Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
For an overdose of irony, you have to see PZ's account of being expelled from a screening of Expelled. Let's count the levels of irony, shall we?
Level 1 is obvious: he was expelled from the movie Expelled
Level 2: They interviewed him to put him in the movie, but they won't let him see the movie.
Level 3: They didn't let PZ in, but they let Richard Dawkins in. Here's Kristine's first-hand account of the whole thing, which tells what happened:
THOSE FASCIST FUCKS THREW PZ OUT OF THE THEATRE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME! The only reason that they didn't throw Dawkins out is that they were apparently too fucking stupid to recognize him! They didn't even recognize him when he sat through the film - not until he rose to speak, after being called on - by said producer, MARK MATHIS - at the Q&A. Holy shit, the blood drained from his face then!
Level 4: They lied about the reason they wouldn't let PZ in:
This is what I overheard from a theatre employee named "Jared" to PZ: "The producer said that you are not allowed to attend the screening, because you don't have a ticket, and you were not invited. This is a private screening." Nomad, did you have a ticket? Were you invited? Didn't you click on that "please fill the theatre, please, please," link and subsequently get, as I did, an e-mail that said, "TICKET NOT REQUIRED"?
So there were no tickets required, no one in line had a ticket, but PZ was not allowed to go in because he didn't have a ticket. And remember, these people are the ones who constantly tell us that "Darwinism" leads to rampant immorality and yet they are the ones who are always telling lies like this when it's convenient. Liars for Jesus, baby, liars for Jesus.
And the award for the most ridiculous display of hypocrisy by an ID advocate goes to....the producers of Expelled.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Stopped a blogger at the door, but let in Richard Dawkins? Explains why they're not big fans on science: not too big on that whole "observation" part, are they? Clueless idiots.
Posted by: David | March 21, 2008 9:50 AM
The nice thing about not requiring a ticket is that if those who have signed up are found to be "undesirables," then the lack of a ticket can be used as a pretext to roust them out, and that pretext will look plausible to those who don't know the details of the situation.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 21, 2008 9:53 AM
The only reason that they didn't throw Dawkins out is that they were apparently too fucking stupid to recognize him!
There's another plausible reason for this: the Expelled crew knew that Dawkins has diminished his credibility -- both with the general public and with other atheists -- due to certain very stupid and insulting statements about theists and religion. Bigots such as Michael Gerson and WorldNutDaily have taken to singling out Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens as extreme examples by which they implicitly try to trash atheists in general. It is therefore quite possible that the Expelled crew knowingly let Dawkins in, hoping that he would then become the public face of "the atheist response" to their movie, and whatever criticism he made would then be tarnished by his reputation.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 21, 2008 10:11 AM
That would be like me standing in line next to PZ and they throw ME out.
Posted by: Deepsix | March 21, 2008 10:13 AM
Then again, there's a simpler explanation: they knew who Dawkins was, and knew he was too famous to kick out without exposing their cowardice and hypocricy to TWO nations.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 21, 2008 10:15 AM
Ha ha ha ha ha! That's a good one! Oh, wait, you were serious ... ?
So your argument is that Dawkins is a more preferable opponent than ... PZ Meyers? Have you ever read any posts on Pharyngula? Have you noticed that he's lumped in with Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens whenever the ID crowd talks about evil science? Why throw out one and not the other? If their goal was to get an unpleasant public face to hurl insults at and to demonize, they'd have let them both in.
Look, we all know how much you despise Dawkins, Bee, but you're letting your loathing get in the way of common sense.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | March 21, 2008 10:18 AM
I have no idea if Raging Bee likes Dawkins or not, but their suggestion almost makes sense if you assume that the whole point of the movie etc is to pander to their base, i.e. brainwashed Creationists in the USA, therefore nothing Dawkins said would be believed and he would provide a suitable rallying point.
However, my reading of the quote from Kristine is that Mathis didn't know Dawkins was there, and it would be silly to let Dawkins in but not tell the guys handling the questions and answer.
Posted by: guthrie | March 21, 2008 10:24 AM
Even simpler explanation: Somebody applied for a ticket in the name "Richard Dawkins", they figured it was a joke, and had no reason to suppose that the real Dawkins would be there (he doesn't live in the US, after all), and so weren't looking for him.
