provide a copy.
What, getting cold feet, now?
February 18th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Is it just me or is philip an idiotic cheerleader?
Philip - address an issue PZ raised. While you are over there, learn how to spell his last name.
It’s “Myears.”
February 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Allow me to add my voice to the ones requesting that you allow Professor Myers to post his interview, in its unedited entirety, on his website. Or on your own. Or anywhere public on the internet, out there in the open marketplace of ideas, where people can view the unbiased evidence and make up their own minds, in the spirit of academic freedom. If his performance was truly so self-damning, it might even help stir up further interest in this film of yours.
In the meantime, I would also encourage you to address the substance of criticisms, such as Myers’ blog post, rather than the length. I’ve heard that paying attention to substance can really get one far in academic circles. You know, when movies, press releases, and appeals to church groups aren’t doing the trick.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I’ll go see the movie with an open mind. However, I will the entire time be observant on weather there is anything said about the ID movement and its followers that could not just as easily be said for a ‘flat earth’ defender.
If someone got thrown out because he suggested to students in scienceclass that the world was flat because it wasn’t proved that the world was sphere-like I would support that, and I guess the onus is on the movie to convince me that there is a difference.
I will keep an open mind, but if there is nothing in the movie that indicates that there really is a difference then my assumption will be that there isn’t any.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Who the hell is “Big Science”? I admit, your PR campaign is excellent and it will probably fool many stupid inviduals. The “fairness” thing is brilliant! It sounds so reasonable, while it also makes anyone who disagrees with it seem like an asshole. But honestly, science is science and you halfwits are busy making propaganda movies rather than spending time in a research lab gathering some EVIDENCE. Big science is big science because they have a mountain of evidence on their side while you people have none, zero, zilch. Intelligent design has no predictive power. It makes people stupid. If you’re still adamant about it being taught in classrooms to kids who don’t know any better… start publishing papers, not propaganda films. No intelligent community is going to let this bullshit fly in their kid’s classroom. You can cry all you want about big science, but until you have some evidence to support intelligent design, sit and spin.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
To the producers of Expelled -
Isn’t it interesting that of the first 51 responses to your post attacking Dr Myers, 44 called you out as cowards, unwilling or unable to respond rationally to the post at Pharyngula dissecting the lies, inacuracies, and deviousness in your Lincoln post.
Because you like word counts so much - in response to your 627 word post, there were 904 words (approx 15%) supporting your position, and 4,905 words (approx (85%) disapproving.
But, I would imagine that according to your warped logic, that is merely more evidence of the “thought police” from “Big Science” trying to “suppress” and “expell” your nonsense!
February 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
And thus we see once more that the only way the IDiots can respond to criticism, is through empty rhetoric.
At least you had the guts to link back to his post, so that any person who allows him or herself even the slightest hint of intelligence, can see for themselves the critique that you so obviously need to ignore.
Let’s see the Myers interview in it’s entirety.
Let’s see you actually respond to the points he raises in his post.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
So what your saying is that PZ MEYERS is an unethical, Bold two-faced Lier that need’s to be warned as to be ready to project something he’s not?
Nah no need to warn him, Just let the world see what a pompous, arrogant, blowhard scientist looks like when caught being themselves!!!
And yet, no one seems to be interested in posting that interview for all to see. They have to stall, stall, stall until they can creatively edit it.
Of course, PZ can handle himself in an honest debate and in interviews. The problem is that philip’s idols seem to be very hesitant to post the entire, unedited interview. What, Big Brother wussing out? Are those urine stains I see when all us science supporters use the word ‘unedited’? What, Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth afraid of showing the whole thing?
I’m calling your bluff, philip. Why else would the ID crowd stick with stalling tactics?
PZ’s unafraid of the unedited footage, and yet, you’re content to sit and squirm.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Though most of these replies ended up rebuttals and perceptive criticisms of your shoddy excuse for a post, I’m really enjoying the minute smattering of hilarious creationist comments. It’s incredible, really, the vigour and absolute thoughtlessness with which your insubstantial crapola is regurgitated. Let’s see now…
[i]Just think…This film will reach more people in one day, then PZ MEYERS and R DAWKINS would ever reach in their entire lifetime.
