…and this is a 
More empty posturing from Ruloff and Mathis
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 18, 2008 9:51 AM, by PZ Myers
The producers of Expelled aren't exactly the brightest bunch. Their latest blog entry is a silly whine about me.
Paul is one of the stars in the film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. He's probably remembering all of the things that he said on camera, when we interviewed him and faithfully recorded it all. That couldn't be making him feel very good.
Their movie is doomed if they're relying on my star power to draw in the audiences … and I've noticed that all the early reviews found my performance so unmemorable that they failed to remember what I said. (Trust me, it's the only thing I'm looking for in the reviews, and I even wrote to ask one reviewer if he'd noticed me — he hadn't.) And actually, I don't remember precisely what I said in the interview, nor am I concerned about it. I get interviewed on this stuff all the time, and I say what I think without concern. If they'd like to release the complete recording of my interview, I'd be happy to host it unedited; if it's so damning, they should be thrilled to do so.
But mainly, I'm baffled. They've got Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins in the movie — and they're playing up the role of some obscure guy with a blog? And it's a "modest science-blog" at that!
Now it appears that the associate professor Myers is regretful, and lashing out against the film again in his modest science-blog, "Pharyngula," attempting to mitigate the inevitable criticism of his performance, in advance. His latest is a vein-popping, eyes - bulging, 3,000 word, eleven-screen diatribe posted on his website, a "critique" of a simple eight-hundred word editorial that the producers of EXPELLED wrote on Darwin Day.
From his lengthy, over-the-top screed, we can't really sort out what it is that upset him so, but one thing is painfully obvious: he is literally sweating over the upcoming release of our film.
Hmmm. That "vein-popping, eyes - bulging, 3,000 word, eleven-screen diatribe" actually went through the false claims in their mere editorial fairly thoroughly, pointing out the errors. If they want to complain that they made so many egregious mistakes that it took 3,000 words to document most of them, that's fine by me.
They don't seem very perceptive, though. I am not at all "upset" or "sweating" over their movie, or my interview. There was a lot of similar babbling after the movie was announced that I was going to sue them, which was similarly incomprehensible and completely divorced from what I was actually thinking; they seem to believe that I'm sitting here raging over having my words reported in a movie, when every day I'm openly and immoderately arguing against religion right here on the web, without a pseudonym and without reservation. Their movie can only fall far short of portraying the depth of my contempt for the charlatans of creationism. I know full well what criticisms I'm going to get about my performance in this movie: I will be told that I don't come across as sufficiently fire-breathing in person.
The reason I wrote that criticism of their editorial was simple. They're liars. They lied. They're ignorant. They made up crap.
It's actually rather funny how often the purveyors of nonsense make complaints that someone has made a lengthy criticism of their distortions, in which the whole issue is not the substance of the criticism, but the mere fact that a criticism has been made. Go ahead, search in vain throughout their blog entry, and you'll discover that they completely ignored every point I made, and their entire argument is reduced to the fact that there were 3000 words in my article.
Comments
You can taste the IDiot's desperation in the air. It's not a pleasant taste to combine those two fluids I suspect are involved.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 18, 2008 10:09 AM
These guys have enough time to count the words in your commentary and pay attention to how many screen pages were required to view it on their monitors. (They're watching you! Feel intimidated yet, PZ?) Hmm. Perhaps they have time to spare because they're grounded (licenses suspended for speeding), living alone (bad in bed), untutored by spiritual counsel (excommunicated for their sins), and out of school (dismissed without degrees for lousy research).
This is just a theory, of course.
Posted by: Zeno | February 18, 2008 10:12 AM
404 again. Freedom of speech? Hah! Freedom of information? Haha!
Is Christopher Guest behind this so he can have one on over all of us? His other mockumentaries were too obviously comedies. This one is more subtle.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | February 18, 2008 10:13 AM
We're dealing with a movie that is so bad that they actually have to bribe people to go see it. They're desperate people pathetically glad that someone actually noticed them at all.
Admittedly it was to blow them out of the water, but at least PZ noticed them.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 18, 2008 10:19 AM
Mike H: Good concept but Christopher Guest would use a better actor than Ben...
For PZ's use is the future, in the best spirit of quote mining used by some on those poor perseucted cdesignpropentioists:
"When the film comes out in April - we ... have some explaining to do - ... The truth sometimes hurts ... can't control the message: it's why we made EXPELLED.
the film again ... is a vein-popping, eyes - bulging ... diatribe ... over-the-top screed ... painfully obvious ..."
Posted by: szqc | February 18, 2008 10:21 AM
But that's just so MANY words ...
