Dispatches from the Culture Wars

1

Excuse me, but I just cannot resist the urge: "Hee, hee, hee. Ohhh, my!"

I'm looking forward to the spin that will be spun.
It promises to be a whole lot of fun!

Even though the whole enterprise is pretty sad.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | April 21, 2008 9:41 AM

3

Does this probably mean that no one is going to bother trying to sue them for all the various copyright infringments?

I'm torn between wanting them to really lose big, and just wanting to let it die the death it deserves.

Cheers.

Posted by: FastLane | April 21, 2008 9:47 AM

5

They can't lose money fast enough to suit me! The faster these right-wing idealogue financiers approach bankruptcy, the sooner the general public can be made to see just how intellectually and morally bankrupt and destructive the far right really is.

Posted by: gary l. day | April 21, 2008 10:05 AM

7

Hey, Ed, please can you give Chris Mooney some help with framing. Cheers.

Posted by: MH | April 21, 2008 10:12 AM

9

for what should be a $3.4M weekend

According to Entertainment Weekly, they fell a bit short of that projection:

Also of note, Ben Stein's political/science documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (No. 9) earned $3.2 mil. That's a very respectable total for a documentary, although non-fiction fare rarely opens in 1,052 theaters, as this right-leaning movie did. It's also, as you'll no doubt read elsewhere, substantially smaller than the $23.9 mil that the left-leaning Fahrenheit 9/11 debuted with in 2004 -- but I'm not sure that's a fair comparison given how Michael Moore's film was about a much more resonant topic, had broad mainstream buzz, and opened during the summer.

Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | April 21, 2008 10:31 AM

11

Could it be that they've already shown it to everyone who's actually interested with their free previews?

Hey, it takes time to organize a field trip for private school classes. There's logistics, permission slips, etc.

Oh look, it's Chris C. Mooney. Great hair, Chris!

Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | April 21, 2008 10:36 AM

13

I'm not sure how we define "success" here. There may be an element of "denial" rather than "denialism" here, but I may have to confer with my colleagues.

My most standards this film is one of the worst flops in history...even conservative outlets think it sucks. It's making no money (unless you compare it to Ukrainian language documentaries about carp). It has basically made clear for most of public how awful the tactics of the creationists are. Unlike, say, the left behind books, it hasn't gained some huge evangelical following.

It is teh suxxorz.

Posted by: PalMD | April 21, 2008 10:38 AM

15

PaulMD,

To state that it is one of the worst flops in history is simply idiotic. Waterworld was a huge flop. Heavens Gate was a huge flop, Expelled will not be a huge flop. It cost a few million to make and a few more to market. I predict that it will come in a little bit under these costs - this marks it out as a failure, but not a drastic one. Plenty of movies perform this week, week in week out.

Posted by: SteveF | April 21, 2008 10:57 AM

17

@Dave S: It seems the laziest yardstick to use would be their own. Number of tickets sold, Far less than 2 million.

@PaulMD: Considering this was the movie that was meant to destroy the materialist-atheistic-darwinist-freedom hating-nazis, I'd say it failed pretty badly.

Posted by: tincture | April 21, 2008 11:08 AM

19

I think this post is wrong. Expelled! is apparently a successful documentary, if you listen to people like Randy Olsen who know something about making documentary movies.

As for not covering their costs with ticket sales, the financiers of the movie could very well make back all their money and then some with DVD sales.

Posted by: hardindr | April 21, 2008 11:16 AM

21

Here's an example of what I am talking about. The proper way to frame this for "our side" would be to do what Ed has done -- put it in a context with other documentaries that make it clear how poorly this film has done. Or what other commenters have done, pointing out that the by the standard the filmmakers set (2 million tickets sold on opening weekend), they're woefully short.

Mooney and Nisbet are famous for saying that we should ignore the truth content of a subject when framing it, so even if Mooney thinks Expelled is fabulously successful based on factual data, shouldn't he be figuring out ways to frame it so it doesn't look that way?

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | April 21, 2008 11:38 AM

25

Hi Ed, If you compare Stein to the single most successful political documentarian ever, Michael Moore, then no, Ben Stein hasn't beaten him after one week.

In other words, if you define success as something virtually impossible to attain, then no, Ben Stein did not succeed.

Chris, a Tupac Shakur documentary a few years ago beat Expelled's opening weekend by 1.5 million in 250 fewer theaters. I dropped the Top 100 documentaries page from Box Office Mojo into Excel to look at the per theater take and that really shows how poorly they've done. Only four of the top 100 did worse per theater than Expelled. Super Size Me made $12,601 per theater compared to Expelled's $2,997.

Two things:
1. They put millions into promoting this and a documentary about some jackass pigging eating McDonald's for a month beat them four times over per theater.

2. It seems pretty disingenuous to act like Ed's being unfair comparing them to Michael Moore. This was one of the most heavily promoted documentaries ever. It had the widest theatrical release ever for a documentary! Biggest documentary release in history and it's somehow unfair to compare it to the biggest documentaries?

Posted by: SeanH | April 21, 2008 11:50 AM

27

"I frankly think the hysterical reaction to the idea of framing is absurdly overblown"

I used to think that too. But now it's clear that its not really about the idea of framing, it's about the specific frame. Mooney and Nisbet aren't trying to sell "framing", they are trying to sell a specific frame.

Posted by: tonyl | April 21, 2008 12:02 PM

29

Well, eight dollars of that profit came from me. I went to see it on Sunday afternoon, as I can't expect any credibility in discussing it with my church friends if I haven't actually seen it.

Sadly, I found it extremely convincing from the viewpoint of religious people who don't know the facts.

1. Stein does not appear in the film as he does in the trailers. He's not ridiculous in short pants, etc. but presented as an earnest and dignified person, who, yes, can make amusing remarks, but who is honestly and open-mindedly seeking the truth.

2. The audience enjoyed the ridiculous interspersed film clips that gave them a chance to laugh at the important person who had just spoken and let them feel superior for a moment.

3. The claims of persecution seem shocking and quite believeable. Those claiming persecution seemed to be pleasant and honest, and sympathetic. It's going to be very hard to convince the movie watchers that those claims are lies.

Incidentally, the movie walks a fine edge here. The conversation with Sternberg speaks only of his office being moved. Then Stein is filmed talking with someone else and asking what he would think about someone being fired from the Smithsonian. The movie never actually says, I think, that Sternberg was fired. As for the teacher whose contract wasn't renewed, she doesn't stop with the claim that she just mentioned intelligent design; she acknowledges that she put intelligent design on a few slides. Then someone from her school is interviewed and mocked as he tries to explain that she wasn't fired, it's just that her contract wasn't renewed. In other words, the movie-goer has been primed to shrug off the facts of the situation should he ever actually hear the facts.

4. PZ's knitting comment came across like a punch in the stomach, even to me though I'm accustomed to his style. In dismissing what is for many millions of people their primary source of comfort, grounding, and ethics, their first recourse in times of pain and tragedy, as a trivial hobby (accompanied by an old clip of an ugly and foolish-looking woman knitting), he seemed to be not so much criticizing religion as dismissing the audience's deepest feelings, hopes, and needs as unimportant. It might be hard for someone who is not religious to understand fully the powerful effect of that offhand comment. And PZ is being held up as the very model of an evolution scientist, and how an acceptance of evolution makes a person cold and callous.

5. It's difficult to overstate how ridiculous Dawkins appeared. His face with condescending-looking nose-in-the-air expressions was used throughout the movie as a sort of theme - evolution scientist as arrogant idiot. At one point, Stein reads a paraphrase of Dawkins' statement of what he thinks of God as described in the Old Testament. The audience seemed deeply shocked as the string of insults. Then Dawkins says that those aren't exactly his word, that he said it "better." His remark is made in his trademark tone that is considered charming and witty by other audiences. But without the context of witty debate, it comes across here as incredibly arrogant. Then Dawkins reads his own words, and the audience gathers that "better" means "even more insulting."

In the final interview clip, Stein is seen appearing as he is directly from a taxi ride, and yet neat and dignified, while Dawkins appears to be putting on make-up ahead of a simple interview (the movie-goer gets no feel that he is preparing to be filmed, just getting ready for a conversation), and yet he looks unkempt and a little wild, just right for the modern mad scientist. Stein is shown calm and persistent while the clips chosen shown Dawkins apparently angry and nasty for no reason.

