Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The NY Times has an article about the forthcoming documentary Expelled, which purports to show how the jackbooted thugs of the Darwinian Priesthood horribly mistreat those brave truthtellers of the ID movement. This is a prominent facet of the anti-evolution PR campaign being run from Seattle, positioning themselves as victims to gain public sympathy no matter how much they have to distort reality to paint that picture.
The Times points out the clear deceit with which the producers of the film went about securing interviews with prominent scientists, including our own PZ Myers:
A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called "Crossroads."...But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised -- and in some cases, angered -- to find themselves not in "Crossroads" but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," also has a different producer, Premise Media...
If he had known the film's premise, Dr. Dawkins said in an e-mail message, he would never have appeared in it. "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," he said.
Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist who heads the National Center for Science Education, said she agreed to be filmed after receiving what she described as a deceptive invitation.
"I have certainly been taped by people and appeared in productions where people's views are different than mine, and that's fine," Dr. Scott said, adding that she would have appeared in the film anyway. "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren't."...
Another scientist who was, P. Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, said the film's producers had misrepresented its purpose, but said he would have agreed to an interview anyway. But, he said in a posting on The Panda's Thumb Web site, he would have made a "more aggressive" attack on the claims of the movie.
Here's their excuse for these deceptions:
Walt Ruloff, a producer and partner in Premise Media, also denied that there was any deception. Mr. Ruloff said in a telephone interview that Rampant Films was a Premise subsidiary, and that the movie's title was changed on the advice of marketing experts, something he said was routine in filmmaking.
And here's Ben Stein, the "star" of the film, putting his, errr, credibility behind that claim:
Mr. Stein, a freelance columnist who writes Everybody's Business for The New York Times, conducts the film's on-camera interviews. The interviews were lined up for him by others, and he denied misleading anyone. "I don't remember a single person asking me what the movie was about," he said in a telephone interview.
Gee Ben, maybe that's because you weren't the ones who contacted people for interviews and told them misleading things about what the movie would be about. Jonathan Adler at the Volokh Conspiracy gets it right:
The producers claim there was nothing sneaky or nefarious involved, just a routine change in the working title of a film. Yet for the reasons detailed in this PZ Myers post, that explanation seems a little thin. I don't think anything illegal occurred -- and journalists often engage in some deception when seeking interviews -- so it seems to me the producers should just own up to what they did.
Now take a look at the Rampant Films webpage, go to "properties" and then to their description of Crossroads, the movie that those who were interviewed were told they would be taking part in. It says:
Crossroads--The Intersection of Science and Religion : It's been the central question of humanity throughout the ages: how in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, "The Origin of Species." In the century and a half since, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers and philosophers have contributed a vase amount of research and data in support of Darwin's idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. This conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms and town halls across America and beyond.
As PZ says, this would be an interesting documentary and that's the one that he agreed to be interviewed for. And it has little relationship to the movie they actually made. They didn't just mislead, they flat out lied. They made up a fictional documentary about an entirely different subject and told everyone they were making that movie when they were actually making Expelled. This wasn't just a change in title, it was a completely different movie. As Adler notes, it's not illegal but it is certainly unethical. How ironic coming from the same people who claim that evolution undermines morality. But as long as you're lying for Jesus, I guess that makes it all okay.
Comments
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?" That title is more appropriate than its creators will ever admit...
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 28, 2007 9:36 AM
Oh boo hoo.
As if atheists haven't ambushed evangelical in "documentaries" like "Religion is the Root of All Evil"
And I can't wait to see PZ quoted to look like a fool, because he was a fool to let himself be interviewed in the first place.
His own arrogance let him into it.
So sorry, so sad.
Posted by: Grady | September 28, 2007 9:38 AM
Grady: if your only justification is "someone else did it too," with absolutely no specifics or references, then your case is pretty lame.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 28, 2007 9:50 AM
Grady, you shouldn't make it so obvious that you are full of shit. At least don't lie when you purport to quote a title. Even a child in first grade can fact-check that.
Posted by: bullfighter | September 28, 2007 9:56 AM
Grady, what would Jesus do?
Posted by: rmp | September 28, 2007 9:57 AM
At a certain level, these people have to know that the whole Intelligent Design thing is phony. You don't have to lie to the ID people to get them to say the wackiest things, and you don't have to parse, cut, edit, or mix their words to make them sound utterly insane. Behe said that if the rules of science were sufficiently broad to allow ID, they'd have to let in astrology too. Dembski's simply an embarassment from beginning to end.
