…and this is a 
There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I'm too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn't I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.
I'm still laughing though. You don't know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there's another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I'd be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren't so dang dignified.
You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.
I'm a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
Comments
Posted by: benjdm | March 20, 2008 8:42 PM
That's awesome.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 8:42 PM
a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble.
WTF?
a POLICEMAN?
as in actual law enforcement, paid for by the city?
If so, that's the real story here, no offense to your being snubbed, PZ.
Posted by: minusRusty | March 20, 2008 8:42 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL!!!!
Absolutely Classic! I suppose you didn't happen to capture it all on a video phone or somethin'?!? That would make wonderful YouTube!
-Rusty
Posted by: pedro bungoton | March 20, 2008 8:43 PM
I LOVE IT! Absolutely brilliant! I'm almost rolling on the floor right now. What an amazing coup for the side of reason. It would be even better if it was captured on video.
I hope you call a press conference after Richard comes out of the theater.
Posted by: Beth B. | March 20, 2008 8:45 PM
Yep, must concur with benjdm: that was a belly laugh right there. Also: spending the evening with Dawkins? That makes the whole thing at least half again as awesome.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 20, 2008 8:45 PM
They told us ahead of time that no recording devices would be allowed, so no, nothing was captured.
I don't know if the officer was a local security guard or an official, real policeman -- I didn't look at his badge carefully. But they did have several of these big burly guys in uniform standing by the entrance.
Posted by: David Lee | March 20, 2008 8:47 PM
That's too funny. You'll have to wait until it's shoveled onto the DVD market.
Oh, and you tell Prof. Dawkins that he can be seen in 3D now at his Madison press conference at 3D Science News. That ought to make his day.
I wonder how many Christian not-wanted posters you're on?
Posted by: F.Jardim | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
I would have waited a bit longer before posting this, just to be safe. I would not be surprised if some fundy sneak reads this, makes a few calls and send the guard back inside for Dawkins.
But yes, it is hilarious. :)
Posted by: Winter Toad | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Yes, I laughed out loud. I believe the term for this is "awesome".
Now, I realize that a theatre is private property, and you can be forbidden entrance for any reason or no reason at all. It's not surprising you were thrown out. However, I'm a bit curious. This policeman who threw you out. I presume he was there in uniform, and so was officially there. Did you get the impression that it bothered him to be kicking you out? The theatre owner, the producers, I can see them ordering your expulsion with glee, but I'd expect that to stick in the craw of a disinterested third party, particularly when he's being asked to do the dirty work. Did it seem that way to you?
Posted by: cory | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Ye Gods*, man...have you no GROUCHO GLASSES????
*sorry...the god-punchers have all the god oaths.
Posted by: Quidam | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Should give you bragging rights over that Dawkins chap. "Oh Richard - who did they recognise trying to see eXpelled? The 'famous' Richard Dawkins or the instantly recognizable PZ? Huh Huh."
Posted by: TTT | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Probably from Blackwater.
Posted by: sashas | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
HAHAHAH! thats classic! OMG thats hilarious!
Posted by: Nick K | March 20, 2008 8:48 PM
My wife is looking at me right now in wonderment. She is trying to figure out why I'm laughing so hard.
..............That ............
..............was .............
............brilliant!
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 20, 2008 8:49 PM
I'm actually wondering how they knew it was me -- I'm not that recognizable, and I was standing next to Richard Freaking Dawkins.
Speaking of which, I should probably head back to the theater. If the creationists spot this post, they might be frantically calling the local organizers right now, telling the police to rush in and grab suspicious British looking characters from the audience.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 8:49 PM
I didn't look at his badge carefully
you're still there.
seriously, if they are actual police officers, they are not acting legally in any sense I am aware of.
It needs to be an issue if the producers of Expelled can buy actual cops to act as enforcers.
OTOH, if they are just "mall security guards" it still probably exceeds their authority, but I wouldn't see it worth making an issue of.
This is actually kind of spooky, if you ask me.
Hired thugs to keep out "undesirables"?
sounds like a GW "town hall meeting" to me.
Posted by: cory | March 20, 2008 8:49 PM
Ummm...good OATHS, I was supposed to type. Must be the two Hoegaardens I just had at dinner typing.
Posted by: Greta Christina | March 20, 2008 8:50 PM
Oh...
my...
Loki.
That is completely hilarious. I wonder if the people sitting next to him at the theater will recognize him from the movie. You have to keep us updated.
And yes, I'm also irritated by the use of an actual public law enforcement officer to kick you out. But technically, it's probably legal. Private property, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody," etc. Using cops to keep people out a movie because they may say mean things about it is rather an abuse of the principle... but it's probably not actually illegal.
Posted by: Cyde Weys | March 20, 2008 8:50 PM
Not even letting someone who was in the movie attend the movie pretty much tells you all you need to know, doesn't it? Could they be any more dishonest?
Posted by: afterthought | March 20, 2008 8:50 PM
That is really, really funny. These folks seem to be incompetent at everything they do. I do hope they don't see this post before the movie ends as they might go after Richard. Then again, stopping the movie, turning on the lights, and tossing out a nice gentleman might be bad press, no?
Posted by: JStein | March 20, 2008 8:51 PM
That's hilarious, PZ. I know that Dawkins doesn't run a weblog and so he's not actively satirizing every juicy piece of creationist propaganda shoved in his face, but this is just ridiculous.
I mean, you're a big name, PZ, but the fact that they let the face of atheism in to see the movie and made a point of kicking you out... just what the fuck?!?
Oh well, I guess fundies will be fundies.
Posted by: xailith | March 20, 2008 8:51 PM
That's like the creme brulee of comedy. Rich, decadent, and absolutely sinfully delicious.
Posted by: Bob | March 20, 2008 8:52 PM
Outstanding, PZ. I laughed so hard I still hurt.
Hypochristianity in action, again.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | March 20, 2008 8:52 PM
That is a hoot, PZ. I'm glad that there was no Mirecki-style rough stuff to go with the disinvitation.
Please tell us that Dr. Dawkins will have a guest post here telling us of his experience this evening.
I was kicked out of the 2002 RAPID conference, but at least I was treated to dinner by the conference organizer as a consolation prize of sorts. It sounds like the IDC community has gotten grumpier with the passage of time.
Posted by: Carlie | March 20, 2008 8:53 PM
That's what I wondered - did they put out an APB on bearded professor-looking types? And letting Dawkins in but not you will have me laughing for DAYS.
Wait, everyone who went to see it had to SIGN IN AND SHOW ID? Where was this being shown? I totally would want to throw a massive fit in line about identity theft and how they weren't entitled to my personal information just to see a movie.
Posted by: Reed Braden | March 20, 2008 8:54 PM
Holy hell!!! That's the most hysterical thing I've ever heard!
Posted by: Greg | March 20, 2008 8:54 PM
Laughed OUT LOUD
Posted by: James F | March 20, 2008 8:54 PM
This will be the theater security's reaction.
Posted by: glopk | March 20, 2008 8:55 PM
Man, if it was an intentional diversion you've earned your Intelligence Tradecraft Badge of Merit right there.
Thanks for the laugh, can't wait to hear Mr. Dawkins review of the projection.
Posted by: Schmeer | March 20, 2008 8:55 PM
Oh I can't wait to hear more from Richard about the rest of the event.
Did these doofuses even realize that Richard Dawkins was in the US right now? You'd think if they put up PZ wanted posters they might have told the ID-checker at the door to look for Dennet, Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins. Wow, how's that for not thinking things all the way through?
Posted by: Barry | March 20, 2008 8:55 PM
Nicccce! I can't wait to hear what he has to say about it.
Posted by: Nerdette | March 20, 2008 8:56 PM
I want to know if Dawkins managed to keep a straight face as he entered the theatre. Oh, my belly hurts from laughing so hard!
Posted by: minusRusty | March 20, 2008 8:57 PM
PZ!! CALL THE PRESS AND HAVE DAWKINS INTERVIEWED AFTER THE MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 8:57 PM
Priceless. I'll have to head over to Dawkins' site in the next couple of days. It's gonna be entertainment.
Posted by: syntyche | March 20, 2008 8:57 PM
Epic. Fail.
Posted by: Josh | March 20, 2008 8:58 PM
I second minus' comment - call the press. Right. Now. TV, radio, newspaper. This is tooooooo good to let go. Call Richard on his cell.
Posted by: Cafeeine | March 20, 2008 9:00 PM
On that point, wasn't Richard interviewed for Expelled? by what right can they keep him from seeing a movie he appears in?
Posted by: Julie K | March 20, 2008 9:01 PM
That is totally awesome. Hysterical. I laughed so hard I scared my cat.
Posted by: Dude | March 20, 2008 9:01 PM
That is pure awesome PZ!
Posted by: Nick K | March 20, 2008 9:01 PM
As an aside.... Ummm... How long was the line??
Posted by: Candy | March 20, 2008 9:02 PM
I think you should contact someone from the Minneapolis papers - preferably someone you have reason to believe might be sympathetic - and give him or her this story. It would be great press!
Posted by: LK | March 20, 2008 9:02 PM
LOL, nice work. Can't wait for tomorrow.
Posted by: Rich | March 20, 2008 9:03 PM
One of the producers? Lives here:
http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/
Nomad went to see it:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=540#entry100826
Posted by: Carlie | March 20, 2008 9:03 PM
Could you stand just outside theater grounds to greet people as they come out? "Hi, I'm PZ, and I was in the movie..."
I would dearly love it if Dawkins started yelling back at the screen during his parts. "That's not what I meant!!!"
Posted by: Monado, FCD | March 20, 2008 9:05 PM
Priceless!
They'll be so sorry they fixated on "anyone with tentacles and a beard" instead of recognizing different varieties of reality-based humans.
Posted by: Pete | March 20, 2008 9:05 PM
Congratulations! Getting barred from Expelled must be much better than seeing it.
This is almost like a Seinfeld episode.
Posted by: Buffybot | March 20, 2008 9:06 PM
That's hysterical. I can't wait to see how the Expelled and DI numpties try to put a positive spin on this later.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | March 20, 2008 9:07 PM
You Win Teh Internet. :-D
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | March 20, 2008 9:08 PM
Priceless! Absolutely priceless!
You have to tell us, was this a cunning plan or a brilliant piece of improvisation?
Posted by: Josh | March 20, 2008 9:08 PM
I'm wanting to know how it is that the producers were able to convince the theater to expel PZ? Is this not a public screening? And, if this was a real cop, on what legal grounds did he order him off the premises? Seriously, something's not right here. But boy, it will make for GREAT publicity against those asshats.
Posted by: Pete | March 20, 2008 9:09 PM
Damn you, PZ! I almost choked on my Guinness!
Brilliant!
oh wait... no. The opposite of that.
Posted by: HalfMooner | March 20, 2008 9:10 PM
This is as wonderful as it is hilarious! Thanks for running interference for Richard Dawkins, PZ!
(ROTFL! Imagining the Expelled flacks keeping tabs on your site, then sending their compliant police through the theater with bright flashlights, looking for the atheist Brit!)
Posted by: rmp | March 20, 2008 9:12 PM
There is absolutely no other response to this but
OMG
Posted by: Barry | March 20, 2008 9:14 PM
Even if they didn't recognize his face, how did they miss the name "Richard Dawkins" on his ID or passport?
Posted by: Alex | March 20, 2008 9:15 PM
That's awesome. Remember to give us an update when you have a chance. :)
Posted by: BB | March 20, 2008 9:16 PM
More than 50 posts post-posting? Awesome! And: ... Dawkins? Someawe!!! I dearly hope he enjoys the movie, and takes it with a crumb of salt. (A bit of dry humor might help.)
Posted by: devin rankin | March 20, 2008 9:16 PM
They could be real police officers. Police often work "off duty" in full uniform when they are hired by a private company or person to provide security. Most departments require the job to be aproved by the department. But not all do. I was a police officer here in Phoenix for 22 years and it is something that is quite common here and, talking to officers from other parts of the country, quite common other places.
Devin
Posted by: Triphesas | March 20, 2008 9:16 PM
How I would have loved to see that. :)
Posted by: Candy | March 20, 2008 9:17 PM
Theatres are not generally "public" in the First Amendment sense of publicly owned. They are privately owned businesses and can refuse service to anyone, as long as they don't violate laws prohibiting specific discrimination against classes of citizens. They can and do refuse to allow people in who violate dress codes such as no shirt no shoes no service. Chances are the cop is an off-duty policeman moonlighting as security, which is also legal. That being said, who the hell has a movie screening and wants to keep people out? The way these idiots are going about their "marketing" is simply stoopid.
Posted by: miller | March 20, 2008 9:19 PM
Oh, Expelled! Ever the source of comedy!
Posted by: Kimpatsu | March 20, 2008 9:19 PM
Expelled from "Expelled", but Dawkins was admitted?!
Not exactly joined-up thinking from the doffuses, is it?
Posted by: Cafeeine | March 20, 2008 9:20 PM
I truly cannot imagine how they thought that whatever commentary PZ had on the film would be worse then this. It is really amusing, and I second the idea that getting it on video would have been awesome.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 20, 2008 9:21 PM
I'm actually a bit stuck as far as alerting the media -- no cell phones, remember?
If any locals in the twin cities want to call the area news and let them know that the infamous atheist Richard Dawkins got in to see this creationist movie, and he's at the AMC 14 at the Mall of America, please do. The movie started around 7:30, I imagine it will be over around 9 or 9:30.
I'm just going to hang around outside the theater. I'm sure any reporters who show up will recognize me, and I'll point Dawkins out to them.
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 9:21 PM
oh heck, you should have BOTH beeen wearing a burka.
Posted by: Shaggy | March 20, 2008 9:22 PM
The strategy of keeping the skeptical and rational sectors of society out of preview screenings of this movie makes a lot of sense. If we can't see it we can't destroy it's credibility before it is widely released, and it follows that they will be able to blindside uninformed people much more easily.
As far as this situation goes... this is a total lollercaust!
Posted by: J-Dog | March 20, 2008 9:23 PM
Congratualtions - It's for a good coause.
But how did they not bust ALL the Irony Meters in the Minn-St. Paul are with your"expulsion"?
And Double Irony Points for them letting in Richard! If Kristine is with you say Hi!
Posted by: pcrthis | March 20, 2008 9:24 PM
First time poster, long time lurker:
This is so full of win, I can't stand it
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 9:24 PM
PZ, if what you are saying is true its just so funny. It must have been incredibly exciting, a bit like being underage and getting caught trying to go in a nightclub when all the while your underage buddy has got in there....with all the drugs!!
Posted by: Cafeeine | March 20, 2008 9:25 PM
Shaggy,
I completely understand this, however the manner this was executed was so shoddily done that was a proverbial bullet in the foot.
Posted by: Sastra | March 20, 2008 9:25 PM
I don't understand why this was done -- how is this going to be spun from their point of view? I mean, what the heck was the purpose?
"The atheist establishment is so dangerous that we had to keep them out of this movie for YOUR PROTECTION because -- what?"
You will yell things at the screen?
You will write down the names of all the Christians who came to see this movie?
You will allow demons into the theater, and they will cause people to become possessed?
You will spill your popcorn and drinks, because atheists have no moral sense -- and their balance is bad, too?
You will plant a bomb?
You will use the information in the movie to plan counter attacks for your own movie?
You will blog about the movie -- and goodness knows we can't have that?
You have "atheist cooties?"
I don't get how they plan on spinning this for their public. What the heck are they going to tell people they were afraid of?
Or are they just afraid you would enjoy yourself?
Dumb.
Posted by: gir | March 20, 2008 9:26 PM
HA! That is absolutely hysterical. Love it!
Posted by: olivermcrae | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
Unbelievable. These hucksters couldn't have shot themselves more directly in the foot.
I'd also like to repeat the call for a Richard Dawkins guest post...
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
Kristine is here, as are my wife and Skatje, as well as a few people from the RDF, including Josh Timonen. I saw a few other atheists in line, too. It's like they let the whole gang in while trying to intimidate li'l ol' me!
Posted by: Amadán | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
Pleasepleaseplease let some fundie see this post and have Dawkins put out. The irony (fundies, look it up...)
Oh, my sides hurt.
I am ... honoured to have been virtually present at this pwning. Bravo.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
This is too good.
Now Ben Stein has something in common with the Scientologists -- shadowy spies keeping tabs on a list of designated enemies.
I'd love to know the sequence of events behind the curtain of their organization that managed to single you out for special treatment.
And if this was a public showing, I think you have the basis for a serious lawsuit.
Posted by: Bee | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
That is the funniest thing I've heard in weeks.
And... these Expelled people are really insane. It's a movie, ferwhutsake!
Posted by: Summer Squirrel | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
Lurker here, first time comment. That post was GREAT! My little atheist heart is laughing so hard! Please let Richard post his review of this movie.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 20, 2008 9:27 PM
I was actually getting pretty indignant until I got to the "Richard Dawkins" part, and then the laughter came. Now I have to go see if this sudden pain is actually a hernia or not...
Posted by: Jennifer | March 20, 2008 9:29 PM
I may not be laughing as hard as you are, but I am laughing out loud.
Posted by: Paul Hands | March 20, 2008 9:30 PM
OH YES!!!!
That has brightened up an otherwise dismal (good) Friday. Here in Ireland the hypocrisy is at fever pitch, and this news is just brilliant.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 20, 2008 9:30 PM
Best post EVER!!!!!!!
Awesome!
Posted by: Mark P. | March 20, 2008 9:32 PM
RRRROOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFLLLLL
I'm sorry that you were "Expelled," PZ, but this is the FUNNIEST thing I've EVER heard! LMAOOOOOOOOOO
I can't wait to hear Dawkins' response to the film!
Posted by: CanadianChick | March 20, 2008 9:32 PM
bwahahahaha....
can't...
breathe...
laughing...
too hard...
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 20, 2008 9:33 PM
I was quite amused.
Posted by: Rich | March 20, 2008 9:33 PM
GAWD that's funny! You can't make that kind of stuff up!!
Posted by: Godzilla | March 20, 2008 9:33 PM
Long time lurker, first time poster. Hilarious post!
Posted by: B. Dewhirst | March 20, 2008 9:34 PM
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
We are.
Posted by: Bob L | March 20, 2008 9:34 PM
I am in awe. You're the man Dr Myers.
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 9:35 PM
hysterical. next time make sure hitchens is there too, pushing his way in, really drunk with 'were on the bloody guest list you know'.
its like a friggin comedy act round here at the moment, excellent.
Posted by: Epikt | March 20, 2008 9:35 PM
Getting barred from a movie in which you appear, because the producers are afraid you'll call them out on misrepresenting your position. Magnificent.
I think your sfik is pretty much infinite now.
Posted by: Cyde Weys | March 20, 2008 9:35 PM
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the hypocrisy of creationists anymore, but then again, they are always one-upping themselves. From what I've heard from the write-ups in the movie, they allege a huge conspiracy on the part of science whose goal is to keep all of the non-"evolutionists" out. In other words, there's all this evidence against it, but anyone who dares speak truth to power is expelled.
So how do they possibly justify using the exact same tactics here? Surely sunlight would be the best disinfectant against what they allege the scientific establishment is doing, not copying it wholesale?
Of course, this is really just projection. They're claiming that the scientific establishment is guilty of the Orwellian thought control tactics that really only they are using.
Posted by: Jessa | March 20, 2008 9:37 PM
Ah, delicious! This story made my day!
BTW, does anyone have info on where advance screenings will be taking place? The Raleigh, NC area in particular - I would love to get a sneak peek.
Posted by: Sastra | March 20, 2008 9:38 PM
Could they have kicked you out so that they could play up the "Now he knows how we feel" angle? Revenge -- the worm finally turns, and now the atheist biology professor gets it? Creationists rejoice, because we finally have a chance to do to them what they do to us? See how HE likes it! This is what THEY do -- in our science labs and classrooms! We're still fighting for the Little Guy, and for Jesus.
I mean, this is just so dumb from their own point of view. I keep trying to figure out what their spin is. They want to be seen as victims. Removing someone who wants to sit quietly and watch the movie makes no freaking sense if you're playing into a narrative of being oppressed.
Maybe they think fellow creationists will get a sense of justice satisfied? This is some kind of 'pay back?'
Posted by: Puneet | March 20, 2008 9:39 PM
My roommate showed me this two minutes ago and I literally burst into laughter.
Hopefully Dawkins gets to stick around for the entire thing; then he can spread the word about how the people who made Expelled are the most hypocritical people ever.
Posted by: raven | March 20, 2008 9:39 PM
You should have thought ahead. Get someone with a video camera to record you being evicted. Then on to YouTube.
Geesh, PZ, you missed your chance to be a movie star. I'm sure some of the frames would look good on T shirts, mouse pads, and coffee mugs. Think of the tie ins. PZ action figures, lunch boxes, and Holiday cards.
Academics are so clueless. I bet you don't even have an agent.
Posted by: Michael X | March 20, 2008 9:40 PM
That was beautiful.
Posted by: Brigit | March 20, 2008 9:41 PM
ROFL sooo hard my cat ran away! I wish there was some magical live video feed of this. Beyond awesome.
Posted by: Monad | March 20, 2008 9:41 PM
Hey PZ :)
http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?p=283621#post283621
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | March 20, 2008 9:43 PM
Dawkins was with PZ and family. It could be that someone told the theater manager that the evil Richard Dawkins was about to enter his cinema to watch Expelled, and he took a wild guess has to which of two men was the nefarious fellow. :)
Posted by: RBH | March 20, 2008 9:44 PM
Man, I can't imagine how those guys have any toes left, they shoot themselves themselves in the foot so often.
Posted by: Bad | March 20, 2008 9:44 PM
PZ: can you tell us a little more about the nature of the screening?
Was it more open than previous carefully selected audiences? Was it a test screening that they opened in an area they just hoped would be almost universally religious? What's the deal with even allowing random people into the screening at all, given their past behavior?
Posted by: Bruce | March 20, 2008 9:44 PM
This may be the most awesome post ever!!! I can't wait to hear from Dawkins and the others.
Posted by: gbusch | March 20, 2008 9:44 PM
This has the hallmarks of mileage. Press, cartoons and blogs abound will relay their gaff and the irony for a long time to come.
Posted by: Ivan A D'Mocracy | March 20, 2008 9:45 PM
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
Yes. YEs. OHH YEESS!!!
(almost better than sex!)
Posted by: cognitive dissident | March 20, 2008 9:45 PM
Yes, I'm laughing as hard as you are...and so is my spouse, ever since I pointed out your post as the source of my merriment.
This is a classic story, and "Expelled" is *so* p0wned!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | March 20, 2008 9:45 PM
I tried contacting several of the TV stations in the area, and only got a "maybe" from KTCI.
Can somebody light up the newspapers?
Posted by: RBH | March 20, 2008 9:45 PM
Man, I can't imagine how those guys have any toes left, they shoot themselves in the foot so often.
Posted by: Jackson | March 20, 2008 9:47 PM
there aren't even words for this. absolutely made my night...
Posted by: tonyx | March 20, 2008 9:48 PM
This is awesome! XD i cant wait to read the review!, i hope skatje would make one as well :P
Posted by: Carlie | March 20, 2008 9:48 PM
Wesley, you are awesome. I'd try to help, but I doubt they care about what someone several states away thinks. :)
Posted by: Zarquon | March 20, 2008 9:49 PM
Of course Dawkins has an Oxbridge English accent so they were compelled to let him through.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 9:49 PM
Some contact info I ferreted out, for somebody on the ground there in the Twin Cities:
Minneapolis Star Tribune Newspaper
News Tips / Story Ideas
General News 612-673-4414
St. Paul Bureau 651-227-0656
WCCO AM 830 Radio
Newsroom, 612-333-9181
Main:(612) 370-0611
Toll Free Studio:1-866-989-9226
Listener Studio Lines: 612 or 651- 989-9226
news@wccoradio.cbs.com
KNOW FM 91.1
MPR News
Newsroom telephone: 651-290-1424
Newsroom fax (for press releases, etc.): 651-290-1295
WUCW TV
Phone: (651) 646-2300
Fax: (651) 646-1220
WCCO TV 4
1-800-444-WCCO
KTCA TV 2
Twin Cities Public Television
Tel: 651-222-1717
Fax: 651-229-1282
KSTP TV 5
Switchboard: (651) 646-5555
Newsroom phone: (612) 5TV-NEWS (612-588-6397)
Newsroom fax: (651) 642-4409
KARE TV 11
Switchboard: (763) 546-1111
Tipline: (763) 593-1111
Posted by: Dentarthurdent | March 20, 2008 9:50 PM
Allow me to list the things these people did wrong,
Also Known As "4 steps to epic fail"
1. Create ridiculous propaganda film
2. Use hired muscle to prevent entrance of critics thus showing everyone the blatant hypocrisy of your production.
3. The guards you hired are so ignorant that they let the critics attend in droves.
4. You marketing pitch is about different viewpoints being censored.
Posted by: Bobby | March 20, 2008 9:51 PM
*Falls down on the ground in praise*
I AM NOT WORTHY, I AM NOT WORTHY!
I seriously spent five minutes laughing after I read this.
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 9:51 PM
I suppose pz got expelled as he has a FSM shirt on or something equally offensive. RD got in as he may have been wearing a rather more subtle 'galapagos holiday' type shirt.
seriously though, when people start dictating who can and who cannot see a film you just know who is on the 'right' side.
Posted by: 386sx | March 20, 2008 9:51 PM
That is great. It couldn't have turned out better! Hilarity.
Posted by: toomanytribbles | March 20, 2008 9:52 PM
uncontrollable... hysterical... laughter......
Posted by: Eclectic | March 20, 2008 9:52 PM
Oh, wow. That had me not just laughing out loud, but howling out loud. They make a big show of stopping Beelzebub and let Satan himself walk right in.
Is is illegal for a generally public facility like a mall or movie theater to discriminate against a class of people without good reason, but generally a private property owner can refuse to admit against a particular person pretty much arbitrarily. "He married my brother's ex-wife" or even less.
Posted by: eewolf | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
Creationists: pulling embarrassment from the jaws of defeat for 150 years.
Posted by: Tainted Bill | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
I am laughing so hard right now. Stupid creationists.
Posted by: SteadyEddy | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
I'm amusing Dawkins will somehow fit this into his talk tomorrow. :) Can't wait, it's going to be a Great Friday.
Posted by: Escuerd | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
Oh the multiple ironies.
This is truly one of the funniest posts in a while.
Posted by: Simon Owens | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
Oh, that's too good.
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
post #110.
they may have thought RD was actually prince charles so let him in without question.
Posted by: Eric | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM
So wait a sec... they ID'd people at the door... and Dawkins still got in? How did that work? "Excuse me, you - bearded fellow, you need to leave. Oh Richard Dawkins, how are you doing? I've heard a lot about you, it's nice to finally meet you. Right this way, sir."
Posted by: bfish | March 20, 2008 9:54 PM
I just e-mailed an editor at the Star-Tribune who is a childhood friend of my wife. No way to know if he is online - it's well after work hours in the Twin Cities. Someone local should call the paper, using the contact info above.
Posted by: mayhempix | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM
Too fucking funny.
Right out of a movie, figuratively and literally.
Maybe there is an Atheist God after all.
Just kidding... but "Atheist God" is a great oxymoron.
;^ )
Posted by: FireforScience | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM
I never post here, but this was best thing I've read all week so I had to.
Creationist really are the most asinine people on the planet.
Posted by: Scrofulum | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM
I expect they let Prof Dawkins in as they hope he'll be swayed by their arguements into accepting creationism . . er . .ology as a valid sceintific theory.
Obviously they harbour no such feelings about you, PZ!
Posted by: Tony | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM
While I think we are all able to appreciate the irony of it, I do think you relented too easily.
Imagine the headlines had you not played along with their pettiness: Local Theater arrests athiest for wanting to watch Creationism movie.
That news headline would have spread like wildfire.
Posted by: James F | March 20, 2008 9:56 PM
#98
For the next screening, send in Sam Harris with Ben Stiller as the decoy.
Posted by: Marita | March 20, 2008 9:56 PM
You're in a giant mall, right? At the very least you should be able to pick up a cheap disposable camera, so you can get a shot of your family and Dawkins coming out of the screening and giving it a big "thumbs down".
Your adoring public would be ever so appreciative..
Posted by: patrick | March 20, 2008 9:56 PM
Absolutely hilarious!
Posted by: Patty | March 20, 2008 9:57 PM
Funny, funny, really funny!
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 9:57 PM
Forgot to say this:
Someone call those news organizations. Seriously, this is a major story for that area.
The idea that nice Christian anti-evolutionists are actively EXPELLING people from the line (with armed guards/cops! - if that's what it was) to see their phony-baloney movie should be trumpeted around the world.
Don't just suggest they cover it. Tell them who and what this is all about. Convince them that they'll regret it if they just let this slide, because if they do it right, this story will be picked up on the wire and repeated all over the world.
Ben Stein and his cronies can't take the heat, so they have to preached to picked audiences. I seem to remember a certain president who follows the same strategy.
Posted by: Chayanov | March 20, 2008 9:58 PM
No, I'm not laughing. I'm pissed because I totally forgot today was the 20th, and I completely missed my chance, being a short drive from MOA. Ah well.
Posted by: Janus | March 20, 2008 9:58 PM
Bwahahahahahahahaaaaaa! Those IDiots! Unbelievable.
Posted by: Joe Albietz | March 20, 2008 9:58 PM
Oh oh, I think we may be in trouble. This is the best evidence for a god I have ever heard...
Luckily, this god appears to favor atheists, squid, and hardcore irony. So I guess we're still good.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2008 9:58 PM
That's what you get for reserving your tickets under the name PZ Myers. They were looking for you.
If someone else in your family reserved them, then it would have been fine.
But still, this is the best out come we could have hoped for. The frauds of Expelled played right into our hands.
Posted by: Spook | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*deep breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I can't wait to hear how this one pans out... not to mention, what Dawkins has to say about the farce.
Posted by: Candy | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM
emailed a Minneapolis T.V. personality who used to be in our area and who had an open mind and great sense of humor. We'll see. She may be in the studio this evening. Be a shame if no one caught this.
Posted by: phat | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM
Holy cow!
That's perfect.
phat
Posted by: Andrew | March 20, 2008 10:00 PM
This is unbelievable....
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | March 20, 2008 10:01 PM
You can stop calling the Star Tribune. They know about it now.
Posted by: Zeno | March 20, 2008 10:01 PM
A splendid story. And think how great the "explanation" from the Expelled flacks will be when they try to brush this aside.
Fun, fun, fun!
Posted by: Larry Schanzenbach | March 20, 2008 10:03 PM
All I can say is, "Sweet". Who the hell are these people anyway? I live about 15 miles from the MOA and find these morons to be an embarassment. Minnesota nice? Hmmmmmmm? Stay the course, PZ.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | March 20, 2008 10:03 PM
I called the Strib. They don't have anyone on right now whose beat this would be, but I did mention that the conference goes on all weekend. Someone at WCCO is reading the blog right now but doubts they'll get anyone down there.
Posted by: Bad | March 20, 2008 10:03 PM
"You can stop calling the Star Tribune. They know about it now."
You got to wonder what the poor guy at the breaking tip desk has to be thinking: it probably took him a couple of minutes to sort out what the heck anyone was talking about.
"They put a Dawkins in a what now?"
Posted by: Gary | March 20, 2008 10:04 PM
Ah... Altruism leading to the survival of the fittest
Posted by: Jon Voisey (the Angry Astronomer) | March 20, 2008 10:04 PM
Added this to the summary of how dishonest Expelled is over at my blog.
Posted by: Steve Ulven | March 20, 2008 10:05 PM
Un-fucking-believeable!!! This is truly the most hilarious thing ever. I do not possibly think I will get over the fact of how funny this is.
Posted by: Geral | March 20, 2008 10:06 PM
I can't believe they singled you out for the boot? I can't wait to see what Dawkins says on this.
Posted by: mutability | March 20, 2008 10:06 PM
Those unfortunate people that watching the movie..... I hope their decompression back into the reality is swift. Best wishes!
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 10:08 PM
Maybe someone could submit this to Digg or some of the other bookmark sites?
Posted by: extatyzoma | March 20, 2008 10:08 PM
post #124
RD may have said said 'im Prof Dick Dawkins'.
whos going to question that??
Posted by: wildcardjack | March 20, 2008 10:08 PM
I laughed so hard it hurt.
Posted by: BillW | March 20, 2008 10:09 PM
Hey! This gives me an idea borrowed from some civil rights folks. What if we got people to pledge a certain amount of money for everyone who went to a screening of Expelled, counted people who went in to see it, and then use the money collected to fund a movie about the truth - say an anti-Expelled movie. Hmmm. What would the title be? Admitted? Saved? Enlightened? :-)
Posted by: Despard | March 20, 2008 10:09 PM
That is absolutely brilliant. :-)
Posted by: Heather | March 20, 2008 10:11 PM
Absolutely brilliant! I don't believe in god, but karma's a bitch!
Posted by: Elise | March 20, 2008 10:12 PM
That is completely awesome! :D
Posted by: _Arthur | March 20, 2008 10:12 PM
Of course, there is material for a Civil Rights lawsuit right there, if you was the suing type, PZ.
The same laws that prevent cinema owners no deny access to Blacks or Jews, also protect you, PZ, no matter what bogus reason they thought they had for refusing you entrance.
Posted by: thalarctos | March 20, 2008 10:13 PM
Just when I think my heuristic for what posts I can drink while reading is sufficiently sensitive, I go and read this one--tea out my nose!
Monad, I liked your artwork, and I really appreciate your cutting it off at the waist like you did. I swear, if I see those legs in those shorts one more time, I'm going to have to take an icepick and put out my mind's eye.
Posted by: merkin j pus_tart | March 20, 2008 10:13 PM
You upstart . . . this must be a blow to Dawkin's ego
Posted by: Geral | March 20, 2008 10:14 PM
I'm sorry PZ. I'm still laughing about the "No Intelligence Allowed" tagline plastered all over this guy's website.
Posted by: Sangy | March 20, 2008 10:14 PM
That is, I have to say, one of the most brilliant things I've ever heard of.
Posted by: Zeno | March 20, 2008 10:14 PM
If PZ had shaved his beard, they would have never caught him! (Or, judging from their general competence, they would have thought he was Dawkins.)
Posted by: Ian Maddox | March 20, 2008 10:15 PM
So, I went over to the Expelled website, and you'll never guess what quote I saw at the top of the screen:
"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant -- which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."
-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.
It's asinine beyond belief, like watching the Three Stooges run a media campaign. PZ, this was the best laugh I've had in days, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I'd love to hear what RD has to say about this... be sure to pass along the good bits.
Posted by: David Smith | March 20, 2008 10:15 PM
That's completely hilarious and deeply infuriating all at the same time.
It's also a completely perfect story for tonight, the eve of the Jewish holiday of Purim, a night when reason and logic are supposed to get turned upside down and silliness is suppose to triumph! One is actually commanded to get drunk, so drunk that one cannot tell Mordechai (the hero) from Haman (the villan). Perhaps the goons at Expelled were caught up in the spirit(s) of the holiday and could not tell Richard Dawkins from Henry Morris.
David Smith, not godless, but definitely a liberal, and a scientist (geologist)
Posted by: Duke York | March 20, 2008 10:15 PM
Thank you, PZ. It's always nice to have some confirmation I'm on the right side.
Duke
Posted by: Kell | March 20, 2008 10:16 PM
This is sweet. So very very sweet. I enjoy it now, the sweetness. Oh yes.
Posted by: Andrew | March 20, 2008 10:16 PM
There is no grounds for a lawsuit. The theatre was rented out to the producers of the movie for the private screening. That makes it a private event, and they can refuse whomever they please.
Now, if this was just a regular showing of the film, then that would be a different story.
Posted by: steadyeddy | March 20, 2008 10:17 PM
At 8:55pm, I left a message on the cell of a buddy of mine who is a reporter at the StarTribune. Haven't heard back from him yet... He lives 10 minutes from the MOA.
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 20, 2008 10:18 PM
Well, I wonder if a photo of Professor Dawkins will appear on a question on America's Most Smartest Model? Y'know, to raise public awareness of this menacing chameleon who can infiltrate God's Army.
Maybe they will try to pull strings and have him 'expelled' out of the U.S.A. for seeing a movie under false pretenses. Man, that's like, so militant of him.
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 10:18 PM
And in any event, suing would be silly. The whole event is such an embarrassment for the Expelled clods that the public hilarity and ridicule it generates will provide enough schadenfreude power to light the Twin Cities for the next 300 years.
Posted by: JJ | March 20, 2008 10:18 PM
Too fucking funny !!!! I heard Dawkins speak last night in Austin, Tx. He briefly responded to a question about the film. Can't wait for the reviews PZ !!!! Is it leagl to escort you out of a public theater ?????
Posted by: Michelle | March 20, 2008 10:18 PM
That was a rent-a-cop for sure. :P No policeman would enforce such a silly thing.
Hilarious. So. Darn. Hilarious. Apparently you are more harmful to their cause than DAWKINS!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 20, 2008 10:19 PM
Oh that is just too damn good. Incompetence in all areas.
I think my wife is in for a rough night of sleep. I have a strong feeling I'll be giggling all night.
Posted by: Dennis | March 20, 2008 10:20 PM
Funniest thing I've read in a week!
Posted by: George Cauldron | March 20, 2008 10:20 PM
Since Ben Stein's motive in expelling you from the movie was to keep you from writing about it, maybe you should have Dawkins write something up about it for you and post it here? That would have the advantage of REALLY backfiring on that little shit Stein.
Posted by: Susan Brown | March 20, 2008 10:21 PM
Gosh, the behavior of the "Expellers" is what you'd expect from the Soviets during the Lysenko era.
What an awesome story, PZ!
Posted by: Ian Maddox | March 20, 2008 10:22 PM
Meh. Who needs legal action? Getting our undies in a bunch and running off to the courts isn't particularly dignified.
It's better just to make sure all of the ID goofballs know what kind of morons they're following. Digg it up, give the MSM a chance to take a look around, and we'll see what happens.
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 10:22 PM
JJ, yeah, I'm down here in Austin too, and have been blogging about last night's talk (click my name). At the Austin lecture, RD waxed harshly upon Expelled, saying that if the online trailer were any indication, no one would be persuaded by it who wasn't already a dishonest, ignorant fool. Now that he's actually seen it...wow, I can't wait to hear how he really feels!
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 20, 2008 10:22 PM
Hank, and all you diggers out there, it has been dugg.
Posted by: Tea | March 20, 2008 10:23 PM
Dawkins who?
Posted by: Clan:Rewired | March 20, 2008 10:24 PM
Come on PZ, don't say you guys are going straight for a Guinness laughing yourselves under the barstool! You dropped this bomb, now tell us what happened next!!!
Posted by: Lulu | March 20, 2008 10:24 PM
I think this is funny enough to be shared with digg. And someone submitted it already.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Expelled_from_Expelled
Posted by: ngong | March 20, 2008 10:24 PM
For the creos to pull something like this, it would require a negative IQ. That's impossible. One can then only conclude that the guard was an atheist conspirator.
Posted by: Doc Bill | March 20, 2008 10:25 PM
Spewed coffee, wine, brandy and broke a rib.
Dawkins? Holy mother of Tiktaalik save us all.
Posted by: Kevin L. | March 20, 2008 10:26 PM
Funniest thing I've read in a while. I can't wait to see what Dawkins has to say about this. Thanks for posting, PZ :)
Posted by: Lulu | March 20, 2008 10:26 PM
Oh, jeez, RamblinDude, we must be spiritually connected.
Or fortuitously coincidentally acting.
Posted by: disownedsky | March 20, 2008 10:27 PM
This is the ultimate cool - getting thrown out of Expelled. I wish I had enough notoriety and cred to get thrown out, but alas...
Posted by: ScottH | March 20, 2008 10:27 PM
Does anyone know how you would get this story to The Daily Show? I should think Stewart & Co. would love this story as much as we do. And it deserves national exposure.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 10:27 PM
Everybody who Diggs, go there and vote the story up. This is something Diggers will laugh out loud to know.
Posted by: JJ | March 20, 2008 10:28 PM
Martin
Thanks for the link to the blog. I am actually in the Dallas area. Spend quite a bit of time in Austin fighting the evolution battle. Will be back to hear Ken Miller on April 4. Maybe we can catch up then.
Posted by: Justin Moretti | March 20, 2008 10:30 PM
These stupid ID/Creo bastards are full of epic fail. If there is a God, he is by now so disgusted with their hypocrisy and dishonesty that he has arranged a skip-the-queue function for them in Hell.
Happy being-kicked-out-day, PZ. But if I've read aright, Skatje's almost as dangerous as you are anyway, so they are even more full of epic fail. Be fun to know how the whole thing played out.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 20, 2008 10:31 PM
I can see it now. Fresh headline on AiG and DI tomorrow morning: PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins cause scene at screening of Expelled in a Twin Cities mall.
I bet $1,000,000.00 in Monopoly money that's where they go with this. They are going to try to carpet-sweep this thing something fierce.
Posted by: ChrisGose | March 20, 2008 10:31 PM
Wow.
This is epic win and epic fail all at the same time.
It's ingenius I tell you.
Posted by: DustPuppyOI | March 20, 2008 10:32 PM
Can someone submit this story to fark? I think there is a photoshop opportunity here too.
Perhaps there's a fundraising opportunity too - maybe a custom crafted t-shirt with "I was expelled from expelled" signed by both PZ and Richard Dawkins?
Posted by: Michelle | March 20, 2008 10:33 PM
I absolutely DUGG this thing!
Come on diggers! Let's rise this story to the top where it rightfully belongs!
Posted by: Eric | March 20, 2008 10:33 PM
I wonder if the office at the mall was The Mall Ninja!
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 20, 2008 10:33 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp, I'm right there with ya. I almost woke my wife up just to laugh about it with someone...Oh I hope someone's reporter friend covered this.
Can we make a holiday? "Sabot Day" or something? We all go to the local art-house theatre wearing Richard Dawkins masks and leave a token friend with a squid-t-shirt waiting outside. Yeah. Has a feeling of ritual about it.
(Basically I want to laugh about this on an annual basis.)
Posted by: Jen | March 20, 2008 10:34 PM
Brilliant! This is hilarious beyond reason! P.Z., you are officially completely awesome. I totaly need graven image of you to put in a place of prominence in my home!
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 10:34 PM
Too Funny!
MONAD made this:
[IMG]http://i28.tinypic.com/rhq1zk.jpg[/IMG]
Posted by: Jackie Stone | March 20, 2008 10:34 PM
This is fantastic. Yes, I actually did fall off of my bed from laughter...I'm just glad my roommate wasn't in the room.
Hopefully Dawkins will post his account of the movie on his website. I bet somebody is going to be in a load of trouble when the producers find out Dawkins got in.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 20, 2008 10:34 PM
Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day.
Posted by: Richard | March 20, 2008 10:35 PM
I wanted to comment on this because this is going to go down in atheist history as one of the greatest moments ever. This is truly a sweet moment. Thank you PZ.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 20, 2008 10:35 PM
pwn3d
t0atal pwn3d
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 10:35 PM
JJ, that could work. Will be nice to meet you.
Posted by: Buzz Parsec | March 20, 2008 10:35 PM
I haven't read all 185 posts yet, so maybe someone else has already told you this, but I would contact the ACLU immediately. This is a clear civil rights violation. A theater is a place of public accommodation, and can't deny service to *anyone* solely for reasons of religious denomination (or lack thereof). All the people who have been posting that "it's private property, they can kick anyone out for any reason" are just plain *WRONG*.
(It's real hard typing this, I'm laughing too hard. So please ignore any typos.)
So how's it feel to be the Rosa Parks of invertebrates? :-)
Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 20, 2008 10:36 PM
The movie is just most creationist "arguments". A masterpiece of projection.
Do they not even notice that they're doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE ACCUSING TEH EBIL DARWINISTS OF?!!11
I mean, we know they're stupid, dishonest, and completely incapable of self-examination. But which of those characteristics should this massive asshattery be attributed to?
Posted by: impirius | March 20, 2008 10:37 PM
I guess they don't know much about "ID" after all.
Jessa (#91) - if you find any information on a Raleigh/Durham area screening, please pass the word along!
Posted by: Pantufla Milagrosa | March 20, 2008 10:37 PM
I have no words to say how good this story makes me feel.
!!!
Posted by: Shadow | March 20, 2008 10:37 PM
Oh my betentacled overlord. I thought I was already having the best day ever, and now I come home to a little sugary rose on on the icing on my cake.
Priceless. Mastercard-commercial priceless.
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM
Buzz, no no! Suing these guys would be like swatting a fly with a howitzer. They're their own worst enemy! They're already crushed! Let the tide of hilarity wash them away.....
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM
Digg it!
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Expelled_from_Expelled
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM
PZ Myers is THE ATHEIST TROJAN HORSE! This is going to be a story worth telling for many years.
I have to say it, both PZ and Richard Dawkins are my heros.
HA HA but that story makes me feel good.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM
But which of those characteristics should this massive asshattery be attributed to?
why be divisive about it?
all of the above works.
Posted by: Michelle | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM
Would I be wrong if I said this is one of the fastest comment threads I ever seen? I mean, they just PILE UP right now!
...Rightfully so mind you
Posted by: Reed | March 20, 2008 10:39 PM
One might wonder if they have and actual cause to expel you specifically, or whether they were discriminating on the basis of your previously expressed religious views.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002000---a000-.html
emphasis added.
You might want to have one of your "Guests" get the officers name, badge number and affiliation. If they can get a reason for your expulsion, so much the better.
Posted by: ndt | March 20, 2008 10:40 PM
Damn, that's funny.
Posted by: firemancarl | March 20, 2008 10:40 PM
All I could say is holy shit!
Posted by: Berto | March 20, 2008 10:40 PM
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Posted by: Kseniya | March 20, 2008 10:41 PM
"Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?"
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: chancelikely | March 20, 2008 10:41 PM
Predicted IDiot spin angle: they'll whine about all the posts here suggesting legal action by PZ. Just a guess, seeing as how the alternative is deny and ignore.
Well, maybe deny and ignore will be the tack they choose.
Posted by: Kevin L. | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
I should add that I am incredibly jealous of you and Skatje for the fact that you're keeping company with Richard Dawkins.
Great stuff :)
Posted by: silence | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
Reed: Sure, but they could have decided that PZ Meyers was likely to pan them in his review of the movie, and decided to try to keep him out for that reason. Unless somebody is willing to take the case to discovery to try and find out if they were dumb enough to write down their reasons, I'd be astonished if you could win that one in court.
Posted by: Greg N. | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
Brilliant.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
Oh, jeez, RamblinDude, we must be spiritually connected.
Or fortuitously coincidentally acting.
Serendipitously synchronous? :-)
I don't know, I'm kind of dissapointed that you didn't make a scene PZ. I have this wild image of the keystone cops chasing you and Professor Dawkins around the mall. :-)
Posted by: Amers | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
Not to take the wind out of your sails, but do you think that the cop took you out when he was supposed to take Dawkins out?
Posted by: Mytho | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM
BWAHAHahahahahahahaha!
Posted by: gabriel | March 20, 2008 10:43 PM
Priceless! This makes my month! Oh, this is beautiful!
Posted by: Sharilyn | March 20, 2008 10:43 PM
Movie ticket to Expelled, $9.00
Popcorn and pop $10.50
Being thrown out of a movie you actually appear in, PRICELESS
Posted by: impirius | March 20, 2008 10:43 PM
Alright, this is up on Reddit now... spread the word on whatever social media sites you use! This is way too hilarious to keep to ourselves.
http://reddit.com/r/atheism/info/6cuym/comments/
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 20, 2008 10:43 PM
Someone needs to spin Hitch up with a 5th and point him at the movie. Make sure you capture the explosion on video.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 10:44 PM
I don't know, I'm kind of dissapointed that you didn't make a scene PZ. I have this wild image of the keystone cops chasing you and Professor Dawkins around the mall. :-)
ala Benny Hill?
yeah, I can just picture it...
Posted by: Kevin | March 20, 2008 10:44 PM
post #200: Seconded!
I almost feel sorry for the cop.
Posted by: ERV | March 20, 2008 10:44 PM
**high fives everyone in the room**
Epic win. EPIC!!!! YAAAAAAAY!!!
Posted by: Angus | March 20, 2008 10:45 PM
On the last episode of Real Time With Bill Maher I seem to remember the end credits displayed who was going to be on the next episode (the one airing this week). If I recall correctly Richard Dawkins will be on Real Time with Bill Maher. Perhaps we should all tune in!
Posted by: Steve | March 20, 2008 10:46 PM
Ha Ha! Dawkins for teh win!!!111!!!
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 20, 2008 10:46 PM
This is History in the making! And it's hilarious, ironic, revealing and, well, lots of stuff about it lends infinitely increasing credibility! Everybody chalk up another point on the tally board. YEEEEE-HAAAAA!
Posted by: Ctenophore | March 20, 2008 10:46 PM
OMG. Thanks to that producer for accidentally creating the most hilarious circumstance that i would never have imagined!
Posted by: Shaw Kenawe | March 20, 2008 10:47 PM
Best, best laugh I've had in many a day. Oh gawd.
Posted by: gabriel | March 20, 2008 10:48 PM
reminds me of the verse "strain out a gnat, swallow a camel." no offense, PZ, of course.
Hilarious! We're all waiting for the post-movie interviews!!
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 10:48 PM
I'm glad you all think that HATE CRIMES are funny.
Once PZ calms down and thinks about being thrown out of a public theatre, in front of his wife, kids, and Richard Friggin Dawkins - PZ WILL BE PISSED!
This is some serious shit.
I would be LIVID.
Hell, I'm livid right now.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 10:48 PM
47 Diggs as of this moment. By morning it should be gold.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Expelled_from_Expelled
They threatened with arrest a man THEY put in the movie, after interviewing him under false pretenses.
Posted by: Aaron | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
Oh my dear science that's hilarious.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
Sastra 92#, You may be on to something. They may have done this on purpose knowing the controversy would raise ticket sales.
Posted by: Doug | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
PZ should send a thank you note to the folks at Expelled. They saved him from having to wade through two hours of BS.
Posted by: James F | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
"No, you idiot! I said watch out for Richard Dawkins, not Stephen Hawking! Dawkins!"
Posted by: Boosterz | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
I *heart* creationists getting pwned. Please tell me that when this was all going on there was some kick ass Trans Siberian Orchestra playing in the background. Like maybe Beethoven's 5th or something along those lines. I'd even settle for Ride of the Valkyries. lol
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-cat-pwns-dog.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/2048486208_43f04098cc.jpg
Posted by: nystagman | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
PZ, you are truly a professor non gratis.
Posted by: Jules | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM
#240 - Don't you mean OMFSM?
Posted by: Calilasseia | March 20, 2008 10:50 PM
HAHAHAHAHA!
You can't make this up.
As if the movie itself wasn't totally retarded in its premise, they NOW HAND AN ABSOLUTE PR GIFT TO PZ.
PZ, If I were you, I'd call CNN. They'd HAVE to interview you about this!
Posted by: Chris Harrison | March 20, 2008 10:50 PM
Hahahahahahaha.
Hearty laughter abounds!
MY Myers, I applaud you.
Posted by: Danny | March 20, 2008 10:50 PM
You should have allowed yourself to be arrested. You were to commit no crime at all. Please don't show courage on the web only to show cowardice in real life. Is this how you stand up for what you believe?
Posted by: Stripe | March 20, 2008 10:50 PM
I am a lurker over on Phil's site, came over to take a look at the fun and games over here to see what the BadAstronomer was writing about. This is hilarious, have to hang around to find out how this turns out. :)
Posted by: SteadyEddy | March 20, 2008 10:51 PM
Still haven't heard back from my StarTrib reporter buddy... is there a limit to how many voicemails I can leave?
Unless the fundies roped everyone into a post-movie group hug/donation session, I'm guessing the movie is already out.
Posted by: Chris Harrison | March 20, 2008 10:51 PM
Hahahahahahaha.
Hearty laughter abounds!
Mr Myers, I applaud you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 20, 2008 10:51 PM
Still laughing. I think i may need to grab a single barrel bourbon on the rocks to calm me down.
This is really one of the funniest things I've heard all year.
I CAN NOT wait to read the spin on this.
Posted by: Angus | March 20, 2008 10:51 PM
"On the last episode of Real Time With Bill Maher I seem to remember the end credits displayed who was going to be on the next episode (the one airing this week). If I recall correctly Richard Dawkins will be on Real Time with Bill Maher. Perhaps we should all tune in!"
Update:
Nowhere is Dawkins Mentioned on Bill Maher's HBO page. Guests get shuffled about from time to time. I'm still hoping he's on though.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 10:52 PM
#237- just looked up Real Time's website on HBO.com, and it doesn't list Richard Dawkins from what I can see. That'd be entertaining though.
Posted by: Kirk | March 20, 2008 10:52 PM
I also did laugh out loud. Kind of funny, since I was in the bathroom taking care of a biological need (yay iPhone!) and my roommates have to wonder what was so funny in there.
BUT, I have a word of caution.
Do NOT start spamming the media organizations. I work in the media (no contacts in Minny who would be available right now) and nothing turns reporters and editors off a story faster than e-mail after e-mail and call after call on something like this. If dozens of people report an earthquake or severe traffic collision, etc., it makes sense that you'll get a lot of calls into the newsroom. But something that could be seen as a concerted effort by, say, an advocacy organization quickly gets annoying and may engender a hostile response.
Now, we all see this as a bit of great breaking news, and they need to know about it to be able to get to all the players who are (were) in place. But, journalists see so many spam campaigns from various groups that something like this might start to be seen as that sort of thing. And that sort of thing then starts smelling like an organized attempt to fake a groundswell reaction to something. The bulk of reporters and editors out there may not be fully aware of the back story here, so constant, repeated e-mails and phone calls could be interpreted that way. Reporters in the know, of course, will understand and have the reaction we're all having. But the odds are that you'll get someone who doesn't really know the score.
So, as long as there has been some contact with the media, I think we should be content with that. I do know some folks for whom this sort of thing could be useful later, and I'll be disseminating this within that sphere. I expect this anecdote to become a standard background paragraph in future coverage of this movie.
Posted by: Ragutis | March 20, 2008 10:53 PM
A) Fundies have been the demise of many an irony meter, but I think I'm gonna frame the remains of this most recent one. (As much as I can find, at least... it went EVERYWHERE!)
B) I'm assuming that they simply weren't expecting Dawkins in Minnesota (Nobody expects the British Biologistician!). Interesting experiment: fly to London, P.Z. and see if you can get in.
C) Shouldn't an interviewee be entitled to a screening or advance copy in order to see how they were portrayed or if their position was accurately presented? I mean, that sounds like the ethical... Oh.
Well, it would be polite... err...
Never mind. I'm obviously expecting too much.
Posted by: Joshua | March 20, 2008 10:53 PM
There's only one thing to say in this situation: PZ FTW!
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2008 10:54 PM
Hey, PZ, I hope that when you meet back up with your family and guest, assuming that you don't have to bail them out of jail, you'll make another blog post to update the events and post about it on PT as well.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 10:54 PM
Crap, forget post 260, just searched a little more thoroughly and he is going to be.
Posted by: revmonkeyboy | March 20, 2008 10:54 PM
Lol, extravaganza! That is f-ing great. What total idiots these folks must be. No offense to you, PZ, but Dawkins has to be the most widely recognized atheist in existence. How could they recognize you and totally pass over a widely known skeptic of creationism and rampant insanity. Dawkins has written so many books on the subject. Please Utube an interview with Dawkins after the show. This could really be viral, the logical minority will rejoice with laughter. Even the fence sitters will get the humor of this! I pray to the FSM you can find the time and a camera! This is beyond comedy, it is shockingly hilarious. Thank you for the heads up, it really made my day!
Posted by: SphinctOr | March 20, 2008 10:55 PM
***********************************************
** WARNING: Impending DIGG Effect Imminent **
***********************************************
Please Mirror.
Warning - System Resources Low.
Warning - Too friggin Funny.
Warning - System Fail
Posted by: firemancarl | March 20, 2008 10:56 PM
All I could say is holy shit!
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 20, 2008 10:57 PM
ROFL @ #248, that is PRICELESS!
Posted by: Angus | March 20, 2008 10:58 PM
Paul (#265) Where did you search?