And then Dawkins says that intelligent design could have occurred and would have left a signature that could be discerned scientifically, and gives the example of life arriving from outer space - which the film immediately translates into an alien invasion. The audience was astounded. I think the audience took Dawkins' comments as final proof that Intelligent Design is correct and left the theater laughing and talking about how amazed they were that even Dawkin, when pushed to admit the truth, agrees with Stein.

Whether this movie is successful or not from a financial standpoint, I believe it is successful in making its point to much of the audience it's trying to reach. I'm a Christian who happily accepts evolution: the happy part is because it fits extremely well with my religious beliefs. And I hope with all my heart that most people from my church don't see this. It's going to be hard to counteract.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 21, 2008 12:06 PM

31

Matthew, it made an average of $1000 per screen. The $3000 figure is for the entire three-day weekend.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | April 21, 2008 12:13 PM

33

Maybe I live a bit of a sheltered life, but I just haven't seen the "massive" publicity campaign that this had. At least, not in any form that costs money. I've seen web advertising (both for and against), but I don't see that costing money. The "against" side is basically people on scienceblogs, pandas thumb and other such cites. The "for" side is a bit more organized but I highly doubt that Christian websites really charged to put up a banner for Expelled.

As for TV... I've seen two commercials. Period. Maybe I'm just not watching the right channels or something, but the TV ads, as far as I know, have been practically non-existent.

Sure, there were lots of free screenings. But I don't see that approaching the 10 million that has been hypothesized.

Posted by: Religious Non-Right | April 21, 2008 12:24 PM

35

I'm kind of surprised nobody's suggested this already :^) Whatever the financial outcome, this'll be a "win" for the makers of this piece of garbage.

Because, you see, if it fails at the box office, that's obviously *our* fault for repressing and rejecting its concepts, and for poisoning the minds of the public.

And that's just what the stupid film is *claiming*--that scientists force people to reject the wonderfulness of ID ;^)

Lynn

Posted by: Lynn Fancher | April 21, 2008 12:34 PM

37

JuliaL: "The audience enjoyed the ridiculous interspersed film clips that gave them a chance to laugh at the important person who had just spoken and let them feel superior for a moment."

That reminds me of the Noam Chomsky documentary Manufacturing Consent, which I saw in a theater full of Chomsky fans. Some audience members would laugh on cue during cutaways to some old B movie clip intended to ridicule something one of the 'bad guys' said.

(Although I was somewhat favorable towards Chomsky going into the movie I actually came out of it liking him less.)

I wonder if Manufacturing Consent was one of Expelled's models.

Posted by: Colugo | April 21, 2008 12:38 PM

39

Try Comedy Central for the ads. You can't watch the Daily Show or Colbert Report with seeing 2-3 of them.

I don't think that's the most effective venue for them, but perhaps they're hoping to portray it as a comedy.

Posted by: Bruce Perry | April 21, 2008 12:45 PM

41

Herbert:

Not that I expect Mr. Mooney will be reading this comment, of course, as he and Mr. Nisbet have perfected the art of drive-by concern-trolling in more popular blog comments to drive traffic to themselves. Because that's what's important to them -- not science, not critical reasoning, not even framing. It's all about the glorification and aggrandizement of the Great and Mighty Framers. Everything else is secondary.

Are you crazy Jeff? Chris is saying something that you disagree with, so he must be saying it just to boost his ego and/or blog traffic??

Dude... cheap shot... get a clue.

While he sometimes gets carried away with some of his specific criticisms of PZ (and Dawkins), his general point that he makes during the "Framing Wars" here on DramaBlogs.com is very valid. Take a look at this post:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/spiritual_backbone.php

It consists of one sentence (minus the embedded link):

Parents -- don't send your children to a Christian school.

Now PZ is probably getting a lot of negative newbies at his blog this weekend, and this was on the front page for a good portion of it. Now imagine what some of the moderate Christians who are new to his site think when they see that post.

So I throw out this question to every one. Could PZ have framed this post better? I think if he had said "Parents - don't send your children to THIS Christian school", that the moderate Christians new to his blog would have agreed with him entirely. But instead, he picks the worst examples of Christianity and implies that all Christian schools are just as immoral as the one in the article he referenced.

This is exactly what the fundamentalists have been accusing him and Dawkins of for years now... that they just merely mock a strawman version of Christianity... and in this case, PZ "proved" (to them at least) that this criticism is justified.

Posted by: doctorgoo | April 21, 2008 12:57 PM

43

JuliaL, great comment. Please look at the Expelled Exposed website for ideas on how to counteract the misinformation that people from your church might have "learned" this past weekend.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Oh... and some more link-love. Brian Switek has the best analysis of the success/failure of the movie that I've read yet this morning:

http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/04/expelled_success_or_failure.php

I agree with the conclusion entirely:

In the end, I don't think Expelled is especially relevant to the creationism v. evolution argument occurring in the U.S. right now. The people who already agreed with the message liked it, the people who saw it for what it was hated it, but most people are probably going to be ambivalent (or even oblivious) to it. The same problems involving science communication and science education remain, as does the question of "What are we prepared to do about it?"

Posted by: doctorgoo | April 21, 2008 1:03 PM

45

Jeff Herbert,

I never said the per theater wasn't for the whole weekend, however, it was calculated for "Expelled" in the same fashion as it was for all other releases.

Posted by: matthew | April 21, 2008 1:07 PM

47

Ed, I just have to post and say that there's a good reason you're one of the two people on Scienceblogs that I click to their blogs every day, even when I disagree with you, and you illustrated a large part of it today in how you responded to other people being trolls and snide dicks towards someone that you're just having an honest disagreement with on something. It's pathetic and childish to have to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is really a secret muslim atheist commie fascist hippie ID apologist out to destroy everything you believe in.

And I think you're right that it's not a success yet, but it's the subsequent weekends, DVD sales, and so-on that'll really tell the story. Even if ends up a monetary loss, it might well achieve their objectives. If it ends up a monetary win, even moreso. (If it ends up being a monetary win, then they could reinvest in another picture at no cost. Nothing like being able to perpetuate your viewpoint into eternity.)

-Mecha

Posted by: Mecha | April 21, 2008 1:23 PM

49

I have little doubt the target audience will just eat up all the non-relevant but emotionally charged bits in this film. Not because the viewers are idiots, but because nearly all people do this.

I remember--with nausea--watching Fahrenheit 9/11, and listening to all the liberals go apeshit when they showed Paul Wolfowitz licking his comb before running it through his hair. This was in Georgetown--Washington D.C.--and the crowd was clearly above average in intelligence and income, yet they clearly treated that clip as some kind of evidence supporting their disdain for Wolfowitz's ideas.

If they do it, how can we be surprise that the religious convervatives will do it, and, more importantly, what basis do we have for mocking them?

(For the record, I both opposed the Iraq War and despised Fahrenheight 9/11, thus disagreeing with both Wolfowitz and Moore, consequently proving my true intellectual superiority.)

Posted by: James Hanley | April 21, 2008 1:33 PM

51

I think Mooney, at least, honestly believes that Dawkins and Meyers, both of whom are the face of evolution in this movie, are bad for the cause of good science education. I happen to think he's wrong, but it's a subject on which people of good conscience can disagree, even people who are allies. I don't hold that against him. If that's his starting supposition, then I can understand how everything Expelled-related would look like a Bad Thing for science education.

I'd say that PZ is, for the most part, great for the cause of science education. He does a fantastic job of taking a complex scientific topic and making it understandable... and even fun... to read. A perfect example is here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php

But like Chris (I assume), I get frustrated when PZ gives the other side ammo... or gives them "proof" to use against our side in the whole false dichotomy of having to choose between science and religion.

I think he's not just wrong, but very wrong on that point, and I think that fundamental error has led him into ever-more-egregious errors when it comes to dealing with Expelled. Out of deference for Ed's wishes to treat Mr. Mooney with restraint, I'll leave it at that.

Now that at least is a defensible position... one that I'm sure I'd at least partially agree with... but I must say that it is significantly different from your paragraph that I quoted above.

Ed's made it pretty clear he doesn't want people trashing Chris Mooney on his blog, so I'll be brief: I think the above quote is a pretty strained way to read what I wrote.

I don't think that I had to strain as much as you think I did to interpret that paragraph that way. And I'm glad that you clarified your position since then, even though I think you should treat Chris with more restraint and respect because he has earned it, not just because we're blogging in Ed's house right now.