The producers of this film and those behind Intelligent Design are very smart. Science had 150 years to try and prove evolution and ultimately they did a piss poor job! This film will expose the pseudoscience of evolution in one single stroke!
Coming to a Theater near you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/i]
Let’s see… irrational certainty with respect to his cause’s success (lol like it did so well in Kansas)… completely misunderstanding of either science of evolution (big surprise)… superfluous exclamation marks in what I doubt is intentional irony… yep, he got pretty much all of it.
Much lulz from our IDiot buddies, keep up the good work.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
rpenner Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
philip Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I was not talking about ID, I was talking about Creationism. Fortunately, as your defense proves, the two are indisiguishable.
The Dover school board adopted ID for the religious and political reason of not wanting to discredit creationism. The founder of ID admits there is no scientific theory of ID. Behe admits that if ID is science then so is astrology. “Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.” Even Ben Stein has said that he doesn’t know what the scientific content of ID is.
Philip Johnson, orginator of the ID movement, said:
February 18th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I have to wonder, is this entire site just a new Ben Stein comedy show?
February 18th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Poor babies, upset that somebody exposed your b.s.
Boo hoo.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Sorry for keeping philip squirming on the millstone, but I just have to provide another little bit of snark:
Coming to a Theater near you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why not bring out a chunk right here, right now? Why wait to have the Orwellian edit in a handful of podunk theaters some time from now, for a price, when you could be providing a relevant chunk of the movie, uncut, uncensored, for free and right now? Why the hesitation?
PZ posted an open challenge, and yet that challenge is met with either silence or excuses.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
PZ MEYERS needs his minions to come to his rescue!
Bronze Dog Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Philip says:
“So what your saying is that PZ MEYERS is an unethical, Bold two-faced Lier that need’s to be warned as to be ready to project something he’s not?
Nah no need to warn him, Just let the world see what a pompous, arrogant, blowhard scientist looks like when caught being themselves!!!”
And yet, no one seems to be interested in posting that interview for all to see. They have to stall, stall, stall until they can creatively edit it.
Of course, PZ can handle himself in an honest debate and in interviews. The problem is that philip’s idols seem to be very hesitant to post the entire, unedited interview. What, Big Brother wussing out? Are those urine stains I see when all us science supporters use the word ‘unedited’? What, Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth afraid of showing the whole thing?
I’m calling your bluff, philip. Why else would the ID crowd stick with stalling tactics?
Philip says:
Its a movie coming out in April, buy a ticket! He will have plenty of time after the movie exposes him, for him to do try damage control!
The only problem is that there are what, Im guessing 2-3 PZ MEYER Supporters on Pharyngula, versus the millions of people who will watch this movie and see PZ Meyers as the arrogant scumbag that he is!
.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
PZ’s cheerleaders are here to bail out their Guru!
Feebas_Factor Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Let’s see… irrational certainty with respect to his cause’s success (lol like it did so well in Kansas)… completely misunderstanding of either science of evolution (big surprise)… superfluous exclamation marks in what I doubt is intentional irony… yep, he got pretty much all of it.
Philip says:
Lets see,
This evo doesent understand that this film is being distributed by the the same company which marketed “The Passion Of The Christ” and which like their other films, is also anticipated to be watched by millions of viewers nationwide while all PZ Myers minions can do is try and post on Blogs to defend their Guru!
Also, Evos making kneejerk comments about the content of the movie before any viewing…Yep! No surprise there!
You all will make fine evolutionists when you graduate!
February 18th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Bronze Dog is easily swayed!
Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Sorry for keeping philip squirming on the millstone, but I just have to provide another little bit of snark:
Coming to a Theater near you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why not bring out a chunk right here, right now? Why wait to have the Orwellian edit in a handful of podunk theaters some time from now, for a price, when you could be providing a relevant chunk of the movie, uncut, uncensored, for free and right now? Why the hesitation?