Posted by: Colin | March 20, 2008 10:58 PM
I just wrote Seth Myers about it. He probably won't get the message in time for Weekend Update this Saturday, but it's worth a shot.
Posted by: So Larries | March 20, 2008 10:59 PM
PZ, it is meant to be a tribute to your honesty that I accept this story as the unvarnished truth, even with a punchline that sounds like an urban legend, which it may well become.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 20, 2008 10:59 PM
"You should have allowed yourself to be arrested. You were to commit no crime at all. Please don't show courage on the web only to show cowardice in real life. Is this how you stand up for what you believe?"
Well, there's always criminal trespass and disturbance of the peace. If I were in PZ's position, I know I'd be iffy about the legality of it. He wouldn't have accomplished anything by making a fuss and getting arrested, not to mention that this delicious irony wouldn't have come about if he'd done otherwise.
Posted by: Jesús Pineda | March 20, 2008 11:01 PM
Absolutely HILARIOUS!!!!! Can't wait for Dawkins' comments on the movie. Just goes to show how dumb you have to be to buy into the whole ID nonsense: keep the cephalopods out, but let the Babe Ruth of atheism in... Oh the hilarity!
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 11:01 PM
@270, I clicked on the HBO schedule, and the listing for 3/21 lists richard dawkins. don't know if it's been updated since then though, so i don't know.
Posted by: pshaw | March 20, 2008 11:02 PM
PZ... you are my hero for today.
Posted by: ngong | March 20, 2008 11:02 PM
I guess there was some kind of list of "likely troublemakers", and a Dawkins appearance was considered highly improbable. Yet...it happened! Evidence of design!
Posted by: Angus | March 20, 2008 11:02 PM
Don't worry Paul (See post #270) I found it.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 20, 2008 11:02 PM
Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!
Once again we have a fine example of why I no longer feel badly about calling cdesign proponentists stupid.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 20, 2008 11:03 PM
Maybe it won't make Seth Myers and Weekend Update, but Letterman perhaps, via Franken? Too bad Al was just on. =/
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 20, 2008 11:03 PM
#254 Danny;
Far be it for me to answer for Mr Myers, but being arrested to "stand up for what (he) believe(s)" is not bravery.
In some cases sheer defiance could be brave, but cool intellect and galvanizing the blogging-troops is standing up for what I suspect Prof. Myers believes.
If indeed legal action needs to be taken (and I agree with Greta Christina that it may not - this could have been a pre-show screening or party and not a public event)we can all rest assured it will be worked out.
Posted by: abb3w | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
FWIW, having cops around in anticipation of throwing out disruptive undesirables is a perfectly kosher use of the local cops. I worked at a restaurant that routinely had one around. (Mind you, the city I live in is more than a little weird; the local Barnes and Noble was the high point of local crime, including three or four armed robberies until the local cops stated an officer there full-time.)
On the other hand, I(AmNotALawyer) wonder if you have a Civil Rights case based on religious discrimination. Might be hard to prove if they let Dawkins in, though.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
So, where are they now? Is the movie over?
WTF is happening!!!!
Posted by: Dick Durata | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
Come on, PZ, fess up. You were wearing your squid costume, weren't you?
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
PZ - We will post your bail!
Go back and demand to see that crappy movie!
Offer twice the face value...no wait - that would be nothing.
Never-mind.
Damn math.
Posted by: Boosterz | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
Make sure Richard Dawkins saves his ticket stub. Ebay FTW! lol
Posted by: skidoo | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
You don't even have to give the creationists a shovel. They dig their own graves just fine with their fingernails.
Posted by: Illucian | March 20, 2008 11:04 PM
Absolutely priceless.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | March 20, 2008 11:06 PM
Not even Hollywood could come up with a script like this.
Looks like God, god, FSM, and even Loki were all smiling on you today PZ.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 20, 2008 11:08 PM
I haven't read all 185 posts yet, so maybe someone else has already told you this, but I would contact the ACLU immediately.
Naw, that would spoil the moment. :-D
Posted by: Dan | March 20, 2008 11:08 PM
You should have told them you were there to see Horton Hears a Who with your family. You know, like a good family oriented person with strong family values.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 11:08 PM
FWIW, having cops around in anticipation of throwing out disruptive undesirables is a perfectly kosher use of the local cops.
the problem is:
who decides which people are "undesirable".
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree that this is a kosher use of official police personnel. I would even have an argument about using private personnel to accomplish this.
We saw GW doing the exact same thing with his televised "town meetings".
it's bullshit, and it's not good for ya.
matters not whether it is strictly legal, it's rather a slippery slope.
Posted by: noncarborundum | March 20, 2008 11:08 PM
Excellent.
I do regret that Cherryh never hired Marc Okrand to devise a complete Kifish grammar.
Posted by: Destiny | March 20, 2008 11:09 PM
CNN Bulletin: "Riot at Mall of America"
Posted by: Mollie | March 20, 2008 11:10 PM
I have to admit, I was totally shocked by that reveal.
So epic.
Posted by: Tom Woolf | March 20, 2008 11:10 PM
Take me next time, please! As a devout atheist, I can't imagine how much fun it would be to start pointing out the fallacies of the deliriously inept deranged psychopaths....
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 11:10 PM
...(Mind you, the city I live in is more than a little weird; the local Barnes and Noble was the high point of local crime, including three or four armed robberies until the local cops stated an officer there full-time.)
note that this is hardly the same thing. there was a demonstrable risk to public safety with what you are describing here.
it wasn't the manager of the store deciding to rent a cop in order to keep out people he doesn't like.
Posted by: benjdm | March 20, 2008 11:11 PM
Isn't the American Atheists conference in Minnesota this weekend? Dawkins was probably in Minnesota for that.
Posted by: Alan J | March 20, 2008 11:11 PM
Abso-freaking-lutely hilarious! Mr. Myers, you are made of win.
Posted by: Haate | March 20, 2008 11:12 PM
Oh. Their. god. that's just beautiful. I can't wait to see what Mr. Dawkins has to say about this.
Posted by: noncarborundum | March 20, 2008 11:12 PM
I actually learned ROTFLMAOSTC before I learned ROFL.
That's "Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off, Scaring The Cat."
Posted by: reed | March 20, 2008 11:13 PM
silence #225
I agree, and honestly, it would be a waste of resources to take to court. The usual "we reserve the right to refuse service yada yada" is broad enough that you'd have a hard time proving discrimination even if you wanted to. I don't even know if the quoted section would apply to a nominally "private" screening.
However, they know, and we know, that is exactly why they kept him out. The fact that the civil rights act specifically mentions theaters made it too funny not to post. Especially given that the movie is about the alleged discrimination against ID.
In any case it's a wonderful own goal on their part. What does it say about a film when the producers refuse to let someone who appeared in the film into a screening ? Not noticing Dawkins is just the icing on the cake.
Posted by: thadd | March 20, 2008 11:14 PM
I was all ready to get outraged and upset, now it's just too funny to do anything but laugh. I can't believe that PZ is apparently more recognized than Richard Dawkins (at least at the Mall of America).
Posted by: Diego | March 20, 2008 11:15 PM
Okay, this story had just made my evening!
Posted by: EdSG | March 20, 2008 11:15 PM
Best. Sabot.
Ever.
Posted by: Paula Helm Murray | March 20, 2008 11:16 PM
They probably didn't put Mr. Dawkins on their list because they probably assumed he wouldn't be there. Just guessing.
On the other hand, I wish I could figure out which Alaska fish organization I can complain to because every time I see B-n St--n on the wild Alaska fish commercial it raises my blood pressure. He's Just a pitchman without any kind of good guidance. But there are several organizations...
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | March 20, 2008 11:16 PM
Well... I don't know how to take that... LOL! Priceless.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | March 20, 2008 11:17 PM
This is the greatest thing I've read in a long time. The fact that the producers of Expelled, a movie whose sole purpose is to complain about nasty Darwinist censors stifling free inquiry, had guards at the door turning away undesirables, just adds another layer of sweet irony. It's as if these people don't recognize the depths of self-parody to which they're descending.
Posted by: Bruce Breece FCD | March 20, 2008 11:17 PM
Congrats and a hearty shiver me timbers PZ. Reading this particular blog entry and the comments has been the most hilarious and edifying experience I've had in quite a while. This one will be a keeper for years to come and will burn up the internets for a few days at least.
Posted by: Henwli | March 20, 2008 11:18 PM
Good grief. As I read the post the punchline was hidden just below the visible area. There's only one basic way of replying to something like this:
10 print "HA"
20 goto 10
Posted by: John Squire | March 20, 2008 11:19 PM
When PZ mentions that everyone "had to sign in and show ID," is he talking about signing a nondisclosure agreement?
Will Dawkins be prevented from publicly commenting?
Posted by: lao tzu | March 20, 2008 11:19 PM
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?article=8
Disinvited to a Screening, a Critic Ends Up in a Faith-Based Crossfire
... "After Mr. Moore's review, Mr. Stein commented, "Oh well. This will probably happen a lot more times."
The above from the expelledthemovie site tells me this was probably a publicity stunt. The 300 comments above this one tell me it'll work.
I don't think Ben Stein is interested in anything but Ben Stein's money.
Hey, it's still hilarious.
Posted by: Harmony | March 20, 2008 11:19 PM
PZ!!! PLEASE READ THIS! Last night, Nightline did a segment on a science museum in Denver that allows groups to come in and give a Biblical tour of the museum! A leader takes groups of children in and tells them how all the evolution science in the museum is wrong! I was amazed that the museum head let them do this, I wouldn't. After all, they all could go in, just without the unathorized tour. But it sure shows up the EXPELLED people!
Posted by: rsquared | March 20, 2008 11:19 PM
PZ must've forgotten to get his horns trimmed and tuck his tail into his boxers before going to the mall. I'm still laughing, and living in Dallas within walking distance of a dozen churches doesn't seem as hopeless as it did an hour ago.
Posted by: Sili | March 20, 2008 11:20 PM
How I wish I coulda been there.
Reminded me of this: http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20050801.html - only funnier.
Posted by: Jet Black | March 20, 2008 11:20 PM
I'd like to see a guest blog entry from Richard Dawkins reviewing the film. That would be the height of amusement.
I can't believe though that the producers have carefully gone through the lists of names for people to evict. I wonder if there were any others.
Posted by: Dan | March 20, 2008 11:20 PM
Please SUE THEM!!!! I know this was funny, but if they get by with kicking you out they can do this to others because of religion, ethnicity or race. Your local civil rights board should be able to help. Raise hell to protect others.
Posted by: deadman_932 | March 20, 2008 11:21 PM
You should have allowed yourself to be arrested. You were to commit no crime at all. Please don't show courage on the web only to show cowardice in real life. Is this how you stand up for what you believe?
Get real, Danny. Getting busted would likely involve trying to shove past security to get arrested for trespass or creating a public disturbance -- with your daughter in tow -- leaving a guest (Dawkins)in the lurch.
Try to engage your brain before you post. Being stupid isn't brave. Being temperate isn't cowardice.
Posted by: Danny | March 20, 2008 11:22 PM
"Well, there's always criminal trespass and disturbance of the peace. If I were in PZ's position, I know I'd be iffy about the legality of it. He wouldn't have accomplished anything by making a fuss and getting arrested, not to mention that this delicious irony wouldn't have come about if he'd done otherwise.
Far be it for me to answer for Mr Myers, but being arrested to "stand up for what (he) believe(s)" is not bravery.
In some cases sheer defiance could be brave, but cool intellect and galvanizing the blogging-troops is standing up for what I suspect Prof. Myers believes."
"If indeed legal action needs to be taken (and I agree with Greta Christina that it may not - this could have been a pre-show screening or party and not a public event)we can all rest assured it will be worked out. "
Ha ha, I'm sure it indeed 'will all be worked out'. I'm certain Prof. Myers has stood up for what he believes in. Fact is, he would not need have 'made a fuss' - only stand his ground for what is his right to do - go to a movie in the MOA. Even if technically 'a crime' it is certainly NOT an actual crime and he should have had the courage to stand his ground on what he believes and potentially been arrested. That would be a far better and greater show of conviction, in real terms, of what we stand for. It's like the old adage - 'They came for the Jews/Xians/Zoasters and I did nothing...' They came for the Atheist and he did nothing.
Posted by: Tressa | March 20, 2008 11:23 PM
So, in Christian speak, while Expelled was keeping a Demon out Satan just strolled right in. I love it!
Posted by: M. Robert Bond | March 20, 2008 11:24 PM
Hee, I can't wait until Cuttlefish sees this and does a treatment! This absolutely need to be put into verse, and, and... someone by PZ a beer!
Posted by: TK Kenyon | March 20, 2008 11:25 PM
ROTFL so hard I had as asthma attack. After a couple squirts of albuterol, I read it again and dang near had to go to the hospital.
Oh, my stars, that's funny.
I'm so linking to this on my blog: http://rabidatheists.blogspot.com/.
TK Kenyon, Author of RABID: A Novel and CALLOUS: A Novel
"A science vs. religion smackdown. Guess who wins?"
Posted by: Winter Toad | March 20, 2008 11:25 PM
Well, ERV has an amusing take on this.
Posted by: Epikt | March 20, 2008 11:26 PM
noncarborundum:
So if, after this Great Moment in Creationism, I begin to refer to PZ as Mekt-Hakkikt, at least one other person will understand.
Posted by: Danny | March 20, 2008 11:26 PM
"Get real, Danny. Getting busted would likely involve trying to shove past security to get arrested for trespass or creating a public disturbance -- with your daughter in tow -- leaving a guest (Dawkins)in the lurch."
Why would anyone have to shove security personnel? That's a straw-man argument. He could have simply stood his place in line until removed. No shoving required.
Posted by: Mark | March 20, 2008 11:26 PM
I get the impression that this was not an open public screening of the film, considering that you had to sign in and show ID. The theater has every right to deny entry to any individual, unfortunately. This is the same principle that allows casino owners to ban individuals from setting foot in their establishment without due process. They don't need a reason.
Posted by: Bachalon | March 20, 2008 11:27 PM
How the hell are they gonna spin this? "No no, we meant to kick Dawkins/both of them out!"
Too damn funny.
Posted by: pradeep | March 20, 2008 11:27 PM
Bravo. Masterful. Too good to be true.
Posted by: Dahan | March 20, 2008 11:27 PM
Snort worthy! Biggest smile I've had all day. Fuck those bastards.
Posted by: DaveH | March 20, 2008 11:28 PM
Abso-fucking-lutely hilarious. Well done!
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 11:30 PM
Will all you dumbasses wailing "You should sue!" and "You should have gotten yourself arrested!" please just STFU! Don't you GET IT!? PZ didn't NEED to do those things! He's already won. Fucking DUH. The Expelled tools have had the biggest epic fail since Travolta signed on to do Battlefield: Earth! Before their screening tonight even ended, the entire planet knows what these dipshits did and the ridicule will never be lived down! People will be looking back on this 10 years from now and laughing. The IDiots handed this one to PZ wrapped in a goddamn ribbon, and he didn't even have to do anything but show up.
Why is this hard to grasp?
Posted by: Danny | March 20, 2008 11:31 PM
I think it would have been ever better P.R. for him to stand his ground (not shove anyone etc. - so fucking shrill) and be arrested for his beliefs.
Posted by: rmp | March 20, 2008 11:32 PM
What Martin said!
Posted by: gbear | March 20, 2008 11:32 PM
Well when you're done laughing about the movie, get your butts OUT of the Mall of America and go somewhere decent. Go get some burgers at The Shamrock on West 7th in St Paul.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 11:33 PM
Get arrested for believing that he has the right to see a private screening of a movie, when the law obviously says the opposite. I don't know, I have a little more respect for PZ's intelligence than you do Danny.
Posted by: SteadyEddy | March 20, 2008 11:34 PM
Ditto Martin #331... well said.
Posted by: JoshH | March 20, 2008 11:34 PM
I don't think there's anything funny about this. It's just so absurd I can't laugh. You know? I mean, there's an absurdity level that goes so far beyond absurd you can't help but laugh. But this goes well beyond that, even.
Posted by: Danny | March 20, 2008 11:34 PM
"Will all you dumbasses wailing "You should sue!" and "You should have gotten yourself arrested!" please just STFU! Don't you GET IT!? PZ didn't NEED to do those things! He's already won. Fucking DUH. The Expelled tools have had the biggest epic fail since Travolta signed on to do Battlefield: Earth! Before their screening tonight even ended, the entire planet knows what these dipshits did and the ridicule will never be lived down! People will be looking back on this 10 years from now and laughing. The IDiots handed this one to PZ wrapped in a goddamn ribbon, and he didn't even have to do anything but show up.
Why is this hard to grasp?"
Prove it.
Posted by: Dan | March 20, 2008 11:34 PM
I wonder if this will be included on Expelled's atrocious Wikipedia page.
Posted by: flashbazzzbo | March 20, 2008 11:34 PM
I dont think this is amusing at all!What policeman threatens a man with arrest for standing in line for a movie?Now,if the man in question is intoxicated,or making threats,or,as someone mentioned earlier, is without shirt or shoes,by all means,this individual could be turned away,with the threat of arrest being very real,if he were to resist.However,it is obvious that the orders were given from people who are not law enforcement types,but merely promoters,or even producers of this film.If so,by what authority do these individuals have the power to command a public servant to order a non-threatening,shirt and shoe wearing person to step out of line,or face arrest?I maintain that just because a certain person may be critical of an idea,that this becomes a matter of civil rights,in that,PZ,being a known critic of ID nonsense ,was singled out merely because THEY knew he was going to rip them up,and rightly so.When did this become a punishible offense?I have,over the years,heard many different critics deride many movies,some of which are among my favorites of all time.Never have I screamed in protest at their criticism,nor did I demand that they be incarcerated.SO,can I,myself, decide when and where(being in no way connected with law enforcement),a certain individual can or cannot be where they want to be,just because i dont agree with them?And what's more,could I order the local cops to look out for that certain individual,who isnt wanted by the law,and who just DISAGREES with me,and then order him to leave the premises or face arrest,without premise????I'm having a hard time thinking there is not a potential lawsuit here,and if there is not,I am very afraid for those who choose to voice their dissent.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 20, 2008 11:35 PM
Please, someone come in and tell us that we shouldn't ridicule these people. I DARE you.
Can't imagine suing them for it, though. I think the whole incident is too silly, and surely anyone suggesting the lawsuit route has never actually sued anyone and had to go through all the involved rigamrole for months and months. Nope, far better to just laugh. And laugh. And point. And laugh.
As the good Proinsias Cassidy would say, "WANKERRRRRRS!"
Posted by: KC | March 20, 2008 11:35 PM
To PZ: Sir, Bravo. This is too good to be true. I look forward to Dawkins' take down of this utter bilge.
@#331 Agreed. No arresting needed. He'd gone and done more damage than he could have possibly by raising a stink - he'd enabled a high profile individual to rip them a new one.
Posted by: Michael Lonergan | March 20, 2008 11:35 PM
Holy Crap! I just read this on the BA blog. So, they actually stopped you from attending a frakkin' movie!? WTF!!?? Can they even do that?
Geez, I know from reading Phil's blog that PZ is a Rabble rouser :) but this is beyond belief. It prompts the obvious question: Whatthe hell did you do to deserve this? I mean you must be some bad ass atheist or something?
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 11:36 PM
Danny, I'm wondering who's more clueless about life -- you or Ben Stein.
Posted by: QED | March 20, 2008 11:36 PM
Sitting here sick as a dog tonight, thinking my long weekend has gone sour, then this. This is better than any medicine I could have hoped for. After I clean the Sprite off my keyboard, I'm going back to bed a happy man. If this isn't a fever dream, it's the most hilarious thing I've read in weeks!
Posted by: Sharilyn | March 20, 2008 11:37 PM
Somewhere between the irony and the hypocrisy I am laughing to hard to breath,(also reaching for my Albuterol) and irritated beyond belief! Just what did the dumb-asses who made this decision THINK was going to happen?
(I imagine in a backroom - when hearing of the immediate response to this - a Homer Simpsonesque D'oh! escaping from the lips of the brainiac who made the decision to expel PZ)
Posted by: Dude | March 20, 2008 11:38 PM
#331
Exactly!
PZ doesn't need to sue, or make a scene, or get himself arrested. Though, you could argue that by staying out of jail tonight he has enabled himself to respond in a way that makes a "scene at the mall" insignificant.
Also, if it was a private screening, then he'd have been in the wrong to create that "scene" anyway, and would have zero grounds to launch legal action.
His response was perfect!
Well done PZ!
Posted by: rmp | March 20, 2008 11:38 PM
PZ, please give us a clue when we can expect a review! Tonight? Tomorrow? I've got to schedule my sleeping.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 20, 2008 11:38 PM
Also: I'm too too envious of your daughter and your wife for getting to see a movie with Richard Dawkins. I imagine he's too staid an individual to do MST3K-style commentary, but still, wow. I hope Skatje does a nice blog post about this.
Posted by: Sharilyn | March 20, 2008 11:39 PM
#331 BRAVO, Can we have a RAMEN!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 11:39 PM
.However,it is obvious that the orders were given from people who are not law enforcement types,but merely promoters,or even producers of this film.If so,by what authority do these individuals have the power to command a public servant to order a non-threatening,shirt and shoe wearing person to step out of line,or face arrest?
I completely agree, provided, of course, that there were actually on duty cops involved, and it wasn't just a bunch of thugs in mall guard uniforms.
If on duty police WERE involved in this, it would indeed be worth asking if the city supports this use of its personnel.
this takes nothing away from the gift given to PZ at all; it's an entirely separate issue from the irony that is religious IDiocy.
Posted by: Blue Gal | March 20, 2008 11:40 PM
but see? I knew you were the most wonderful there is, PZ. A bigger rock star of the atheist blogosphere than even Dawkins. He got to see the screening and he is STILL jealous. xo
Posted by: Gary Bohn | March 20, 2008 11:40 PM
PZ did precisely the correct thing by drawing attention away from Dawkins and Skatje allowing them to watch the film. Getting arrested would have prevented both Dawkins and Skatje from entering the theater.
More will come of this the way it played out than if PZ had been arrested.
Posted by: speedwell | March 20, 2008 11:41 PM
@Danny: You don't understand. There were TWO wins here. The first win was how bad it made them look to throw out someone who appeared in that very film as an interviewee, as if (probably because) they didn't want him to see the mess they made of his interview and because they feared honest and pointed criticism. The second win was when they let in the very last person they wanted to let in, Richard Dawkins.
The third win will, I think, be when Skatje, a witness to both events, covers this.
Posted by: Jules | March 20, 2008 11:42 PM
I converted Sharilyn (#350) to Pastafariansim just an hour ago. It just made sense to her...
Posted by: John | March 20, 2008 11:42 PM
Martin -> I guess some people just do not like to see discrimination. We understand that PZ "pOwned" B. Stein/Expelled after being tossed out, but it still pisses some of us off. PZ is most likely being bought multiple drinks at a local tavern, and him and Richard Dawkins are now Best Buddies. Lucky bastard.
That's all.
Posted by: DAC | March 20, 2008 11:42 PM
Don't crow too loudly, PZ. Rumor has it Dawkins made an ass of himself after the screening. "Ass Prod" Mark Mathis gave Dawkins a little bit of rope, and Dawkins was quick to start winding it around his own neck. I think you'll get a bit of egg on your face too out of this, PZ.
Posted by: Bryan | March 20, 2008 11:42 PM
Lolz.
Posted on the front page of the Myspace Atheists and Agnostics group. This story needs to go viral.
Posted by: ERV | March 20, 2008 11:43 PM
So... am I the only one sitting here, hitting refresh every ~30 seconds... luving all the comments and waiting for an official Dawkins update?
Im so not going to sleep tonight, now.
LOL Im such a loser LOOOOL!
Posted by: gg | March 20, 2008 11:43 PM
Kudos, PZ!
Down here in the Carolinas, the best I can do is get thrown out of an Applebee's...
Posted by: Chris | March 20, 2008 11:43 PM
LOL
That is just spectacular, and spectacularly funny. I look forward to hearing what Dr. Dawkins has to say about the, *cough*, film.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 11:43 PM
I imagine he's too staid an individual to do MST3K-style commentary
I dunno about that, I recall Kristine blogging about that trip to the Galapagos that Dawkins was also on; and he had a few quips along the MST3K type.
I don't think he could resist a good poke, but he would do it quietly.
Posted by: Sastra | March 20, 2008 11:44 PM
Of course everyone "had to sign in and show ID." That's how dangerous being a Christian Creationist in America is. They have enemies all around. They have to be so careful.
It's so dangerous being a Christian Creationist in America, they even need police protection. That's what it's gotten down to. That's how bad it is. Atheists try to sneak in and disrupt their worship services. Well, okay, take notes. Or maybe just watch.
To make them nervous. On purpose.
Well, okay, it was a movie, and not a worship service. But Christians getting together. Bonding together, in a time of need, to become strong, to support each other. They were kicked out of the public schools, kicked out of the peer review magazines, kicked out of the textbooks. All they have now is the movie theater -- and each other.
And PZ tries to get in. He can't leave them alone. He can't just let them be. Dawkins, too. They want to sneer and scoff at Christian Creationists. This is persecution. Like under the Romans, or Jesus on the cross.
Is there nowhere Christian Creationists can be safe anymore in all of America? Is even the Mall of America a hostile environment? Must they undergo Darwinist eye-rolling and brow-lifting and heavy-sighing in their own movie theater? Is nothing at all sacred to these atheist evolutionary biology monsters?
PZ and Dawkins owe an apology to Ben Stein and to the producers of Expelled and above all to Christian Creationists in America. That's what. Thank God for that cop who was the only one brave enough to stand up for Christian Creationists and their America.
/sarcasm
Posted by: kwandongbrian | March 20, 2008 11:46 PM
I only read the first 20 or comments so I hope I am not repeating too many people.
In Ontario, Canada, the Provincial Police can moonlight in uniform for certain events. I apologise that i don't know all the details.
If the guard was in fact a police officer, he may well have been working entirely above board. Restricting someone's access to Expelled is funny but not criminal if the theatre is privately owned.
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 20, 2008 11:47 PM
#319 Danny;
Again, I am not certain this was a public movie. You do have a point about the slippery slope of discrimination, and I know that if it had been myself, I would have been fuming. If it had been myself and my family, I would have been fuming, and assured the guard I would not cause trouble (in that moment) much like Prof Myers.
Getting arrested by standing ground is not the only option in cases of discrimination. It does work, and is very effective in many instances, you are correct about that.
Litigation, getting press involved, and creating a possibly viral media story can also work to shame the people doing the discriminating enough that they will not do it again. Approaching a police officer and the manager of the theatre together in a calm manner could also work.
With how humorous this has been to all of us, perhaps Prof. Myers is also finding it funny in the moment and gathering his thoughts.
All of us here can suggest choices of action for PZ, and he can choose to listen or not. However, I'm not there at that mall, I don't think you are either, so it is hard to say whether there was good reason for PZ to blog instead of demand.
At the moment I feel we have enough facts to find it funny and be concerned about civil rights. Perhaps we should wait for a few more facts before deciding PZ is committing an act of cowardice (your comment #254)?
Posted by: DaveH | March 20, 2008 11:47 PM
This confirms it, god's an atheist.
Posted by: Demonic Gophers | March 20, 2008 11:48 PM
359: "So... am I the only one sitting here, hitting refresh every ~30 seconds... luving all the comments and waiting for an official Dawkins update?"
Nope.
Posted by: Berserk | March 20, 2008 11:48 PM
Dawkins is on Bill Maher tomorrow, hope he mentions this to the American public.
Posted by: Beth B. | March 20, 2008 11:48 PM
ERV @ 359: You're definitely not alone. I didn't need to get that homework done, anyway :-)
This post and the subsequent discussion has definitely made my week.
Posted by: MTran | March 20, 2008 11:48 PM
Danny said: "Even if technically 'a crime' it is certainly NOT an actual crime"
Anything that is "technically" a crime, is, in fact, a crime (even if it is later found to be unconstitutional, but that is not the case here). You seem to think that if something is malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, it cannot be criminal. You are wrong.
"he should have had the courage to stand his ground on what he believes and potentially been arrested."
So, what great moral or philosophical issue is at stake here? Really, what over-arching ethical principle should over-take a rational response?
"That would be a far better and greater show of conviction, in real terms, of what we stand for."
Who is "we"? Do you mean "you"? And what do you stand for, other than dipshit arrogance? If you ever find yourself arrested, for any reason, explain to your defense attorney that you are just "felony stupid" and wanted to uphold your right to a trial by your peers.
Sheesh, I went out of my way to antagonize authority in the 60s, and got beat by the cops for it. So it's not like I don't know how to stand up for my own convictions, but your statements convict you of brainlessness. I would not want you on my side of any argument.
Posted by: paul | March 20, 2008 11:49 PM
ERV- right there with you. *sigh* you just made me aware of my nerdiness. I think i'm gonna go for a little jog, then when I come back I'll have like 100 more comments to sift through instead of 3 every refresh lol.
Posted by: Dan | March 20, 2008 11:49 PM
It's so sad when all you have are rumors and lies.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | March 20, 2008 11:49 PM
Sastra;
I have no idea who you are but from where I sit, you did that entirely too well. It was a bit frightening.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
Wow, I think this thread might be in danger of bringing the SB servers down (of course, I just made it worse!).
Posted by: LionDancer | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
What a great story! I'll probably go see this "movie", but I think I'll sit on the back of the chair and look away from the screen.
PZ for president.
Posted by: Rob | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
An absolute classic!! Thanks for bringing some joy to the holiday weekend.
By the way, does this mean that in their eyes you are a bigger devil than Richard Dawkin's himself?
Posted by: dave | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
That is just hilarious, can't wait to read the full account of the movie from Dawkins perspective.
p.s. see PZ thats what you get for those devilish good looks, next time keep those horns under a hat and that tail safely kept away. :)
Posted by: Randy Owens | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
Too late, Stein & Co. already did that. It's in the projector. They do seem to like that projection, don't they, after all?Posted by: ERV | March 20, 2008 11:51 PM
PAUL DONT GO!!!
Kristine just posted a short account!!!!
I just went from 'LOL!!' to *PISSED* in 5 seconds.
Posted by: ema | March 20, 2008 11:51 PM
Right! This is so epic I say we start work on the obligatory commemorative statue/monument combo immediately.
Posted by: john | March 20, 2008 11:51 PM
PZ's quote from the past:
"
Oh, well. I have two warnings for the creationists.
One, I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That's going to be fun."
Ref: http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1559,Im-gonna-be-a-MOVIE-STAR,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula,page2
Posted by: Tom Zychowski | March 20, 2008 11:52 PM
I do indeed find that amusing.
I hope Richard makes his way to Winnipeg and visits one of our schools.
Take care.
Posted by: Orac | March 20, 2008 11:52 PM
Hilarious!
Here's hoping Richard Dawkins writes a review...
Posted by: Brachychiton | March 20, 2008 11:53 PM
I think we're seeing the IDiots' spin in Danny's posts.
Posted by: Lee Harrison | March 20, 2008 11:53 PM
DAC @ 357:
"Don't crow too loudly, PZ. Rumor has it Dawkins made an ass of himself after the screening. "Ass Prod" Mark Mathis gave Dawkins a little bit of rope, and Dawkins was quick to start winding it around his own neck. I think you'll get a bit of egg on your face too out of this, PZ."
Do you have a source for these rumours?
Posted by: Mus | March 20, 2008 11:53 PM
Oh man, this post made my day. That was AWESOME!
Posted by: Susan | March 20, 2008 11:53 PM
DANNY! Had PZ gotten himself arrested, he wouldn't have been able to make this marvelous post now, would he!
Posted by: Simon G. | March 20, 2008 11:53 PM
So PZ's the decoy atheist now?
Posted by: Jules | March 20, 2008 11:54 PM
Does DAC (#357) mean "Dumb-Acting Creationist"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 20, 2008 11:54 PM
Don't crow too loudly, PZ. Rumor has it Dawkins made an ass of himself after the screening. "Ass Prod" Mark Mathis gave Dawkins a little bit of rope, and Dawkins was quick to start winding it around his own neck. I think you'll get a bit of egg on your face too out of this, PZ.
This sounds like a the last gasp of a man about to throw himself off a cliff.
"You'll be sorry!"
I smell napalm.
Do you have more fear and desperation from the suicide squad arm of the xian death cult for us to feed on?
Posted by: Matt | March 20, 2008 11:54 PM
@ #332: I think it would have been ever better P.R. for him to stand his ground (not shove anyone etc. - so fucking shrill) and be arrested for his beliefs.
Stupid thinking at its finest. I'll bet you walk into traffic without looking just because you have the right-of-way, don't you?
It gains Dr. Myers nothing to be arrested in a situation where laughter is actually a far better weapon.
Posted by: Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer | March 20, 2008 11:55 PM
Blogged, and submitted to Fark as well. This may be... The Greatest Story Ever Told.
Posted by: Scott | March 20, 2008 11:55 PM
This is the best damn story I've heard all month. All fucking month!
The ID'ers are so utterly Keystone Kops.
Posted by: Martin | March 20, 2008 11:56 PM
John #356: It isn't so much discrimination as weapons-grade stupidity. Here's the deal.
Irony breaker #1: PZ is one of their interviewees, whose appearance they secured under false pretenses, and yet they refused to admit him to the film in which he himself appears, for the obvious reason that they know he'll get on his massive-trafficked blog and report every error, misrepresentation and falsehood in every frame, in encyclopedic detail.
Irony breaker #2: In the process of ejecting PZ, they somehow failed to notice that standing right next to him in line was perhaps the most famous scientist, atheist, and evolution advocate currently alive, who's wrapping up a promotional tour for a book that was a New York Times bestseller for over a year, with cumulative sales of over 1.5 million copies in English. This is reminiscent of the old joke about the actress who was so stupid about how to climb the ladder in Hollywood that she slept with the screenwriter.
Everything the IDiots did tonight raises the entire concept of stupidity to such previously undreamt heights (or depths, as the case may be), that treating it like it's some sort of act of discrimination and violation of civil rights to be taken so seriously that only legal recourse will suit, would be beyond overkill. There's no need to launch an attack on your enemy when they've already torpedoed their own submarine.
There are legitimate situations where discrimination and rights-trampling occur, that should be dealt with appropriately. This isn't one of them. This is like watching a really stupid person who's been handed a high explosive with a note saying "DO NOT PRESS THE RED BUTTON" saying to themselves, "Hmm, what's this red button do?"
Why get pissed off at this? How was PZ hurt? I wish somebody would do something this stupid to me!
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 20, 2008 11:56 PM
#331 has it nailed. Everyone wanting to pull the Rosa Parks card calm the hell down. The Expelled tools couldn't have screwed up worse. They managed to identify a *LESS* well-known detractor (no offense PZ), while letting a globally-known and outspoken detractor with several best-selling books and an on-going tour slip by.
It writes itself.
Make a scene and get arrested? Are you kidding me? And hand the story BACK to them? Someone in line for the flick would have a picture phone, and they'd run a picture of PZ getting hauled off. The local churches everywhere would be heard cheering for miles this Sunday morning.
As offensive as the Expelled conspirators are, this is a massively bad punch in the face they gave themselves. This isn't epic fail, this is Darwin Award material.
Posted by: MTran | March 20, 2008 11:56 PM
Does DAC (#357) mean "Dumb-Acting Creationist"?
I don't think it's an act...
Posted by: Kagehi | March 20, 2008 11:57 PM
Make that two. Just don't ask me to pronounce it out loud, presuming one could even do so without something like the double set of teeth also seen in the Alien movies, to make all the proper clicks. ;) lol
Still kind of laughing over this one. Tried to tell my mother what was going on, but the rest of my family either doesn't care (or in my father's case chocks it up to, "just what happens every generation", like nothing has ever progressed or changed since the start of recorded history...), or just doesn't get it. :(
Posted by: Marek Eby | March 20, 2008 11:59 PM
PZ, you're my hero. I mean for ever and ever!
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 20, 2008 11:59 PM
F5, F5, F5 ...
Okay, when comments hit 400, I'm going to bed.
But this is soooo good.
Posted by: Heather | March 20, 2008 11:59 PM
Yup, I submitted this to Fark as well about an hour ago, and it had already been submitted at that point. I, too, am hitting refresh every so often, just waiting to hear what happens when the movie ends and Dawkins et al exit the theatre...
Posted by: larry gassan | March 21, 2008 12:00 AM
Amazing! Never underestimate the power of a closed mind to find you in complete darkness!
Posted by: PalMD | March 21, 2008 12:00 AM
I just have to add my own "HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!111!one!"
Posted by: Brian W. | March 21, 2008 12:01 AM
LLOL (Literally, laughing out loud)
PZ should have told the security guard "BTW, i'm in the movie" as he was walking away.
Posted by: Jim C | March 21, 2008 12:01 AM
It's great to know that irony is still alive in this world!
Posted by: Hairy Doctor Professor | March 21, 2008 12:01 AM
So if, after this Great Moment in Creationism, I begin to refer to PZ as Mekt-Hakkikt, at least one other person will understand.
Gods rot the Personage. And his fluff.
Posted by: Lulu | March 21, 2008 12:01 AM
You've been front-paged at Digg. You're doomed.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 21, 2008 12:02 AM
The story just made the front page of Digg!
http://digg.com/
Posted by: Jackson | March 21, 2008 12:03 AM
Promoted to popular on digg!
Posted by: John | March 21, 2008 12:03 AM
The movie should be over by now...
They are all out drinking and celebrating the Evolutionist victory! PZ will probably have enough material to Blog for months about partying with Richard Dawkins til the Blue Laws were in effect!
Go PZ!
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 12:03 AM
Let me offer two reasons why police officers might have stopped PZ Myers and not Dawkins:
1. PZ Myers is a known member of the PT-mafia.
2. Richard Dawkins is not.
This is how it works in the real world:
Police officers are allowed to moonlight as security guards.
Respectable establishments have a right to decline entry to the likes of PZ Myers.
The question I have is this: How did you find out about the screening? I assume this is for clergy only. When was Dawkins ordained in the church of the NCSE?
Posted by: rrt | March 21, 2008 12:04 AM
It's been a long week, so I really needed this. Thanks PZ & RD. Of course, I think I laughed myself a hernia...
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 12:06 AM
"Respectable establishments have a right to decline entry to the likes of PZ Myers."
Oh, most definitely. He says mean things about people! And he has a BEARD!
Wankerrrrrs...
Posted by: Kiwi | March 21, 2008 12:06 AM
WTF country is this? I guess this comes as non surprise now that BushCo has shredded the Constitution. How sad.
Posted by: Sastra | March 21, 2008 12:06 AM
Kristine wrote:
It will be interesting to know what this refers to. Evidently, after the screening the producer called on Richard Dawkins in the audience to answer questions or something. And then laughed at him (?)
Posted by: Rev. Barky | March 21, 2008 12:07 AM
Interesting coincidence is that the first question Dawkins asked the smug producer was "why did you expel PZ from Expelled?
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 12:07 AM
From Kristine's account at least, it doesn't really sound like the Q&A session was particularly productive.
Given that when they control the venue, we could be cut off at any time, we need to be really good at presenting our points in ways that don't allow them their usual weasel tactics. It's very easy to come up with plausible sounding spin if a critic only gets one question, and the producers get all the last words. It's unfortunately not very easy to put them on the spot in such a situation, especially in front of a lazy, me-tooing audience.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:08 AM
1. PZ Myers is a known member of the PT-mafia.
whaddya know, I ask for more sounds of desperate mewling from IDiots, and I get Wallace dropping by to fulfill my request.
hey! The Secret works after all!
ah, the sweet smell of creationists on fire...
I do love a good BBQ
more plz?
remember, this is for posterity, Wallace.
Posted by: Randy Owens | March 21, 2008 12:08 AM
LOL, and now I'm imagining Dawkins in line with you: "These aren't the evolutionists you're looking for." "The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded."
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 12:10 AM
"How did you find out about the screening? I assume this is for clergy only. "
Uh, it was posted on the internet, WW. And you assume wrong as far as I can tell: this latest round of screenings seem to be a bit more open than previous ones, though obviously not open to potential critical thinking.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 21, 2008 12:11 AM
My $0.00: http://dererumnatura.us/archives/2008/03/flunked-expelle.html
Posted by: john | March 21, 2008 12:11 AM
I'm kinda tired, and even though a Fundie just stuck his head in the den-of-lions, I'm hitting the sack.
Ya'll have fun with Wallace-
[Insert - William Wallace ass-whooping Here]
Posted by: Rev. Barky | March 21, 2008 12:11 AM
Dawkins was extremely brave speaking up in the middle of a very unfriendly audience. Fortunately there were a few of us to support him but I can't imagine how he could have kept quiet after the the way they butchered his interview. The air was thick with smug.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | March 21, 2008 12:12 AM
"Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?"
Y...hahahaha...Ye....hahahahahaha...ye...hahahahahaha..ss...hahahahaha
Posted by: c | March 21, 2008 12:13 AM
Now Ben Stein has something in common with the Scientologists -- shadowy spies keeping tabs on a list of designated enemies.
...or the Nixon administration.
Posted by: Sastra | March 21, 2008 12:14 AM
"PT-Mafia?" What?
Posted by: ERV | March 21, 2008 12:14 AM
Genie is commenting over at digg!!
Okay, seriously, I has to go to sleep. Must sleep! AAAAAAARG!
Posted by: Gary Bohn | March 21, 2008 12:14 AM
@382
Do you have information that Dawkins is coming to Western Canada?
It would be interesting if he did.
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 21, 2008 12:15 AM
Someone should definitely start a list of blogs covering/commenting on this story. It's gonna be big.
I'd be interested in the ID spin on it too.
Posted by: WikipediaIsControlledByGodlessLiberals | March 21, 2008 12:15 AM
If you missed the film, it was already covered by NPR a few years ago. You can listen to it here.
Posted by: Lois Willick | March 21, 2008 12:16 AM
I don't get it. What movie called "Expelled". I never heard of it, and I cannot believe there were guards posted to stop people from going into a movie. This sounds dumb!
What am I supposed to be laughing at?
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 12:16 AM
Here's one of the RSVP pages. No "member of the clergy" checkbox I can see. It looks like they relied on active screening against a list of undesirables this time around rather than limiting it only to hand-picked folks.
Posted by: ExitB | March 21, 2008 12:16 AM
God help me! I can't stop laughing!
Posted by: Jeff | March 21, 2008 12:17 AM
This is too funny...but the sad part is that when I get to school tomorrow (I teach HS physics and chem) I won't be able to share this with my fellow biology teachers. They won't know who you, or Richard Dawkins, are and this is one of those things that you just can't explain to people. You either get it or you don't.
Still...funniest thing I've read all week.
Posted by: Jason | March 21, 2008 12:17 AM
Not much to say that hasn't already been said, but I live in Japan and I've been having a slow day today. I was very happy to read this. When I see ID proponents trip over themselves, it makes my day. Thank you...:)
Posted by: Ralph | March 21, 2008 12:18 AM
BWAHAHAHA How the hell did the police know who you were? Did they distribute PZ photographs? Did they put out an APB on PZ? This is outrageous!
Posted by: queg | March 21, 2008 12:18 AM
I saw Richard Dawkins just last night at UT in Austin, TX. Someone asked him about the movie, and he related that the producers lied to him about the tone, as well as the subject matter of the movie. He was pretty irate when discussing it. He basically said it's a big bag of bullshit and don't see it, even though he is in the movie.
Posted by: Thuraash | March 21, 2008 12:19 AM
*Reads post*
*Glances at copy of The Ancestor's Tale sitting around 3 inches from this computer*
*...*
http://www.hybridgraphite.co.uk/OIFY/roflcopter.gif
That was awesome! Congratulations, Professor. You win at irony.
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 12:19 AM
"Dawkins was extremely brave speaking up in the middle of a very unfriendly audience"
So what did he say exactly?
I still want to know exactly what he was saying in the "I'm hostile to a rival doctrine" quote: what the rest of the quote was.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 12:20 AM
Want to know what is funny? Well, not as amusing as tonight's big story but still, there are laughs to be had. A person who spends time pondering unreal things (Just visit his blog.) telling a bunch of materialists what is real.
Little Willy won't go home!
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | March 21, 2008 12:20 AM
#324:
Two.
Posted by: opusjones | March 21, 2008 12:20 AM
FAITH IS TRULY BLIND
Posted by: Nathan | March 21, 2008 12:20 AM
You've got to be kidding me.
Posted by: Matt | March 21, 2008 12:20 AM
@ #428: I'd be interested in the ID spin on it too.
I imagine it will involve Dr. Myers being there to cause trouble (that rabble-rouser!) and being lawfully and righteously removed from the premises. And Dawkins being held up to ridicule in the rigorously-controlled Q&A session afterwards.
Which was all part of their Master Plan!
You know, the usual bullshit. The real marvel is that the IDiots can walk and breathe at the same time.
Posted by: Iroc | March 21, 2008 12:21 AM
#1 post on Digg right now.
Posted by: BennyP | March 21, 2008 12:24 AM
Right on!
Please tell me you're going to sue the theater, producer and police department.
Posted by: G Felis | March 21, 2008 12:24 AM
@ Sastra (#425): "PT-mafia" presumably refers to Panda's Thumb, those infamous and scurrilous villains who gather together to criticize honest creationists like William Wallace and make the baby Jesus cry.
Posted by: Doug Brenner | March 21, 2008 12:25 AM
Lucky they didn't give you contradictory orders, knock you down from behind, tase you, and crush your eyeglasses beneath their jackboots. This is Minnesota, you know, and if you'd been trying to do something truly heinous, such as legally bike home from the airport, your luck might have been very different.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 12:25 AM
Why sue? The story is great enough.
Posted by: fyreflye | March 21, 2008 12:25 AM
This story has now shown up on Dawkins' own web site http://richarddawkins.net/ top right.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:25 AM
DAC (many posts ago) mentioned "egg on face".
Let me be the first to wager that the creobots will claim this whole thing was planned from the start.
-they let Dawkins in on purpose, and gave PZ the boot because they knew he would blog about it.
such crafty geniuses!
I'd believe it, if they didn't have a perfect track record of shooting themselves in the head.
still, I'd be willing to bet that's what the spin will be tomorrow.
Posted by: Danny | March 21, 2008 12:26 AM
Speedwell -
"@Danny: You don't understand. There were TWO wins here. The first win was how bad it made them look to throw out someone who appeared in that very film as an interviewee, as if (probably because) they didn't want him to see the mess they made of his interview and because they feared honest and pointed criticism. The second win was when they let in the very last person they wanted to let in, Richard Dawkins.
The third win will, I think, be when Skatje, a witness to both events, covers this."
'Made them look bad'? did it really? How? In any meaningful way? Will this be broadcast over international television, such as are the christians?
The Flying Trylobite -
"#319 Danny;
Again, I am not certain this was a public movie. You do have a point about the slippery slope of discrimination, and I know that if it had been myself, I would have been fuming. If it had been myself and my family, I would have been fuming, and assured the guard I would not cause trouble (in that moment) much like Prof Myers.
Getting arrested by standing ground is not the only option in cases of discrimination. It does work, and is very effective in many instances, you are correct about that.
Litigation, getting press involved, and creating a possibly viral media story can also work to shame the people doing the discriminating enough that they will not do it again. Approaching a police officer and the manager of the theatre together in a calm manner could also work.
With how humorous this has been to all of us, perhaps Prof. Myers is also finding it funny in the moment and gathering his thoughts.
All of us here can suggest choices of action for PZ, and he can choose to listen or not. However, I'm not there at that mall, I don't think you are either, so it is hard to say whether there was good reason for PZ to blog instead of demand.
At the moment I feel we have enough facts to find it funny and be concerned about civil rights. Perhaps we should wait for a few more facts before deciding PZ is committing an act of cowardice (your comment #254)? "
You have a point, certainly. I should not have called Dr. Myers a 'coward', perhaps too extreme a term. Or not. These people that we are offending, at least in my opinion, are not deserving of such respect that a topic in their movie should walk out, without question - while being molested for their *beliefs*. It's like arguing that christians should be excluded based on thier beliefs when shown 'A god Who Wasn't There'.
MTran -
"Danny said: "Even if technically 'a crime' it is certainly NOT an actual crime"
Anything that is "technically" a crime, is, in fact, a crime (even if it is later found to be unconstitutional, but that is not the case here). You seem to think that if something is malum prohibitum rather than malum in se, it cannot be criminal. You are wrong.
"he should have had the courage to stand his ground on what he believes and potentially been arrested."
So, what great moral or philosophical issue is at stake here? Really, what over-arching ethical principle should over-take a rational response?
"That would be a far better and greater show of conviction, in real terms, of what we stand for."
Who is "we"? Do you mean "you"? And what do you stand for, other than dipshit arrogance? If you ever find yourself arrested, for any reason, explain to your defense attorney that you are just "felony stupid" and wanted to uphold your right to a trial by your peers.
Sheesh, I went out of my way to antagonize authority in the 60s, and got beat by the cops for it. So it's not like I don't know how to stand up for my own convictions, but your statements convict you of brainlessness. I would not want you on my side of any argument."
"Anything that is "technically" a crime, is, in fact, a crime" If that were actually true, we would never have been able to found the United States of America. You went 'out of your way' to antagonize authority? How? why? So you got beaten for it, does that make it any less correct? Based on your statement, it is like you don't know how to stand up for own convictions. By the way, I served two tours in the Persian Gulf on the USS AMERICA in Desert Storm and the following patrols so as far as I'm concerned I have some license in discussing these matters. Thank you.
Susan (cutie!)
"DANNY! Had PZ gotten himself arrested, he wouldn't have been able to make this marvelous post now, would he!"
Sure he would, just a matter of a bit of time and effort.
Posted by: paul | March 21, 2008 12:26 AM
this is truly excellent. thanks for the best laugh of the day.
Posted by: waldteufel | March 21, 2008 12:28 AM
Unbelievable! The DI frauds couldn't find their collective asses with all their hands and a movie theater full of flashlights.
Incompetence and Stupidity, thy name is Discovery Institute.
Posted by: RBH | March 21, 2008 12:29 AM
Genie Scott commented in the Digg thread.
Posted by: Marla Shane McCain | March 21, 2008 12:31 AM
Is PZ also in the film like Dawkins? Is there a possibility that since Dawkins was tricked into being in this film, or for other reasons, he was allowed to enter while PZ was not? I mean, everybody (who wants to) knows Dawkins is in town to do the American Atheist Conference. His "team" of personalities was standing in line - another give-away. They were checking I.D. What did Dawkin's do when it came his turn?
I am skeptical about this being such a big oversight on their part. They must know that if they HAD booted someone like Dawkin's - then that certainly would become a big deal, unlike PZ who walked away.
I hope I'm just paranoid.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:32 AM
Is PZ also in the film like Dawkins?
exactly like Dawkins, in fact.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 12:32 AM
I have not watched the preview. I do have to admit that if PZ Myers is in the film, and the film was not restricted to members of the clergy, PZ should have been allowed to enter, *if* he registered here: http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/events/rsvp/202
Posted by: siddharth | March 21, 2008 12:33 AM
@ Danny: 'Made them look bad'? did it really? How? In any meaningful way? Will this be broadcast over international television, such as are the christians?
Lemme tell you this. Around 100 students in a city in India are ROLFing at the stupidity of the IDiots. And this news is spreading like fire. What an epic fail.
Posted by: shiftlessbum | March 21, 2008 12:34 AM
Holy crap! Am I glad I logged on tonight. I cannot wait to hear Dawkins on this. Way to go PZ!
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 12:34 AM
Folks, it's very unlikely that there was a crime here. Rented private spaces can discriminate, especially based on viewpoints. The story here is about hypocrisy, not illegality.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:35 AM
PZ should have been allowed to enter
why, how gracious of you.
LOL
c'mon, where's all that vitriol you save up for the "PT-Mafia"?
remember, the world is watching. It's your chance to shine as a representative of creobots everywhere!
Posted by: Robert Frazer | March 21, 2008 12:36 AM
Why is this thread in a "Creationism" category?
The author is barred from a cinema, but his British companion isn't recognised. This is natural enough, seeing as this is an American cinema in question, and I doubt that many Britons would recognise a given academic on the street either. Alternatively, they let Dawkins in because they know that he'll at least save his interminable bellyaching for his next book instead of wasting bandwidth with self-congratulatory blogs :-\
Assuming that it was an actual liveried policeman who expelled the article author, what this event raises is questions about the legality of that practice - but it doesn't say anything at all about Creationism or Atheism, except by vague association.
Posted by: Trent1492 | March 21, 2008 12:36 AM
Voltaire once wrote:
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
...and how.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:38 AM
Genie Scott points out what will be the NCSE response the the "expelled" trash:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 21, 2008 12:40 AM
@#457 I believe that PZ did rsvp under his own name with two family members and a guest.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:41 AM
Why is this thread in a "Creationism" category?
assuming you aren't completely oblivious, "Expelled" is a fictional account of how "Intelligent Design" (nothing but repackaged creationism) is being "repressed" and "expelled" from educational institutions.
It's all BS, of course, but it IS the latest gasp of the creationists as they continue to drown in all other venues.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 12:41 AM
Exactly right.
In that case, please do take a listen to NPR's unretracted Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom by Barbara Hagerty, while noting this NPR piece has not been redacted.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | March 21, 2008 12:41 AM
Congrats, PZ. By logging in at the Apple Store, you managed to beat Kristine, who told me earlier today that something big was in the works, by a good half hour. She has pics, though!
As I said on her site, this was both hilarious and historic. I hope I hope the dreaded Dr. D points out that he was interviewed under false pretenses. God, I wish I could be a fly on that wall right now. Please tell me some of this is on video.
(fan boyish) You guys rock.
Posted by: Sue Larries | March 21, 2008 12:42 AM
Matt claims "The real marvel is that the IDiots can walk and breathe at the same time."
I have met few Creationists, but those I have spent time with most certainly can NOT walk and breathe at the same time, but rather walk, then breathe, then walk again.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 12:43 AM
Exactly right.
In that case, please do take a listen to NPR's unretracted Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom by Barbara Hagerty, while noting this NPR piece has not been redacted.
Posted by: Slaughter | March 21, 2008 12:43 AM
It might have been funny for PZ to stand there like a 4-year-old and ask why about everything.
"Sir, you can't see the movie."
"Why?"
"Because this man says so."
"Why?"
"He makes the rules here."
"Why?"
And so on and so on.
Since it's at the 4-year-old level, even IDiots could understand it.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 12:43 AM
"Alternatively, they let Dawkins in because they know that he'll at least save his interminable bellyaching for his next book instead of wasting bandwidth with self-congratulatory blogs :-\"
OHH the BANDWIDTH! Won't someone PLEASE think of the bandwidth?!
"but it doesn't say anything at all about Creationism or Atheism, except by vague association."
I think it speaks volumes about what wankers they are, but YMMV.
Posted by: Ralph | March 21, 2008 12:44 AM
"...what this event raises is questions about the legality of that practice - but it doesn't say anything at all about Creationism or Atheism, except by vague association."
-This event certainly says something about the film's producers, viz. that they're cowards and for some strange reason, terrified of the harmless, cuddly man known as PZ Myers.
Posted by: Susie | March 21, 2008 12:44 AM
OMFG.
It has been a long time since I laughed that hard..... hahahaha that's classic!!!
Posted by: Alicia Morgan | March 21, 2008 12:44 AM
It's perfect, that's all - simply perfect in its symmetry.
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 12:44 AM
This might have been an excellent opportunity for civil disobedience. Just imagine the negative publicity from arresting someone conned into participating in their propaganda film. You could have then taken a cue from the disingenuous and played the role of martyr for all its worth.
Enlisting the police to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top. This is still the United States of America until they pry the Constitution and Bill of Rights from our cold dead fingers! I'm glad you can laugh about this, but for many of us, this is where we would draw the line, especially given the sacrifices that have been made for these rights.
Makes you kind of wonder if they will ever really release this in April in theaters (ignoring for a moment that some fundies will not go into a theater). They obviously don't want too much scrutiny until they have whipped the true believer into a frenzy of anger.
All of this just emphasizes that the individuals behind this film have been more influenced by Machiavelli than their professed master. Not that they are as smart as Machiavelli (evidenced by Dawkin's success).