Posted by: Mike Fox | February 18, 2008 10:25 AM
"...their entire argument is reduced to the fact that there were 3000 words in my article."
Actually, only a little over half of those words were yours. The rest were quotes that you included so as to give your readers a context for your words - a concept that seems to escape Ruloff and Mathis.
Posted by: Alan B. | February 18, 2008 10:28 AM
Funny. IDers love to claim that large numbers prove intelligent design (the odds prove it!) but then whine that a large 3,000 word blog proves unintelligence. I wish they'd make up their minds.
Posted by: Theodore | February 18, 2008 10:29 AM
I like how they quote one of your posts at the top of their blog.
As if you were recommending it.
bleh
Posted by: Katrina | February 18, 2008 10:30 AM
To be fair to them, a blog post must seem like an awful lot to read if you have to drag your index finger down the screen, silently mouthing the letters as you go and stopping for a well-earned rest after difficult words like "ahistorical".
Posted by: MissPrism | February 18, 2008 10:32 AM
This might be the evolution of a new creationist argument: "You're very angry at me, therefore I'm right."
We could call it "The Argument From Outside Criticism". It pulls about as much weight as any other creationist argument if you ask me.
Posted by: tyaddow | February 18, 2008 10:34 AM
Here is a little post from my oldest daughter from her own blog, I love this kid!!!
Stein's involved in a project entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. No, I'm not linking to their site, as it would be tantamount to me putting up a bunch of kiddy porn on here and saying "AIN'T THIS TEH SEXAY!?!?". In short, Stein and some other half-human fuckwits have made a farce of a documentary about how the proponents of one of the greatest pseudoscientific movements of our time, Intelligent Design, are being picked on by, you know, actual scientists who have real facts and stuff. Let's hope no one goes to see it and they have something real to cry about.
My father has been hanging out on the "Expelled" blog quite a bit, trying to argue with the pimple-popping twits that post there. My opinion? Arguing with people who probably need tin foil hats to leave the house and tend to worship a badly edited book (ie. The Bible) is like trying to teach Emperor Penguins to yodel. You're not going to accomplish much, you'll get frustrated and pissed off in the process, plus, you must be a masochist to even attempt such a feat in the first place. If someone's wedded to how they FEEL, especially in the face of tons and tons of evidence to the contrary, I might as well masturbate with some sandpaper for all the good it will do me to try and change their pea-sized minds. Dad keeps persisting, though, as does one of my favorite science blogs, Pharyngula. PZ dressed down one of the most recent Expelled blog entries in his usual fashion. Thank you, PZ!
What gets me most about ID people is they constantly try and paint themselves as "persecuted skeptics". Why on Earth would you expect the people who have buried every argument you've ever made (scientists) to respect your continued, purposeful ignorance? That's the definition of crazy, there, folks.
If you want to insist your world is flat and rather burrito-shaped, you have fun with that, but STFU in public, already. The States look stupid enough to the rest of the world as it is.
I will have to work with this child so that she can learn to express herself more clearly though.
Thanks PZ and all the others I have seen trying to put a little sanity in the expelled blog. I just wish I could do more and better myself.
Posted by: king j | February 18, 2008 10:41 AM
Hey, couldn't you at least have posted the url to your daughter's blog?
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 18, 2008 10:50 AM
You are going to get me in trouble.
http://moon-grrl.livejournal.com/
Posted by: king j | February 18, 2008 11:00 AM
I love this phrase they've coined: Big Science. Oooo, scary. When Big Science gets a hold of PZ, watch out. Big Science is gonna get you. WTF? The masters of spin and hype have coined a phrase. Yea for them. (Yawns and moves on)
Posted by: CForrester | February 18, 2008 11:01 AM
I love it... at their blog, under "intelligent quote of the day" is the following:
"Stein, you should be ashamed of yourself for not having actually LOOKED at the facts and instead plunging into selling snakeoil and conning the marks for profit."
Hee hee.
Posted by: rjb | February 18, 2008 11:04 AM
Here's what I posted as a comment on their blog (I see my comment is awaiting moderation at February 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am -- I'm sure they'll have it posted very soon... aren't you?):
____
I see PZ Myers has offered to host the entire unedited video of his interview on his site, or it could be put on YouTube or Google Video. That would show him, wouldn't it, if it's as damning as you say. So why don't you take him up on it. I'll be looking forward to see you put up or shut up, with the entire unedited interview available online. So when will that be ready? It should only take a couple hours, tops.
_____
BTW, here's a screengrab of the comment. Not that I think they won't post it.
