Pharyngula

Funny…he’s not shutting up!

Hmmm. I should have thought the powerful voices of communications experts shrieking at Richard Dawkins to hide under his bed would have had some effect, but no…he’s gone ahead and written his review of Expelled. And lo, in the camp of the Framers, there was much wailing and weeping and grinding of teeth, and rending of garments, and epic despair, because surely this will cause the destruction of Science.

Comments

  1. #1 MAJeff, OM
    March 23, 2008

    And lo, in the camp of the Framers, there was much wailing and weeping and grinding of teeth, and rending of garments, and epic despair, because surely this will cause the destruction of Science.

    Seeing as how Dawkins’ article is titled “Lying for Jesus?” you’ll hear no “Weh is mir” from me.

  2. #2 Wrought
    March 23, 2008

    “shot himself in the foot”? Let’s hope he amputated both his legs.

  3. #3 Bad Gnus
    March 23, 2008

    http://dododreams.blogspot.com/

    Here’s a good site well worth more visitors.

    No, it’s not mine.

  4. #4 Glen Davidson
    March 23, 2008

    I think the site has been Slash Dotted.

    What they did was to take off all of the screenings that remained after the brouhaha at the Bloomington mall.

    Oh, and at #7, the dododreams blog is quite good, I’ll add. It’s John Pieret’s site, and he’s sharpened his claws at Talkorigins.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  5. #5 Mike Haubrich, FCD
    March 23, 2008

    While waiting for access to Richard Dawkins dot net, we can find out who the true winner is regarding this event.

    Google Fight!

  6. #6 woody, tokin librul
    March 23, 2008

    i can’t get to the Dawkins piece. the little connection indicator just spins and spins and spins (not unlike the counter-evolutionists)…izzit slash-dotted, too?

  7. #7 Sastra
    March 23, 2008

    Richard Dawkins writes:
    Seemingly oblivious to the irony, Mathis instructed some uniformed goon to evict Myers while he was standing in line with his family to enter the theatre, and threaten him with arrest if he didn’t immediately leave the premises… did he not know that PZ is one of the country’s most popular bloggers, with a notoriously caustic wit, perfectly placed to set the whole internet roaring with delighted and mocking laughter?

    You know, as I read this, something occurred to me regarding the reasoning behind Mathis’ “bungling incompetence,” as Dawkins calls it. I wonder if Mathis made a serious blunder in his assumptions on what PZ’s reaction to being thrown out of the theater would be.

    He just made a film where all the academics are whining and looking pathetic about being rejected, humiliated, and tossed unceremoniously out of academia and the Halls of Science. He has been surrounding himself with people playing the poor-me victim card, claiming ignominous oppression and unfair suppression.

    What then if Mathis assumed that PZ Myer’s reaction would not be “delighted and mocking laughter,” but what he was used to — whimpering bellyaching. And then he could use that to make a point.

    PZ was to have gone to Phayngula to lick his wounds. “People, I have sad news. I am so ashamed and humiliated. I was kicked out of the theater when I went to see Expelled. I have never heard of someone doing something like that to an academic like me. It felt awful.”

    And then Mathis and his publicists would go in for the kill:

    Ah-ha! Now the scientist knows JUST HOW IT FEELS! What has been done to other academics was done to him! And he complains, too. How ironic is THAT??”

    Instead, PZ reacts with amusement. Extreme amusement. And, worse, there is the Dawkins angle, which no, Mathis had not been expecting when he decided to play a game and toss PZ out. If PZ whines, he wins on tit for tat. If PZ creates a nasty, messy scene, he wins on ‘look at the immoral fascist-like atheist temper.’ But instead, PZ laughs and laughs, and with Dawkins in the theater Mathis just looks like a fool.

    More I think about it, the more I think Mathis underestimated PZ’s sense of humor about things, and how he would not be mortified by the incident, but jubilant. He’s been around too many pretentious professorial sob-sisters. He thought they were all like that.

  8. #8 waldteufel
    March 23, 2008

    Dawkins’ review was nothing less than exquisite!

  9. #9 Lurky
    March 23, 2008

    #12

    Wonderful hypothesis Sastra!

  10. #10 Glen Davidson
    March 23, 2008

    Sean Carroll has a well reasoned post on the kerfuffle over at Cosmic Variance:

    Sure, it’s pretty good.

