Editor’s Note: Questions have been raised about the origination of some of the animation used in our movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. Claims that we have used any animation in an unauthorized manner are simply false. Premise Media created the animation that illustrates cellular activity used in our film.
The Producers of “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”
The globe’s leading Big Science atheist is ‘shocked! Shocked!’
Anyone reading this blog who isn’t aware of the dustup that occurred at the Mall of America somewhere in Minnesota this past Friday must not be a reader of the New York Times (or any of the teeming millions of ‘mom and pop’ atheist/Darwinist / boffin blogs that are all atwitter about it and still writing well into the night.) The controversy around Premise Media’s upcoming movie Ben Stein’s EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed became the hottest topic in the blogosphere. According to BlogPulse, a service of Nielsen Buzzmetrics, the issue held the number one slot throughout the day on Monday, March 24th
Suffice it to say that getting caught sneaking into a movie is apparently a much, much bigger deal in Minnesota than it is in the rest of the country.
But we understand. What could possibly be more depressing than finding yourself with nothing to do, in town for an atheist’s convention, …in Minnesota of all places? Imagine traveling all the way from England to pal around with an assistant biology professor – and then finding out that your host is a would-be gangsta of sorts? Desperate times call for desperate measures.
If you want to read a highly entertaining, frothy and fairly apoplectic 3,500 word rant (Lying For Jesus?) about what supposedly happened, written by the more famous of the two ‘perps’ – the one whose claim-to-fame is that he successfully ‘snuck in’ to the invitation-only screening of the soon to be released movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed – you can read the unapologetic (if decidedly rabid) version written by that famous Oxford professor and “God Delusion’ author Richard “Clinton” Dawkins himself. (Warning – some language may not be suitable for children.) Keep in mind that he got caught red-handed and was then seriously upbraided in the Q&A follow-up by the film’s talented Assistant Producer Mark Mathis - and so ‘Clint’s’ account must necessarily be taken with a grain of salt.
Or if you want to read a more level-headed (if still not quite ‘fair and balanced’) account, you can click here for The New York Times version (No admission for biologist) of what some are now calling the Great Northfield Minnesota Raid. The once fabled Grey Lady of journalism is not what she used to be, but then again – former President Nixon’s ‘Watergate’ started with a simple report of an attempted ‘break-in, too. So you never know. You just never know.
If on the other hand you prefer the account written by the ‘perp’ who got away – the alleged ‘mastermind’ of the caper and the one who actually claims to feel ‘mighty’ about it (his attempted gate-crashing) but who was unceremoniously frog-marched out of the mall by a local rent-a-cop before he could perpetrate…then the assistant professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris’s bi-polar tale of ennui and ecstasy is the one for you .
Now – by all accounts – what most would consider a business-as-usual kerfuffle is in fact turning out to be a bona fide ‘international incident’ of great and momentous import. One fellow has even taken it upon himself to painstakingly compile a growing list of over forty (count ‘em!) individual URL’s of blogsters who have weighed in.Songs are being written. Screenplays are in the works. The mind boggles.
Most of us, however, haven’t yet finished reading even a tenth of Professor Dawkins’ screed alone, and so – since we weren’t there – we are not about to try and recap, regurgitate or rebut any of the no-doubt well intentioned but dauntingly disparate accounts from the dizzying array of eyewitnesses, passersby, spectators, pundits or perpetrators.
We wouldn’t know where to begin. Seriously. But we are concerned about Professor Dawkins and Mini Me…they seem to be awfully agitated, and we think that we know why. Remember, fellahs: it’s a free country.
– Deacon Blue
March 25th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
INTELLIGENT QUOTE OF THE DAY
“I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more.”
.
.
Mark Mathis, producer of Expelled, explains why he expelled Dr. PZ Myers from a free screening of the movie last week in Minneapolis, which Dr. Myers had pre-registered himself and several guests. Bear in mind that Dr Myers was featured in an interview in the film, and was “thanked” for his participation in the credits of the film.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
1. Not the most important, but the most amusing generate the buzz in the blogosphere. And the pathetic handling of the hole affair is amusing to the extreme!
2. PZ Myers is an associate professor of biology at UMM - and not, as you stated twice! - an assistant professor.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
According to Myerz and Dawkins, they had reserved seats in their own names. Since they are both actually IN the movie, I don’t see why they would not be allowed to see it. Had they been previously told that they would not be allowed to see it? Did they falsify their names on the reservation? Unless they did those things, I don’t think you can say they tried to “sneak” in.
It’s all a but ironic, to say the least. Having to be “rebels” to see a moving about the “rebel” topic of ID. ID isn’t allowed in school due to suppression, so you suppress others from seeing it?
March 25th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
The Way it REALLY IS
(Punc Eq is a Non Seq)
The proponents of evolutionism are so fanatical in promoting their belief system, and in forcing it in EVERYBODY, they just give no chance for any other explanation to be heard.
But here is the way it really is. It is called the Gap Theory, and it comports both with the Genesis account and the physical evidence:
Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
The most common variety of “gap theory” assumes that a chronological gap occurs between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, during which vast spans of geologic time are presumed to have elapsed. It is thus postulated that the Earth was initially created in the distant past, and that all geologic events pointing to an old Earth transpired before some event that reduced the Earth to a state of formlessness or chaos as described in Genesis 1:2. This interpretation views Genesis 1:1-2 as best translated thus:
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
–gap occurs here–
Now the earth became formless and void (or waste and ruin)…”
One suggested explanation for the event that throws the Earth into chaos is the fall of Lucifer (Satan). (Revelation 12:7-12, Isaiah 14:12, Ezekiel 28, Luke 10:18)
Those who hold this viewpoint on when the gap occurred point out that the “clock” on the six days of Genesis 1 may not have started “ticking” until the emergence of light in Genesis 1:3 as that verse indicates that this was the evening and morning that make the first day of Genesis, and light had to be present to initiate an evening.
The viewpoint that a gap took place between verses 1 and 2 implies that the events during the six days of Genesis 1 were an act of re-creation (restoration of the Earth) rather than initial creation, explaining why Gap creationism is sometimes called “Ruin-Restoration”, and is part of the ideas held by some adherents of Dispensationalism as recorded by Rev. Clarence Larkin in his book Dispensational Truth. One of the stronger arguments for support of this viewpoint is found within the wording of Genesis 1:2 which states that the planet earth was already a physical entity covered in waters and existing in space-time before God said “…let there be light” in Genesis 1:3.
Although the Bible gives no specific time for the interval between the initial creation (Genesis 1:1) and the start of the regeneration (Genesis 1:3), some Old Earth creationists see it as being merely thousands of years at the most on the basis that “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day” (see: Day-Age Creationism), while the majority of others feel that it must be considerably longer than that to account for the scientific geological record; this Old Earth Creationist view is at considerable variance with the Young Earth Creationist view, although both doctrinal schools are found within Christian fundamentalism.
Between Genesis 2 and 3
Some Gap Creationists postulate that a gap occurs between the seventh day, the one of rest, and the account of the Fall of Adam and Eve and hence that of Mankind through the agency of the temptation of Satan in the form of a snake. According to this theory, this amount of time would be sufficient for all of the geologic events which have happened to make the appearance of the Earth to be quite old.
Supporting scriptures
In contradistinction with other Old Earth creationists, Gap creationisms generally agree with the account of six literal 24-hour days as given in Genesis, and that everything done during this six day period was “very good”. However, there are a number of scriptures which adherents contend support the Ruin-Reconstruction theory of an earth existing prior to this six day event.
God is light and cannot create anything in a less than perfect state, so a newly created earth from the hand of God shouldn’t have been without form and void, and shrouded in darkness. Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 45:18 1 John 1:5
The Holy Spirit was “renewing” the face of the earth as he hovered over the face of the waters. Psalms 104:30
Angels already existed when God “laid the foundations of the Earth”, so there had been at least one creative act of God before this. Job 38:4-7
Satan had fallen from grace “in the beginning”. A state of sin in the universe, but not yet in mankind, is demonstrated by the serpent’s temptation of Adam and Eve to sin before they were actually corrupted by sin. Ezekiel 28:11-19, John 8:44
The death that “came to all men” through Adam was spiritual death, not physical death. At least two men in the past (Enoch and Elijah) did not die physically. Furthermore, Jesus is said to bring life to all men, and yet physical death still occurs. In fact, Jesus personally dealt with this very same confusion between physical and spiritual death among the Pharisees. Genesis 5:23-24, 2 Kings 2:11, John 8:51-53, Hebrews 11:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
Related to all of this is the fact that space, time, water, and the rock and metal which constitutes the main body of the earth existed in Genesis 1:2 before the period of six days began. In fact, the Bible doesn’t discuss details on the creation of the body of the earth at all; beginning in verse 3, Genesis 1 only discusses the surface of the planet.