For this reason, the rent-a-cop only hassled the guy he already had a photo of.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 21, 2008 10:27 AM
Jeff: they may not have known what you know about PZ; or they may have decided to keep only the most famous Evil Atheist, just on the general principle of keeping things simple and controlling as many variables as they could. These creationist con-artists go by scripts and carefully-crafted PR and framing strategies; and if PZ wasn't in the script, they would have seen him as a wild-card/threat and wanted to get rid of him.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 21, 2008 10:33 AM
I think the simplest explanation is the most likely: Dawkins is a foriegner, they didn't expect to see him; they were watching for PZ and did not recognize Dawkins.
Note: any resemblance between me and Raging Bee is entirely coincidental. I'm quite good-humoured, as Bees go...
Posted by: Bee | March 21, 2008 10:52 AM
Bee - so no sting then? :) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 21, 2008 10:55 AM
Pssst, Ed? Wes needs your assistance.
Posted by: carlsonjok | March 21, 2008 11:20 AM
Posted by: tacitus | March 21, 2008 11:38 AM
"Sorry, Dr Myers ! No intelligence allowed !"
(Of course the joke falls flat because they let Dawkins & co in...)
Posted by: Christophe Thill | March 21, 2008 11:49 AM
What PZ didn't mention was that Dawkins was wearing his Kent Hovind mask--that's why they let him in.
Posted by: cm | March 21, 2008 11:52 AM
Unfortunately, I can't go to the Livonia screening of Expelled. I'm giving a speech in Grand Rapids that night. But I'm having dinner with Wes tonight and I'm sure this will be a subject of conversation.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 21, 2008 12:05 PM
tacitus: so does Ann Coulter.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 21, 2008 12:28 PM
Raging Bee said:
So let's extend this analogy: Obama holds a preview for his new Democratic propaganda film, and Ann Coulter shows up with, say, Michael Savage in tow. The clever thing to do, according to the scenario you have set up, would be for the organizers to ban Savage and let Coulter in, because Coulter draws large crowds, can get on national television, writes best-selling books, and has the ear of everyone on the "other side", but is hated by other Democrats. But you wouldn't let Savage in because, while also vile, he's ... ok, here's where I just lose the thread and realize this makes no sense at all.
But of course, in reality you just wanted to compare Richard Dawkins, who has mean things to say about religion, to Ann Coulter, who wants to assassinate all liberal Supreme Court judges and bomb the New York Times. Nice.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | March 21, 2008 12:46 PM
I am not "setting up" any "scenarios;" I am merely pointing out that large audiences do not prove credibility, as tacitus had tried to imply.
Despite the thin-skinned protests of his faithful (similar in tone to a devout Christian reacting to an allegation that Jesus may have lied), Dawkins has been attacked by many theists and atheists for ignorant and needlessly insulting statements about theists. This has, in fact, been explicitly admitted here, among other places; and Dawkins himself has acknowledged the fact. Dawkins has thus lost credibility, and the religious right have picked up on it. Deal with it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 21, 2008 1:12 PM
Jeff Hebert, Dawkins is known even by people who don't pay a lot of attention to science and political blogs. As for PZ Myers, not so much.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 21, 2008 1:21 PM
Bee Raged: There's another plausible reason for this: the Expelled crew knew that Dawkins has diminished his credibility -- both with the general public and with other atheists -- due to certain very stupid and insulting statements about theists and religion.
You know Bee, you've got a lot of thoughtful things to say about a lot of topics, and I enjoy your posts. But you really need to drop this fixation you have on Dawkins. Your posts on him are idiotic in the extreme, completely removed from reality, and unique in that regard. You are the only person on usenet who would compare him to Coulter, in any context.
It's gotten to where I can tell it is you when I read the posts prior to getting to your name. I'm batting 100% bud. 100%! That's a tall order on any topic. The paragraph above was all it took.
Knock it off already, because I guarantee you the only credibility being diminished in such posts is yours. That's the only reality here with which anyone need deal.