PZ posted an open challenge, and yet that challenge is met with either silence or excuses.
Philip says:
Your high anticipation for PZ MYERS snippets from the movie reveals that the film makers marketing is having its desired affect on you! That was too easy, but I guess that is why you believe in evolution!
PZ can take his challenge and shove it!
He opened his big trap and did the interviews without any fear of reprisal. Now he is going to be the poster boy representing all the closed-minded, bigoted, prejudice scientist!
So let him pay to see what a fool he really is, and How much of an idiot he is to the rest of the movie going public!
Yeah, The movie will be widely viewed by over 30,000,000 movie goers in our podunk nation! So he has nothing to worry about!
.
.
.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Hey philip, how much is Ben Stein paying you to post here?
Have you looked at Myers site? Obviously not, or you wouldn’t be so vocal. He ripped apart the Lincoln Day Darwin Day blog with logic and fact. He did the same with this blog.
He also has some interesting evidence to back up his claims about being mislead.
Again, how much are they paying you, philip?
Almost everyone else posting on this blog seems to see through the BS.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Its a movie coming out in April, buy a ticket! He will have plenty of time after the movie exposes him, for him to do try damage control!
And yet, April is not now. Why should we wait another couple of months for the creatively edited version of PZ’s interview? Why the stalling? Why do you need two more months of damage control? PZ’s ready now. Why do you keep insisting on being allowed time to stall? You’re awfully smug for someone who insists on a two-month head start.
Oh, and why should I waste my money buying a ticket to a movie that’s not promising anything new? If the trailer’s any indication, it’ll be the same lies that already get repeated by trolls, and have died the death of a thousand refutations.
Philip, all you’ve done is lower my expectations of ID even further. At least this ID blog allows non-sycophantic posts. I won’t be surprised if this whole emo post gets thrown down the memory hole like so many other ID threads.
Someone should archive the place if they aren’t already.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Looks like Philip forgot to take his meds today, again!
February 18th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
This evo doesent understand that this film is being distributed by the the same company which marketed “The Passion Of The Christ” and which like their other films…
So, should we expect a lot homoerotic sado-masochism in this film, too?
February 18th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
*laugh* If you’re new here, don’t feed the philip, folks. He can tirelessly misrepresent anything, and I do mean tirelessly
February 18th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
@79 - Phillip
The only problem is that there are what, Im guessing 2-3 PZ MEYER Supporters on Pharyngula, versus the millions of people who will watch this movie and see PZ Meyers as the arrogant scumbag that he is!
Uh, have you been there? As opposed to here, where there is only you to trumpet your own madness, there do seem to be quite a few more folks discussing things at PZ’s place. Before you spout, you may want to investigate. It’s better than guessing and having blind faith… Oh, wait…
February 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I wonder how many picket signs this movie will cause. I’m boycotting this movie because it is nothing but you blogs indicate nothing but filth, the critics have indicated the movie is nothing but filth, and ID may not be filth but it surly isn’t science.
Filth I say, Filth.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
BEWARE, you might lose your life by reading this.
http://web.mac.com/arnold_zwicky/TomorrowVirus05.jpg
Another way to approach alternative theories.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I am honestly impressed with the overwhelmingly rational responses in this thread (’philip’ notwithstanding). If only it were an accurate reflection of the health of rational thought in this sad dogma-infested country.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
*sigh*
Fine, Phillip, fine. I’m sure your movie will be a fantastic success, viewed and loved by millions, and everyone who’s ever been brainwashed by the dirty liberal atheist conspiracy will suddenly open their eyes to what is obviously the most incredible hoax of the century…
Damnit, Poe’s Law is rendering sarcasm difficult in this context. Suffice to say I recognize that nothing will convince you otherwise.
On the other hand:
“He opened his big trap and did the interviews without any fear of reprisal. Now he is going to be the poster boy representing all the closed-minded, bigoted, prejudice scientist!