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:45 AM
Exactly right.
glad to see you admitting your own hypocrisy, after only the slightest nudge.
while noting this NPR piece has not been redacted.
implying they have redacted others?
do tell!
Posted by: abeja | March 21, 2008 12:46 AM
Coming out of semi-lurkdom to say way to go P.Z.! Can't wait for the update.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | March 21, 2008 12:46 AM
Well Played! Well Played indeed. I will raise a pint of Guinness in your general direction(s) at first chance.
Posted by: Carl Hutter | March 21, 2008 12:46 AM
You sound like the coolest professor ever.
Posted by: Sue Larries | March 21, 2008 12:47 AM
BTW, this is a fine example of a general principle: Creationists play to win, especially when the game is Russian Roulette: Solitaire.
Posted by: Protobiochemist | March 21, 2008 12:48 AM
I will come out of lurking just to say this:
PZ: YOU WIN BEN STEIN'S MONEY!!!!!!!!
Funniest Blog Post EVER!
PBC.
Posted by: October Mermaid | March 21, 2008 12:48 AM
This shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. The producers of this movie are just, I mean, wow. They're stupid as hell. I feel embarassed for them. Heck, I feel embarassed for their families. Can you imagine being related to that sort of thing? Obviously someone took a piss in that gene pool.
Posted by: Matt | March 21, 2008 12:49 AM
@ #461: but it doesn't say anything at all about Creationism or Atheism, except by vague association.
Neither does your comment. But I'm glad you deigned to join us anyways, Bobby. Glad you came all this way (and wasted a little more precious bandwidth) to complain about a possibly-misused (but not really) label. Well done, sir.
Posted by: wtfwtf | March 21, 2008 12:50 AM
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-research-published-in-nature/
Have you seen this bullshit, btw?
Posted by: uknesvuinng | March 21, 2008 12:51 AM
What will the world do without irony meters now that they've all been overloaded?
Posted by: John Pieret | March 21, 2008 12:51 AM
I suppose you might as well have a look at this. It's a report of the incident by one of the Kool-Aid drinkers ... er, invited guests ... at the screening. According to this person, our mild-mannered professor was "hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in."
But he also thought:
... so judge his objectivity accordingly.
Posted by: Harmony | March 21, 2008 12:51 AM
PZ, TRY TO GO TO ANOTHER SCREENING IN A DISGUISE!!!
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | March 21, 2008 12:52 AM
I never ever have typed this on the web before but yes, literally:
LOL
Posted by: MTran | March 21, 2008 12:52 AM
Danny continues to delude himself into believing he can think cogently and says: "Anything that is "technically" a crime, is, in fact, a crime" If that were actually true, we would never have been able to found the United States of America.
WTF? The colonists who initiated and fought in the American Revolution were criminals under British law. They were traitors to the crown. The US was able to continue as a separate sovereign entity because it won the war, not because the actions leading to it were not criminal under British law. Have you heard about "hanging together or all hanging separately?"
Danny then tries to make sense, but cannot, saying: "Based on your statement, it is like you don't know how to stand up for own convictions."
Are you really an idiot or did you just have an idiot do your writing? You clearly don't understand what a "conviction" is and the difference between deliberately standing up for one's own moral convictions and insisting that others act like idiots in order to satisfy your own dimwitted world view.
Danny claims: "I served two tours in the Persian Gulf on the USS AMERICA in Desert Storm and the following patrols so as far as I'm concerned I have some license in discussing these matters."
Why do you think that? What sort of license? Serving as part of an authorized military in support of a governmental action is the opposite of challenging that same authority in the capacity of a mere individual citizen.
You may have been exposed to some brain damaging chemicals or head trauma during your tour of duty. Try to get some help before the damage becomes untreatable. Though given the way the VA "treats" veteran's physical and mental health problems, you may be better off in a private facility.
Finally Danny said: "Thank you."
Hey, don't mention it.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | March 21, 2008 12:53 AM
@321--
When reinventing history
It's best to keep the mystery;
If witnesses are noticed, it is best to take them out.
And although the act is telling,
You'd be better off expelling
Doctor Myers, if you see him, just because the man's a lout.
You see, PZ is a witness
To the movie's lack of fitness--
He is one selection pressure that would render it extinct.
So, with "WANTED!" posters printed,
To the cinema they sprinted,
And they passed around the mugshots just as soon as they were inked.
The policemen, at the ready,
Kept the ticket-takers steady
While they watched with eyes like eagles for the devil in disguise.
Yes! They spotted Dr. Myers,
Looking just like in their fliers!
The policemen, quite correctly, gave the doctor a surprise.
When they said he'd be arrested
If their actions he protested,
He complied at once (that should have raised suspicions, don't you think?)
Once his actions had been thwarted
And he left the line, escorted,
Looking back to his companion in the line, he gave a wink....
So this little movie trip is
Like a Trojan Eohippus
That delivered Richard Dawkins deep within the fortress walls
I can't wait to read the story
Of the battle and the glory--
Cos the trailer to this feature shows the hero's got some balls!
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/03/trojan-myers.html
Posted by: Danny | March 21, 2008 12:53 AM
Jeh -
"This might have been an excellent opportunity for civil disobedience. Just imagine the negative publicity from arresting someone conned into participating in their propaganda film. You could have then taken a cue from the disingenuous and played the role of martyr for all its worth.
Enlisting the police to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top. This is still the United States of America until they pry the Constitution and Bill of Rights from our cold dead fingers! I'm glad you can laugh about this, but for many of us, this is where we would draw the line, especially given the sacrifices that have been made for these rights.
Makes you kind of wonder if they will ever really release this in April in theaters (ignoring for a moment that some fundies will not go into a theater). They obviously don't want too much scrutiny until they have whipped the true believer into a frenzy of anger.
All of this just emphasizes that the individuals behind this film have been more influenced by Machiavelli than their professed master. Not that they are as smart as Machiavelli (evidenced by Dawkin's success)."
Exactly my point. Thank you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:53 AM
hey, wallace-
just for you, I give you the real skinny on whether this was a "private" screening or not, from someone who was there:
Kristine:
damn, you guys never fail at an opportunity to shoot yourselves in the head.
btw, since Scott's link to the pictures doesn't seem to work, here it is again:
http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-from-expelled.html
Posted by: aiabx | March 21, 2008 12:53 AM
Oh-my-lack-of-god!
Absolutely amazing!
Posted by: Tom Farrell | March 21, 2008 12:55 AM
So, some thoughts.
You should contact the theater - politely, and from a distance - to ask *why* you were refused entry and ordered off the premises. (By letter is best, because it would lead them to reply in writing.) If the answer is something like "we just don't like your hairdo", that's the end of it. If however the answer is because you're a famous athiest, if they were selling tickets to the showing, then you have grounds for a civil rights complaint against the theater for discrimination on the basis of religion; I'm pretty certain it would be illegal in all 50 states to refuse to serve you to a showing of a movie for which tickets are being sold to the public on the basis of your religion (or lack thereof). And it would make them look REALLY bad to be "discriminating on the basis of religion".
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 12:55 AM
Enlisting the police to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top.
we're still not clear that actual, on duty, police were involved.
that caveat said, I agree 100%
Posted by: Gary Bohn | March 21, 2008 12:56 AM
Ferrous, you've never ROTFLMAO or LOL at t.o.?
Wow.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 21, 2008 12:57 AM
Will someone please "expel" Danny and the other concern trolls? They're undermining perfect hilarity with their machosturbation.
Posted about here and I must say this was a lovely anniversary present. :3
Posted by: Calladus | March 21, 2008 12:59 AM
I can't wait to hear how the fundies spin this to not be their fault. Oh my!
Oh, and I nominate cuttlefish to write any non-holy Atheist texts!
Posted by: Bachalon | March 21, 2008 1:00 AM
Cuttlefish, that was magnificent; I had a smile the whole time while reading that to one of my room mates.
Posted by: Zeno | March 21, 2008 1:00 AM
I can't recall. Has any previous Pharyngula post hit the 500 mark in comments before? Certainly not in one short evening.
We have been virtually present at a historic event.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:00 AM
... so judge his objectivity accordingly.
how do we judge:
This is also not a movie that bashes Evolutional Theory
other than what it is?
Posted by: Dr. Drang | March 21, 2008 1:00 AM
Most evil-doers get put on a watch list. PZ gets put on a do not watch list.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:01 AM
I can't recall. Has any previous Pharyngula post hit the 500 mark in comments before? Certainly not in one short evening.
oh yes, many times.
not this fast, maybe.
Posted by: October Mermaid | March 21, 2008 1:02 AM
#489 We don't say this nearly enough, but.. but.. we love you, Cuttlefish. We honestly love you.
Posted by: Hemant Mehta | March 21, 2008 1:02 AM
As hilarious as this story is, I think it just goes to show the power that bloggers can have, even over a 1,000,000+ copy bestselling author!
Posted by: Chris | March 21, 2008 1:03 AM
That is hilarious and amazing. I keep reading this post over and over to keep appreciating how great that is.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | March 21, 2008 1:04 AM
btw, since Scott's link to the pictures doesn't seem to work, here it is again:
That's what I like about this place. Quality control. Thanks, Icthyic!
Posted by: Heather | March 21, 2008 1:04 AM
Cuttlefish, that is beautiful! Trojan Eohippus - brilliant!
Posted by: Scifi Saint | March 21, 2008 1:05 AM
H-O-L-Y S-H-I-T! That's funny. Great read.
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 1:07 AM
Re: Enlisting the police to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top.
--we're still not clear that actual, on duty, police were involved.
Granted, maybe it was one of those fake "policeman," sometimes hard to tell with the costumes the security people wear.
I'll rephrase my statement: "Enlisting some thug to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top."
I'm sure they would have no trouble getting one of their own to play this role. Some of them would have willingly taken PZ outside and given him a wicked beating as well, if they thought they could get away with it.
Posted by: Sue Larries | March 21, 2008 1:07 AM
Re: #485
Note that his review allows no comments. Cowardly fuckwit.
In other news, water is wet to humans in ordinary baths.
Posted by: M | March 21, 2008 1:08 AM
Wow. Stupid doesn't even begin to describe these people.
Posted by: Axel Muller | March 21, 2008 1:08 AM
Quite funny indeed!
510 comments, that doesn't happen that often either,
A.
Posted by: DaveX | March 21, 2008 1:10 AM
Well played, PZ!!
Posted by: ExitB | March 21, 2008 1:11 AM
I sent a note and link to Al Franken's Minnesota senate campaign email. I hope he gets it soon. He interviewed Prof. Dawkins once on his Air America radio show. I'd like to hear a comment from him. Hmmm... maybe I should send it to Sen. Coleman too just to be fair.
Posted by: Tom | March 21, 2008 1:11 AM
This is the funniest thing I've seen all day. They are so incredibly stupid to be even trying to control who sees this junk. Assuming it is junk, no one until tonight with any credibility has seen it...
:-))) and they let RD walk right in! Ha ha ha ha! ( Thought I was done giggling... I guess not!)
Posted by: SonOfLiberty | March 21, 2008 1:12 AM
Proof #947 that Theists are idiots:
They expel PZ Myers at the Expelled premiere, yet let Richard Dawkins slide right on by.
No wonder why they think the world is 6000 years old :)
Posted by: Corey | March 21, 2008 1:13 AM
Thanks for sharing that ... it's so absurd and hilarious that it makes me dizzy.
With all due respect, that's like politely kicking a nun out of an anti-catholic movie showing BUT LETTING THE POPE IN!
I hope Richard enjoyed the movie. Or at least the popcorn.
Posted by: Dr Benway | March 21, 2008 1:13 AM
O hai!
PZ n Dawkins can haz cookies uf teh Ceiling Cat, who NO WANTS bad moovie.
kthxbai!
Posted by: MikeM | March 21, 2008 1:13 AM
To #503, I would add.
We're not trying to make you feel uncomfortable.
We're not trying to make you anything at all.
But these feeling doesn't come along every day.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 21, 2008 1:13 AM
Time for Ben Stein to hit that blackboard again:
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
I will not expel PZ from Expelled.
Posted by: Sue Larries | March 21, 2008 1:14 AM
Dear M (#511),
I disagree, since I believe "stupid" IS where one should "begin to describe these people" although I would stop there for only a small, misinformed - big-ass lied to, actually - fraction of them.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:15 AM
I'm sure they would have no trouble getting one of their own to play this role. Some of them would have willingly taken PZ outside and given him a wicked beating as well, if they thought they could get away with it.
ahh, memories.
:p
Posted by: zer0 | March 21, 2008 1:16 AM
Way to go PZ! Way to have a more recognizable face than one of the "horsemen"!
Posted by: Chris | March 21, 2008 1:17 AM
I was searching to see if Richard Dawkins had posted any sort of reply yet, and I stumbled upon an account by one of the attendees of that screening (http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/richard-dawkins-crashes-the-party-at-a-screening-of-expelled/). While he admits that "[Expelled] is the Best Documentary of 2008," he accounts:
"I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins' academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn't, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film's producers to be found, and the man certainly didn't identify himself."
Is this true? Still, kudos to you, Dr. Myers.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:20 AM
Is this true?
would you take a serious the word of someone who called 'expelled' the "best documentary of 2008"?
well?
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | March 21, 2008 1:20 AM
@524
It's not what PZ himself said. And if he didn't have a ticket, how'd his family get in?
Posted by: dave | March 21, 2008 1:20 AM
so, i looked up "irony" in the OED, and found a link to this blog post.
Posted by: Danny | March 21, 2008 1:20 AM
********************************************
MTran -
Danny continues to delude himself into believing he can think cogently and says: "Anything that is "technically" a crime, is, in fact, a crime" If that were actually true, we would never have been able to found the United States of America.
WTF? The colonists who initiated and fought in the American Revolution were criminals under British law. They were traitors to the crown. The US was able to continue as a separate sovereign entity because it won the war, not because the actions leading to it were not criminal under British law. Have you heard about "hanging together or all hanging separately?"
Danny then tries to make sense, but cannot, saying: "Based on your statement, it is like you don't know how to stand up for own convictions."
Are you really an idiot or did you just have an idiot do your writing? You clearly don't understand what a "conviction" is and the difference between deliberately standing up for one's own moral convictions and insisting that others act like idiots in order to satisfy your own dimwitted world view.
Danny claims: "I served two tours in the Persian Gulf on the USS AMERICA in Desert Storm and the following patrols so as far as I'm concerned I have some license in discussing these matters."
Why do you think that? What sort of license? Serving as part of an authorized military in support of a governmental action is the opposite of challenging that same authority in the capacity of a mere individual citizen.
You may have been exposed to some brain damaging chemicals or head trauma during your tour of duty. Try to get some help before the damage becomes untreatable. Though given the way the VA "treats" veteran's physical and mental health problems, you may be better off in a private facility.
Finally Danny said: "Thank you."
Hey, don't mention it.
***********
"WTF? The colonists who initiated and fought in the American Revolution were criminals under British law. They were traitors to the crown. The US was able to continue as a separate sovereign entity because it won the war, not because the actions leading to it were not criminal under British law."
Well then, I suppose they shouldn't have broken the law - is that what you are suggesting? Perhaps the 'traitors to the crown' should NOT have stood up for their convictions, or so it seems to you. You really are out of your tree.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 21, 2008 1:21 AM
The only people that PZ could have been bothering in that line were his friends and family. The UMN-TC student didn't think that PZ may have been in a group and interpreted the cops removal of him as evidence that PZ was disruptive. The removal of PZ is what disrupted his friends and family, not his presence.
Posted by: Bad | March 21, 2008 1:22 AM
How could that be accurate if the movie's own RSVP page does not mention anything about tickets, and in fact, apparently, the email you get when you RSVP says that tickets are not required? In other words, the claim about not having a ticket is bogus.
I do find it an amusing image that PZ was supposedly "hustling." What, was he trying to pawn off zebrafish on unsuspecting theatergoers to make a quick buck? Was he dressed up in a purple zoot suit with dark sunglasses?
Posted by: Drinker | March 21, 2008 1:22 AM
I'm dying for more news.
PZ wouldn't leave us hanging for hours like this, would he?
Posted by: articulett | March 21, 2008 1:24 AM
Gosh, is this more fun than Haggard's Gay Meth Scandal or what??
What a glorious day for smart people every where.
If only PZ would have gotten arrested... documentation or something that he was "forbidden" from seeing the movie...
Don't worry, PZ, I'm sure a bootleg copy will find you.
Posted by: GrondramB | March 21, 2008 1:24 AM
There's a limit to how many faces they could have asked an off duty cop to memorize - so its worth asking why do this. They've got to be a little irony impaired in the first place to stop anyone from reviewing a movie that is supposedly about suppressing free expression.
I think Elmo Zoneball of Darwin Central got it right
So PZ, you were either brilliant or lucky or both to bring such good backup.
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 21, 2008 1:24 AM
#496 Azkyroth;
I don't know about that. I totally disagree with Danny on the point of Myers being a coward; I know it would have taken me a lot of restraint to stop from displaying frustration at the guard, so I think Myers was being calm, rational and yes, somewhat brave in a sense to walk away and report on this.
But I don't think Danny is wrong to post his opinion on PZ's behaviour. Or at any rate, he is not so wrong he should be banned. His view seems to be at the extreme end of defending civil liberties using only the avenue of defiance when there were other options.
Now, maybe being banned for spelling "trilobite" incorrectly (#451, spelled "trylobite")is something that should be discussed...
Posted by: Damian | March 21, 2008 1:25 AM
From the link that John Pieret provided. This seems to be how they are going to spin it:
Evidently, even the trained monkeys know how to lie through their teeth.
Posted by: Dr. J | March 21, 2008 1:27 AM
"Is this true?
would you take a serious the word of someone who called 'expelled' the "best documentary of 2008"?"
It would certainly be so unlike creationists, I mean Intelligent design proponent to lie or generally be dishonest.
Funniest thing I've read in a long time - I'm really looking forward to some reviews of the "movie" from the attendees.
Posted by: Leigh | March 21, 2008 1:28 AM
I hope to God that PZ, his lovely Trophy Wife, and Professor Dawkins are enjoying a refreshing adult beverage right now, while Skatje has a nice fruit juice and prepares a post detailing the victory.
Days this delicious come but seldom and should be celebrated.
PS Cuttlefish, you have outdone yourself!
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 1:29 AM
Considering that identification was required, and considering that Richard Dawkins was admitted, one wonders if PZ Myers did something to get Expelled as an NCSE architected publicity stunt.
Clever!
But the film is still coming out, oh no.
Posted by: Alexandra | March 21, 2008 1:30 AM
Hmm... spend Friday night posting to the blog or hanging out with Dawkins? I know what I'd be doing.Posted by: Stanton | March 21, 2008 1:31 AM
I don't know what I should feel about this.
On the one hand, the colossal hypocrisy of the producers of Expelled now borders on lethally stupid, given as how they have made a big song and dance number out of how Intelligent Design proponents are allegedly unfairly barred from mainstream science, but, have also been caught giving written instructions to their trained flunkeys to bar one of their allegedly disgruntled interviewees from watching a screening.
On the other hand, I'm unsure whether I feel apathetic about their colossal pathetic-ness, or whether I am in so much shock to be bordering on numb.
Posted by: jimbo92107 | March 21, 2008 1:32 AM
Too bad Dawkins didn't do the obvious thing, which would be to tell the officer, "This one is okay, he's with me."
Officer: "And you are..."
"Reverend Dawkins."
Jedi mind tricks work on the weak minded.
Posted by: Jing-reed | March 21, 2008 1:32 AM
Thanks PZ, you just made my day!
Already Friday here in Thailand, and you did indeed make it a 'good Friday' with this wondrous tale. Can hardly wait for Prof. Dawkin's reaction.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:32 AM
Gosh, is this more fun than Haggard's Gay Meth Scandal or what??
toss up.
I mean, Haggard was the leader of the largest evangelical community in the US. that whole debacle was pretty sweet.
Expelled is just a lame-ass mockumentary.
still, the irony is just so perfect here, it makes it a toss up in my mind.
I think the mileage that will be gained from this for good science education will be far more valuable than Haggard's hypocrisy ever will be, though.
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 1:34 AM
But the film is still coming out, oh no.
But when? The film is still currently "in the closet?" It should be honest about its Christian orientation.
Posted by: Brian Tristam Williams | March 21, 2008 1:35 AM
Well. That makes me angry. I would have asked them how much it would cost, per chance, if they had to replace all of their windows.
But, you know, maybe it was Richard Dawkins they intended to evict, but had trouble telling left from right or something.
Posted by: Caroline | March 21, 2008 1:35 AM
OMFSM!! I don't really have anything to add to the discussion, but when I scrolled down and read "Richard Dawkins"...Hahahahaha! Simply classic.
Posted by: David Denning | March 21, 2008 1:39 AM
I can't wait to read the story
Of the battle and the glory--
Hooray for the Myers/Dawkins advanced infiltration team. May we all use this fine example to inspire our own infiltration and confrontation of the IDiot-inspired showings.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 1:40 AM
Then, later...
Changing your tune? Glad I could help.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 21, 2008 1:40 AM
The original meaning of "sabot", iirc, is a wooden shoe worn by peasants in the general area of northern France and the Netherlands up until the early industrial age.
One method of expressing factory labor dissatisfaction in that era was to toss a shoe into the gears of the biggest machinery accessible: hence the term "sabotage".
Tonight Myers was not just a discarded cartridge shell: the more appropriate metaphor would be the modern saboteur's preferred instrument, the monkey wrench.
Posted by: Deborah | March 21, 2008 1:41 AM
That allegedly unbiased review of the movie, posted on on Looking Closer?
It's got a spoiler alert at the end, with some text that you have to highlight.
Here's the "spoiler" text:
And the reviewer can't see how this contradicts his earlier claims about this movie not being about bashing evolution?
Amazing.
Posted by: The Flying Trilobite | March 21, 2008 1:42 AM
It's weird. I've only been blogging online and relatively active making comments twice that long, and I've never felt more like there was an online festival or celebration than this one. It's too good.
It's like an unforeseen comet streaking by. Fun times everyone, thanks from this atheistic-gothy-paleonerd-oil painter.
Posted by: Danny | March 21, 2008 1:44 AM
"How could that be accurate if the movie's own RSVP page does not mention anything about tickets, and in fact, apparently, the email you get when you RSVP says that tickets are not required? In other words, the claim about not having a ticket is bogus.
I do find it an amusing image that PZ was supposedly "hustling." What, was he trying to pawn off zebrafish on unsuspecting theatergoers to make a quick buck? Was he dressed up in a purple zoot suit with dark sunglasses?"
Well, but... there WAS NO REASON he could not attend. Some fools here act as if I am some kind of freak but in reality - yeah, reality! he should have stood his ground and dealt it.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 21, 2008 1:44 AM
"Considering that identification was required, and considering that Richard Dawkins was admitted, one wonders if PZ Myers did something to get Expelled as an NCSE architected publicity stunt."
Or perhaps, knowing that PZ lived nearby, they circulated a picture among the guards since they had a reasonable expectation that he might show up, while the same was not necessarily true of Richard Dawkins.
William loses again.
Posted by: Dale Husband | March 21, 2008 1:46 AM
That's one of the funniest blogs I've ever read!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:46 AM
not at all, the problem is that you can't read.
I wasn't clear then if these were on duty police officers, and I'm still not. Nobody else is either.
If they were on duty, then the question has to be asked if the city supports its personnel being used in this fashion.
It's a perfectly legitimate question.
Yeah, I know you wouldn't know what "legitimate" means if it bit you on the ass, but try to pretend I'm not actually responding to you.
are you ready to admit you were wrong about PZ needing a ticket to get in yet, given that the producers sent out public requests for this screening, as documented by Kristine?
I know you'll never admit to being the idiot you are, but seriously, unless you want to become as big a joke as the subject of the thread itself, you should really learn when to quit while you're behind.
Posted by: MikeM | March 21, 2008 1:47 AM
Q: WWBSD?
A: See above.
The more I think about this, the more I realize this will be impossible to keep out of the newspaper. As many have pointed out, you were in the movie. Just, wow. They accuse us of censorship? (Yes, I include me in "us" here, because I'm with you all the way.) How about, "You can't come to see the movie we tricked you into being in?". They're not ashamed of this?
I am laughing, and calling them "stupid" is barely a starting point. How about, "Actionable", "Lame", "Unreasonable"? I really want this to be in the news.
What Would Ben Stein Do? We now have an answer. I can't wait to see the reponse when he figured out he then let Dawkins in. That is sweet.
Posted by: MTran | March 21, 2008 1:47 AM
Danny, apparently imbibing of his own woo says, regarding the American Revolution: " Well then, I suppose they shouldn't have broken the law - is that what you are suggesting? Perhaps the 'traitors to the crown' should NOT have stood up for their convictions, or so it seems to you. You really are out of your tree.
Danny, you need to go to a reading comprehension course, followed by a rigorous course in reasoning skills and critical thinking.
I haven't suggested anything that any literate, rational person could interpret as saying that the American colonists "should not have broken the law."
You were the fool who said that the US could not have been formed if the acts of the rebelling American colonists were criminal acts. I pointed out to you that their acts were, in fact, criminal under British law. The colonists knew full well that they would likely be hanged for treason if they failed in their rebellion. They succeeded.
Rebels who lose are traitors. Rebels who win are founding heros.
No one is required to meet your expectations of dumbassed ideological purity through some sort of legal "martyrdom" in the form of precipitating an arrest for a trivial matter.
Besides, martyrdom is a theistic value, so encouraging an atheist to satisfy some religious aspiration is pretty counterproductive.
And... I'm glad you are no longer in the active service, I do not want arrogant fools like yourself wielding weapons.
Posted by: tsig | March 21, 2008 1:48 AM
You should sue.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 1:48 AM
Nobody thinks you're a freak, Danny. Now wash your flippers and get some sleep.
Posted by: Autumn | March 21, 2008 1:49 AM
I know that I'm late to the discussion, but the ideas that P-Zed would have any grounds to sue, or that he should have protested his exclusion, are ludicrous and juvenile. The proprietor of any establishment is well within his or her rights to call the police to remove a person that they just don't like. You do not have any right to partake of a public performance simply because you are a member of the public. Many are the times that I have called the police to remove an individual who had commited no crime, but whose presence annoyed me. It is perfectly legal to expel someone from your property for no reason other than "I don't want (or have been told not to want) to have that person here."
That said, the topic at hand is freaking hilarious.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 1:52 AM
Little Willy, no one is trying to stop the film from being released. By tomorrow night, there will be at least a couple of reviews ripping up this film. Most of us will be laughing. We are laughing now.
When the film comes out, it will have a short run in the theaters and within the month, will be available on DVD to church groups. But here is some good news for you Little Willy, you can package Expelled with your NPR report. Sadly for you, we will still dismiss you. Have fun.
Posted by: Bob O'H | March 21, 2008 1:53 AM
The cat in wondering why I'm laughing so hard.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:53 AM
Amazing.
You see it enough times, it just begins to numb you. There are a LOT of complete morons in this country.
"William Wallace" is in fact, representin' in this very thread.
oh, the irony.
It's just too much; I can't even manage to squeeze yet more irony out of his usage of the handle "William Wallace".
time for beer.
Posted by: Joshua Fisher | March 21, 2008 1:54 AM
Next stop: Dawkins and Myers attend a London screening. You can each dress as the other. That would require a shave and some colored contact lenses, PZ. Fortunately, though, no trips to the tanning booth.
Great story. Cried tears--both kinds.
Posted by: Terry Karney | March 21, 2008 1:55 AM
Too damned funny. I was laughing, hooting, and generally confusing the other people in the room.
Posted by: James Sager | March 21, 2008 1:55 AM
Not all Creationists agree to how things came about. In my theory, the only thing that I disagree with science is that birds came on the scene before land creatures.
I believe and I'm backed up scripturally that the days of Creation are not 24 hour periods, but undefined lengths of time that could be hundreds of million or billions of years in length. I feel that Evolution is real and that death was in the world before Adam's sin.
I didn't discuss the issue in full because there isn't space for it here. If you think you have an issue or question with this reconciliation between Creationism and Science, feel free to email me: James_Sager_PA@yahoo.com
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 21, 2008 1:55 AM
Considering that identification was required, and considering that Richard Dawkins was admitted, one wonders if PZ Myers did something to get Expelled as an NCSE architected publicity stunt.
Hmmm. PZ Myers does "something" to get himself expelled while accompanying his family and Richard Dawkins
or...
the Expelled gang are clueless wankers.
I know where I'd put my money.
BTW William Wallace, what "something" do you think Dr. Myers did?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 1:56 AM
it will have a short run in the theaters and within the month, will be available on DVD to church groups.
save those church groups some money; post the inevitable torrent liberally.
seriously, if this flick makes no money, we won't see its like again soon.
Time for the torrentsphere to contribute something positive!
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 1:57 AM
The proprietor of any establishment is well within his or her rights to call the police to remove a person that they just don't like.
Oh, I understand now. If a business owner just does not like some person because of their race, he can just call the police to evict them.
Wow, it's like the last 40 years never happened.
Many are the times that I have called the police to remove an individual who had commited no crime, but whose presence annoyed me.
And then did this for you, Sparky? Would they do this for you if their presence simply made you feel sad?
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 21, 2008 1:59 AM
Stuart Blessman, the student at UM who made that claim at the lookingcloser blog, is a liar.
A shameful liar and a disgrace to the university.
No, I was not bothering anyone. I went forward and got copies of the form we had to sign to get in, brought them back to my group, and the people in front of us asked me if they could have some, too. That was my only interaction with other people in line.
Nobody had a ticket. You reserved a seat online, and they checked your name off their list at the front of the line.
I was not trying to sneak in. I reserved my seats under my own name.
I was called aside by a security guard, who asked if my name was PZ Myers, and who said that the producer had specifically asked that I be removed.
We do have some idiots who get enrolled at this university. I like to think that they're a minority, but I'm rather surprised that someone so ethically challenged is a student here.
Posted by: MJ | March 21, 2008 1:59 AM
Perhaps by expelling PZ, they are creating the premise for their next movie, Expelled 2: Expelled from 'Expelled'. They will interview themselves under the guise of a completely different documentary ploy, blatantly distort and quotemine their own interviews and expel Ben Stein - making way for Expelled 3...
Posted by: andante | March 21, 2008 2:00 AM
Best laugh I've had in ages. I do believe I must have finally reached the end of the internet.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:01 AM
Many are the times that I have called the police to remove an individual who had commited no crime, but whose presence annoyed me.
you mean they were loitering? If so, that's legit.
do you have on duty cops hanging around outside your store to prevent the entrance of undesirables?
that's not legit.
Posted by: Danny | March 21, 2008 2:02 AM
"Danny, apparently imbibing of his own woo says, regarding the American Revolution: " Well then, I suppose they shouldn't have broken the law - is that what you are suggesting? Perhaps the 'traitors to the crown' should NOT have stood up for their convictions, or so it seems to you. You really are out of your tree.
Danny, you need to go to a reading comprehension course, followed by a rigorous course in reasoning skills and critical thinking.
I haven't suggested anything that any literate, rational person could interpret as saying that the American colonists "should not have broken the law."
You were the fool who said that the US could not have been formed if the acts of the rebelling American colonists were criminal acts. I pointed out to you that their acts were, in fact, criminal under British law. The colonists knew full well that they would likely be hanged for treason if they failed in their rebellion. They succeeded.
Rebels who lose are traitors. Rebels who win are founding heros.
No one is required to meet your expectations of dumbassed ideological purity through some sort of legal "martyrdom" in the form of precipitating an arrest for a trivial matter.
Besides, martyrdom is a theistic value, so encouraging an atheist to satisfy some religious aspiration is pretty counterproductive.
And... I'm glad you are no longer in the active service, I do not want arrogant fools like yourself wielding weapons."
I understand and appreciate your point of view. I wish all the best to you and ours. Good luck.
Danny
Posted by: Jackson | March 21, 2008 2:03 AM
What a way to waste an evening, reading comments on Pharyngula. This whole event was truly epic.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 2:04 AM
...son of a bitch, it worked!
Posted by: Jason Spaceman | March 21, 2008 2:05 AM
Dawkins Crashes 'Expelled' Party
Mark Moring
Noted Darwinist shows up uninvited at private screening of Intelligent Design documentary.
Expelled, a new documentary that argues the case for Intelligent Design from a Judeo-Christian perspective, has been in the headlines lately, prior to its April 18 theatrical release.
The film, hosted and narrated by Ben Stein, has been screened to invitation-only audiences at churches and for various Christian groups. But several critics have worked their way in to some of the screenings, most notably Roger Moore of The Orlando Sentinel, who recently trashed the movie in his blog.
A critic of another kind "crashed" a screening in Minnesota on Thursday night--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and arguably the most outspoken critic of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Dawkins himself appears in the documentary--but claims he was duped into believing it was going to be an objective account of Darwinism vs. ID.
Jeffrey Overstreet, a film critic for CT Movies, broke the news on his own blog Thursday night after receiving an e-mail from a college student who was at the screening.
Stuart Blessman, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities student, told Overstreet in the e-mail that Dawkins' appearance "was quite a surprise" to both the audience and associate producer Mark Mathis, who fielded questions afterward.
Posted by: Drinker | March 21, 2008 2:05 AM
Some schools have an honor code that would Expell!! the dishonorable Mr. Blessman.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 2:07 AM
"Clever"
Wallace has exceeded the self-parody threshold.
No wonder the lights dimmed for moment.
Ok. Back to reality.
PZ unquestionably did the right thing by declining to make a scene. Doing so would have played right into their greasy little atheist-smearing hands. I also believe that taking any sort of legal action would be not only fruitless, but more importantly, a missed opportunity to take the high road.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:09 AM
Would they do this for you if their presence simply made you feel sad?
no, then it's time to call Homeland Security.
:p
Posted by: FanO'theBUCKS | March 21, 2008 2:10 AM
Nice work, Doctor.
Posted by: Captian | March 21, 2008 2:10 AM
Maybe you can get on Leno or Letterman with this story (or at least Conan O'Brien).
Posted by: Frak | March 21, 2008 2:11 AM
photos or it didn't happen.
Posted by: Scote | March 21, 2008 2:11 AM
Jeh, what the Expelled producers did was a Hilarious case of clueless and public hypocrisy but it was not illegal in the way you are thinking. Trying to make that point is the wrong one because business are free to discriminate against individuals as long as it is not on the basis of being a member of a "protected" class, such as gender, race, national origin or religion. The producers did not discriminate against PZ based on religion but on the fact that he is an outspoken critic who shines the spotlight of fact-based reason on their alternative reality-based propaganda movie, so it isn't religious discrimination. The movie was a private screening--since, like vampires, Expelled producers are harmed by the light of day.
The correct point about the expulsion is the one PZ is making, which is the parody-proof level of hypocrisy, hubris and Keystone Kops cluelessness exhibited by the Producers in their efforts to save their film from being seen by anyone but an equally clueless audience.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:12 AM
...son of a bitch, it worked!
were you using "The Secret"?
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 2:14 AM
Calgon?
Posted by: Jim Howard | March 21, 2008 2:14 AM
Damn, but I wish I could stay awake for the denouement of this little saga. I guess I'll have to wait until morning. Great job, PZ!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:14 AM
photos or it didn't happen.
http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-from-expelled.html
there ya go; close as you're gonna get, anyway.
Posted by: Alex McQuown | March 21, 2008 2:16 AM
You were the victim of a crime, PZ. To quote the relevant law:
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 2000a
§ 2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
...
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
...
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and ...blah blah you get the point. The officer that told you to leave had no legal means to do so.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:17 AM
The producers did not discriminate against PZ based on religion but on the fact that he is an outspoken critic who shines the spotlight of fact-based reason on their alternative reality-based propaganda movie, so it isn't religious discrimination.
you must have missed the tens of thousands of times these folks have called atheism and "darwinism" religions.
so many and so consistently, that one could actually make the argument this WAS religious discrimination, using their own definitions.
Posted by: Koen | March 21, 2008 2:18 AM
The police listening to a loony church sect. Only in America or soon coming to a theatre near you?
Not a laughing matter.
Posted by: Autumn | March 21, 2008 2:19 AM
@jeh and Ichthyic,
I am only stating that as the owner of a business I have the right to refuse service to individuals for little or no reason. I am well within my rights to exclude a customer only because I rolled a die, and his number came up. As long as one is not excluded because of a specific class association articulated in statutes, one is only an individual, and it is well within the rights of a manager to say "I don't like his haircut, please send a cruiser to take him away."
I make no judgement as to the morality of this action, but conflating what I said with Jim Crow laws is a low blow.
And as has been noted in many posts, police officers are very often hired to enforce the whims of particular business owners.
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2008 2:20 AM
PZ was causing no disturbance, and neither "Jared" nor Mark Mathis made reference to such. Both said that PZ needed a ticket and had to leave because this was a private screening to which he was not invited. I had no ticket, and I was not invited, unless you call posting a link on a "please fill our theatre, tell your friends, da da" website an invitation. In which case, it's the same "invitation" PZ got.
At any rate, Mark Mathis lied to me, too. He told me that "Crossroads" was a "working title" for the film. Wesley Elsberry has shown that the domain for Expelled was purchased before all or most of the interviews were done.
This is just disgraceful.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:20 AM
Calgon?
oh, man, are you telling me you missed some good woo?
http://www.thesecret.tv/
it was all the rage (read: laughter generating) just last year.
PZ posted about it on several occasions.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:22 AM
This is just disgraceful.
she said with an evil grin and a shimmy.
:P
Posted by: MandyDax | March 21, 2008 2:22 AM
From that blog post that John Pieret linked to earlier, Stuart puts this at the bottom with a spoiler alert:
Okay, already new that they try this poisoning the well tactic. Never mind that their "atheism leads to eugenics" is the most flawed of all of these syllogisms.Shouts out: <3 to PZ for posting this ASAP and giving me a genuine LOL experience, to Richard for scaring the shit out of Mathis with his mere presence, to Kristine for posting about what went on inside, to Cuttlefish for yet another fantastic topical poem (rhyming Eohippus = brilliant!), and to the people to decided PZ needed removing for breaking my collection of irony detectors.
Posted by: Susannah | March 21, 2008 2:22 AM
Whom the gods will destroy, they first make mad. And how!
I never use this, but what else can be said? - ROFLMBFPAO!
Posted by: Jarett | March 21, 2008 2:22 AM
Epic, PZ. PLEASE post about whatever comes of this, I can't wait to hear Dr. Dawkins' reaction.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 2:23 AM
These people are brain-damaged.
Posted by: QED99 | March 21, 2008 2:23 AM
"Photos or it didn't happen.
http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/2008/03/expelled-from-expelled.html
there ya go; close as you're gonna get, anyway."
No, no. That won't do. Where are all the missing transitional photos?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:23 AM
And as has been noted in many posts, police officers are very often hired to enforce the whims of particular business owners.
OFF DUTY
why is it that this is not sinking in?
Posted by: Mac | March 21, 2008 2:24 AM
Unbelievable, PZ. Just incredible. I laughed, I cried, I'm waiting for the full recap tomorrow.
Posted by: propter doc | March 21, 2008 2:25 AM
Funny, but in a disturbing sort of way. What defense is reason against such ignorance?
Posted by: Drinker | March 21, 2008 2:26 AM
If UM Student Stuart Blessman isn't a lie himself then he will probably become a bit more notorious.
The only other place HisFlyness has been seen before is also on lookingcloser and a U2 fan site.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:26 AM
"I don't like his haircut, please send a cruiser to take him away."
now try doing that every day, and see what kind of official response you get.
do you think it a good idea to defend the notion that one can abuse tax-paid officials for personal whims?
just curious.
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 2:26 AM
Trying to make that point is the wrong one because business are free to discriminate against individuals as long as it is not on the basis of being a member of a "protected" class, such as gender, race, national origin or religion.
Hmm, you say it's OK as long as it is not on the basis of religion? So therefore, technically, PZ's lack of religion is a legit reason? And if they kicked him out because he was Jewish that would not be OK? Puh-lease.
So imagine they decided to make a movie based on one of Jack Chick's vehemently anti-Catholic tracts. Could they legitimately exclude Catholics from a screening that was publicly announced?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 21, 2008 2:26 AM
PZ unquestionably did the right thing by declining to make a scene. Doing so would have played right into their greasy little atheist-smearing hands. I also believe that taking any sort of legal action would be not only fruitless, but more importantly, a missed opportunity to take the high road.
Something I often see missing in discussions of tactic and strategy--in a number of movement forums--is a failure to understand issues of proportionality. PZ getting his ass arrested would have been counterproductive. It was a private screening in that the theater was rented out and people had to sign up in advance in order to get in. They would seem to be legally within their rights to exclude him (anyone ever see those signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service...." before?). He wasn't expelled explicitly because of his atheism, (the civil rights issue some might want to raise) but because of his online presence. He would blow their ability to control the message by putting everything out there in a critical, factual review. This just keeps them able to say, "see, he's complaining about a movie he hasn't seen" but they didn't count on Richard Dawkins or PZ's family or some of the other science blogging folks to get in. The ability to control message is slipping away. Getting arrested would have made PZ look foolish. Instead the whole instance demonstrates the Expelled folks' ridiculousness (I still think there need to be *jazz hands* in use when ever one says EXPELLED!...I'm imagining a "Just Jack" situation.)
I see this with certain student--and other--activists as well. Everything requires a protest. Why, they never know, but protest has to happen. Tactics should be proportional to the goal. With Dawkins getting in but PZ left out, while his family and other science bloggers get in(!), really does make them look ridiculous. Getting arrested would have made PZ look ridiculous.
Now, if RD is going to be on Maher tomorrow (probably by remote?) the story becomes even more widespread, and these idiots look even more ridiculous.
Dammit! I've told myself I'm going to withdraw from so much online time, but this just sucked me back in. Gonna be a weaning process, I can tell.
Posted by: OzAtheist | March 21, 2008 2:28 AM
I might not be laughing as hard as you PZ, but I am having a good chortle.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 2:28 AM
Has anyone left a scathing comment here yet? Five-to-one sez they';; never actually appear
Posted by: Reed | March 21, 2008 2:28 AM
#559 The proprietor of any establishment is well within his or her rights to call the police to remove a person that they just don't like.
Not if the reason they "just don't like" them is gender, race, color, religion, or national origin. See for example USC Title 42 sec 200
Now that doesn't necessarily apply to this incident for several reasons (they could have excluded PZ for other reasons than his [lack of] religion, and this was a vaguely "private" screening despite being open to anyone on the internet), but the general statement that you can exclude anyone from a public establishment (as defined in the link above this includes theaters) for any reason is incorrect.
Again, I am NOT saying PZ could or should sue. IMO, that would be silly and a waste of effort even if he did have a legal ground.
The simple fact that the makers of expelled chose to prevent someone who was featured in their movie from viewing a screening is more damaging than any legal action would be.
Posted by: Morgan | March 21, 2008 2:30 AM
I have a theory about why you were expelled and Richard Dawkins wasn't.
Somebody DID recognize Dawkins, and pointed him out to the guards before going on about some other business. But the guard thought they were pointing at you. The guard thought YOU were Dawkins and kept you out of the film.
Then, I imagine, the guard was told that Dawkins had to leave immediately. So he found "Dawkins" (you) and booted you out.
Any number of people may have seen Dawkins and wanted him out--but word spread that he had been dealt with, and by some luck, he made it to his seat without being noticed again. Maybe the reason he wasn't noticed again is BECAUSE the people who had been waiting for him and worrying believed he was gone--so they stopped looking!
Funny story either way.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:33 AM
Again, I am NOT saying PZ could or should sue. IMO, that would be silly and a waste of effort even if he did have a legal ground.
just to be clear, I'm not either.
I just want a public issue to be made of the usage of official personnel in this capacity, if indeed ON DUTY cops were used in this case.
It sounds like it was not the case, however, from witness reports. sounds more like mall guards, which is entirely appropriate:
private thugs to protect a "private" venue.
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2008 2:33 AM
The first e-mail:
"Dear [I used my real name],
This is a confirmation of your RSVP for the free "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" movie screening. Venue information is below.
Theater: AMC Mall of America 14
4th Level, Center of South Ave.
Bloomington, MN 55425
Date: March 20
Time: 7:00 PM
Number of seats reserved: 2
YOUR NAME WILL BE ON A LIST AT THE DOOR. NO TICKET IS NEEDED.
More information about "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" can be found at *link blah blah*
Sincerely,
Motive Entertainement
If you need to cancel or make an important change to an existing RSVP, please email *snip.* Be sure to reference the screening city, date, and time in your email."
I received a second e-mail reminder again stating that no ticket was required.
Posted by: Anthony | March 21, 2008 2:33 AM
Well, you see Professor PZ Myers has this nice American name and they were obviously confused by the Professor Richard Dawkins with that unintelligible English name.
Posted by: Dr Benway | March 21, 2008 2:34 AM
Someone rented the theater for a private party, just as you or I might do. No tickets were sold for money to the general public.
The people renting the theater can legally exclude anyone they please.
Posted by: jeh | March 21, 2008 2:35 AM
"I don't like his haircut, please send a cruiser to take him away."
Wow, you must live in a different part of American than I do. And if the business owner asks the police to kick the sh*t out of them--for good measure--will they do that too?
Posted by: Amafortas | March 21, 2008 2:35 AM
PZ,
Thank you for this. Westborough Baptist is visiting my University this week. (Or to be more accurate, they've invaded.) your story restores my faith in reason.
Cheers
~A,
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 2:36 AM
"Something I often see missing in discussions of tactic and strategy--in a number of movement forums--is a failure to understand issues of proportionality."
Abso-damnwell-lutely. And does anyone who so cavalierly suggests protest or legal action know what a pain in the ass getting arrested and/or suing would be? For a stupid movie? PZ will get to see this movie eventually (unless Mathis distributes his picture to every theater in Minnesota, and that would just be ever the more god damned hilarious).
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 2:37 AM
Dammit! I've told myself I'm going to withdraw from so much online time,
ahh, that explains why I haven't seen your posts of late.
good man.
psst:
thesis
:p
Posted by: StarMan | March 21, 2008 2:38 AM
This is why most super heroes have a sidekick
Posted by: Bharat | March 21, 2008 2:38 AM
That was unbelievable PZ. Congrats for becoming the number 1 public enemy.
Completely made my day.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 2:40 AM
"Has any previous Pharyngula post hit the 500 mark in comments before? Certainly not in one short evening."
This is probably the fastest I've ever seen, but oh yes, threads have gone over 500 numerous times. Any time Myers invokes Scott Adams, for example. And the time he deliberately baited the global warming deniers, we got over 1300 comments on that one. And the "Ahistorical Garbage" thread might just top that record if we get any more goofballs trickling in.
Posted by: gunasekaran | March 21, 2008 2:42 AM
Hi , This is very nice and superb...
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2008 2:43 AM
Someone rented the theater for a private party
A "private party," posted on a public website with a link to click for free admission to these screenings, at which DVDs are distributed with film clips, so that "you can spread the word to the general public"? A "private party," in which the producer exhorts you to rat on your neighbors and mentions that "we are working with the FBI" to identify "the enemies of this film"?
Oh, did I mention that they brought up the FBI?
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 2:44 AM
Heh. Yeah.
I miss you, Jeff, but... what Icky said. ;-)
Posted by: Scote | March 21, 2008 2:45 AM
Jeh, this moment is a great one that exposes the Expelled producers for the irrational screaming hypocrites that they are. Enjoy it! I know I am.
But you continue to make the wrong point and one not supported by facts or law. For purposes of being in the audience the producers couldn't care less if PZ is religious or not, they only care if he has credulously swallowed their "freedom to teach the controversy" codswalop. While religious people are far, far more likely to do so than secular people clulessness is not exclusive to creed. This was not a case of religious discrimination and your analogy fails to be analogous. You are overstating your case and, thus, loosing the argument.
You know those signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?" Well, they are **legal** when used in the context of booting PZed. The Epic Fail is the public exposure of they hypocrisy, not the breaking of any law. As to the laws people have cited, those do not apply the same way to "invitation only" private events--and PZed was not discriminated on the basis of being a member of a protected class. While you could argue that the self-selection process of signing up on line functionally made the event public, you still won't be able to prove that PZed's **religion** got him booted rather than his outspoken, science-based criticism of the film. Were he credulously supportive of the film, I have no doubt that he would have been allowed in, atheist or no.
If you are going to argue against irrationality please do so using reason rather than emotion.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 21, 2008 2:45 AM
ahh, that explains why I haven't seen your posts of late.
And even when I did, I stayed within my field of study....not going too far astray any more (my mind wanders easy)
Posted by: gunasekaran | March 21, 2008 2:46 AM
Hi , This is very nice and superb...
Posted by: Calladus | March 21, 2008 2:47 AM
Not that I want to speak in their defense, but I'll go out on a limb an be fair...
Perhaps the guest list got loaded by practical jokers? It was a web sign-up after all. What sort of verification was put into this? Check on a throw-away email address?
I could easily see the guy vetting the list ...
"We've got 21 'Charles Darwins' and 15 'Thomas Huxleys'. And look, 5 'Richard Dawkins'. I removed all I found - I just hope one didn't slip by."
"Oh, look, just one PZ Myers! THIS must be for real, after all, the professor lives nearby! Let's keep a lookout for him!"
tsk
Posted by: Anatomie | March 21, 2008 2:48 AM
Fucking. Priceless.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 2:48 AM
Wow, PZ...ould you spell out specifically the ideological test you would recommend for admission to the U. of M.?
Our own Dr. Michael Dini at UofM-Morris.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 21, 2008 2:49 AM
I'm not dead! Just posting a lot less. Can't spend quite so much time doing this shit, when I should be writing about state regulation of marriage and the integration of gay lifestyles into the relations of production and consumption :)~
This just means you have to show up at the drinking festivities, like this Monday's Skeptics in the Pub with Mike the Mad Biologist (see skepchick.org for details!)
Posted by: Drinker | March 21, 2008 2:49 AM
Liar Stuart Blessman has a blog. http://stu2.blogspot.com/
It's just what you'd expect from an ID believer.
Posted by: Autumn | March 21, 2008 2:51 AM
To jeh, Ichthyic, and Reed,
I am not endorsing the action taken in this case, I am, however, respecting the right of individual business owners to prohibit entry onto their premises of whoever they deem undesirable.
Yes, this means that I support the right of a business owner to not serve me because of my long hair (gone now, but I've been refused things because of it in the past). Government services should absoloutly be available to everyone, but if I own a business and decide to not allow men with sideburns into my store, that is wholly legal. It will likely cut into my bottom line, but it is the right of the owner, renter, or manager, to kick out whomever the hell they want to.
Posted by: scote | March 21, 2008 2:52 AM
"Well, you see Professor PZ Myers has this nice American name and they were obviously confused by the Professor Richard Dawkins with that unintelligible English name."
I'm guessing they let him in because Dawkins looks like a respectable, mild-mannered Episcopalian minister rather than Satan's Evolutionist. They probably had a Be On the Look Out photo of someone with horns and a pointy tail and a bearded guy with tentacles below the waist. Guess they only spotted the later.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 2:54 AM
Wow. I wrote PT-mafia in the sense of an ideological clique. But based on Kristine's reporting, maybe the term PT-mafia represents something even more sinister than I had recognized.
Posted by: luis alexandre | March 21, 2008 2:55 AM
Talk about getting the last laugh...
Posted by: DBC | March 21, 2008 2:56 AM
Damn. Even I'll delurk for this...
Where are all the folks who attacked PZ for talking about the movie he hadn't seen yet? I'd like to hear their reactions.
Posted by: idlemind | March 21, 2008 2:56 AM
Must be way past your bedtime, "William Wallace," given your inability to comprehend straightforward English words. Since when does basic ethics -- like not telling lies in public -- constitute an ideology?
Posted by: Lee Harrison | March 21, 2008 2:57 AM
Willy Wally:
Wow, Willy boy - you are a real arse.
Posted by: Scote | March 21, 2008 2:58 AM
"Wow, PZ...ould you spell out specifically the ideological test you would recommend for admission to the U. of M.?
Our own Dr. Michael Dini at UofM-Morris.
Posted by: William Wallace"
Let's see. How about people who don't knowingly make false and defamatory statements about other UofMers?
Not really and ideological test in the sense you are trying to imply, though, more of an ethical one. You know, the kind that University Codes of Ethics deal with?
Posted by: MJKelleher | March 21, 2008 2:58 AM
I couldn't go off-line until I read and laughed some more.
My guess on why PZ was bounced but not RD is that PZ made the reservation under his own name, and including unnamed "guests". Identifications requested to match against the reservation list. They knew PZ was coming, but RD wasn't anticipated, so he got in under their radar.
Good work!
Posted by: Pmomma | March 21, 2008 2:59 AM
CLASSIC!!!! Not to shoot down your ego, but...how could they possibly recognize YOU and not DAWKINS!?! Was HE not on "the list"? This is just too priceless.
These people are complete and total hypocrites! How can they sit there with a straight face and argue that secular science is censoring, and "expelling", an opposing viewpoint, while at the same time censoring and expelling vocal atheists and scientists?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:00 AM
It will likely cut into my bottom line, but it is the right of the owner, renter, or manager, to kick out whomever the hell they want to.
and it's my right as a taxpayer to say that frivolous usage of police services, if used to obtain your "rights" in this fashion, can and should be frowned upon.
If actual on-duty police officers were used to guard entrance into a fucking FILM, then I call that frivolous usage of a public service, and I want to know how the city that employs such officers feels about it.
clearer?
Posted by: Jim | March 21, 2008 3:00 AM
He said ethically, not ideologically challenged, WW. Another idiot-admit for UM, I see. Get to class much?
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 21, 2008 3:02 AM
Is Mr. Wallace actually suggesting that the existence of a policy on academic integrity, academic honesty, and student conduct is some sort of oppressive requirement? Are Christians really that morally stunted?.
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2008 3:02 AM
You want to clarify that statement regaring me, William Wallace?
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 3:02 AM
Wallace again exceeds the self-parody threshold! He's going for the record tonight.
Kristine: "...the producer exhorts you to rat on your neighbors..."
Are you serious?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:03 AM
Wow, Willy boy - you are a real arse.
I warned him, but like all creobots, they just can't help but shoot themselves in the head.
It's just making this whole thing all the sweeter, to see the irony that is "expelled" being accurately reflected in the posts of the very people who support it.
It's like when you look at two mirrors, held up to each other, and you see endless reflections....
Posted by: scott | March 21, 2008 3:03 AM
If I were in this situation I would never consider suing the producers of Expelled, but I would think about suing Stuart Blessman for his "a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in." As I read his words, they come pretty close to be libelous, if "a man" is legally sufficient to connect his statement to an individual.
Posted by: Damian | March 21, 2008 3:04 AM
Stuart Blessman, the lying, backtracking troll says (on "looking closer"):
The baby Jesus is in floods of tears, the poor little guy.
Posted by: Joseph Hewitt | March 21, 2008 3:04 AM
Too funny. This is an anecdote to keep for the ages.
Posted by: Autumn | March 21, 2008 3:04 AM
Note that I agree wholeheartedly with laws defining discrimination against various classes of folks illegal.
All I am saying is that "undesireable" is subjective, and thus open to exclusion.
Trying to prove that one has been excluded for a particular reason is damn-near impossible.
I am in no way endorsing such behavior, I am merely reminding you that the waitress who keeps the local asshole from coming back to the bar is relying on the generous interpretation of exclusion to keep an undesireable out.
I may be wholly missing what I am trying to say, and if that is the case, I apologise.
I seem to be misconstrued more often than not, but I'm married, so its become old-hat.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 3:05 AM
An enemies list!?! This just gets better and better. It should not come as any surprise, given Ben Stein's past employment, that their is a list of "enemies of the film". How Nixonian.
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 3:06 AM
Could you put this to rest. At worst, this was a moonlighting police officer whose wages were paid by a private party. At best, it was just a security guard.
Posted by: Godstomper | March 21, 2008 3:06 AM
According to this website
(http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com
/2008/03/20/richard-dawkins-crashes-the-party-at-a-screening-of-expelled),
PZ was removed for being disruptive and not having a ticket. It also states none of the producers were there. I'd seriously like to know what happened.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 21, 2008 3:06 AM
Before I head, I just have to mention that I love the sight of William Wallace acting as the sole defender of the ID crowd after this massive Leroy Jenkins moment. He kind of reminds me of the last Japanese soldier, fighting on even though the war is over. Or in this case, even though the huge, irreversible public humiliation of his confreres has already taken place.