    But I think he might be agreeing too much with Mooney. This incident is virtually an earthquake on these blogs, with barely a ripple beyond. I think that’s good, because if they were getting a lot of free publicity from this I would not be happy.

    And anyway, why have they guarded their boring movie from competent critics? It’s because it is boring (seriously, does anyone think that Dawkins and Myers being interviewed about science and God is going to appeal to the general public? No matter that people here are interested…), it’s dishonest, and it’s largely an incoherent and unevidenced attack on evolution. Dawkins rips the lid off of their carefully-orchestrated PR campaign, and as the film is increasingly advertised this fact will filter out to potential viewers.

    The hoped-for appeal beyond the ignorant and the hopelessly religiously biased types is that there is this “new science” of ID which is being “suppressed.” Any questioning of “Darwinism” is supposedly “suppressed,” indeed. As it happens, Dawkins, one of the best-known scientists of our time, now can directly respond to a movie that he has seen, and point out exactly where they are wrong.

    They didn’t want that. Between Dawkins and NYT, much of the media will tend to follow the points that the film is utter bilge and boring, and that they are trying to suppress criticisms in the bargain. Let Mathis and other liars crow about the “free publicity,” the fact is that this publicity undercuts the appeal that this movie is supposed to have.

    No, it won’t stop church groups from busing in to the theaters. But the “mystery” of this dreck is being exposed, and I suspect that rather fewer fence-sitters are going to think that there is something interesting in this movie.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  11. #11 QrazyQat
    March 23, 2008

    You’re confusing framing with the argument as to whether or not one should do anything to draw notice to creationists. But then you’re confused about framing (everybody does it, whether it’s called “baggage” or “connotation” or “framing” — it’s just how people perceive your work, and how you can improve that). As for drawing attention to creationists, that should be, I would think obviously, depend on the circumstances and the abilities of the folks involved. In this case, I think it’s a very good idea.

  12. #12 Davis
    March 23, 2008

    “Lying for Jesus”. Perfect. My guess is that they think their cause is so important that lying is justified.

  13. #13 Andrew
    March 23, 2008

    Sastra @#12

    While I have no proof that your hypothesis is completely accurate, I want to go out on a limb and say I think you probably hit the nail so hard on the head that it split the board in two, shot through six more feet of plywood and got lodged in the foreman’s hardhat. Thankfully the foreman is ok.

  14. #14 Mister DNA
    March 23, 2008

    He might not have shut up, but I’ll bet Dawkins had to sit down to write that review.

  15. #15 The Science Pundit
    March 23, 2008

    Richard Dawkins said:

    So all that stuff about allowing me to attend because I have handled myself fairly honourably is almost certainly dishonourable spinning.

    dishonourable spinning: What a great euphemism for lying!

  16. #16 danley
    March 23, 2008

    But it’s much worse, he’s lying for Nixon’s fat sycophant. One with tube socks.

  17. #17 Stuart Dryer
    March 23, 2008

    I just went to my lab to look at some data, and the whole thing had VANISHED!!!

    I am sure it is because Dawkins wrote a bad review of this movie, and now science is DEAD FOREVER! Oh woe, woe, woe….

  18. #18 Bad
    March 23, 2008

    Dawkins’ description of Stein putting his head in his hands when being told about the Holocaust, as if he just found out about it, is pretty mean… and pretty darn well deserved.

    I second Carrol’s post. Really solid thinking on this issue, and an insight that Mooney and Nisbet really seem to be missing.

  19. #19 Tessa
    March 23, 2008

    Yikes! That film sounds even worse than I imagined. I definitely won’t be going to see it if it ever comes out.

    I don’t think people are going to forget the “Good Friday Massacre of Mark Mathis’ Reputation” when the internet roared with “delighted and mocking laughter” any time soon. Quite the public relations debacle!

  20. #20 Owlmirror
    March 23, 2008

    This is sort of tangental to the whole ExpectoratedExpelled debacle, but:

    One of the things that Dawkins mentions is Crick’s idea of Directed Panspermia. I hadn’t heard of Directed Panspermia until a creationist first claimed that Crick had asserted that evolution on Earth was impossible. Since I was naturally sceptical and curious about this assertion, I did some research.