Posted by: QrazyQat | February 18, 2008 11:06 AM
Sounds like a variation on the Galileo Fallacy.
Posted by: Eric | February 18, 2008 11:09 AM
I don't know, maybe there is some real entertainment to be had from this movie!
How about a Rocky Horror style reception from us fellow devotees of academic freedom - Flying Spaghetti Monster style!
Every part of the movie that doesn't rely on bold-faced lies, distortions or misrepresentation we promise not to fling spaghetti about. And we promise never to honk horns (Harpo-style) when DI 'experts' tell the truth on camera. That's fair, isn't it?
Posted by: Sigmund | February 18, 2008 11:09 AM
When it comes to criticism, it seems like Ruloff and Mathis are more concerned with attacking the messenger than what people are actually saying. Indeed, they've clearly wandered off into the crowded land of ad hominem prattle instead of taking a moment to address the lies and deceptions you've pointed out to them, PZ.
I almost feel sorry for anyone involved in this film if their PR campaign involves such embarrassing and childish tactics.
Posted by: Dan | February 18, 2008 11:14 AM
I think that everybody is born with certain mental ages stamped onto them. Bear with me here, it gets relevant! I think genus "creationistus" (order kookusmaximus) and its various species and subspecies is comprised of individuals who have a sexual mental age of "sniffy maiden aunt", an intellectual mental age of "extremely senile" and a conversational mental age of "kindergarden playground".
If scientists engage them and try to explain that creationist drivel has holes a mile wide involved or is a mindless load of pant-soiling crapola the creationist retort is: Ha you talked to me I must be important.
If scientists ignore creationists and try to get on with the day to day work of real science whilst letting these tinfoil hat wearing mental masturbators carry on their whining the creationist response is: Waaaaaah you are so arrogant and elistist in your ivory towers and/or hahahaha you is ofraid of my ighty warriorness, look how scared the scientist is of my creationist masterliness and/or a combination of sitting in basements plotting "Teh Overfwow of Teh Matewialithm" (WATERLOO!!! WATERLOO!!!! VICE PICCIES AND FART NOISES ON STANDBY!)
If scientists (or anyone) tell creationists that they are the aforementioned crapola spewing, tin foil chapeau sporting, forthing fuck knuckles they undoubtedly are and that this "ID is science really not religion" vomit that they eject on a regular basis is just so much breathtaking inanity then the cry is: PERSECUTION!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! protect me from the mean scientist who called me a muppet.
It's the behaviour of the child in the playground who thinks he/she can beat up the other kids but gets one hell of a shock when the other kids stand up to him/her and give him/her what they deserve, i.e a damn good kick right in the carrot and onions (or associated ladyparts).
In all this wankery surrounding "Expelled" (real title "Flunked: How IDcreationism failed its exams and got laughed at") the BEST rebuttal to PZ's comments is: WAAAAAH LONG!!! My tiny brain cannot understand long, so PZ must be angwy, WAAAAAAH!. I have two words for the "Expelled" boys, the second one of those words is "off".
Louis
Posted by: Louis | February 18, 2008 11:21 AM
I only count 8 screens. But I've got a bigger monitor (hur-hur) and I know how to use it...
Also, I can't possibly give you full marks for the 8 pages of "polemics" you produced. Possibly half of what was in the post were quotes. And while I feel they were necessary, to avoid the appearance of quote mining, as an essay, it was quite padded as rants go.
Posted by: Moses | February 18, 2008 11:24 AM
Over at the Expelled site: "Can anyone even imagine a tenured professor at a reputable university spending so much time obsessing over a film that he hasn't even seen?"
Ha! I get it! They're concerned that PZ was drawn away from his professorial responsibilities because he's obsessed about Expelled. How kind of them to be concerned. They probably saw his post, counted the words, and said to themselves, "Oh, dear, 3000 words (even if half of them are quotes)! Dr. Myers must have spent several days working on it, because no mere human could write so much in less than a week or so. We know, because that's how long it would take us! We must admonish him!"
Posted by: Zeno | February 18, 2008 11:26 AM
Big Science doesn't like it when they can't control the message: it's why we made EXPELLED.
Yeah, Big Science makes members of the media sign non-disclosures before they can review a pre-pub version of a paper. Oh, wait. No. That's hack movie-makers that do that! My bad.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | February 18, 2008 11:26 AM
You are -big sciences thought police-. Congrats :) but I bet the pay sucks.
Posted by: Richard Eis | February 18, 2008 11:26 AM
I notice that (amazingly!) there are NO responses to that blog entry on the Expelled site. My guess is that they are all "waiting moderation" like mine.