So let him pay to see what a fool he really is, and How much of an idiot he is to the rest of the movie going public!”
Thank you for this latest gem of yours. I was hoping to find a recent example but none had been posted for a while. You really, honestly believe that PZ is quaking in his boots, he’s made some horrific mistake talking to these creationists (laser-guided towards the truth as they are) and is now regretting it deeply and anticipating the film’s release with dread.
What. And where do you get this again? Apparently lengthy and detailed rebuttals are suddenly a sign of anxiety among your opponents and a cause for celebration. Do you know who actually comes off as being desperate after blog posts like these?
I’d accuse you simply making shit up, but that awards far too much credit. Congratulations on a well-executed regurgitation though.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
You may not be able to fathom what has PZ so willing to blog about you, but it isn’t difficult to see. There are a number of fallacies and out-right falsehoods in your previous blog referencing “Darwin Day” (He was not critiquing the movie).
Now you can’t even do the arithmetic accurately - nearly one third of his blog was a recap of yours, so that he could properly comment on it without seeming to quote mine you (just as I fully quote you on my Darwin Day blog post). That he typed twice (not the presumed four times) as much as you might be an indication of the evidence provided to refute your statements on Darwin Day. I’d say he slacked off or was rushed for time.
That he is interested in your blogs should be obvious - you interviewed him and potentially put selected bits of the interview into your movie. I’m sure he is eager to see how well preserved that interview is - or how mangled.
jbs
February 18th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Seriously, what’s with this Philip guy? Is this “typing in tongues” or something? Hurry up and rapture him already.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
[…] truly delightful find! I spent this entire evening reading about the hilarious saga of PZ and Expelled (read the responses! esp. #90 […]
February 18th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I find it hilarious (and frustrating) that the IDiots here try to play martyr when they’re the only ones playing Thought Police and information control games.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
The only people who should want to squelch The Expelled producers’ freedom of speech are those they purport to AGREE with. They are to IDers as Hillary Clinton is to the Democrats, an energizer for the opposition.
The only thing that makes me squirm is knowing they are supposedly on MY side. Yikes!
I read PZ Myers’ rebuttal. I thought he was eloquent and unflinchingly correct in his rebuking of Stein’s blog.
Where he utterly bungled was the usual weak point for Atheists, when he tried to talk life science, supposedly his expertise.
His worst was when he tried to show how “correct” Darwin was in his assessment of “savage races”. Myers rightly rebuked Expelled’s race-baiting, but blurted classic Darwinist flawed thinking when he got back to science.
Here is the statement by Darwin he referred to:
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”
Myers assented in more fawning over Darwin, who never did get much right.
Darwin was NOT claiming that the “savage races” would gradually learn to become more like “civilized races”.
He claimed that they would become “exterminated”. In fact he strongly proclaimed that it “will almost certainly” happen. By “exterminate” he means EXTINCT, as in his much-ballyhooed but rarely seen “survival of the fittest” model. He meant DEATH, not learning or developing.
This is a key deficiency in Darwinian thinking: That any failure to get what he considers a “higher form” of being (white, that is, right gendelkhan?) MUST lead to the extermination of that “lower form”. Darwinism hinges everything on this proposition, yet it is not found in the evidence any more than the extinction of Australians.
Things don’t just go extinct based on minor differences. They adapt genetically WITHOUT dying off, OR by other means, such as learning to live better in their environment with the tools they have.
Extinctions generally happen en masse with major climate changes, famine or other catastrophes. And when these happen, all creatures, from fit to least fit, die off. Extinctions almost never follow slight microevolution. In other words, GENETICS are changing us, NOT survival of the fittest.
The only thing that is “almost absolutely certain” is that exterminations do NOT happen as Darwin envisioned them.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
For all those who decry freedom of speech and ask for PZ Myers’ full opinion to be heard (and I agree with you), why don’t you also sign the above petition, so that criticism of Darwinism is allowed in classrooms and the University setting?