These scriptures are cited by supporters of Gap creationism without an appeal to scientific or secular investigations. Gap creationists do not necessarily agree with theories given by science, including the Big Bang and Evolution and others. In fact, a gap creationist may believe that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old; ie. that the “gap” was of a very short duration. The contention is simply that Scripture records the Genesis account to be a reconstruction of an existing earth.
-from Wiki, Gap Theory
My comments:
Darwinian gradualism has been discounted by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, specifically in The Panda’s Thumb, chapter 17, page 182:
“It is [Darwinian] gradualism we must reject, not Darwinism.”
and:
“The HISTORY of most fossil species includes two features particularly INCONSISTANT with gradualism:”
-caps mine
He goes on to list STASIS, meaning animals are unchanged during their lives on earth, and SUDDEN APPEARANCE, meaning that animals appear all at once and fully formed, with no evidence of any gradual transformation, as Darwin proposed.
With these weaknesses in mind, he proposed Punctuated Equilibrium, supposedly, we are told, as an extension of Darwinian Gradualism. But if the original theory is almost completely lacking in actual evidence, how is an extension of same going to rectify anything? The evidence remains identical, just the story has changed, and that does not comport with reality.
No, punc eq is a non seq. The Gap explanation fits the evidence best, and it WILL prevail, because it is true. Remember, truth is great and will prevail, when pains are taken to bring it to light.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
So let’s see, the scientists have no fear to see the film, but the Expelled bunch is afraid for them to see it.
It’s reality being the opposite of what the film claims.
Like that is anything new.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
March 25th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
One of the biggest PR fumbles in late memory and your defense is “it was really long?” Pathetic.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Having just read the rant of Richard Dawkins, thanks to yourselves, I could only imagine a rabid dog, frothing at the mouth, barking madly at all and sundry. Never in my life have I ever read such venom from a person who is supposed to teach, nay direct the teaching, about making science more understandable by the population at large. The childish manner in which he described how he managed to get to see the screening of the film, together with that of his co-conspirator who was unsuccessful in his attempt to see the film, speaks volumes about them both. I only wish that his rant can be made more public. Indeed, reading it is rather reminiscent of how near-deranged dictators, both past and present, ( Mugabe comes to mind as a present candidate) address their public. That the film elicited such a response from Richard Dawkins is all the nore reason why it should be globally screened. And as a British subject, may I apologise to all those who have been so venomously treated by Richard Dawkins in this rant. We are not all like him, thank God.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
How exactly were they ’sneaking’? Did they provide false names? Did they have doctored identification papers? Were they wearing fake mustaches? Did they attempt to sneak in a back door entrance?
Get the facts straight — They signed up on a public website (the URL for the RSVP system is posted on numerous websites included the public MySpace page for Expelled: The Movement) and stood in line just like everyone else.
Now can anyone tell me why the producers at Expelled wouldn’t want someone who is featured in the movie and thanked in the ending credits to be allowed to see the movie? If the producer wanted $8, I’m sure PZ would have given him a $10 and not asked for the change.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
“Most of us, however, haven’t yet finished reading even a tenth of Professor Dawkins’ screed alone, and so – since we weren’t there – we are not about to try and recap, regurgitate or rebut any of the no-doubt well intentioned but dauntingly disparate accounts from the dizzying array of eyewitnesses, passersby, spectators, pundits or perpetrators.”
First, they slam PZ for critiquing a movie he has not seen yet. Justified.
Then they critique Dawkins’ blog which they admit they have not read. HYPOCRITES.
Then they post about an event that they were not even at. HYPOCRITES.
Sounds like Ben and the Boys are just looking for a little publicity. WHAT A JOKE.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“they seem to be awfully agitated, and we think that we know why. Remember, fellahs: it’s a free country.”
You’re just not free to see whichever movie you want.
It’s so easy to sneak into things, especially since 9/11, everyone is so easy-going nowadays. I should probably tell you about the time I snuck onto a commercial flight to Los Angeles…
I bought a plane ticket on-line, went to the airport, snuck through security (they made me take off my shoes, oh, and they went through my stuff), found the gate, casually gave the gate person my ticket, she scanned it, and then I snuck onto the plane…EASY AS THAT! (I accidentally sat in the wrong seat and a flight attendant asked me to move, but after that I snuck into my assigned seat! Haha, right under their noses!)
Oh, yeah, Nazis were Darwinists, eh? Go ahead and call a neo-nazi skinhead a Darwinist. Go storm a KKK event and call them all atheists. I triple-dog-dare you with a stamp…(I’ll visit you in the hospital.)
March 25th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Just out of curiosity, what is a boffin blog?
March 25th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Ah, the incoherent “Deacon Blue,” who wrote a post so looney it was actually scrubbed from this very blog, is back with another round of falsehoods and confusions.
Since when is signing up under your own name “sneaking” into a movie? The producers have changed their story on why they petulantly decided to kick Myers in an apparent fit of rage so many times that it’s been hilarious. They can’t even get the facts straight about their own showings. The reports aren’t “disparate” at all: they simply demonstrate the producers acting in an embarrassingly childish fashion and then trying to spin their way out of it afterwards.
The reason it’s getting so much play is that it illustrates how petty and bitter the producers are, and how they are simply incapable of conducting the debate they pretend to want to have with scientists.
Again and again, people have raised substantive criticisms. And the only response from Expelled’s producers? Not to answer any of these criticisms with logic or arguments of their own. No no: it’s to scream that they are VICTIMS and try to portray people pointing out their silly behavior as some sort of vast oppression.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“Keep in mind that he got caught red-handed and was then seriously upbraided in the Q&A follow-up by the film’s talented Assistant Producer Mark Mathis”
This is the best part of the whole claim.
How did Dawkins get “caught red handed”? Doing what? He came to a film via it’s signup process. The producers were apparently so angry and upset that Myers had come that they apparently stormed away before seeing that Dawkins had by chance come as well.
And when Dawkins stood up in the theater, Mathis was surprised to see him, not “catching” him doing anything. Mathis’s “upbraiding” about how why Myers was not allowed in turned out to be a flat out lie: a lie confirmed by Mathis’ own new account (i.e. he banned Myers because he was bitter that Myers had criticized him in a blog).
March 25th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
This appears to be the equivalent of football’s “Hail Mary” after one of the biggest PR blunders I’ve experienced.
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker, creators of some of the most irony-laden pieces of music, would quietly smirk at this blog entry.
One man’s “Deacon Blue” is another’s “Charlie Freak”, I guess.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Apparently no one of intelligence is intentionally allowed into the movie theater. Not a problem. No one of intelligence should want to go.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
All I have to say is…
WWJD?
This is silly, and how did they miss Dawkins anyways? You would think that after filming him in the movie (albeit under false pretenses) you would recognize the brit. Oh wait, I am sure he was ducking and sneaking all through out the theater.
I am guessing that (yes, I know I have not seen it)this movie is going to flop. People just are not going to care. I would hypothesise that more money will be generated by people that accept evolution (AKA have an education) than the .1% of people who are actually outspoken loudmouth creationists. I guess we will see though.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Of course it was funny that the producer of this dishonest anti-science boring movie was afraid to let one of the stars of the movie see the movie. Cowards and the way they act is always good for a laugh.
But let’s not forget what’s really important about this movie. It’s an attack against science and scientists. It’s a defense of supernatural magic, also known as intelligent design creationism, which was invented for one reason and one reason only, to force science teachers to teach religious ideas in a science classroom.
Fake scientists who invoke sky fairy magic should not be surprised if they are laughed at and fired.
There is absolutely no difference between a fake scientist who invokes intelligent design magic and a fake scientist who claims the earth is flat. People who prefer magic instead of science deserve the same respect a flat-earther deserves, which is no respect at all.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Duh…
Not believing in God certainly has its perks…if you descended from apes, then you are an animal; incapable of curbing your passions and therefore not responsible for your actions…
As we’ve seen in recent times, taking God out of everything has been wonderful for our society!!! We are all much more loving towards each other (But only when using a condom!!) there is less crime, less murder, less rape, less pornography, less hate filled speech, less gang activity, less bigotry, but more swear words and skin on TV(Yeah! Boobies!!! On NBC!!!Man we are soooooo sophisticated now!!!) and oh, yes…MUCH MORE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE!!! Our kids are totaly able to spell their favorite four-letter-words by high school!! Yea!! Progress!!
Yep. God only ruins everything, and fools who worship/revere God are DANGEROUS and SEEK to DESTROY all the FUN I’M HAVING!!! This is just not fair. They are smothering me, and corrupting my creativity, and we must rid ourselves of these crazy God-lovers, or the world as we know it will disappear!!
I just don’t understand why you all can’t see what I’m seeing here…huh.