Have I been expelled from the Expelled site! Such a bastion of support for intellectual freedom surely wouldn't do a nasty thing like filter its blog to only contain favorable entries. Say it ain't SO, Ben!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | February 18, 2008 11:29 AM
#11 and #17
how about argument 219 'argument from offensiveness' on Godlessgeeks.com http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
if they quotemine the interview that would presumably be grounds for the legals.
Posted by: Jit | February 18, 2008 11:31 AM
Marcus,
I've got a comment in limbo over there as well. It seems they have moderation on for all posts and just do mass clearances from time to time.. Last time I had a two comments in mod for several hours but they both showed up.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 18, 2008 11:32 AM
I'm sorry but every time I visit their site I can't get passed the "No Intelligence Allowed" banner. It's too bad they took it before I did, because it would make a great parody saying.
Posted by: Geral | February 18, 2008 11:37 AM
I love that after reading a point-by point description of how they are lying, ignoring context, etc, etc. they "can't really sort out what it is that upset him". Aren't they admitting that they are either (a)too dumb to understand or (b)unethical?
Posted by: DZHO | February 18, 2008 11:51 AM
Which part of "...they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense...", did they not understand?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 18, 2008 11:57 AM
Almost all the commenters on their blog are panning them. It's interesting that they DON'T simply delete them. Maybe they prefer to appear to be 'happening' rather than 'unchallenged'?
Posted by: Jit | February 18, 2008 11:59 AM
I did not even need to read your two posts to realize the posts distort facts, reasons, dripping with creationist propaganda (what I now call "Big Ben Steinism") and sometimes outright lies. Ben Stein proved this within his first paragraph. Thanks for hitting him on the ass for throwing the first temper tantrum. Too bad he didn't learn his lesson the first time.
PS. My creationist friend also thinks "Big Ben Steinism" is obnoxious too.
PSS. You have to thank Ben for pointing out your blog. After reading his blogs and then reading yours - I must say yours is more concise, clear and acute. Cheers!!
Posted by: KatReagan | February 18, 2008 12:00 PM
Yay! I got in Comment#7
Posted by: Rheinhard | February 18, 2008 12:06 PM
The Expelled producers are looking for "intolerant" quotes for their publicity, so they can show how persecuted they are.
Posted by: PTET | February 18, 2008 12:07 PM
Are we sure there even IS a movie? Maybe this manufactured controversy is all they were going for.
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | February 18, 2008 12:14 PM
Something tells me that they don't get that's the problem.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | February 18, 2008 12:28 PM
I suspect that the criticism I'm seeing here is all misdirected.
Michael Moore has demonstrated that so-called documentaries can earn one a very nice living if they play into the preconceived notions of a significant demographic. Accuracy isn't really important. It seems to me that Ben Stein is making the same play but for a different crowd. They love all this attention (accuracy isn't a goal after all) because they see it as simply greasing the skids towards what they truly worship -- money.
Posted by: Sinbad | February 18, 2008 12:33 PM
I thought some of you who want to see this movie but don't want to put any money in Ben's pocket might be interested in how I plan to view it.
Assuming this pig plays in my city, I'm going to buy a ticket for a really dumb movie that's playing at the same cinema. Hopefully one the fundies find offensive.
I'll buy THAT ticket to get me in the cimema and then walk in the theater that's showing Ben's pig.
I get to watch the movie and Ben does NOT win my money! What's cooler than that?
Maybe others will like this strategy.
Chris
Posted by: Mr Christopher | February 18, 2008 12:35 PM
"Modest" science-blog? Oh my, yes, you should feel offended.
Pharyngula is an ARROGANT science-blog. What's with these people?
Posted by: Sastra | February 18, 2008 12:39 PM
They're operating from the usual "All publicity is good publicity" principle. The prepanning isn't a problem for them.
This is a Stalin/Coral Ridge style propaganda film. If it makes money fine, it not, that wasn't the main purpose anyway.
Don't pay to see this film
See it for free. It will soon be coming to a church, church school, or Xian TV station near you. It is an updated version of From Darwin to Hitler and will suffer the same fate of being rerun for decades. I wouldn't want to support these guys with a few bucks even if it was amusing in a horror film sort of way.
Posted by: raven | February 18, 2008 12:49 PM
I'm worried that you're getting top billing PZ, because they have edited your part to a pulp and turned you into something you most certainly are not. Has anyone suggested bringing your own camera (or concealed audio recorder) to these types of interviews so you can post the full unedited version here as a contrast to the hack job they will inevitably try to pull off as genuine? You'd have a bit of an insurance policy and yet more proof that not only are they wrong, they're outright liars.