Posted by: Stuart Blessman's blog | March 21, 2008 3:06 AM
...
Tell me if this statement is troublesome - "What do atheists and the Grinch have in common?"
This is what we wrote on the whiteboard at the contact table today, including a very well drawn picture of the Grinch. Yesterday we had "Communists and the Grinch." (I think we should go for broke and write "Atheists, the Grinch, and hundreds of millions dead") This seemingly innocent question seems to pack a lot of heat. Grant, a former atheist, came up with it.
"That statement is horrible! It really offends me! I'm gonna go report you to the campus union, you shouldn't be saying such things on public property! Your grammar is incorrect (we had "does" originally). You are turning away people with statements like that; they can't find Christ because of you! You should change it to "Jews and the Grinch", that would make more sense. It's an unfair comparison that presupposes things. You aren't Christian, you aren't showing Christ's love!" Etc etc, just a handful of the things I heard at the table during 45 minutes.
Is that statement really that troublesome? Or do most atheists have such shaky convictions that the littlest thing offends them? We had one guy stop to argue the question (he acknowledged it was a question!), and I asked him if atheism was a religion. To his credit and to my surprise, he answered "yes." It took me back. We then asked if he was an atheist, and he stormed off after telling us it was none of our business. Still, I'm proud of the guy, and I told him so.
.... More at Lying Student Stuart Blessman's Blog http://stu2.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 21, 2008 3:08 AM
Feel free to document this claim any time you like, jackass.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:09 AM
@autumn
I am in no way endorsing such behavior
fair enough.
@wally gator:
At worst, this was a moonlighting police officer whose wages were paid by a private party. At best, it was just a security guard.
and you know this... how?
the same way you KNEW PZ had "done something wrong"?
how you can keep going when everyone is laughing at your idiocy is just remarkable.
Posted by: Kristine | March 21, 2008 3:09 AM
Are you serious?
Yes, I am serious. After telling us that "some group" was trying to video the entire film (which I might add is not on 35mm film but is a crappy laptop feed) to post on torrent, he told us to look around at our neighbors to see that no illegal activity was going on.
Nomad also went a day or so ago - read his account at the "Expelled" thread at After the Bar Closes.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | March 21, 2008 3:11 AM
Well, the name of the movie says "no intelligence allowed", so PZ shouldn't have expected to be allowed in.
-jcr
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:12 AM
Or do most atheists have such shaky convictions that the littlest thing offends them?
says the person who supposedly watched PZ get physically removed from a screening of the movie...
oh fuck, what's the point.
It's just to funny. My irony meter is beyond busted, and the overflow is starting to hurt.
Posted by: Trent1492 | March 21, 2008 3:13 AM
Stuart Blessman is on the "Looking Closer" blog right now, digging himself deeper into a pit of lies.
http://tiny.cc/FKr8K
Posted by: Nic Nicholson | March 21, 2008 3:13 AM
LOL, PZ Myers denied entry on the basis of (lack of) religion.
Funny, funny, fundies.
Posted by: octopod | March 21, 2008 3:14 AM
#630, what on earth does the quoted post have to do with your reply to it?
PZM: "Boy, I sure think our students are largely a bright and ethical bunch! I suppose there are always a few dim ones, but I haven't met any real scumbags. Go figure."
WW: "Ideological purity test, you say? Tell me more!"
Also, wasn't the Dini thing about him not wanting to write recommendations for students who totally failed to grasp the point of his class? Why on earth did a creationist ask an evolutionary biology prof for letters of recommendation, anyhow? Isn't that kinda like a flat-earther asking a geophysics professor for a recommendation?
Posted by: Lance | March 21, 2008 3:15 AM
I've read but never commented before. This warrants a change. I laughed pretty hard. I shared it with my girlfriend and she laughed too. After reading some of the comments on here about them trying to remove Dawkins, I wonder if it might be funnier if they let him stay. I'd love to see the looks on everyone's faces once the lights come on and they see him standing there. Now THAT could be priceless.
Oh yes, and the, "That's not what I meant!!" could be funny too. Maybe just a, "Wrong!" here and there plus the above idea I had. Sorry, now I'm rambling. So funny I can't think straight.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 21, 2008 3:16 AM
I hope someone is preserving screencaps or PDF versions or something of the Looking Closer post(s)...
You know IDiots and their memory holes.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:16 AM
Yes, I am serious. After telling us that "some group" was trying to video the entire film (which I might add is not on 35mm film but is a crappy laptop feed) to post on torrent, he told us to look around at our neighbors to see that no illegal activity was going on.
it must have been the overwhelming paranoia that attracted Stein to these folks to begin with, just like it attracted him to Nixon.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 21, 2008 3:16 AM
OK, so let's recap what we know of the Designer:
Likes: Atheist Biologists, Beetles, Hydrogen
Dislikes: Erstwhile Nixon staffers, Discovery Institute, Hypocrisy
Posted by: Bob | March 21, 2008 3:17 AM
Wow, just wow.
I cannot wait to see how they spin this one.
Posted by: Sue Larries | March 21, 2008 3:18 AM
One string of invective, please.
Willy Wallace - you are a humorless, smugly stupid shit and fully deserve to be a coward Xian fuckwit you are, you soul-less shit of a trolling ass.
I pity to the bottom of my heart whatever family is connected to you, in any way,and anyone who has the misfortune to work with or near you shape or form.
Enjoy that parody you call your life, even if it isn't amusing, except in the sickest, saddest way.
Posted by: CS | March 21, 2008 3:18 AM
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html
March 20, 2008 11:42PM
Dawkins Crashes 'Expelled' Party
Mark Moring
Noted Darwinist shows up uninvited at private screening of Intelligent Design documentary.
Expelled, a new documentary that argues the case for Intelligent Design from a Judeo-Christian perspective, has been in the headlines lately, prior to its April 18 theatrical release.
The film, hosted and narrated by Ben Stein, has been screened to invitation-only audiences at churches and for various Christian groups. But several critics have worked their way in to some of the screenings, most notably Roger Moore of The Orlando Sentinel, who recently trashed the movie in his blog.
A critic of another kind "crashed" a screening in Minnesota on Thursday night--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and arguably the most outspoken critic of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Dawkins himself appears in the documentary--but claims he was duped into believing it was going to be an objective account of Darwinism vs. ID.
Jeffrey Overstreet, a film critic for CT Movies, broke the news on his own blog Thursday night after receiving an e-mail from a college student who was at the screening.
Stuart Blessman, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities student, told Overstreet in the e-mail that Dawkins' appearance "was quite a surprise" to both the audience and associate producer Mark Mathis, who fielded questions afterward.
Blessman reported that Dawkins asked several questions, and complained that "any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed . . . for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy."
It's not the first time Dawkins and other Darwinian experts say they were duped by the filmmakers. The Guardian reported last fall that Dawkins said, "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front," he said. And The New York Times quotes Dawkins and other atheists who appeared in the film under a "deceptive invitation."
Blessman also wrote that "the Q&A then proceeded pretty uneventfully, with several of the questions addressed to Dawkins himself. Mathis and Dawkins also clearly had spoken on numerous occasions and appeared to continue an argument that they had started previously."
Read more about Expelled in earlier editions of Reel News at CT Movies.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 3:20 AM
Well. Time for bed. Kristine, thanks for sharing all this interesting information. This really puts the "qzzyx" in "surreal".
Posted by: blf | March 21, 2008 3:22 AM
Brilliant! Fecking brilliant!
One possibility (of several) I don't recall seeing mentioned about asking Pee Zed to leave and not Dawkins: Dawkins was also on (completely legal) banned list, perhaps even had his picture circulated as well, and the staff simply failed to recognise him.
The alleged Q&A session afterwards doesn't prove "they" knew beforehand that Dawkins was present. Given how fast this aim-at-both-feet, shoot-the-full-clip has spread on the interwoos, a reasonable hypothesis is someone(s?) spotted the story and made a few calls. Just like people tried to contact the media. (B.t.w., did any media types show up?)
And, as I think it was Martin who said (paraphrasing), would the people yapping about suits et al. get a fecking clew!
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 21, 2008 3:24 AM
You should have allowed yourself to be arrested. You were to commit no crime at all. Please don't show courage on the web only to show cowardice in real life. Is this how you stand up for what you believe?
This is the most ignorant, dick-waving bullshit I've seen in an age. I have been arrested before, and it's not a lot of fun, particularly when being warehoused in a toxic environment like Pier 57 in New York City during the 2004 RNC protests. There is absolutely no reason on this earth why PZ should have let himself be arrested over a stupid creationist movie. Leaving himself free to post about their refusal to admit him, with the cherry on top being that Dawkins was allowed in, is the exact right way to handle it.
If I didn't think it was utterly pointless to try this strategy, I would think you're an agent provocateur, because it would play right into the hands of the creationists if they were to be able to report that a Darwinist was so intent on crashing (and, it would be inferred, disrupting) the movie that he had to be hauled off in handcuffs. There is a time and a place for that kind of thing, and this was not it.
Posted by: Nomad | March 21, 2008 3:25 AM
I recently went to one of the screenings as well, perhaps I can add a clarification. In my case we had a hired thug wearing a police uniform present as well. Despite the fact that the cop left his police cruiser parked immediately outside the entrance to the theater, instead of in the parking lot like a normal person might, and also despite the fact that he was wearing his full police uniform, he was described to us as being an off duty officer.
I expect that the officer who showed PZ out was also off duty. I was not aware that they get to use their cruisers and full uniforms and are allowed to park in no parking zones when doing mercenary work, but apparently they do.
The problem I have with this is that PZ was forced out of the entire theater, not simply denied access to the screen that was rented out for Expelled. I assume that they would have had to have the operator of the theater ask the cop to do that, the Expelled people have no right dictating who may or mat not be present in the entire theater. Unless I'm mistaken and they actually did rent out the entire theater building and every screen within.
And I'd expect that the theater operator would prefer not to do that, I'd expect bad it to be bad publicity if they're shown strong arming people out of their business as a result of pressure from religiously motivated individuals.
I think I know how Dawkins got in without setting off alarms in advance, but just in case I'm right and the same concept may be employed again I'll refrain from blowing it (although it's easy enough to figure out). If those involved wish to spill the beans, though, I'd like to know if I'm right.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 21, 2008 3:25 AM
Holy shit, are the Looking Closer and Christianity Today blogs really using THE EXACT SAME TITLE?
lol...
PS: take a look at the comments policy on Jeffrey Overstreet's site for extra humor.
Posted by: Marcus Pittman | March 21, 2008 3:29 AM
I think it is great...Why would any "Rational" person want to see our "creationist propaganda" anyway...it's funny. You won't let us teach it in school's, so we finally get to Kick you out.
As for Dawkins, who refuses to take part in any debate or think using his own individual thoughts, or answer any tough questions regarding his obvious religion, Were delighted that he finally took the time to challenge his faith.
Nice turn of events and we get some amazing publicity. The "Producer" knows what he is doing...
+1 Creationist.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:29 AM
PS: take a look at the comments policy on Jeffrey Overstreet's site for extra humor.
sorry, already on irony overload.
must - drink - beer...
Posted by: Form&Function | March 21, 2008 3:29 AM
LOLDawkins
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 21, 2008 3:30 AM
The problem I have with this is that PZ was forced out of the entire theater, not simply denied access to the screen that was rented out for Expelled
Good point. I'm sure 10,000BC was playing.
Posted by: Zachary B. | March 21, 2008 3:30 AM
My mouth literally just gaped open when I read Richard's name.
Well played P.Z. Well played.
Posted by: Russell Seitz | March 21, 2008 3:31 AM
Positively Illuminating PZ-- so much so that I up and
Illuminated it for the benefit of posterity-- the producer's conduct is so epically stupid that this episode deserves a mosaic in the Cathedral Of Dumb:
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2008/03/the-bayeaux-tra.html
Posted by: Godstomper | March 21, 2008 3:32 AM
Never mind my last comment. I came across new information claiming that Blessman lied.
"Is that statement really that troublesome? Or do most atheists have such shaky convictions that the littlest thing offends them?"
The problem isn't that they attacked someone's views, but rather that they endorsed a baseless stereotype. Besides, your whole story sounds made up and calling atheism a "religion" is just playing word games. Call atheism whatever you like, but know that when religion is criticized, the critics are referring either to a belief system taken on faith or a belief (or beliefs, more precisely)in supernatural ontological claims.
Regardless of how you define "religion," or any other word for that matter, you still need to address the arguments themselves. If there was evidence for the existence of god(s), that would justify theism. If there was evidence against it, that would justify weak or strong atheism, depending on the strength of the evidence. If evidence was absent either way, then atheism, defined simply as an absence of belief, would be justified. Redefining words cannot change the evidence nor how it is evaluated for any proposition.
My arguments do not unfairly attack religion, but instead treats its claims as you would any other for the sake of logical consistency.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:33 AM
Nice turn of events and we get some amazing publicity. The "Producer" knows what he is doing...
yeah, if he running a "twit of the year" contest is what he was after.
here, this is last year's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss
you might want to participate in the next one yourself!
oh wait...
Posted by: momo | March 21, 2008 3:37 AM
perfect!!!
and, did Richard enjoy it?
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 3:37 AM
Ichthyic, that is the film we use for Jerry. I do not thing I have to finish the rest of that statement.
Posted by: Pantufla Milagrosa | March 21, 2008 3:38 AM
I say we all chip in for PZ's $10 ticket to watch the movie when it comes out!
Posted by: T&A | March 21, 2008 3:38 AM
That is hilarious! If this doesn't prove how dimwitted these creationist are, I don't know what will!
Posted by: paul | March 21, 2008 3:39 AM
atheism cured my ADD!!, i just read every comment.
Posted by: Leigh | March 21, 2008 3:40 AM
@Marcus Pittman(#667):
"I think it is great...Why would any "Rational" person want to see our "creationist propaganda" anyway...it's funny. You won't let us teach it in school's, so we finally get to Kick you out."
Dude! What's with the random capitalization, grotesque misspelling, and (ahem) idiosyncratic punctuation? In our "school's", indeed!
We won't let you and your ilk teach biology for the same reason we won't let you teach English. You know nothing, and your ignorance would be contagious.
But what's even worse is what you *think* you know, because it's all wrong. That's not just clueless -- it's dangerous.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:42 AM
I do not thing I have to finish the rest of that statement.
heh.
nope.
It just had to be put somewhere in this thread, for posterity's sake.
I mean, what the Expelled folks pulled off would most surely win them that contest, hands down.
Posted by: Tam | March 21, 2008 3:42 AM
I have to admit, even though Dawkins feels much more famous than Myers to me (duh), I don't know what he looks like (at least until I saw the loldawkins above), and I would recognize ol' PZ. Go figure.
Posted by: Madwack | March 21, 2008 3:44 AM
I am amazed about the lightheartedness with which you tell us that for absolutely no reason you are refused entrance to a cinema, enforced by a police officer.
Am I reading this correctly? You have to sign in and show I.D to go and watch a movie? F*** me, and I thought Europe was already bad..
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 21, 2008 3:44 AM
Do the Darwin Awards have some category for stuff like this besides "Honorable Mention"? Like "Special Achievement in Abject, Humiliating Stupidity without Loss of Life or Injury", say? 'Cause they should, at least this once.
Posted by: paul | March 21, 2008 3:46 AM
Damn it, I think I need a new name to post under, I'm not the paul that was cured of ADD by atheism. Funny comment though.
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 21, 2008 3:46 AM
It's like the old adage - 'They came for the Jews/Xians/Zoasters and I did nothing...' They came for the Atheist and he did nothing.
Danny, Danny, Danny, Danny....
That is not just an old adage; it is a poem from Martin Niemöller. It is written in response to a historical incident you might have heard of called the Holocaust. By referencing it to use against Dr. Myers, you are inverting the sense of the poem from a cry of regret of a not-so-innocent bystander to use it against the victim. If they came for the Atheist and he did nothing, then it is appropriate to say, mutatis mutandis, of the Holocaust that they came for the Jews, the Roma/Sinti, the anarchists, the communists, etc. and they did nothing. This is the most disgusting and distasteful way of registering your disagreement with Dr. Myers that I can think of.
So my advice to you would be just go fuck off before you make an even bigger arse of yourself than you have done already.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:46 AM
Do the Darwin Awards have some category for stuff like this besides "Honorable Mention"?
you're right, it does belong there, and they do have categories that would fit:
http://www.darwinawards.com/
I highly suggest, if you have the energy, that you get cracking and submit it!
I'm done in.
too much irony for one night.
Posted by: Sharilyn | March 21, 2008 3:47 AM
Re: #610
Instead the whole instance demonstrates the Expelled folks' ridiculousness (I still think there need to be *jazz hands* in use when ever one says EXPELLED!...I'm imagining a "Just Jack" situation.)
OMFSM!!!! LMAO! STOP it! I have been laughing so hard through the last few hours I just got my sides to stop hurting! The Just Jack and Jazz Hands reference was entirely TOO IMMEDIATELY VISUALIZED!! ROFLMAO while reaching again for my Albuterol.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 21, 2008 3:48 AM
Posting in an epic thread...
lulz were had by all
Posted by: Reed | March 21, 2008 3:51 AM
@CS #671
That was linked earlier in the comments. I posted a comment there, but unsurprisingly, it has yet to show up.
@Autumn
I agree that you have to be able to throw out undesirables. All I was trying to do is point out that there are limits as to what criteria you can use to decide someone is undesirable. Unless the expelled people had a policy of excluding people based on their religious views, they are well within their rights. Even if that was their policy, they might be OK due to the supposed "invite only" nature of the event.
@madwack
It was a "private" event (read up for details, that's debatable but it wasn't your regular buy a ticket and watch showing), and even regular theaters have the right to refuse service to anyone (as long as it isn't based on race, religion etc.) Same reason a bouncer can throw you out of a bar.
Posted by: Nepal123.com | March 21, 2008 3:52 AM
Well, I am not laughing as hard you are and all these stupid fans that are laughing hard.... just coz YOU had some special guest to watch the movie for you??
And then you are HAPPY ... ??
Lets not talk about ur guest now... or your family... .. .. its not cool that they kicked you out.. of a public theatre??
Did this happen in America or some Hindi movie??? and then this stupid professor is all smiling that he had some dude watch movie with his family??
Co-coincidentally he had this popular guy... watch movie with his family.... and he was out typing a blog... while .. according to the constitution..... there was no reason to kick him out of the hall...
and being an american.... he did not ask to the COPS why.. coz ofcourse .. it was an illegal threat... that he was given... sad...
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 3:55 AM
That was linked earlier in the comments. I posted a comment there, but unsurprisingly, it has yet to show up.
there is a two link max limit if you want to avoid the comment being held for examination.
helps eliminate spam.
you can spread more than two links across multiple posts, however.
Posted by: Soapy Sam | March 21, 2008 3:59 AM
That's so good it almost makes me believe there IS a god!
Posted by: GrondramB | March 21, 2008 3:59 AM
Stuart Blessman:
Well, that's the good news. No science minded person is likely to ever again be interviewed by Ben Stein under the assumption that it will be even handed.
Mrs. Garrison will have more credibility going forward than Stein.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 4:03 AM
Worst. South. Park. Ever.
Posted by: Pom | March 21, 2008 4:03 AM
I didn't realise you lived in Nazi Germany
Posted by: Quasarsphere | March 21, 2008 4:05 AM
Soapy Sam: "That's so good it almost makes me believe there IS a god!"
Well, I'm starting to think there may well be a Loki!
Posted by: iPhone Hellas | March 21, 2008 4:05 AM
Great Story! ILMAO :-)
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 4:09 AM
"You won't let us teach it in school's, so we finally get to Kick you out."
---Let's stipulate that you idiot god-botherers are actually much better, nobler, and more honest people than we evil science types, and also that we are determined to not let you teach your creationist silliness in "school's." The problem you face is that YOU are the ones that say that educators should "teach the (manufactured) controversy."
If that is the case, then why don't you sort of, uh, practice what you preach, and let us come into your churches and teach science. After all, it's the only way to teach that controversy since we already stipulated that we won't let you do it in schools. Yet, I have yet to hear of any churches that teach real science classes. Why, pray tell, is that? Could it be because you are actually, you know, hypocrites and liars?
By the way, many, if not most of us, are more than willing to let your nonsense be discussed in religion classes, philosophy classes, in mythology, anthropology and sociology classes, it's just that we are not willing to permit you to parade your superstition as scientific data that is supported by any evidence.
And you obviously don't know very much about what goes on inside of a real school anyway, based upon your abysmal lack of literacy.
Posted by: GrondramB | March 21, 2008 4:09 AM
Worst South Park ever has to go the Virgin Mary episode although most recent Britney Spears episode may well have been the least funny.
Dawkins' response to the episode shows he has real sense of humor and is a good sport.
Posted by: Leigh | March 21, 2008 4:22 AM
@Milo (#715)
And by the way, Marcus, there IS no controversy -- at least among those of us in the reality-based community. We've actually studied the scientific evidence (at least some of it . . . there are so many thousands of peer-reviewed papers that no one could read them all), and we don't embrace willful ignorance.
Posted by: Reed | March 21, 2008 4:26 AM
@Ichthyic
I meant my comment on the Christianity Today blog had not appeared. What I was trying to say is that blog was linked here earlier (back at comment 580), and I attempted to comment on it.
Should my comment be Expelled from there, I'll CC it over on ATBC.
Posted by: Michael X | March 21, 2008 4:30 AM
Aw, Marcus. Really? That kind of reasoning makes me think you arn't even trying. At least put some effort into handwaving.
So, yes, why should we want to watch, and then dissect and demolish a propaganda movie that attempts to disable science and do massive educational damage by purporting that evolutionary theory is false? Boy, I just can't figure out why anyone would want to waste the effort. So, I guess it isn't true that you've shown abundant arrogance propped up by impressive ignorance. Well done.
EPIC FAIL Creationist. You're so wrong, you're not even playing.
Posted by: Reed | March 21, 2008 4:35 AM
Very interesting, my comment has not appeared, but the post at http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html
has
mutatedbeen intelligently modified to include links to this post and PZs most recent one.Posted by: Horwood Beer-Master | March 21, 2008 4:35 AM
Yesterday my job came to an end and I became freshly unemployed...
...Today I couldn't give a shit about employment - this is bloody hilarious!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Richard and PZ (and the numbskulls at "Expelled") you've made my day.
Posted by: FloridaAnon | March 21, 2008 4:45 AM
Also posting in an Epic thread.
Shorter PZ Myers (winner of an internet): "I got kicked out for the lulz."
Posted by: Eruvadhril | March 21, 2008 4:50 AM
*laughs and laughs*
Well done, sir.
Posted by: Dave Bell | March 21, 2008 4:52 AM
Probably too late now, but, from my own experience, I suspect you have to spoonfeed the media. However smart and clever the journalists you know personally, you have to sell the story to a system.
Which means you need to throw in lines such as "Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, England". It means you should consider the structure of an AP story, which puts the core in the first paragraph (for several reasons).
Amd, yes, the key point is that you're not being allowed to see the film you were interviewed for. Letting Richard Dawkins in just adds to the win, but it could distort the story. It would be easy to muddy the waters with academic status issues.
Posted by: scote | March 21, 2008 4:53 AM
Funny, my comment hasn't appeared on CT either, even though the post has been updated since my post :-)
However, the article still claims that "Jeffrey Overstreet, a film critic for CT Movies, broke the news on his own blog Thursday night after receiving an e-mail from a college student who was at the screening" Even though Overstreet wasn't informed of the event until **after the screening**. Whereas PZed "insta-blogged" about it during the screening. But then why should facts get in the way of a Christianity Today story...
BTW, I think one of the reasons that blowhard Stuart Blessman tried to claim that PZed was bothering "invited" attendees standing in line was that it didn't occur to Blessman that PZed was chatting with a **group** of friends and family he came with in line. Blessman seems to have assumed that PZed appeared lone-gunman style and that Blessman could get away with claiming that PZed was harassing people near him in line based on the false belief that they were ID True Believers. Wrong. More Epic Fail on the part of the ID crowd.
Posted by: Ramases | March 21, 2008 4:58 AM
It seems science is not the only thing the films' supporters are deluded about.
Amongst the other silly comment by Stuart Blessman is this...
"...the second question was asked by a surprise member of the audience: Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," and arguably the biggest name in the movie other than Mr. Ben Stein himself."
Does this guy seriously think an idiot like Ben Stein is comparable to an eminent scientist like Richard Dawkins?
Posted by: John Flemming | March 21, 2008 5:14 AM
I can see the humour in the situation, but I also see a serious breach of Human Rights. Pulled from the queue to see a movie? I assume the movie is on 'general release' (ie, you pay your money, you get in)? This in the 'Land of the Free'?
Yeah, right, the same kind of freedom that theocrats want - you're free to do as you're told.
What a disgrace, to the shame of all America.
Posted by: Scote | March 21, 2008 5:17 AM
Um, no. You really should read the OP or the comment thread. The film is still pre-release. Hopefully, it will stay that way :-)
As to "Human Rights," if anything having to watch this drivel is the human rights violation, not the other way around.
Posted by: anonimo italiano | March 21, 2008 5:18 AM
ROTFL! They let the bad wolf in! :D
I'd say that only this vignette was worth much more than the whole movie itself. :D
Posted by: Vaal | March 21, 2008 5:36 AM
Cracking! Another own goal by the religiously deluded.
Posted by: Tam | March 21, 2008 5:38 AM
That is the funniest thing I have read all week. How can they not have recognised Dawkins? His face is synonymous with the "New Atheist Movement" that currently has so many Christians up in arms!
The only thing funnier would have been if you were accompanied by Satan, complete with the pitchfork, pointy ears and tail.
Posted by: Brian | March 21, 2008 5:52 AM
I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said. I just wanted to join the party.
Thanks for the laughs, PZ, and everyone else who posted here.
1. Make propaganda film.
2. Lie to obtain interviews.
3. Reverse sense of movie's title to prevent interviewees from attending pre-screening.
EPIC FAIL.
Posted by: Hematite | March 21, 2008 5:55 AM
<Mortal Kombat>MYERS WIN</Mortal Kombat>
This is fantastically funny, a perfect start to the Chocolate Festival.
This is full of win. I don't know how you could be more awesome than sneaking Dawkins into the theatre! (disclaimer: yes, we know no actual sneaking was involved)
P.S. Three cheers for Cuttlefish!
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | March 21, 2008 6:15 AM
Good catch. I think I can speak for all of us non-US readers, when I say that none of us had heard about Ben Stein before this movie. Yes, I know he had some other other role in a different movie, but who really remembered his name?
Dawkins on the other hand has been translated into numerous languages, and was a big name even before his latest book.
Posted by: sophia8 | March 21, 2008 6:28 AM
Has anybody told Marcus Pittman that some semi-literate teenager is posing as him on the internets?
Posted by: Dzho | March 21, 2008 6:58 AM
I was just about to go to bed when I saw this. Now its almost seven oclock in the morning!
Wow.
Posted by: Conan the barber | March 21, 2008 7:03 AM
This is dangerous. Dawkins might leave the theater as a reborn Christian.
Posted by: Dave Springer | March 21, 2008 7:05 AM
Maybe it wasn't you in particular, PZ. It may be they were kicking out everyone with steel toed boots and brass knuckles. HAR HAR HAR
Posted by: October Mermaid | March 21, 2008 7:09 AM
The funniest thing about all of this is that if there really WERE a God, he's clearly not on the side of the Expelled morons.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | March 21, 2008 7:16 AM
LOL!!!
OK Wallace, here's how it works in the real world: you cobble up a piece of tripe as a movie with third-rate intellect behind it, then make it possible for people who are libeled in the movie to attend a showing, and then throw one of them out, you will come out looking like a total doofus. This is what has happened to the producers. And they can't contest professor Myers' version of events because no video.
/late to the Wallace-kicking party
I would like to add my vote to the request for a Dawkins guest-post.
Posted by: LaTomate | March 21, 2008 7:22 AM
Wow!! Take it as a victory - now you're famous!!
I hope Richard tells us about his movie experience too :)
Posted by: Name Withheld To Avoid Harassment | March 21, 2008 7:27 AM
PZ: I suspect you were spotted because the organizers recruited members of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association to watch for you.
Was there a lady wearing a funny hat standing nearby?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 21, 2008 7:31 AM
The pwnage! ROTFL! :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
--------------------
Comment 138 deserve attention. I don't have time now to read any farther, though. 734 comments... man...
Posted by: An | March 21, 2008 7:44 AM
Like, others, I prolly dont have anything new to say but wtf!!! 734 comments!!...wtf again!
PZ MYERS FOR PREZ!!!
Posted by: hughesy | March 21, 2008 7:54 AM
Come-on why didn't you record this on you camera phone and release it on bit torrent -can't you sneak you daughter or Richard in or something to record it again ? I refuse to pay any money to watch this garbage-i will rip off the producers as much as possible though!!!
Posted by: Heather | March 21, 2008 8:02 AM
im in ur teatr watchn ur flmz!
How ironic and funny this whole thing is. Expelled from expelled, truly a made for the headlines situation.
Maybe the IDers need to make one of those packs of playing cards with Dawkins and PZs faces on it, maybe Hitchens as well. But what can be on the rest of the pack?
Posted by: Rodman | March 21, 2008 8:04 AM
hehe, I live in Iran and I thought these things only happen over here. So much for the land of the free!
Posted by: cmotdibbler | March 21, 2008 8:05 AM
heather: the rest of the deck *must* be made of jokers!
Posted by: Aspirin99 | March 21, 2008 8:05 AM
Wow, I wish I would have seen this last night. The mall is 5 minutes from my house. What a great story.
Posted by: Craig | March 21, 2008 8:06 AM
Wonderful and funny as hell.
An unwelcome prostate check for fundies.
Posted by: Anthony | March 21, 2008 8:07 AM
Seems like a waste of blogging time. The subject is boring.
Posted by: Ichthyes | March 21, 2008 8:08 AM
That is AMAZING! I'm still giggling over it. This one will keep me smiling for hours. I can't wait to hear Prof. Dawkins on the subject.
Posted by: Deanne Taylor (Lilith) | March 21, 2008 8:14 AM
PZ:
Had to drop a comment on this. I was getting ready to go to work this morning when I was read your article over the phone.
Thanks for the laugh. It's a STEALTH DAWKINS.
Hee hee. Hee hee hee. Hee hee ha HAHAHAHAH.
Cough. :D
Dee
Posted by: Roel | March 21, 2008 8:15 AM
PZ,
The Dawkins part is funny, but I don't think the rest of the story is funny at all.
A police officer denied you access to a movie anybody else is allowed to see, for no good reason, a movie in which you yourself appear for goodness' sake.
This is OUTRAGEOUS. It's a violation of your civil rights. You should file a complaint against the policeman and sue the movie theatre.
I can only hope that the media pick up the story, and show the whole country that creationism is not interested in truth or justice at all, only in thought control.
Posted by: LisaJ | March 21, 2008 8:16 AM
Wow! Look what I've missed while sleeping!
This is perhaps the funniest thing I've hear in ages. Unbelievable! hahahahahahaha
I will be laughing all day on my drive to Toronto, this is just awesome.
So you're telling me, PZ, that you had to reserve seats under your own name. Did Richard Dawkins also supply his name before the event, and they still didn't realize?! Wow, what a bunch of idiots!
hahaha, this is fantastic.
Posted by: Claudia | March 21, 2008 8:19 AM
can't wait to hear what Richard Dawkins have to say.
it was great to start this friday laughing out loud!
Posted by: Wiggy | March 21, 2008 8:22 AM
This remarkable turn of events deserves a celebration. I'm popping the cork off a bottle of wine right now. But first, won't everyone join me in a toast? To PZ and Professor Dawkins. May all of your victories be so sweet. Cheers!
Posted by: Joe | March 21, 2008 8:24 AM
Say, PZ? You were in an Apple Store. You could have called the media from one of their sample iPhones. (I can understand why you were too distracted to think of it though -- that's absolutely hilarious!)
Posted by: Not important | March 21, 2008 8:24 AM
It was probably a policeman on detail. Paid for by the theater, and yes the theater can kick people out for any reason they see fit and it would be trespassing to refuse.
People seriously need to do some thinking before they start yelling about police acting outside the law.
Posted by: catta | March 21, 2008 8:30 AM
Epic win. :D Oh, how I wish that someone with a camera phone has filmed this...
Adding to the "who is this Ben Stein anyway?" sentiment -- nobody in Europe has a clue who this guy is (all I knew was that he hosted some sort of TV show a few years ago; and I knew this only because I'm a little more involved with US culture than normal). The movie wouldn't make it to a screening here. If they tried, I'm pretty sure they'd be hard pressed to find an actual movie theatre to rent. Er, because we're all raging anti-semites and Nazis over here, of course, not because creationists are widely considered part of the lunatic fringe.
Posted by: Grover | March 21, 2008 8:33 AM
*Sigh*
And it's exactly this kind of "Haw, haw, stupid morons, they're so dumb" attitude that stirs up so much anti-science sentiment among Christians in the first place. If you'd stop treating them like idiots, maybe some of them would actually listen to what you have to say. Oddly enough, people tend to not listen to what you have to say when you're an ass. Weird I know.
Of course that's not really what it's about, is it? It's not really about the sharing of knowledge anymore, it's about being right. How's that working for you? Enjoy the smug satisfaction in knowing that you're pretty much behaving exactly like the fundamentalists that got you so angry in the first place. But it's different for you, of course. Because you're right. Right?
*Sigh*
Posted by: Nunya | March 21, 2008 8:34 AM
"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse. Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Proverbs 9:7-10
Posted by: grafixer | March 21, 2008 8:35 AM
PLEASE get this to the press! The Orlando Sentinel might be interested in your story. It is important that the public, and the FL Legislature realize how prejudicial these neocreos are becoming. If you don't believe what they do, you will be "cast out." Sounds real Christian of them, eh?
Please get this to some reporters.
Posted by: Gary Ruppert | March 21, 2008 8:37 AM
The fact is, you liberals know this movie has the facts, and try to argue, but you have no recent discourse, so you do illegal things, and whine. Here in the heartland, we have the right to kick you out, especially since you kicked us out, and God out, of the classrooms and our nation. We are fighting back. God is with us.
Posted by: grafixer | March 21, 2008 8:41 AM
C'mon everybody, sing it with me...
"Academic FreeDUMB!!!"
Posted by: HumanisticJones | March 21, 2008 8:42 AM
Dude! I know I'm late in the commenting here, but I just read this and now all of my coworkers are staring at me from the loud yelling of "OWNED!" That is some of the best news I've read all week.
Posted by: Falcarius | March 21, 2008 8:43 AM
Wow...this is just too good. I agree with the commenter who said this would make great Daily Show fodder (I fear the topic, and certainly the delicious double irony, is too "inside" for the mainstream media to make too big a deal of it). Too bad they're off until Monday.
Perhaps Dawkins will bring it up on Maher's show, but has anyone forwarded the story to Keith Olbermann? It seems like a good candidate for "Worst Persons" honors.
Posted by: Amy | March 21, 2008 8:43 AM
I wish there were some way to notify Bill Maher. This is just the kind of thing he would love to put in his monologue tonight on HBO.
Posted by: Zarquon | March 21, 2008 8:45 AM
No, he's really not. PZ hasn't lied to anyone or pretended to be persecuted. That you ignore the lies and hypocrisy of the ID crowd is your problem, because it destroys your credibility.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 21, 2008 8:48 AM
This is what we wrote on the whiteboard at the contact table today, including a very well drawn picture of the Grinch. Yesterday we had "Communists and the Grinch." (I think we should go for broke and write "Atheists, the Grinch, and hundreds of millions dead") This seemingly innocent question seems to pack a lot of heat. Grant, a former atheist, came up with it.
Do you really think you're being clever Stuey?
grow up
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | March 21, 2008 8:49 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's AWESOME!
Posted by: Plognark | March 21, 2008 9:00 AM
That's so funny I almost spewed coffee out my nose :D
Posted by: True Bob | March 21, 2008 9:01 AM
Very amusing. More evidence that these IDiots haven't graduated from Middle School yet, the pettiness.
Posted by: Andrewf | March 21, 2008 9:02 AM
I'm appalled.
I'm appalled that someone can be chucked out of a cinema queue by the police on the whim of the cinema owner.
I'm appalled that (according to the comments here) police in the US can moonlight as security guards WHILE WEARING THEIR UNIFORMS. Bloody hell. Does noone else see the massive potential for abuse of power there?
(I used to be appalled by the strength of the Creationist movement in America, but I've kind of got used to that idea by now.)
Posted by: Aaron | March 21, 2008 9:08 AM
PZ, that is BEAUTIFUL.
just BEAUTIFUL.
Despite the police interference, which is questionable, you have no doubt pulled the most ridiculously AWESOME fastball on them EVAR.
Kudos.
Posted by: Paul | March 21, 2008 9:08 AM
Disturbing with a funny twist!
Posted by: Keith | March 21, 2008 9:09 AM
Yes I am.Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | March 21, 2008 9:11 AM
Oh, that's too beautiful. I hope RD finds time to write about this and to trash that pathetic movie.
Posted by: True Bob | March 21, 2008 9:13 AM
What is the concern about the off-duty cop? That is very routine. Ever see a funeral procession, with police? Those guys are off duty. Like the ones who direct traffic at the end of church services. And yes, they can arrest you if they are off duty, if you break the law (like trespassing, eh).
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 21, 2008 9:14 AM
"763: "The fact is, you liberals know this movie has the facts, and try to argue, but you have no recent discourse, so you do illegal things, and whine. Here in the heartland, we have the right to kick you out, especially since you kicked us out, and God out, of the classrooms and our nation. We are fighting back. God is with us."
Out on his sorry ass!
You can have your imaginary pals, God and Jesus - just don't expect undeluded people to think very highly of you or your little fantasy friends, especially when you force your unenlightened religious puke on kids who should be learning how the world operates, not what goes on in your narrow-minded, god-intoxicated head.
Posted by: pawiz | March 21, 2008 9:17 AM
Oh the irony, it almost hurts. Or is that my sides splitting?
Posted by: Matt | March 21, 2008 9:22 AM
@ #750: Seems like a waste of blogging time. The subject is boring.
Thanks for taking your time to post that valuable insight. Have an owl.
@ #779: Thanks for that. I was having a hard time articulating scathing contempt. Little Gary does love to show his ignorance in forums.
Posted by: David Harmon | March 21, 2008 9:23 AM
Damn, but you couldn't make this stuff up. Congratulations on your Total Win, PZ!
Posted by: fontinalis | March 21, 2008 9:25 AM
This may be the first time I've actually laughed out loud from reading a blog post. Bloody brilliant.
Posted by: Chang | March 21, 2008 9:29 AM
See, God does have a sense of humor!
Posted by: Glen | March 21, 2008 9:35 AM
It's worthy of further media, television appears so mundane in contrast! - Most Excellent :-)
Posted by: SteveM | March 21, 2008 9:38 AM
I'm appalled that (according to the comments here) police in the US can moonlight as security guards WHILE WEARING THEIR UNIFORMS.
This is common practice, Police at road construction sites are off duty and paid by the DPW not the Police dept. When the phone company needs to block traffic to replace a telephone pole, they have to hire off duty police to direct traffic. Police at rock concerts, or directing traffic after football games, are off duty police hired by the promoters, etc.
Does noone else see the massive potential for abuse of power there?
No. They are not being hired to be thugs, they are still acting as police officers and bound by the same rules of conduct. They are still police, it is just that for that time their salary is being paid by a private party, but that does not make that officer a "henchman". If the policeman wasn't hired by the producers for the screening, the producers could have still called the (on-duty) police and had PZ (or anyone else they want) removed from their private screening. Just as anyone throwing a party could call the police and have a "party-crasher" removed.
Geeze, I don't know why everyone is so upset about the whole off-duty cop thing. Imagine you rent the theatre for a wedding reception and someone uninvited wanders in refuses to leave. Don't you think you should be able to call the police and have him removed? Now suppose your wedding involves a famous person that will incite a lot of gate crashing. Rather than have you calling every five minutes to have someone removed, the police require you to hire some off duty police so the rest of the force can do their regular jobs and not be tied up at your event. I do not see the "abuse of power" potential. They are being hired to be police, not leg-breakers.
The officer is not to blame here, the producers are. Not because they didn't have the right to exclude PZ (they did), but because it was just so stupid to do so.
Posted by: blaggghhh | March 21, 2008 9:39 AM
It's odd to me that they expelled you but let your guest & family go in. I don't see what good that does them. Nothing they do makes sense.
Posted by: Raven | March 21, 2008 9:51 AM
As someone who used to be a manager at a theater, many of them hire off-duty cops as security. Nothing weird at all about it being a cop - and once they're hired by the company, they're effectively private security in terms of what you can get them to do. They just, you know, can arrest someone if they have to.
And it makes the poor theater staff's lives so much easier. Just like it would yours if you needed to have someone removed for being a nuisance - which is your right on your property. It is, of course, important here that PZ wasn't actively trying to protest or any such protected thing. Because he was actually trying to be a customer, the rules are different.
Posted by: isles | March 21, 2008 9:51 AM
Only in the ID movement do they have to shield the tender minds of their bleevers so assiduously from the assault of reason, personified by Big Bad PZ Myers!
Posted by: M Goose | March 21, 2008 9:54 AM
Jumpin' Jehosefat! Nice work,PZ Myers. And thanks to the blogosphere for spreading it around. Meantime, I'm off to celebrate Flat Earth Friday, where the masses celebrate spring by sacrificing reason on the altar of faith. (In my case, it means having the first barbecue of the season.)
Posted by: Keith Douglas | March 21, 2008 9:56 AM
Yowza. This is nuts. Of course, I expect no end of misrepresentations from the godbotherers and fundies ...
Posted by: gir | March 21, 2008 9:58 AM
loldawkins http://i29.tinypic.com/x4r81z.jpg
Posted by: Cheezits | March 21, 2008 9:59 AM
At any rate, Mark Mathis lied to me, too. He told me that "Crossroads" was a "working title" for the film.
It was a working title - it worked to snooker people into the interviews.
And then they accuse of Dawkins of "crashing" the screening and "working his way in". Sheesh!
Posted by: Kris Verburgh | March 21, 2008 10:00 AM
Funny, but also a bit concerning. And mister Meyers seemed to be a decoy for Dawkins!
Posted by: Icelander | March 21, 2008 10:00 AM
I'd take it as a compliment: You're a bigger threat to the ID crowd than even Richard Dawkins!
Posted by: Davee C | March 21, 2008 10:08 AM
Re documentary subterfuge, it's not as though Dr Dawkins hasn't done it himself:
Richard Dawkins Comes to Call
http://www.dailygrail.com/node/5817
Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 21, 2008 10:15 AM
Saw this quote on the Dawkins site, used by a poster named Corylus:
Just so fitting. Not just for the IDiots running the screening, but for all their sycophants who can't bring themselves to see any problem with the massive, obvious hypocrisy of this whole debacle.
These people don't show the slightest hint of remorse for making wild, false accusations against innocent people. Isn't their imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? Or do they just think it's not really lying if you're Lying For Jesus™?
Posted by: Anthony | March 21, 2008 10:15 AM
Excellent job! Keep up the good work PZ.
Posted by: thorsten wulff | March 21, 2008 10:21 AM
Perfect! Great story that saved my rainy Karfreitag afternoon, PZ.
All the best from old europe ;))
Posted by: Nan | March 21, 2008 10:22 AM
Perfect. You made my day. Irony meters planet wide have maxed out.
Posted by: dsmvwld | March 21, 2008 10:25 AM
So now you know what students and educators who are targeted because of their belief in open discussion of ID feel like. How appropriate.
Posted by: Jay Rogers | March 21, 2008 10:27 AM
As a big proponent of the film EXPELLED, I don't see any irony here at all. Irony is when the expected is the opposite of the actual event.
If anyone wants to see real irony and you want to watch the Myers and Dawkins clips that badly, you can just go to my blog.
http://forerunner.com/blog
I saw the movie on Tuesday and was given a DVD with over 30 minutes of raw clips. We were told as teachers to show it in class and use it as a debate opportunity for our students to discuss the issue of censorship, and so on. Of course, they want it to go to people who will promote it and get our friends to come out to see the movie. (Yes, it's a vast right wing conspiracy!)
The DVD has the infamous PZ Myers interview in which you say your goal is to destroy or marginalize religion. (If I was really smart I should have bought up 100 of these and sold them to evolutionists on EBay as "contraband.")
Movie producers often do promotional test screenings before the release. Certain types of people are invited and some are not.
It would be no different if you tried to crash an advance test screening of Indiana Jones or Star Trek except the security would have been tighter. And yes, you should have been arrested if you trespassed in any private function.
On the other hand, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, the clip you wanted to see is already on my website.
What is ironic is that you can see the parts you really want to see the most -- there are numerous clips out there already -- and you are making it sound as though it's a huge conspiracy to bar you from the debate.
What is happening with EXPELLED though is that some movie reviewers want to crash the gates early so they can pan the film and pronounce it DOA -- as did Roger Moore (no, not 007 -- he would have gotten in) the Orlando Sentinel reviewer.
Most reviewers who are allowed into advance screenings have the professional courtesy not to publish their reviews until the week the movie premieres. No such courtesy here. The political stakes are too high.
The MAIN reason the media is not invited to these screenings is because the film is in raw form and is not ready for the general public yet. We saw a high-res DVD version that was not quite cinema quality.
All the secrecy and the buzz is working toward a big box office. I know all you anti-ID-ers are warming your insides over this imagined "incident," but how does it really work in your favor?
Controversy sells. More people are going to see the movie as a result. That's what you want?
If I didn't believe in a higher intelligent design, I'd see it as a great cosmic irony.
Posted by: pam | March 21, 2008 10:27 AM
oh.. this is so classic.. It amazes me what people will do in the name of fear........... I will be giggling at the absurdity of this for along time. Oh and to be in the company of such a great man.. one would envy you..... if it wern't a sin....;)
Posted by: Andy N | March 21, 2008 10:28 AM
It is snowing here at the moment, but I'm as warm as toast after reading this.
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 21, 2008 10:29 AM
Check this out. They say PZ had no ticket and Dawkins was crashing the party.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?article=11
Posted by: Matt | March 21, 2008 10:34 AM
I must not be up on who these people are... but sure seems to be a popular topic and funny to most. Can anyone clue me in on what I'm missing?
Posted by: Wolfhound | March 21, 2008 10:34 AM
I love how a hypocritical piece of trash like Jay Rogers tries to spin this as a victory. And, DSM, when ID proponents who are merely advicating for "an open discussion" are escorted off of school grounds by law enforcement you MIGHT have a point.
Posted by: Someone who doesn't care | March 21, 2008 10:34 AM
Who is Richard Dawkins?
Posted by: Nick K | March 21, 2008 10:34 AM
Oh, what I wouldn't give to see the security camera footage of this.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 21, 2008 10:36 AM
Most reviewers who are allowed into advance screenings have the professional courtesy not to publish their reviews until the week the movie premieres.
PZ is a professional movie reviewer?
Posted by: Jake | March 21, 2008 10:36 AM
Oh my gosh!
I actually snorted some water out of my nose when I read that!
Posted by: Alex | March 21, 2008 10:38 AM
That's rich! Serves them right. Are their arguments so weak that they can't afford to let anybody who hasn't drunk their kool-aid see the movie?
Posted by: lololololololol | March 21, 2008 10:39 AM
What are you five years old? Grow up you have a daughter
Posted by: Jay Rogers | March 21, 2008 10:40 AM
Richard Dawkins crashes the party at a screening of "Expelled"
By JEFFREY OVERSTREET
Published: March 20, 2008
I just received this email report from Looking Closer reader Stuart Blessman. He thought I'd find it interesting, and I certainly do. He also gave me permission to share it with you. So, here's Stuart's account:
My name is Stuart Blessman and I'm a student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities involved with a campus outreach ministry that's associated with an on campus church, Maranatha Christian Fellowship. Our head pastor was recently offered two pairs of tickets to go see an advanced screening of Ben Stein's "Expelled", but had to instead pass the tickets to an associate pastor, who then offered one of them to me. So at 7:00 pm on Thursday my friend Grant and I got to go see the movie. Right away, let me just say that this is the Best Documentary of 2008...if it will get played. The basic premise of the movie is that Intelligent Design should be allowed equal footing as a teachable theory within academia. This movie is not an apology for Creation; pains are taken to distinguish Creation from Intelligent Design. This is also not a movie that bashes Evolutional Theory, although many rational arguments are brought up as to the validity of Evolutionary thought as well as the long-term consequences of an Evolutionary Worldview.
The Associate Producer of the film, Mark Mathis, introduced the film as well as moderated for the quick Q&A following the film. The movie we saw was a rough Director's Cut; at several moments things appeared to be out of sync, and occasionally archival historical footage appeared to "jump" on the screen. Mathis also mentioned that several music cues might change before the final cut, which is understandable since several high profile songs and artists are used in the film.
The film can best be described as subtly clever and occasionally funny. Emotions are stirred up especially built around the movies overall theme*, and many scenes especially later in the movie might be difficult to watch based on one's ethnic and religious background.
But enough about the film - the real highlight of the evening occurred after the showing, during the Q&A. Mathis led this discussion, and the second question was asked by a surprise member of the audience: Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," and arguably the biggest name in the movie other than Mr. Ben Stein himself. As this screening was by invitation only, Dawkins appearance was quite a surprise to both the audience and Mathis.
Dawkins asked a simple question: Why was one of his colleagues interviewed in the movie denied a chance to come see this movie and protest it and in fact was escorted out by security prior to admittance to the theatre? The irony apparently escaped Mr. Dawkins that he himself was a gatecrasher to the movie and was uninvited; nevertheless, he wanted to know why his colleague was turned away even though he himself was admitted as were his colleague's family.
I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins' academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn't, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film's producers to be found, and the man certainly didn't identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it's possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre's management didn't want to take any chances.
So ultimately Dawkins' first complaint was irrelevant. His second complaint was that any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed by Ben Stein (and by Mark Mathis) for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy. Unfortunately, the entire audience, minus Dawkins' posse, agreed that that the film's main point was that Intelligent Design should be taught in conjunction with Evolution.
The Q&A then proceeded pretty uneventfully, with several of the questions addressed to Dawkins himself. Mathis and Dawkins also clearly had spoken on numerous occasions and appeared to continue an argument that they had started previously. The evening however was cut short by theatre management and an imminent showing of another movie in the same room.
Ben Stein's "Expelled" is one of the more evenhanded, clever, and well-produced documentaries currently on the market. While the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate can spark much emotion, anyone walking away from this film will be convinced that the merits of Intelligent Design should be on the same level playing field as Evolutionary Theory. This film is about the freedom of speech, the freedom of ideas and ability to express those ideas...not about whether God created the heavens and the earth.
*SPOILER!! Proceed and highlight text below only if you want to know more about the film's specific content.
Posted by: Adam | March 21, 2008 10:43 AM
wheatdogg,
It looks like they just copied and pasted the blog post that was discussed earlier (http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/richard-dawkins-crashes-the-party-at-a-screening-of-expelled/)
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | March 21, 2008 10:44 AM
Christianity Today has an article about Dawkin's attendance, but no mention of PZ's expulsion. See http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/dawkins_crashes.html
Posted by: Mike | March 21, 2008 10:44 AM
Shoulda shot that popo in the face, knowwhat I'm sayin?
Posted by: True Bob | March 21, 2008 10:45 AM
Yes, Adam, they did, and worse Troll JR did that in the comments here.
Posted by: Kevin | March 21, 2008 10:46 AM
My name is Stuart Blessman:
"Our head pastor was recently offered two pairs of tickets to go see an advanced screening of Ben Stein's "Expelled", but had to instead pass the tickets to an associate pastor, who then offered one of them to me. "
Oh, well, that clears it up then. except...
"So at 7:00 pm on Thursday my boyfriend Grant and I got to go see the movie." so... one ticket is good for 2 people? or are you saying one ticket is good for a couple?
or that you made up the part about tickets?
Posted by: Jay Rogers | March 21, 2008 10:46 AM
Cheezits: PZ is a professional movie reviewer?
**********
The preceding paragraph said Roger Moore the Orlando Sentinel movie reviewer.
Posted by: Tom-Tom | March 21, 2008 10:47 AM
Oh my goodness!! I laughed so hard when I read this kim chi came flying out of my nose, and into the future.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 21, 2008 10:49 AM
There was no attempt to "crash" anything. Dr. Myers signed up on the Expelled website, using his real name. He explicitly stated that he would be bringing guests. He did not trespass, he was threatened with arrest for trying to attend a screening of a movie he was interviewed for under false pretenses, a screening for which he had registered using the website offered by the people who made the movie.
You're just making shit up. Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
No tickets were required. No "crashing" occurred. This has already been pointed out. The fact that no tickets are required was explicitly stated in the confirmation email PZ got when he signed up for the screening, using his real name, and making it clear he would be bringing guests. Can't these creationist nutcases even keep their lies straight?
Posted by: William Wallace | March 21, 2008 10:50 AM
I hypothesize: We will see a Paul Allen funded rebuttal to Expelled, which cannot be done if Expelled flops.
Which might explain why PZ and the PTN-syndicate (PT-TO-NCSE) is giving so much free publicity to the film.
Posted by: Steve Courtright | March 21, 2008 10:51 AM
Fun story, PZ, thanks for sharing it. And keep up the good work.
Posted by: guthrie | March 21, 2008 10:52 AM
Grover- what is wrong with pointing at idiots and laughing? Then explaining in mind numbing detail why they are idiots?
Posted by: Damian | March 21, 2008 10:53 AM
After that little fix, I think that I can agree with that.
Only that they obtained the tickets in the same way that everyone else did. They followed procedure, so you really don't have an argument. Of course, few people would disagree with the fact that the producers were within their right to do what they did. It is simply deliciously ironic, that's all. Don't worry yourself with such details, though.
Ah, the old professional courtesy trick. So soon? An amateur, I tells ya!
Posted by: Atheist | March 21, 2008 10:53 AM
How secure are you in your beliefs that you need to shelter them from those who don't believe?
Discuss at Atheist Revolution Forum.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | March 21, 2008 10:53 AM
Hmm, does the fact that PZ signed up with is actual name initially explain why they were looking for him and not Dawkins since Dawkins was just listed as a guest? Very likely if Dawkins had been separately registered they would have tried to kick him out as well.
Posted by: Adrian | March 21, 2008 10:54 AM
Over 800 comments in and not a single "don't tase me, bro"? For shame!
This made my morning. Good Friday indeed.
Posted by: Harry | March 21, 2008 10:54 AM
That is bloody brilliant. Way to take one for the team.
Posted by: catta | March 21, 2008 10:54 AM
Jay Rogers, just to clear this up for you: the "expected is the opposite of the actual event" when people who have registered to view a movie screening upon public invitation by the movie makers are expelled for the reason that they might dissent -- when the producers are supposedly promoting the idea that nobody should be removed from a discussion on grounds of their views. You would expect that if they were serious about this idea, they'd go through with it escpecially where discussion about their own views is concerned. The opposite happened. This fits your definition of irony perfectly. The key here is that the screening was far removed from your usual test audience screening in that there was an open invitation, and both PZ and Dawkins complied with all requirements stated. If you think there are exceptions to the "all viewpoints allowed" rule, forget about ID being taught in public schools. If you think there should be no exceptions, protest the exclusion of people with dissenting views from open-invitation screenings by your heroes. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Mike | March 21, 2008 10:56 AM
Then Dicky Dawkins shoulda jumped up and did a ninja karate backflip and gone so gangsta on they asses they woulda been eating lead enchiladas from he sawed off when they jawed off.
Whatchoo think I be sayin all these years? Only hot lead sandwiches make these home slices bow down. Word.
Posted by: ERV | March 21, 2008 11:02 AM
Funny-- I got to see Lord of the Rings, Phantom Menace, etc weeks before everyone else, and I never needed to sign a nondisclosure agreement or had to hire police officers? Prescreenings are to test for editing mistakes and to pump up opening weekend numbers.Lie much, Creationist rat?
Posted by: EC | March 21, 2008 11:02 AM
You retards, Dawkins was in the movie, they probably didnt know who this ass clown blogger dickhead is.