Posted by: doctorgoo | April 21, 2008 2:03 PM

53

doctorgoo, you quoted

In the end, I don't think Expelled is especially relevant to the creationism v. evolution argument occurring in the U.S. right now. The people who already agreed with the message liked it, the people who saw it for what it was hated it, but most people are probably going to be ambivalent (or even oblivious) to it.

How I wish I could agree with that. I was expecting to come to some such conclusion, but actually seeing the movie changed my mind. I do think that this movie can have a considerable and very unfortunate effect on religious people who were until now oblivious to the evolution/ID controversy - in actuality a political controversy rather than a scientific one, yes, but the film suggests it is both. I think such a person would very possibly leave this film firmly convinced that evolution is a plot by certain callous and bizarre atheists to support an idea that devalues people, while preventing legitimate scientists from studying evidence that God created the world and created it in such a way that people matter.

Frankly, I am disappointed to see on scienceblogs today so very much emphasis on the money gained or lost: I think the people behind the money see it as a cost of spreading their ideas, not an investment designed to make a profit. If the amount of money made can actually affect how many people get to see the film because it affects how many theaters will show it, than in that sense it matters, of course.

And I would be sorry to see this thread turn into nothing more than another discussion of framing in general. Here right in front of our noses is a powerful and deeply dishonest film that is probably somewhere right now radicalizing a person who before today cared little about the place of evolution in schools and is now coming to the conclusion that he/she should support efforts to get ID into schools. I wish there were more discussion of how to counteract those specific effects.

Oh,and thanks for the link.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 21, 2008 2:10 PM

55

When the Church Buses stop running The True Believers(TM) to the movie to save The Baby Jesus, the money and talk about this movie and framing will die down.

One of Expelled's "Stars" - William Dembski - even had his long-time autocratic Blog Czar at Uncommon Descent, DaveScot Springer, expressing his displeasure at the film's attempt to link Darwin to Hitler.

When even an avowed ID Apologist like DaveScot has problems with something ID related, I think we can take it as a given that the only frame this movies needs is a ceramic bowl surrounding it before it is mercifully flushed from our blogosphere and our consciousness.

Posted by: J-Dog | April 21, 2008 2:50 PM

57

I remember--with nausea--watching Fahrenheit 9/11, and listening to all the liberals go apeshit when they showed Paul Wolfowitz licking his comb before running it through his hair. This was in Georgetown--Washington D.C.--and the crowd was clearly above average in intelligence and income, yet they clearly treated that clip as some kind of evidence supporting their disdain for Wolfowitz's ideas.

Come the fuck on, James Hanley, you are projecting.

I watched Wolfowitz rub spit in his hair and thought "that man is gross." No one around said anything like "Wolfie is wrong because he is gross." Honestly, don't act like you could read the minds of theater-goers around you.

There is nothing wrong with having a laugh at the expense of an asshole.

Posted by: Grammar RWA | April 21, 2008 3:08 PM

59

Well, it seems I missed out on all the Expelled Ads. I've only ever seen two. Both on Comedy Central, a couple of days before the movie premiered. Oh well. I'm certain I'll pick them up on YouTube or something.

Posted by: Religious Non-Right | April 21, 2008 3:31 PM

61

doctorgoo wrote: That's a strong argument that Chris also sometimes gives the other side ammo, just like Dawkins and PZ often do.

It's obvious that those quotes could help the "other side" as you put it, but what evidence is there that anything Myers or Dawkins do anything similar? Just because they criticize religion? That's pretty weak.

Posted by: tomh | April 21, 2008 4:25 PM

63

Ed Said:

So which is it, do you want them to tell what they truly believe to be the case regardless of the political implications, or do you want them to do exactly what so many accused them of advocating and were so against during the Great Frame War of 2008?

I want him to do what he's constantly telling us we are supposed to do -- say what he thinks, based on the facts as he sees them, in a way that offers the maximum media and political benefit for science education and a minimum benefit for creationists.

Is that too much to ask?

It's incredibly frustrating. Nisbet's whole schtick (to which Mooney has tied himself) is framing -- so frame already! In a way that helps and doesn't hurt! No one wants him to be dishonest, we want him to do what he keeps saying we are supposed to be doing.

If he's not capable of coming up with good ways to say what he thinks in the best possible way (i.e. to frame it) then all he has to do is read the comments on his own thread on his own blog, it's got lots of great examples of how he could have done this better, among them this:

Wow. Nice framing there, Chris.

How about this instead:

Expelled, opening at over 1,000 theaters this weekend, has made $3.15 million this weekend, despite statements by its producer that $12-15 million would be a success, and his prediction that it could beat Fahrenheit 9/11's $23.9 million record opening for a documentary . Its per-screen average $2,997, which is respectable, but well below the wide opening per-screen of Fahrenheit 9/11 ($27,558) and Sicko ($10,207). It is rare for a documentary to open on this many screens (despite its moderate box-office, its opening day screen count was the second largest for a documentary in history, behind only Fahrenheit 9/11).

The main test of a film's profitability, however, especially for such a wide release, is how it plays after opening weekend -- major non-documentary releases can drop as much as 40-50% on their second weekend. For example, Left Behind, which aimed for some of the same demographic as Expelled, opened in 2001 on 867 screens, with a comparable $2,489 average for $2,158,780, but its second weekend box office dropped 67%, and it finished its very short six-week run with a total domestic gross of $4,224,065. It remains to be seen how well Expelled lasts at the box office, and how much it can build on its opening weekend take.

Those are also the "facts", but presented in such a way that it provides context to the reader, and engages them in their values and interests, and avoids giving ammunition to the opponents of science. This kind of approach to presenting information can be very handy -- I just wish there were a catchy name for it...

On the other hand, look at what the makers of Expelled could put on their DVD release from Mooney's post:

"Blockbuster power" - Randy Olson, filmmaker

"Expelled [is] a box office success."
- Chris Mooney, best-selling science journalist

"Meet Ben Stein, the new spokesman for the field of evolution."
- Randy Olson, filmmaker

"These guys scored a major victory."
- Chris Mooney, best-selling science journalist

"Amazing."
- Randy Olson, filmmaker

"A major success for the anti-evolution forces."
- Chris Mooney, best-selling science journalist

"Go see 'Expelled'."
- Randy Olson, filmmaker

They don't have to lie, they don't have to pretend to believe something they don't, and they can even say exactly what they think. But if their whole thing is framing, then they owe it to us to frame it in a better way.

This is so obvious it's honestly hard to believe that so much digital ink has been spilled over it. Like PZ Meyers, I don't object to framing per se, I object to bad framing. Which is what Mooney and Nesbit have consistently given us on Expelled from the beginning.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM

65

JuliaL. wrote:

PZ's knitting comment came across like a punch in the stomach, even to me though I'm accustomed to his style. In dismissing what is for many millions of people their primary source of comfort, grounding, and ethics, their first recourse in times of pain and tragedy, as a trivial hobby (accompanied by an old clip of an ugly and foolish-looking woman knitting), he seemed to be not so much criticizing religion as dismissing the audience's deepest feelings, hopes, and needs as unimportant. It might be hard for someone who is not religious to understand fully the powerful effect of that offhand comment. And PZ is being held up as the very model of an evolution scientist, and how an acceptance of evolution makes a person cold and callous.

I've been thinking over this all day (well, stewing, actually), and I finally decided to blow any faint credit for sensitivity I may yet have and reveal my first reaction, which I have not been able to shake:

Good.

Callous, but not cold.
Here's the situation. I knew PZ had been interviewed for the film under false pretenses, and figured out that they were going to try to make him look as bad as possible. Then a few weeks ago the PZ Myers interview from Expelled was posted on Pharyngula. He is sitting calmly and speaking in a (surprisingly) gentle, mild, academic voice. This is the transcript I made:

I never hated religion; I found religion quite comfortable, I liked the people in it. What lead to the atheism was learning more about science, learning more about the natural world, and seeing these horrible conflicts with religion.
Religion is an idea that gives some people comfort - and we don't want to take that away from them. It's like knitting. People like to knit. We're not going to take their knitting needles away; we're not going to take their churches. But what we have to do is get it to a place where religion is treated at the level it should be treated: that is, something fun people get together and do on the weekend, and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has done so far.
Greater science literacy was going to lead to the erosion of religion, and then you get this nice positive feedback mechanism going whereas religion slowly fades away with more and more science to replace it, and that will displace more and more religion with a lot more science - and we eventually get to that point where religion has taken that appropriate place as a side dish rather than the main course.
And if you separate out the ethical message from religion - what do you got left? You've got a bunch of fairy tales, right?