Posted by: Jolly Bloger | February 18, 2008 12:56 PM
You know, given the intense focus the Expelled blog whores lavish on PZ, coupled with his arrogant evilutionist stridency, it seems very likely that when this movie comes out, PZ will be getting a lot of requests for appearances and interviews from small newspapers to the biggest talking head shows (I for one am certain O'Reilly will be doing a big push for this film since he has already had Stein on once or twice about the subject already).
Are you prepared for this PZ? Have you given this much thought? If the gasbag O'Reilly were to issue a summons to appear on "The Factor" (no one blocks his shot!), would you go?
Hopefully since it's not coming out till April (which is usually toward the end of the term) having your 15 minutes of fame won't interfere too much with the professoring.
Posted by: Rheinhard | February 18, 2008 1:10 PM
They are showing the "unfinished version" to small groups of churchy press whom they try to make sign non-disclosure agreements. Someone has made the hypothesis that this is because they haven't arranged for rights clearance for all of the animation, stock footage and/or music.
Someone commented on the inappropriateness of Ben Stein dressing up like Angus Young of AC/DC and not getting an AC/DC song. But perhaps AC/DC doesn't want to associate with this movie or wants more money or the producers were too lame to make the connection.
Posted by: rpenner | February 18, 2008 1:25 PM
Louis noted that:
'... this "ID is science really not religion" vomit that they eject on a regular basis is just so much breathtaking inanity...'
Which I completely agree with. With Louis, anyhow, not with the IDers. But have you noticed that while they are running around screaming about ID being science and not religion, they are at the exact same time spouting off silly comments about science being a religion? How stupid do they really think we are, to try a bait-and-switch tactic like this?
Is it that hard for them to come to terms with the idea that science has its level of prestige because unlike religion (which has been around much longer), science can actually make accurate predictions?
I mean geez--religion has already had its day. For the record, it has had a few millennia to make a concise case. Science, in the past thousand years has made advances that far surpass those created by religion time and time again. But since religion clearly can't compete, they're trying to hijack the reputation of science--real science--for their own cause, simultaneously equating real science with their own antiquated worldviews.
If the filmmakers for EXPELLED! are combing through here, looking for quotes to mine (likely, since it's apparent that this "modest" blog has their attention), then here is my own contribution: "The ID group consists of con men who use underhanded tactics--tactics that con men have used for ages. If I had one wish, it would be to see the day when they are marched before the masses and publicly ridiculed for teaching fantastic lies in the place of truth, and are held accountable for every bit of suffering in the world that their twisted views have promoted and justified."
Posted by: Jason B | February 18, 2008 1:27 PM
#38: Great idea! This is exactly what I was planning on doing. I've gotta see this thing to believe it, but I'm definitely not paying for it.
Posted by: LisaJ | February 18, 2008 1:33 PM
I'm amused that they seem to know what your face looked like as you typed the blog up. Eye-bulging? Wow.
These types always seem to chalk atheist writers up as screaming, tormented maniacs, when really what writers like yourself and Dawkins are doing is being calm and rational and pointing out their stupid mistakes. They are probably the ones with the popping veins when they sputter at their computer screen, trying to wrap their brains around the points you've made and unable to understand why everyone can see through their bullshit.
Posted by: Kcanadensis | February 18, 2008 1:40 PM
My post on their website, currently awaiting moderation:
"Why not count words? Counting words is quite illuminating in this case. By all means, let's count some words.
MS Word reports a word count of 3056 for the entire post. Of that total, 977 appear to be direct quotes from your post, as revealed by deletion of PZ Myers' paragraphs and running word count again on what remains. That means that PZ Myers wrote 2079 words, not the "three thousand" that you claim. So, according to you, 977 == "eight hundred" while 2079 == "three thousand." Do you play as fast and loose with all your statistics?
Three thousand versus eight hundred sounds like (very roughly) a four-to-one response to your post, which makes it sound much more like the foaming-at-the-mouth that you are trying to depict. In reality, the ratio is much closer to half that: two thousand words of rebuttal to one thousand words of original. Why would you distort this ratio so grossly?
Clearly you are trying to leave a particular impression in the minds of your readers. The impression that I am left with is: a) you are as dishonest this time as you were in the original which PZ rebuts; and b) for a bunch of "scientists" you can't even count. Is this an example of the care that you take with your data?
Congratulations on embarrassing yourselves yet again."