Posted by: Teircel | March 21, 2008 11:03 AM
This IS priceless!
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 21, 2008 11:04 AM
Christianity Today:
A critic of another kind "crashed" a screening in Minnesota on Thursday night--Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and arguably the most outspoken critic of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Dawkins himself appears in the documentary--but claims he was duped into believing it was going to be an objective account of Darwinism vs. ID.
Jeffrey Overstreet, a film critic for CT Movies, broke the news on his own blog Thursday night after receiving an e-mail from a college student who was at the screening.
WTF? They are claiming that Overstreet posted on this before PZ?
Yet another screw-up by a fact-challenged Christian outfit.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 21, 2008 11:04 AM
So, now the vast criminal conspiracy that exists only in your hollow head has new members! Does it have any new evidence? Which is to say, any evidence at all?
More questions you haven't answered, and will most likely flee in terror from:
1) Is it your claim that the NPR story you linked to (or at least your spin on it) is absolute truth, despite all evidence to the contrary, unless NPR retracts it?
2) Does that apply to every NPR story, or only the ones that feed your persecution complex?
3) Where's your evidence that this "PT-mafia" you speak of actually exists outside your own delusional paranoid fantasies?
4) Is the "PTN-syndicate" a new form of this delusion, or a separate fantasy, and do you have the slightest shred of evidence to support it?
5) What do you think Dr. Myers "did" to get himself kicked out of the screening of your propaganda film (given that every rationale you gave for his removal has been shown to be laughably false), and where is your evidence in support of this?
6) Since when do "don't be stupid" and "don't lie through your teeth" constitute an "ideological test"?
7) Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
Posted by: Cheezits | March 21, 2008 11:05 AM
Cheezits: PZ is a professional movie reviewer?
**********
The preceding paragraph said Roger Moore the Orlando Sentinel movie reviewer.
That's all very nice, but what does that have to do with PZ? Why was he kicked out?
Posted by: catta | March 21, 2008 11:10 AM
Hate to break to ya, EC, but PZ was in the movie as well.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 11:11 AM
And finally at comment #760, the whingers come in!
"So now you know what students and educators who are targeted because of their belief in open discussion of ID feel like. "
You mean all those poor persecuted IDers actually laugh their heads off when we criticize their uninformed beliefs? Well, we better keep at it then! The world needs laughter!
To clarify really quickly for the assorted gawpers, the issue is not one of legality, since they are, as far as I can tell, within their rights to refuse to let people in, and PZ was well within his rights to try to get in in the first place. The issue is that by forcibly denying entry to Dr. Myers, the Expelled team is proving themselves to be a load of WANKERS. And by letting Dawkins in, they're proving themselves to be STUPID wankers.
If anyone wants to challenge my point about their wankitude, they're welcome to try. Or they could just keep wanking.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 11:11 AM
Maybe he meant that Ben Stein is a bigger name than Richard Dawkins in the same sense the Paris Hilton is a bigger name than Richard Dawkins. It's all about fame, not qualifications, intelligence, integrity... etc. :-/
Grover (#760): You have to understand something. It's totally about "sharing the knowledge," but the people who need it most spit it back as if it were a forkfull of rotting fish, and damn the would-be educator to hell for the sin of attempting to educate. This gets frustrating and predictable after a while - hence the hostility. Also, the ID crowd is infamous for its intellectual vapidity and dishonest tactics. There's a long history here.
Your concerns are noted, but carry limited weight because they fail to address or even recognize important facets of the bigger picture.
Posted by: Damian | March 21, 2008 11:12 AM
Contrast Stuart Blessman's backtracking, once he was called on his blatant dishonesty:
with:
So, he was "literally 3 feet away from Myers when he was "expelled,", and could hear, "every word", and yet, he couldn't quite make his mind up whether PZ "didn't cause a disruption", or whether the "management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in."
I think that I will go with the four or five accounts of the people that I trust, to be honest.
By the way, Wesley Elsberry, from Panda's Thumb, has conclusively shown that the domain name, "Expelled", was bought before the interviews with Dawkins, PZ, and Eugenie Scott.
They did not, at any point, buy the domain for "Crossroads". Fancy that!
Posted by: Lazarus | March 21, 2008 11:13 AM
You can never have an open discussion with someone that is blinded by faith. Religion blinds so much more efficiently than anything. My greatest fear is that in America we have lost our ability to reason.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 21, 2008 11:14 AM
And to further compound EC's idiocy, if they didn't know who he was, how could they identify him by name to throw him out?
Posted by: EC | March 21, 2008 11:17 AM
Maybe they didn't recognize him, most of us can pick richard dawkins out fairly quick.
Posted by: Kim van der Linde | March 21, 2008 11:20 AM
Yeah, this is the best thing they could do to themselves. They probably expected PZ, but did not think about Dawkins beforehand because he lives in the UK. Very good.
Posted by: Publius | March 21, 2008 11:24 AM
Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
"Security" is so flawed.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 21, 2008 11:24 AM
Irony is when the expected is the opposite of the actual event.
So, what is it when someone with intelligence gets expelled from a movie called "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed"?
You're right, that IS what we should have expected! :-D
Posted by: Siggers Nation | March 21, 2008 11:24 AM
The only thing that could have been better would be to have a third stage uranium-tipped sabot comprised of Richard Dawson injected into the theater.
Survey says!
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 21, 2008 11:25 AM
@ #806:
Matt, what's going on is the unwashed, ignorant masses of Bible-bashing creationists/intelligent design proponents put together a turd of a movie that PZ Myers has been discussing at length over the last several months. Last night PZ and family, along with other notables as internationally recognized biologist Richard Dawkins, went to go see this Expelled movie. But the movie's producers singled out PZ, said he tried to "crash" the premiere in Minneapolis by sneaking in "without a ticket" (to a ticketless event), and they let Dawkins in apparently accidentally, while claiming the same (that Dawkins was crashing without a ticket).
The joke is they let the "enemy" in to review their tripe while somewhat misfiring their censoring reflexivity upon a lesser known critic in PZ.
Noticing their huge gaffe, they have since begun the campaign to cover up their screw up by claiming Dawkins got in uninvited (even though there's a list with his name onn it, as well as PZ's), and that PZ and crew were there to rabble-rouse.
Posted by: The J Train | March 21, 2008 11:28 AM
I'm always proud to be on your blogroll, but never more than today. This made my week.
Posted by: Steven | March 21, 2008 11:32 AM
Hilarious and stupid. What I don't get is that a policeman stopped him. Did the movie producer own the cinema hall or something? As far as I know they don't have the ability to stop people going the cinema. Were did he go to see it?
Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 11:32 AM
Do you know if their is another screening? I want you to try to get in again, but with a more expansive guest list. What follows is my sample posse.
Get all four horsemen- Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, & Hitchens. Then round up more skeptics- Shermer, Randi, Penn, & Teller. Check Amazon to find some rationalist authors. Throw some ScienceBloggers in for good measure. I just want to see the heads of the Expelled people asplode.
Feel free to add to that if you wish.
Posted by: Gus | March 21, 2008 11:34 AM
As funny as this is, I'm disturbed that there was a screening of this in my city.
Posted by: Jay Rogers | March 21, 2008 11:35 AM
So now we are arguing over the definition of the word "crashed" and whether it was a "by invitation only" event?
Don't forget to see Dawkins and Myers clips from the movie here:
http://forerunner.com/blog
It's by invitation only! You are all invited!
Posted by: Gary Hurd | March 21, 2008 11:36 AM
Bravo PZ. That was the best laugh I had in three days.
Thanks!
Posted by: Michelle | March 21, 2008 11:39 AM
Go folks! if we try hard we can make it to the 1000 comments! :P
Posted by: catta | March 21, 2008 11:40 AM
Er... Jay? I know YouTube is hard, but you realize that you can't show embedded video of friends-only videos? Trying to emulate the movie's "publicity" style on YouTube? =)
Posted by: Cheezits | March 21, 2008 11:40 AM
So now we are arguing over the definition of the word "crashed" and whether it was a "by invitation only" event?
I can't help it if creationist morons used those phrases. :-D PZ and RD were "invited" same as anyone else.
Posted by: dsmvwld | March 21, 2008 11:40 AM
Well, that would require them to be allowed on school grounds in the first place...
A little hyperbole, but what is the difference between banning them from school grounds and banning their freedom to share their ideas from school grounds? I see no difference.
Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | March 21, 2008 11:41 AM
"Enjoy the smug satisfaction in knowing that you're pretty much behaving exactly like the fundamentalists that got you so angry in the first place."
And they're still shocked that we keep calling them idiots. Awesome.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 11:41 AM
Oh, my. Is William Walleye at it again?
Posted by: Logicel | March 21, 2008 11:41 AM
I am well satiated with this delicious main course of irony. However, I want dessert now. I am expecting an airy, vacuous mouse covered with masses of imitation whipped cream, topped with a red, red, red, wrinkled sour cherry of shame--better known as some frantic whizzing-of-wheels-stuck-in-sand media spin by the IDiots.
Posted by: MartinM | March 21, 2008 11:42 AM
Well, yes. We're doing so because you suggested that PZ was trespassing at a private function to which he was not invited. Since this is not in fact true, others corrected you. Why do you find this surprising?
Posted by: MartinM | March 21, 2008 11:46 AM
1) Preventing people from teaching ID in science class is not the same as 'banning them from school grounds.'
2) Teaching one's ideas in science class is a merit-based privilege, not a right. ID proponents have failed to earn that privilege, but ask for special treatment anyway.
Posted by: Richard Thomas | March 21, 2008 11:47 AM
Creationists are beyond any chance of rational discourse about the evidence behind the theory of evolution and are incapable of participating in anything but soundbites where no real meat can be presented to show the vacuousness of their position.
Had Mr. Stein or any creationist any real balls they would sit down for a real discussion of science in a national forum where each side gives at least a 2 hour presentation of the science with only people that are on their side presenting the evidence that they have to offer.
This could be presented in separate divisions wherein each side refers only to the science they have at hand and with no reference to the other sides position or people.
Following this half hour segments could be put together in an ongoing manner to rebut one another if there was anything left to rebut. So any creationists out there that are willing to talk to people like Ben Stein about actually making a case or do you need to remain in the shadows full of fear at actual science?
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 21, 2008 11:49 AM
#855, Jay Rogers' blog:
"Check back for my random thoughts on eschatology, world missions, God's Law and Society, theonomy, Christian Reconstruction, pro-life activism, evangelism testimonies, Neo-Puritan theology and social theory, revival and spiritual awakening, church history, and so on."
I'd rather watch paint dry.
Posted by: Elyse | March 21, 2008 11:49 AM
That is too funny. Those poor people, they don't know which end is their ass and which is their face. You must have felt pretty ballin' in front of Dawkins though. You know, I bet he was just a little jealous. In fact, that's just a little embarrassing for him. On the other hand, what better person to screen the movie than Richard Dawkins?
I love your blog, by the way. Congratulations!
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 11:50 AM
Jay:
No. We're arguing, not definitions, but the dishonest use of both phrases by the organizers of the event and by the many shameless liars who claim that an event accessible to anyone who pre-registers for admission can possibly be crashed by someone who pre-registered for admission as instructed by the organizers of the event.
If you persist in misunderstanding this simple distinction, then you have joined the ranks or the shameless liars. At this point, it's up to you. Please make the right choice.
Posted by: Lionel A | March 21, 2008 11:51 AM
Grover #760
If your people have to resort to strong arm tactics in order to exclude one of the participants in the documentary from watching its screening then the whole ID movement deserves the ridicule it gets.
That Richard Dawkins got through IS the funniest thing that I have heard in a long, long time.
Ruppert #763
What are these 'illegal things' that you mention? Besides I see little sign of any of us whining, quit the reverse.
As for the 'movie', as you quaintly call it, having the facts then if they did have the facts when making this documentary then why did they not base it upon any such facts instead of creating a story of chronological impossibility? The answers to that question will inform you as to why the Dover case was lost by the IDiots.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 21, 2008 11:51 AM
I have still yet to see an answer to the question of why they wouldn't want someone who is in the movie to see it let alone why they wouldn't want anyone to see it.
I know it's release is still a ways off but you'd think if they were confident in their material they'd be ok with critics.
Nope. Because they can't send a movie down the memory hole after it's been let out.
Posted by: Jason Black | March 21, 2008 11:51 AM
As much as I'd love to see the Four Horsemen, Penn and Teller, Shermer, and Myers crash the film, I actually think it would be counterproductive.
If one guy goes to see it and they block him, it is because they see him as a threat. But if a multitude gathered outside, that would just give the movie free publicity a la "See the atheists trying to censor us!". It would just give the semblance of legitimacy.
What this movie needs is more of what PZ did. Laugh about it. And that's pretty much all we really have to do.
Let's face it: the point the movie makes consists of repeatedly insinuating that those who disagree with their point of view are Nazis, and the supporting evidence consists of creative edits of interviews with respectable scientists--edits that make these scientists seem to say things no self-respecting human being would ever say.
They have also set up some lofty ideal as the theme of the movie--that all points of view should be argued in the classroom--which they repeatedly contradict by publicly demonizing scientists that happen to be atheists, and (as we have seen with PZ) excluding all dissenters and conscientious objectors from the conversation.
No, I don't think there's any need for a big to-do about the movie. It is intelligently designed, after all. And it's designed well enough to expose perfectly the lack of intelligence behind its design.
I'm more than content to laugh about this movie and watch the fireworks, kind of like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | March 21, 2008 11:56 AM
Real Time With Bill Maher
Fri, Mar 21
Actor Jon Hamm; Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.); author P.J. O'Rourke; biologist Richard Dawkins.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 21, 2008 11:57 AM
grrrrrrr
it's = its
Posted by: debbyo | March 21, 2008 11:57 AM
Hilarious.
But I am also jealous you were with Richard Dawkins, my hero. And it brought back bad memories. Mum and dad went on a tour (I think in Egypt)a few years ago. They made friends with a "lovely couple" who they invited to come and stay next time they were in Australia. He was clever, they said, some sort of professor. But, mum said, I don't know what went wrong. I was talking to him about Numerology and he seemed a bit cross about it. Geez I was only making conversation - with him being a scientist and all I thought he might be interested in talking about numbers. Anyway, I doubt he'll be coming now. I don't know if you ever heard of him: Richard Dawkins.
Well, she gave birth to me. I can hardly hold a grudge for life. But say hi to Richard for me and tell him that I have talked mum out of numerology since then. So can he make friends with my mum again?
Posted by: dsmvwld | March 21, 2008 12:00 PM
They don't even have to be teaching it in science class. ID is essentially banned from being openly discussed anywhere on campus.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 21, 2008 12:02 PM
So funny to see this thread still going strong. Even funnier (much funnier) are the clowns behind this movie. I'm sure they meant to throw PZ out all along and then cower in the corner (you know, like Smeagol did to Sam on the mountaintop) and cry, "Stops him! He's a meanie! He wants to hurts us!" And their Christian base will buy it, too, because they love shit like that.
They have only one card to play--the paranoia card. And it's not even a strategy; it's a reflex! LOL!
Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 12:03 PM
Jason- they're going to claim we censor them anyway, so why not have fun while we're at it?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 21, 2008 12:03 PM
Um way to throw the overly emotional drama in there. Oh and wrong.
Please give me the policy showing that it can not be discussed on campuses... anywhere.
GO ahead.
Posted by: bobg | March 21, 2008 12:04 PM
Paul:
Spectacular! I just hope you didn't injure anything from laughing so hard.
Folks who wanted a lawsuit:
Seriously what good do you think that would do, even if Paul were to win? It'd be civil case, and he'd be looking at getting his 'damages' back. What, exactly, are his 'damages'? That he didn't get in to see a terrible movie that he didn't have to pay for in the first place? Oh the trauma. Pain and suffering of being discriminated against? What dollar value do you think would be set for that?
Now if it were me who'd been barred, it might make some sense. Since I'm of no reknown, the suit would bring the perfidy to light, even if I didn't get more than my lawyer's fees back.
As it is, the 'Expelled' folks actions _did_ get brought to light, rapidly and widely. They speedily demonstrated themselves to be:
hypocrites
liars
absurd
The last is particularly valuable. In addition to the Voltaire quote above regarding his prayer, there's the comment "Sometimes the best argument is a belly laugh."
This is a belly laugh for anybody not already committed to support the movie, one that can readily be shared by the folks in the 'middle' who tend to buy the 'teach both sides' arguments. A lawsuit would only distract.
Posted by: Pierre | March 21, 2008 12:05 PM
The whole thing is funny, indeed, and I think PZ did the right thing by not resisting. It shows clearly how noble we atheists can be, when we acknowledge with a smile the stupidity of the creationists. By just saying "OK, so you don't want me here, I'll leave", PZ made his point clearly without getting involved in annoying, uncertain legal matters. A noble gesture, as I said.
I started reading this thread last night when there were already 250 comments. After I was done with them, I refreshed and got 400. So I kept reading, refreshed, and found the count was at 444. Decided to go to bed. And now there are 804 comments... woh. Impressive.
Posted by: George Wolf | March 21, 2008 12:05 PM
As I said on Richard Dawkins' web sight, your tactic deserves a name.
I suggest Turning the Other Geek.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 12:05 PM
Yes, you're right! Just like it's banned from being openly discussed anywhere on the internet!
*eyeroll*
ID is not taught as a science because it's not a science. People are free to discuss it as much as they like.
Next strawman?
Posted by: dsmvwld | March 21, 2008 12:07 PM
Oh, so ID can be taught and discussed on campuses? So then why isn't it?
Posted by: Shirley Knott | March 21, 2008 12:10 PM
Re: #883
Because there is no content?
Because it is all a lie, and a scam, as has been discussed on campus and off for years now?
no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
Posted by: Ian | March 21, 2008 12:11 PM
Isn't Dawkins working on his new book "Only a Theory" right now? If he hasn't finished it yet, I'm sure we'll see something about this in there.
But what a stinking bunch of festering trash these IDiots are!
Teach the controversy?
Let us have a fair say in your science class, but when one of your scientists wants to come see a movie in which he's taking part, we'll get some thug to toss him out?
Just how utterly and hopelessly pathetic can these people become? I guess there are no limits now.
The story didn't strike me as that funny but reading everyone's comments here definitely brought out the giggles! Thanks for an amazing blog, PZ.
Posted by: dsmvwld | March 21, 2008 12:12 PM
There are plenty of scientists who consider ID to be science. Who are you to say they're wrong? And same question to you as above: if people are free to discuss ID as much as they like, then why isn't it?
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 21, 2008 12:13 PM
Oh, so ID can be taught and discussed on campuses? So then why isn't it?
Because it's stupid.
Posted by: TBTB | March 21, 2008 12:14 PM
That was hilarious! Incredible!
Posted by: jessica | March 21, 2008 12:15 PM
"There are plenty of scientists who consider ID to be science. Who are you to say they're wrong?"
It's not a falsifiable hypothesis. Therefore it cannot be scientifically supported. Why can't you knuckle-draggers understand this?
BTW, PZ, I haven't laughed like this since the Pivar incident. FREE PZ! Ben Stein is a crackpot!
Posted by: jim H | March 21, 2008 12:16 PM
Oh, the irony on the Expelled blog:
"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant -- which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."
-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.
(and we won't let him see)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 21, 2008 12:17 PM
I think you can probably answer your own question.
Posted by: dsmvwld | March 21, 2008 12:17 PM
And "reasoning" like that is why there is a movie like "Expelled." Thank you both for your honest responses.
Posted by: Jorge | March 21, 2008 12:18 PM
hahaha That was funny. Those creationists are really stupid.
Posted by: SteveM | March 21, 2008 12:19 PM
We're arguing, not definitions, but the dishonest use of both phrases by the organizers of the event and by the many shameless liars who claim that an event accessible to anyone who pre-registers for admission can possibly be crashed by someone who pre-registered for admission as instructed by the organizers of the event.
Yes. Notice how the IDiots stress the fact that Myers and Dawkins "had no ticket and were not invited", while conveniently omitting the fact that no one needed a ticket nor an invitation. Just a pre-registration on the website which PZ did for himself and Dawkins. This way they can claim to be absolutely truthful. Ever hear of "sin of omission"?
Posted by: Richard Harris | March 21, 2008 12:20 PM
dsmvwld, Oh, so ID can be taught and discussed on campuses? So then why isn't it?
Because ID may be summed up as GODDIDIT. ID's magic, not science. It's for the closed minds infected by superstition.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 21, 2008 12:20 PM
No there is the movie Expelled because you types are famous for your persecution complexes. There is no persecution here it's about science and output.
There is no scientific output from the Cdesign proponentsist crowd. Period. The only output is a marketing campaign and this is exactly that.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 12:20 PM
Oh wait... now it's "taught and discussed" ... a moment ago it was "discussed." Which is it?
Oh, now it's about me? LOL
Define "plenty." More than two? Yes, but the number of scientists who disagree is - to put it mildly - overwhelming. However, the fact that ID is not considered to be a science is not because it has failed to win a populartity contest, it's because it has failed to qualify as a science by any meaningful set of criteria.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 12:22 PM
Here's a clue for you, dsm: PZ Myers discusses ID in his classes EVERY YEAR. And his students discuss it back. And they all discuss and have a grand old time. That alone brings the lie to your grandiose claims of widespread censorship. Hell, just talking about ID with your fellow students on the campus quad during lunchtime and not being dragged away by security would bring the lie to the statement you made in comment #875.
But feel free to move the goalposts if you wish.
Posted by: Lionel A | March 21, 2008 12:23 PM
You may be discomfited to learn that private security and private military is a fast growing sector in the US with Haliburton and Blackwater in the lead, that latter being the progeny of Christian fundamentalist Erik Prince.
It does not take much intelligence to fathom where some of the money that supports the ID lobby and also its security apparatus comes from.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 21, 2008 12:24 PM
There are plenty of scientists who consider ID to be science.
Biologists? People who actually work in the field?
Your statement is as truthful as the other crap you guys say:
There's a big debate--no there isn't.
The theory is in danger--no it isn't.
Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics--no it doesn't.
There are no transitional fossils---yes there are.
Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be useless--no it hasn't
Etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: Jason Black | March 21, 2008 12:26 PM
"Oh, so ID can be taught and discussed on campuses? So then why isn't it?"
Because it's not science (The "theory" is not falsifiable, so it can be proven neither right nor wrong), that there is no evidence that supports it that cannot be explained with the existing theory, because concepts that "prove" it do not stand up unless you start with accepting ID as true (which is a cyclical argument, a failure in logic), and because it opens the door for whatever instructor teaches it to use it as a soapbox to push his or her own religious beliefs on the students.
Aside from that, the understandings that we have gained through testing and using the theory of evolution have brought us great benefits and helped us to understand ourselves and our world better. But ID doesn't do that. It doesn't grant that possibility of asking more questions; anything unexplained is easily (and lazily) slopped down as "goddidit", effectively nullifying the whole concept of education.
ID rewards maintaining mystery rather than the noble pursuit of seeking answers. The results of ID in classrooms will not lead to breakthroughs in science, in medicine, or even in the humanities. In fact, the humanities suffer greatest from ID because it denies the most basic truths about our origins and the makeup of our bodies and therefore our minds.
This is an aside, but please think about the religious groups that insist that clinical depression or disease can be "prayed away". By cutting the diseases of the mind and body from their biological and chemical origins, these groups do not treat the actual origins of the pain and prolong the patient's suffering. And then they blame the suffering on the patient's lack of faith. That is not helping anyone, but I'll finish up my point:
That is why ID is not taught on campuses. There's nothing preventing its discussion, and in fact it is discussed often by instructors, students, and overzealous washed-out actors. But the fact is that ID is an idea without evidence, without falsifiability, and without any real benefit to humanity--in short, it is not taught because it is an idea with no redeeming qualities.
Posted by: Geral | March 21, 2008 12:26 PM
I don't understand the logic of them expelling you. You'll undoubtedly rip it a good one in a month, why delay the inevitable?
Posted by: Damian | March 21, 2008 12:27 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp said:
I hope that I am wrong, and I am not sure if it's a problem, anyway, but I am starting to suspect that it may have something to do with that account of the events from Stuart Blessman. He had sent that to the movie review site - which seems to be an off-shoot of the "Christian Today" site - within an hour of the end of the movie, perhaps less.
That dishonest account, which he has totally contradicted, as I have shown earlier in this thread, is now spreading around various Christian sites, including the Expelled site. To Christians, it seems, that has become the definitive account of what happened (and it obviously portrays PZ in a bad light).
I doubt that PZ will care, but it all seems to be rather convenient, as well as predictable.
Posted by: Robert | March 21, 2008 12:28 PM
Hmmm, no cop's name, no video, no witnesses... And we should believe this story because...?
Color me skeptical...
Posted by: C Murray | March 21, 2008 12:29 PM
There is no greater truth than this.
Any theory or belief which does not stand criticism is obviously unworthy of criticism.
Choose religion, global warming, gravity or how to make creme brulee. If its proponents say it cannot be examined, argued, dissected or reviewed it is because they know it is flawed.
This should be the motto of all scientist or all who love thought.
"QUESTION EVERYTHING"
Posted by: Apikoros | March 21, 2008 12:29 PM
Hilarious!!
I only wish they HAD gone in with flashlights and fetched out Dr. Dawkins. No disrespect, PZ, but he is a bit more famous than you and that might have gotten coverage on the cable news shows (unless some Democrat somewhere was having the sex.)
Please hurry up with the book, PZ! Think of how this could boost your sales!
Posted by: Elwood Herring | March 21, 2008 12:30 PM
I don't usually post on blogs unless I've got something to say, but in this case I'll make an exception if only to add to the number of posts saying:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 21, 2008 12:30 PM
#886: "There are plenty of scientists who consider ID to be science."
It's a thought experiment. Nothing more. Propagated by an organization funded principally by ONE man who wants to shove his ignorance down our throats.
I.D.'s failings have been pointed out in court, in the classroom, in books, and in the blogosphere. Repeatedly.
Examine the facts, will you, and stop making meaningless assertions.
Posted by: Ian Maddox | March 21, 2008 12:33 PM
@ 855:
Unless the clip to which you refer is the "Sorry, but this video is no longer available" YouTube featured at the top of your blog, you're lying.
@ 853:
My thought was to have everyone sign up with their own names, but show up with PZ masks on.
@ EC:
You're annoying and nonsensical. Please stop using our pixels and go away.
Posted by: Ian Maddox | March 21, 2008 12:36 PM
Whoops... Ignore the above, I got ninja'd x50.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 21, 2008 12:36 PM
Yeah! And if it's not, then as much as people like, why not discuss them does it? Answer that one!Actually, ID is discussed all the time in college courses, and in biology courses as well as in philosophy and, no doubt, religion courses. It's used mostly as an example, in trying to teach people how to "think like a scientist" by exposing them to the actual process, of how not to do it. It's a widely used bad example of fake science.
And while it's true that there are a few trained scientists who also espouse beliefs in ID, they do not espouse ID for scientific reasons but for other reasons, usually at base religious.
Posted by: Sastra | March 21, 2008 12:38 PM
dsmvwld #883 wrote:
ID cannot be taught as a valid or even "competing" science theory in the classroom because it has not been properly formed, researched, or supported according to the criteria of ordinary science. In this sense, it is on the same level as astrology. Astrology doesn't have the evidence behind it. So if a college or university tried to teach astrology as a legitimate science, an "alternative view" of astronomy, they would lose credibility. Same for sponsoring pro-astrology speakers, as part of a science emporium.
But you can have astrology discussed in history or philosophy class. You can have astrology clubs. You can have astrology talked about in the cafeteria and dorms.
Don't conflate being "taught in the classroom" with "being discussed on campuses." You seem to imply that students are being thrown out of the student union cafe if anyone 'overhears' them.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 21, 2008 12:38 PM
If its proponents say it cannot be examined, argued, dissected or reviewed it is because they know it is flawed.
Creationism/intelligent design has been all those things--that is the reason it is not taught as science.
Posted by: Joe Clark | March 21, 2008 12:41 PM
Since when, in a democratic nation, must one "sign in and show ID" to watch a movie?
Posted by: Cheezits | March 21, 2008 12:43 PM
Oh, so ID can be taught and discussed on campuses? So then why isn't it?
I guess there is no point in getting you to prove that it isn't allowed to be *discussed*, is there?
ID theory isn't taught in science class because - and this is the big secret that the ID proponents don't tell you - there is NO SUCH THEORY. They have lots of proponents, lawyers, and lobbyists, but few if any researchers or theorists. Try to get someone to state the theory of ID, and it will almost invariably be some variation of "X is so complex I don't see how it could have evolved".
A few have tried to go farther and prove that X (the bacterial flagellum or whatever) couldn't have evolved. So far, such attempts have failed, but that is beside the point. Because even if it succeeded, all it would accomplish is to disprove some facet of *evolution*. ID is all about *evolution*, holes in evolution, "strengths and weaknesses of evolution", alternative to evolution. It is not a theory in its own right. Without evolution, there is no ID.
That's not to say that there couldn't be such a theory. But nobody seems to be putting any effort into developing one.
Posted by: Geral | March 21, 2008 12:46 PM
Hmmm, no cop's name, no video, no witnesses... And we should believe this story because...?
Color me skeptical...
Because PZ would skip the movie, in which he stars, to harass a cop and get thrown out. Have you looked at the picture of the man? No offense PZ, but he's a balding, overweight academic who is a professor at a state University.
Somehow, I don't see him as the trouble type.
Posted by: Lurky | March 21, 2008 12:46 PM
Oh, how I laughed!
#840 Sums it up perfectly.
Posted by: scote | March 21, 2008 12:47 PM
Hmm...They refuse to release the entirety of the interviews but they give DVD's of selected clips to yahoos like you.
As to "crashed," you know full well that **signing up on a public website under your real name and being sent a confirmation email** cannot possibly be considered crashing an invitation only event. That is not crashing and the event was not "invitation only."
Posted by: Ian Maddox | March 21, 2008 12:47 PM
@ 903:
There are bloggers on both sides of this debate posting about the farce PZ experienced. The truth of the matter is not open to debate. Unfortunately, truth doesn't really seem to faze some people...
It happened. The ID contingent have egg on their faces and are wildly prevaricating to minimize the damage. Color you foolish.
Posted by: Kevin | March 21, 2008 12:47 PM
PZ! You can't hide the truth!
"The Truth"
Posted by: Elwood Herring | March 21, 2008 12:48 PM
Jason Black @ 900: Excellent explanation. Of course it has to be explained again and again and never seems to sink in.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" - Heinlein
Posted by: Rebecca | March 21, 2008 12:48 PM
The goons of Expelled might offer advice on how to deal with reason to the People's Republic of China... because propaganda directed towards Tibet's peace movement almost always makes them appear more ridiculous and insane.
http://www.dalailama.com/news.htm
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 12:49 PM
Sorry, I can't find quite the right color in my paintbox.
There were witnessess. Some have posted right here on this thread, and you'll fine links to other accounts also posted here.
I guess "Glancing at something and forming an opinion without doing even a trivial amount of research or investigation" is what passes for skepticism these days.
Posted by: gregwrld | March 21, 2008 12:49 PM
Good work, PZ! I'm looking forward to Richard Dawkins comments.
And the comments of the creos here are so clueless - no surprise there.
Posted by: Joe.B | March 21, 2008 12:52 PM
You've successfully laughed me into tears PZ.
Posted by: Mark | March 21, 2008 12:55 PM
Hi--I'm not an attorney, but if you want to pursue legal action against the theater, or the producer -- think of the PR! -- I'd be happy to help out from here in California. I can make phone calls, etc, email, etc...
Posted by: bourgeois_rage | March 21, 2008 12:57 PM
Awesome. Hilarious. Thank you for this, PZ.
Posted by: Mark | March 21, 2008 12:57 PM
I mean, I know the Mall of America is private property, etc., and so is the movie theater, etc., but again, think of the PR!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 21, 2008 12:57 PM
It's really no shock that a lie from the Cdesign proponentsists camp is what is being spread. It's par for the course for them.
Poor baby Jesus. Crying by himself over in the corner.
Posted by: Hey guys | March 21, 2008 12:59 PM
Can you tell me a basic book that would help me get started on evolution? Just curious. Thanks.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 21, 2008 1:00 PM
Will some please feed Baby Jesus or change his diaper. Whatever needs to be done. Damn but the screaming is annoying!
Posted by: cassandran | March 21, 2008 1:01 PM
Creationism and Intelligent Design is actually a complex, long-duration plot by Al Qaeda designed to reduce the ability of Americans to think clearly and logically in accordance with the scientific method. When ID becomes paramount in all schools, the American people will be even more ignorant than they are already and will be easy meat for takeover by fundamentalism to their detriment and enslavement, to the reduction of American power, status and influence throughout the world, to the fear and incredulity of the America's friends and the glee and triumph of her enemies.
Posted by: kevin | March 21, 2008 1:13 PM
Can you tell me a basic book that would help me get started on evolution? Just curious. Thanks.
Posted by: Hey guys | March 21, 2008 12:59 PM
YES! THE BIBLE!
heh heh....or maybe go here
http://www.kidshealth.org/kid/grow/
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | March 21, 2008 1:13 PM
Berkeley has a very nice introductory website: Understanding Evolution.
(heading for 1,000 comments)
Posted by: JohnW | March 21, 2008 1:15 PM
This has to be the latest I've ever showed up to a party. It would have been sooner, but it's taken me nearly twenty minutes to stop laughing. Best creationist own-goal since Behe at the Dover trial.
Posted by: Duncan D'Nuts | March 21, 2008 1:16 PM
"There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I'm blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America..."
A lesser irony is the underlying OS that PZ was using to write this entry:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/index.html
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 21, 2008 1:17 PM
Try this
Evolution: The Triumph of an idea
Posted by: Snog | March 21, 2008 1:17 PM
UNBELIEVABLE! No really I don't believe you. You are trying to tell us that you are important enough to the cause that a publicly funded police officer would keep you out of a public theater where you were going to be embarassed by your own words in a movie. Unbelieveable. I like the idea of your dungeon so that your readers only view comments that are praising or supportive. Makes your site look like everyone agrees with you. Common tactic with folks who are nervous about their position.
Posted by: machinehuman | March 21, 2008 1:19 PM
They are so "clever". Very funny situation!
Posted by: flasher702 | March 21, 2008 1:21 PM
You should have insisted they arrest you. They notability would have been well worth a night in the slammer.
Posted by: R. Mildred | March 21, 2008 1:21 PM
The "theory" is not falsifiable, so it can be proven neither right nor wrong
Well actually the basis for ID was Natural Theology, which did have a central falsifiable aspect to it - and a sound version of ID should inherit that falsifiable aspect.
The trouble is that the falsifiable bit basically goes like this; if you find a watch in the road, you would surmise that it was made by somebody, who sat down and decided he wanted to make a watch, and who then maybe sold it to someone, who in turn dropped the watch there - all because there's no mechanism by which something as complex as a watch could otherwise exist.
So if you pick up a creature, an ant, a cat, a pygmy elephant, it is safe to say that something must have designed it as well because there's no mechanism other than by intelligent design by which such a complex thing could possibly exist.
So to falsify natural theology, all you have to do is posit a mechanism by which such a complex a thing as a cat, an ant or a pygmy elephant could exist without bringing god into...
Which is why natural evolution replaced natural theology when darwin whipped it out, and why ID shouldn't be taught in schools outside of a "history of the sciences" class, where it'd fit in between phlogiston and the luminous aether.
The troubling fact that ID also has the side effect of completely retarding scientific progress (because when faced with a question about how a biological mechanism occurs, in say microbiology, "god did it" is quite possibly the least helpful postulate imaginable) is just an added reason not to treat it like a currently valid theory.
Of course Evolutionary Psychology has a habit of going to the extreme in the opposite direction and positing that everything, including literary critcism, can be improved by just declaring that whatever the subject is, it must, some way and some how, be the result of biological evolution.
Even when Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise and commonsense bursts into tears in despair at the thought.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 21, 2008 1:21 PM
You obviously don't come here often.
Posted by: Duncan D'Nuts | March 21, 2008 1:22 PM
@Snog...
"UNBELIEVABLE!"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | March 21, 2008 1:23 PM
Gary B. @498, "Ferrous, you've never ROTFLMAO or LOL at t.o.?"
[Captain Corcoran vox]
Hardly ever!
[/ccv]
A quick Google search shows that this is a close as I have come: http://tinyurl.com/24yy6y
Posted by: DanBlather | March 21, 2008 1:24 PM
Richard Dawkins gives Expelled: "Two opposable thumbs down".
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 21, 2008 1:25 PM
UNBELIEVABLE!
And the laughs just keep coming!
Posted by: Grolaw | March 21, 2008 1:26 PM
I believe that you have been denied a public accommodation due to your "religious beliefs" or lack thereof.
Check with the state's Human Rights agency. I'd be pretty certain that excluding you for you lack of religious belief is a pretty clean action.
I know that in Missouri a Chinese restaurant that excluded two deaf individuals and their friend (who used ASL to communicate) from the restaurant because of their disability had a very unpleasant day in court.
The Revised Statutes of Missouri, Chapter 213 state:
213.065. 1. All persons within the jurisdiction of the state of Missouri are free and equal and shall be entitled to the full and equal use and enjoyment within this state of any place of public accommodation, as hereinafter defined, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, or disability.
2. It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny any other person, or to attempt to refuse, withhold from or deny any other person, any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation, as defined in section 213.010 and this section, or to segregate or discriminate against any such person in the use thereof on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, or disability.
3. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a private club, a place of accommodation owned by or operated on behalf of a religious corporation, association or society, or other establishment which is not in fact open to the public, unless the facilities of such establishments are made available to the customers or patrons of a place of public accommodation as defined in section 213.010 and this section.
I am certain that the theater violated a similar statute - and, they may well have violated the terms of their leasehold with the Mall of America. Theaters are low-profit spaces and most busy malls are eliminating them whenever possible. This could do the trick.
Make a complaint to the state agency. Usually that statute of limitations is only 180 days to make the complaint. I costs nothing to start the administrative investigation....
Posted by: Vin Breau | March 21, 2008 1:26 PM
Oh snap! I just saw Mr. Dawkins give a lecture at UT 3 days ago. He was asked about this movie, told us he had not seen it but had been duped into appearing in it under false pretenses. I'm so glad to hear he got in.
Posted by: True Bob | March 21, 2008 1:27 PM
Snog, you aren't paying attention.
PZ hasn't tried to identify WHY he was expelled, although we could all suppose it is because he is an unforgiving critic of creationism/ID, extending to the IDiotic way they created this flick.
When cops are off duty doing this type of work (i.e. controlling events, traffic etc.), they are paid by the folks who need their services.
Also, the dungeon has plenty of empty space. Have you read all these comments? Then how do you get the impression "everyone" agrees with PZ? From time to time, even PZ's sycophants disagree with him.
Posted by: catta | March 21, 2008 1:30 PM
[crew]He's hardly ever El-Oh-Eeeelled...[/crew]
Three cheers +1 for you! Now back to the gatecrashing. =)
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 1:31 PM
"I'm not an attorney, but if you want to pursue legal action against the theater, or the producer -- think of the PR!"
We have all the PR we need from this. No need to martyr PZ any further.
"You should have insisted they arrest you. They notability would have been well worth a night in the slammer."
No. It wouldn't.
Come on, people. This is already all over the blogosphere, and once Dawkins appears on Bill Maher, it will probably be on the TV as well. All the egg on the face that Expelled needs, and without any over-dramatic gestures or wasted police or court time.
Seriously, get some perspective.
Posted by: xcdesignproponentsists | March 21, 2008 1:32 PM
Being in Canada, I'm not sure when I'll be able to waste a tenner on Expelled. However, I was watching Ben Stein being interviewed by Pat Robertson, and he comes across as being a complete moron. For starters, he makes the absurd claim that "Darwinism" leads to the belief that "superior races have it as their moral duty to eliminate the lesser races". Yeah, only if you're a complete douchebag who slept through your high school biology classes. Perhaps the "solution" is not ID, but a bit of common sense.
He then goes on to claim that "Darwinism" doesn't explain anything, and as an example he says "it doesn't explain how gravity holds the planets together in their orbits" or "how thermodynamics works" or "how physics or laws of motion work". No shit, Stein. Perhaps somebody lied to you about what evolutionary biology claims to explain and you were gullible enough to believe it, but don't assume everybody else does not allow intelligence when it comes to understanding simple facts.
Posted by: Jewel | March 21, 2008 1:32 PM
Oh, that's brilliant!!! And by that I mean -- BRILLIANT!!! ROFLMAO!
Posted by: szqc | March 21, 2008 1:33 PM
Best Thread Ever! From the whole event, the initial LOL and ROFLing, the trolls, the trolls getting a can of whoop-ass handed to them, through Cuttlefish's best rhyme ever, Rev BigDumbChimp getting in some excellent anti-Tard, Kristine's analysis and so on.
Never mind 1000 responses; let's go for *1859* responses and then raise a glass to Charles D. :)
Posted by: Cheezits | March 21, 2008 1:34 PM
I'm not an attorney, but if you want to pursue legal action against the theater, or the producer -- think of the PR!
I am thinking of it. That's why I hope he doesn't do it.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 1:35 PM
"I am certain that the theater violated a similar statute - and, they may well have violated the terms of their leasehold with the Mall of America. Theaters are low-profit spaces and most busy malls are eliminating them whenever possible. This could do the trick. "
Get the whole MOVIE THEATER kicked out of the mall because of some silly incident with a private-ish screening? Like, I said, PERSPECTIVE. Get some.
Posted by: Jesse | March 21, 2008 1:37 PM
SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS!!!
The hypocrisy is suffocating!!!
The whole basis of this pile of diarrhea marketed as 'Expelled' is the bias against teaching ID/Creationism and here we have the movie management refusing to let the 'other side' even see it?
If there was any doubt about how dishonest, childish, and spineless creationists are......
Posted by: True Bob | March 21, 2008 1:37 PM
Not even wrong.
When I was back in college (yes, we had pterodactyls) we had one mandatory philosophy course (engineering school). It was basically a historical review, with an emphasis that we not go build death machines. You know, that design award means crap if it is for designing gas chambers for Treblinka/Buchenwald/etc.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 1:37 PM
"Snog, you aren't paying attention."
He's an obvious hit-and-runner. Don't even bother.
Posted by: Scote | March 21, 2008 1:38 PM
Damn disloyal sycophants. Can't someone get a **proper** sycophant around here??? Now where could someone go to find people who will always reflexivly agree, even when faced with insurmountable evidence of their error? **cough**DI**cough**
Posted by: K | March 21, 2008 1:39 PM
"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant -- which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."
-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen
----Just saw this on the expelled website. I guess they didn't want you to see it so they can pretend your comments don't matter?
Posted by: Rich Hudson | March 21, 2008 1:41 PM
Congratulations! You just made it into Dawkins's next book.
Posted by: Jesse | March 21, 2008 1:45 PM
Maybe someone should ask why Stuart Blessman lied about PZ's behavior.
bless023@umn.edu
Posted by: Scote | March 21, 2008 1:46 PM
"-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers"
Funny, I thought they interviewed PZ Myers **for the film** because he is an expert **evolutionary biologist.**
Posted by: James F | March 21, 2008 1:50 PM
Well done, guys. All I have to add is "Project Steve" and this query:
The ID movement has never succeeded in publishing a peer-reviewed research paper in any of the journals indexed at the National Library of Medicine, which currently encompasses over SEVENTEEN MILLION citations. Amongst these citations the theory of evolution, on the other hand, has never been disproved. NLM covers all branches of the life sciences, and needless to say a paper providing evidence against evolution would receive a huge amount of attention. So what's the problem? There are two possibilities:
1. ID is based on religious belief and supernatural causation, not science.
2. A concerted worldwide effort by research scientists, scientific journal editors, educators, and the media has unjustly prevented a single valid ID manuscript from being published.
(The NLM has a public database, too)
Posted by: Eric | March 21, 2008 1:56 PM
Dawkins mentioned the humorous story during his lecture today at the American Atheists Conference in Minneapolis. Although I could have sworn he said you were "arrested". Were you?! Maybe he just meant "accosted"?
Posted by: Chemist99a | March 21, 2008 1:56 PM
That is the best laugh I have had in years. Too bad you did not have more "guests" at hand!
Posted by: Vic | March 21, 2008 1:58 PM
@ Ian (908)
I could see that as a Life-of-Brian-does-Spartacus moment:
(Police officer comes up to ticket line) "Okay, Who here is PZ Myers - we're going to throw him out."
"I'm PZ Myers."
"No, I'm PZ Myers!"
"I'm PZ Myers, and so's my wife!"
Posted by: Jim from San Diego | March 21, 2008 1:59 PM
#964 James F:
Forgot a third possibility (or added it to no 1) There is no empirical evidence for ID / creationism. None.
It is not for lack of trying. A good indicator of their frustrations: since ID/creationists can not produce the evidence, they have resorted to distortions, quote mining, and of course outright lying.
Posted by: Kevin | March 21, 2008 2:01 PM
EYEWITNESS REPORTS CONTRADICT Meyer's Lies:
"Other reports list tens, possibly hundreds dead from Dawkins as he ran threw the theater attacking movie goers with his teeth. Hamstrung by various hate crime laws the police had to stand by helplessly as Dawkins sated his ghoulish thirst for human blood by tearing the throats out of patrons. Dawkins then looked over the writing, broken bodies of his victims, screamed "Were is your God now?" and ran off into the night.
On report explains the mystery man who distracted police from Dawkins presence was none other than infamous atheist blogger PZ Meyers. Meyers was reportedly attempting to sell his daughter Skatje Meyers to passing strangers when police were forced to intervene.
This report is another warning to us TRUE Christians must always be on our guard since terrorist can strike at any moment. Yesterday it was a bunch of false Christians in the state no one cares about, today it might be you. Remember no one is safe when atheists are on the lose.
The only way to be safe people is to be aware and be with Jesus."
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 21, 2008 2:03 PM
As I predicted, the Creatins and IDiots have gone ahead and fabricated their group-savvy media whine-fest that PZ and Dawkins entered unbeknownst an uninvited to rain on the Expelled parade.
I'll take my $1 million of Monopoly money in large bills, preferably delivered in an aluminum briefcase.
Posted by: Torley | March 21, 2008 2:04 PM
Creationists get egg on their face!
*cue evolutionary egg jokes*
/me is curious to hear what R. Dawkins thinks of all of this.
Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 2:08 PM
Kevin: If you're feeling disoriented, you can always take the tinfoil hat off.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | March 21, 2008 2:08 PM
Who are these "scientists" who consider ID to be science? I want them named and shamed! (I'm in the UK so I'm not as familiar with ID proponents as you are in the US, but I'm learning...)
It just shows what a great deal of damage can be done by "fence-sitters" in this game. Any so-called "scientist" who believes such rubbish is not worthy of being called a scientist. ID IS NOT SCIENCE! I'm just a humble musician and I understand that. These trouble-makers (for that's what they are) should reconsider their views and fall in with the rest of the Science community. Then the ID'ers will have one less plank (and a major one to boot) to hold them up.
Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 2:11 PM
I'm sorry! I just skimmed through the last part of that. Now I feel stupid. Mea culpa.
Posted by: Duncan D'Nuts | March 21, 2008 2:13 PM
So, PZ, now you know how Adam feels.
(that damned Tree Of Knowledge will get you every time!)
I do like the idea of making up PZ Myers masks for future viewings. Unfortunately, the real PZ is probably wary of this ersatz martyr movement and all the (blog) publicity, but that's the price of prominence.
One other trick I read elsewhere for would-be viewers:
Some theaters still use generic tickets for admission (I wouldn't know, because I haven't been to a mainstream theater in years). If so, you could consider buying a ticket for a different movie that you do support, while 'accidentally' walking into the one showing Expelled. Think of it as another way to Win Ben Stein's Money.
Posted by: Daniel J. Petrie | March 21, 2008 2:14 PM
Well, I did laugh at the punch line - that they missed kicking out Richard Dawkins. But I'm afraid I'm not as dignified as you. I didn't find this story funny at all. I found it very upsetting.
All the producer probably had to do was tell the officer "that man is an atheist," and then the officer's own prejudice about what that word means for a person would do the rest. When people hear you're an atheist, they have a reaction kind of like if they'd heard you were a pedophile or a neo-Nazi. "He's an atheist. He must be a bad person! I'd best kick him out before he starts trouble!"
It reminds me of the days when I went to a church youth group and a police officer came to us to talk about his work busting up satanic cults and stuff. He had a whole table full of paraphernalia - animal skulls, knives and chalices, voodoo dolls, the works. And he told us about certain rock groups and what their names "really" meant (you may know some of them: Knights In Satan's Service [KISS] Antichrist/Devil's Children [AC/DC]. There are more). On the one hand, as a young Christian kid I found that stuff kind of scary, but even then my skepticism was tapping me on the shoulder saying "wait, the POLICE are spending official time and money on this nonsense???"
Posted by: cicely | March 21, 2008 2:15 PM
Total awesomeness. Epic Win.
And, applause for Cuttlefish. "Like a Trojan Eohippus". Brilliant!
Posted by: Dr. Matt | March 21, 2008 2:15 PM
Expelled from Expelled: it's all just so perfect, I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st.
Posted by: Sastra | March 21, 2008 2:19 PM
Eric #965 wrote:
I'm just guessing here, but if Dawkins did use the word "arrested" it could be another instance of language differences. One meaning of the word "arrested" is "stopped" -- Myers was stopped at the entrance. I think this usage is more common in England.
If this is the case, expect to see creationists taking advantage of the linguistic confusion, and making claims that Richard Dawkins is lying and making false accusations about what happened when his party tried to crash the church during a private worship service.
Oh, wait. I mean when Dawkins and his friends tried to get into a public screening of a movie for which they had previously registered. My bad.
Posted by: Carlie | March 21, 2008 2:28 PM
Ok, I know it's been awhile since this comment, but I can't resist.
It would be no different if you tried to crash an advance test screening of Indiana Jones or Star Trek except the security would have been tighter.
It would only be comparable if it was Harrison Ford who was kicked out of an advance test screening of Indiana Jones, and he was kicked out specifically because the producer didn't want him to know that he re-cut all of the taped scenes into something called "Indiana Jones' Diary", a movie about how he wants to get married but can't ever find a date. And even then it's missing the beautiful ironic component.
Posted by: BadMA | March 21, 2008 2:30 PM
PZ must just look meaner than some of the other skeptics. This is an utter amusing story, but I feel sorry for Dr. Dawkins! He had to watch the thing!
Posted by: Fatboy | March 21, 2008 2:32 PM
Hilarious story. (Plus, I'm doing my part to get this up to 1000 comments.)
Posted by: Adam | March 21, 2008 2:34 PM
Here's clip of the movie on youtube with PZ and Dawkins. Hurry before the copyright cops have it removed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX2HORTRm4I
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 21, 2008 2:34 PM
#967: "Welease Wichawd Dawkins!"
Posted by: Haddayr | March 21, 2008 2:38 PM
This is the second idiotic Megamall security guard story I've heard in as many months.
The last was the security guards banning a bunch of people who planned on standing completely still for a few minutes, simultaneously.
VERY DANGEROUS!
Even more dangerous, apparently, than Richard Dawkins. snrk.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 21, 2008 2:48 PM
Oh, what the hell, going for 1000...
Exactly.
PZ did exactly the right thing. He wasn't fighting for somebody's life, or taking a stand against an unjust law; he was just standing in line to view the screening of a movie made by creationists, people who have a long track record of being the most contemptible liars.
By remaining calm and perfectly reasonable--affable and obliging even --they end up looking ridiculous. They were exposed as the hypocritical, deceitful, paranoid cowards that they are. It is a priceless object lesson, and few things could have better highlighted the difference between religious fundamentalism and science.
And I'll bet Park Place that even if they do hear the truth, it won't make any difference to them. They'll continue to ward him off with the sign of the cross with exactly the same fervor.
LOL!
Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2008 2:53 PM
987! Only 13 more!
Posted by: Marcos El Malo | March 21, 2008 2:57 PM
Just doing my bit to push this up to 1000. PZ, this would have been hilarious anyway,but you told the story very well. Awesome noodly set up.
Posted by: hexaton | March 21, 2008 2:58 PM
Where are the ID scientists?
Back up the ass the nitwit pulled them out of.
Posted by: Carlie | March 21, 2008 2:59 PM
The last was the security guards banning a bunch of people who planned on standing completely still for a few minutes, simultaneously.
Was that the ImprovEverywhere group?
Posted by: rmp | March 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Admit it, every one here is hoping to be the 1000'th comment.
Posted by: Amanda | March 21, 2008 3:00 PM
This made my day. Yay PZ! Well handled!
Posted by: Jimmy K | March 21, 2008 3:00 PM
All of these posts for an irrelevant movie and some inane oversight by a theater manager and officer?
I've heard funnier better stories from inanimate objects.
You all need to get out more.
Posted by: anonymous | March 21, 2008 3:03 PM
where's woot?Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 3:04 PM
Myers/Dawkins '12
Posted by: M. Robert Bond | March 21, 2008 3:05 PM
ooh, AABCCB form. Awesome. Cuttlefishtastic.
I was almost tempted to attempt a limerick, but it's best to leave this sort of thing to the undercover professionals.
Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 3:07 PM
Myers/Dawkins '12
Posted by: Avekid | March 21, 2008 3:07 PM
First, if you're hearing stories from inanimate objects (and reporting that fact on other people's blogs) it might be you who needs to get out more.
Second, the way you described it? Unfunny. You also missed the point. The way PZ described it? Fucking hilarious!
(Keep working on that 1000!)
Posted by: Dr. Mabuse | March 21, 2008 3:08 PM
Wow...
I don't have many heroes, but you PZ Meyers are one among them. Along with ERV and Dawkins. And Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan...
Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 3:09 PM
Am I 1000?
Posted by: rmp | March 21, 2008 3:10 PM
DING DING DING DING DING
we have a winner!
Posted by: kathy | March 21, 2008 3:10 PM
Sounds like a "worst person in the world" scenario to me.
Posted by: Auntie Em | March 21, 2008 3:12 PM
OK - fess up, which wiseguy/gal did this
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2260/2350566174_c8d94c51a7_o.jpg
?
That's not the original site banner, right? And it's not my photoshop skills either.
The hacked banner was on this page at about 19.11 GMT, on 21st March:
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/events/list
Posted by: Michelle | March 21, 2008 3:13 PM
1000 COMMENTS! YAY!!!
Wow, this HAS to be the biggest thread I ever seen! And it deserves it.
Oh, did you guys see what the BA posted?
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03/21/creationism-evolution-and-nazis-yes-nazis/
Posted by: blf | March 21, 2008 3:15 PM
I am a number! I am not a free man!!
Posted by: kevin | March 21, 2008 3:15 PM
Kevin: If you're feeling disoriented, you can always take the tinfoil hat off.Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 2:08 PM
I am just repeating the true story of what happened.
Posted by: BadMA | March 21, 2008 3:15 PM
Jimmy K, you're missing 99.9% of the back story. Go read the last few years worth of posts and then it will make more sense.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 3:20 PM
Da! And then, in honor of Sir Arthur, we can rocket up to 2001.
Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 3:20 PM
Thank you all! I don't know who to thank 1st- PZ, Richard, the Expelled people, the other commenters on this thread... This is awesome! I, Skwee, have made Pharyngula history as the 1000th commenter! This is the greatest day of my e-life!
I want concession speeches now. (:
Posted by: zer0 | March 21, 2008 3:22 PM
I don't see what you're trying to point out in that picture Auntie Em... what exactly was "hacked"?
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 21, 2008 3:23 PM
OK - fess up, which wiseguy/gal did this
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2260/2350566174_c8d94c51a7_o.jpg
?
That's not the original site banner, right? And it's not my photoshop skills either.
The hacked banner was on this page at about 19.11 GMT, on 21st March:
http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/events/list
Assuming you're referring to "No intelligence allowed", that's been their tagline from the beginning. It's not a hack; it's meant to carry a double meaning: that the 'Darwinists' will not allow intelligent design into classrooms, and that they refuse to admit 'intelligent' critiques of evolutionary biology.
What it ends up suggesting, in light of this debacle, is that they're intending on keeping intelligent people out. It's no hack, just another creationist own-goal.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 3:25 PM
"If you'd stop treating them like idiots, maybe some of them would actually listen to what you have to say. Oddly enough, people tend to not listen to what you have to say when you're an ass."