    Well, the original paper (Crick and Orgel (1972)) is online, and can be read here (only 6 pages, too):

    http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/P/_/scbccp.pdf

    It is, as it ought to be, a very tentative and highly qualified hypothesis. Note that it makes suggestions on experiments that might be done.

    Were they in fact only semi-serious in proposing the idea? I dunno — but I think both would agree that there are probably more useful research plans for discovering the evidence for the origins of life.

  21. #21 Colugo
    March 23, 2008

    SciBlogs is getting a little self-referential with the cycles of Nisbet vs Everybody grudge matches.

    New fuel for the fire: Jon Marks (Yale, book: Human Biodiversity)

    Jon Marks:

    “So here is my proposition. Scientific racism is worse than un-scientific creationism. After all, nobody was ever killed or maimed or sterilized in the name of creationism.

    So as we look towards the upcoming Darwin anniversary (bicentennial of birth, 150 years since the Origin) maybe we need to think less about the creationists – the external enemies – and think more about the erosion from within. The creationists can’t embarrass science; only scientists can do that.”

    http://savageminds.org/2008/03/21/ventriloquists-for-darwin/

    (I have to have to wonder if Larry Moran would want to weigh in. Razib? Anyone?)

  22. #22 JohnnieCanuck, FCD
    March 23, 2008

    A vast conspiracy by evil scientists? To suppress scientific evidence that god_did_it?

    Just imagine the scope of the international effort to co-ordinate such nefarious plans, all over a time span of centuries. There’s only one possible explanation.

    Satanic Forces. In the guise of mild mannered professors, these soul thieves are indoctrinating our youth and enrolling them in the fight against Truth & Light Inc.

    I draw your attention to Hex genes. That’s right, HomEoboX genes. These are used in morphogenesis and control whether an experimental animal grows up to be a frog or a monkey in a suit. Witchcraft, by any other name.

    Premise Media Corp,
    a division of Truth & Light Inc.

  23. #23 woody
    March 23, 2008

    Dawkins’ link here doesn’t wanna load, and i canna get the dawkins.net page to open either…anybody got a working link?

  24. #24 Bee
    March 23, 2008

    Sastra = one smart cookie.

  25. #25 Heather
    March 23, 2008

    I had a hard time getting in as well. Is it kosher to publish it on another host so people can read it? I’ve copied it on a page on my server that I will gladly share with others, but only if it’s OK to do so. I imagine that in a few days the Dawkins site will be back up, but right now they are likely having bandwidth issues.

  26. #26 Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    March 23, 2008

    Sean Carroll writes a reasoned post, but I think he makes several mistakes along the lines that Glen comments on. Mooney referring to the crocumentary writer’s blog isn’t very convincing – how does he expect Miller to croc (frame) it? And who knows what Randy Olson says on this – at least his list of ten things to improve communication doesn’t list controversy as a promotional tool. It does list quality control, concision, prioritization, humor and sincerity, all things that Mathis forget to bring to Mooney’s “controversy”.

    Instead I think Phil Plait has nailed this:

    For the producers of this movie to continue this Big Lie tying evolution and Nazis together is an irony almost too big to comprehend, given that this is precisely how Nazi propaganda worked. In a rich field of creationist ironies, this may be the elephant in the room. They are projecting onto their enemies the very thing they are guilty of. [...]

    We must continue to discuss this, to air it out, to show these people for what they are. Like any noisome and foul thing you find under a rock, exposure to sunlight is the best cure.

    Precisely this movie and its argumentum ad Hitlerum is such a foul thing that no Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists’ politician appeasement will suffice. It is much more hurt by being dragged out into the light.

    And then stomped on. Repeatedly.

  27. #27 Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    March 23, 2008

    Sean Carroll writes a reasoned post, but I think he makes several mistakes along the lines that Glen comments on. Mooney referring to the crocumentary writer’s blog isn’t very convincing – how does he expect Miller to croc (frame) it? And who knows what Randy Olson says on this – at least his list of ten things to improve communication doesn’t list controversy as a promotional tool. It does list quality control, concision, prioritization, humor and sincerity, all things that Mathis forget to bring to Mooney’s “controversy”.