Posted by: Science Avenger | March 21, 2008 1:31 PM
"Fixation" on Dawkins? Please. If you actually read my posts, you'd know that's not the case.
Dawkins has said a lot of uninformed things about religion and religious people, and atheists as well as theists, who respect him generally, have explicitly criticized such statements and said they don't share all of Dawkins' opinions. Some atheists have flatly said they have no use for Dawkins or Harris. Dawkins himself has, on occasion, had to respond to such criticism. This is an obvious and well-documented fact, and I fail to see why you're so thin-skinned about it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 21, 2008 1:41 PM
JJ, I understand Dawkins is far better known than Meyers, that's not in dispute. I am trying to follow Raging Bee's logic here, trying to figure out why the Expelled guys would deliberately let in Dawkins (instead of accidentally, as most have assumed) while banning the lesser-known, but even more overtly hostile, Meyers.
I think the reasoning goes that they wanted Dawkins to see the movie because he's BOTH better known AND has less credibility. So when he speaks out about what he sees, Christians will be enraged to go to the movie.
I can follow that, but it all falls apart when they banned Meyers. If your goal is publicity from hated atheist critics to get the villagers to snatch up their pitchforks (and more importantly, buy a ticket), why ban Meyers at all?
I think the most obvious explanation, in this case, is probably correct -- they recognized Meyers but not Dawkins. Had they recognized him, they'd have kept him out, too, because they don't want bad reviews of their movie. They've done the same to other reviewers in the past, as well, which makes this more believable.
Introducing grand, dark, complicated motives seems unwarranted in this case, particularly since the explanation given just doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | March 21, 2008 1:43 PM
"Fixation" on Dawkins? Please. If you actually read my posts, you'd know that's not the case.
Sorry, I do read your posts, and do know that is the case. I'm telling you, I can tell, 100% of the time, that it is you when you go on these little fact-free tirades, because your particular brand of bullshit with regard to Dawkins is unique. You are as intellectually dishonest on this topic as creationists are with Darwin. Accusing me of being thin-skinned over it is a perfect example.
Keep making an ass of yourself over him if you want. No skin off my nose.
Posted by: Science Avenger | March 21, 2008 1:59 PM
"Fixation" on Dawkins? Please. If you actually read my posts, you'd know that's not the case.
Sorry, I do read your posts, and do know that is the case. I'm telling you, I can tell, 100% of the time, that it is you when you go on these little fact-free tirades, because your particular brand of bullshit with regard to Dawkins is unique. You are as intellectually dishonest on this topic as creationists are with Darwin. Accusing me of being thin-skinned over it is a perfect example.
I was just trying to help you out, but by all means, keep making an ass of yourself over him if you want. No skin off my nose.
Posted by: Science Avenger | March 21, 2008 2:00 PM
Bee, don't be a dimwit. The idea that Dawkins has lost credibility with atheists simply isn't reflected by reality, not as it was demonstrated in his book tour this month. To put it bluntly, the man's a rock star. Certainly atheists have disagreements with Dawkins, but that doesn't mean his credibility has been diminished. Far from it. You're forgetting something. Among atheists, we can agree or disagree with one another about a great many things, and argue amongst ourselves quite a lot, but that doesn't automatically equate to a complete dismissal of the person's credibility. It's only among religionists that dogmatic lines are expected to be toed, and dissent leads you to be (as we saw last night) expelled. You're making the usual lame "atheist fundamentalist" criticism of Dawkins. Dawkins does take a hard line sometimes, but as even he has shown with examples in his own presentations, the language he uses to criticize religion and believers is far more even-tempered than even your average negative newspaper restaurant review.
Posted by: Martin | March 21, 2008 2:17 PM
Gosh, thats just stupid. Your bias is simply strange.
The PZ thing is totally funny. The entire concept of the 'Expelled' movie is outed by this one example.
Posted by: GH | March 21, 2008 2:42 PM
Jeff Hebert said:
Or, as the inimitable Robert Heinlein said - "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Posted by: Vic | March 21, 2008 3:25 PM
The idea that Dawkins has lost credibility with atheists simply isn't reflected by reality, not as it was demonstrated in his book tour this month. To put it bluntly, the man's a rock star.