---Wow, why didn't we think of this? You know, I'm going to go visit the local skinhead group and actually listen to what they have to say. Maybe if I make them understand that they have lots of valid points we can finally all get along and start beating up black people and gays bathed in the warm glow of togetherness.
You, my good man, are a fucking moron. I call you a fucking moron because you believe in things that have no evidence. That doesn't make me a bad person. That makes me a person who understands that people who believe in things for which there is no evidence are fucking morons.
Posted by: Auntie Em | March 21, 2008 3:28 PM
I take it back - I hadn't seen the site before abd I didn't realise that "No Intelligence Allowed" is actually part of the title! It never ocurred to me for a minute that this would be the title of the film - I assumed someone was passing judgement on its content. My apologies!
Oh my word- the makers of this film really are blind to irony aren't they!
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 21, 2008 3:28 PM
I don't see what you're trying to point out in that picture Auntie Em... what exactly was "hacked"?
As I said in a post which is currently being held in the spamcatcher, due to my quoting AuntieEm's post in full without thinking about those two URLs...
I think what AuntieEm is thinking of as a hack is the tagling "No intelligence allowed". The tagline was meant, I believe, to indicate that the 'Darwinists' are not allowing intelligent design, with the added implication that they're not allowing intelligent critiques of evolution.
In the context of an interviewee and professional biologist being kicked out of the theatre, it takes on the connotation that the IDiots are keeping all the intelligent people out, but that's not a hack, only a creationist own-goal.
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Wow. That's some rapid turnaround from the spamcatcher. PZ must be online right now.
Posted by: Archvillain | March 21, 2008 3:35 PM
I just saw a blog over on wordpress where some fundieloonie spoke about this. This person was complaining about Dawkins' presence at the screening. According to the author, Dawkins asked why PZ had been evicted. The author was also incensed that Dawkins had managed to "crash" the screening.
Posted by: Silly Old Bear | March 21, 2008 3:35 PM
Oh YES - we are
Posted by: Jason Black | March 21, 2008 3:37 PM
Only thing about the "faked" site that bothered me is that there's a screening in Fayetteville, AR.
I'm ready for them to put it in Little Rock. This little gem of a movie is going to do almost as much for fighting religiofascism as any of the four horsemen's works, just by showing exactly how nutty this kind of thinking can be.
We oughta make Ben Stein the Fifth Horseman. He does so much for our cause...
Posted by: Paul Hassell | March 21, 2008 3:42 PM
Hi all from Canada.
Monsieur PZ, You were in the largest consumerist mall in the world, what kind of science or religion were you expecting to find? Although religion is terribly messed up in America and especially in the media, less than 5% of the Christians I've met believe in "Creationism" as American fundies do.
My sympathies (or rather congrats on the notoriety), but the wacko fundie filmmaker is only representative of wacko fundies, not historic, orthodox Christianity. The posts have a strong scent of self-righteousness, so I'm guessing y'all don't realize Richard Dawkins is, by the strict definition, another kind of fundamentalist? From my reading, his books emanate the same baleful hatefulness and superiority complex as the fundies do, but a lot more sarcasm. Dawkins says Christianity has caused more deaths that anything else in the 20th century, neatly excluding his fellow-atheists, Stalin and Hitler. Narrow-minded is narrow-minded is narrow-minded. -- Or are you going to expel me?
Posted by: Avekid | March 21, 2008 3:45 PM
Skwee: Looks like you just got your 15 minutes. Don't worry, I won't make you do a concession speech. ;) (I'll probably be bumped in a minute or two anyway!)
Posted by: Voss | March 21, 2008 3:48 PM
This reminds me of Bertrand Russell being arrested at a demonstration and the jailer, filling out forms, asked him "Religion?" Russell stated "I am an agnostic" to which the jailer replied "Well, I guess we all worship the same god." Russell wrote "This kept me smiling for about a week." The superstitious, the credulous, are to my mind insecure in a larger sense, and so they react (when people react instead of think they generally overreact) out of fear and do this sort of thing. When Dawkins signed his book for me at CalTech, he admired the t-shirt I was wearing, reading "If you believe the meek will inherit the Earth you're just where they want you" and I gave him one - a more gracious man you'll never meet. Working for lawyers I've met more than one "educated idiot" - it's bugging me what I read in a blurb last month, that Stein had pulled a nasty trick on some political group - please, if someone remembers reading this, post, it's driving me bonkers that I can't recall who, what, how! Thanks! "RELIGION DIVIDES - ATHEISTS MULTIPLY" "RATIONAL INTELLIGENT AND FREE OF SUPERSTITION - GOSH - I HOPE NOBODY FINDS OUT" (c)
Posted by: Adam | March 21, 2008 3:50 PM
Paul,
Dawkins isn't a fundamentalist. He just thinks people should believe things based on evidence and not blind faith.
Do you have a source for where Dawkins states that Christianity was responsible for the most deaths in the 20th century?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 21, 2008 3:51 PM
Hi all from Canada.
I'd like to take this moment to remind you that all Canadians are not as smugly and tediously stupid as Paul Hassell.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled Christian whining.
Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 3:54 PM
Avekid:
NO!!! I am the righteous 100th commenter!!! Impostor!!
I demand a recount of the comments!!!!!!
Posted by: Dianne | March 21, 2008 3:54 PM
I'm stealing this idea from someone on Orac's thread about this event and probably repeating, but I love the idea: PZ now needs to get himself a leather jacket with "More dangerous than Dawkins" stitched onto the back.
Posted by: sternwallow | March 21, 2008 3:54 PM
Don't want to be #1000
I have been in contact with my murky minions, some of whom happen to be YECs. They say that RD was let in deliberately so that they could deflect criticism over PZ's exclusion. "Of course we don't categorically refuse atheists or critics. We let RD in, didn't we?"
Also "We are familiar with Mr. PZ and, in our loving charity, we feared for his health had he been allowed in. He might have coughed up his lungs and gizzard at seeing the deep truth of our little film."
Posted by: Skwee | March 21, 2008 3:57 PM
I am the righteous 100th commenter, not 100th.
Posted by: National Atheist's Day, April 1 | March 21, 2008 3:57 PM
I'm glad you were not allowed into the movie PZ, then you can be a good capitalist and pay your own money when it comes out. I'm sure they paid you well for your involvement anyway, right? Looks like you are in a win-win situation, you get your ideas on a movie and get paid and then get to spend time in an apple store amusing yourself...good stuff. It's not that ID has any actually merits that threaten you is it? I hope you are not that insecure.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | March 21, 2008 3:57 PM
Paul Hassell, Stalin was an atheist, Hitler was a Christian. What's your point about them again?
Posted by: Adam | March 21, 2008 3:59 PM
sternwallow,
That's giving creationists way too much credit to think that they could hatch a plan with any sort of complexity (remember: God did it.)
From reading that Stuart kid's contradictory statements it sounds like Mathis was quite surprised to see Dawkins in the crowd asking questions after the film.
Posted by: windarr | March 21, 2008 4:00 PM
Hey myers - a "policeman" (?) not letting you in is about as funny as a public school teacher being allowed to teach the scientific problems with darwinism to his students. That teacher would be immediately fired by members of the pagan left and/or darwinian fundamentalists.
I'd teach my public school biology students to memorize this great quote by atheist A.G. Fisher (2003), "Both the origin of life, and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown."
Laugh it up, myers (and brownian, om)!!!
Posted by: soupspoons | March 21, 2008 4:00 PM
#1021/paul hassell:
I'm sad you're Canadian. You are wrong. You are part of the problem. Everyone is fundementalist when you start flapping words around like that. And what are people like when they aren't fundementalist. PLEASE describe this archetype to me! Should we all strive for apathy?
Posted by: James Randi | March 21, 2008 4:01 PM
I heard that Chris Hitchens got in, too - in drag - and the cops were so dismayed by what a bad woman he made, they just turned away. But I sometimes exaggerate, so pay no attention to me...
Posted by: Jason Black | March 21, 2008 4:07 PM
Paul,
I understand where you're coming from (and where you are going) with this, but I have to respectfully disagree. I've read all of Professor Dawkins' books, and I simply don't see that hatefulness. There's a degree of pity; this I cannot deny, but let's look at what he does not teach:
Theists are not patriots and should not be US citizens.
Theists have no right to choose for themselves what to believe.
Theists should be absolutely barred from holding public office.
Theists should not have the right to express their opinions.
Theists cannot be moral.
Yet each one of these things are stated time and time again about atheists--that they cannot be patriots, that they shouldn't be citizens in the US, that they are immediately considered immoral, that they have no right to choose for themselves what to believe--and if so, they are to keep their opinions entirely to themselves.
So I have to respectfully disagree with you. He may stand by his principles, but the man is no fundamentalist as he does not expect you to agree with him and has no desire to wield political power to force you to agree with him. But that doesn't mean that he can't express his opinion. And it doesn't mean he is a fundamentalist if he does.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 21, 2008 4:17 PM
Hey Windarr: doesn't your god tell you not to lie? I hope he's watching.
Posted by: David | March 21, 2008 4:24 PM
LOL.
Ben Stein and the Expelled bunch embarrass themselves again.
Posted by: Pocket Nerd | March 21, 2008 4:26 PM
Fukkin' win, PZ. Fukkin' win.
I mean, yeah, fie on them for being typically dishonest creationist jackasses, but at least they were typically STUPID creationist jackasses as well. So fukkin' win nonetheless.
Posted by: t4toby | March 21, 2008 4:44 PM
So you've hit the big time now, huh, P.Z.
Your reputation precedes you.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Moses | March 21, 2008 4:46 PM
I know plenty of scientists to believe all kinds of damn foolish things. But wishing ID to be science doesn't make it science. And anyone who calls himself a scientist and believes ID to be science needs to turn in his/her PhD.
Posted by: todd | March 21, 2008 4:49 PM
Paul regurgitates:
"From my reading, his books emanate the same baleful hatefulness and superiority complex as the fundies do, but a lot more sarcasm."
Reading biased and misquoted criticisms of RD's books written by people from WND is not the same thing as actually, you know, reading the books. Aside from God Delusion, which you think you read based on an unfavorable review, what other books by Dawkins have you read?
Posted by: Roger Scott | March 21, 2008 5:04 PM
Apparently PZ's face is more famous among low brow ID film makers than Dawkins. Who'd have thunk it? Is it the whiskers? Is it the devils horns he cannot quite conceal?
Posted by: christy kennedy | March 21, 2008 5:07 PM
HYSSSS-terical! Thanks. Can't wait to hear more.
Posted by: Ian Maddox | March 21, 2008 5:12 PM
Roger- it's the tentacles.
Posted by: Sam | March 21, 2008 5:14 PM
I hope Mathis thoroughly enjoyed having PZ expelled because this incident has really made him the laughingstock of the world. I've been seeing this story all over the net.
Posted by: Prof. Bleen | March 21, 2008 5:18 PM
Thank you, PZ, for supplying us 200% of our US RDA of irony. The movie isn't even officially released yet, and already the IDiots have undermined their entire premise via phenomenal hypocrisy.
Posted by: Rich | March 21, 2008 5:22 PM
I almost choked on my food when I read the punchline. My first thought was Dawkins better be holding a digi cam and bootlegging that shit.
Posted by: Kyle W. | March 21, 2008 5:23 PM
I can't believe I missed these goings-on. Just further evidence of Big Imbecilism trying to keep dissenting views from being heard.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 5:25 PM
"Roger- it's the tentacles."
---Perhaps he shouldn't wear short shorts...
Posted by: Dave Greig | March 21, 2008 5:31 PM
Maiers, you have outdone yourself.
I'm sorry even more I skipped out on the trip to the UK with you and Larry. :/
Kudos, sir.
--D.
Posted by: Winter Toad | March 21, 2008 5:42 PM
Well, news.google now turns up a couple of references in that part of the Internet that they consider "news", as opposed to mere blogs:
www.twincities.com and
blog.christianitytoday.com.
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 21, 2008 5:46 PM
The posts have a strong scent of self-righteousness, so I'm guessing y'all don't realize Richard Dawkins is, by the strict definition, another kind of fundamentalist?
A strict definition? You mean he adheres to the articles of faith laid out in the early 20th century pamphlets, the Fundamentals? The Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Christ, and all that sort of thing?
Dawkins says Christianity has caused more deaths that anything else in the 20th century,
Cite please?
neatly excluding his fellow-atheists, Stalin and Hitler.
Who weren't actually atheists. Hitler made numerous protestations of his public faith, even in private discussion (e.g. his statement made in front of Adjutant Gerhard Engel "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so", quoted in John Toland's biography of Hitler).
Stalin was, according to Krushchev, a "bad atheist". In those memoirs, he wasn't passing judgment on Stalin's morality, but on his sincerity as an atheist. Don't forget that Stalin trained as a seminarian, and he never really got that ideology out of his head, even when he tried to publicly shut down religious observance (which Krushchev, to his credit, loosened a bit during the "thaw", even to the extent of making Soviet planes available to take Soviet Muslims to Saudi Arabia for the hajj).
Furthermore, the disclosure and declassification of KGB files has led historians to confirm what many of them suspected, namely that outrageously ludicrous propaganda pieces like the Black Book of Communism contained estimates which were strikingly overblown.
I have no love for the Communist regime, because they killed off my intellectual forebearers in the thousands (the anarchists, for example, who participated in the Makhnovist Revolt or the events in Kronstadt, 1921). Nevertheless, pointing to Communist regimes with propagandistic figures of those dead, and claiming "See! That's atheism in action!" is a ludicrous abuse of historical investigation.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | March 21, 2008 5:46 PM
Where are the ID scientists?
Posted by: John C. Randolph | March 21, 2008 5:49 PM
Huh.. Looks like I had a malformed tag and chopped off the end of my message above. It was supposed to say:
where are the ID scientists?
Having a tea party with the unicorns, leprechauns, and other fictitious beings, I suppose.
-jcr
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 21, 2008 6:13 PM
Man, finally caught up with all the comments. Lots of great humor to be had at the Expellers' expense, and IDiots in general.
On the issue of legal action/resisting, well, it's working out well in my daydreams. I wouldn't have recommended it for real life, though. What PZ did still makes for a Crowning Moment of Awesome.
Little link dump of mine.
Posted by: robhoofd | March 21, 2008 6:18 PM
I would have given the theater manager a great big hug and would've laughed all the way home, hugging everyone on my path.
This is almost too wonderful to be true.
Posted by: Jacey | March 21, 2008 6:21 PM
Been reading about this story all day........can't make up shit like this.
One thing bothering me is that they keep talking about PZ Myers being "expelled" and how he's an atheist etc.......I think it needs to be hammered in that he's in the movie!
PZ, I think you should sue to have your name removed from the "Thank You" in the credits
Posted by: AJ Milne | March 21, 2008 6:31 PM
This is, in fact, a general problem with a lot of fundie stuff, and specifically, a lot of creationist stuff, IDC included. Which is to say: it is very difficult to tell even what was meant to be an outrageous parody from the original. I have the same problem encountering a lot of creationist stuff. I'm always thinking: okay. Loki troll, right? He's kidding, right?
The truth is, sometimes, it's harder than you'd think to know. The truth is: you really can't parody Ken Ham. Come up with the most ridiculous shit, and he'll outdo you, next week. In earnest.
I believe there's even a name for the phenomenon, now, but it escapes me. Involves the proper name of the guy who first pointed it out.
Posted by: Mark | March 21, 2008 6:37 PM
I think, this is what some might call "pant-wettingly funny". Or maybe that is just me.
Posted by: AJ Milne | March 21, 2008 6:40 PM
Ah. Just remembered. Poe's Law, natch.
Posted by: Jón Frímann | March 21, 2008 6:41 PM
Nice, I guess that the ID crowd is afraid of you. There is nothing like a good old expelled to tell how afraid they really are.
It is always nice to know when things proof how bad they are.
Have a nice day!
Posted by: ABK in STL | March 21, 2008 6:59 PM
Absofrickinlutely priceless.
"Stupid is as stupid does." ~Forrest Gump
Posted by: wnelson | March 21, 2008 7:01 PM
Myers, you sound embarrassed -- a bit like a child on a playground repeatedly yelling "that didn't hurt! that didn't hurt!"
You're no stranger to the press junket, you could have probably gotten access if you asked -- and if you asked, and didn't get access you needed to cut the antics for once and wait till next month with the rest of the oppressed. Now that the whole country will get an eyeful of the blacklisting, you're worried enough to crash a private screening. That sounds desperate.
Smart move by the producer -- that is guerilla marketing par excellence. Your insecurity about this movie just gave it millions of dollars in free advertising.
Love ya! (but private means _private_)
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 21, 2008 7:04 PM
wnelson, you seem to have the same lack of reading skills as many of the other idiot commenters. PZ WAS INVITED. Which of those three words do you not understand?
Posted by: Arno | March 21, 2008 7:10 PM
PZ, why do you do this to me? It's about bedtime over here (The Netherlands) but now I can't get into bed because I will keep my wife awake all night with my constant outbursts of laughter.
What an enormeous JOKE the IDiots made out of themselves! Let alone the contents of their "movie"... WHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (Sorry, there I go again...)
Posted by: Citizen Z | March 21, 2008 7:11 PM
So ID supporters claim they can recognize design in nature, but they can't recognize Richard Dawkins, star of their own movie? Brilliant.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 7:15 PM
WNelson, a lot has been written about this, and you obviously haven't absorbed all the facts yet.
Private means private? Are you sure? In this case, "private" meant: Open to anyone who pre-registered online for admission to the showing of the film in a theatre rented for the evening by the producers of the film.
In this case, "crash" meant: Showing up at the theatre to check in after having pre-registered online for admission to the showing of the film, as instructed by the organizers of the event.
There's a serious conflict here. By these definitions, virtually everyone who attended the showing by pre-registering for admission online "crashed" the preview.
It's nothing but a hot, steaming pile of stinking dishonesty and double-talk. Explain why his wife, daughter, and daughter's BF were admitted? They were pre-registered by PZ. Explain why Kristine Harley and Rev. Barky were admitted. They pre-registered by the same method.
Face it: PZ was singled out. The only mistake he made was showing up, expecting fair treatment.
Posted by: Kevin Burton | March 21, 2008 7:17 PM
The problem is that you don't realize that Expelled is a COMEDY.... if you take this into consideration it's MUCH easier to watch :)
Kevin
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 21, 2008 7:20 PM
PZ was singled out
You just made me giggle again!
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 7:25 PM
Uh... I did?
0.0
How?
Posted by: BadMA | March 21, 2008 7:29 PM
Private?!? Do they always have to lie? Perhaps IDists are just used to overlooking real facts. This is an obvious falsehood. Yeah, that's *gotta* be it. Right?
Posted by: Iroc | March 21, 2008 7:30 PM
The producers did not discriminate against PZ based on religion but on the fact that he is an outspoken critic who shines the spotlight of fact-based reason on their alternative reality-based propaganda movie, so it isn't religious discrimination
Denying entry because of your "lack" of religion, IS discrimination based on religion.
Posted by: Tessa | March 21, 2008 7:30 PM
Obviously the moviemakers made a huge public relations mistake kicking out PZ. You would think they would have known he'd blog about it, and it would make them look extremely frightened that they couldn't take the criticism.
I guess there is a good reason they call it "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"!!!
This whole incident really cracks me up!
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 21, 2008 7:34 PM
Kseniya, I mean The image of PZ being singled out, not you!
Posted by: tigtog | March 21, 2008 7:39 PM
My impression of Dawkins and PZ waiting in line.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 21, 2008 7:50 PM
RamDude:
Oh. I see. :-)
I mean, I hadn't phrased it in a funny way, or anything.
Yeah, the image is... bizarre.
And one last time, to anyone who still believes PZ was escorted out because he "didn't have a ticket," the truth seems to be this:
- Nobody had a ticket.
- Those who wished to attend, pre-registered online.
- PZ's name was on a "do-not-admit" list.
- (Draw your own conclusions as to why.)
- They knew he was coming,
- ...because he'd pre-registered like everybody else.
- Security was instructed to keep an eye out for him.
- Everyone else who'd pre-registered, including those who had accompanied PZ to the theatre, were admitted to the showing, because
- ...they weren't named "PZ Myers".
Any questions?
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 21, 2008 7:50 PM
Obviously the moviemakers made a huge public relations mistake kicking out PZ. You would think they would have known he'd blog about it, and it would make them look extremely frightened that they couldn't take the criticism.
Unfortunately, Looking frightened of the atheists will play very well with their support group--fundamentalist Christians. And most of them will never read PZ's blog to find out the facts.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 21, 2008 7:53 PM
Bravo!
Posted by: Joe | March 21, 2008 7:59 PM
I'm a Christian, tho not a 6 day creationist. Personally I find it hilarious and a nice kick in the arse for creationists
Posted by: MelM | March 21, 2008 8:00 PM
This has made my day!!! And, I received a thank you note from Ayaan Hirsi Ali too. In my book, this is a bad day for the Sky Wizard.
Posted by: Norseman | March 21, 2008 8:21 PM
I am a devout Christian who considers the creationist scientists to be a schmaltzy group of miscreants. This is why PZ Meyers' account held such mirth for me. Thank you, PZ, for making my day.
Posted by: Anysia | March 21, 2008 8:22 PM
Laughing as hard? Oh HELL yes! HAHAHAHA
Posted by: Scott | March 21, 2008 8:39 PM
That is absolutely fantastic!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Posted by: John Morales | March 21, 2008 8:42 PM
Flashback:
Posted on: August 22, 2007 4:55 PM, by PZ Myers:
Posted by: flea | March 21, 2008 8:45 PM
If I didn't know better, I'd say you made this whole thing up. It's just too good to be true.
But please do let us know how Mr. Dawkins enjoyed the film.
Posted by: Norseman | March 21, 2008 8:48 PM
I thing GREEN M&Ms might be a step too far. Other than that, you're on the mark, PZ.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 21, 2008 8:51 PM
1880 diggs. That's not bad.
Posted by: Sastra | March 21, 2008 8:56 PM
tigtog #1075:
Heh, that's pretty good. I'd already guessed that the tentacles tipped off the security staff, but I can see now why they failed to spot Dawkins: they thought he was one of Stein's relatives.
Posted by: Norseman | March 21, 2008 8:57 PM
Damn! I see in post #1085 I was thinking with my thing again (I hope that doesn't make me a closet creationist).
Posted by: Farb | March 21, 2008 9:02 PM
I predict they'll offer PZ a private screening as an olive branch, in order to manage the damage already done.
After all, we simply can't have our True White Knights of ID caught red-handed in the very act of "expelling."
Of course, it'll be predicated upon him pledging not to write any negative review of their celluloid drivel.
He'll pointedly refuse, of course, and then they'll unleash their Hounds of Truth to trumpet their good faith attempt.
Posted by: A Lurker | March 21, 2008 9:06 PM
It really would not matter if the security goons did recognize Richard Dawkins and knew exactly who is. The "Expelled" people clearly gave instructions that P.Z. should be expelled. It is very likely that they did not know Dawkins was coming and failed to give instructions to expel him and thus security lacked the authority to kick out Dawkins without provocation.
Heck, the theater people and its security probably would not even cared if Dawkins was there anyways. They were were either just following the instructions of the "Expelled" producers. By kicking out only the person requested their butts are covered.
Posted by: Acebass | March 21, 2008 9:15 PM
Interesting Si Kahn addressed this phenomenon in his book "The Fox in the Henhouse" When it's private they can do what they want and hire off duty police officers to enforce [b]their[/b] laws
Posted by: Mongrel | March 21, 2008 9:15 PM
Just caught this and don't have the sobriety to read through all the comments, but would like to add the venacular
PWNED!!!
Posted by: Nio DiPietro | March 21, 2008 9:28 PM
PZ, man, seriously. I think it's time to start a Rap Beef here. PZ Versus Ben Stein! Maybe you could even make press! Someone needs to come up with a gangsta jam railin' against them uppity IDiots!
In all seriousness though: Sometimes, you have to learn to laugh at life, even if it's a curious cocktail of hypocritical hysteria, blatant stupidity, overbearing ignorance, and stage four liver cancer.
Posted by: J | March 21, 2008 9:37 PM
#1094
Someone kinda did. Kick it old school, MC Hawking! (Not safe for work, natch)
Posted by: Jeanne Shade | March 21, 2008 9:40 PM
Oookay....
So they criticize you for speaking out against the idiocy of their movie on grounds that you haven't yet seen it yet. Then, when you try to see it, they show how much faith they have in the strength of their arguments by...not letting you see it.
Yeah. No intelligence allowed, indeed.
The Dawkins bit is just icing on the cake.
Posted by: tsig | March 21, 2008 10:03 PM
More have commented here that will pay to see the movie.
Posted by: James F | March 21, 2008 10:05 PM
#486 (long thread!) wtfwtf wrote:
I wrote to the corresponding authors. One of them, in his reply, assured me that the paper in no way provides support for ID, and noted that his work has frequently been cited to support evolution. Nice try, DI! Same old BS from BD.
Posted by: neil griffiths | March 21, 2008 10:06 PM
With any luck the same will happen when you get to heaven!
Then you can have some fun.
Posted by: Jack H. | March 21, 2008 10:07 PM
That's just about the funniest story I've ever heard.
Posted by: benjdm | March 21, 2008 10:18 PM
NY Times coverage
Posted by: Zach Miller | March 21, 2008 10:21 PM
That is altogether too funny! Oh, the irony! The sweet, scrumptious irony!
Posted by: martin | March 21, 2008 10:31 PM
I know it's late, but I've been following this story for most of the day, from the moment I nearly shat myself on reading P.Z.'s original post to now...though one thing that's struck me, on all the various blogs I've checked is the vicious dishonesty and schoolyard taunts that have emerged from the ID crowd and their apologists. Their comments across the web have been nothing but bile and whinging.Seems to be all they can conjure up. Another thought was to echo a comment made elsewhere, that for all their faith, these sad sacks have a very poor grasp of the essence of xtianity... like peace and love and turning the other cheek " Jesus meek and mild" and all that shit...maybe it's not as important to them as they'd like us to think. In fact what has always struck about bastards who want to shove their screwed-up morals in our faces and into our lives is the idea of control. Only that. The religion thing is a distraction, window-dressing for the real deal. They want to own us. If it became unfeasible to have control through religion, they'd shift the goalposts, regroup, and crawl out from under another rock. Like the Vatican,these guys don't give two farts what the little soldiers on the ground believe, as long as they own our lives and thoughts. It's like a rapist claiming that his vile act was done from love when everybody knows that rape is about power. Scumbags like Stein et al are simply rapists of the mind. I hope these bastards are getting shriller BECAUSE they're getting their balls cut off.
BTW. Thank you, once more, P.Z. and family, for all your work, not just for today alone. (Though today was kinda special)
Keep fighting the good fight, thanks again.
Posted by: Rick Broussard | March 21, 2008 10:46 PM
I didn't have time to read all the hundreds of posts, but my impression is that a bunch of fundamentalist materialists need to find something to amuse themselves besides the attempt of one movie producer to keep a heckler out of the theater on a premiere night. Richard Dawkins is so self-infatuated that I'm sure your sniggering confirms his suspicion that not only is there no God of the universe, he is the apex of humanity. Bow down ye skeptics to your fleshy Messiah.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 21, 2008 10:50 PM
"I didn't have time to read all the hundreds of posts, but my impression is that a bunch of fundamentalist materialists need to find something to amuse themselves besides the attempt of one movie producer to keep a heckler out of the theater on a premiere night."
And just like everything else, they sucked at it.
Posted by: Kevin | March 21, 2008 10:55 PM
"Bow down ye skeptics to your fleshy Messiah."
umm.. are you talking about Ed Brayton?
Posted by: Cheezits | March 21, 2008 10:55 PM
I didn't have time to read all the hundreds of posts, but
...but you still feel qualified to comment on them, eh? :-D
There is no theory of ID. No amount of lying from creationists will change that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 21, 2008 11:04 PM
I can't believe this hasn't been added yet, so I will have to, I guess:
BREATHTAKING INANITY!
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 21, 2008 11:06 PM
$50 says this sentence of Rick Broussard's could just as accurately be ended with the word 'Bible.'
Thanks for coming out Rick. We really do appreciate reading comments from individuals such as yourself who go the extra step to ensure that their opinions are well-informed. People like you are really instrumental in demonstrating the moral, ethical, and intellectual backbone of those who claim to live by Christ's teachings. I hope your community appreciates you as the very model of a Christian as much as we do.
Thanks again, and on this very special weekend celebrating the resurrection of a god, may the original resurrected gods--Tammuz, Osiris, and Dionysus--bless you.
Posted by: Rick Broussard | March 21, 2008 11:07 PM
Which is a greater offense to reason: to hold faith in a religious doctrine or to accept that something you don't really understand must be so because someone you consider to be an intellectual superior says it is?
Posted by: Rick Broussard | March 21, 2008 11:09 PM
Which is a greater offense to reason: to hold faith in a religious doctrine or to accept that something you don't really understand must be so because someone you consider to be an intellectual superior says it is?
Posted by: Cheezits | March 21, 2008 11:12 PM
Holding faith in a fundamentalist religious doctrine is nothing but accepting that something you don't understand, and that flies in the face of reality, must be so because Pastor Billy Bob says it is.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 21, 2008 11:14 PM
Which is a greater offense to reason
Someone as fucking dumb as you using the word when you so clearly have no idea what it means.
Posted by: Troff | March 21, 2008 11:15 PM
Rick,
if your pipes are blocked somewhere before the main waste outlet, or if your computer gets a virus; and you don't know how to unblock the pipes or how they got blocked in the first place, or you don't know why you remove the virused files and they keep re-appearing... are you prepared to accept the plumber's or the tech guy's reasoning as for how they got blocked or virused?
... Especially when they DO clear the blockage and remove the virus?
Posted by: blf | March 21, 2008 11:16 PM
Which is a greater offense to reason: to hold faith in a religious doctrine ...
Any one of "faith", "religion", and "doctrine" is a massive insult to reason. The combination is so unreasonable, irrational, and lacking in evidence or even plausibly that it's not even wrong.
... or to accept that something you don't really understand must be so because someone you consider to be an intellectual superior says it is?
Are we still talking about the pope?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 21, 2008 11:22 PM
Since Rick referred to skeptics and mentioned Dawkins, we can only assume he thinks we're atheists because Dawkins told us to be. He may be talking about evolution, but it's so hard to tell with these simps, especially when they try to emulate thinking, sentient beings.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 21, 2008 11:23 PM
Actually, Kevin, we aren't the ones with a fleshy messiah (if dead and decomposed), or for that matter any other kind of messiah. Atheists recognize brilliant thinkers and writers, but no central leading authority, text or organization.
In fact, the only thing that really makes atheists different from you is that we recognize and worship one fewer god (or group of gods) than you do.
But it is interesting that you invoke the supernatural to defend ID. Isn't it supposed to be a secular concept, with no clue as to who the designer is? Didn't you get the memo?
Posted by: Jackstraw | March 21, 2008 11:28 PM
That's the best ending to a story since Robert Redford opened his eyes just after Doyle Lonigan gimped out of the betting parlor.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 21, 2008 11:29 PM
Robster, I think you mean to address your comment to Rick Broussard, comment #1104.
Posted by: Rick Broussard | March 21, 2008 11:31 PM
Illuminating to see how strangers are treated by Dawkinsians, though It doesn't bode well for humanity under the iron fist of materialism.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 21, 2008 11:32 PM
Thanks, Brownian, I realized it after I hit submit.
Posted by: Robert S. | March 21, 2008 11:36 PM
Hilarious. I believe congratulations are in order. A beer on me PZ should we ever meet.
Posted by: Martin | March 21, 2008 11:38 PM
That was cute, Rick! Although I like my pewter fist better. Just a bit more stylish, and less prone to rust.
Posted by: QED | March 21, 2008 11:39 PM
Illuminating to see how strangers are treated by Dawkinsians, though It doesn't bode well for humanity under the iron fist of materialism.
No...better for humanity to be dragged back to the Middle Ages under the bloody cross of religious and political fundamentalism.
Posted by: Troff | March 21, 2008 11:40 PM
Rick Broussard,
that was rude and uncomely of you.
I answered your question with an appropriate and informative analogy and no insult.
I've never met Richard Dawkins and I certainly don't have a religious faith in the man.
This bodes most poorly for every living creature if the alternative to the Iron Fist of Materialism is the Iron Fist of your Rudeness and Falsehoods.
Posted by: Leigh | March 21, 2008 11:41 PM
@rick broussard (#1111)
"Which is a greater offense to reason: to hold faith in a religious doctrine or to accept that something you don't really understand must be so because someone you consider to be an intellectual superior says it is?"
I believe your contention that I "accept something I don't really understand" is specious. Just because YOU can't understand it doesn't mean the rest of us are thus handicapped.
And, since I am a devout Christian, let me also point out that Christ in no wise advised us to be uneducated sheeple. That comment about being like little children? He didn't mean we are supposed to be ignorant and naive.
Nor did He mean we're supposed to tell lies and just-so stories because
a) we don't understand and/or can't accept reality, or
b) in a battle of wits, we're unarmed.
/flamethrower
/snarkiness
Posted by: Troff | March 21, 2008 11:41 PM
Rick Broussard,
that was rude and uncomely of you.
I answered your question with an appropriate and informative analogy and no insult.
I've never met Richard Dawkins and I certainly don't have a religious faith in the man. It just so happens that the appearances of his I've seen on television and the Internet portray him as asking intelligent questions and eliciting fascinating answers. He brings understanding to people and does so in an illuminating and polite manner.
Unlike, say, you.
This bodes most poorly for every living creature if the alternative to the Iron Fist of Materialism is the Iron Fist of your Rudeness and Falsehoods. Thank you: I know which I'd choose now.
Posted by: Troff | March 21, 2008 11:42 PM
(Apologies if this is a repost, the Series Of Tubes appear to be a tad clogged whilst I was editing...)
Rick Broussard,
that was rude and uncomely of you.
I answered your question with an appropriate and informative analogy and no insult.
I've never met Richard Dawkins and I certainly don't have a religious faith in the man. It just so happens that the appearances of his I've seen on television and the Internet portray him as asking intelligent questions and eliciting fascinating answers. He brings understanding to people and does so in an illuminating and polite manner.
Unlike, say, you.
This bodes most poorly for every living creature if the alternative to the Iron Fist of Materialism is the Iron Fist of your Rudeness and Falsehoods. Thank you: I know which I'd choose now.
Posted by: jim | March 21, 2008 11:47 PM
Truth is funnier than fiction, ladies & germs!
Now THAT's edutainment at its finest.
Yet again, the Fundamentalistas just showed everyone their true colours.
Now the rest of us get to do what they hate more than anything: laugh at their astonishing level of egotism & willful stupidity.
Apparently, chumping yourself is a fetish with these folks.
The fact that you're actually IN the film they won't let you watch is just the cherry on the asshat-sundae.
Man, plus letting Dawkins in without so much as a blink ... PLUS it happening on Easter, to boot ... hardcore self-pwnage.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 21, 2008 11:47 PM
Yeah, cry us a river, you son of the Inquisition.
Come here with an original thought, not something you cribbed from your cronies, and maybe you'll get a little respect. But as is, you showed up and started slinging your claims of fundamentalism and your "bow down to your material messiahs" and you dare to suggest you're being ill-treated?
Fuck you, Rick. Fuck you.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 21, 2008 11:47 PM
Rick, if the dark ages and the inquisition are the choice we are given, I'll take the snide remarks. If often violent hate, justified by your god/s, for those of different belief, or sexual persuasion, or skin color is what you offer, I'll skip it. If, when humans do evil, they are at fault, not controlled by demons, I'll take reality. Or when a tornado destroys the house next door, killing the whole family, you would have me thank god/s for sparing me and slaughtering them, I'll kindly say, "Shit happens."
Do you value the commandment not to bear false witness (lie)?
If so, then why do you support liars like those pushing ID as a scientific theory, or claim that there is no evidence for evolution.
It isn't evolution that is on shakier ground every year, it is theism. Religion relies on a lack of evidence, also called faith (remember doubting Thomas?), and every bit of evidence that is gathered makes the unknown, and hence, god/s, smaller and smaller.
BTW, do you even know what materialism is?
Posted by: Rick Broussard | March 21, 2008 11:54 PM
Didn't mean to appear rude (Troff). I was responding to a couple of jeers and suggestions that I was an idiot by people who don't know crap about me. I've never implied any such thing about any of you and my feelings were hurt. I do believe (and think) that baseline materialism makes just as many (more actually) brash assumptions about essential reality than does faith. I think faith has to be tempered with love and so does it's lack, but minus faith, there's really no reason to offer love beyond conditioned reflex or manipulation. Don't take this personally y'all. I'm just speaking my narrow, sad, pitiful mind.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 21, 2008 11:59 PM
I'm just speaking my narrow, sad, pitiful mind.
Like, no shit. The output speaks for itself.
Posted by: Leigh | March 22, 2008 12:03 AM
I just thought of this . . .
Newly-unemployed Horwood_beer-master (#720 upthread), let's go into business together.
There will never be a better market for irony meters, since every one in the known universe is now busted.
What say we start supplying that demand? Untold wealth awaits us . . .
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 22, 2008 12:07 AM
Yes, yes you did. You implied we're all fundamentalist followers without even bothering to read what we've written. We're very tired of hearing that from assumption-makers.
Even though I disagree with most of this, if you had started off this way, I would not have responded the way I did.
For my part, I apologise for my comments that hurt your feelings. I appreciate you finally coming out and being honest about what you think, not what you think we think.
Posted by: Leigh | March 22, 2008 12:10 AM
Rick (#1133), this is a damn tough crowd for us theists. Some atheists are asshats. Then again, some Christians are asshats. It all works out.
What I can't tolerate is the friggin' LIES. I can't imagine how anyone thinks that the cause of Christ is well-served by a bunch of unethical nudnicks like the producers of this movie.
One thing you can take to the bank with PZ and Dawkins, they tell the truth insofar as they can identify it, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 12:17 AM
Since Rick referred to skeptics and mentioned Dawkins, we can only assume he thinks we're atheists because Dawkins told us to be.
Rick said just a couple of posts later:
Illuminating to see how strangers are treated by Dawkinsians,
so I'd say you were pretty dead on.
those that put their "faith" in authoritarianism often project the exact same onto everyone else.
Rick:
projection. Look it up.
you're full of it.
Posted by: tpaine950062 | March 22, 2008 12:17 AM
Rick Broussard said:
> ...I do believe (and think) that baseline materialism
> makes just as many (more actually) brash assumptions
> about essential reality than does faith...
I'm curious: in what way does skepticism when lacking proof involve unexamined assumptions? The assumption that pink, talking unicorns in your undershorts are controlling your posts has the merit of exonerating you on the charge of making an ass of yourself, but there's no evidence for it.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 22, 2008 12:21 AM
Bah. I don't apologize.
I think faith has to be tempered with love and so does it's lack, but minus faith, there's really no reason to offer love beyond conditioned reflex or manipulation.
Conditioned reflex? You mean like if I'm not good, I'll be punished by my god/s? That isn't morality, its fear. Being moral isn't about making god/s happy (or less wrathful), but in helping others and doing the right thing.
The truth of your actions is in the last word of the quoted sentence.
Manipulation.
By sugar coating your words, you hope to undo the damage already done and manipulate the conversation to a point where you can save face and run away. You have no interest in showing love, only that you don't understand basic definitions of faith, evidence, religion, reason, materialism, etc.
Congrats. Have a happy Festival of Ester, the goddess of rebirth, fertility and spring.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 12:22 AM
My Dear Mr. Broussard:
You wrote:
...over-biased and under-informed.
You subsequently asked:
Which is a greater offense to reason? 1) Blind faith in ancient mythology, or 2) that other dreadful thing you mentioned?
The question, though perhaps of some interest to the nine-year-old for whom I occasionally babysit, is of little value in this discussion because it fails to address a couple of other possibilities:
3) Accepting something that you do understand because you've gone to the trouble of learning enough about it to make an informed decision. (I realize you know nothing about how this works, but stay with me please.)
4) Speaking out with presumed authority against something you don't really understand and refuse to try to understand because it conflicts with your blind faith in ancient mythology. (Does this one have your name on it, Bucky?)
The greatest affront to Reason, of the four, is... number four.
I may have underestimated you, but I think this means you win some kind of prize. Congratulations.
Posted by: Rick Broussard | March 22, 2008 12:26 AM
Brownian, First of all you have my respect since your eponymous motion in a cup of tea allows the Heart of Gold to pass through every point in the universe at once, and secondly, without getting defensive, allow me to point out that I was speaking to the general tone of this site in which a bunch of yahooies were crowing about the "victory" of smuggling Richard Dawkins into a movie theatre (great moral triumph that this may or may not be). I never called any of them (or you) "fucking dumb." To say I did not read every single post is not to say I did not scroll down looking for variations in the flow. I'll be happy to admit that I have not seen the movie and I haven't said a word in its defense. But I'll bet dollars to donuts that a lot of the posters here have never read Dawkins, much less a reasoned critique of his point of view from a position of a rational person of faith. Since some have declared that faith is by its nature anathema to reason I assume that they would not even consider this a worthy exercise, but that is the nature of fundamentalists of any persuasion.
Posted by: Godfrey | March 22, 2008 12:32 AM
Broussard said:
"minus faith, there's really no reason to offer love beyond conditioned reflex or manipulation."
Except that we were born to love? That we live for love, die for love, kill for love, waste our lives searching for love when love is all around us... and you have the gall to come in here and pretend no one knows love but Christians?
Fuck you, Rick. Fuck you.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 22, 2008 12:34 AM
Rick, define faith.
Define reason.
And as I am well into Devil's Chaplain (and have several other Dawkins books on my reading list) and find it extraordinarily well written, I prefer crullers. Thanks.
Perhaps you could point us to a rational criticism of Dawkins that doesn't rely on "he's arrogant" or "he's a big meanie."
Thanks.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 22, 2008 12:36 AM
Religion relies on a lack of evidence, also called faith (remember doubting Thomas?),
Oh yes! Very well. You learned early on that a Doubting Thomas was almost as bad as being a Judas! Except the response leaned more toward scorn rather than contempt. You could have faults, you could admit you weren't perfect (after all, is anybody?), you could admit to not having enough faith in Jesus to achieve real inner peace, or not praying enough. You could even debate the inerrancy of the Bible, but you did NOT admit to doubting in the existence of Jesus. Not if you wanted to continue being part of the group for long. Doubting Thomas' were the reason group prayers didn't work sometimes, and why miracles didn't happen more often. You didn't want to be responsible for somebody not recovering from a serious illness, did you? Yep, being a Doubting Thomas; one of the more serious failings of a Christian.
After you get away from it, you realize that God isn't God; Faith is God.
Posted by: Rick Broussard | March 22, 2008 12:39 AM
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution By Michael J. Behe
The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief By Francis S. Collins
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 12:46 AM
Geez, it's easy to fall behind on a thread like this.
Rick:
You have GOT to be kidding.
Are you related to Stuart Blessman?
Have you ever entered a bicycle race and ridden the entire course backwards?
Look. Look at your first - FIRST - comment:
In that context, how could ANYONE fail to interpret your second comment (the "Which is a greater offense to reason?" question, which I'd like to point out was posted before anyone started calling you nasty names) as an implicit indictment of the intellectual capacity and/or honesty of virtually everyone reading and commenting on this thread who accepts the ToE and rejects ID? How?
And now you cry foul, you cry unwelcoming Dawkinsians and nasty Hobbitses, you cry "Oh I didn't mean YOU"...?
Ok. I'll bite. Everyone gets a second chance. Carry on. :-)
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 22, 2008 12:52 AM
Behe? WHAHAHAHAHA! Behe is charlatan, more interested in PR than honest work.
Thanks for the shits and giggles.
Schroeder (TSoG) looks too hard for science in a plagiarized Babylonian creation myth (arguably, the least important book in the bible other than revelation of John), leaving reason and rationality behind for anything that will help him keep his faith in light of evidence. I understand him though, that's where I was once, until I dealt with my own Gordian knot.
Collins (TLoG) can't wrap his mind around one simple concept. Just because something has happened, does not mean that it happened by design or intent. He also confuses rational thought with evidence of god.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 12:53 AM
were crowing about the "victory" of smuggling Richard Dawkins in
funny, I thought the thread was titled:
EXPELLED
I rather think you missed the point.
badly.
Not a surprise, though.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 12:54 AM
nasty Hobbitses
heh, i always get a kick out of the picture this brings to mind whenever you use it:
Dembski as Gollum.
with glasses and sweater.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 12:58 AM
But I'll bet dollars to donuts that a lot of the posters here have never read Dawkins, much less a reasoned critique of his point of view from a position of a rational person of faith.
you're just full of projection, aren't ya buddy?
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 1:01 AM
Yeah! Yet an other person shows up to let us know what INTOLERANT people we are without knowing the facts of the case. Rick, please read up on this. It was a prescreening, not a premiere. One could get in by accepting an invite through the Expelled website. There was no smuggling.
What is funny about this story is that they got the local atheist, PZ, and allowed in the most famous atheist, Dawkins.
Basicly, the people here will crow anytime that the liars involved with this film, or any other creationist activity, are shown to be the dishonest gits they are.
Rick, what you should do is check out the many threads here to see that everyone here does not speak with one voice. No one here looks at Dawkins as the one we must bow to. But many here admire that he got a stage to speak from and he speaks well. But he is not our leader. And check out how many regulars here disagree with PZ.
But there is one major difference with the arguments here and the arguments against the creationists. Most of the people here do seem to be honest about what they mean and that can be respected. It may get heated but that is about it. With creationists, it is different, they are liars and we know it. One can catch them in a deception yet they keep doing it over again.
And you barge in, calling us braying sycophants of Myers and Dawkins. You make a note of not bothering to read what is here. And you present a scenario that has been proven wrong. You came in acting like the prototypical troll. We have seen dozens of post like what you dropped off. It was attacking and offensive. The tongue lashing you received was deserved.
Next you come to hector, at least get your facts straight. If you cannot bother to do so, you will be called on it.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 1:03 AM
Wow. That really puts the "csi" in "my precious." I detect design!
Posted by: QED | March 22, 2008 1:04 AM
And here's the spin, from Mathis, in the NYT article:
Mark Mathis, a producer of the film who attended the screening, said that "of course" he had recognized Dr. Dawkins, but allowed him to attend because "he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film."
Posted by: Rick Broussard | March 22, 2008 1:06 AM
Well, Kseniya, I certainly didn't mean YOU, not anyone specifically in my casual rib-poking. Not even the ones who have told repeatedly said "Fuck You" to me. The difference in speaking in generalities for rhetorical effect and attacking an individual is pretty clear to me, but for some reason it is not to people who seem so self-righteous (a generality, in case someone is hoping to be personally offended) about their claims to reason. As much as I'd like to stick around and be the one Daffy Duck in a world of rifle-toting Elmer Fudds (generally speaking), it's a bit late. I'll check in tomorrow to see who else wants me to go fuck myself. As for appeals to authority, I assume that the books that I mentioned are looked on by some as inferior to those of Mr. Dawkins, but maybe you should encourage me since at least I'm not just reading Focus on the Family.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 1:10 AM
casual rib-poking
oh, that's what you call it.
sorry, charlie, you poisoned your own well, and instead of trying to fix it, only proceeded to deepen the well.
suggest you go away for a while, and come back after everyone has forgotten about you.
Posted by: blf | March 22, 2008 1:10 AM
I think a new level of irony has just been reached: Behe has been seriously recommended (@1146).
Behe?
Behe!
Oh his fecking sky monster.
Even ten seconds spent with the Wikipedia summary would clew most people in Behe is less credible than One Million Years BC or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 1:13 AM
Even ten seconds spent with the Wikipedia summary would clew most people in Behe is less credible than One Million Years BC or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Well, there is the astrology crowd to think of!
Behe is their hero for claiming astrology is just as good a science as ID.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 22, 2008 1:13 AM
Rick, perhaps, when you come back (coward), you could define reason, faith, evidence, materialism, and rationality.
And you may not only be reading Focus on the Family, but you certainly like their preferred pseudoscience writers.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 1:19 AM
Even ten seconds spent with the Wikipedia summary would clew most people in Behe is less credible than One Million Years BC or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
actually, spending 5 minutes on the discussion page for that wiki, looking at the NPOV whiners, is even more entertaining.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 1:19 AM
Uh... "not just"?
Meaning, "I'm reading some other stuff in addition to my usual diet of Focus on the Family," or "I'm reading all kinds of stuff, but nothing like, for example, that god-offal Focus on the Family schlorp!"
It matters.
Either way, I'd love to encourage you. BTW, forget TGD for the moment. Have you read The Blind Watchmaker or The Ancestor's Tale?
Posted by: Godfrey | March 22, 2008 1:22 AM
Brousard, this is not casual rib-poking:
"but minus faith, there's really no reason to offer love beyond conditioned reflex or manipulation."
This is a brutal insult to our humanity, a reducing of us to animals, thinly disguised as airy philosophy.
Fuck you.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 22, 2008 1:29 AM
Rick, just an observation, but I detected in your comments not a hint of awareness of the possibility of thinking for one's self. From the philosophical choices you offered, to what books you, or we, have read, it was all biased toward a preoccupation with external authority. I don't think you understand atheists very well.
Posted by: Michael X | March 22, 2008 1:33 AM
You poisoned your own well
You're far too kind. The man is a puddle.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 22, 2008 1:40 AM
First of all you have my respect since your eponymous motion in a cup of tea allows the Heart of Gold to pass through every point in the universe at once...
Anyone think Rick knows that Douglas Adams was a atheist?
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 22, 2008 1:43 AM
an
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 1:43 AM
Not only that. Adams and Dawkins were very good friends. It was Adams who introduced Dawkins to person who he married, Lalla Ward.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 1:46 AM
You're far too kind.
mind if i save that?
I think it might be the first time I've ever been accused of that around here.
:)
Posted by: Godfrey | March 22, 2008 1:51 AM
Heart of Gold. I had to look that up; I thought it was a typo for Heart of God (which admittedly didn't make any sense). Of course, I never cared much for Hitchhiker's Guide. The Long, Dark Teatime of the Soul was much better.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 1:53 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble but Dawkins work were peer reviewed. Behe, not so much. But I guess you will make the claim the scientists are herd creatures and are following the alpha scientist.
And just a reminder Rick, you were the one that came in calling names. So sorry the you getting it back got personal. Fuck you sideways up your ass with a splintery telephone pole. But please do not take it personally.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 1:57 AM
I saw Lalla in an old movie recently. It was called Crossing Swords, a 1977 adaptation of "The Prince and the Pauper". Fun! I had no idea who she was until I started reading Pharyngula. (I've seen maybe three "Dr. Who" episodes my whole life, all back when I was very young. I remember Tom Baker's hair, that's about it.)
RamDude (#1163), you may be on to something. Hmmm. You've been on a roll lately. Nice to see you back here after a long vacay...
Posted by: Alex | March 22, 2008 2:04 AM
OH MY GOD. RICHARD DAWKINS? They kicked YOU out and let RICHARD DAWKINS in?! I'm laughing so hard my side hurts.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 22, 2008 2:07 AM
Oh, I'm here, I just can't afford to divert my attention too much to commenting or I won't get anything done. :-/
Posted by: Michael X | March 22, 2008 2:15 AM
Please do.
When a man enters a discussion with naught more than assumption, ignorance and hubris, we're not dealing with anything that has the depth of a well. We're dealing with a tea cup.
You were almost... genteel.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 2:22 AM
Hey! I gave him a pain curse! But only because he persisted in being an ass.
Posted by: Godfrey | March 22, 2008 2:24 AM
Now that twerp has me all upset. I think I'll turn off the internet and listen to some Eric Dolphy. Or Cecil Taylor. That will be so much nicer.
Posted by: Atomic Punk | March 22, 2008 2:36 AM
That is easily one of the funniest things ever written. Clearly they just want to build hype within the religious community because they realize the reviews are going to tear it apart. Once again the believers can claim to be under attack by the "leftist atheists" again. Can't wait.
This is Absurd
Posted by: Freddy the Pig | March 22, 2008 3:33 AM
Rick Broussard - You didn't notice that a couple of Christians bitch slapped you as well.
I am not a biologist or any other type of life sciences guy, but I am an engineer and it is blatantly obvious that the human body and other biological systems are not intelligently designed. Quite the opposite - such systems are exactly the sort of kluges that would result from common descent modified by haphazard mutations "guided" by natural selection.
The only rational case for intelligent design is in some of the basic laws of the universe itself. This would imply a deistic rather than a theistic god. Perhaps such a creator just liked the look of spiral galaxies and created a uinverse where there would be a lot of them. We could just be an accidental byproduct of such a creation. It is the height of hubris and arrogance to assume that humans are the primary purpose of our vast and magnificent universe.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 22, 2008 4:05 AM
"...a rational person of faith."
---Well, good luck with that snipe hunt.
Posted by: javascript | March 22, 2008 4:14 AM
Seems to me like PZ has made a big to-do about nothing and it's funny how typically the sheep are quick to follow...
Re-Cap:
- PZ spends the better part of a year claiming the producers are sneaky/dishonest
- Producers arrange private viewing of the movie as ALL producers do with a new product
- PZ along with sidekick Dawkins arrive at the screening uninvited hoping to "sneak" in
- PZ gets noticed and is asked to leave.
- PZ makes a big deal out of it as if the producers are contradicting the premise of their own movie and again being dishonest about their own freedom of speech motives... As if one topic has anything to do with the other.
- Meanwhile Dawkins avoids being noticed and succeeds at "sneaking" in without an invitation, without announcing his presence and without doing the mature thing by asking if he might join the screening. No, he dishonestly snuck in.
- PZ gets praise and adulation for a job well done, supposedly.
I don't get what all the fuss is about. PZ and Dawkins sound like a couple of adolescent school kids in old men's bodies, still hell bent on bucking the establishment then running off to the playground to brag about how one got caught and the other got away!
Who cares man? Sounds to me like PZ and Dawkins need to grow up.
Posted by: Leigh | March 22, 2008 4:40 AM
@javascript (#1179):
"- PZ makes a big deal out of it as if the producers are contradicting the premise of their own movie and again being dishonest about their own freedom of speech motives... As if one topic has anything to do with the other."
WTF? One topic has EVERYTHING to do with the other, since the premise of their own movie IS an academic freedom/freedom of ideas issue.
Professors Myers and Dawkins didn't sneak in, you idiot. They registered using their own names on a public web site.
This isn't a kid's game. It's a serious issue, one that will have a great bearing on human history. PZ and Dawkins are leaders in a war of ideas, and sometimes they deserve some R&R -- particularly when the opposition hands it to them on a plate.
You clearly couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag. Better go home, son, and do some intellectual and emotional growing up of your own.
Posted by: Zarquon | March 22, 2008 4:44 AM
Nothing PZ did was sneaky or underhanded, why do you guys keep lying? He registered like everyone else who went to that screening. As for being kicked out of Expelled!, if you can't see the hypocrisy of kicking someone out of that film then your too stupid for words.
Posted by: Michael X | March 22, 2008 5:04 AM
Javascript, please try reading before posting. Thank you.
Posted by: leguru | March 22, 2008 5:17 AM
So how's it feel to be the Rosa Parks of invertebrates? And Cuttlefish poem - and the IDiots - AND THE IRONY - best four hours I've spent on the internet! Thanks, PZ.
Posted by: javascript | March 22, 2008 5:52 AM
Leigh... Miss "WTF"... I'll spell it out for you.
A) EXPELLED is about the silencing and suppression in the scientific community that is destroying lives and careers, not to mention the expansion of science. Professionals are denied the right to speak freely without fear of professional repercussions. We are denied hearing what they have to say as a result.
B) Private Screenings are about a MOVIE... The status quo in the film industry is to invite those who will help generate a buzz about the film to kick off with a good opening day. On opening day EVERYONE is welcomed to see the film.
Attempting to compare the SUPPRESSION in science to PRIVATE SCREENINGS in the movie industry is a pathetic joke and you'd have to be a complete moron to think they are similar in any way.
Need anyone be reminded, films cost millions of dollars to make... It is a business remember. What would be the point of getting into the film industry if you're just going to give the end product away? And if you made a film and wanted people to give it a chance, who would you invite to your pre-screenings?