And yes. I am kidding. But so many are not. Sad and scary.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I heard the local evo brownshirts are considering a protest event at the local showing of Expelled. No problem I’m taking my two pit bulls with me and if necessary their leashes might break at the appropriate time.
After this movie shows people like pee wee myers, doggins and even mentally ill Bob C. types will be hunted down with wild rabid flocks of bats.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Why wasn’t there a red carpet event where the “stars” of the movie are recognized, have their pictures taken, and given a front row seat?
March 25th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
First a comment about the gate crashing charge… the quite public web site for reservations said:
Is PZ not a member of the community?
Second:
Assistant Professor != Associate Professor
Dr. Paul Myers is an Associate Professor. Check and get your facts correct.
Third:
Clinton Richard Dawkins is Dr. Dawkins true and legal name (not Richard “Clinton” Dawkins). Because Clinton is his honest and true first name, the passport he carries by UK law must in fact be in that legal name (I looked it up on a UK passport FAQ). No sneaky hiding behind a phony name here.
Dr. Dawkins wasn’t in the US just to visit PZ, nor even to actually see the movie. If you had the slightest interest and the tiniest bit of academic acumen, it’d take 20 seconds for you to find that out.
So:
You claim the viewing was invitation only - but the invitation was for the “community.” A community has a number of broad definitions which PZ liberally assumed included citizens near and around the area of the viewing. At the reservation page, it included the ability to bring guests, which PZ did. He and his guest did not gatecrash. You guys sound desperate trying to spin this in that fashion.
Dr. Dawkins used his well known and full legal name to enter the theater. He was not sneaking in. You guys sound awfully desperate trying to spin this in that fashion.
As to constantly calling Dr. Myers an Assistant Professor is probably not an intentional slight, but do work a little harder at your writing. It isn’t like it’s a difficult science or anything. It only leads the reader who knows the difference to think you’re quite desperate and hurriedly scrawling the first things that come to mind and screw the truth.
If I didn’t know better (and perhaps I don’t) I’d think you were desperately trying to put a positive spin on a hopeless situation for which you’ve already lost control.
JBS
March 25th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
when are you lot going to stop lying about what happened and stop being so stupiurope are laughing at you - America is headed into the doldrums of science if you teach this non-science in schools - when are you going to realise it is religious dogma not science!
March 25th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
darn- that should say Europe is laughing at you
March 25th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Rudolph,
I have to disagree with you. I think scientists SHOULD see this movie. If science is presented, (and the reviews I have read seem to suggest there is not much) its merits should be accepted or discarded, just like science is supposed to do.
If PZ Myers was “stopped” from attending this movie after signing up like everyone else did, I would wonder what the producers had to hide, or why they just wanted THEIR side of the story told. Isn’t that what they accuse evolutionist of? If PZ did not sign up, I would wonder why not?
I have read Darwin’s Voyage of the Beagle and On the Origins… I have read Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box… I have read Origins Reconsidered by Richard Leaky… I have read Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells… as well as the Bible, plus a host of others. I have attended many debates on this topic and attended conferences where various viewpoints were discussed. IF this sounds like bragging, I apologize.
My point, I have listened to BOTH sides and made my OWN decision. I do not want to be like the Christians who stand in front of an arena protesting a Marilyn Manson concert and when you ask them to name of one of his songs or what lyrics they found offensive, they have no idea.
I am willing to spend $8 to hear what these people have to say. And then I will make my own decision on the validity of their points.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Keith wrote:
“I heard the local evo brownshirts are considering a protest event at the local showing of Expelled. No problem I’m taking my two pit bulls with me and if necessary their leashes might break at the appropriate time.”
Thanks for being a Christian we can all look up to for taking the high road. (SARCASM)
March 25th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Re: Eaton
“I heard the local evo brownshirts are considering a protest event at the local showing of Expelled. No problem I’m taking my two pit bulls with me and if necessary their leashes might break at the appropriate time.
After this movie shows people like pee wee myers, doggins and even mentally ill Bob C. types will be hunted down with wild rabid flocks of bats.”
Keith Eaton, I feel sorry for you. You are lonely, spiteful, condescending, dumb, and stupid loser who has nothing better to do than sit around and poke fun at evos on science blogs. You think you are doing them a favor? I for one, am a Christian and I think evolution has flaws. But I go on with life. You think you have something to prove don’t you? You think that people actually care about your stupid little posts on a stupid little blog? I love it when you get all worked up. It makes me realize that my life is so great, and so much better than yours. Have fun with your two pitbulls you old, lonely man.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
In your rant, you make this comment: “Warning – some language may not be suitable for children”.
I read the entire thing, keeping this comment in mind. I cannot find a single, even mild, word. No “heck.” No “darn.” No “shoot.” No “Fiddlesticks.” And certainly nothing worse than “Darn.”
So I add this to the list of lies you are building. You want to scare people away from reading Dawkins’ post by implying that no one under 18 should read it, and it’s just a big lie.
So, for people like FTK floating around out there, DAWKINS’ POST IS PERFECTLY SAFE FOR WORK. There are exactly zero people on the planet who will be offended by Dawkins’ language in this post.
The responses? I didn’t read them. I honestly did not.
Your “Warning – some language may not be suitable for children” comment is yet another lie. Figures.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
His account is completely different from this, and frankly, I believe that PZ is more truthful in his account. Richard Dawkings was his guest, not his partner in this. Besides, WHY BLOCK SOMEONE FROM A SCREENING WHEN THEY CAN JUST SEE IT LATER? It’s not going to make much of a difference and due to the publicity, is likely going to negatively affect the movie in the eyes of many.
“unceremoniously frog-marched out of the mall by a local rent-a-cop”
He blogged about it from the Apple store in the same mall. Bit of a problem in your wording there.
Sorry, but the whole issue seems to be a ploy to lump blame upon someone else. It might help if an apology was issued to PZ and if people would just shut up about the issue.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Mathis, March 24th, Inside Higher Education:
“Unlike the Darwinist establishment, we expell no one.”
Mathis, March 25th, Business Wire
It is amazing to see the reaction of PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and their cohorts when one of them is simply expelled from a movie.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Oh, and if you all don’t get it, PZ Myers was laughing AT you, not whimpering in fear and humiliation. You might not be able to tell the difference, but the rest of the world can.
Once the movie is in general release, if it ever reaches that status, we’ll all get to see it and decide for ourselves. Meanwhile we’re enjoying the comedy the movie team is playing - now I understand why you chose an actor known for his roles in comedy movies.
Once the movie is generally available, you will have no ability to spin control. Given the chance I will thoroughly review, fact by fact, the movie and the conclusion drawn. The only bias I’ll bring to it is an uncharitable view of deceivers - and I’ll decide whether I think the deceivers are the Evolutionists or the Creationists (or is that the atheists or theists…?).
JBS
March 25th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
John, quit with the Bible Lessons. You are sounding like a fanatic, and as a Christian, I really don’t want to be associated with you.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Expelled! Producers Scramble Over Bad PR from Myers/Dawkins Screening. Internet: Altered.
Our favorite feckless film project, Expelled! is now busy celebrating the fact that they are being laughed at. Apparently borne of a bout of bitter vindictiveness, producer Mark Mathis’s decision to ban one of his interviewees (PZ Myers) from on…
March 25th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
“I am willing to spend $8 to hear what these people have to say. And then I will make my own decision on the validity of their points.”
The problem is that a movie is not a particularly useful way for ANYONE to make their points. Movies are short and shallow, and they make appeals based mostly on emotional content and quick accusations, rather than really being able to delve in deep and provide complex information.
There is not one thing this film claims that has not already been claimed else where. Even if all you want to hear is the ID side of things, there are far better resources than a film.
So while I think criticizing this film is important, simply because it’s got such deep pockets and is such an obnoxious outfit, I think it’s also overblown to claim that anyone who ignores it isn’t interested in the discussion or the ideas on both sides of this debate. This movie is basically on the level of a 90 minute commercial for one side. It isn’t the “meat” of either side.
Plus, these guys don’t seem up for a debate anyway. They seem to run away from any substantive debate at every turn.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Deacon-
Even the most cursory search of the facts in the removal of Myers from the film proves you an obvious liar. Promotional “invitations” were available for free through the internet, and both Myers and Dawkins signed up.
So the question remains- why was Myers ejected?
March 25th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
[Psychodiva on March 25th, 2008 at 6:35 pm]”Europe is laughing at you”
Does that include David Berlinski?
March 25th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Oh, you “Expelled” guys are pathetic…
If Dawkins and Myers were “sneaking” in, then everyone there was sneaking in. You invited people to sign up, accepted Myers’ registration under his own name, and then–well, let’s just say that not only were you an ungracious host, but you’ve been spewing lies about the whole thing ever since in a transparent effort to recast yourselves as the “good guys.” Sheesh!