Deductions on the evidence both FOR and AGAINST Darwinism should be allowed in classrooms and among University-level academia, although I would be hard-pressed to find much evidence favoring Darwin’s version of evolution.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Hey Philip! I see you’ve contributed multiple times to this discussion without addressing anybody’s points (Myers’ post, or any of the several dozen commenters here who have called BS on this blog’s authors for refusing to address criticisms)
What gives?
I don’t suppose you are a real person, rather than a sock puppet for this film? If so, could you describe how you arrived at the conclusions you hold? And enumerate some of the evidence that convinced you, and that you feel should convince others that your point of view is correct?
This is usually more productive than posting smug, exclaimation-mark laden arguments-by-assertion.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
PZ MYERS MINIONS like Bronze Dog already making accusations of editorial license when they havent seen the movie yet. PZ has taught you all the concept of presumption very well! Did PZ also tell you that you can only trust Atheist?
The glaring problem for PZ Fans is that PZ knew he was being filmed and even signed a legal binding consent release for the film! Just because PZ ended up spewed his vomit all over the film like a drunken sailor because he thought the film was evolutionist friendly does not excuse his actions one bit! Nor does not mean that Filmmakers need to give him a copy of it!
The fact that you are already making false accusations and have made your mind up 2 months before the movie has been release speaks volumes of your PZ training!
In addition, The fact that you attempt to associate ID with Creationism displays your woeful ignorance to the ID discussion and your beginning indoctrination in PZ MYERS Atheism!
*******************************************************
Bronze Dog Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Its a movie coming out in April, buy a ticket! He will have plenty of time after the movie exposes him, for him to do try damage control!
And yet, April is not now. Why should we wait another couple of months for the creatively edited version of PZ’s interview? Why the stalling? Why do you need two more months of damage control? PZ’s ready now. Why do you keep insisting on being allowed time to stall? You’re awfully smug for someone who insists on a two-month head start.
Oh, and why should I waste my money buying a ticket to a movie that’s not promising anything new? If the trailer’s any indication, it’ll be the same lies that already get repeated by trolls, and have died the death of a thousand refutations.
.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
# Sonic Youth Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Must be. Ben Stein can’t be dumb to really buy into this disingenuous and dishonest garbage - typical ID tactical misinformation and misdirection. This most certainly is comic theater genius.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Why wait two months for selectively-edited garbage? We’re asking for *unedited* film, where the creators can’t quotemine with video. I, for one, would gladly appreciate the unedited film now or two months from now, so long as it’s truly unedited, although given the silly claims on this blog it’d be better for them to put up or shut up. I don’t plan on paying for this film, it’s such a cheap lie factory (from the preview and this blog) that it’s more like a desparate cry for attention from Ben Stein, and I don’t think I can take that much whining.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
“You would think that a supporter of academic freedom would welcome a well publicized point-of-view that challenged the reigning orthodoxy in his area of supposed expertise.”
You treat this theory as if researchers have uncovered a new, revolutionary idea. The reason scientists are upset is because intelligent design is the theory that was originated in, oh, I dunno, a couple thousand B.C., and since that time, no evidence in its favor has been uncovered. Evolution was a revolutionary idea, but the more it was tested, the more the evidence supported it.
What is angering scientists isn’t that the minority is widely publicizing a new alternative to the accepted theory, it’s that they’re demanding we take seriously stories from a book that were long ago thrown out as inconsistent with evidence, that are now being dug up and shouted about with endless money and man-power behind the effort.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Marcus Williams Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Have you looked at Myers site? Obviously not, or you wouldn’t be so vocal. He ripped apart the Lincoln Day Darwin Day blog with logic and fact. He did the same with this blog.
philip says:
MW, I respect you as a scientist. However, please explain to me why a highly educated man such as yourself would immerse himself with a pseudo scientist who claims himself as
“Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal”
His moniker represents against all that is good about science! The sad fact is that he indoctrinates college students into his religion. Thank God he is really just a peon associate professor in some cow pasture somewhere in that Intellectual enclave called Minnesota.