I remember feeling relief. Ok, this seems fairly reasonable. Religious people will not agree with it, of course, but it isn't hostile, or ranting, or gratuitously insulting. He's an atheist, he's obviously not going to think religious stories are literally true. He gives props to the ethics. All in all this is a rather moderate portrayal of atheism. Not bad.

Ho ho ho.

Early reviewers revealed that audiences "gasped" at it. Matt Nisbet went ape-stuff. Even dear, reasonable Julia calls it a "punch in the stomach." It had a "powerful effect." Score one for the IDists right here. Science has suffered a black eye, through association.

And instead of thinking "oh dear, is that the way it came across, as dismissing people's cherished source of comfort, ethics, and grounding? We atheists must needs tread more lightly, then -- be more considerate, and become more sensitive to the negative impression we make" -- I am thinking "Good."

And all of a sudden I want to put on a t-shirt I saw once which read "THERE IS NO GOD GET OVER IT." That's bad, I know. I'm over-reacting.

Maybe. When the average person of faith reacts like they've been kicked in the balls when an atheist calls their religion a "fairy tale," the problem may not be the insensitive, arrogant, sneering, militant atheists. The problem may also be the cringing, reverent, mewling, toadying, fawning, hushed-voices-in-the-hospital-room deference our society regularly grants to Faith, that it may be sheltered like a wee babe from the cold, callous disbelief of those without a grounding.

An ATHEIST!! And he compared religion to KNITTING!! O MY GOD THE NEXT STEP IS THE HOLOCAUST AND THE OVENS!!!"

I'm sorry, Julia. I know you are not saying this. Nor are you saying or even meaning to imply that the religious people you know will think this. Not exactly. But this part of the interview showed contempt for people's deepest beliefs, and they were very, very hurt and you are a kind and wise person to be concerned -- especially about its impact on the controversy concerning evolution and creationism.

And yet I am still thinking "What the hell?" Dramatic impact moment -- in a movie that walks us through bodies and Dachau? I'm very sorry to say this makes me think they need to hear this kind of stuff more often. More atheism. Not less.

Posted by: Sastra | April 21, 2008 5:21 PM

67

Since everyone else has pretty much covered the major points here, I can only add my personal take. Neither the trailers nor the reviews I read, seemed to suggest a very impressive film. So I didn't bother to waste my precious money on it.
Anne G

Posted by: Anne Gilbert | April 21, 2008 5:59 PM

69

"But like Chris (I assume), I get frustrated when PZ gives the other side ammo... or gives them "proof" to use against our side in the whole false dichotomy of having to choose between science and religion."

But, you know, if you actually read PZ he doesn't force that dichotomy, nor even believe in it. If the point you're trying to make is that he (or anyone else) can never say anything that can be quotemined for a bad soundbite, give it up. It's not possible. Just like the bites folks here have pulled from Nesbit and Mooney. I would posit that you're not frustrated because of what Myers, Nesbit or Mooney believe, or even say, generally; you're frustrated because dishonest assholes will distort their statements and misrepresent their beliefs. The price of doing business with these people.

Posted by: les | April 21, 2008 6:22 PM

71

sastra... I hadn't seen that transcipt yet that put PZ's knitting comment in context. Thanks for providing it. I think it's very important.

I don't know if this would technically count as quote-mining of PZ, but the full context does make it sound much more reasonable.

(JuliaL, I don't know if this is on the ExpelledExposed.com website, but this might be the type of intellectual dishonesty that you can point out to your church friends who are upset by the knitting comment.)

But I'd also like to point out that those DVD box quotes from Olson and Mooney listed above as examples of poor framing are also very close to (if not actual) quote-mines, in that Randy and Chris clearly don't recommend this movie... Any objective outsider who has read the entire posts that these quotes come from couldn't possibly come to the conclusion that they recommend Expelled.

Posted by: doctorgoo | April 21, 2008 6:26 PM

73

I get frustrated when PZ gives the other side ammo... or gives them "proof" to use against our side in the whole false dichotomy of having to choose between science and religion.

But, you know, if you actually read PZ he doesn't force that dichotomy, nor even believe in it.

Except he pretty much does.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/moran_on_theistic_evolution.php

Posted by: Brandon | April 21, 2008 7:02 PM

75

Sadly, I found it extremely convincing from the viewpoint of religious people who don't know the facts.

To "don't know the facts" I would add, aren't interested in the facts and will never take the time to check the facts; most normal people.

The film was titled "Expelled" and purportedly about people who have been expelled. I believe the pre-release promotional material referred to people who had been fired, blacklisted and had their grants taken away.

The producers of the film, and their spokesman, Ben Stein, reported that they had interviewed "hundreds" of scientists who had been so persecuted.

That's the claim.

What are the facts?

The facts are that NOBODY has been expelled. Furthermore, I speculate that "hundreds" of scientists were not interviewed, rather that story is a complete fabrication.

"Expelled" is a huge lie from beginning to end. That's what needs to be framed. Forget the Nazis, the premise of the film is a complete fabrication.

However, to those who aren't interested in the facts in the first place, a claim of "liar, liar, pants on fire" is just Darwinian hysteria, isn't it?

Posted by: Doc Bill | April 21, 2008 7:17 PM

77

Ed,

I can see that there is really a real disagreement over all this on this side.(Per your comment to me Saturday) It takes a while to see it come out. I did not watch the movie but the Christian crowd is saying it was a success. They say the success was the number of theaters. I do not know enought about movies to comment but thought Julia's comments were interesting.

To all,
I also have to say that my comments about how arrogant some come off on the evolution side were made in total ignorance of some bloggers on this site saying the same thing. Maybe we are all wrong but it is telling that someone who knew next to nothing about Science agrees with a lot of what the "framing" guys are saying. I think framing is ok as long as it is not lying. Everyone frames things and it should be done to make the points you want to make.

This is from an outsider but I think you guys should listen to Ed and this Mooney guy some more. Just because something is true does not mean it needs to be said. Dawkins and Myers are the public face of this and make the sound bites on Christian radio. Like I have said before I think they are entertaining and ask some really good questions. But your average person that believes in God will just tune them out they way they go about it. Food for thought. The idea is to teach people about Science. You have to get them to listen first. Look how well Ed has done with me.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 21, 2008 7:25 PM

79

doctorgoo wrote: ...he chose his phrasing specifically to appeal to the hardcore atheists on his website, ...

"Hardcore atheists?" Now that's some clever framing, considering that the only common usage of "hardcore" is when it's combined with pornography. You could give those namby-pamby framers some lessons. Since I doubt that you mean some atheists disbelieve more than others, I take it to mean atheists who speak their mind, with opinions that you consider extreme. For instance, personally I believe that all religious schools should be closed by law since I consider them nothing but anti-science indoctrination centers for supernatural belief. I guess that makes me hardcore.

As far as reaching out to moderate religionists, it seems rather naive to think that there is this great mass of feebleminded moderates who are sitting on the fence just waiting for a movie, or an atheist ranting, to sway them to one side or the other. Look at the polls for the last thirty years, which are remarkably consistent. There is a sizeable majority of Americans that do not, and will not, ever believe that "we came from monkeys." There is also a sizeable minority that accepts science and reason. The few that are left pretty much just don't care. The best that the minority can do is just keep plugging the holes in the dike as they appear, Dover, Florida, wherever the next breach comes. There will be no end to it for as long as religion has a stranglehold on this country.

As far as PZ Myers in particular, well, it seems obvious, he came from a different monkey.

Posted by: tomh | April 21, 2008 7:53 PM

81

"Hardcore atheists?" Now that's some clever framing, considering that the only common usage of "hardcore" is when it's combined with pornography. You could give those namby-pamby framers some lessons.

LOL... Damn I hate labels sometimes! I used "hardcore", simply because some atheists take offense at being called "New", and others take offense at being called "Neville Chamberlain" atheists. Trust me, I was trying to avoid framing, NOT develop a new one!