Intelligent design — pah! Would you know intelligence if you saw it?
The silver lining in your silly movie is that it will confirm that ID is exactly what the scientific community has called it–an attempt to smuggle creationism into the classroom. People with a good deal more sense than you have been trying very hard to conceal ID’s religious roots, but you’re out there trumpeting the “how can they keep Thor out of our classrooms? He’ll strike us with lightning!” cause. Great. Keep it up, and the next time you people swindle some slack-jawed yokel on a school board into screwing up the science curriculum, you’ll see another lawsuit, and another result, like you did in Dover.
The scientific community could not possibly make you people look as stupid as you make yourselves look.
Barry
March 25th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
> Dawkins, Richard. 23 March 2008. “Lying for Jesus?”
> http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
> The alleged association between Darwinism and
> Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it
> is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to believe
> that Hitler was influenced by Darwin.
Maser: “Darwin, one of Hitler’s ‘teachers’”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143173595.248723.143420%40t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> Hitler was
> ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to
> have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding
> of Darwin
an exercise: parallels between 1871 Darwin & 1924/5 Hitler?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1134448996.907734.300780%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
4 more Hitler-Darwin parallels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135092414.972723.104980%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> (along with his very ungarbled understanding
> of the anti-semitism of Martin Luther,
Luther’s and Hitler’s antis- were very different
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1149000825.650983.94540%40j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> and of his own
> never-renounced Roman Catholic religion)
gullible believe atheist liar Hitler’s lie that he a Xtian; 1934 Feuchtwanger
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/a270a8a3545ad0cb?dmode=source&hl=en
Rosenberg: “our Leader’s viewpoint”: “catholic church…must disappear from the life of our people”
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/e43c9591fa69d57e?hl=en&
atheist Hitler fooled German Evangelical Church
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/14a73c6f20de1ad8?hl=en&
1939 Goebbels: “The Fuhrer is… completely anti-Christian.”
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145975885.494352.40950%40g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> but it is
> hardly Darwin’s fault if he did.
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
> ==
> Ruse patiently explained that the origin of life (nothing
> to do with the Darwinian theory itself but the necessary
> precursor of Darwinian evolution) is an interesting and
> unsolved mystery, one that scientists are actively
> working on.
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
> ==
> He chose just one (it would have taken too long to
> explain them all) purely as an illustration of the kind of
> properties such a theory must have. He happened to
> choose the theory proposed by the Scottish chemist
> Graham Cairns-Smith, that organic life was preceded
> by a strange and intriguing world of replicating patterns
> on the surfaces of crystals in inorganic clays.
Control - f/ “find” for: clay
Batch of replies to John Wilkins
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-389cg9F5lbshpU1%40individual.net
> ==
> My point here was that design can never be an
> ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity.
What was responsible for the origination of the 2 lines worth of letter sequences above?
(Intelligence/ mind?)
> ==
> Evolution by natural selection is the only known
> process whereby organized complexity can ultimately
> come into being.
To what do you ascribe the origination of the first biological lifeform?
(The operation of “evolution by natural selection”?)
can atheism account for origination of 382 essential genes?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164396926.582303.88630%40j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
March 25th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Wow! It’s really hard to differentiate the stupid in your desperate attempt at spin from the dishonesty, but let’s give it a try:
“getting caught sneaking into a movie”
LIE. There was no sneaking in. Dr. Myers signed up using his own name on a web site that invites all members of the community to RSVP for a free showing. He also accepted the invitation to bring along three guests — Dr. Dawkins was one of these guests. No sneaking whatsoever.
Lie #2 (boy, you really pack them in): Despite Mathis’s belated and inconsistent attempts at damage control, it’s quite clear from the accounts of witnesses that Mathis had no idea whatsoever that Dawkins was present until Dawkins rose to challenge Mathis in the Q&A. No one “got caught” — Mathis just had Myers expelled in an idiotic fit of pettiness.
“frothy and fairly apoplectic 3,500 word rant (Lying For Jesus?)”
STUPID (though it’s a tough call, given that it’s also dishonest)
Only a moron would describe Dawkins’ account as “apoplectic.” Dawkins is obviously bemused by the whole affair, and finds the film to be sadly pathetic. Also, what sort of idiot tries to belittle an opponents reply with a word count? (Although I believe such stupidity has been in evidence previously on this blog.) Deacon Blue seems to think that the ability to write more than two paragraphs at a go somehow is a sign of intellectual weakness. (Psst. DB! Not everyone’s reading list is limited to comic books.)
“[Dawkins] whose claim-to-fame is that he successfully ‘snuck in’ to the invitation-only screening”
LIE. STUPID. STUPID LIE. DUMB DUMB DUMB!(I told you this was hard!)
So, we covered the “snuck in” and “invitation-only” lies up above. No sneaking. They registered online in response to the same general invitation that everyone else had. But how full of oneself does someone have to be to claim that a best-selling author’s “claim to fame” is something as trivial as showing up to a bad movie (which, by the way, he is featured in, having been interviewed under false pretenses)? News flash: It’s Dawkins’ fame that you chumps are trying to milk with your silly movie. (You guys are such a joke, I can’t stop laughing as I write this!)
We’re going to need a whole new category of stupid for Deacon Blue. (”You detonated dynamite in your sink to try to clear a clogged pipe? Man, that’s Deacon Blue stupid!”)
“he got caught red-handed and was then seriously upbraided in the Q&A follow-up by the film’s talented Assistant Producer Mark Mathis”
LIES.
By all accounts (except for some of Mathis’s — since he seems to offer a new account daily) it was Dawkins who was chastising Mathis for doing something as stupid and petty as to expelling Myers (who also plays a prominent part in the film).
Boy, one could go on and on. But let’s just touch on one more:
“[Myers} who was unceremoniously frog-marched out of the mall by a local rent-a-cop”
STUPID
Wow! Here we have, on the official website of Expelled, Deacon Blue GLOATING that they “frog-march” evolutionary biologists (whom they thank in the credits of their film) out of film whose central theme is the importance of tolerance of opposing views. One word (I linked to the dictionary, because I realize you might not know how to look it up): HYPOCRICY!
I don’t think I could have dreamed up a more ironic and moronic scenario than the one you clowns are putting on. If it weren’t so sad, it would be really funny. (OK, it’s still really, really funny!)
March 25th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Well let’s see,
What will be our cinematic choices for the weekend of April 18th?
88 minutes, a thriller starring Al Pacino
Anamorph, with Willem Defoe
The Forbidden Kingdom, with Jackie Chan & Jet Li
Forgetting Sarah Marshall, from the producers of 40 year old Virgin & Knocked UP
Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? , with Morgan Spurlock
Kiss the Bride, with Tori Spelling
Life Before Her Eyes, with Uma Thurman & Pierce Brosnan
The First Saturday In May - a documentary about horses bred to run in the Kentucky Derby
and
Expelled, a documentary made by a bunch of people who have behaved like horses’ asses.
Looks like Expelled is going to underperform the horse movie.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“So the question remains- why was Myers ejected?”
The question was answered: Mathis saw Myers, either in person at the showing or on the list of signups, and let his bitterness at Myers’ harsh criticism get the better of him. He pretty much admitted to exactly this in Premise Media’s own press release, even though it contradicted what he implied in the theater about Myers supposedly “gatecrashing.”
March 26th, 2008 at 12:16 am
A different pesprective surrounding the controversy from screening volunteer -
As a local volunteer from Minneapolis, Minnesota I assisted with setting up the special Minneapolis preview screening of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The movie was set up specifically for specially invited guests for a private showing of the film.
Unfortunately, more than just invited guests showed up. In fact several other rather notable uninvited guests also showed up as well - one by the name of P.Z. Myers and the other well known atheist Richard Dawkins- who were also in the film. The producer said Myers was never invited to this special RSVP movie preview event sponsored by Motive Entertainment only for “VIPs and their guests”. Myers apparently RSVP’d to an invitation he never received. He apparently fooled the host by tricking the invitation/response system utilized. Because this was a private event the security at the Mall of America was notified that P.Z. Myers was attempting to actually enter the private theater event uninvited- and the Mall of America security politely insisted he leave the theater.
As the remaining movie guests filed past the volunteer I.D. checker several remaining Myers family members and friends, notably among them the atheist Richard Dawkins, checked in as a Myers invited guest. Richard Dawkins signed in using the name “Clinton” Dawkins and used his passport to enter the theater as a guest of either Skatje or Mary Gjerness-Myers.
(This is usually the kind of drama I am used to seeing on the screen once inside the movie theatre on the screen-and not in the hallway of a movie theatre. I knew it was going to be an very “interesting” night ahead- indeed!).