.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I have two comments to these claims that the movie is going to see me “exposed for the sad example of scientist he really is”.
First, get real. My interview is not going to be a prominent part of this movie, which is mainly going to focus on Ben Stein posturing before audiences and interviewing martyrs for the cause, the parade of creationists who will be complaining about Darwinist oppression. I was interviewed for two or three hours, and I’ll be surprised if I get more than two or three minutes.
Second, I am seriously not embarrassed, ashamed, or worried about anything I said. If my words expose me as an “unethical, Bold two-faced Lier,” I say, show the whole thing to the world. Go ahead. Release the entire damning testimony, and watch me shrivel with chagrin. It really isn’t a problem for me.
There is precedent. Richard Dawkins released the entire, unedited, uncut clip of his interview with Alister McGrath for his “Root of All Evil?” documentary. He didn’t use it in the documentary, but he had nothing to hide. That’s the standard of honesty on our side; can the producers of Expelled match it?
February 19th, 2008 at 1:28 am
The question of evolution should be approached scientifically,but unfortunately it is not. The evolutionists will not allow it. They do not use the scientific method. I would challenge any evolutionist to an honest discussion of the validity of the theory. Perhaps you could start by giving examples of scientific experiments and observations showing how complex structures can be formed in simple one-step increments. Or show how you can evolve one species of bacteria into another species of bacteria in the laboratory. That must be relatively simple, or is it?
February 19th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Alexa ranking for http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula - 11, 218
Alexa ranking for http://expelledthemovie.com - 165,899
I understand you’re not all that much into data supporting your arguments over here on Win Ben Stein’s Pandering, but it appears you should be a tad more modest than Mr. Myers….by about a factor of 15.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:28 am
Hey PZ,
If you want to see yourself on the big screen, Buy a ticket!
Why dont we just let the film be viewed by millions of people and let them decide for themselves if your a “unethical, Bold two-faced Lier,” as you stated.
You posted on your own blog the following:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/more_empty_posturing_from_rulo.php
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 18, 2008 9:51 AM, by PZ Myers
“And actually, I don’t remember precisely what I said in the interview, nor am I concerned about it. I get interviewed on this stuff all the time, and I say what I think without concern”.
If your not concerned, then neither should the producers of this film be concerned. So why the sudden interest in obtaining a complete unedited version of your interview?
Any request you now make would be considered a contradiction to your own above statement made on your own Blog and would give credence to your “unethical, Bold two-faced Lier,” statement as well!
So, Relax and enjoy the fruit of your work! I know I will!
**********************************************************
PZ Myers Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I have two comments to these claims that the movie is going to see me “exposed for the sad example of scientist he really is”.
First, get real. My interview is not going to be a prominent part of this movie, which is mainly going to focus on Ben Stein posturing before audiences and interviewing martyrs for the cause, the parade of creationists who will be complaining about Darwinist oppression. I was interviewed for two or three hours, and I’ll be surprised if I get more than two or three minutes.
Second, I am seriously not embarrassed, ashamed, or worried about anything I said. If my words expose me as an “unethical, Bold two-faced Lier,” I say, show the whole thing to the world. Go ahead. Release the entire damning testimony, and watch me shrivel with chagrin. It really isn’t a problem for me.
There is precedent. Richard Dawkins released the entire, unedited, uncut clip of his interview with Alister McGrath for his “Root of All Evil?” documentary. He didn’t use it in the documentary, but he had nothing to hide. That’s the standard of honesty on our side; can the producers of Expelled match it?
February 19th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Fresh Clichès Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Alexa ranking for http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula - 11, 218
Alexa ranking for http://expelledthemovie.com - 165,899
I understand you’re not all that much into data supporting your arguments over here on Win Ben Stein’s Pandering, but it appears you should be a tad more modest than Mr. Myers….by about a factor of 15.
philip says:
Why dont you wait until the movie is released and is watched by millions of movie-goers before conducting your little poll?