To be this cagy about their product, they have to be consciously aware that they're selling snake oil.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | September 28, 2007 10:02 AM
I'm sorry Grady, what does this have to do with Atheists vs. Evangelicals? I thought this was about a movie about ID, which is all science.
Oops, your dishonest scam is showing.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | September 28, 2007 10:06 AM
It's nice to see that the ID folks will finally have a documentary that will present the evidence that their researchers have so diligently produced in their numerous labs ... oh, wait...
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 28, 2007 10:28 AM
dogmeatlib, that is the crux of the comspiracy right there. The ID's are not allowed to get money to open labs. So there research never has a chance. Call it an abortion of true science. Which, I am sure, most IDers are against.
Ah, the heavy cross the IDers must carry.
Posted by: Janine | September 28, 2007 10:38 AM
Hey Grady -
If ID is all about the science, what does that have to do with atheists?
I mean, couldn't there be atheist IDers, just like there are atheist biologists, chemists and physicists?
Why does religion always creep into the conversations about ID? After all, ID is just science, right?
Please, Grady, enlighten us.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | September 28, 2007 10:38 AM
Ed, you didn't mention it, but the article also says that Stein would have preferred the movie to be called "From Darwin to Hitler" which makes the claim that the film could ever have been accurately described to people in the way "Crossroads" was, and then merely the title changed later, even more outrageously ridiculous.
I'm also not sure the article makes clear that Stein not only did not set up the interviews with the evolutionary scientists, but he did not conduct them either, nor do I think his participation in the film was ever mentioned to the scientists: that, I'm guessing, would have been too much of a dead giveaway.
My guess is that Stein will have interviewed people like Gonzales and Dembski, since these conversations will be much more robust, while the footage from Scott, PZ, and Dwakins will be used as quick inserted quotes picked to paint them a certain way. I very very much doubt viewers will even hear the actual original questions they are responding to, let alone their full answers.
Still, this has all been a brilliant exercise in marketing. As I've noted over and over, focusing nearly exclusively on oppression and outrage is a brilliant strategy: it works up your audience, is an easy thing to build a case for regardless of the actual facts of the matter, and it allows them to completely sidestep any substantive debate over evidence or science.
That's especially brilliant in that explaining why the ID claims are wrong, as well as why the claimed examples of persecution are grossly misleading, WOULD require delving into the actual science and telling full stories by establishing context. Yet again, it's the Gish gallop tactic reframed for the ID-age: they get to make lots of short punchy, emotionalized claims, and the only way to refute them is long extended discussions of evidence that far far fewer viewers will have the patience for or the interest in, especially after being set up with the Id version first and having already formed an opinion from that alone.
Posted by: Bad | September 28, 2007 10:45 AM
Hm....then what was all that green stuff the Templeton Foundation was waving at them? Did they think that was funny-colored kleenex?
Posted by: gwangung | September 28, 2007 10:45 AM
It's a pity that Crossroads didn't get made. I had a course in undergrad very similar to that premise and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 28, 2007 10:45 AM
Janine: "The ID's are not allowed to get money to open labs. So there research never has a chance."
Not allowed to get money? They raise tens of millions in private funds. Perhaps they should spend some of it on research instead of PR.
The Wedge document said they were first going to do research, and only then do PR and try to get the results of their research into public schools, but they decided not to bother with any of the research.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 28, 2007 10:46 AM
Bad: "Ed, you didn't mention it, but the article also says that Stein would have preferred the movie to be called "From Darwin to Hitler" which makes the claim that the film could ever have been accurately described to people in the way "Crossroads" was, and then merely the title changed later, even more outrageously ridiculous."
And the DI folks actually DID make a movie called "From Darwin to Hitler," after publishing a book of the same title.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | September 28, 2007 10:48 AM
Just want to point out, that was a joke. I was hoping that was made clear when I compaired it to abortion.
On brief reflection, I realize my jokes can be taken as someone's insane ramblings.
Carry on.
Posted by: Janine | September 28, 2007 10:50 AM
Supposedly Dembski and the other guy at the "informatics lab" webpage did write an article with somewhat coherent and scholarly content (Good Math Bad Math reviewed it a while back), though of course according to MarkCC, they follow up sane, if not stellar, information theory discussions with bizarre and unsupported pro-ID conclusions and inferences.
Posted by: Bad | September 28, 2007 11:09 AM
Ed, Do you think there is any reasonable likelihood that the aggrieved parties could succeed in an action for invasion of privacy for a malicious/knowing/intentional misrepresentation of their views? I'm thinking of an action for "false light" or false attribution of views done with malice or intent.