As for what I meant by that, check out the Pharyngula thread I mentioned above:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/spiritual_backbone.php

Compare the venom of first dozen or so comments from hardcore/New atheists to the very substantive comment #138 from someone called Charles Sane:

I'm a newcomer here - been reading a little. KInd of inspired to make a comment based on the "hello" entry of 4/21.

My thought with this blog entry's video was that it was funny. Easy fodder. But in terms of an argument it's a straw man. Even if you don't like Christian schools, finding one bad apple and then saying 'don't send your children to a christian school' isn't a good argument.

I'm sure in the history of the world there has been a child molester in just about every social group formed. But one wouldn't respond to that with 'don't allow your child to join social groups'.

The other thing that made me post a comment was the anger of many of the other comments on this post, most of which have very little to do with the original topic.

I cannot remember the last time I changed someone's mind by being aggressively mad and condescending to their position. When this happens the brainstem says "shields up!" and that's likely the end of useful dialog.

Anyway, that's my first comment. Looking forward to more of PZ's insights as well as the other commenters here at the blog.

Now it's hard to tell if he's a moderate Christian or not from a single comment (I get the impression that he's probably a non-believer), but he brings up some very good points for his very first time delurking.

My point is that he's absolutely correct in how PZ created a strawman, and a fair number of his commenters didn't call him on it, but instead made things even more unwelcoming with their 'clever' insults.

Posted by: doctorgoo | April 21, 2008 8:12 PM

83

Ya know... I thought I might let this one slide, but I think I gotta vent on this one...

For instance, personally I believe that all religious schools should be closed by law since I consider them nothing but anti-science indoctrination centers for supernatural belief. I guess that makes me hardcore.

Yes. And it also makes you somewhat of an idiot, considering that many religious high schools in America teach proper science, including proper evolution.

Tomh... I think you might be guilty of drinking the kool-aid of the false "religion vs. science" dichotomy... lol

Posted by: doctorgoo | April 21, 2008 8:44 PM

85

Regarding PZ Myers' interview where he compared religion to knitting, remember that when he gave that interview, he thought it was for a movie called Crossroads that was about the relationship between science and religion. PZ was just expressing his own personal opinion. At the time, he didn't know that the interview was going to be used in a creationist propaganda piece, and be edited to make him look bad. The Expelled producers didn't talk to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller because they didn't want to "confuse the issue".

Posted by: quester | April 21, 2008 8:46 PM

87

Ramsey, I don't think you understand Sastra's point. She wasn't saying PZ's comments would shock some sense into people all by themselves. She's saying, if I understand her correctly, that these insulated religious people need to stop being coddled. Before we can change minds, we need to move public discourse to the point where religious folk aren't *aghast* when someone doesn't treat their superstitions with undue reverence.

That punch-in-the-stomach feeling they experienced now will only be a slap-in-the-face feeling the next time, and then perhaps a pain-in-the-neck from then on. That would be progress. We need to desensitize them to atheism and stop whispering the word like it's the same as cancer.

Posted by: H.H. | April 21, 2008 9:11 PM

91

Doc Bill: Sadly, I found it extremely convincing from the viewpoint of religious people who don't know the facts.

To "don't know the facts" I would add, aren't interested in the facts and will never take the time to check the facts; most normal people.

My reaction is similar to Doc Bill's. As I noted in a blog post right after seeing Expelled on Friday, "This movie may be effective with certain audiences, but it relies heavily on the ignorance of its viewers."

If you don't know the movie is full of lies and misrepresentations, then it looks like a compelling exposé of prejudiced behavior by the scientific community. I fully expect to hear people in my family praise this movie for uncovering such scandal. And they'll be deaf to my contrary comments.

Posted by: Zeno | April 21, 2008 9:32 PM

93

Sastra and doctorgoo,

Well, I said earlier that it would be hard to explain to a non-religious person just what the impact was of PZ's knitting statement, and sure enough, I failed to do so.

I saw the movie, and so heard the comment in context. The impact is not from comparing religion to a fairy tale, which just means "I don't believe it," but from trivializing the method other people use to deal with their pain, making it equivalent to a hobby (complete with visual of ugly and foolish-looking woman knitting), and thus trivializing the pain itself.

Dramatic impact moment -- in a movie that walks us through bodies and Dachau?

But in the movie, the holocaust scenes are not presented as a separate issue. The movie essentially says that Darwin's theory leads to treating people as lower creatures whose pain is of trivial importance. Sadism, or even hate, isn't really necessary for horrible things to happen. Without that natural human empathy and valuing of others, Dachau becomes possible as ordinary people become indifferent to what others are feeling. The film says evolution leads to devaluing of humans which eventually leads to Dachau. PZ's comment is fitted in as an early step in that downward path.

Weak analogy to PZ's comment:

Suppose that you told me that your child had recently died and that you now sometimes take out his favorite Scrooge McDuck comics, the ones you once read together, and now read through them again because it brings back sweet memories and somehow comforts you.

Then suppose I responded to you by saying, "Yes, my hobby is knitting. Comic book reading can be a fun thing to do on weekends." You might be struck by my utter lack of empathy, indeed my callous disregard of the deeper meaning of your thumbing thorugh those Duck comics, my trivializing of your pain and your efforts to deal with it.

Yes, I just compared religion in this context to reading Duck comics; anything for clarity. I like clarity. That's why I'm not one of those who think that PZ and Dawkins should moderate their remarks. I like for people to say exactly what they mean.

And at the same, as a character in the context of this film with its theme of "belief in evolution leads to a failure to value human beings" PZ works as a present day parallel to the movie's claims of what evolution has done to people's attitudes in the past. Had PZ said, "God doesn't exist - Get over it!" his comment would have had far less impact, and essentially no tie-in to the Dachau claim.

Overall, I still think the movie has considerable potential to rally formerly indifferent-to-ID religious people to support ID. I'm not criticizing either PZ or Dawkins. I'm saying that anybody who cares about science education needs to take a very close look at how this film can read to a religious person who doesn't know he's being lied to.

And Sastra, I laughed when I read "dear, reasonable Julia." I've actually once or twice been called "dear, sweet Julia" or "dear, kind Julia," but leave it to you to imply reasonableness is necessary to qualify one as "dear." Thanks for brightening my evening.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 21, 2008 9:38 PM

95

I just checked out the weekend box office receipts at Box Office Mojo. The initial results are estimates. The actual take for Expelled appears to be somewhat less than originally projected: $2,970,848 rather than $3,153,000. While Expelled still ranks in the top ten for the weekend, it drops to tenth (from the originally estimated eighth). Still not bad for a documentary, but somewhat underwhelming for a 1000-theater release with a multi-million dollar promotional campaign.

Expelled cannot be considered much of a success unless it has "legs" and continues to pull in earnings week after week. I suspect that the backers won't get their money back till it's been selling on DVD for several months.

Posted by: Zeno | April 21, 2008 9:45 PM

99

Doctorgoo,

You and I appear to be on pretty much the same page as far as tactics, then, though we probably disagree philosophically. Also, I'm sick of the ridiculous labeling that always crops up in these debates, too. Sometimes, it feels like the entire issue boils down to nothing more than:

Richard Dawkins: You're a Neville Chamberlain poopy-head atheist! Michael Ruse: Nuh-uh! You're a militant extremist atheist! I'm telling on you! PZ Myers: Sticks and stones! Sticks and stones! You're an appeaser! Francis Collins: You're a fundamentalist atheist! Ninny ninny boo-boo!

The whole thing is irksome. When Alaistar McGrath writes a book that has the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" on the dust jacket three times you know the debate has descended into playground name-calling.

Posted by: Wes | April 21, 2008 10:37 PM

101

JuliaL wrote:

I do think that this movie can have a considerable and very unfortunate effect on religious people who were until now oblivious to the evolution/ID controversy - in actuality a political controversy rather than a scientific one, yes, but the film suggests it is both. I think such a person would very possibly leave this film firmly convinced that evolution is a plot by certain callous and bizarre atheists to support an idea that devalues people, while preventing legitimate scientists from studying evidence that God created the world and created it in such a way that people matter.

[...]

And I would be sorry to see this thread turn into nothing more than another discussion of framing in general. Here right in front of our noses is a powerful and deeply dishonest film that is probably somewhere right now radicalizing a person who before today cared little about the place of evolution in schools and is now coming to the conclusion that he/she should support efforts to get ID into schools. I wish there were more discussion of how to counteract those specific effects.