Before the movie started, producer Mark Mathis first briefly introduced the film. Because this was a special early preview of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, producer Mark Mathis mentioned that the film version we would be watching would be projected a bit dimly- as this was not the final directors-cut version of the film.
In spite of some minor technical issues with this early version of the movie I must say - the film really did a remarkable job presenting the controversy and really delivered on content. The imagery of the film was both powerful and beautiful- while at the same time nostalgic films clips injected some needed levity into a rather serious film subject.
The basic premise of the movie is simply that there should be a fair and open forum to present both Darwinian theory and Intelligent Design theory. The film suggests there should be academic freedom of speech.
Unfortunately, however, as the movie points out with numerous examples: openness within the academic community is slowly eroding and being replaced by a kind of academic political correctness.
Academia is slowly being closed off to new ideas - even scientific ones. The movie presents to the audience numerous dramatic examples of where there has been radical suppression of alternative scientific theories (hence the title of the film).
Why is this happening exactly? The movie suggests it is because scientists and academics simply dare to ask questions and about Darwinian evolutionary theory- which must be not be questioned. The movie provides numerous dramatic examples of this academic intolerance from Darwinists towards Intelligent Design theory.
Question and Answer session
Other than the movie itself, another highlight of the evening for me was the wonderful discussion that took place with producer Mark Mathis during his post-film Q&A session.
Although the general tone of the discussion was very civil, things become energized when it became apparent that Richard Dawkins,one of the main interviewees in the film, was in the audience.
Dawkins stood up and abruptly started firing off questions at Producer Mark Mathis - who politely and very professionally informed the audience that this person was well-known atheist Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins stood up and questioned Mathis on several issues. He questioned Mathis on why P.Z. Myers was denied access to the free preview showing of the movie.
Mathis calmly responded by explaining that Myers had simply not been an invited guest to this free preview and pointed out the fact that he could pay to see the movie after its release.
(He also joked that he enjoyed the idea of Myers paying $8.00 to see the movie along with everyone else).
It certainly did not escape notice of myself or many in the theatre that Dawkins apparently also had entered into the free movie preview apparently as an uninvited guest.
After Mathis responded to Dawkins’ first objection - Dawkins then claimed to object to the film on the premise that any interview he had done in the film was under the assumption that he was interviewed by Ben Stein and Mark Mathis for a film that was to be about the even-handed look at the Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian evolution controversy. The conversation basically went like this:
Dawkins: I agreed to be in the film under the assumption that I was being interviewed by Ben Stein (and by Mark Mathis) for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Darwinian Evolution controversy.
Mathis- It was a fair treatment.
Dawkins–You got me into the movie under false pretenses.
Mathis- I told you that it was a movie about intelligent design and Darwinistic evolution controversy + (various other things that were in the movie)
Dawkins: I was bending over backwards to define an example of what could be a potential source of life’s origins. Repeats ‘I was bending over backwards’ several times. You ridiculed the alien concept.
Mathis- I did not ridicule the concept- we just showed in the movie what you said in response to the question.
Mathis- I want to correct- what you said on the radio show wasn’t accurate; wasn’t true (more discussion took place)
Dawkins- sorry I did misstate but it was a minor point.
Mathis:- I didn’t think it was minor - you called me a liar.
At one point during the exchange between Mathis and Dawkins, one unidentified audience member in the audience even politely stood up in obvious disagreement with Dawkins and correctly suggested that the main point of the film was that Intelligent Design should be presented along with Darwinian evolution.
Dawkins then attempted to try to continue in debate with Mathis even though Mathis had previously said that wanted the after-movie Q & A session to be about Q & A and not “debate”. I really admired Mathis’ smooth, controlled handling of the entire evening especially the Q & A session. He provided the forum with the type of welcoming and respectful open conversation - the kind of conversation and open discussion the film itself suggests should be much more commonplace -. especially within the academic community in America.
Leonard Gee Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 26th, 2008 at 12:45 am
From comment #31: “John, quit with the Bible Lessons. You are sounding like a fanatic, and as a Christian, I really don’t want to be associated with you.”
John’s comment #4 is really amazing. It’s full of God stuff and even Satan is in there.
It’s this kind of insanity that makes me thank goodness I’m not a Christian. People who are that nuts about the Bible are dangerous. I wouldn’t want to be on an airplane with them.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:53 am
The out of control insanity in comment #4 is the reason why creationists must NEVER be allowed to have anything to say about what’s in a science classroom. It would be a crime to let people that crazy decide anything about education.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Sheer brilliance on the part of Mr. Mathis and the entire Expelled crew!
They knew Myers and a small gathering of his flock would show up at the Expelled screening in Minnesota. After all, this movie has dominated every thought these people have had for months on end. What Mathis has managed to do is one of the most ingenious things I’ve ever seen. He’s (rather easily) outsmarted Myers and in the process has accomplished three very important things. Those three things are:
(i) He’s made a fool out of Myers. This was done just for fun. Myers isn’t just a prick, he’s become Mathis’ very own prick. And as every guy here knows, it’s fun to play with your very own prick, toying with it until it can’t take anymore and it explodes. That describes the Myers’ situation perfectly - he was toyed with for months, and this latest incident was the climax. He’s finally exploded, and he’s made quite a mess. He’ll be in therapy by the end of April. *laughs*
(ii) He’s given Myers a taste of his own medicine. P.Z. obviously didn’t like it, as evidenced by the non-stop crying displayed in his blog. If he’s this upset over being expelled from a movie theater, how would he react if he was expelled from his job due to bigotry, like many in the world of academia have been, which Myers supports?
(iii) He’s given his momentous movie a great deal of publicity. Outside of the upcoming presidential election, I’d argue that Expelled is the hottest topic on the web, with a big part of that interest coming as a result of Myers’ childish actions. The increase in the public’s awareness of Expelled means even more will witness the prejudice in academia. In other words - Myers has shot himself in the foot. Ouch.
So there you have it boys and girls. Myers and his ilk have been spanked like unruly children by the makers of Expelled, and it’s BEE-YOU-TEE-FULL!
March 26th, 2008 at 1:31 am
I have NOT seen the movie and therefore have no comment to make on the movie, but I DO have a comment about what I’ve read ABOUT this movie.
Perhaps, before everyone present shreds the people who made this movie into ribbons, consider seeing the movie first. THAN rant about them and whether you think the movie sucks (or will suck), and whether their ideas make them quacks. Most of you sound extremely intolerant on both sides. It occurs to me that humanity as a whole has much to learn about growing up. It seems most people think they are adults, and criticize others for NOT being adults, but thus far none of anything I’ve read here suggests anyone can claim they are acting like adults. Start with yourself before you criticize everyone around you.
And since I was NOT present for the so-called PR failure at an advanced screening of the movie, I cannot justifiably comment on it (aka accuse anyone).
Going to see the movie and talking to other people (therefore having a dialogue) about the contents of the movie should prove to be MUCH more constructive and debatable. If all anyone can do is harp on what they see as inconstancies, they may in fact be missing or ignoring their own inconsistencies. This is also described by many here as hypocracy. I challenge anyone here to prove they are not themselves hypocrites in some fashion or another. Perhaps that is what makes us human. Perhaps that’s a result of sin.
I have read “Lying for Jesus?” by Richard Dawkins, and am genuinely surprised at how the article is smeared officially on this very website. This greatly disappoints me as I am looking forward to seeing the movie. The ideas suggested in the trailer intrigues me, and therefore I will spend the $11 to see it. As to whether it is poorly crafted as Richard suggests remains to be seen.
I read PZ’s blog linked from this page. Interesting and disappointing. Disappointing because my beliefs will once again be crushed gleefully and as maliciously as possible, but I cannot fault Richard or PZ. While I believe in ELEMENTS of evolution, I do not believe in it wholesale. Nor do I believe wholesale in creationism either. A conundrum to be sure, stuck in the middle.
A final word on this:
Those that believe in God and produced this movie seem to have failed to address their issues and views in an adult and appropriate manner. All this said and I haven’t even SEEN the movie yet. I shall reserve final judgment upon viewing the movie.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:49 am
If the producers of this movie didn’t want this kind of negative publicity they surely could have avoided it.
Myers was going to see the film eventually so you should have not made him leave. But not seeing Dawkins was right next to him will win you eternal fratboy humiliation. That’s just too rich for words, and Dawkins is a much more well known person than Myers is, but probably not anymore and all thanks to you.
This movie bleats about academic freedom and suppression, yet you won’t allow a biologist who is in the film to watch it? Don’t you even remotely see the irony here?
The unhinged rant posted by Deacon Blue is proof the don’t care anymore, the producers of this film. The damage control is beyond repair, no PR can help them now so they just give up and go personal in their attacks.
It’s done, it’s over for your film. Nice try, it was fun while it lasted.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Bob C. Re: #17
Paragraph 1: You of all people should not be judging anyone else for their behavior… I think anyone who’s read your posts know what I mean.