Not all jurisdictions recognize such actions, and it may not be the preferred response. Still, I'm curious about the possiblities for an injunction or a requirement of full disclosure by the film makers, rather than damages.
Posted by: MTran | September 28, 2007 12:16 PM
Good questions about what does atheism has to do with science.
The answer is, nothing.
But that is not how Dawkins, Dennet, Myers, Harris and the other atheists using science as a front for their atheism.
Posted by: Grady | September 28, 2007 12:50 PM
Grady: Dawkins et al use scientific methods of inquiry to show that there is no objective evidence to prove the existence of ANY god -- a fact which even most theists recognize, including THOUSANDS of actual scientists who also happen to be theists. So if you're trying to pretend that science is nothing but a "front" for atheism, you have no case.
And you still haven't backed up -- or even clarified -- any of your original assertions.
Does your mom know you're here? Maybe she can help you do the research -- after she's given you a lesson in manners...
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 28, 2007 1:05 PM
MTran: Excellent question. I doubt if there would be anything there, given that 1. The figures involved are public persons with regard to the subject of science; and 2. They consented to the interviews knowing that they were being recorded.
If the film cuts up their answers in a typical quote-mining way, there might be a "false lights" issue. I don't think just cutting off part of a response would qualify, but if they spliced together two clauses from different sentences that might.
That being said, I have never worked on a defamation case, so my judgment here could be off.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 28, 2007 2:02 PM
Grady,
The question was never "What does atheism have to do with science" because the answer is, as always, nothing. Science can be done by atheists or the religious and there are many example of scientists on both sides.
The question is, when someone mentions something about Intelligent Design, why is the first thing out of an ID supporter's mouth is about atheists vs. evangelicals when ID is supposed to be 100% science?
The answer to that, of course, is because ID is a front for religion. Looks like you didn't get the memo. Hint: you're at least supposed to pretend it's about science.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | September 28, 2007 5:57 PM
Um, did PZ or Dawkins ever consider demand (in writing) that the producers of the documentary give them the right to approve the final cut before it was released with their interviews in it? They certainly could have done so.
Posted by: raj | September 28, 2007 6:02 PM
Janine--
Well, *I* knew it was a joke. It was the heavy cross business that tipped me off.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 28, 2007 6:34 PM
I think we'll see more of this in the future.
Posted by: steve s | September 28, 2007 8:27 PM
That will NEVER happen. Rarely done with legitimate documentarians.
Posted by: gwangung | September 28, 2007 8:37 PM
Interesting you'd have a problem with this Ed, in light of your position when the shoe was on the other foot:
"Anyway, I certainly look forward to see what Bill Maher does with this interview footage. No doubt whatever it is will only prompt more whining from the religious right about "media elites" and how the devil himself is trying to destroy God's work."
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/04/bill_maher_and_ken_ham.php
"The museum had an arrangement with a production company for a tour and an interview. Maher did not go along with the film crew during the tour, but he came in and did the interview - and the museum went through with the whole interview and only later realized who did it."
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/04/agape_press_legal_cluelessness.php
You can't play both sides of this, Ed. Either it's OK and the "marks" are just fools, or there was unacceptable deception.
"But as long as you're lying for Jesus, I guess that makes it all okay."
Isn't Ben Stein Jewish?
Posted by: Chet Lemon | September 28, 2007 11:46 PM
Interesting that you think Ed has a problem with this. To me, it appears that Ed is merely making an observation about the inherent dishonesty involved in the tactics of people who are supposedly above such things. But I suppose, if it's done in Jesus name, anything can be considered holy and reasonable.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 29, 2007 12:56 AM
That will NEVER happen. Rarely done with legitimate documentarians
I believe what you are saying is that the right will never be granted. Fine--then the documentarians, espectially largely unknown ones, will find it more and more difficult to find interviewees.
Posted by: raj | September 29, 2007 3:15 AM
Chet Lemon--
I checked the links you gave. The Creation Museum wanted Maher and his crew arrested for-- burglary! Now THAT's funny.
I can imagine the scienceblog reaction if PZ were claiming "burglary" because the Expelled people stole his words. There would be a lot of laughter, and not all of it at Ben Stein's expense. Genie Scott? Nah-- I can't even see her making the claim.
If the Creation Museum had made a sober, substantiated claim that Maher and his crew misrepresented themselves, there might have been a certain amount of sympathy for them, even on scienceblogs. But-- burglary? You can't see some humor in that?
Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 29, 2007 4:13 AM
DuWayne--
What you seem to be saying is that it's OK in Maher's case because Bill Maher is clearly not above such things. So that inherent dishonesty for Maher is just SOP makes it acceptable.