Besides, I dont think you are foolish enough to compare a little blog with a nationally distributed movie that will be seen by millions of viewers!
.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:55 am
Shirakawasuna Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Why wait two months for selectively-edited garbage? We’re asking for *unedited* film, where the creators can’t quotemine with video….
Philip says:
Surely, PZ MYERS doesent condone your unproven accusations?
PZ MYERS himself stated the following:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/more_empty_posturing_from_rulo.php
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 18, 2008 9:51 AM, by PZ Myers
“And actually, I don’t remember precisely what I said in the interview, nor am I concerned about it. I get interviewed on this stuff all the time, and I say what I think without concern”.
If hes not concerned about it, why should you be? Lets not make him out to be a “unethical, Bold two-faced Lier” as he stated. We wouldnt want to tarnish his reputation by exposing him for actually being concerned with his interview.
So relax and enjoy the fruit of his work! I know I am!
.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:04 am
“It’s (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant –– which means they’re going to draw in about 90% of the American market.”
-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.
Philip says:
90% of the American market is a heck of a lot of people watching an Atheist scientist making derogatory comments about their cherished beliefs!
Yeah, the response to this film will be very interesting!
.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:08 am
Don Pacini Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Well, the questions you are asking are kind of wrong-headed. The best example of the scientific nature of evolution is that evolution is a comprehensive theory which makes predictions about what things will and will not be found in the fossil record, in comparative studies of existing life, and how populations evolve over time. For example, chimps and humans have different numbers of chromosomes pairs. If they have a common ancestor, then either that ancestor had as many chromosomes as an ape and two chromosomes fused to form the human ancestral genome, OR that ancestor had as many chromosomes as humans and one of the chromosomes broke to form the ape genome. This is exactly what is found. Bats have two traits different than the closest living non-bat species, echolocation and flight. Evolution predicts that it’s vastly more likely that one or the other happened first, then the other. This is what is found in the new fossil record. Evolution predicts that whales, an aquatic mammal, must have evolved from legged land mammal with nostrils on the snout. This is what the fossil record shows.
But on to your questions.
Mathematical and computer models have shown simulated evolution to produce complex, even irreducible complex behaviors and structures. These simulations are extremely clever, finding solutions their experimenters did not predict in advance, like a circuit which passed its fitness test by becoming a radio rather than the planned oscillator circuit.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2732-radio-emerges-from-the-electronic-soup.html
http://www.tim-taylor.com/talks/evoint/img16.html
http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/research/groups/ccnr/Papers/Downloads/Bird_CEC2002.pdf
Likewise similar smartness of evolution was seen in the creation of a supersonic two-phase flashing nozzle by Schwefel in the late 1960’s.
And in biological systems, Darwin said that the evolution of the eye would definitely need to be explained. Not only has this been done, but every hypothetical intermediate has been documented in nature showing that each of the eye-intermediates has positive value, which is required.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIICComplexity.shtml
I doubt that many of the non-biologist readers, personally, can meaningfully define “species” with regard to bacteria which propagates by asexual reproduction. So this is a question whose answer would be meaningless to most. I have saved it for last. But new functions arise all the time in laboratory evolution, even when that was not the goal. At a June 2007 conference of scientists who were tasked with promoting ID, one of the invited speakers describes evolution in action:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/id-intelligent.html
And if you want to see new species, you don’t need to limit yourself to bacteria, or a room called a laboratory. The science of biology concerns life, and life is everywhere on Earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
And if you really want to talk about speciation in asexual life, we have the endemic “flu” which is at home in various species (pigs, birds, etc.), causing great damage when it mutates to a form which spreads to humans. Likewise for “smallpox” which comes from a bovine disease, and so does it’s vaccine. And we have seen bacteria evolve to eat waste chemicals which were indigestible to any other species. This bacteria (genus Flavobacterium) now lives in waste ponds contaminated with nylon chemicals and since it has a new environmental niche, it meets all the criteria which bacteriologists use to define species for bacteria. Later scientists would take another genus of bacteria (Pseudomonas)and in an actual laboratory room selected for mutations to digest nylon products.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7646041
February 19th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Fresh Clichès Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 2:40 am
That should be “Professor Myers.” He didn’t spend a lifetime of biological research, teaching and public service to be called “Mr.”