And rock stars are never criticized?
Your statement is a non-sequitur, plain and simple. I should not have to point out that fame, poularity, and crowd-drawing ability to not equal respect or credibility. I'm sure you would be the first to agree with me on this when it's Pope Palpadict drawing the huge crowds.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 21, 2008 3:38 PM
Bee-
Surely you aren't arguing that the Pope doesn't have credibility with Catholics.
Posted by: argystokes | March 21, 2008 3:49 PM
Actually, that's exactly what I'm arguing: despite the "rock star" status, there are indeed a lot of Catholics who criticize his statements and have no use for his rulings or advice.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 21, 2008 3:53 PM
You are equivocating "some people criticize this person" with "they have no credibility". Yes, some Catholics criticize the Pope, but that's a long -- long, long long LONG -- ways from meaning that he has no credibility with Catholics. Ditto with Dawkins.
Not to equate Dawkins with the Pope or atheists with Catholics, you understand, but the principle is the same.
All of which is beside the point, which is that your theory about why they let Dawkins in while banning Meyers doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | March 21, 2008 4:08 PM
Here's the creationist take on the incident.
Apparently PZ was "hustling and bothering" people. PZ, a hustler? Who'd have figured?
And the yahoo writing this makes a big deal about Dawkins and PZ not being invited--even though they registered online like anyone else!
The fascist mindset is obvious here--the desperate need to have carefully controlled audiences for the screenings, because, gasp!, someone might be so ill-mannered as to come in and disagree with us.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 21, 2008 4:22 PM
I would guess this is an example of the proud christian tradition of "shunning". They got to openly humiliate a popular Atheist, and a symbol that many respect. Christians DO enjoy violating others in ways they would scream persecution for themselves.
But, as you all have noted, to be expelled from a movie called Expelled.......?
Irony indeed.
Posted by: RAM | March 21, 2008 4:49 PM
JJ, I understand Dawkins is far better known than Meyers, that's not in dispute. I am trying to follow Raging Bee's logic here, trying to figure out why the Expelled guys would deliberately let in Dawkins (instead of accidentally, as most have assumed) while banning the lesser-known, but even more overtly hostile, Meyers.
The most obvious explanation for this question is that PZ Myers lives in Minnesota whereas Richard Dawkins lives in England.
Therefore, it would be unsurprising that-- in holding a screening in Minnesota of this movie featuring PZ Myers who lives in Minnesota-- they had someone keeping an eye out to see whether PZ Myers attempted to attend the movie.
It would be equally unsurprising that they weren't expecting Richard Dawkins, someone you would not ordinarily expect to find at a mall in Minnesota, and weren't specifically scanning the line for his face.
No elaborate conspiracy theories are needed to explain this.
Posted by: Coin | March 21, 2008 5:34 PM
Raging Bee, Jeff Hebert has it down. I've criticized Dawkins at times. I still consider him credible. You seem to take the view that a person is only considered credible if 100% of people agree with 100% of his stated views. Reality rarely jibes with that kind of absolutism.
Posted by: Martin | March 21, 2008 7:01 PM
RAM said-
"I would guess this is an example of the proud christian tradition of "shunning"."
Yeah, that must be it. They punish those evilutionists by ignoring them.
If that doesn't work, they can always hold their fingers in their ears and sing "LA LA LA" until somebody gives up.
I'm not saying you may not be right, I'm just saying it's an idiotic tactic. Hmmm Come to think of it.....
Posted by: BaldApe | March 21, 2008 7:22 PM
I thought it was more of a childish tit for tat kind of thing. "You won't let us into your club so we won't let you see our mooovie! Take that, science!"
Followed with a really lame air kick that totally misses.
Posted by: Leni | March 21, 2008 8:11 PM
I would like to challenge Ken Miller to get into one of these screenings, just to see if he gets thrown out. That would be truly poetic, don't you think?
It's easy, if stupid, to throw an atheist out of a nominally Christian-only screening. Throwing out the wrong kind of Christian would be hilarious and telling.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 21, 2008 8:13 PM
Good point. I'd love to see the uncomfortable situation that would put them in. Someone oughta send out a dispatch to guys like Miller, Francis Collins, and Francesco Ayala, or any other famous scientist/believer and see if this can be arranged.