I believe JuliaL makes important points here that we would all do well to take to heart.

It sounds as if this movie is highly unlikely to change the mind of a single agnostic or atheist or even moderate Christian. But that is most probably not its purpose.

It is preaching to the choir. What it does is bring comfort and cheer to those who perceive themselves as embattled believers, who feel science in general and evolution in particular threaten the very foundations of their faith.

To non-believers, this faith may look like a pathetic clinging to the straws of myth and legend but to believers this is the very core of their existence. It gives life here on Earth meaning and purpose and offers the prospect of something better beyond. It is a source of great strength and comfort when coping with the worst adversities that can befall us. It binds together families and communities in a fellowship which can be all that is left to us when everything else has failed.

Anyone who believes that this can be destroyed or even dented by offering scientific problem-solving or hard-headed but comfortless atheism as an alternative is not using their imagination. There may well come a time when religion is relegated to the category of a harmless recreation like knitting but do not expect it to be soon.

This fellowhsip of the faithfull is the constituency to which Expelled is clearly appealing. Apparently it does so through the tried and tested propaganda technique of saying what the audience wants to hear in the form of rabble-rousing entertainment masquerading as serious documentary. Ben Stein has become a cheerleader for the religious right. In the poster image, he shouldn't be wearing shorts and a school uniform but rather high heels, a short skirt and pom-poms.

The best answer to this sort of propaganda is to wait until the initial wave of enthusiasm has spent itself. Then, when challenged, try to initiate the backlash by being able to take a few of the key points of the movie - the cases of Sternberg, Crocker and Gonzales, for example - and expose them for the lies they are, clearly, forcefully and, above all, simply.

Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | April 22, 2008 1:31 AM

103

Reports of Expelled breaking $3M over the weekend were based on projections and may have been exaggerated.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2008-04-20&p=.htm

I noticed early that Sunday's numbers of nearly $1M ( Was it $975,000 ?) were marked as estimates, and those estimates had Expelled's Sat-to-Sunday take declining by a few percent, not the 30% typical of the big studio movies. That didn't make sense to me. The revised numbers are more in line with other movies.

$2.97M for the weekend. The fact that it fell from Friday to Saturday will widely be seen as an indicator that the movie is not a movie people want to see. But it may be that their marketing campaign (bribing Christian Schools to organize subsidized trips to the cinema) may have contributed to this trend.

Posted by: rpenner | April 22, 2008 3:01 AM

105

On the measure of success for Expelled: I'm pretty sure this film is being funded by a single wealthy individual who I'm guessing didn't engage in this as a commercial endeavour. Therefore how much money is spent or earned is irrelevant to how successful the film is, it's about how many people see it, and how many and find it convincing. So far not many people have seen it, but I think 'smaller' films usually find the bulk of their audience on DVD (or p2p). It's too early to be talking about the relevant success of this film, though clearly in purely Hollywood terms, its opening was a failure.

As for framing, I see people getting pissed off (me included) with the framing evangelists because they're not practising what they're preaching, if you'll excuse the terminology. How about framing framing to the anti-framing people? How about counter examples to the 'framing' employed by the Expelled PR machine? Or, at very least, responding directly to the numerous reasonable and substantial criticisms? Criticising well liked figures like PZ and Dawkins while at the same time praising the odious Expelled team is not going to win people around to the idea of framing.

Posted by: V Profane | April 22, 2008 7:14 AM

107

DingoJack:

Yes...if the goal was to make money from the theatrical release.

Posted by: Dave S. | April 22, 2008 8:00 AM

109

The problem may also be the cringing, reverent, mewling, toadying, fawning, hushed-voices-in-the-hospital-room deference our society regularly grants to Faith, that it may be sheltered like a wee babe from the cold, callous disbelief of those without a grounding.

Excellent post, Sastra! I couldn't agree more. The problem isn't religion so much as the automatic assumption that being religious is equivalent to being moral and decent. How many sanctimonious jackasses wearing their religion on their sleeve have to turn out to be total sleazebags before it starts to sink in that religious fervor is not a good indicator of righteousness? That's why PZ posts things like the Christian school story. To point out the hypocrisy, not to inform his readers about one bad guy. By the way, my current favorite religion-related quote comes from one Mr. Ed Brayton: "Fuck you, and your little god too."

Posted by: Taz | April 22, 2008 8:58 AM

111

I concur that whether or not it makes money it will be in the hands of True Believers for years. This is a 'Silent Scream' type movie. It lies, distorts and is deeply dishonest. And it will circulate among churches for decades.

That doesn't mean it is a success. To reach that status, the producers must convince people other than the True Believers. Just "Preaching to the Choir" doesn't cut it. To do that it must be a box office success.

My own analysis of the Box Office Mojo numbers says that even for a documentary it is doing quite badly. It opened on more screens than any previous documentary. But among political documentaries opening on 10 or more screens (all twelve or so of them) it came right about the median of the pack in its opening per screen earnings. Among all documentaries on 10 or more screens, it was in the bottom 40%.

Even as a documentary it is doing fairly poorly. My bet is that it will be gone from most theaters in a week (two tops).

Posted by: Benjamin Franz | April 22, 2008 9:32 AM

113

This whole foofaraw is too eerily like the DLC vs DNC schism in the Democratic party.

Mooney is Al From calling for more triangulation (while accomplishing... nothing), and unapologetic P.Z. is like an iconoclastic Howard Dean, rallying the troops with an amplified scream.

Political history shows that it is Dean who is capturing the hearts and minds of the independent voter.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 22, 2008 10:02 AM

115

AK47,

PZ expressed his opinion, and he was calm and not hysterical about it. I think theists need to hear it more often.

Let me try one more time to make clear how that opinion sounded to his audience. In the context of the film, PZ is a politically influential person. I think he is not particularly, but in the film he is one of those controlling what will be taught to the children of the people in the audience. So for you, imagine that you cannot afford private school for your children, and the state superintendent of education says this, calmly, apparently with the full support of your local Board of Education:

I never hated atheism or secularism; I found them quite comfortable, I liked the people in it. What led me to religion was learning more about science and Intelligent Design, learning more about God's natural world, and seeing these horrible conflicts with atheism and secularism. Atheism and secularism are ideas that give some people comfort - and we don't want to take that away from them. It's like knitting. People like to knit. We're not going to take their knitting needles away; we're not going to take their atheist or secularist websites. But what we have to do is get it to a place where atheism and secularism are treated at the level they should be treated: that is, something fun people get together and do on the weekend, and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has done so far. Greater ID literacy is going to lead to the erosion of atheism and secularism, and then you get this nice positive feedback mechanism going whereas atheism and secularism slowly fade away with more and more ID and Godly science to replace it, and that will displace more and more atheism and secularism with a lot more Godly science - and we eventually get to that point where atheism and secularism have taken that appropriate place as a side dish rather than the main course. And if you separate out the reason-is-good message from atheistic science - what have you got left? You've got a bunch of fairy tales, right?

After hearing this, you would, I'm guessing, be more, not less, likely to be motivated to get involved in political fights about what is taught in tax-payer supported schools. I expect this message would not become less objectionable to you the more often you heard it repeated, and the more politically influential people you heard it from.

My point is not that PZ should have been quiet. It is that it would be short-sighted on the part of science defenders to discount the effect his comments have. The filmmakers knew their audience and picked a comment that, by its trivializing of what the audience greatly values and by its arrogant "we have the power to let you have your churches or take them away," has the power to radicalize many formerly indifferent listeners and motivate them to fight for ID in the schools.

I think that the more often this particular message from a scientist is heard by theists, the greater the number of theists who will leave a moderate "let the scientists handle what is taught in biology class" and take up an anti-science position.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 22, 2008 10:07 AM

117

Yep BenjaminFranz got my point. 125 tickets per theatre per day is hardly concerting undecideds. They are merely preaching to the converted. At least "Farenheit 9/11" managed to get people who didn't believe the message to go and see it. Some were convinced (and vica versa - myself included), this film fails because it has "load of cobblers" written all over it, word of mouth will sink it. Audiences are a lot smarter than these people seem to think. -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | April 22, 2008 10:24 AM

119

But the reason the comic book example is offensive is because it is insensitive to someone's grief.

Precisely. And that is one main response that many conservative Christians (for whom their religion is experienced most powerfully in times of trouble and grief) will, I think, have to PZ's remarks.