Paragraph 2: Wrong again scooter… The movie’s not an attack on Scientists. Are you completely incapable of any form of comprehension? The movie is fighting for the rights of Scientists and others as well! Bob, do you have any control over how deranged you can get?
Paragraph 3: In translation… Bob said, “blah, blah, blah, blah… blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.” At least that’s what it sounded like to me…
Paragraph 4: Oh Bobby you’re so profound! So deep… So very, very deep… I just love it when you talk over your own head that way. Please, don’t stop now Bobby… Your public is breathless with anticipation while awaiting the very next syllable that might escape that gaping wide pie hole of yours. There’s still further depths to which you can sink Bobby! I’m confident you can sink yet lower. You can do it Bobby!
March 26th, 2008 at 2:23 am
#29 DiEb Says:
March 25th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Dweeb… you forgot the best quote of all! You know… the one in the movie where Dawkins says that aliens designed the earth!
March 26th, 2008 at 2:55 am
#34 watershed:
In answer to your question waterboy… Read the opening header on the web site in which you have to first go to in order to register to receive the invitation to the screenings… It reads as follows:
Quote:
THIS SITE IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR STUDENTS, TEACHERS, PASTORS, YOUTH LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE USEFUL TOOLS AND RESOURCES **TO PROMOTE THE IDEAS SURROUNDING THIS HIGHLY ANTICIPATED FILM.**
Un-Quote.
So… Let’s re-cap:
PZ Myers… hater of religion, hater of this movie, spent the past year trashing the film and its producers at an unhealthy and obsessive pace, arrived at this web site at some point in time, read that heading and said to him self… “Self!… THAT’S ME! SIGN ME UP! I want to **PROMOTE THE IDEAS OF THIS FILM!**
So he enters the site, signs up as if he were in support of the film, receives his invitation, accepts it knowing full well that he is in no way the legally intended target market of this promotion, goes even further by adding his family and bum buddy Dawkins, then shows up for a private screening intended for those who are in support of the cause and is SHOCKED when asked to leave.
Story doesn’t end there… Oh no… then Mr. Myers runs to the nearest connection to the internet he can find while still in the mall, to log on to his blog and brag about his immaturity to all his blind and adoring sheep…
I have a question for you Mr waterboy…. don’t you find that wool just a tad bit itchy?
March 26th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Unclear on the Concept
#31 Question Without Reason Says:
March 25th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
John, quit with the Bible Lessons. You are sounding like a fanatic, and as a Christian, I really don’t want to be associated with you.
QWRS:
Can you read? Do you have a clue as to what I even posted? IF you are a Christian, you are not much of one. Jesus says that those who are ashamed of Him and his Word, He will be ashamed of before God and the holy angels.
For that dubious distinction, you certainly qualify.
It is your brand of putrid, gutless Christianity that has put society in the mess it is in today. Wimps like you are afraid to speak up, because it might be unpopular. You are spineless–why should I care what YOU think?
But thank you for your worthless comment, as mindless as it is cowardly.
And all this hoopla over being kicked out of a movie? Who cares? What does that have to do with the issues? It is just a publicity stunt, and it is working very well for the producers, which just shows how gullible the Darwinists really are.
What a joke, on them.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:59 am
WHAT are you damndirtyapelovers SO AFRAID OF?
-yeah, you are all shook up alright!
You all are running around like a bunch of frenzied ants who just got their ant pile stomped. If the movie is so meaningless, why the hysteria? Methinks you protest way, waaaay too much.
I don’t know David Sadler, #709 on the other blog, but he said it very well:
The pro-Darwinism crowd is SCARED TO DEATH of the Intelligent Design model to the degree that they are willing to appear as jack-booted thugs. They are willing to suppress knowledge and end the careers of people who teach an alternative to the dogma of the New Church of Official Science. This is reason enough for those interested in pursuing truth and questing for intellectual freedom to check out Ben’s movie then start reading some good books that scientifically falsify the dogma of Darwinism.
Hopefully Ben will start a list of forbidden books and videos on the subject that we can contribute to.
[He gives a reading list, check it out. Caps mine]
My comment:
I sense a major crack in the foundation of a century-and-a-half mountain of pure LIES! Why is Dickie Dawkins so angry? Why so n-n-n-n-nervous? Why does he go out of his way to slam Mathis as deceitful, when Dawkins himself is one of the biggest liars EVER?
Could it be that he has heard the crack of doom?
We are at the dawn of a new age of reality. People are re-claiming their spiritual heritage, and telling you atheist damndirtyapeloving miscreants where you can put it.
Think of it. Darwinism on the ashes of history.
Gaudeamus igitur! Finem respice!
March 26th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Excuse me but I thought Christianity was suppose to be about truth? Myers signed up (in his own name)on the internet to a free screening…it wasn’t invite only. And these kooks who keep saying people who accept the science of evolution are scared…boo! They are the ones that cling more fiercely to their myths with every discovery that further explains descent with modification. I hope Mathis loses his shirt on this film…but ignorant sheep will flock to it so his investment will probably see a return. Here is my guess of Top Ten Future Lies by Mark Mathis:
10. “Ben Stein made me do this silly film!”
9. “Richard Dawkins told me he flew to Minnesota specifically to see my film but as an afterthought, stopped by the atheist convention.”
8. “Pharyngula is my favorite website…really!”
7. “I respect PZ Myers very much…except when he has a potty mouth.”
6. “The free screenings had to be shut down because of the massive demand for free tickets by expelled scientists.”
5. “Charles Darwin wrote Mein Kampf.”
4. “Ben Stein got his PhD in evolutionary biology from Cambridge and that is why he doesn’t like Dawkins.”
3. “I have never seen this Harvard film everyone is talking about…and who is William Dembski?”
2. “The chalk used by Ben Stein on the blackboard is from the Great Flood deposits of 6000 years ago.”
1. “I intended this movie as a way to reach out to the science community to show them that the creationist/ID movement is one of peace, love and understanding…you darn atheists have spoiled all the fun…”
March 26th, 2008 at 7:06 am
it seems to me that Myer’s account, Dawkin’s account, the accounts on Amused Muse, ERV and so on, all the blogs by people who were there with professor Myers are bemused, not angry in tone, but most importantly - they all agree.
the “official” apologetics done by various members of the Expelled team are snide, sarcastic, childish, ungrateful (these guys appeared in your film for goodness sake, they were unwitting pawns for your polemics) and most importantly, contradict each other. Kevin Miller’s contains several differing excuses simply from the one person.
oh, and that John person - if you’re going to take liberty like that with the Bible to claim that it’s true, maybe you should realise that you have to adjust it in retrospect to fit with the discoveries we’ve made through science.
you could likewise claim that the Koran is even more accurate (it alludes nicely to embryology, for example) than the Bible - certainly if you’re going to insert “gaps” everywhich place - and then how would you tell which holy book had the right account of creation?
March 26th, 2008 at 7:32 am
This whole thing comes down to this: Creationists/IDers want researchers who promote faith-based theories of origins and biological complexity to receive equal billing with science-based theories. The only problem is, when faith is used as an answer, the theory can no longer be considered science. When evidence is produced that organisms were designed by an outside intelligence, Richard Dawkins would be the first scientist to say, “Great, let’s look at the evidence and help me understand.” As of now, self-replicating molecules, leading to prokayotes (bacteria), leading to eukayotes (true cells), leading to multi-cellular organisms is clearly shown in the DNA analysis, the fossil record, and other observed and experimental evidence. Never has any credible scientist or academic said that creationism or ID can not be discussed in philosophy or theology class. But until these people follow the rules of science and produce evidence and peer-reviewed papers of their theories, they will not and should not receive special treatment. They are welcome to seek employment at faith-based schools that condon bending the rules of science, but should not be upset when they are let-go by organizations that do not allow the credulity argument (it is too complex, therefor God must have done it) or the religious scripture argument (because the Bible tells me so)to take the place of serious scholarship. I have not seen the film, but I have watched the trailer and read several reviews. This argument is same-old same-old to many of us that for years, have been arguing that much of the progress of our species on this planet has been due to the separation of church and state as well as the separation of church and science. To return to the pre-Enlightenment days when clergy dictated what was true or false and science must fit the theology of the church is not only foolish but against democratic principles.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Spin, spin spin.
Ben ‘Spin Meister’ Stein dusted off his old speech writing skills and ’spun’ a story out of moonbeams and dust.
God hates liars. Jesus is weeping.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:46 am
jimmiraybob asked: “Just out of curiosity, what is a boffin blog?”
I dunno, but it’s illegal in five Southern states.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:36 am
John
Kind of silly that you think we have anything to be afraid of. Evolution has come out on top in court at least twice, and it continues to be the major model which modern medicine is based on. And it works.