The critics will get their chance to see the film in just 3 short weeks along with the rest of us... On the other hand, PZ, Dawkins and the like, will still be campaigning to EXPELL, crush, intimidate and ridicule people who don't think like they do. You want to rant about something?... Take a good long look at your idols.
Posted by: Michael X | March 22, 2008 6:08 AM
Javascript,
I'm sure you're not expecting someone that is actually in the industry to be on this thread, but you've made a silly mistake.
You've made numerous errors into what the "industry" does at movie screenings. Primarily, by stating that the invitation not mad open to many people, PZ and Dawkins in particular, through Expelled's web site. It wasn't private enough apparently and the Expelled group made a HUGE PR mistake in refusing PZ.
You have little idea into what is involved in the making of a film or its costs. You also misunderstand what is involved in the scientific enterprise. No scientist ever made his case by appealing to public opinion. Ever. The scientists who changed the world did so through the scientific method. Not through emotional appeals to nonsense.
We in the biz have a name for what you're pulling here: Propaganda.
Posted by: zilch | March 22, 2008 6:09 AM
When is the T-shirt coming out?
Posted by: John | March 22, 2008 6:14 AM
Major chuckle.
Posted by: bibanu | March 22, 2008 6:47 AM
I have to agree with javascript. I find it hilarious the fact that PZ writes a fairly pathetic note and so many sheep follow him laughing about something that I do not find funny at all.
It is much ado about NOTHING. And the hateful language???
Well - no one can deny that we are dealing here with "cool headed scientific minds" whose argumentation consists of intimidation and curses...
I am sure the fundys feel ashamed of their lack of sophistication when they read your eloquent and overwhelming remarks.
I could not have said it better javascript:
"PZ and Dawkins sound like a couple of adolescent school kids in old men's bodies, still hell bent on bucking the establishment then running off to the playground to brag about how one got caught and the other got away!"
Posted by: sophie | March 22, 2008 6:48 AM
Javascript and likeminded types,
Is your faith really so fragile? Someone convinced of his god should be impervious to doubt. Even serene.
Posted by: John Morales | March 22, 2008 6:48 AM
Posted by: javascript | March 22, 2008 6:56 AM
Michael,
Sorry my friend but it's you who's being silly... I am in the business. Have been for 25 years actually. But thanks for the arrogant attempt at belittleing me. You guys never stop do you?
The doors to pre-screenings are not just open to anyone. If you've read anything at all about this particular movie, it's been widely publicized that Motive Marketing (also marketed "Passion of the Christ" and "Narnia") is handling the marketing for the film to the grass roots, faith based public. The sign up form that PZ is talking about is affiliated with the grass roots marketing campaign for the movie, which is clearly directed to a distinct market. PZ "aint" faith based last I checked and he didn't find that form out on the main EXPELLED web site... So he knew he wasn't really the target market of the invitation. But he thought he'd try and pull a fast one over on the producers and slide in anyway. He knew what he was doing... And so do most of you. But you don't care. You'll take what little information you have and spin this to your advantage for as long as you can. It's what you do and who you are. It's you who's spreading the "propaganda."
About there being some kind of "huge PR mistake"... are you sure "We (you) in the biz?" This is a gold mine for the movie! Do you have any idea how many people area spreading this story now? Any idea the amount of free publicity they're getting? My guess is the producers are laughing harder than PZ and gang have been.
Ciao Mike. Good luck with that career. ("We in the biz"... give me a break!)
Posted by: Zarquon | March 22, 2008 7:22 AM
First you say
So what science is being suppressed? And how are lives being destroyed? That's something that has to be taken on faith
You scumbags are so transparently dishonest that it's a wonder you don't drown in your own bullshit.
Posted by: Scientiae | March 22, 2008 7:52 AM
Sweet monkey, this is the best thing EVER. Not that I approve of you being discriminated against, Dr. Myers, but them shutting you out and letting Dr. Dawkins (standing beside you) in? Quite possibly the most perfect demonstration of the catholic ignorance of this crowd. This is spit-coffee-at-your-monitor funny.
Forest for the trees, indeed.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 22, 2008 8:14 AM
I'm sure I didn't laugh as hard as PZ, but I enjoyed the mental image of PZ shuffling away while Dawkins stood in line looking bemused. :-D But I have to wonder if they didn't let him in on purpose. There is no way in heck they could have failed to recognize Dawkins!
Posted by: Paula | March 22, 2008 8:31 AM
This is indeed a strange situation. I cannot help but wonder though if this expulsion is reflective of the essence of the movie and its apparent aims to expose what is aledgedly happening within the science profession? Your thoughts?
Posted by: Vernunft | March 22, 2008 8:32 AM
I was worried we wouldn't have any bigoted, illogical rants on the movie but thankfully Richard Dawkins has our back.
Posted by: Scientiae | March 22, 2008 8:44 AM
Honestly, there's no reason EVER to be afraid of a lack of bigotry and illogic in connection with Expelled. The movie is self-sufficient in that regard.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 22, 2008 8:51 AM
Judging by the reports so far, the movie IS a bigotted, illogical rant. Equating the censuring of pseudo-scientific drivel with Nazi gas chambers is beyond offensive. It's borderline hate speech.
Posted by: Adam Stanhope | March 22, 2008 9:01 AM
I don't think I've *ever* seen a blog post with 1200 comments. Wow!
Posted by: ebonkrieg | March 22, 2008 9:16 AM
This is the longest thread I have ever seen. This is also my first time on this site. I will be returning.
A little education is dangerous. It can lead us to enlightenment if it is painted with a broad brush (liberal) which in turn leads to further inquiry or it may be tightly focused and manipulated to prove the hypothesis we've already proven to ourselves (quasi or pseudo education.) Atheism is not a club or a lifestyle or a philosophy and it is especially NOT a religion. It can't be anything more than a conclusion to me and if you try to label me as an atheist than you are sadly confused and have missed the point.
Posted by: Jamie | March 22, 2008 9:24 AM
Was Dawkins in the movie too? I understand you were interviewed for it, but in the interests of not going off on a speculative rant which is mostly what you and everyone else has done here (i.e., making assumptions where the cause/effect relationship is technically unknown and only presumed), is it possible you were ejected for other reasons? An example might be the potential legal problems you might cause by your having been duped into giving statements in the movie which may be used in ways contrary to your expectations.
Nonetheless, for a scientist, it's a bit off that you'd leap to this conclusion with out any data. You're actually committing the crimes of the people you accuse. Unless of course, this is how you always come to scientific conclusions? In which case, being ejected here is probably a good thing as who knows what sort of critique you'd level if your method is just about guess work and assumptions.
Best find some more data.
Posted by: atheist | March 22, 2008 9:48 AM
All the secrecy and the buzz is working toward a big box office. I know all you anti-ID-ers are warming your insides over this imagined "incident," but how does it really work in your favor?
It works 'in our favor', or, more accurately, against the people who made the movie, because it shows them as massive hypocrites who complain about being "expelled" from the academic groups, but are ultra-keen to "expell" anyone who might disagree with them. It also shows that the people who made the movie are so afraid of criticism that they consider it dangerous, as if they were trying to eliminate any differing opinion. In short, it shows the moviemakers as cowardly and hypocritical.
Posted by: Saotomer | March 22, 2008 9:48 AM
#1200... did you read your own comment? Did you read PZ's comments? He hasn't speculated anything.
Your given explanation doesn't hold water (assuming there is even a possible legal problem to begin with) if the movie ever gets released publicly in any way, the problem will still be there.
Also, consider that the only reason they would have to make him leave is who he is (they asked if he was PZ, he said yes, they said the people in charge specifically said he was not to be allowed.)
Posted by: Blayze Kohime | March 22, 2008 10:06 AM
Its like some people don't even think before they do things... do they really think you can't download the movie online as soon as it hits theaters?
Posted by: D Palmer | March 22, 2008 11:15 AM
Ebonkreig #1201
Atheism is a personal belief system that differs from Christianity or other religions in that you do not believe in a supreme being that created and guides existence.
Personally, I am an agnostic, the laws of nature seem a bit to organized to be simple random chance; but I don't believe in a god who watches my every move and will judge me when I die.
America's most visible and vocal atheist, Rob Sherman, proselytizes with the best of them. Constantly professing his personal beliefs and challenging those that would deign to expose him, even indirectly, to their own; giving lie to the notion that atheism is not his religion.
Some school district down south recently approved teaching evolution as a "theory". I am fine with that, so long as any mention of creation is taught as "Christian Mythology".
Posted by: Aquaria | March 22, 2008 11:22 AM
#1202, have you read any of the comments here? Any of the updates from PZ?
Obviously not. That might mean you could something, and heaven forbid that happen!
Do you have any logical faculties at all, enough to wonder about this:
Why was PZ, a scientist who was critical of this film, removed, but not Richard Dawkins, also a scientist critical of it, allowed into the screening?
By the way, you do know that the producers of this film approached (under false pretenses) PZ and Dawkins and they are both in the film. Maybe you aren't aware of it, but It's usually a courtesy for producers/studios to grant people who appear in a film a chance to see themselves in it (almost always for free--imagine that!). Don't you think it's telling that a person appearing in a movie is barred from viewing it? Doesn't that make you wonder why they don't want that person to see it? Isn't that just a little...off? Most legitimate, ethical documentary makers go out of their way to give interviewees a chance to see what was done with their images/words, and to clear up any misunderstandings, if any. In advance, even. Wow. What a concept, huh? This clearly didn't happen. And now the Expelled crew does this? Very suspicious behavior. What do they have to hide? Why don't they want PZ in that theater?
Then to have the chutzpah to accuse PZ of being "unscientific," when your appalling ignorance demonstrates that you wouldn't know science if it came up and bit you on the ass? Classic.
Go play in the sandbox with the other IDiots.
Posted by: spurge | March 22, 2008 11:25 AM
Since when does someone giving talks about their beliefs constitute a religion?
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | March 22, 2008 11:38 AM
I haven't read all of the 1200+ comments... :-P
Are we having fun yet? I know I am. ROTLLLOTLLLOTLLL.
Pity the Harvard video real deal/knock off was prematurely outed, as the producers have time to cover their worn and torn behinds.
Ah, well.
@ ebonkrieg #1201:
Welcome! You will find a broad spectrum of opinion here, so a broad and undogmatic view is beneficial. Your qualification of your own opinion means you may enjoy the visits.
@ Jamie #1202:
If you search around you will find that Dawkins is another scientist interviewed in the movie under false pretenses. You will also see that your speculations doesn't hold water, for example PZ has explicitly sworn off any problems with what he said but is more pissed that he wasn't forceful considering the real context.
And your idea of what science is sucks. You might also want to google actual research papers and study actual methods, and why not PZ's own as you ironically speculate wildly on him.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 11:48 AM
sir or madame javascript,
I believe the invitation - the invitation to pre-register online - was sent by email to anyone who subscribed to the website's news. "Faith-based" credentials were not, apparently, a requirement for subscribing or for registering. Why, then, would they suddenly be a requirement for attending? Such a claim defies logic.
Anyway, this is how Kristine Harley, PZ et al were given access to the sign-up process for the screening: it was handed to them by the organizers of the event, by way of the website subscription They registered for admission, received the confirmation emails and, when the day arrived, went to the theatre.
Pretty sinister eh?
No? Juvenile, then? Sneaky? No?
No.
Granted, the producers' intention is to build grassroots support, but in this case the "invitations" (such as they were) weren't targeted to an audience base selected by the marketing branch, there were simply sent to the website subscribers. Why were notorious atheist biologists (and I don't mean just PZ) allowed to subscribe? And register? And receive confirmations? And attend the screening with their notorious atheist families and friends?
The whole thing reeks of incompetence.
Ask yourself this: After PZ (and only PZ) was literally hustled out of the building by uniformed security for no apparent reason beyond the whim of the producer, while all his guests - who had qualified for admission in exactly the same way, as part of a group pre-registered under the name "PZ Myers" - were admitted without question or challenge, why then would Professor Dawkins not wish to view the film and attend the Q&A as originally planned, if only to have a chance to ask Mr. Mathis why PZ (and only PZ) was denied admittance?
I agree that PZ's ejection has nothing to do with freedom of speech - that is a rather silly claim - but it is humorous and ironic that he was "Expelled!", and the incident, though relatively trivial in the big picture, is consistent with the penchant for dishonest and/or stupid tactics already demonstrated by the brain-trust behind the making and marketing of the film. Your point of view has validity as it applies to this type of marketing effort, you seem to be ignoring the specific facts surrounding this specific case. Willfully, I might add.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 12:06 PM
This ain't the longest thread, not even in recent Pharyngulan history.
This one, "Ahistorical garbage from the producers of Expelled", which was posted on Feb 13, 2008 and is still kicking (a lifespan of 38 days and counting), currently boasts 1239 graciously educational comments.
This one, "Hello, Stan Palmer", which was posted on November 8, 2007 and stayed alive through November 21, 2007 (a lifespan of only 13 days), boasts 1342 witty and insightful comments.
Posted by: Crowlie | March 22, 2008 12:13 PM
So how *does* it feel to be a more famous atheist than Richard Dawkins?
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 12:27 PM
Amazing how those who came here to condemn do not have their facts straight.
Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 22, 2008 12:37 PM
Writer of Expelled repents! Read all about it here: www.kevinmillerxi.com.
Posted by: javascript | March 22, 2008 12:45 PM
Kseniya,
Would you please be so kind as to direct the readers as to where they might also be added to the email list you are referring to? Let me give you a hint... You won't find it on the public EXPELLED web site. You'll find it on their grass roots marketing web site that is clearly marketing to a unique segment of the population. Just because PZ found his way on to the site and registered himself to receive those emails, does not mean he legitimately was intended to be involved in the pre-screenings. He only wants everyone to believe that he was. Grant it, there clearly was an an error in the way the invitations were sent out... In a promotion as large as a movie like this, there is bound to be a mistake or two from time to time. Wires crossed... i's not dotted, etc. The POINT is... Mr. Myers took advantage of the error and now claims he was unfairly treated. That's pathetic for a man his age who demands so much adulation and respect of his audiences. Very sad indeed. Mr. Myers will be free to pay for his ticket along with the millions of Americans around the country on opening day.
In answer to your question as to why PZ was singled out... all you have to do is read his blog for the past year... or the many articles he's written or things he's been reported to have said in interviews about the film. He's been attacking the producers savagely since day one. The producers have every right to deny him access to their screenings. I sure as hell would if that were my movie. Arrogant bastard... Let him pay the $10 bucks to see him self on the big screen. Richard on the other hand, as far as I can tell, has said very little to the press. If you think the producers failed to notice Dawkins in the crowd you are very foolish indeed. Apparently the producer present at that screening, Mark Mathis, had personally interviewed Richard for the movie him self. I think he knows what he looks like. It's obvious he intentionally let Richard in while asking Myers to leave.
Posted by: Dan C | March 22, 2008 12:57 PM
Care to give us the true "facts", then Janine?
Or are "facts" a godless Communist thing, which should never be taught to children?
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 1:00 PM
Yet still open to the public. How about that?
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 1:04 PM
Dan C, what do you mean? I was commenting on the likes of Keith Eaton, William Wallace, Rick Broussard and javascript.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 1:08 PM
sir or madame j-script,
Interesting reply; I'll give it the time it deserves when I have a chance, which won't be this afternoon. But in the meantime:
Yes, and I have never said otherwise. Any talk about lawsuits (etc) are of course ill-advised at best. It's the wisdom and fairness of the decision to do so that is at issue.
Well, since Day Two, perhaps - when he learned that he was deceived about the focus and intent of the film for which he originally consented to be interviewed.
Am I? You know this for a fact. Interesting.
So it doesn't occur to you that perhaps they were on the lookout for PZ because a) he had pre-registered for the event under his own name, and b) because he lives in the area; nor does it occur to you that they were not on the lookout for Dawkins because a) as a guest of PZ's, his name would not be on the list, b) because he doesn't live anywhere near Minnesota, and Mathis didn't realize that he'd been in Austin TX, a short flight from MN, the day before.
But I am foolish because you KNOW that this scenario is completely preposterous.
Interesting.
No, it's not. It's obvious that Mr. Mathis wants that to be the perception. While it may be true, there are reasons to believe it is not:
1. Kristine's first-hand assessment of Mathis's reaction when Richard stood up to speak at the Q&A.
2. The allegation that Richard was on the "do not admit" list along with PZ, but simply wasn't noticed. Post-hoc claims to the contrary serve as damage control, not as statement of fact. I admit this probably isn't provable either way.
Sorry to leave you hanging with no cites, but that's the gist of my response. I'll flesh it out later if I can. Sorry, busy day. Maybe someone else will pick up the ball. We'll see.
Anyway, cheers 'til then.
Posted by: Carlie | March 22, 2008 1:10 PM
I think this is definitely the fastest-growing thread in Pharyngula history, though, having gone past 1000 in 24 hours.
javascript, are you that dense? Why should they have wanted to expell people in their movie, who they thanked in the credits for participation, from seeing the movie? What were they afraid of? PZ was targeted because he registered for the movie, just like everyone else. Dawkins only didn't get thrown out because he was registered as a guest of PZ, so his name wasn't on the list and they weren't tipped off ahead of time. Again, guests were permitted, so no "rules" were broken. You are fighting an already lost battle, so you might as well stop trying.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 22, 2008 1:11 PM
javascript: "The POINT is... Mr. Myers took advantage of the error and now claims he was unfairly treated.".
Now, compare that with: "Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?" and "They were well within their rights to exclude anyone." (From the "A late night quick one" post.)
All we see from you guys is twisting things around. Don't you get dizzy from all that spinning?
Posted by: Sastra | March 22, 2008 1:23 PM
javascript #1214 wrote:
Let me see if I get this straight: the producers made what they knew and expected to be a controversial documentary. The point of their documentary was that open, honest discussion and disagreement should be encouraged, and that each side should pay attention to the other, listen, and give a fair hearing.
They have screenings of this movie, however, which are only open to people with ONE point of view -- a sympathetic, positive one. They want to generate support for one side by excluding anyone who disagrees. Since PZ Myers has made it clear he is not supportive, he is not allowed to attend. He is not allowed to watch and listen quietly while people on the other side have their say. He "lost this right" by being on the wrong side in the first place.
Come on now. PZ's "savage attacks" were none of them physical. There was no reason whatsoever to think he was going to be disruptive. Instead -- as you are apparently trying to make clear -- ejecting him was payback for disagreement. No disagreement allowed. It's the equivalent of an "air kick." There! Take that!
javascript, if I understand what you are saying correctly, this makes it even worse, not better. The producers made a controversial documentary, and this was a screening. It was not a praise and worship service. It was not a private party at someone's house. It was not a support group for the Chronically Sensitive.
Or was it?
Kicking out Myers may have been perfectly legal, but it was very, very poor strategy and judgment from a publicity standpoint -- and ethically hypocritical from the standpoint of the very issue of "openness" which the film purports to address. It made the producers look childish and frightened. And, did I mention hypocritical? Yes, but I'll leave it in anyway, for it bears repeating.
Posted by: javascript | March 22, 2008 1:38 PM
Hey gang... I've said all I have to say. You can play the spin game all day long for all I care. PZ can continue to campaign his martyr image and you all can continue to support the suppression of others rights to think differently than you do. I'll back away from your private little club here now... ignorant and misguided as I apparently am in your eyes. Maybe some of you might keep me in your prayers next time you're praying to your creator on that star out there in la-la land somewhere that Dawkins apparently speaks of in the movie. Pray that E.T. will personally enlighten me.
Thank you for your time. May E.T. bless you all. bye!
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 22, 2008 1:41 PM
Does anybody else think javascript is part of the EXPELLED marketing or production team?
java,
I went to the EXPELLED website, and ANYONE can register for updates including "promotional opportunities." If www.expelledthemovie.com is a private faith-based only website, you have done a poor job making it hard to find. In fact, with an elapsed time of mere seconds, I was registered to receive updates by email. I feel so sneaky, and you should feel embarrassed.
Under "playground," I found a page that let me look for screenings in my area. None nearby. Oh well. But if it was on the main website, there is no reason to believe you, as you have already been shown to be a liar.
In a promotion as large as a movie like this, there is bound to be a mistake or two from time to time.
This isn't a big movie. Its a documentary, and you typically only get one big one a year. This won't be it.
If you want to see a real documentary on the subject, Flock of Dodos was an excellent examination of ID vs science.
------
Also, when people associated with ID lose their jobs, it is because they quit performing their contractual responsibilities. They write books instead of grant applications. They cease to write articles for scientific journals. They make themselves unemployable in the scientific field.
Posted by: Don | March 22, 2008 1:41 PM
Had the Expelled crew excluded both PZ and RD they might have argued that they were not part of the intended pre-release audience.
Had they admitted both PZ and RD they might have claimed that they welcomed open debate.
Instead they took the course that showed them to be both intolerant and incompetent.
And now twerps like javascript are trying to spin this before they have even decided what version of events they want to present. What, they knowingly let RD in because he's nicer than PZ?
Posted by: catnapping | March 22, 2008 1:41 PM
Priceless. You've made my week. Abrahamists would be a funny sort if they weren't so damned dangerous.
Posted by: G. Wolf | March 22, 2008 1:44 PM
These events are by invitation only. Did Professor Meyers have a ticket? Or was he attempting to crash the event? Was he behaving himself in line? Or was he bothering other patrons who WERE invited? Was this all an elaborate plan to force a confrontation either inside or outside of the event for the very purpose of being able to ridicule the producers?
Read another account of the event here.
It looks to me like the good professor may have had sinister motives.
If this post ever actually appears, I suspect that it won't last long.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 1:55 PM
javascript showing that this person does not understand the difference between probable and possible. But this is also the same person who thinks that using a open site to gain access to a prescreening is sneaking in.
Sorry, not going to pray to any ET's. But if we find them, will javascipt pray to them?
Also, nice crack about PZ "playing a martyr". Fits in with the rest of the delusions javascript displays.
As a lovely parting gift I wish to say this; Fuck You, javascript.
Posted by: Sastra | March 22, 2008 2:03 PM
G. Wolf wrote:
On the contrary -- on this blog, critical comments are kept so they may be addressed and responded to.
The argument you make above has already been dealt with -- and frequently. No, PZ Myers was not making a scene, or being disruptive, or trying to get himself kicked out on purpose. He was standing quietly when he was approached and asked to leave only because he was PZ Myers. Even javascript, who is presumably on your side, agrees that he was kicked out because of who he was, and not because he was actually doing anything in particular at the time.
Come on, on this very blog PZ has posted a UTube video with his interview from the movie. Watch him. You may not like what he is saying, certainly, but you can't argue that this isn't a rather mild, low-key kinda guy. He doesn't seem the type to cause a scene in public. Nor is he.
PZ didn't have to do anything special to make the producers look ridiculous. They did that themselves. And by leaving quietly as requested, he made them look even more ridiculous -- because they can't even try to protect themselves by making the argument you're trying to make here.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 2:04 PM
G Wolf, you need to be abusive before comments are disenvowelled. But guess what dumbass, your link does don't work, you screwed it up.
G Wolf, yet an other person operation only with his brain stem, who cannot understand that tickets were not needed. Also, why does a confrontation need to be made to ridicule this film? It is easy enough to ridicule it on principle.
Posted by: ccp | March 22, 2008 2:04 PM
So, where are the family values BS'ers now that a man peacefully standing in line to see a movie that has him IN it, was thrown out of the movie in front of his family by a uniformed thug hired by Creationist Liars?
I suspect we'll hear *crickets* from the Christianist wing of the country. Either they're too embarrassed by these Creationist Liars or they aren't smart enough to figure out what's being done in their names and the name of their religion by these dishonest merchants of movie sham.
Javascript, spin it any way you want, but the producers appear to have lied to get their movie made, so it reduces them to a pretty scummy level of behavior. If atheists made a movie like that, you'd be all over it like a cheap suit, screeching like a two-year-old with a full diaper. Oh wait... come to think of it ... you (and be concatenation, the producers of the Expelled movie) ARE screeching like a two-year-old with with a full diaper.
Can't say as how I see that lying, making an untruthful movie, and then harassing a movie-goer in front of his family is being anything admirable. Indeed, it goes against everything their supposed belief system (their "Lord" Jesus Christ) wanted them to do. If they're doing this for publicity, well... it's an epic fail.
On the other hand, some cynical part of me keeps wanting to encourage this kind of idiot behavior because the more they do it, the more the hypocrisy gets spread out for everyone to see. There's a reckoning coming to those who lie, steal, cheat, rape, and murder in the name of religion... and the makers of Expelled will be swept up in it. I suspect that this sort of unethical behavior on the part of religionists will turn MORE people away from their cause than any amount of reasonable discussion of science and the ravages of religion put forth by atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers. So, in that sense, these creationists will be the agents of their own downfall... eventually.
Now, if you want to talk about views being suppressed, let's have a chat about how the Bush administration is attempting to silence scientists have valid information about climate change and humanity's trashing of our environment... there's some real suppression going on, and yet all the folks who yell "suppression" can only see their own ox being gored. I find that interesting, appalling, amusing, and pathetic.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 22, 2008 2:09 PM
java, curious that you mention ETs. ID suggests that there is a designer but has no official opinion as to who the designer is. Of course, we all know how dishonest that is, and the movie and its intended audience make this clear. If ID were honest, it would give equal, or perhaps more weight to ETs as designers than god/s.
-------------
G. Wolf
This isn't a Xian website where dissenting comments are scrubbed. Some commenters are disemvoweled when they are repeatedly and arrogantly acting as trolls, but that isn't very common.
If you are trying to link to the Blessman account, you should try again, and also link to Blessman's seccond statement that completely contradicts his first one. If you have found a different version, perhaps you could try linking to it again.
Posted by: Boyce Williams | March 22, 2008 2:12 PM
Arrived here two days after the incident and just finding out; am I fashionably late?
I've long suspected that the flick being pre-screened in theaters is some attempt at a disguised "tent revival" were the martyrs for creationism in general and IDC in particular are praised and the others damned; in presence if not in words. Looks we now know at least one who's not invited under the "big tent." PZ, you rock, keep up the good fight!
Posted by: ginny | March 22, 2008 2:17 PM
This begs to be LOLblogged.
Your picture: "DO NOT WANT"
Recaptioning Richard Dawkins: "IM IN UR THEETRE, MOCKIN UR DOGMAS"
Posted by: Iggy | March 22, 2008 2:38 PM
@586 686 704 721 829-> I see what you did there....
@1169 Blasphemer!
PZ you owe me a new monitor. Preferably a coffee-proof one. srsly, though, if you are ever unlucky enough to run into me in person, I will be forced to buy you several (many) beers.
One recurring thought I have is that an aspiring soc major could make a name for themselves by investigating the massive amount of projection in the fundies. From my limited sample, I have to tenuously conclude that it is tied in at a very basic level with their belief system. Dawkinsian? WTF? To be honest, I have never read a single "Atheist Book." Oh, wait. I read "End of Faith" by Sam Harris. (It was given to me.) I mean, why bother? I've been a non-believer since I was 10 or 11. Since my (rationally selected) beliefs are based on observable reality, it doesn't need shoring up by rhetoric on a regular basis. Like most rationalist, I am open to new ideas as long as they are not functionally identical to previously inspected and discarded ones.
This killed a good 4 hours of my time. But they did not die in vain (or my sins)
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 22, 2008 2:53 PM
"Just because PZ found his way on to the site and registered himself to receive those emails, does not mean he legitimately was intended to be involved in the pre-screenings."
Just because there was nothing stopping him from getting invited doesn't mean he should, like, DO it. Wahhhh! Really, there's no way to purposefully bar any particular individual from seeing a screening of your movie without looking like a wanker. The best thing to do would have been to just suck it up and let him attend. Then take your negative review on a blog like a man.
"The producers have every right to deny him access to their screenings. I sure as hell would if that were my movie. "
So you're a wanker, too?
Ah, never mind, you just ran away when all your points were refuted.
"These events are by invitation only. Did Professor Meyers have a ticket?"
Yes.
"Or was he attempting to crash the event?"
If by "crash", you mean "enter through the official channels set out by the producers", then yes.
"Was he behaving himself in line?"
Yes.
"Or was he bothering other patrons who WERE invited?"
No.
"Was this all an elaborate plan to force a confrontation either inside or outside of the event for the very purpose of being able to ridicule the producers?"
Doubtful. But hey, give them enough rope...
Posted by: Monado, FCD | March 22, 2008 3:03 PM
#325: It took me a while to catch up to your reference:
"'This human has sfik,' Sikkukkut said.... How could so soft a creature have so much sfik as this, to elude kif on Meetpoint docks?" (The Kif Strike Back)
Dawkins eludes expellers.
Posted by: NMcC | March 22, 2008 3:11 PM
I haven't read all of the 1200 odd posts above, so apologies if this has been asked before. Would you, PZ, along with Dawkins and Scott etc, not consider taking legal action in response to the blatantly dishonest way the producers of Expelled conned you into agreeing to participate?
Afterall, if the film goes on to make money, and your involvement in the film has been secured through knowingly giving you false information regarding its proposed title and aim, is this not an obvious case of obtaining money under false pretenses?
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 3:15 PM
NMcC, this issue was addressed months ago. The answer is no, they are not seeking a lawsuit.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 22, 2008 3:19 PM
I think what the Expelled folks really should be asking is this:
Did the font on the computer screen PZ registered at match the font used on the "I won't tape anything" document? Answer that and you'll be getting nearer the heart of the conspiracy.
Shit, I've said too....m......
Posted by: Michael X | March 22, 2008 3:26 PM
Java,
Your ignorance is breathtaking. In the industry for 25 years you say? As what, a PA? Grip? Craft Services? Your knowledge of PR rivals your knowledge of the actual events and invitation process.
More people are indeed going to hear about this movie. And with it will come the associations "Hypocrite", "Liar" and my personal favorite, "Hack."
This is what is called "Bad Press." And we in the business (see? more letters and you're still incorrect) can recognize it when we see it. As can everyone else. This isn't even slightly complicated. So good job sport!
Now go get me a bagel.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 22, 2008 3:41 PM
Bad Astronomy's post on the movie has made Digg.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 22, 2008 3:54 PM
"Amazing how those who came here to condemn do not have their facts straight."
---You mean the superstition-based buffoons, I take it?
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 22, 2008 4:05 PM
So very many comments... So very many trolls...
You mean, the registration process should have included an ideological purity test of some sort? "I hereby swear and affirm that I am not now, nor ever have been, an atheist?"
Do tell.
Not to mention fraudulent claims asserted, lies told, important facts omitted, honest criticism not permitted, etc.
Getting in to see a movie that he registered for is a demand for adulation and respect?
Do tell.
Posted by: Galactor | March 22, 2008 4:08 PM
Perhaps someone has noticed this too but what strikes me about the whole affair and in particular, the reaction by Mathis who claims to have recognised Dawkins, is how uncivil these people are. Firstly, when a movie premieres, all the cast are invited and duly paraded to the media and public. Not only was this courtesy not extended to Dawkins or Myers, Mathis claims that he allowed Dawkins entry for his honourable behaviour. What would you do if you saw a distinguished professor who had the decency to appear in your film who you supposed had travelled three thousand miles (ooh, the arrogance) and whom you'd personally interviewed and thus knew? You'd at least say "hello, how nice to see you would you like a sandwich", wouldn't you? What an uncivil shit this Mathis must be. Either that or he is a disgracefully bad liar.
Posted by: spurge | March 22, 2008 4:10 PM
"What an uncivil shit this Mathis must be. Either that or he is a disgracefully bad liar."
Can't he be both?
Posted by: themadlolscientist | March 22, 2008 5:48 PM
Way to go, PZ! Not only did WCCO report on the incident, but the Associated Press picked up the story!
Man Interviewed In Movie, Not Allowed To See It
See PZ Myers Expelled, Gains Sainthood. Kudos to Greg Laden for posting a huge list of links to this travesty.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | March 22, 2008 5:48 PM
Freddy the Pig #1178: This reminds me of my favourite joke:
Three engineers arguing about God, a mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer and a civil engineer.
The mechanical engineer said "God must be a mechanical engineer. Just look at the way the tendons in my arm pull the bone, a perfect example of torque and leverage."
"No way," replied the electrical engineer. "Those muscles would just lie there without the electrical signals carried by nerves from the brain. God must be an electrical engineer to solve the wiring problem."
The civil engineer then stated his case: "God's obviously a civil engineer. Who else would put a waste disposal system right through the middle of a recreational area?"
(And for the record, I have read all (currently) 1241 posts including the trolls and apologists, and I have read most of Richard Dawkins' books.)
Posted by: Dave | March 22, 2008 5:56 PM
Freedom of speech trumps freedom of religion. If the religious nuts are so determine to silence rational thought, then it's time we amend the Constitution to ban religion. Twenty years of real religion persecution should teach the religion right wing the true meaning of tolerence: it's a two way street. If they can't tolerate truth and rationality, it's high time we stop tolerating them.
More people have been killed by religion than by all the terrorists and criminals in all of human history.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 22, 2008 6:05 PM
Hey, some dude in Texas has registered crossroadsthemovie.com:
I wonder what that's all about? Think I'll give the contact email a try...
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 22, 2008 6:15 PM
Oh, and here is what Premise currently has regarding the name issue:
See, it evolved into "Expelled". I think it rather looks more like special creation via front-loading myself.
Or, you know, a bunch of crap.
Posted by: Paula | March 22, 2008 6:33 PM
Guys and gals - we are witnessing conspiracy theory at its level best! The question remains which side staged the plot? It seems that the core issues are secondary issues as personalities battle for personal recognition and supermacy. This is what the general population of our countries have to endure in the age in which we live. Oh, the joys of politics!! Who really cares?!!
Posted by: Phoebe | March 22, 2008 6:50 PM
I'm not sure who you are exactly, but I do know that Richard Dawkins is in the movie, Expelled, so I'm pretty sure they know what he looks like.
Posted by: Sastra | March 22, 2008 7:19 PM
Dave #1249 wrote:
No, more people have been killed by dogma, intolerance, hate, irrationality and the suppression of freedom than religion alone. Oppression kills. You know what oppression is -- it's kind of like if someone says we should ban religion and make it illegal, as opposed to simply advancing arguments against whether it's true, or useful, or not.
Two wrongs don't make a right. To coin a phrase. Knock it off.
Posted by: mr trail safety | March 22, 2008 7:28 PM
Never underestimate the power of the closed mind that will find you in complete darkness!
Posted by: G. Wolf | March 22, 2008 7:31 PM
Here's the correct link.
Sorry for the mistake. I'll blame my computer. ;-)
Posted by: anonymous canuck | March 22, 2008 7:34 PM
Let's start a game ....
Who can think of other movies to play beside Expelled in a movie marathon.
I vote for
"Expelled"
"Chariots of the Gods".
next...
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 7:35 PM
That account has already been discredited, shredded, mangled and tangled. Please keep up. And you are welcome to try again.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 22, 2008 7:38 PM
"I wonder what that's all about? Think I'll give the contact email a try..."
It could be that he's a huge fan of that Britney Spears movie from a few years ago.
*shudder*
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 22, 2008 7:38 PM
Crap. I meant Rampant, not Premise. Oh, well.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 22, 2008 7:55 PM
Oh, crap, it doesn't matter after all. Premise owns Rampant.
And what the hell is that paula lady on about? I would actually say it's more like conspiracy fact than theory. The way to tell the difference is that in your traditional conspiracy theories, for example, "Big Science is keepin' the IDman Down", the alleged conspiracy is so competent that they've mangaged to TAKE OVER THE WORLD without anyone noticing or leaving hardly any trace of their god-like manipulations. In real-life conspiracies, people tend do stupid shit that gets them caught, and leave damning evidence lying about, after which comes the lieing about. For example, Watergate, which Mr. Stein is well-acquainted with, and this fantastic display of rampant jackassery, which Mr. Stein is also well-acquainted with.
Posted by: JoeU | March 22, 2008 8:03 PM
3 "EXPELLED" movie trailers
and
a Bill O'Reilly interview can be viewed
at: http://www.ExpelledTheMovie.com/video.php
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 22, 2008 8:09 PM
"No, more people have been killed by dogma, intolerance, hate, irrationality and the suppression of freedom than religion alone."
---Dogma, intolerance, hate, irrationality and the suppression if freedom IS religion.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | March 22, 2008 8:13 PM
Epic lie.
According to reviewers, Dawkins was pushed to mention a percentage probability for a creation scenario of abiogenesis, which indeed can be a matter between "science and religion" but has nothing to do with evolution. (Now do you see the veracity problem with seeking interviews under false pretenses?)
Even though evolution itself is validated beyond reasonable doubt, there is no corresponding theory of abiogenesis. This means that one can at most put a bayesian probability of personal judgment on the full process, which is something Dawkins in the movie seemed reluctant to do. The number he gave corresponds to "beyond reasonable doubt", but without data it still only reflects Dawkins judgment as a premier biologist.
It seems then Dawkins discussed the available alternative natural alternatives. These are either panspermia (relying on abiogenesis elsewhere). Or design by natural agents, i.e. your "ET" (relying on abiogenesis elsewhere).
So it is the creationists that pulls up creators out of different types of "la-la land", including supernatural "extra la-la" ones, to make it a question about religion while pretending it is about science. Something you apparently forgot to do.
Scientists, OTOH, studies natural processes.
Posted by: Co | March 22, 2008 8:41 PM
To paraphrase Kathy Griffin:
"Up yours, Mathis. PZ is my god now!"
Posted by: Shebardigan | March 22, 2008 9:10 PM
"Hey, some dude in Texas has registered crossroadsthemovie.com"
Ayuh. Seemed like one or more of the participants in this gallimaufry might want to have a unique place to put up some content. Probably not, but then again, it's also now impossible for anybody to try to claim that they had the domain all along and that there were administrative hiccoughs in the date thingies.
Posted by: MikeyMike | March 22, 2008 9:18 PM
I've spent two wonderful days following this blog - and I regret not a single minute of it.
It's just getting tedious reading defenders of the movie getting slapped down for not being able to construct a logical argument, not doing their research & getting their facts straight, or blatantly lying.
But I wanted to get in on this for posterity. PZ for the win.
Now, I've got to stop and resume my life ... there is chocolate to eat ...
Posted by: The Oracle | March 22, 2008 9:58 PM
Well, at least we now know who put the ID in idiot, as well as flaccid, vapid and stupid.
Posted by: Dave | March 22, 2008 10:11 PM
*sigh* now that's poetry!
Posted by: Avekid | March 22, 2008 10:21 PM
Oh, for all that is good in this world... It's bad news, isn't it, that Dawkins' alien bit has been taken out of context like this? Just wait until the masses of these fools actually sees Expelled! At least misconceptions about this are relatively easy to clear up. Ugh. I wish these people would actually do some research or, minimally read the stuff they rail against so ferociously.
Posted by: Avekid | March 22, 2008 10:25 PM
Holy non-sequiturs and bad grammar, Batman! Sorry about he state of that last post, folks. Je suis fatigue.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 11:06 PM
Sir or Madame Javascript was right. I am foolish. I expected a solid argument from him/her, and now I am disappointed.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 11:10 PM
Kseniya, now you are just being sarcastic. Just chew the IDiot out like everybody else.
Wait! Am I being sarcastic?
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 22, 2008 11:14 PM
For all you ID people getting all loopy on the whole Dawkins ID-via-ET thing, it's not really news. Dembski went and crowed about it already on his blog a little while ago, here:
http://tinyurl.com/2ggzsv
My favorite bit from Dembski: "Thank you Ben Stein. Your interview of Dawkins is masterful, simply masterful!"
Oh, yeah. Neat trick that: getting Dawkins to speculate about something that he wrote about, umm, almost 4 years ago and which has been a staple of science fiction for just about ever:
So, clearly, Dawkins is some sort of crypto-Raelian or something. Break: Give me one. Sheesh.
Incidentally, I got silently banned from UD after commenting on that thread (I was didymos over there, for two whole posts). I am not alone in that experience, either:
http://tinyurl.com/2ns3qt
So anyway, they do love this movie about "academic freedom" over there at Uncommon Descent, one of the most arbitrarily censorious blogs ever, and even after being corrected on the "Dawkins is into IDaliens" crap, the ever-even-handed-and-fair-minded DaveScot trotted it out again scant days later:
http://tinyurl.com/2nmwze
I like this bit: "It's relatively easy to pin someone like Richard Dawkins into the uncomfortable position of either exposing his non-scientific presumptions about the origin of life or admitting that life on earth was possibly intelligently designed."
Actually, it's so easy, you don't even have to interview the guy under false pretenses. Just go quote-mine his book after checking it out of the local library.
Posted by: Paula | March 22, 2008 11:36 PM
"And what the hell is that paula lady on about?"
The short answer to your question Thomas is "Man's inhumanity to man". You know, current generations in Western countries have lived in relative peace at the expense of many lives lost to win that peace. These wars came from within itself not from outside and our greatest threat today is within our own countries and among our own people!!
Posted by: Thomas Howard | March 22, 2008 11:47 PM
Hey, Hey, Paula:
I still have no idea what the hell you're on about, but it's OK. I don't really want to know anymore. As you were.
Posted by: Tronicus | March 22, 2008 11:52 PM
What do you expect from a group of people with a primary school mentality?
Still, I can't stop chuckling from the irony of the event.
Posted by: Kitty Hundal | March 23, 2008 12:23 AM
Now that's funny and I'll bet Dawkins is laughing harder than all of us!
Beautiful irony :-)
Posted by: Richard Morgan | March 23, 2008 12:30 AM
A new composition from atheist composer, Richard MORGAN for
PZ Myers:
:
"Expelled : another hole in the sock."
http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes
Posted by: Kseniya | March 23, 2008 12:32 AM
No Janine, I wasn't being sarcastic. I am surprised that 'javascript' turned out to be a vindictive little coward.
Posted by: Larry | March 23, 2008 12:34 AM
I can't believe that none of you even put into question the honesty of Mr. Myers, he is lying about his experience at the showing of the movie just to get attention.
Posted by: Paula | March 23, 2008 12:41 AM
"What do you expect from a group of people with a primary school mentality?"
My sentiments entirely. Actually, their is more orderly behaviour in most school playgrounds than their is in this science v science debacle! My sympathy goes out to the real scientists!
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 23, 2008 12:47 AM
Larry, here's how we know: Monsieur Myers isn't affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
Posted by: Damian | March 23, 2008 12:49 AM
It's a cracking theory that you have there, Larry. Well, actually, it would be, if there weren't so many witnesses that confirm the events, on both sides.
Keep trying, though. You never know, you might get one right at some point. Law of averages and all that.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 23, 2008 12:54 AM
Larry, Larry, Larry... let me put it as gently as I possibly can:
There are multiple witnessess. Even the pro-ID student who posted lies about Dr. Myers's behavior in the theatre backed off his original claims when several other people who'd also been there spoke up and said, "Uh, actually, that's not how it happened."
You have a lot of nerve bringing up the subject of honesty. You're too lazy to care about finding out what might have really happened, aren't you?
I have some advice for you, Larry:
Brain first. Keyboard second. Conscience third. Mouse-click fourth.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 23, 2008 1:00 AM
"I can't believe that none of you even put into question the honesty of Mr. Myers, he is lying about his experience at the showing of the movie just to get attention."
Well, somebody's behind the 8-ball.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 23, 2008 1:16 AM
Kseniya, I can see that. Javascript did seem to be semireasonable. But that cover was blown with the parting shot. Praying to ET's in la-la land. bleh...
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 23, 2008 1:21 AM
Actually, their is more orderly behaviour in most school playgrounds than their is in this science v science debacle! My sympathy goes out to the real scientists!
Posted by: Paula
You have one statement wrong there. I will not insult the intelligence of most of the people here by pointing out what it is.
Posted by: purpleplano | March 23, 2008 1:24 AM
just wanted to see if i'd be #1300. never seen so many comments to one post!
wow. it is like a GWB townhall meeting. doesn't surprise me, though, as the production comes from one of RMN's speechwriters.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 23, 2008 1:30 AM
In other, but related news, Allen McNeill, who was relegated to Expelled's cutting room floor for apparently not being enough of a materialist, Darwinist bad guy, is making a valiant yet doomed attempt over at Uncommon Descent to convince people of the intent to deceive on the part of the filmmakers:
http://tinyurl.com/252e2m
I'm surprised he's even being allowed to comment at all. The sheer amount of rationalization over there is pretty fantastic. Since it's his blog, I hereby propose that the SI unit of rationalization be called the "dembski". I estimate the total rationalization density on that thread at roughly 20 Megadembskis, which estimate I arrived at by way of "because I said so" (upholding a longstanding ID tradition).
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 23, 2008 1:31 AM
Posted by: Larry
...farfarman?
If so, I wonder if he and Keith Eaton share a wing at the same mental institution.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 23, 2008 1:32 AM
Hello Larry! Others have pointed out that there are collaborating stories. But I will address your last claim. PZ, among others in Expelled, are being used in a film that is meant to show that they are insidious. If this film gets any attention, PZ is one of those will will get attention. He really does not need to work to get it. Ben Stein and company are working on it already.
As it stands, PZ is a big fish in the blog pond.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 23, 2008 1:39 AM
It's just getting tedious reading defenders of the movie getting slapped down for not being able to construct a logical argument, not doing their research & getting their facts straight, or blatantly lying.
welcome to our world.
hang around and you'll REALLY get bored, as you see the same people come back again and again, with the same ridiculous arguments, on and on, sometimes for years at a time.
It becomes like a drug though, and then there are times like this one, where the sweet, sweet irony is nearly enough to put one into a diabetic coma.
Posted by: Michael X | March 23, 2008 1:42 AM
Javascript was even semi-reasonable? Sounded more like someone trying to pull a superior knowledge card about "how movies work" and getting it thrown back in his/her face. Then went for the "free publicity" canard and got shot down. Java wasn't reasonable so much as novel in what lies he/she told.
Everyone is so giving this thread.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 23, 2008 1:43 AM
Oh, in regards to an earlier post of mine (#1274): sorry. I didn't get insta-banned from UD after that. I forgot that I actually got to make another 1 whole post before being summarily executed. I made the mistake of questioning the evidentiary value of this:
http://tinyurl.com/2zhupj
and then tried to point out later that people bringing up Goldschmidt and Haeckel didn't actually improve the "joke", at which point I discovered my banning.
My own fault, really.... I mean, what was I thinking trying to offer a contrary opinion on a blog which promotes a movie which is ostensibly about the exclusion of a contrary
opinion?
Posted by: Quoth, The Raven | March 23, 2008 1:50 AM
In the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I just came to say that, after having a good laugh at IDers' expense, I've finished reading all the comments; some of them are even funnier than the original post, especially those IDiots trying to defend the undefendable.
In other words: posting in an epic thead!
Now we resume our regular programming.
Posted by: hustlebother386sx | March 23, 2008 2:00 AM
I still can't get over this line:
"I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins' academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in."
You just know that whatever kook wrote a line like that was relishing the moment big time.
Posted by: Leigh | March 23, 2008 2:22 AM
I like that "hustling" part of Stuart's post.
I'm imagining PZ and a little table, 3 walnut shells, a pea . . . and several tentacles switching those walnut shells around blindingly fast.
"Okay, where is it, where is it now, let's go, where is it now? Are you sure? Aw, looks like you missed it. Too bad. Anybody else want to try?"
Posted by: Michael X | March 23, 2008 2:24 AM
Also, a word on the purpose of screenings. They are not solely for the purpose of galvanizing the troops, as they are not all the same. Closed screenings are by an invite only basis where only the people who are specifically invited are allowed to attend and they are usually small groups. Open screenings such as this one was, are open to the general public and is restricted only by who's interested in attending. Often the audience will be surveyed about their thoughts. The point of nearly all screenings is to get the reactions of your target audience, so that you can make last second changes before it premieres. In the case of "Passion of the Christ" it makes good sense to screen to the religious alone as they are the target audience of the movie.
As for "Expelled", unless I'm mistaken, I thought this was supposed to be an informative documentary for the general public and not a religious apologetic? Thus, the ideological litmus test fails in this case as an argument against PZ & Richard wanting to see the movie. This screening was also made open to all who were interested and was not reserved for a specific crowd of personally invited viewers. This is not an abnormal practice for films and PZ's attendance was not out of line.
But of course if they'd like to come out and simply admit that this is a religious movie pushing itself to a religious audience, and not an honest documentary intended to educate the greater public, I think that would be a breath of fresh air while also justifying the heavy religious closed screenings. Though, it wouldn't change the purpose of open screenings and the legitimacy of PZ's attendance at one.
Posted by: Leigh | March 23, 2008 2:27 AM
But Michael X, if the simply admitted that this is a religious movie, they'd have to TELL THE TRUTH.
Judging by past behavior, they'd rather die.
Posted by: Leigh | March 23, 2008 2:29 AM
Sorry, "if THEY simply admitted . . ."
In too big a hurry to be #1300.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | March 23, 2008 2:30 AM
My shot at 1300!
Kseniya,
Those posts you linked to earlier have been surpassed or will be shortly. And in record time.
Of course the biggest one was a large invasion of GW denialists.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | March 23, 2008 2:31 AM
Drat!
Posted by: JCE | March 23, 2008 2:36 AM
Well, that made my day. Came on to check the weekly cephalopod out and LO! the floodgates of the ridiculous have opened and poured forth their bounty. Circa 1300+ comments later and I am not sure if anyone else pointed this out yet because my brain is now full and my stomach hurts from laughing.
It sort-of makes sense that they would expect PZ but not RD at that particular showing... except that "they" should have expected the pair of them to be hanging out together. Why?
http://www.atheists.org/conference/
Dr. Dawkins is the second speaker listed, complete with handy photo, suitable for framing, target practice or handing out to security.
Someone did not do their homework, hardly a surprise with that crowd as research does not appear to be their thing. Don't these guys bother to read up on the local opposition when they come into town?
Not only was there a reasonable expectation of a joint PZ/RD social gathering, but putting on a showing of this movie at a time when the city might be reasonably expected to contain more than the usual concentration of active opponents, (wandering the streets before the meeting in search of intelligence and beer) was either an exhibit of guts or the aforementioned weapons-grade stupidity (GREAT term, that). Guts would have escorted PZ and RD in, seated them in a hastily-prepped VIP area as special guests who were in the movie, announced their presence with flair and handed out popcorn.
(Low, evil cunning would have handed out stickjaw toffee or gobstoppers as well to keep comments down at the end of the screening.)
I have enjoyed the comments for the most part, although I would wish the Pharangulites had more worthy debate opponents than found in this thread so far. Most of them don't seem to know how to research a subject or "know the enemy" either. Very sad.
(insert appropriate quotation from The Argument Sketch here)
Posted by: Kseniya | March 23, 2008 2:39 AM
Yeah. The "Stan Palmer" thread drove me batty.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | March 23, 2008 2:49 AM
I hadn't noticed that one getting large because I usually only read them either the same day or the next unless something interesting comes up in the comments (like this one). After seeing the few first arrivals, I concluded they had nothing and never went back.
I get enough of those kind at work.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | March 23, 2008 2:54 AM
JCE,
Do you mean like this?
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!
Posted by: Yoeruek | March 23, 2008 2:58 AM
PLease, could someone give a short discription to a german? two or three sentences? thanks
Posted by: Yoeruek | March 23, 2008 3:13 AM
#1308
I think i spoiled it. But i just wanted to get the point...
btw what is Michael Moore`s opion of this issue?
Posted by: Michael X | March 23, 2008 3:22 AM
Yeah, JCE.
That "research" thing is what always gets them. Here, the norm is for people to go to the source, if only to get their own favorite quote to make fun of. But the point is to find out for yourself. Find documents, get direct quotes, look for dates and times, in short, search out the evidence.
But that is hardly ever the case with the trolls who stumble in here. They come in with their bias and that's truth for them. Also, looking shit up is hard work! I still can't find a quote on the aprox. production costs of Expelled and for no lack of trying. Though, I do share your disappointment with the quality of opponents. The only person I've ever enjoyed arguing with here is Kseniya... And even then we basically agreed.
What I wouldn't give for an intelligent creationist. Stanton, says he's met some. I'll have to take his word for it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 23, 2008 3:28 AM
As for "Expelled", unless I'm mistaken, I thought this was supposed to be an informative documentary for the general public and not a religious apologetic?
not exactly.
It's a religious apologetic disguised (poorly) as an informative documentary.
They're using "informative documentary" as a sabot for a round of shit, if we want to compare it to PZ's usage of the term.
Posted by: Michael X | March 23, 2008 3:35 AM
Oh, Ichthyic!
I know what it is. But I was under the impression that wasn't what they were billing it as. If they ever come out and state that this is really a religious film, I would be thrilled.
But as it stands, even by their logic of the premise of the piece, PZ is perfectly in the clear for wanting to attend the screening.
Posted by: rationalrevolution | March 23, 2008 5:59 AM
It is funny on the one hand of course, but its also disturbing on another, and certainly demonstrates the lie of all of these radical libertarians who talk about the virtues of "private property" and want everything from our roads to state parks to be privatized. Its quite disturbing that your freedom of speech and association rights can be compromised in this way simply because you don't share the views of someone. I get images of a corporate KGB directed by fundamentalists. The image of such a state is both terrifying and shockingly close to reality.
Posted by: Susan | March 23, 2008 8:17 AM
This post is hilarious. My sides, they ache from laughter!
Posted by: Quattrone | March 23, 2008 8:43 AM
Thats not surprising. Christians are all about exclusion and suppression of dissention.
Posted by: MartinM | March 23, 2008 8:46 AM
No, the post is far too short, and doesn't include any whining about 'arbitrary censorship.'
Posted by: PeteK | March 23, 2008 10:15 AM
Fascists...Dawkins was thrown out of a megachurch. Just as he was leaving...SO no surprises
Posted by: HSM | March 23, 2008 10:16 AM
"Love thy neighbor", and thou not their neighbor thus thou is expelled. :)
Posted by: Paula | March 23, 2008 10:19 AM
Thats not surprising. Christians are all about exclusion and suppression of dissention.
I don't wish to take sides here because what it all boils down to is internal opposing elements of the 'science' profession hanging out its dirty linen and the question of who is excluding who. Richard Dawkins took this bloody battle that was raging among human beings behind closed doors out on to the streets under the guise of religion appealing to populations and nations for support. It will take a Pearl Harbour wherever that may be for the rest of humanity to wake up out of its sleep and put this one to rest!
Posted by: Stacia | March 23, 2008 11:05 AM
#314 (If you even read this far, holy cow there's a lot of comments) - When my husband and I went to the science museum in Denver a few years ago, a kindly elderly volunteer went to talk to a father and his two sons about the dinosaur bones they were looking at. The father became livid and yelled at the volunteer that they didn't believe in that stuff.
The weird thing is they were oohing and aahing at the bones, and until the guy flipped out on the volunteer, the father said nothing about the bones not being real or evolution or anything. The poor volunteer looked like he was going to cry. I wonder how often that happened to him.
After that experience, I can believe that there's a lot of people in the area who think the museum is nothing more than a building full of conspiracy. However, I don't think there's any way the museum could prohibit Creationist types from going through and using the bones as "examples" of what's not true. It's a public museum, and the public can use it however they want within certain limits (i.e. one can't ride the dinosaurs... although one would very much want to.)
I just feel really, really sorry for the other patrons who are trying to enjoy the museum and maybe learn a little.
Posted by: Nabakov | March 23, 2008 11:08 AM
Yes, the story with its final punchline is bloody funny and ironic...
but let me get this straight -
A POLICEMAN (A PUBLIC SERVANT) REFUSED YOU ENTRY TO A PUBLIC SCREENING OF A FILM BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEFS!!!??!
WTF is America coming to now?
I look forward to the You Tube "Expelled from Expelled" video.
Sorry, I still get can't my head around the fact a cop refused to let you watch a movie. Fuck!!
Posted by: Nabakov | March 23, 2008 11:25 AM
And clearly the producers were taking their subtitle: "No intelligence allowed"to heart.
OK, they let Dawkins in but that's the exception that proves the rule.