Posted by: Wes | March 21, 2008 8:53 PM
The simplest explanation is that, being close to PZ's home turf they were looking for him. They also had his email registration which was, according to PZ, faithfully and accurately filled out. They were not looking for Dawkins. (They being, of course, the ID staff on hand at this particular venue on this particular date.) To assume that the badge-wearing civil servant could recognize either of them is just asking too much.
Verdict: Ignorance dooms the IDists, as usual. That and their cloying illusion that they must be on top of all things 'cause Dog said they would. Holey Spirits, et cetera.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 21, 2008 9:23 PM
Last night's royal fuck-up will follow this pile of celluloid excrement for as long as it remains even remotely in the popular imagination, and no amount of spin will ever remove the stain of cosmic hypocrisy from what little remained of the producers' reputations.
Not only were they clearly contradicting their own position by "expelling" an official "enemy," they were too stupid to notice all the other enemies they were letting in! So, their own score card reads: 1. Hypocrisy. 2. Bullying. 3. Careless oversight. 4. Covering up their stupidity.
They couldn't have done more damage if they had offered a private screening in an NYC whorehouse--to politicians.
Posted by: Farb | March 21, 2008 9:40 PM
According to the New York Times, Dawkins presented his British passport when he was asked for ID - it gave his full name, Clinton Richard Dawkins. You can bet the Expelled staff weren't looking out for "Clinton Dawkins". :-)
Posted by: Chris Owen | March 21, 2008 9:44 PM
According to the New York Times...
Interesting, I hadn't realized they're actually claiming now they let Dawkins in on purpose:
...although, like their other explanations so far, this fails to indicate why Dawkins was let in and PZ was not.
Posted by: Coin | March 21, 2008 9:55 PM
The ID people need to get their lie straight. Mark Mathis claims he recognized Dawkins, a student eyewitness states:
Furthermore, the DI is spinning this as Dawkins' "gate-crashing" Expelled.
It gets confusing trying to follow ID's many different versions of "the truth".
Posted by: Mister DNA | March 21, 2008 10:35 PM
Leni said: "I thought it was more of a childish tit for tat kind of thing. 'You won't let us into your club so we won't let you see our mooovie! Take that, science!'"
Leni, I think you've got it. Some creobot on one of the Pharyngula threads said nearly the same thing, adding something along the lines of "Now you know how it feels!"
Yeah, it's the creo crowd crowing "nyah, nyah, nyahhhhh!" real loud.
Posted by: MTran | March 22, 2008 10:25 PM
On the question of why just Pee Zed, but none of his party (his Trophy Wifeâ„¢, daughter, her boyfriend, Dawkins, and others) was asked to leave, it seems to have been a panicked reaction. Mathis was there, and just happened to spot Pee Zed, panicked, and had Pee Zed removed. He didn't, due to his panicking, wrong angle-of-sight, whatever, spot Dawkins. Panicking would also explain why he didn't even think to have security ensure the rest of Pee Zed's party was also asked to leave. Or why he was (apparently) very surprised when Dawkins asked a question during the Q&A afterwards.
Presumably he wasn't even aware Pee Zed and the others were registered to attend. The idea "they" were screening the registered names, or (as I admit I previously thought) had circulated a picture of Pee Zed is too complicated in comparison. An accidental/fortuitous sighting and a panicked reaction seems to explain everything? Including why the response, so far, has been inept and inconsistent (i.e., multiple contradictory stories).
Posted by: blf | March 23, 2008 3:06 PM
Have you guys been reading this whole big ordeal on all the blogs? I've never seen such depravity on a site dedicated to logic and reason. Regardless of whether you support Mooney and Nisbet or Myers, this is...sad. I sincerely hope this incident fades away soon and Scienceblogs becomes civil again.
Posted by: Brandon | March 24, 2008 10:09 PM
I started to sympathize with you until I read the reaction Kristine had and then compared her account to PZ's. Free speech as long as it is "mine" it sounds.
Posted by: Ethos | March 28, 2008 12:26 PM