    Instead I think Phil Plait has nailed this:

    For the producers of this movie to continue this Big Lie tying evolution and Nazis together is an irony almost too big to comprehend, given that this is precisely how Nazi propaganda worked. In a rich field of creationist ironies, this may be the elephant in the room. They are projecting onto their enemies the very thing they are guilty of. [...]

    We must continue to discuss this, to air it out, to show these people for what they are. Like any noisome and foul thing you find under a rock, exposure to sunlight is the best cure.

    Precisely this movie and its argumentum ad Hitlerum is such a foul thing that no Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists’ politician appeasement will suffice. It is much more hurt by being dragged out into the light.

    And then stomped on. Repeatedly.

  28. #28 John Pieret
    March 23, 2008

    Bad Gnus:

    Why, thank you.

  29. #29 Sam
    March 23, 2008

    Great response by Dawkins about the movie! I guess I’m not the only one who finds Stein’s voice annoying.

    We really should get the word out about the post at the Dawkins site. If anyone is interested, they can digg it by going to http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins .

  30. #30 Kevin Miller
    March 23, 2008

    I don’t get it: If “Expelled” is so dull, artless, and amateurish,” why devote a 3500-word review to it (Much less a video on Youtube)? Sounds to me like damage control on an epic scale.

  31. #31 Azkyroth
    March 24, 2008

    I don’t get it

    You wouldn’t.

  32. #32 Sam
    March 24, 2008

    That was so beautiful Hank. Thanks for posting it in both places. I wish I would have thought of something like that to write. I also have been annoyed at the commenters on Dawkins’ site who are armchair quarterbacks.

  33. #33 Brownian, OM
    March 24, 2008

    The creationist screen writer of Expelled totally agrees with Nisbet

    Well, it should make Chris Mooney happy.

  34. #34 Fred
    March 24, 2008

    Hank— I hope Mooney and Nesbet read your comment and see how they are contributing to the problem.

  35. #35 Brownian, OM
    March 24, 2008

    Kevin Miller seems hurt over Dawkins’ review.

    I hope the rest of the Evil Liberal Atheist Conspiracy-run media is kinder to his writing.

  36. #36 Kseniya
    March 24, 2008

    I want to be Sastra when I grow up.

    Nonetheless, I suspect the reality is slightly less complicated. IMO, Sastra’s assessment of Mathis’s baseline mindset is accurate, but I doubt Mathis thought (or cared) much about what PZ’s reaction would be. He assumed that any reaction of any kind would benefit the Expelled!* PR campaign (which is why they’re all claiming that it has). I think he simply didn’t want PZ in the theatre with his ID-sympathetic audience and, more importantly, he didn’t want PZ to be the fly in the post-viewing Q&A ointment. I also believe Kristine’s claim that Mathis appeared to be very surprised to see Dr. Dawkins at the Q&A, and that he is trying to conceal the egg on his face by lying about having intentionally let RD in despite the “do not admit” order next to his name.

    That’s just my opinion; I could be wrong (and it wouldn’t be the first time).

    Lessee, what else… Oh yeah:

    Crick had asserted that evolution on Earth was impossible.

    “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” ~ Clarke. :-)
    _______________________________________
    * jazz hands

  37. #37 Brownian, OM
    March 24, 2008

    * jazz hands

    But Kseniya, those were clearly ‘Spirit Fingers’, not
    ‘Jazz Hands’.

  38. #38 Michael X
    March 24, 2008

    I want to be Sastra when I grow up.

    I think there may be a line.

  39. #39 Leigh
    March 24, 2008

    I think Glen D has the right of this situation. Sometimes we all embrace the false dichotomy . . . on the right, PZ and the defenders of truth — on the left, the Liars for Jesus.

    But there is a huge middle out there, what Glen calls the “fencesitters” and I call the pewsitters, who don’t have a strong opinion either way. It’s hard for me to imagine it, but those folks don’t know much about the issue . . . whereas we’re all passionate about it. (The other side, of course, is just crazy.)

    The folks in the middle are vulnerable to the “teach the controversy” lie because they’re basically fair-minded — but they don’t want to be associated with dolts. Anything that works to expose the lyin’, cheatin’, delusional, and incompetent DI and all its damned works is a WIN for us. And “Expelled from EXPELLED” does that in spades.