Posted by: Tom L | February 18, 2008 1:41 PM
I'm sorry but every time I visit their site I can't get passed the "No Intelligence Allowed" banner.
Neither did intelligence, which goes a long way toward explaining the site.
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | February 18, 2008 1:42 PM
Ever wonder if PZ's alleged eye-bulging and vein popping were due to his heroic efforts to keep his head from imploding after reading all of that crap from their site?
Posted by: Jason B | February 18, 2008 1:45 PM
"A Modest Science Blog"
Gee, I had always been under the impression it was the Best Science Blog. At least that's what I got when I googled these words about a year ago.
So, if Ruloff and Mathis are right, I demand reimbursement for the Pharyngula ticket (it's ok it cost me nothing) and I'll buy an EXPELLED ticket.
So, let me think, who should I trust ?
1. Google and all the science professionals recommending Pharyngula, or
2. this (know-nothing-about-Science-lying-)bunch ?
===>
One PHARYNGULA ticket is worth more to me than a google EXPELLED tickets !
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 18, 2008 1:50 PM
Sorry, typo,
" One PHARYNGULA ticket is worth more to me than a googol EXPELLED tickets !"
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 18, 2008 1:55 PM
I would prefer it if they were to show all the footage they took of you PZ, as one can do a lot with editting.
Posted by: MH | February 18, 2008 2:00 PM
#41,
I read this as "The trepanning isn't a problem for them" and it made perfect sense.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 18, 2008 2:20 PM
Ugh...they need trepanning like they need a hole in the head...
Posted by: Jason B | February 18, 2008 2:22 PM
That's what they do when you fisk them, they whine about how much time you spend on their BS (not that it really takes very long to puncture their lies), like there's something wrong with actually supplying evidence and sense to counter a long list of lies. That is, one demonstrates intelligence and learning, and they merely attack that in as many sleazy forms as they can think up.
I do kind of agree with king j. I don't (hardly) post there any more because they censored me, but I've tended primarily to respond to the blog nonsense, not the pathetic commenters who couldn't think their way out of a train tunnel. True, Stein, Mathis, and Ruloff are even more stupid about science than are many of the commenters, yet they have a podium from which to speak lies, hence they should be countered.
Of course PZ writes thousands of words about any number of subjests, including science. Try that for once, dimwitted dissembling curs, and then you might be able to actually write something that can't be fisked in a few minutes, or anyway, no more than a couple hours if one is being really thorough.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 18, 2008 2:22 PM
Let me get this straight:
First they say they didn't misrepresent themselves when they interviewed PZ.
And NOW they're saying he must SUDDENLY be regretting what he said in the interview given the movie is about to come out.
What am I missing? Oh, that's right: they're filthy liars!
Posted by: mojoandy | February 18, 2008 2:23 PM
Anyhow, it's actually quite encouraging to watch them flailing about. They've been answered again and again, never mind that they won't acknowledge it, so that now they're attacking the PZ that few know outside of the rather small scientific and pro-atheist worlds.
Meanwhile, Stein is blithering about how no one can ask about how the laws of physics arose, all due to "Darwinism," showing that he's becoming even less knowledgeable about science than he once was (ID is kind of a black hole of knowledge, destroying information).
The fact is that they're so pathetic and flustered that they have no clue about what's going on. They blindly hit back at those who have shown up their various sleazy tricks, so that they're increasingly incoherent. Any "message" they thought they had is disappearing under the weight of their many lies and lacunae in knowledge. Screaming "censorship" and "persecution," their blogs are becoming exceedingly trivial, as their personal hatred of PZ and Dawkins becomes the only issue that drives them.
We've, and especially PZ along with some other bloggers, have done a great job in fisking, rattling, and trivializing these bloated sacks of pus and drivel. They began as shrill shriekers against the "Nazis" who dare to keep science focused on the evidence, and they're losing even that "message" by becoming angry at being exposed for the dishonest and ignorant wretches that they really are.
Keep it up PZ, you're undermining their attempts to sound reasonable, even to naive and silly poseurs who actually are disposed to believing them. Their odious thought processes and sheer hatred of their intellectual betters are shining through the thin and increasingly tattered smokescreen of concern about "academic freedom" and all of the rest of intellectual matters, none of which do any of them understand.
Just think, they could be supporting their movie with their latest blog, and instead they're merely attacking and advertising PZ's fisking of the tendentious crap that they wrote previously. It is probably as good an outcome as we could aim for.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 18, 2008 2:35 PM
Jason B #45ish:
"If I had one wish,
it would be to see the day when they are marched before the masses and publicly ridiculed for teaching fantastic lies in the place of truth, and are held accountable for every bit of suffering in the world that their twisted views have promoted and justified."