But in your example, the speaker knew the person was talking about their grief. PZ was being interviewed for a movie. The two situations aren't even close.

Posted by: Taz | April 22, 2008 10:38 AM

121

After hearing this, you would, I'm guessing, be more, not less, likely to be motivated to get involved in political fights about what is taught in tax-payer supported schools.

I'm with Taz. It would be bad only because the superintendent wants to promote "Godly science", which doesn't exist. Imagine the superintendent is an agnostic instead, and makes the statement that he'd like to see people achieve such a level of philosophical enlightenment that atheism and religion both fade away peacefully. We'd disagree with him but otherwise what's the big deal?

Posted by: windy | April 22, 2008 11:03 AM

123

Taz,

The comparison of PZ Myers to the Superintendent of Education is absurd. And he didn't say anything even close to "we have the power to let you have your churches or take them away". As for your imagined speech, I wish your average person (superintendent or not) had that mild a view of atheists. With very few exceptions, no avowed atheist can be elected to public office. You certainly won't see one appointed Superintendent of Education. Maybe if we all just shut up, that will get better?

I didn't compare PZ to a Superintendent of Education. I compared the likely effect of his comments on motivating a certain group to become involved in the evolution/ID controversy to the likely effect such comments by a Superintendent of Education would have on another group.

Yes, PZ's use of "we" with the "won't take away" implies the present or desired power to control that decision; combined with "their" churches, the comment invites a power struggle.

No, I don't think anybody should shut up. I've said before that I like clarity, and like for people to say what they mean.

I also don't think that misunderstanding or underestimating the potentially radicalizing effect of PZ's comments on many conservative Christians is helpful to the cause of good science education.

But in your example, the speaker knew the person was talking about their grief. PZ was being interviewed for a movie. The two situations aren't even close.

At other times PZ has indicated that he wants to see religion disappear. He deliberately chose not to take that tack here. I think PZ is an intelligent, knowledgeable person, well aware of how many use religion to cope with their deepest problems and sorrows. I think that knowledge lies somewhere behind his deliberate choice of knitting, comparing some people's use of religion to a trivial hobby. Yes, PZ knew he was being interviewed for a movie that would be seen by at least some conservative Christians. He's welcome to correct me, but until he does, I give him credit for knowing exactly what he was saying and what effect it would have.

Posted by: JuliaL | April 22, 2008 11:29 AM

125

JuliaL,

Because atheists are such a minority, I already assume that the majority of my kids teachers are theists who may have views along the lines of the paraphrased statement you wrote. It bothers me much less than you might think.

"I expect this message would not become less objectionable to you the more often you heard it repeated, and the more politically influential people you heard it from."

Actually I find the message to be rather tame compared to some of the religious expressions from rather influential people such as our current U.S. president.

Really the only potentially disturbing part is if the statement supporting ID is made by my kid's biology teacher. If that's the case, I'd be looking a little more closely at what he's being taught, and pursue appropriate action if he's being taught ID in a biology class.

All that being said, you raise a valid point, and I don't dispute that PZ's comments are going to rally many of the people in the audience. I'm just not so alarmed by it. And note that I also encouraged the expression a diversity of viewpoints. I have no expectation that theists will walk on eggshells around my atheism, and I wish the relationship were a little more symmetric.

Posted by: AK47 | April 22, 2008 11:40 AM

127

I understand your position, Ed, but this comes across as hateful. Its hard to make a movie. Ask anyone who knows.
If an art house flick with a message and a few little known stars made this much on its opening weekend, many independent filmmakers would call this success.

Posted by: Peter | April 22, 2008 12:04 PM

129

I guess I disagree on the extent to which I think PZ's comments will contribute to radicalizing (is that a word?) indifferent people. I think that his comments are only deeply offensive unless you already think that religion is somehow above comparison to other human activities. I think the people taking deep offense to the statement were already radicalized and are looking for fuel to sustain the fire.

As far as measuring the success of the movie. I disagree that the money measurements are irrelevant, particularly when the producers were touting how well they were going to do at the box office. There are a number of different ways to measure the "success" of the movie. Most of us already thought that it would be well attended among the religious right/church bus to the movie crowd. I think the bigger concern was what effect it would have on the general audience. I think that the weak box opening weekend shows that in spite of big ad buys on Comedy Central etc. it isn't reaching out much past the crowd that was already going to see it.

Yes, it's premature to declare victory and walk away, but I think that it is completely valid to point out that on their stated terms, the movie failed its first test.

Oh, and knitting - still not trivial ;)

Posted by: Minnow | April 22, 2008 12:37 PM

131

JuliaL

And I am saying that the movie has a considerable degree of success measured by its potential to radicalize formerly indifferent people to begin to fight for the inclusion of ID in schools.

If these people are indifferent, how do you know they'll come down on the side of Ben Stein and ID? Maybe they'll decide a good science education is important. I'm not sure our strategy should be "tread softly and hope they don't realize we're trying to teach their children science". I think the more the argument is brought into the open, the better for our side. In fact, I think this movie will end up hurting ID in the long run, because it publicizes the theme "evolution is responsible for the holocaust". While some people may buy that argument, many more will be turned off by it. And it can be ridiculed without offending anyone's religion or attempting to explain the science.

Posted by: Taz | April 22, 2008 1:07 PM

133

Is there not a case here for saying that you couldn't care less what "conservative Christians" think of PZ's comments because some of us have just about enough self-respect to realize that there are lines that we are absolutely not prepared to cross? Are you not just a little bit tired of being pissed on from a very great height by propagandists who claim to own the moral high ground and then lie, lie big, and lie often, even if they encourage people who wouldn't ordinarily do so? We can't micromanage in terms of the numbers of Christians that may decide to become more politically active.

After a while it starts to feel far too much like manipulation for my liking. And why wouldn't it? If you know that you can get your own way by fermenting outrage every time someone utters something that you don't like, those who simply want a quiet life are going to give in and alter their behavior accordingly. Sorry, I'm not prepared to go down that road -- I too have self-respect, remember? -- even if it means that every school ends up teaching creationism. They will have the mother of all fights on their hands, though, and I'd rather it get even messier than it already has than change everything that is deeply personal to my own self.

That may sound unnecessarily dismissive, but come on. How far are we expected to bend over so that we can pander to people who find the very idea of us deeply offensive? Are you not just encouraging more bigotry, hatred, ignorance, and misunderstanding by allowing people to get away with what is largely organized playacting? And that is what it is. If conservative Christians weren't organized -- and encouraged by special interest groups -- they would be far less potent than they currently are. I don't blame individual Christians. It's the organizations that surely know what they are doing that I find morally reprehensible.

Posted by: Damian | April 22, 2008 2:19 PM

135

"This is no different than in Christianity. You can say that all Christians share the goal of promoting belief in God via Christ, and that's true up to a point. But you also have to admit that each denomination has their own view on the best way to do that, and sometimes the methods of one group will wreak havoc with the methods of another. As they say, no flame burns as hot as heresy!"

I have laughed privately so many times and have commented on here too about how much the Science crowd acts like the relgious right crowd they hate. It is everywhere. I agree. It is funny though.

I also need to repeat that I know nothing about box office stuff. I was just repeating what the Christian Radio spin was about the number of theators.

In general, Chris Mooney is right on. It is all about art and message today. If you do not speak the language of the people then you will be tuned out. A Movie like this was probably meant to energize a base of people to do something. In that it is about marketing your message through the proper art. I have not seen this but I think it is old school. Kids today think differently than even 5 years ago.

I am saying do not throw what the guy is saying out the window based on the failure or success of one movie. I think your argument may be more generational here than anything else. Join the rest of America in that whatever the cause.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 22, 2008 3:13 PM

137

I have laughed privately so many times and have commented on here too about how much the Science crowd acts like the relgious right crowd they hate.

Of course the big difference we're right and they're fools.

/teasing

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 22, 2008 3:41 PM

139

Still playing up the old "it's science vs religion" canard, huh king? Sorry, but if you're going to claim that the "Science crowd" (whoever they are) is just like the religious right you're going to need a lot more evidence than the fact that they sometimes disagree with each other.