February 19th, 2008 at 4:18 am
Don Pacini: Learning about any of those things should only take a small amount of studying at any university or online references. MIT’s OpenCourseware has its biology classes online, feel free to check them. The theory of evolution is testable, both in historic sciences like paleontology and current experimental sciences (the meat of the theory) - vaccines and antibiotics are very basic ways to demonstrate a number of the core principles of evolution in a testable, repeatable way. Evolving ‘one species of bacteria into another’ is a relative kind of thing - bacteria are asexual and thus sexual speciation is not factored in. One can certainly ‘evolve’ a bacteria or other lifeform with short reproduction cycles under conditions that will result in different allele frequency. If you raise slime mold in certain conditions, they will lose their ability to form some of their structures, for instance (in much the same way that the bacteria remaining after being treated with an antibiotic will be outcompeted by other, more efficient bacteria).
February 19th, 2008 at 4:51 am
philip Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Just think…This film will reach more people in one day, then PZ MEYERS and R DAWKINS would ever reach in their entire lifetime.”
ER,Actually Phillip, that was the premier of The Golden Compass, despite your cohort panning it unseen and damning it unread.
How much you care to bet that the number of people who buy box office tickets on Expelled first day exceeds
he number of copies of Dawkin’s books sold to date?
I’ll entertain odds that Pullman gets a sequel made before Ben too.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:17 am
.
.
.
.
#97, Frank: The petition is not about criticism being heard. It is about replacing science with religion. It’s the equivalent of signing a petition to teach astrology in astronomy classes. Alchemy in chemistry classes. And so on.
.
.
@philip: Why are you so afraid of the full clip? Why not let him host it? If it’s so bad, surely it would help your cause to replace science with religion, right?
.
.
.
.
.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Frank wrote: “He [Darwin] claimed that they would become ‘exterminated.’ In fact he strongly proclaimed that it ‘will almost certainly’ happen. By ‘exterminate’ he means EXTINCT [emphasis in original], as in his much-ballyhooed but rarely seen ’survival of the fittest’ model. He meant DEATH, not learning or developing.”
Sadly Frank Darwin was correct. He was much closer temporally to the colonization of the world by the Imperial nations of Europe. There was always one consistent factor in that colonization…the native people tended to die off or their milieu changed so dramatically that the culture died off. In speculative fiction, one of the more interesting scenarios is what happens if Earth is contacted by a far more advanced civilization in the way Europeans contacted Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Africans (among others).
Also…I’m guessing since you posted a comment regarding teaching the controversy that you have not yet read the links from the previous blog post.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Frank Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
For all those who decry freedom of speech and ask for PZ Myers’ full opinion to be heard (and I agree with you), why don’t you also sign the above petition, so that criticism of Darwinism is allowed in classrooms and the University setting?
That’s a straw man Frank. Evolutionary theory is critically discussed and aspects are challenged every day in universities. The reason ID is not presented and taught as a credible scientific theory is because it is neither credible nor scientific and no evidence has ever been presented to prove otherwise. There would be no problem including ID in religous and philosophical studies in a unversity setting.
Also your “critique” of Darwin and the inference that it is inherently racist is woefully ignorant and without merit. Perhaps you would care to share with us your academic and/or professional background that encourages you to make such unsubstantiated pronouncements?
February 19th, 2008 at 8:59 am
PZ MYERS MINIONS like Bronze Dog already making accusations of editorial license when they havent seen the movie yet. PZ has taught you all the concept of presumption very well! Did PZ also tell you that you can only trust Atheist?
I don’t need PZ to tell me any of th