I don’t know how you would define Darwinism, but I assure you, even with this movie, Evolution is not going to go anywhere. You think this is the first time someone has said something about this? Nothing is going to change, because its a scientific fact, with as much evidence (if not more) than even the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease. There is even more converging evidence for evolution than the two mentioned above. But I doubt you think that our medical model is outdated and a big conspiracy do you?
Next time you get a flue shot, or any vaccine, just remember that none of it would be possible if we did not understand how viruses and bacteria evolve.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:43 am
So this is a movie about the ID theory being “expelled” and then two darwin types show up at the screening and are “expelled” just as they expell the ID theory. Sounds like some irony there….but then all these mean rants against the movie and christians and ID. I just wish we were ‘evolving’ into nicer people…but were not. And I think someone blamed God for that somewhere. But then you cant blame something that doesnt exist…make up your minds…..
March 26th, 2008 at 9:50 am
As a side note, I think it is silly that after all the words the creationists here spout out, not one that I have read has been any sort of scientific evidence for intelligent design. Why is this? You say there is a controversy, and that your model is so much better; well then why don’t you offer evidence for it? Typically creationists get stuck when asked for that, and I doubt I will see any response to this.
You can cry and moan about a controversy all you want, but the truth is, when searching biology upon biology database, not ONE peer reviewed article, journal etc. Offers any sort of converging evidence for intelligent design. In fact, the only thing I have ever heard is “we are here, thus we must have been designed”. Unfortunately that is not scientific, and has far more assumptions than evolutionary theory.
So please, anyone from the intelligent design side want to sit me down and explain to me what evidence for a intelligent designer you have? That I could go out and study too, and duplicate your results, and find converging evidence in 10 different major fields? Anyone? Beuler?
I won’t be crossing my fingers on this one.
It’s time to face the facts, the reason Intelligent Design is not taught alongside Darwins theory, is because one clearly follows the scientific method, and the other clearly does not.
It just doesn’t. SO while I am all for talking about problems in Darwins theory where they arise, I think it is silly to make it sound like full blown creationism sound like it can stand side by side. One is clearly science, and the other clearly isn’t.
Perhaps we should teach it in the math class as well? Makes just as much sense, or in the English class, at least than we could bring in the Bible.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Another Liar for Jesus, javascript, said in comment 47: “The movie is fighting for the rights of Scientists and others as well!”
javascript, anyone who believes in intelligent design sky fairy magic is NOT a scientist. They might claim to be scientists, but anyone who invokes magic is NOT a scientist.
The creationists still live in the Dark Ages. They are terrified of the 21st century. If they had their way, all of science would be replaced with magic, and all science textbooks would be replaced by the Bible.
Just look at comment #4. Total out of control insanity. These crazy willfully ignorant cowards will NEVER be allowed to have anything to say about science education.
Creationists, I know your minds are completely destroyed. I know you couldn’t understand anything even if your lives depended on it. But here’s something for you to look at anyway. It’s smoking gun proof everything you believe is a made up story for gullible children.
http://tinyurl.com/3bjf3s
This website explains some of the molecular evidence for evolution. Even though an educated child could understand it, it’s way too complicated for a creationist.
It’s not the creationist’s fault they are unable to understand anything. All creationists are victims of child abuse. Before they learned to walk, and every day since then, they have been relentlessly brainwashed to believe in magic and only magic. They have been trained to reject all of science. For the mentally abused creationist, everything is sky fairy magic. Their minds have been so totally destroyed they don’t even know how sick they are. There is no known cure for their mental illness. When I’m not laughing at them, I almost feel sorry for them. Imagine living an entire life not knowing anything about how the world works. All these scientific discoveries being made every day and they don’t understand any of it. It’s very sad.
These same victims of child abuse are now abusing their own children. Not satisfied with making their children as dumb as possible, the creationists are constantly attacking the education of everyone else’s children. Fortunately they will never be allowed to get away with it.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Leonard Gee: “The movie was set up specifically for specially invited guests for a private showing of the film.”
Leonard Gee, you’re a liar and you know you’re a liar. Anyone who wanted to sign up for this stupid movie could go see it. That’s already been explained to you, but you continue to spread the same lies anyway. You should be ashamed of yourself and you should apologize to everyone here. There is no excuse for your compulsive lying.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:03 am
To all of you Liars for Jesus, explain this.
http://tinyurl.com/3bjf3s
March 26th, 2008 at 10:08 am
PZ Myers…. Associate Professor and (by night) a would-be gangsta!
Gangsta? We are talking about scientific progress and religion and we can’t spell ‘ganster’ correctly? Do you try to take yourselves seriously? Enough people have dissected the lies in your post, but with enough mental acrobatics, you could weasel out of that.
If you wish for the scientific community to take you seriously, how about not calling one of their members a ‘gangsta’?
March 26th, 2008 at 10:13 am
#41: “The basic premise of the movie is simply that there should be a fair and open forum to present both Darwinian theory and Intelligent Design theory.”
Leonard Gee, you’re not just a compulsive liar. You also don’t even know what a scientific theory is. It’s obvious the only thing you’re good at is lying.
Look up the definition of the word theory. The definition you want is the scientific definition. Do you think you could do that? Could you look something up on your own without somebody holding your hand? Probably not.
Your intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory. It’s a childish religious belief in sky fairy magic.
Nobody except insane ignorant creationists like yourself calls evolution “Darwinian theory”. It’s called “evolution”.
Get an education, Leonard Gee, and for God’s sake stop lying. Nobody likes a liar.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:19 am
This continues to be funny, though I’ve been feeling the frustration part more as IDiots line up to parrot old lies as Mathis reinvents his on a daily basis, and be unable to recognize it. Reminds me of this one Creationist troll who stopped by my place, endorsing various forms of epistemological relativism.
Of course, now that we’ve had a number of people who actually saw the movie and confirmed the suspicions we had right from the start, due to pattern recognition, it’s even more pathetic than I imagined. There wasn’t even any content about ID in the movie. Maybe if they invested the money spent on this Plan 9 From Outer Space flick into actually doing research, ID might have something to stand on. (Yeah, right. They haven’t even been able to figure out what to look for.)
March 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am
In response to post #49:
Part of the meaning of the transitive verb ‘promote’ is, according to the OED:
“To publicize or advertise (a product, organization, venture, etc.) so as to increase sales or public awareness. Occas. intr.”
I believe it has always been PZ’s intention to increase public awareness of the movie, which makes it perfectly legitimate for him to have signed up for the screening. Part of raising the public’s awareness is to warn the public against inaccuracies. As for increasing sales, I bet a lot of people wouldn’t even have heard of the movie if it hadn’t been for Pharyngula and the RD website, so the producers should be thanking them. Again.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:31 am
What the ding-dong is this: “Many scenes are centered around the Berlin Wall, and Ben Stein being Jewish actually visits many death camps and death showers. In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.”
Do you people seriously believe this? I mean, really? I pity you if you do. Your Big Lie, here, is precisely what Hitler himself did: twist facts to suit his agenda. No wonder this stupid film is tanking.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:41 am
If ‘John’ is a parody troll, he’s not funny at all.
But if he’s for real, I’ll laugh at him.
Same foes for ‘paul’, ‘Leonard Gee’, and others of their ilk.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Bob (#61):, “The movie was set up specifically for specially invited guests for a private showing of the film.” Since you challenged me I will even back up my statement:
1. On March 11th Motive Entertainment who hosted the event states “this is a screening for VIPs and theirguests; it is not appropriate for children to attend”.
2. Tthe website says: THIS SITE IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR STUDENTS, TEACHERS, PASTORS, YOUTH LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE USEFUL TOOLS AND RESOURCES **TO PROMOTE THE IDEAS SURROUNDING THIS HIGHLY ANTICIPATED FILM.
If you are honarable Bob C, you would take back your allegation that I was lying when I stated that “The movie was set up specifically for specially invited guests for a private showing of the film.” which it clearly was.
- Leonard Gee
March 26th, 2008 at 11:36 am
John @ #50
Stop living in the Middle Ages, John. Realize the truth: the Bible is merely the most successful fantasy novel ever written.
Heil Jesus, neo-cons… i mean… ahem… neo-Nazis.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Imagine how terrible it would be if these biologists were actually ALLOWED to watch the movie they are in!
The producers of this movie must be really afraid that a critical analysis of the movie by experts who disagree with the premise would be a massive disaster.
I do hope that they keep making a big deal of this. It just shows how hypocritical they are. Scientists EXPELLED for their viewpoints - imagine that!