HP--
Believe me, I think Ham is a goofball and if he demand that Maher and his crew be charged with burglary he cements that status.
My focus was on Ed's inconsistent position in regard to production crews misrepresenting themselves in order to make one side or the other look foolish, not on the response of the marks. Again, he is playing both sides -- it's just a hoot when the Creation Museum fundamentalists gets one pulled on them, but it is "unethical ', "deceit[ful]" a "distort[ion of] reality" and marked with "deceptions" when the Darwinian fundamentalists are the ones looking dopey.
Ed states clearly:
"They didn't just mislead, they flat out lied. They made up a fictional documentary about an entirely different subject..."
Not sure what the difference between lying and misleading is, but nonetheless, the same exact thing could have been written about what Maher did, but wasn't.
Posted by: Chet Lemon | September 29, 2007 12:40 PM
Chet -
Personally, I don't think it's ok for Maher to do it either, I don't care for the dishonesty involved, whoever's doing it. But Maher also makes no claims to being a person of religious faith, a faith that dogmatically values honesty and integrity. I know a very large number of Christians, who in spite of believing in ID, are sick and tired of the lies and utter dearth of integrity in the ID movement. It is the utter hypocrisy of the ID movement that makes them especially distasteful.
And I am pretty sure that Stein is a Christian, or Messianic Jew. Not that it matters, he is an avowed creationist and Judaism is rather keen on the honesty and integrity too.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 29, 2007 1:14 PM
Why would anyone think having Bill Maher do an interview would be underhanded?
Ok. I'm sure some people wouldn't recognize him, but given his fame I'm fairly certain that if they were trying to be sneaky they would have used someone less obvious than Bill Maher to do the interview.
Posted by: Leni | September 29, 2007 1:15 PM
Oh wait- I take that back a little. I just re-read it and Maher did not do the first part of the interview. He showed up later.
Still, at least Ham could have been reasonably expected to know what what up when Maher did show up. Also, Ham doesn't say that they presented him with an entirely false claim about what the video would be used for. So in their defense it still doesn't seem as sleazy to me as what the Expelled crew did, even if it wasn't on the up and up.
Posted by: Leni | September 29, 2007 1:23 PM
Actually, I do think that the two situations are quite alike and both wrong. I still do look forward to seeing what Maher does with the footage, as I said before, because I think it will be funny (he is, after all, a comedian). I also look forward, as I said, to their whining about "media elites" and the devil because neither of those has anything to do with the situation (and if Genie Scott and PZ were whining about those things, I'd laugh at them too). But the accusation that Maher's people tricked them to get interview footage is certainly accurate.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 29, 2007 2:04 PM
Let's turn what Chet pointed out and see it from another angle...
Since Ham understands how it feels like to being tricked (in one way or another) into giving an interview... how many people think he'll be sympathetic to Scott, Dawkins or Myers?
*sound of crickets*
Nope... I didn't think so either.
Posted by: doctorgoo | September 29, 2007 2:30 PM
Chet Lemon--
After reading Ed's comment, I see your point. But, gee whiz, how come we godless evilutionists always have to be the ones to play fair?
Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 30, 2007 9:56 AM
Just want to point out, that was a joke. I was hoping that was made clear when I compaired it to abortion.
On brief reflection, I realize my jokes can be taken as someone's insane ramblings.
Carry on.
Posted by: kozmetik | December 22, 2007 3:51 PM
After reading Ed's comment, I see your point. But, gee whiz, how come we godless evilutionists always have to be the ones to play fair?
Posted by: mirc | February 3, 2008 2:47 PM
The tradition of honesty in science. Huh - a missing link in man's "developement" made from a pig's tooth, another made from an old man with arthritis. "Common ancestry" shown by intentionally misdrawn embryo's - left in the text books for decades, still in some. Come on guys. Face it - you don't have a clue. We know that the only reason Mr. Huxley, for one, chose Darwin's theory was so he had no reason to curb his lusts. Your house of cards has been blown down. Work on a new theory.
Posted by: Craig Bachman | April 18, 2008 3:02 PM
The unconscious irony in this post is absolutely sidesplitting.
Hey, doofus, YOU don't have a clue. Quit dredging up stuff that's been debunked fro DECADES. Work on something NEW.
Posted by: gwangung | April 18, 2008 3:25 PM
mirc
Posted by: mirc indir | September 4, 2008 8:56 AM
After reading Ed's comment, I see your point.
Posted by: Resim | July 4, 2009 10:54 AM
hımmm
Posted by: ilahi dinle | July 4, 2009 10:57 AM