"publicly" was the last word on the second line, and my mind automatically filled in the next word. It wasn't ridiculed.
Posted by: Jit | February 18, 2008 2:49 PM
These people are slime. I was informed today of a local church teaching the children to challenge biology teachers in a non-argumentative way with such questions as:
Did we come out of the sea or the trees?
No transistions etc. It wouldn't be so bad if the people teaching the kids had an even 5th grade understanding of science but the use of children to further a cause is beneath contempt.
Posted by: JimC | February 18, 2008 3:00 PM
On the bright side... at least they link to your blog.
Surely the law of averages (or some-such) dictates that at least one Expelled supporter will link through, read some actual science, and go "Oh yeah, I remember this evolution stuff... it does have more to it than the creationist tripe I've being trying to convince myself makes sense... I see the light! The scales have fallen from my eyes! Come back Darwin... all is forgiven!"
Maybe?
Posted by: Wrought | February 18, 2008 3:08 PM
I think we have a great opportunity to coin a new word: Edesignbensteininsist- referring to or having the properties of being 1) fractally wrong and 2) dishonest to the level of blathering incomprehensibility. c.f- cdesignproponentsist- one who blathers incoherent statements to advocate an unsupportable proposition.
[This wikipedia entry may need further editing]
Posted by: mothra | February 18, 2008 3:37 PM
Not only would I never pay money to see this film, I simply would never subject myself to having to sit through this much baloney sauce. I just can't handle more than a few seconds of faith-based froth, let alone a full-length movie. But I applaud people like PZ who are not afraid to endure the rants and ravings of IDiots like Ben Stein. My deepest thanks to those who are able to listen to, and then expose, the lunatics.
ID has been thoroughly debunked and exposed as Creationism in disguise. Clear-thinking people recognize that ID has no scientific truth within it. It is neither bias nor prejudice to reject out-of-hand any further attempts by the ID crowd to keep their dead idea bandied about. Once a claim is validly disproven it makes little sense to revisit it.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | February 18, 2008 3:40 PM
Glenn D, do you use "fisk" as a verb as a corruption of longtime UNIX disk-integrity-checking utility "fsck" (which is short for file-system-check back from the days when a 300 baud modem was a luxury and men had no keyboard skills).
Also, perhaps people would like to comment on my attempt to make fundies think about what fundies do.
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/02/18/big-science%e2%80%99s-thought-police-protesting-too-much/#comment-7332
Posted by: rpenner | February 18, 2008 3:44 PM
rpenner,
Wikipedia on fisking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking
Posted by: spurge | February 18, 2008 3:51 PM
While I was off finding the Wikipedia reference to fisking, which has dictated my use of the term, spurge went and posted the link.
Interesting history from rpenner, nonetheless.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 18, 2008 4:00 PM
A pair of shifty producers and a project that seems designed to fail... now why does that sound familiar?
Posted by: windy | February 18, 2008 4:07 PM
From his lengthy, over-the-top screed, we can't really sort out what it is that upset him so,
Why not? Were there too many big words for them? I thought it was quite clear from your "screed" what the problems were.
Posted by: Carlie | February 18, 2008 4:07 PM
They are just trolling you and your readers for page hits and ticket sales. Think of it as being similar to the scheme outspoken television pundits use to sell books and to obtain lucrative speaking engagements.
The bias of their core audience presents no incentive to investigate the veracity of the claims made, although the fervent responses of those pointing out the failings of their arguments does present to their audience a zeal that may radicalize creationist sympathizers into signing on board and handing over some money. It also serves to goad your readers into paying to see how they use your footage.
Posted by: mwb | February 18, 2008 4:24 PM
This whole thing is getting sillier by the day.
Has anyone been "fired, harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for objectively presenting the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory"?
No, I didn't think so.
"Students should be protected from being harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for expressing their views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory in an appropriate manner."
Have any professor or teacher been charged with harrassment, intimidation, or discrimination because a student stupidly decides that Darwinian theory is unacceptable?
I doubt it very much.
These folks are making up fictitious grievances that have no merit because they bear absolutely no relation to reality.
But I guess that's normal operating procedure for folks who side with those who embrace all that creationist clap-trap.
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 18, 2008 4:41 PM
Jit said (in response to my post at about #45)
'"publicly" was the last word on the second line, and my mind automatically filled in the next word. It wasn't ridiculed.'