March 26th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Bob C….um, do you really want serious people to read that link? The person who created it IS a monkey, not just evolved from one. Watch the video Everything is Spiritual by Rob Bell. He explains himself without any porn to attract people since his words are enough….note to self: if I need to use fould language and porn to get people to listen to me, I should shut up. PS if you want to be linked to monkeys and algae then go ahead and think so. I personally was made for a bigger purpose and did not happen by accident. We both have a right to believe what we want…..
March 26th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Funny how a blog post that criticizes ‘Lying for Jesus’ is full of nothing but bald-faced lies and implications. Good job with the melodrama, guys, for your sake I’d hope you’re closet nonbelievers.
If anyone, you know¸ actually cares about going into which sections were lies and how one can show that that to be quite likely, I’d be glad to oblige.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
There is absolutely nothing scientific about Intelligent Design. It is the idea of Creationism, repackaged so that it does not specifically mention God. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection has been proved, we can see it in the way that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.
If religious people want to ignore the scientific evidence and base their beliefs on a book that is two thousand years old and has undergone so many re-copyings and translations that is is entirely different today than when it was written, that is their right as human beings.
However, this religious belief has no place in schools, and before ID advocates start bashing the Theory of Evolution, I wish they would look at the evidence first. (Fossil record, DNA analysis, geographically isolated areas like the Galapagos Islands, etc.)
March 26th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“It is your brand of putrid, gutless Christianity that has put society in the mess it is in today. Wimps like you are afraid to speak up, because it might be unpopular. You are spineless–why should I care what YOU think?”
I don’t need an a**hole crazy preacher like yourself dictating Scripture. How arrogant of you to presume that I do not know what is best for myself or my faith in Christianity. You think that shouting Bible Verses in my face (and verses I know quite well) on a stupid blog makes you somehow more educated than me? Evolution is a real science, and what you are doing is a disgrace to all Christians who believe that science and evolution are compatible. I see no difference between you and some Koran shouting Imam in the Middle East.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
—Proverbs 1:7
March 26th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Warning – some language may not be suitable for children.
What a complete lie. I read his (Dawkins)3500 word “rant” Lying for Jesus and found no such language.
Re: Keith Eaton
“I’m taking my two pit bulls with me and if necessary their leashes might break at the appropriate time.”
You sure are in line with your old testament murdering desert god. Your god must be so small that he has rely upon a slack jawled yolkal like you to stick up for him.
SD
March 26th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
# Thinking Man Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 8:46 am
I just couldn’t resist so I Googled. From Wikipedia:
I guess it figures that the Deacon has absolutely no respect for those that he disingenuously professes to be helping - the scientist. Apparently par for the course for Ben Stein and the producers to support this.
Ben, can you pinpoint a moment in time that you: 1) lost your mental faculties, or 2) decided to sign up for the right-wing retirement plan? Or is it all just an incoherent blur?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Lies, lies and more lies.
Between this article, the responses it has generated, and the responses to the last one, it’s become clear to me why the Republican party is in the mess it’s in.
I was struck by a claim by one of the “creationists” who insisted that there’s some kind of “innate shame” that all humans have about their naked bodies. He seemed absolutely sure about this, even though a cursory glance at the photos in a few hundred issues of National Geographic published over the last century will put the kibosh on his “theory” fairly quickly. Still, I’d bet that even showing him the evidence wouldn’t stop him from insisting in the strongest (and no doubt tactless) terms possible that his “theory” was “right.”
Such is, sadly, the typical response of the “I don’t need facts, just faith” crowd.
This has become the face of the Republican party: a group of obviously uneducated ignorants who nonetheless demand that their malformed ideas and disproved theories be given the same weight as those tried and tested under rigorous controls and are found worthy.
After experiencing eight years of “we’ll turn the corner in six months” Republican domestic and foreign policy strategies that depend almost completely on debt increases (read: absolutely NOT conservative!), many, if not most, want people of intelligence to lead them, not drinking buddies or the pious (party voter turnout, fund raising efforts and the failure of the “faith-based” candidates prove this out), and have left the party (this writer included). This leaves only the wackos who insist that their phony psudeo-science deserves respect.
(Which is doesn’t, and if several decades of proofs and refutations haven’t made that clear, citing experiments and studies won’t change anyone’s mind any more than a picture of a nude tribal chieftain will change the mind of our “innate shame” theorist, so I won’t try as others here have.)
Yes, this movie will make some money post-theatrically when it plays in church basements and, yes, it might charge up a few of the “party base”, but, especially after the PR disaster last week, it’s mostly going to magnify the brand perception of the Republican party as the “party of imbeciles and bigots.”
Which is sad, because now those of us few true conservatives left have no place to go.
Oh, and an aside to whoever had the idea of dressing Ben Stein in English Schoolboy clothes: Do’y'think you could have made the statement “I’m an idiot spoiled brat whining because my teacher makes me study instead of letting me read comic books” any louder or more obvious?
March 26th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I’m surprised at how vehemently both sides are defending their beliefs, but I must admit that part of my inability to accept creationism at face-value is the phrase my mother often quoted, “It’s faith based. God made it happen.” There’s a reason why Jesus didn’t come during the 21st century. He’d have been laughed out of town if not put in a psychiatric ward. Creationism will have a better shot at being taken seriously when people stop using “it’s faith…just believe” comments to defend their beliefs. I think the best line I ever heard about God was from futurama (the episode where bender found himself the god of a mini species living on himself and he met God in space): “If you do it just right; no one will think you did anything at all.” Unfortunately, proving that is near impossible, and will not happen in my lifetime. Another great quote, though I can’t recall who said it, went something to the effect of, “If I choose to not believe in God, and heaven exists I will go to Hell, but If I believe in God, and it DOES exist I will go into heaven. Even if Heaven does not exist and I still believe in God, I lose nothing and therefore is it not logical to believe in God and cover all my bases?” I got the details wrong, but that is essentially what I understood the quote to mean. Feel free to correct me on the exact quote.
My point is that all this fighting we’re doing amounts to nothing.
Creationists: Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Citing the Bible as “The Truth” will only bring ridicule on your head. Do some research and try to demonstrate in a logical manner WHY you believe science is wrong. Yes, trying to prove God exists is extremely difficult, but right now the world has lumped your camp into the “earth is the centre of the universe” camp. This will get you nowhere.
Evolutionists: Ridiculing people for their beliefs really doesn’t make you look any better. In fact, it makes you look as narrow-minded as the people you ridicule. Most of you either claim to be or are scientists. As I understand the profession you are expected to have an open mind. Even if the creationists are wrong, being able to scientifically prove your theories with empirical data should be enough. Entertaining alternative ideas should make you strive to provide more evidence for your own theories. Isn’t that what drives creative thinking? Isn’t that science? Asking new questions and than trying to prove or disprove them?
If all you do is stifle others’ ideas and beliefs, than you’re no better than the people you ridicule. I’m no scientist, but if you want my respect, don’t bash what I believe in.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Spotting Those Insane Ignorant Creationists
#64 BobC Says to Leonard Gee:
March 26th, 2008 at 10:13 am
“Nobody except insane ignorant creationists like yourself calls evolution “Darwinian theory”. It’s called “evolution”.”
-BobC, I have a quiz for you. Now is your time to shine. Here it is. WHO said this?:
“As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian.”
Did Leonard Gee say that?
Surprise! That quote comes directly from your own feckless Richard Dawkins, in his breathless essay, Lying for Jesus, page 3, where he continues his non-stop farce of Lying for Darwin.
I’m sure you will be informing Dawkins that he is actually “an insane ignorant creationist.”
Your posts are the worst. They are so filled with uninformed malice, you are making ignoramuses look absolutely learned by comparison.
But thank you for providing a target-rich posting environment. And please change your posting name to BobF-. I rather imagine the last time you got a grade as high as a “C” was in grade school, and that no doubt was a kindness.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
A Darwinist, a Creationist and an IDist were exploring uncharted rugged terrain one day, when they came upon a functioning windmill. They noted that it was still spinning and that the small enclosure beneath it contained interlocking rotating gears and an electric power generator, energizing wires headed into a conduit.
The Creationist fell to his knees. “Only a loving and omnipresent God could have created such a thing!” said the Creationist, further crediting someone called Ezekial.
The Darwinist made no attempt to contain his disgust for the piety. Determined to prove that there could not possibly have been any factors leading to the formation of the windmill that he had not already known, he proclaimed the entire apparatus the product of luck. Noting “There is a constant source of wind energy.” the Darwinist deemed that a windmill was “inevitable”.
Mostly unheard amid the din of these two arguing, the IDist went about reviewing the actual evidence. He noted that functional formations do not assemble themselves by luck and that the blades of the windmill were identical and that the windmill wouldn’t work otherwise. His conclusion: “It was not luck that created this windmill.”
The Creationist said “Ah then you agree with me! I am an IDist too, then!” but the IDist kept his distance, saying “I don’t know who built this windmill, but I know it was