I was responding to a comment from above. I was kidding. Someone talked about who much you guys argue over all this. It is normal. It just takes a while to see all the agendas. Everybody has one. It is not bad. I actually appreciate people like Dawkins and Myers and their passion about what they believe in. Someone sent me an email inviting me to a "Christian Concert" today. I wrote back that I would not be attending. Why? I cannot until I hear even on person sing with as much passion about God as Bob Seeger sings about women. It just is not real in most peoples lives. So I might disagree with Dawkins and Myers but I respect the hell out of both. I just think they hurt the cause you guys have at times.

I think Abby got the point read her comment.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 22, 2008 5:55 PM

141

Taz,

I actually respect you guys. I cannot say the same for them. I think you are misreading a lot of what I am saying. Read closer.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 22, 2008 6:03 PM

143

Getting back to topic, it looks like Expelled may no longer be showing in several movie theatres in the Bible Belt region where I live: of the 4 currently showing it, only 1 still has it as still showing this coming Friday (the other three have only an incomplete list, so I guess that it may continue there as well). It may be presumptuous to conclude based on this info, but it looks like it may not have done well -- in this Bible Belt area.

Posted by: Greg | April 22, 2008 6:41 PM

145

Small point, KOI, but I think Abby's a guy.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 22, 2008 7:23 PM

147

Small point, KOI, but I think Abby's a guy.

I've actually been very careful not to say one way or the other. Though certain of my posts may hint. I've been using this handle that way for years. Call it a social experiment. I've noticed a significant trend of women pegging me as male, while men tend to peg me as female. I can only guess as to why. But, "not like me," is my favored theory. If anyone would like to provide me with their thinking please feel free to email me at DearAbbyNormal(at)hotmail.com.

Oh, and feel free to use whatever pronoun you'd like.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 22, 2008 8:02 PM

149

I'd say it's a flop, based on economics (the only way to meaningfully compare secular and relgious movies). How much cash did Mel Gibson rake in for his religo-sadism flick? More than an estimated $4M? I think so.
Anyway if the Rebid Relgious Right think losing money and not convincing anyone outside thier own compound of thier risable veiws is a measure of the film's "sucess", then they haven't heard of King Pyrrhus of Eprius.

Posted by: DingoJack | April 22, 2008 11:28 PM

151

Wes Stated:

"I know that's not what you meant, and you're not claiming (as far as I can see) that science is a religion or anything stupid like that, but a lot of the people here have heard those things so many times that that's how they read you'

To be fair I have made some comments before that may have implied that as a possibility. That is as far as Science being a religion of its own. This comment was not meant to say that though.

For the record I do not think "Science" is a religion. I do think that some use "Science" to promote their world views. Since "Science" has such a broad definition it is hard to really label anything. I do think that some Humanists that happen to be atheist use their views on "Science" to promote their views. In the most extreme sense this could be a religion. Some have even labeled it that in the past that were part of the movement.

So yes I do agree that "Science" vs. "Religion" is a bad way to label or frame this discussion. But I think both sides are doing it. Whatever the "both" sides are. I think the thing I have learned the most on this site is that this is a complex issue and labels can be dangerous. Ed is right when he says I have no problem with Science. I have a problem with how some use it.

I just watched a movie the other day at school with my students that stated more or less that Hitler made up Science to defend his killing of Jews. It was "Freedom Writers". I wonder how people here would react to that comment in a movie. I teach at a School that has the exact demographics as the one in the movie. The overall message of the movie was right on. This statement is loaded.

Expelled will never reach most kids. This movie will. It is the same message though to some degree. I think Freedom Writers will have more of an impact. There is your battle in my mind. Maybe mine too because Science is labelled badly and to blame it for Hitler is stupid. Whether it is in Expelled or Freedom Writers.

Sorry for not being more clear.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 23, 2008 8:31 AM

153

KOI - I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "..some use science to promote their world views". Certainly anyone's world view is going to be formed by their knowledge and experiences. If a scientist says that science shows the Earth to be far more than 6000 years old, is that promoting a world view? If the answer is yes, than so what? He's just stating a scientific conclusion. And yet there are many people who are appalled at such statements, because in conflicts with their religious beliefs.

I certainly don't have a problem with a movie stating that Hitler made up phony "science" to help justify his atrocities. The problem comes when people use that fact to condemn science, rather than Hitler.

Posted by: Taz | April 23, 2008 11:06 AM

155

I had a poor choice of words earlier. I was trying to say that implications of Science into all academic areas. Focusing on just Biology or too narrow of a focus can cause someone to swallow the camel while straining out a nat.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 23, 2008 2:24 PM

157

Damian stated:

"In my opinion, creationists are let off quite easily considering the amount of harm that they can cause, and especially to the age group that it involves. America should really be outraged, but most people are in on it, unfortunately. Obviously, most don't have a clue about what they are doing, and that is why we must go after those who do"

I would probably agree with this in general. But my concern is that there are just as many atheist's with an agenda teaching as well. Cirriculum is almost irrelevant. The teacher is who teaches. Most propagandists are not stupid and can infuse the kids with their view without getting caught. I think we need to go after both sides.

PZ Meyers is free to do whatever he wants in college. I commend him. He makes people think. If he was in HS I would want him fired. It is not place for the Christian, atheist, or whatever inbetween, to indoctrinate students. I have to watch myself all the time. I have strong views on some things that really have nothing to do with religion. I need to present both sides and let the kids learn on their own.

I am naturally a persuasive speaker. I did it for years. Now I need to go back to teaching: which is giving the information and teaching the kids to think and make up their own minds. I would hope that you guys are just as opposed to atheists who use the schools for their agenda as Christians or Creationists or whatever.

Posted by: King of Ireland | April 24, 2008 3:28 PM

159

PZ has made said several times that he makes a point of it to not talk about religion or god one way or the other in class. To wit:

While I may have a reputation as a ferocious atheist on the web, it just doesn't show up in my classes. I have a hard enough time squeezing in all the key biology material without tossing in stuff about godlessness that won't show up on the tests.

For what it's worth, I think most people (commenters and hosts both) at SB would agree that religion doesn't really belong in a science class no matter what level the course.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | April 24, 2008 3:55 PM

161

Let me second what Abby and Jeff wrote. My understanding is that PZ is totally non-confrontational to his Christian students. His blog persona doesn't make it into the classroom at all.

But of course, he does teach scientific theories and facts that undermine a literal interpretation of Genesis. So I'd expect the fundies to accuse him of persecution anyway...

Posted by: doctorgoo | April 24, 2008 5:59 PM

163

KOI said:

I was just wondering if you guys would get just as pissed about an atheist teacher promoting atheism through Science in class in reference to public HS? I am sure you would.

By the way, if Myers does not want to get a reputation he may want to tone it down some.

Sure we would. That is the very essence of accepting the separation between church and state -- secularism. I often wonder why so many religious believers are afraid of secularism, particularly in its most basic form. The whole point is that it protects all people, of all beliefs, ethnicities, etc, and that it doesn't disadvantage anyone. It is not a perfect system, to be sure, but I cannot think of a better one for the multi-ethnic and religious societies in the western world. And just look at the progress that has been made in the last 50 odd years. It should be telling us something.

While we are almost certainly not perfectly consistent in all that we do, and I am sure that we make many mistakes, most of us are trying to improve ourselves, as best as we can manage. There is a genuine effort, I feel, to be as fair and consistent as possible.

I would agree with your last point if PZ was working in a public HS school. I don't always agree with him, for sure, but most people who are familiar with him understand that his heart is in the right place. As it is, I celebrate the fact that we live in such a diverse world. While it is certainly possible to criticize some of PZ's stances, it should also be remembered that not so long ago there wasn't really a light being shone on some aspects of the Christian community, and there should have been. In the end, criticism should be seen as positive, in my opinion.

Don't worry, I don't expect too many Christians to thank the likes of PZ Myers in the near future, although I recall a number of Christians doing so on his blog in the past.

Posted by: Damian | April 25, 2008 12:43 AM

165

It makes you wonder, though, where did life and matter come from anyway? How DID it start? If the odds say self-replicating cells are impossible to create by accident, then how did it happen? And let's not even start on infinity...

Posted by: JKM | April 25, 2008 9:01 AM

167

We still don't know how they did for their second weekend. Did they flop worse than Ang Lee's Hulk (2003) which dropped almost 70% in the second weekend?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=expelled.htm

I don't particularly care, but I find it interesting that they don't want to give the actual numbers, just the estimates.

Posted by: rpenner | April 28, 2008 7:43 PM