I can imagine. But I'm not of the mind for public execution. Too quick, relatively painless, tends to make them into martyrs (which is the goal of far too many of them--another chance to shriek "we're victims!!!!" and play the pity card (nevermind that they're not known for actually having it)), and it gives them yet another easy out from the burden of thinking responsibly. I'm just not that nice anymore.
I say to hell with them. Let them be the ones to explain to a little girl that her blindness could have been prevented with cheap vitamin A supplements,but this kind of thinking is interfering with the plans of the "grand master and architect" that evidently knows what he is doing. Just like I think the Vatican needs to relocate to one of those disease-infested, drought-stricken, overpopulated nations where the clergy fights birth control claw, tooth, and nail.
Much as I hate to say this, the only way that we are going to really fight this touchy-feely, pseudo-scientific, whiney-assed way of thinking is to rub their collective, self-righteous noses in the results of their findings and whack them good and hard with a rolled-up scientific journal.
Good example would be to dress up the Archbishop of Canterbury in a burka, drop him off in the middle of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, and let him find out firsthand why sharia isn't a viable option. Ben Stein should have all of his medical care taken over by a rabbi, since medicine is not science, but religion is.
Posted by: Jason B | February 18, 2008 4:52 PM
@42
Why would any progressive appear on O'Reilly? Didn't you get the memo? Fox is not a legitimate news organization. Kudos to the Democrats for canceling their debate on Fox, denying them legitimacy.
The message from all progressives should be that Fox is simply the propaganda organization of the Republican party. That should be repeated on blogs and on other corporate media outlets over and over. The term "Fox News Democrat" should be a badge of shame.
Posted by: Bubba | February 18, 2008 5:00 PM
Yes, of course the Expelled site does all it can to stir up controversy, otherwise there would be no "controversial documentary". The 'Intelligent Quote of The Day' is usually a negative comment on the film, and very negative comments are listed.
It just sounds too Boratish. Perhaps a good time to totally ignore what they are expelling?
Posted by: June | February 18, 2008 5:11 PM
YES!!! Happens a lot. In fundie controlled areas, teaching evolution can be hazardous to your job.
One professor was run out of U Texas Permian after being beaten up.
Chris Comer was fired as head of the science division in Texas.
One professor was fired at a CC in Illinois.
A professor at Olivet was harrassed unmercifully by bigots to the point where the admin was auditing his classes.
Phillip Johnson tried to get a teacher fired at a seminary for not being fundie enough.
This doesn't include the number of secondary school science teachers who were either fired, not rehired, or just gave up in fundie controlled areas. I know there are a few, it is hard to say how many.
Posted by: raven | February 18, 2008 5:18 PM
If that is the best they have, no big deal.
The answer of course is both. Vertebrates conquered the land during the Devonian and we came out of the trees tens of millions of years ago and started living on the ground long before we looked like we do now.
Just look at it as a didactic moment.
Posted by: raven | February 18, 2008 5:25 PM
I'm in yr blog... countin lotza werds.
Posted by: lolme | February 18, 2008 5:31 PM
Not if it consists nearly entirely of lies, jackasses. Are you so far gone that you can't comprehend anyone's commitment to truth?
I would think that any fair-minded producer criticizing PZ for not seeing Expelled would, like, actually invite him to see it, instead of always inviting slack-jawed cretins and the ignorant to see it and to revel in its dishonesty and stupidity. But then, there is no fair-minded producer behind Expelled, only vile conniving a-holes.
We'd all like to see it, so that we can point out its many faults and problems. But at least we've seen enough in the trailers and in the other promotional materials to judge them to be almost totally dishonest. Perhaps you're intimating that the movie is unlike the promotional materials, thereby compounding your dishonesty.
Of course what these liars are really saying is that they ought to be free to lie about PZ, Dawkins, and every other honest scientist out there, and no one who has been prevented from seeing should respond until the movie comes out. Real "freedom" there, huh, theo-fascist corrupters of discourse.
That comports with their other complaint, which is that someone would actually use the freedoms we have to point out the dishonesty and ignorance of Stein and company. Everything always comes down to their endless opposition to de facto freedoms in our society, their desire to dictate via the government just what can be called "science", and what can be criticized on the blogs.
I'd guess that they hate the world wide web, since it provides far too much freedom for timely critiques of their most current lies (that said, PZ's criticisms came a fair while after the blog post appeared).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 18, 2008 5:34 PM
I think perhaps Ben Stein and his crew need to be more worried about Big Ignorance.
Except of course, that's too late. So much in fact, that Intelligent Design and all other forms of creationism are utterly dependent on it.
Posted by: Ernst Hot | February 18, 2008 6:18 PM