  40. #40 Owlmirror
    March 24, 2008
    Crick had asserted that evolution on Earth was impossible.

    “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” ~ Clarke

    Heh. Well, yes.

    But the point, which I perhaps did not make clear, was that Francis Crick had actually said no such thing, but merely speculated scientifically — much as did Richard Dawkins. And Crick’s speculation was twisted into something it wasn’t, much as Dawkins’ speculation was by Ben Stein.

    “When a Creationist says anything at all about science, he is almost certainly wrong. The only questions that remain is whether he is deliberately lying or merely confused, and whether the false statement is original to him, or instead mindlessly repeated from another Creationist source.” ~ Owlmirror

  41. #41 Cheezits
    March 24, 2008

    I don’t get it: If “Expelled” is so dull, artless, and amateurish,” why devote a 3500-word review to it (Much less a video on Youtube)?

    Because it’s an offensive, bigoted pack of lies. And it’s being marketed to people who don’t know better.

  42. #42 MAJeff, OM
    March 24, 2008

    But Kseniya, those were clearly ‘Spirit Fingers’, not
    ‘Jazz Hands’.

    You Canadians may not have seen this American program called Will and Grace, but one of the characters–somewhat flamboyant, it’s safe to say–used to do the *jazz hands* when announcing his one-man shows “Just Jack!” and “Jack 2000!”

    *Jazz hands* is the appropriate move in this circumstance.

  43. #43 Azkyroth
    March 24, 2008

    Here is another way to “frame” this bit of controversy:

    “Shorter Matt Nisbet: ‘Go drink bleach.’”

  44. #44 Anton Mates
    March 24, 2008

    If “Expelled” is so dull, artless, and amateurish,” why devote a 3500-word review to it (Much less a video on Youtube)? Sounds to me like damage control on an epic scale.

    Epic scale? Have you visited Youtube? People create videos to celebrate the exceptionally good hamburger they ate that day.

    And Dawkins is a professional writer. 3400 words to review the most ambitious creationist movie in the last decade, as well as to point out the buffoonery of its creators, is hardly excessive. He can probably bang that out in an hour or so.

  45. #45 blf
    March 24, 2008

    Torbjörn (@38) observes:

    And who knows what Randy Olson says on this – at least his list of ten things to improve communication doesn’t list controversy as a promotional tool. It does list quality control, concision, prioritization, humor and sincerity, all things that Mathis forget to bring to Mooney’s “controversy”.

    Over on the original The Intersection thread, Randy Olson is agreeing with Chris Mooney. Olson’s made several comments, the first of which starts out:

    Did any of you ever hear about something called the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth? Do you recall the John Kerry election campaign staff saying, “When the American public hears the truth about John Kerry’s war record …” Do you really think the American public every really heard the truth? Do you really think the American public is going to hear the truth about this film? Sorry, folks, I’m with Chris. …

    Last I checked that thread, he’s continued to make additional comments supporting Chris’ position.

  46. #46 Sili
    March 24, 2008

    Once again Sastra shows why she’s been Mollyfied.

  47. #47 Loki
    March 24, 2008

    I want to be both Hank and Sastra when I grow up…help!

  48. #48 Richard Morgan
    March 24, 2008

    I don’t write words too well, so here’s my “musical” comment on this whole affair.
    It lasts just 4 minutes and the title is : EXPELLED – another hole in their socks.

    http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

    The version in the official Myspace player is of even poorer quality than the original (sorry about that) which you can find in the other standalone player by scrolling don the same page.

  49. #49 Lurky
    March 24, 2008

    #52

    The least complicated explanation would be that Mathis just hates PZ’s guts and kicked him out on impulse not thinking about the PR aspect at all.

  50. #50 Hank Fox
    March 24, 2008

    Well, poop. My comment on Professor Dawkins’ site somehow didn’t make it in, and now I can’t even seem to get signed on over there.

    If anyone talks to him, let him know that his server is letting him down.

  51. #51 Harald Hanche-Olsen
    March 24, 2008

    Good one, #67 – HDoS indeed – i like it! But it may just be an overloaded server. I finally got the article just now, on my sixth or seventh attempt. Just keep trying until you succeed, but let some time pass between attempts, or all the people stampeding to get the article will just stomp on each others’ toes. Now I’ll settle down and enjoy what is bound to be a good read.

  52. #52 Glen Davidson
    March 24, 2008

    I don’t get it: If “Expelled” is so dull, artless, and amateurish,” why devote a 3500-word review to it (Much less a video on Youtube)? Sounds to me like damage control on an epic scale.

    I do get it, you’re trying to keep out competent critics who will tell it like it is, while you try to sell this pile of dung to the rubes. You’ve gotten much mindless praise from the believers you’re out to shear yet again, and now you’re trying for damage control when a real review gets out.

    We remember the squalling from your shill Ben Stein when an actual movie critic, Roger Moore, also got in after being disinvited.

    Christ, Kevin, you are one dishonest jerk from beginning to end.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  53. #53 Rupert
    March 24, 2008

    It’s great fun being a propagandist. If people kick back against your output, you can say that they’re taking it seriously so it must be true. If they don’t, you can say that they’ve got no answer to it, that’s how true it is. Can’t lose!

    Except, that is, when you actually have to deal with the consequences of some of the things you say and do – then it gets a bit harder.

    Has anyone seen that statement the producers promised on why they kicked PZ out of the showing?

  54. #54 dwarf zebu
    March 24, 2008

    I read RD’s review and:

    OMFSM!! You gotta love the English and their way with the language; I’m getting over a chest cold and had a laughing/coughing fit at this bon mot about Ben Stein:

    “…his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants.”

  55. #55 Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    March 24, 2008

    @ Kseniya:

    I want to be Sastra when I grow up.

    But your devoted public wants both. Can’t you just all agree to be friends instead?

    @ blf:

    Over on the original The Intersection thread, Randy Olson is agreeing with Chris Mooney.

    Good catch, thanks.

    Seems Randy is saying that when you don’t care for the truth you can use controversy, so IDC is an exception from his main rules. But his support is an anecdote, plural of anecdotes isn’t data.

    And later on he discusses another anecdote on a social documentary on religion (Jesus Camp) that could have used some controversy on “the other side”.

    Reactions comes from several commentators. Dan points out that the problem in Randy’s example is just that the public hasn’t heard the truth, so this give little support to not say it now. Melusine points out that the camp was shut down as a result of publicity from the movie Jesus Camp – which of course is just trading an anecdote for another.

    So yeah, while I like the fact that Randy presents a flexible approach, but I’m not sure any longer how much his experience is worth considering he seems to rely on singular examples, he is definitely with Mooney on this.

  56. #56 Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    March 24, 2008

    @ Kseniya:

    I want to be Sastra when I grow up.

    But your devoted public wants both. Can’t you just all agree to be friends instead?

    @ blf:

    Over on the original The Intersection thread, Randy Olson is agreeing with Chris Mooney.

    Good catch, thanks.

    Seems Randy is saying that when you don’t care for the truth you can use controversy, so IDC is an exception from his main rules. But his support is an anecdote, plural of anecdotes isn’t data.

    And later on he discusses another anecdote on a social documentary on religion (Jesus Camp) that could have used some controversy on “the other side”.

    Reactions comes from several commentators. Dan points out that the problem in Randy’s example is just that the public hasn’t heard the truth, so this give little support to not say it now. Melusine points out that the camp was shut down as a result of publicity from the movie Jesus Camp – which of course is just trading an anecdote for another.

    So yeah, while I like the fact that Randy presents a flexible approach, but I’m not sure any longer how much his experience is worth considering he seems to rely on singular examples, he is definitely with Mooney on this.

  57. #57 themadlolscientist
    March 25, 2008

    Latest Google Fight numbers:

    Dawkins: 2,970,000
    Stein: 990,000

    I’m ROFLingMAO here. I mentioned Expelledgate a couple of days ago to my good friend, a nonscientist and “recovering Catholic,” and pointed him to a few links on the subject. Since then he’s been giving me infinite grief for having gotten him so fascinated by the whole business that he hasn’t gotten anything done since. Now mind you, this is a guy who almost never spends any significant time on line unless he’s looking for a new video game.

    One of his latest comments to me: “I had no idea just how scary those Fundamentalists really are!”

    Score another one for the Good Guys.