Posted by: Hockey Bob | March 23, 2008 11:27 AM
Somewhat related personal story -
I went to the Mpls. City Center Baja Sol for lunch on Friday, and while waiting in line, noticed the woman in front of me with a bright optic lime green book bag on her back; the logo on the back was "Atheist Stuff". When she turned around, I saw her name tag for the 34th annual conference of American Atheists - her name was Lori Lipman Brown, and she's the director of the Secular Coalition For America. I brought up the fact that I was a "recovering Catholic", which I think she's going to use in future speeches, since she *really* laughed at the term... anyway, Richard Dawkins was one of the speakers at their gathering; I don't remember seeing him at lunchtime, but there were a LOT of atheists downtown, so he could have been there.
It's good to know that I'm not alone. ;-)
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | March 23, 2008 11:45 AM
Allen MacNeill has a special ID standing, as he is one (the only?) scientist that has had a course on Intelligent Design and biology, discussing science and ID with creationists. (A move he has been criticized for.) As such, he can be seen to be allowed extensive commenting on UD.
As regards MacNeill's reasons for threading where few other scientists go, I can only speculate. It is a hard sell as a science/educational benefit. But MacNeill is religious, and may look at this as damage control on behalf of mainstream religion, among other similar religious efforts.
I'll give him this though, he being cut out is independently revealing of the purpose of Expelled's slant. Though I can't see why he points this out right after PZ's and Dawkins involuntary coup, as it detracts attention from it. Maybe I should go into conspiracy theories instead... :-P
Posted by: Paula | March 23, 2008 12:00 PM
"OK, they let Dawkins in but that's the exception that proves the rule."
Could Dawkins' question relating to this issue be the answer to the reason for PZ's evacuation?
Was it PZ's intent to 'protest' causing a disruption at the screening as suggested? Was the precaution justified?
Nothing is ever all cut-n-dry in this life!
Posted by: Avekid | March 23, 2008 12:22 PM
Beautiful. Sage advice. Kseniya, I think I love you!
Posted by: Mike | March 23, 2008 12:28 PM
"Get out of here, Myers! Good riddance! And what's your name, sir?"
"Richard Dawkins."
"I knew you looked familiar. Can I have your autograph? "Family Feud" is one of my favorite shows!"
Posted by: mccamman | March 23, 2008 12:50 PM
If there is a god (which I doubt), she has an awesome sense of humor!
Posted by: Carlie | March 23, 2008 12:59 PM
Mike FTW!!
Paula, you are a botfly larva on the back of rationality.
Posted by: RK | March 23, 2008 1:35 PM
PZ,
I read your blog post about being denied access to a screening of Expelled. While I think you should have been allowed in, how is it fair to compare not being allowed into a private theater with what the movie producers were complaining about -- not being allowed to express their views (which I generally disagree with) in institutions that are primarily funded by the government.
As a general point, most of the posters on your blog seem to think that it is only conservatives who want to ignore the science when it doesn't agree with their worldview. Wasn't it liberals who forced Lawrence Summers out of Harvard for simply pointing out that all of the science shows that there is a higher variation of IQ among men than among women, and therefore it is probably inevitable that most top scientists are going to be men? Or what about James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA, being forced to repudiate his comments about IQ differences between races. Liberals suddenly claim that there is no such thing as race (despite the fact that the FDA recently allowed a heart drug that can only be used by blacks) or that IQ doesn't really exist (even though the same liberals argued successfully before the Supreme Court that low IQ people can't be executed). Unfortunately, it seems that both liberals and conservatives will ignore science and common sense when it doesn't fit their agenda. But it seems that it is liberals who mainly have the holier than thou attitude.
Posted by: Brian | March 23, 2008 1:54 PM
RK:
"All of science" doesn't show anything conclusive regarding gender and academic ability... the science you'd be able to find is long dead (for decades), which is what Summers' opinions, as a leader of promising young academics, should be. You seem to think that there is evidence to support your claim, so you're only guilty of ignorance at the moment. Please remedy that situation
Similarly, IQ is a terrible measure of "intelligence," which in turn is a term that even the brightest of researchers in this country fail to define adequately. As an objective measure, most IQ tests fall short due to intrinsic socio-economic/language/gender biases, and are hardly as respected as you think they are. Again, ignorance that can be repaired quickly.
Finally, IQ may give you some idea of what's going on at the extreme ends, but that would be true of nearly any test of ability that you could imagine. Make a task moderately difficult, and if you are worse than about 99% of the population, maybe you shouldn't be executed for doing something 99% of the population would have been able to avoid. Again, not knowing too much about the IQ test itself can excuse this type of ignorance, and it too can be easily fixed.
But I'm not going to dignify the "liberals claim there is no such thing as race" nonsense that you somehow mashed on the keyboard with your prehistoric forehead. Your racism goes beyond ignorance and is inexcusable.
Posted by: foolishfish | March 23, 2008 1:56 PM
It's strange to me that christians will fight both to preach to you about their beliefs, and to not hear yours.
A recovering baptist.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 23, 2008 1:57 PM
The debate about allowing ID to be taught in science classes is not a liberal versus conservative issue. Scientists do not want ID taught in science classes because ID is not science. Take a little time to read up on the issues before you make charges. You see, there are people bigger and meaner then me who are going to rip you a new one. And you will deserve it.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 23, 2008 1:57 PM
Wasn't it liberals who forced Lawrence Summers out of Harvard for simply pointing out that all of the science shows that there is a higher variation of IQ among men than among women,
No, that is not what happened. Perhaps you should read up on his tenure at Harvard, and his relationships with the faculty. Try not to buy right-wing lies, ok?
Posted by: Avekid | March 23, 2008 2:10 PM
RK:
I don't disagree that both conservatives and liberals might ignore the evidence in favour of their own world view. That that is the case seems trivially true. However, for the liberal scientist, doing so is inconsistent with his worldview. The only "agenda" any of us have (okay, really, I can only speak for myself) is to advocate the importance of both reason and science (i.e., minimally, that the evidence ought to be taken seriously even if it is incompatible with your worldview). Although I'd align myself more with the liberal scientists, I'm not sure that this "agenda" distinguishes between liberal and conservative scientists -- it seems, rather, that *any* scientist ought to hold some version of it.
That seems to me to be the dominant attitude around here. I'm not sure how sticking to our guns about this = a holier than thou attitude. Certainly, people around here are none too patient with people who come in, guns a'blazing, without doing their research, checking their facts, and - this is the biggie - being acquianted with or open to being introduced to the relevant data. That doesn't constitute a holier than thou attitude or suggest that liberal scientists are just big meanies but that we have certain standards for discussion around here. Either know what you're talking about or be willing to learn and be open to correction about the facts and their implications -- the rest of us are.
Posted by: Avekid | March 23, 2008 2:14 PM
And, PS, as Janine pointed out while I was typing the above, this particular debate (ID vs. evolution) isn't about conservative vs. liberal science. ID is not science, but religion.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 23, 2008 3:22 PM
"The "Stan Palmer" thread drove me batty."
and to be fair with regards to its claim to the throne of Longest Comment Thread, at least 40% of the comments there were made by truth machine.
Posted by: Michael X | March 23, 2008 3:29 PM
Was that the one where he just wanted to see how long it would take to get to 1000? Or was that a different one?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | March 23, 2008 3:33 PM
Yoeruek (1308), if you want a few sentences in German, I can't help you. But in English, briefly... Prof. PZ Myers asked via web site to see this movie and was welcomed by e-mail. When he showed up, he was refused admittance. His guests were let in. If the producer, one Mark Mathis, wanted to show that he would not tolerate differences of opinion, he succeeded. If he wanted to keep out viewers who would see the mistakes in the film, he failed. If he wanted to keep out well-known atheists, he failed. And if he wanted to show that he was too ignorant to recognize the famous Professor Richard Dawkins, who was in the film, he succeeded admirably.
The details:
Professor Myers was on the mailing list for this movie. He got a notice of that screenings were occurring. So he registered on a web site his intention to see a screening of the film Expelled and to bring guests. He received back a confirmation message saying that he was welcome and that he did not need tickets, just come and bring identification. He arrived and lined up with his guests. A guard (security guard or off-duty policeman) came over, asked if he was PZ Myers, and told him that the producer of the movie wanted to keep him out of the movie. He was also told that he had to leave because he didn't have a ticket. But nobody had tickets because they weren't required or issued! He went and told his friends that he had to leave. I would guess that they wanted to set up a meeting place and time after the movie. The guard then told Prof. Meyers that he had to leave the whole theatre, right away, or he would be arrested. (I think that any such charge would get thrown out of court.) But Prof. Myers left quietly.
It seems that he was asked to leave simply because the producer recognized his name and didn't like him. The very funny and ironic thing was that the guest of Prof. Myers was Richard Dawkins. Prof. Dawkins is a much better known figure, author of more books, and so on. Witnesses say that when Prof. Dawkins was called on to ask a question and stood up, the blood drained out of the producer's face.
And finally, Prof. Dawkins and Prof. Myers, were both interviewed for this film. The producer lied to them and told them it was a film called "Crossroads," which would take a balanced look at the debate between religion and science. The movie that came out is called "Expelled" and states that people who want to teach intelligent design are persecuted. It also tries to equate evolution with Nazis and concentration camps. We know that the producers lied because they registered a web domain for "Expelled the movie" before they interviewed the professors. We also know that when you look into it, people who try to teach intelligent design tend to do less research and publish fewer papers. That's because you can't really research "Evolution has flaws and it's too complex to understand how this happened, therefore God did it!"
In a word, this little event has shown the producer of Expelled, Mark Mathis, to be a vindictive, hypocritical, unfair, and incompetent jerk. Whereas, far from being angry, PZ was laughing at the stupidity of the producer and organizers.
Posted by: Sastra | March 23, 2008 3:35 PM
By the way, where is truth machine? He was running hard for a Molly and then seemed to take a hike (appalled perhaps?) I don't read every comment on every thread, but not running into truth machine at all is puzzling. Very high volume kinda guy.
Posted by: catta | March 23, 2008 3:51 PM
Yoeruek... wenn Du eine kurze Beschreibung des Zwischenfalls möchtest: PZ Myers hat sich auf der Website von "Expelled" für eine Vorschau des Films registriert, zusammen mit Gästen. Am Abend der Vorstellung ist er auf Betreiben der Filmmacher aus dem Kino geworfen worden (oder eher: schon aus der Warteschlange). Das lustige daran ist, daß PZ's Gast reingelassen worden ist; der Gast war Richard Dawkins (der eigentlich eher erkannt werden sollte). Sowohl PZ als auch Dawkins sind für den Film unter Vorspiegelung falscher Tatsachen interviewt worden, und die Interviews werden im Film gezeigt. Beiden wird im Abspann gedankt, trotzdem sind sie nicht willkommen, was bei einem Film der angeblich für offene Diskussion ist ausgesprochen albern ist (und Dawkins zu übersehen ist wohl reine Inkompetenz). Das war's eigentlich schon, der Rest ist verzweifeltes Zurückrudern und Verdrehungen von den Kreationisten. Noch Fragen? ;)
[That was the quick German summary of the event Yoerueck asked for (1308) in case anyone is wondering.]
Posted by: catta | March 23, 2008 4:02 PM
An Yoerueck, die zweite: Ach ja, und ein bisschen ausführlicher -- der SPIEGEL (oder zumindest SPON) hat zu den Interviews, die sich die Leute von Expelled erschlichen haben, damals einen Artikel geschrieben, hier ist der link: http://tinyurl.com/273y2x
Und einen blogeintrag auf Deutsch gibt's auch (ich blogge leider auf Englisch, sonst würd ich Dir eine bessere Zusammenfassung bauen): http://tinyurl.com/2dgzuw .
[Link to a SPIEGEL article on the original "interview under false pretenses" story and link to the sole blog post in German about the expulsion.]
Posted by: Mel | March 23, 2008 4:04 PM
Harmony, BC Tours doesn't just do the Denver Museum of Natural and Science--they also do every other science landmark in the area, the State Capitol Building, and the Denver Art Museum (art that "glorifies objects and shapes" rather than God is evil, and I am dying to find out if that makes still lifes unbiblical). Anyway, Kirk Johnson, the head curator of paleontology, sometimes tags along on their tours. It's pretty entertaining.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 23, 2008 4:14 PM
As a general point, most of the posters on your blog seem to think that it is only conservatives who want to ignore the science when it doesn't agree with their worldview.
Rubbish. "Fundy morons" does not equal "conservatives". Anti-science attitudes are everywhere - New Age types can be just as bad.
Posted by: David Whitfield | March 23, 2008 4:17 PM
Of course, if we could get hold of god he could tell us whether or not Richard gets chucked out or not... after all he knew that at the point of creation, what would happen to Richard. Actually, he could change the result... but then he knew that at the point of creation. But he's not allowed to change his mind... but then again he's almighty so he must be able to change his mind... but if he changes his mind then he's not almighty because he knew the right thing to do at the point of creation. It must be really boring being god if you know everything in advance... I s'pose that's why he did party trix like changing water to wine. Perhaps he'll change the fizzy water at the showing to wine for a laugh! We could pray or something... but not much point if god decided zillions of years ago... just think god knew then that I would have this choice now... I wonder what's I'll decide to do. No brainer.
Posted by: Paula | March 23, 2008 4:17 PM
"Witnesses say that when Prof. Dawkins was called on to ask a question and stood up, the blood drained out of the producer's face."
Really? Whao! This is what happened to Moses when he met with God on mount Sinai!:)
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 23, 2008 4:23 PM
By the way, this is a very minor point, but it occurs to me that he was asked to leave the theatre because he didn't have a ticket to any other film being shown.
That is,
ExpletiveExpelled was showing on one screen, and no-one required a ticket for that. I would guess that those who had queued up for that film were being kept separate from the rest of the theatre (I know that I've seen a similar sort of thing for a film being shown as part of a film festival in a multiplex). So he was yanked from that queue. If he had a ticket for another film, there would presumably have been no problem, but now he was in the part of the theatre for regular film-goers, without a ticket.That doesn't make Mathis any less of a hypocritical asshole, but it does explain the behavior of the manager and/or the security guard a bit better.
And I prefer that PZ took the time to write about the incident rather than buying a ticket to any of the other films, just so that he could stay in the theatre.
I don't know why any of the "ID" proponents involved with the film are now saying that PZ was expelled from
ExpletiveExpelled for not having a ticket. That's just shoot-in-the-foot dumb. Which is why I really tend to doubt the claims made that the whole thing was really a brilliant strategic move to allow Dawkins in.It's performance art, maybe?
Posted by: Michael X | March 23, 2008 4:37 PM
Sastra,
If my memory serves me right, a while back TM accused PZ of lying about his take on one of Obama's speechs. PZ said something to the effect of "If I'm a liar you won't miss my site" and I think he also accused TM of having too much of a black and white morality. He then told him that was a warning. I haven't seen TM since.
Posted by: Chris Dornan | March 23, 2008 4:42 PM
Wonderful! (No fan of Richard Dawkins and quite a fan of Michael Behe BTW.)
Posted by: Steve_C | March 23, 2008 4:50 PM
So you admit to having poor taste.
Did you love "The Secret" too?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 23, 2008 4:53 PM
If he had a ticket for another film, there would presumably have been no problem, but now he was in the part of the theatre for regular film-goers, without a ticket.
He wasn't given the opportunity to purchase one. It's one thing to say, "You need to leave this section of the theater, but if you'd like to see something else, you can buy a ticket over there." and quite another to say "You need to leave the premesis. Now."
It appears the latter was what happened.
Posted by: dwarf zebu | March 23, 2008 5:32 PM
*whew* That's a lotta comments to slog through! Although I skimmed over the ones about the legality of PZ's ban as well as the exhortations for him to sue, I must admit.
To the person who was going to make money manufacturing/repairing irony meters:
All my disposable income are yours!
I'm going to be rich!!!!1!!one1!
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 23, 2008 6:25 PM
Well, I can't argue with that. OK, the manager (et. al) behaved inexcusably.
Posted by: Erin Zupanc | March 23, 2008 7:02 PM
Hilarity.
Posted by: Godfrey | March 23, 2008 7:14 PM
Rational Revolution, 1313, said,
"It is funny on the one hand of course, but its also disturbing on another, and certainly demonstrates the lie of all of these radical libertarians who talk about the virtues of "private property" and want everything from our roads to state parks to be privatized."
Woah. Talk about a non sequitur. How does it do any such thing?
"Its quite disturbing that your freedom of speech and association rights can be compromised in this way simply because you don't share the views of someone."
You don't have freedom of speech or association on someone else's property. What about their freedom to not associate with you? What about their freedom to say any puddin' headed thing they want, undisturbed by things they don't want to hear? And if they don't want to associate with you, why would you want to associate with them? Why would anyone want to associate with them? As PZ said, way up at the top of the column, they had every right to ask him to leave. So he left. Then he went down to a cafe--where he had permission to be--and exercised his freedom of speech. Where's the problem?
"I get images of a corporate KGB directed by fundamentalists. The image of such a state is both terrifying and shockingly close to reality."
Why would a leftist select an image from the apotheosis of leftism to illustrate a scary lack of freedom? The KGB is where leftism takes you.
Posted by: Falyne | March 23, 2008 7:46 PM
Nooooo, the KGB is where *totalitarianism* takes you. That axis (state/individual authority) is perpendicular to the classic "left/right" dichotomy.
It's quite possible to be 'leftist' and not-freedom-hating, I assure you. It's even possible to be 'leftist' and *anarchist*, at the complete other end of the scale from the KGB.
Posted by: Falyne | March 23, 2008 7:54 PM
For the record, in this situation I agree that for a quasi-private event they had the legal (if not moral or not-be-a-hypocrite) right to ask PZ to leave.
On the other hand, if we want to venture into the speculative, a new Gilded Age of global corporatocrat "robber barons" wielding enough economic power to influence or outright overpower traditional state sovereignty that also utilize religion as another means of public influence is neither a.) unimaginable or b.) very pretty.
[/International Relations Major]
Posted by: sherifffruitfly | March 23, 2008 8:05 PM
Classic.
But look at it this way - you're bigger than Dawkins dude!
Posted by: Shebardigan | March 23, 2008 8:06 PM
"It's quite possible to be 'leftist' and not-freedom-hating, I assure you. It's even possible to be 'leftist' and *anarchist*, at the complete other end of the scale from the KGB."
The 'leftist' 'rightist' terms are essentially meaningless, in that they require mapping a variable having at least six dimensions onto a one-dimensional line.
After all, Pol Pot, the Dalai Lama, Leonid Brezhnev, Nelson Mandela, Leon Trotsky, Mother Jones and Paul Wolfowitz are all "leftists", and consequently have [had] beliefs that cannot possibly differ from each other in any significant detail.
Posted by: DM | March 23, 2008 8:12 PM
The irony of an ID movie being premiered in the same city and WEEKEND of a large atheist convention are beyond ... well ... ironic.
Posted by: David Carr | March 23, 2008 8:22 PM
Stein that the scientists' questions wouldn't have been a problem in the days of Galileo and Einstein..
Wasn't Galileo found guilty of heresy and held under house arrest for the rest of his life (on order of the Inquisition) for daring to expound the theory that the sun and other planets didn't revolve around the Earth?
Posted by: David Cowan | March 23, 2008 9:57 PM
PZ,
Congrats on such celebrity.
Now the bigger question: how will they stop all those Walmarts next year from letting you in to buy the DVD?
Posted by: yoeruek | March 23, 2008 10:24 PM
Monado, FCD #1339 and catta #1341 #1342
Thank you for your kind help getting into this discussion.
I popped onto this site last night after a long night surfing the web. (Germany about 8 am) So due to lack of sleep I wasn`t able to get all the information that has already been provided.
Even though I do speek english for more than thirty years it is hard to express my thoughts and feelings about the things that are going on in America.
I will drop catta some words in german. Catta may write in english if they are relevant.
catta #1341 #1342
danke für Deine freundliche Hilfe bei der Übersetzung.
Klar, PZ und RD wurden von TM hintergangen und nicht nett behandelt.
Das hatte ich schon nach den ersten Zeilen von PZ erkannt und auch deshalb weitergelesen.
Aber was ist generell der Stand in der Diskussion von Anhängern der Schöpfungslehre und den
"Anderen"(Atheisten, Christen, die die Evolution als Erklärungsmodell bevorzugen, Muslimen und Anhängern der anderen Weltreligionen)?
Gibt es solche Strömungen
(wir arme, unterdrückte Anhänger der Schöpfungslehre wollen jetzt endlich gelehrt bekommen an was wir glauben!)
auch in anderen Ländern, z. B. Niederlande, Schweiz, Frankreich; und wie begegnet man ihnen dort? Hier in Deutschland ist es doch wohl eher ein Phänomen bei den Sektierern, oder? Aber gerade jetzt, fällt mir ein, dass ich vor einiger Zeit einen Beitrag im Fernsehen gesehen habe, der zum Thema hatte, dass genau das jetzt aus Amerika zu uns rüberkommt in Form von christlichen Sommercamps, missionieren usw.
Danke Gruß Yörük
Mir kommt es so vor, als ob sich diese Menschen zurück ins Mittelalter katapultieren.
Posted by: Paula | March 23, 2008 11:04 PM
David Cowan,
"Now the bigger question: how will they stop all those Walmarts next year from letting you in to buy the DVD?"
Do you expect the intense hatred and animosity that evidently exists in elements of the science profession eloquently demonstrated in the scenario between PZ and Richard Dawkins v the production team of this movie and their respective sympathizers (via blogs, websites etc) will have infiltrated the rest of society to that degree by next year? That's a very serious consequence of the current state of affairs and takes us well beyond a laughing matter! Don't you think...?
BTW, I enjoyed Blake Taylor's story...
Posted by: Wayne McFarland | March 23, 2008 11:11 PM
It appears the religious right (the freedom loving Christians) are conducting business as usual with their head up their ass and on their shoulders at the same time.
Posted by: Greg Barton | March 23, 2008 11:59 PM
I would personally like to thank the producers of Expelled for leading me to this blog. Without their actions to kick Dr Myers out of the screening I never would have been exposed to this marvelous blog. Even though I'm generally sympathetic to the cause of evolution I don't read the blogs that oppose ID and it's foolishness. Thanks to these recent shenanigans I've found this blog, and it's quite entertaining and informative content.
The irony is that I read this on my iPhone during a particularly boring Easter service this morning. (I'm agnostic, but play music at church services on the major holidays.) Thanks Mark Mathis! You knee jerk reaction has made this Easter unusually entertaining.
Posted by: Chris in Columbus | March 24, 2008 12:09 AM
AMAZING!!!
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 24, 2008 12:53 AM
Let's hear it for Paula the concern troll everybody.
Posted by: Leigh | March 24, 2008 12:56 AM
@yoeruek (#1363):
I'll take a stab at translating Yoeruek's post; it brings up a topic that may be of interest to PZ's international readers. Catta could undoubtedly do this better, and I trust s/he will correct me if I got anything wrong.
____________________________________________
"Thanks for your friendly translation. It's clear that PM and RD were stabbed in the back and treated poorly. I got that part from PZ's first post, and I've read more about it since.
But what's the general [generic] position [consensus/argument] in this discussion [thread?] of creationists/IDers vs. the "others" (atheists, Christians who accept evolution, Muslims, and followers of other world religions)?
Are there similar currents [movements] (oh, we poor, oppressed creationists/IDers want to finally get some academic respect for our beliefs) in other countries, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, and how do we go about finding out? Here in Germany this seems to be a phenomenon only of sects [non-Lutheran or evangelical Christians?].
But, now that I think about it, it seems to me I saw a television program about these American 'exports' to Germany, such as Jesus Camps, missionaries, etc.
xthnxbai, Yoeruek
p.s. It seems to me that these people want to catapult themselves back into the Middle Ages."
_______________________________________________
Posted by: Leigh | March 24, 2008 1:00 AM
Sorry, I meant "kthnxbai". Should have just said, "Thanks a lot, Yoeruek". I'm stupid when I try to be cute.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 24, 2008 1:56 AM
LOLDawkins Redux:
http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lolexpelledpz0.jpg
Posted by: remysun | March 24, 2008 2:53 AM
I noticed that someone mentioned Title 42, but I'm more familiar with the very similar Title 18 and its use in the Vincent Chin case: US v. Ebens. This could step into criminal prosecution against the "cop", producer, and exhibitor since PZM was threatened with arrest, and intimidated into leaving. Since this occurred at the Mall of America, in addition to witness testimony, I'm also sure that there is surveillance video of what happened to corroborate the story. It will be important to preserve that evidence before any time sensitive overwriting of the tape or hard drive takes place. The Justice Department can and should investigate.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 245Prev | Next § 245. Federally protected activities
(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--
(2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been--
(F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and (i) which is located within the premises of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of the aforesaid establishments, and
(ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments;
Posted by: Karen Stollznow | March 24, 2008 3:36 AM
That's the best punchline I've heard for awhile.
The 'devil' got into 'heaven' without being noticed...
Posted by: catta | March 24, 2008 5:34 AM
First: Apologies to everyone for the bilingual rambling!
I'm a she :). Good translation there, Leigh -- except for one thing, the first question as I understand it (even native speakers can misunderstand things ;)) is "what is the current status of the debate", which I find very hard to answer -- there isn't even much of a consensus about whether there should be any drawn-out discourse between the two sides to begin with; not that the majority doesn't think the Cdesign Proponentsists are simply wrong and should STFU, but the creationist strategy is to create an illusion of controversy within the scientific community when there is none, and as far as I understand it opinions differ on whether or not taking the time to constantly argue with creationists doesn't just help the creation of that illusion.
As to "where else is this happening" -- I can answer that question to a certain extent. We do have people here who would like to see creationism taught in school, but they are (so far) a tiny, tiny minority. When they do make the news, the reports tend to reference the situation in the US, with the suggestion that the ID movement in the US influences/emboldens these people. For what it's worth, the only incident that made me go "WTF" and worried me slightly was when a state education minister (education is a state thing here) more or less endorsed creationist ideas. Fortunately, she was immediately verbally spanked by the German Biologists' Association and there was a lot of (outraged) media coverage. Good.
I haven't seen the television programme that Yörük referred to, but I'm pretty sure I know which he means; it was an extensive documentary for the channel arte which examined how creationists are trying to influence German schools. That was what sparked the latest media coverage of the problem. The shocking bit was that they did find two schools using creationist material (one church-run, one state school).
According to an estimate by the Biologists' Association, there are 1.3 million creationists in Germany, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to adopt the ID "wedge strategy" to gain influence here.
As for other countries, I have only ever heard from British teachers who were sent creationist materials for inclusion in their lesson plans, but those are Friend-of-a-friend tales. If anyone is really interested in this, I'd be glad to assemble and translate some German news articles on the subject (I've had fun doing the reverse for an American Studies paper, so why not do the opposite).
All in all, interesting question, hard to answer. Maybe one of you guys has a better overview of this? Or maybe there should be a collaborative effort to get a creationist index going, à la "Rapture Ready Rapture Index" -- you know, worldwide signs of people doing their darndest to get back to the stone age (the middle ages were far, far too enlightened for these people IMHO). ;)
[Yörük: Ich würde die Frage wirklich gern beantworten -- spannend ist sie -- aber ich glaube nicht, daß das so einfach ist; die Geister scheiden sich schon an der Frage, ob es überhaupt eine Debatte gibt. Mal sehen, ob jemand eine gute Antwort hat, bei Bedarf übersetze ich gern nochmal. Aber ein paar Kreationisten gibt's hier schon, ab und an sieht man dazu mal Zeitungsartikel und Berichte im Fernsehen wie den bei Arte. Bei Bedarf suche ich auch noch ein paar.]
Posted by: geetha | March 24, 2008 7:24 AM
Awesome, Hilarious. LOL
Posted by: Jeff | March 24, 2008 7:46 AM
Yeah, right. Pull the other one.
Posted by: Mark | March 24, 2008 8:42 AM
Tell the truth. The producers had no knowledge of you being there. The police DIDN'T know who you are, and you didn't have a ticket.
"I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins' academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn't, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film's producers to be found, and the man certainly didn't identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it's possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre's management didn't want to take any chances."
Posted by: Kseniya | March 24, 2008 9:17 AM
LOL... "Mark" commits the usual error of ignoring the other eyewitness accounts, all of which contradict the lie he quoted, a quote which was essentially retracted by the guy who posted it in the first place.
Mark, you're wrong on every point. Are you proud to be ignorant, or are you just too lazy to care?
It will take you less than five minutes to figure this out for yourself, if you care to. Go for it.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 24, 2008 9:20 AM
Right, "apparently" trying to sneak in, "apparently" hustling people. "Apparently" the idiot who wrote that piece just assumed that anyone being asked to leave by the police must be a troublemaker.
Posted by: MikeyMike | March 24, 2008 9:54 AM
Does anyone else find this ironic?
from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Fairly_OddParents_characters"
"The Pixies (voiced by Ben Stein) are dull and boring creatures (sometimes they rap) that wish to take over Fairy World and the Earth to make it dull and boring."
So - Ben Stein *is* more than qualified (as a matter of face, he's typecast!) to be a spokesperson for a megalomanic group that believe in imaginary beings ...
Posted by: Rodger Mitchell | March 24, 2008 10:34 AM
Read this quote:
"Basically, we've got one possibility out of two possibilities that's taught, and it's Darwinism and it's taught to the exclusion of any other idea," said Mark Mathis, a TV news reporter turned speaker who is credited in the film as an associate producer.
Mr. Mathis is wrong. There are far more than two possibilities. There are thousands. For instance, consider Martianism -- the theory that all living creatures came from Mars on a giant spaceship called ARK and piloted by NoWa. There is exactly the same amount of proof for this theory as there is for Creationism.
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 24, 2008 10:58 AM
You're rather amusingly wrong. Mathis has already confessed that he specifically and deliberately demanded that PZ be expelled, for no other reason than being angry over what PZ has written about
ExcretedExpelled.Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 24, 2008 11:13 AM
With Ben Stein being both a christian AND a republican, I suspect the odds are better than even that he is quite well acquainted with the Fairy World...
Posted by: Marian Stamp | March 24, 2008 11:16 AM
Can't say anything about the doc or its intent as I have not seen it. It may be balanced it may be biased.
This is a funny incident... too bad Dawkins is too high up on himself that it's impossible for him not to be anything but critical. I figure he already made his mind up when he heard the movie synopsis. So I don't really care what he has to say.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 24, 2008 11:37 AM
Anyone with a brain can't be anything but critical.
Marian obviously has her head checked at the door.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 24, 2008 12:17 PM
Dang! Another irony meter becomes a smoking ruin!
Marion 1) hasn't seen the movie, 2) doesn't know what Dawkins has to say about, and yet she cavalierly dismiss his opinion - unheard, mind you - because she "figures" that he had already made up his mind prior to seeing the film.
Wow.
Posted by: Midwest Atheist | March 24, 2008 12:18 PM
No offense, Dr. Myers, but I wish you would have allowed yourself to be arrested, maybe then this incident would have garnered the media attention that it needs right now. These people need to be exposed for what they are.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 24, 2008 12:26 PM
"Impossible for him not to be anything but critical", what the hell does that mean? He has to be anything but critical? I guess it's impossible for some people not to be anything but unwilling not to make sense. :-D
These people need to be exposed for what they are.
They have been.
Posted by: Rick T. | March 24, 2008 12:59 PM
You creationists amaze me. Dawkins was waiting to see the movie before he commented. His only previous comments pertained to the deceptive manner in which he was recruited to be interviewed for an imaginary film called "Crossroads".
Having now seen the film he has commented on it (find it yourself).
But YOU know that he is so full of himself and already had his mind made up. Hmm, sounds to me like projection on your part. You had YOUR mind made up and have not bothered to seek out available information. Instead you condemn Dawkins for doing exactly what you have done and what he hasn't done.
I don't really care about creationist nimrod. I just want to be a part of this record thread. :)
Posted by: Paula | March 24, 2008 1:14 PM
Catta- "'you know, worldwide signs of people doing their darndest to get back to the stone age"
Well, you know, there are some interesting developments in this line of thought. I believe Professor Dawkins has backed a proposal for the United Nations to confer human rights on apes. Soon, humans may take to the forests to begin interbreeding their way back to our first ancestor. I guess by then there will be nothing for intelligent consciousness to interact with!
Owlmirror-"You're rather amusingly wrong. Mathis has already confessed that he specifically and deliberately demanded that PZ be expelled, for no other reason than being angry over what PZ has written about ExcretedExpelled."
Did PZ not explicitly state his intent in his writings? I have already asked whether, based on that intent to protest during the actual screening, was the expulsion justified? What would PZ or Richard Dawkins have done in similar circumstances? I'm not taking sides here, but there are critical questions relating to certain public facts that demand answers in this case. Did anyone here read Richard Dawkins' appalling hate filled article on his own website yesterday. Subsequent posts illustrate the effect such venom can have on the human mind. Where is all this leading to...? Is this a public crash course in ideal human behavior and is this really science?!
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 24, 2008 1:29 PM
Paula, your lack of intellect seems to provide definitive evidence for the fact that humans have already bred with apes.
Posted by: ken | March 24, 2008 1:44 PM
People, you are ALL missing something here:
1. Movies (all movies) are produced for one reason alone.
2. The Producers care not a whit about "the argument" only it's controversial nature.
3. You are propagating hype exponentially here, and falling into their trap. Marketing strategy is a subtle science and PZ was probably a pawn in these peoples hands.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 24, 2008 1:52 PM
I'm convinced.
Posted by: Liquid | March 24, 2008 2:17 PM
To be honest, I don't find it funny at all.
I can understand, I guess if I have to, having an anti-guest list for a propoganda movie.
But they threatened to *arrest* you. For staying in a theatre. Sure, we can laugh at these over-reacting religious extremists, but if you hadn't left immediately, would you be writing this from a holding cell waiting to talk to an officer? For being in a cinema??
Not good.
Posted by: Beretta | March 24, 2008 2:27 PM
Ichthyic seems to be all hung up on the fact that local police may have been providing security for the event. This is not as you put it "the real story"
LE officers frequently work extra security details that are paid for by the event organizers. This is often a requirement of police unions that officers are paid for security out of the pocket of the group requesting security. So if you're trying to make an issue out of who pays for that, it is a non-issue. This is a common practice around the country and it just seems it is news to you because you are are uninformed.
Also, it would seem this was a private screening event at a private business, and right or wrong if the producers do not want a certain individual to attend for some reason, that is their right and they apparently chose to exercise it.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 24, 2008 2:38 PM
" that is their right and they apparently chose to exercise it. "
The whole legality issue is dead and buried, it's a red herring. The point is that the Expelled people are wankers.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 24, 2008 2:39 PM
Blah blah blah.
PZ IS IN THE MOVIE. It's goofy that they had him expelled. He would of written a review. So Mathis is just being vindictive. Of course they had a right to expell him. Doesn't mean it wasn't a goofy thing to do.
It wasn't an INVITE only screening... they let everyone else attend that was in PZ's group. They weren't "invited" either.
Several other Atheists from the conference went to the screening... were they invited? Of course not.
This movie will NOT make money. It won't get onto any substantial number of screens.
There's no "MUTHAFUCKINSNAKESONTHEPLANE" with this one.
"Gee the producer is a dick... I really need to go see this movie that everyone says is boring."
It that really what you "concerned" people thinks is happening?
Posted by: Rick T | March 24, 2008 3:29 PM
You are ignorant and a smart ass. You just expose your ignorance every time you put fingers to keyboard.
His intent was to view the film asshole. Any joking about cheering when he came onscreen was tongue in cheek or if done it would have been no more disruptive as the creationist honks that laughed out loud during the movie in all the wrong places. Ever been to a movie? People make noise, talk to the screen and be generally rude at times. PZ is an adult. He wanted to view the film so he could rip it apart later on his blog. He's not a teenager for shit's sake. He is not a prankster. He wanted to see how bad they quote mined his interview and then comment on it. Once again you prove to be an ignorant slut Jane.
I read nothing hate filled at all. You must have special hate seeking glasses that you use to detect hate. I read a review that was critical but not hate filled. You claim to be dispassionate and fair minded but your rhetoric exposes your creationist bias.
Posted by: Jerry | March 24, 2008 4:15 PM
Aren't we missing the point, here, talking past each other? In and out of the theatre? But what an exhilarating emotifest!
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 24, 2008 4:31 PM
Since there was no intent to protest, the expulsion was not justified.
Even Mathis did not even suggest that he feared protest. He just didn't like PZ because PZ was critical of the film
ExpectorantExpelled.Posted by: Arnold 'Judas' Rimmer | March 24, 2008 4:44 PM
The point is that the Expelled people are wankers.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 24, 2008 2:38 PM
...and smeg heads.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 24, 2008 4:58 PM
...and fleegle-snorks.
Posted by: catta | March 24, 2008 5:15 PM
Wow, Paula. Work on your reading comprehension. And your history. And logic. And biology, and... oh, never mind. The only thing you seem to be good at is cherry picking, and that's something you're better off doing on a farm.
It may be news to you, but you're not compelled to bonk every creature you decide not to torture or mistreat. The second thing: Find out what a species is. There are some reasonable arguments against the Great Ape Project, but yours aren't among them. And they have absolutely nothing to do with Yoerueck's question.
Posted by: catta | March 24, 2008 5:18 PM
Oh, and I'd just like to add...
...and people to whom the Renaissance was just a thing that happened to other people. ;)
Posted by: Alain Azzam | March 24, 2008 5:33 PM
I just posted this amazingly funny story on my blog (it's in French). There is only one thing I'd like to say, and it's how sad I am that Bill Hicks is not alive anymore to read this great story.
In other words, if there was a machine to bring back the dead and it would cost the amount of energy produced by all human beings in an hour, I think it'd be worth it to pour it into that machine and bring back Bill just to hear him laugh all the way back to the end of the galaxy.
Thanks PZ.
Posted by: sweeney | March 24, 2008 6:24 PM
Many of these comments serve only to dispel the notion that ID'ers and other religious folk corner the market on arrogance and feelings of self-satisfied superiority regarding their beliefs.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 24, 2008 6:40 PM
Fucking hell...
when did all these concern trolls start popping up?
Fuck off.
Creationists are WRONG. Period.
No matter what we say to them is going to seem arrogant.
Fuckwit.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 24, 2008 6:58 PM
"Many of these comments serve only to dispel the notion that ID'ers and other religious folk corner the market on arrogance and feelings of self-satisfied superiority regarding their beliefs."
Yawn.
Posted by: Yoeruek | March 24, 2008 7:10 PM
leigh #1369
thank you for translating so nicely. When i read my Questions they were so dumb, i felt. But your translation is so vivid...
catta #1403
thank you for reviewing Leigh´s translation and your offer for research.
Tuesday 23:00 MET german regional TV SWR will show "Dokumentation" named "Fanatisch fundamentalistisch, fromm".
I got some Information about it in german language:
"Christen fahren auf Schlauchbooten den Colorado River hinab.Sie glauben nicht, dass der Grand Canyon durch die Erosion in Millionen von Jahren entstanden ist, sondern in wenigen Tagen durch die Sintflut.
Solche angeblichen Forschungstripps führen fundamentalistische Christen in USA regelmäßig durch. Ihr Führer Tom Vail..., wurde aber durch ein Erweckungserlebnis zu einem sogenannten Wiedergeborenen. Diese Christen in den USA nehmen die Bibel wörtlich, auch die Schöpfungsgeschichte aus dem Alten Testament.
Früher galten Fundamentalisten als Schwärmer, heute ist Fundamentalismus ein politischer Kampfbegriff. ... Seit 9/11 ist die Wahrnehmung der Weltöffentlichkeit für religiös motivierte Gewalt geschärft. Filmteams begeben sich den USA, in Israel und im Jemen auf Spurensuche, wie aus Frömmigkeit Fundamentalismus und Fanatismus werden kann. ...
Des weiteren zeigt der Film christliche Kreationisten im Grand Canon und das Warten auf das Ende der Welt mit Pastor Haggee.
Der Film skizziert Entstehung und Gesichter des Fundamentalismus in Judentum, Christentum und Islam."
greetz Yörük Baba
Posted by: peace | March 24, 2008 7:12 PM
first god created adam, then he used his rib and was like hell yea, im gonna make a girl. god did this cuz he was bored as hell. god has a big white beard. god put some animals in there, and no dinosaurs, fossils are imaginary figments of heretics. um. yea. i think i got the whole story down. the earth is one year old. power OVERWHELMING
Posted by: Yoeruek | March 24, 2008 7:29 PM
Yoeruek #1409
just made an AI Translation of that description. I gave it a short review, but not be sure it is translated properly.
"Christians go tubing on the Colorado River boats. They do not believe that the Grand Canyon has been made by erosion over millions of years, but in a few days by the flood.
Such alleged science trips lead fundamentalist Christians in the United States regularly. Your guide Tom Vail ..., but by an awakening experience to a so called awakened christian again. These Christians in the United States take the Bible literally, but also the creation story from the Old Testament.
In former days fundamentalists were considered gushers. Today fundamentalism is a political fight term. ... Since 9 / 11, the perception of the world public for religiously motivated violence sharpened. Film teams go to the United States, to Israel and to Yemen in search of clues, as piety fundamentalism and fanaticism can be. ...
Furthermore, the film portrays Christian creationists in the Grand Canon and the wait for the end of the world with Pastor Haggee.
The film outlines and faces the emergence of fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. "
Posted by: dgrffy | March 24, 2008 8:29 PM
Ah, martyrs for science. How can we survive the march of creationism? After the 20th century, we should all strive for atheism and unfettered scientific discovery. After all, if the 20th century doesn't prove their merits, I don't know what will. I'm sure there were some bible-thumping preachers behind the scenes paying the producers off. Oh brother. I haven't heard things like this since I was in high school listening to kids tell how they told off the cops whenever they were pulled over. Yep. Uh huh. I wonder what the other part of the story is.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 24, 2008 9:07 PM
Actually, a very careful reading of my Wholly Babble leads me to the conclusion that Gad just created the universe a few minutes ago and that all comments before #1413 were just placed there by him to make me think that this thread has existed for several days...
Posted by: gbusch | March 24, 2008 9:40 PM
#1414
Your last companion neuron just died didn't it?
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 24, 2008 10:42 PM
dgrffy, the other part of the story is: Mark Mathis is a petty prick who was miffed at Mr. Myers for not properly greeting his cinematic masterpiece with the proper amount of sycophantic hosannahs. Why don't you IM Paula and have a nice concern troll commiseration conference? The only aspiring martyrs are those flogging the film. Jesus Christ....
Posted by: catta | March 24, 2008 10:52 PM
Here's what Yoeruek said; it's an announcement for a documentary called "fanatical, fundamentalist, faithful" that will air tomorrow night on a German TV channel. Sounds interesting, but unfortunately I have no means of recording it:
"Christians go rafting on the Colorado River. They don't believe that the Grand Canyon was created by erosion over millions of years, but that it was created in a few days by the great flood.
Purported 'research trips' like this are offered on a regular basis by fundamentalist Christians in the USA. Their leader, Tom Vail, became a so-called "born again Christian" after an "epiphany". These US Christians take the Bible literally, even the Old Testament creation stories.
In previous times, fundamentalists were regarded as dreamers; today, fundamentalism is a political catchword. Since 9/11, the world's awareness of religiously-motivated violence has increased. Film crews visit the USA, Israel and Yemen in order to find out how faith can turn into fundamentalism and fanaticism.
The Film also shows Christian creationists at the Grand Canyon, and waiting for the end of the world with pastor Haggee. It offers a sketch of the development and faces of fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam."
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 24, 2008 11:09 PM
Oh, man, this is simply great. DaveScot, over on UD has declared that:
"Richard Dawkins isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...."
and goes on to speculate that poor widdle Richard was possibly somehow tricked into participating by PZ. DaveScot is of course a "certified" genius, by his own admission.
Rest of the contextual tripe here.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 24, 2008 11:38 PM
Oh, and nicely someone in response to Dave discovered that in fact, the RSVP is easily and publicly accessible. Go here:
http://getexpelled.com/
then click on "Events and Tours". Right at the top can be found this:
CLICK">http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/movies/expelled">CLICK HERE to RSVP now at a location near you!
So, contrary to the myth that the RSVP system requires some sort of actual invitation via email, it really is open to any and everyone. To be fair, I should note that the website does declare:
"This site is specifically designed for students, teachers, pastors, youth leaders, and organizations to provide useful tools and resources to promote the ideas surrounding this highly anticipated film"
Leaving aside how anticipated a film must be before it counts as "highly", PZ is certainly a teacher, and it doesn't say which surrounding ideas one must promote. Obviously, they're interested in certain very particular ideas, but, you know, they don't want be suppressive or anything, right?
Anyway, the page also declares:
"You and your community are invited to attend FREE of charge!"
Again, I think we know which community they would prefer, but also again, they're interested in inclusion, not exclusion, right? Well, wrong, but too bad for them. It's their hypocritical bed...
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 24, 2008 11:40 PM
Oh, and proper credit to Todd Berkebile for pointing out the website over on UD. His site is here:
http://www.berkebile.org/
Posted by: Tim | March 24, 2008 11:49 PM
I suspect, as am sure you do, that they were targeting Richard Dawkins and not you... unless you are more notorious than Dawkins.
I know how you feel, though. I have been "expelled" myself from a number of equally ironic environments. Places that tout themselves as bastions of open-mindedness and critical thinking... universities. Why? For discussing ideas of God and spirituality with people.
While this event is incredibly odd and unfortunate, it happens frequently to people of faith. Now you know how it tastes.
Posted by: Thomas Howard | March 24, 2008 11:50 PM
OK, sorry to keep harping on this, but the whole RSVP thread on UD is comedy fucking gold. To wit, this sinister contribution from "PannenbergOmega":
"Alot of the current Darwinian guys, were allegedly involved with radical causes during the 1960s."
WTF?
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 24, 2008 11:53 PM
"Vengeance is mine" sayeth the TIM...
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 25, 2008 12:02 AM
OK, mea culpa. The aforementioned links are for the Expelled tour bus thingy, rather than the screenings of the film. See what happens when you don't do your research?
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 25, 2008 12:03 AM
While this event is incredibly odd and unfortunate, it happens frequently to people of faith. Now you know how it tastes.
Ah, you mean you relish the taste, and find it all quite amusing?
Posted by: Colin | March 25, 2008 12:04 AM
Q: How many evolutionary biologists does it take to get into an "Intelligent Design" movie?
Pick the answer you like and feel free to create more.
A1: Two, one to to ask the bouncer to explain the ontological argument and one to bolt for the door.
A2: Two, but why would you bother?
A3: A multitude, but bring loaves and fishes.
A4: Two, but they must have a low international profile.
A5: God would never allow it.
A6: When it does happen it is a sign of the end-times.
A7: I have no idea, but blessed are the evolutionary biologists for theirs is the realm of amusement.
A8: Two, but one will be caste into the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
OR
Q: How many evolutionary biologists does it take to change an "Intelligent Design" light globe?
A: None. It isn't blown, it's just very dim.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 25, 2008 12:04 AM
"I have been "expelled" myself from a number of equally ironic environments. Places that tout themselves as bastions of open-mindedness and critical thinking... universities."
I like how you put "expelled" in quotes, so we know you're bullshitting.
"While this event is incredibly odd and unfortunate, it happens frequently to people of faith. Now you know how it tastes."
He's laughing it off. Were you paying attention at all?
Posted by: Tim | March 25, 2008 12:06 AM
Oh, there's a outside observers interpretation of these events: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?article=11
Here's what he saw:
I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins' academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn't, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film's producers to be found, and the man certainly didn't identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it's possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre's management didn't want to take any chances.
Posted by: Paula | March 25, 2008 12:09 AM
Milo Johnson - "Paula, your lack of intellect seems to provide definitive evidence for the fact that humans have already bred with apes."
Ok. Got that .
Rick T - "You are ignorant and a smart ass. You just expose your ignorance every time you put fingers to keyboard."
Got that.
"His intent was to view the film asshole."
Got that.
"Any joking about cheering when he came onscreen was tongue in cheek or if done it would have been no more disruptive as the creationist honks that laughed out loud during the movie in all the wrong places."
Well, how could I have missed seeing that tongue lodged in his cheek? I guess laughing is infection - honks do it all the time!
"People make noise, talk to the screen and be generally rude at times. PZ is an adult. He wanted to view the film so he could rip it apart later on his blog. He's not a teenager for shit's sake. He is not a prankster. He wanted to see how bad they quote mined his interview and then comment on it."
Well of course....
"Once again you prove to be an ignorant slut Jane."
Ouch! Got that.
"I read nothing hate filled at all. You must have special hate seeking glasses that you use to detect hate. I read a review that was critical but not hate filled. You claim to be dispassionate and fair minded but your rhetoric exposes your creationist bias."
Guess you just didn't see that tongue lodged in my cheek...
Catta - "Wow, Paula. Work on your reading comprehension. And your history. And logic. And biology, and... oh, never mind."
Must work harder... ok, got that.
"The only thing you seem to be good at is cherry picking, and that's something you're better off doing on a farm."
I prefer strawberries!
"It may be news to you, but you're not compelled to bonk every creature you decide not to torture or mistreat."
Got that ...I think!:0
"The second thing: Find out what a species is. There are some reasonable arguments against the Great Ape Project, but yours aren't among them."
I have to make a declaration. I accompanied a delegation of my cousins to Minneapolis last week. They were so excited about signing a declaration pledging The Right to Life, The Protection of Liberty and the Prohibition of Torture with their fellow Great Apes that they wanted to celebrate with a toast of 'Human kindness'. After attending the Atheist Convention and watching a movie called Expelled, two venues they had been told encapsulated the last vestages of all that it means to be human, they decided to renege on signing the agreement. Washoe would never forgive them for lowering their standards. Huh, intelligence, they scoffed... In a display of love and compassion, they extended an invitation to join their community in the hope that I would escape eradication in the next wave of a eugenics program. I'm packing my toothbrush.....
Posted by: Kseniya | March 25, 2008 12:14 AM
OFGS Tim! Do try to keep up. That version has been discredited by other eyewitnesses, and was recanted by the lying jackass who tried to pass it off as truth in the first place. This sequence happened within a few hours of the event that triggered it - days ago.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 25, 2008 12:25 AM
Actually, Tim, I'm glad you posted that link. The fact that Blessman's distortion of the actual events is still up on expelledthemovie dot com serves as a testament to the persistently dishonest tactics of the Expelled! production and marketing teams.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 25, 2008 12:34 AM
Of course the idiots over at UhDuh are clinging to the original Blessman commentary as proof that PZ was creating a disturbance. How silly of me to think that perhaps ONE of them might have actually been following the story close enough to realize Blessman changed his story when his original lies were exposed.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 25, 2008 12:38 AM
Tim, you obviously have no idea what a wankering gomer you look like bringing that quote back to this thread as though it's the first time it has been presented, or for suggesting that we are "sure they were targeting Richard Dawkins and not you...", or for comparing your experiences to PZ's, or insinuating that we must think this event is 'unfortunate". You are giving religion a bad name. That's the last thing you want to do, right?
That quote is never going to stop circulating, is it? It will resonate forever in the halls of anti-science , and Creationists will embrace it wholeheartedly and keep it alive because--why? Say it with me, "It's a lie."
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | March 25, 2008 12:44 AM
IOW, Tim was "apparently hustling and bothering" people.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 25, 2008 12:44 AM
Anyone want to introduce Paula to Gerald Spezio? I'm getting the feeling that they might be the only two people who can understand each other.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 25, 2008 12:48 AM
They can play "Go Fish: The Conspiracy Version" with William Walleye.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | March 25, 2008 12:50 AM
I promise, Kseniya's and RamblinDude's comments were not there when I posted (I'm a slow typist). I wouldn't have piled on had I seen them.
Posted by: Norman | March 25, 2008 12:53 AM
This is slightly off-topic, but fwiw here's another insight into the disturbed/disturbing mindset of the contemporary Christian:
About a year ago, I posted a fairly innocuous parody of Carrie Underwood's 'Jesus Take The Wheel' on Youtube, and ever since then it's been the target of a steady stream of hate comments from putative Christians. A few of the comments express pity and forgiveness for the error of my ways, but the vast majority are just toxic eruptions of illiterate bile. I won't pretend to be shocked by all the incoherence and swearing, but still, I was a little taken aback.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jm5ZwV3xPk
Posted by: Kseniya | March 25, 2008 12:55 AM
We used special evilutionary magic to make our comments temporarily invisible to YOU, Don Smith, FCD! Hah!
Posted by: Cheezits | March 25, 2008 1:00 AM
Now you know how it tastes.
Watching creationists makes asses of themselves is delicious. I've known that for years. :-D
Posted by: Michael X | March 25, 2008 1:13 AM
Actually, I thought it tasted remarkably similar to chicken.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 25, 2008 1:53 AM
Tim, if you're interested in a more credible eyewitness account, check this out:
Also, FYI, the producer himself wrote this: "I banned PZ because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more."
Perhaps you'd like to get a taste of the Q&A session that followed the screening:
And so on... and so on... and so on.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 25, 2008 2:03 AM
Can I just say, I love DaveScot. Truly, truly a genius:
"This doesn't bode well for Myers' upcoming tenure review. If enough of his peers start viewing him as a liability to science and the University of Minnesota then they'll give him the bum's rush just as quick as they did Guilliermo Gonzalez. And PZ Myers', unlike Guilliermo Gonzalez, has no impeccable publication record to fall back on in protest so it won't be difficult or unseeming for the tenure committee to give him a thumbs down.
This is very, very bad for us. If PZ Myers didn't exist we'd have to invent him. Myers does more to give Darwinists a bad name than any man alive. If he's denied tenure we might be forced to put together a "Save the Myers" foundation to solicit donations to keep his blog alive."
Discovered here: http://tinyurl.com/2jy2ov
Man, and they accuse "Darwinists" of concocting absurd fantasies based on little to no evidence.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 25, 2008 2:20 AM
No kidding. UhDuh rocks. Thomas, did you continue to read the comments? It gets better. DaveScot's musings triggered these fabulous insights:
LOLOL
Posted by: John Sharperthanyou | March 25, 2008 2:39 AM
I guess all you smart guys can explain how my two herniated disks were miraculously healed after praying for healing to the God you say doesn't exist. I have xrays and mri's before and after to prove it. Must've been a robot fish doctor from outer space entered my bloodstream and curred me while I wasn't looking or when I got abducted. Or I just imagined all the excruciating pain I was in. Maybe the mri's were switched. Or maybe you can't see him because he doesn't like you. No, it was probably a coincidence, yeah that's the ticket. I may be wrong about God, but if I'm right and you are wrong, 100 years from now I will laugh as I watch you trying to explain to God that he doesn't exist... as you burn....Good luck with that. If you are right and I am wrong, I just get to go through life being a better person than you. hahahahahahahaahaha. I'm already better looking than PZ, but that ain't saying much. Can't wait to see you knuckleheads go ballistic over this blog.
Posted by: Michael X | March 25, 2008 2:45 AM
John,
If your god is so great, cut off your arm, and pray for it to grow back.
Otherwise, if your faith in your god is so petty, then please remove yourself for being a faithless troll.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 25, 2008 2:47 AM
Kseniya, despite my banning (thrice now under various names), I've grown quite fond of UD. For example, another great move by DaveScot, which I completely overlooked in my earlier rush to judgment on the whole RSVP thing, is the fact that the inestimable Dave, in his condemning screed, Dawkins, Myers, and what R.S.V.P. means has himself posted a direct link to the RSVP site, which he so eloquently argues is only for the Elect, right out in the open for any wandering "Darwinists" to click upon. Jackass.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 25, 2008 2:51 AM
Umm, wait, why is all that text blue? **fearful voice** God?
Posted by: Leigh | March 25, 2008 3:06 AM
@Johndumberthanabrick (#1444): "If you are right and I am wrong, I just get to go through life being a better person than you. hahahahahahahaahaha."
Wow. You're the dude who just got through saying that he'll laugh when he sees us burning.
Yeah, you keep on with that "better person" crap -- maybe you'll find some cretin who'll believe it. We here in the reality-based community are keen on empirical evidence. The evidence of your own words convicts you of being a fucking sociopath.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 25, 2008 3:31 AM
Droppings from Cloudcuckooland.
JPCollado 03/24/2008 5:05 pm
I'll wait and see if Myers is preparing to sue the theatre for giving him the boot for no specific reason, 'cause we all know Myers' fondness of the judicial system. If he really was wronged, and he did everything right, legal recourse will show the light day.
PannenbergOmega 03/24/2008 1:40 pm
Alot of the current Darwinian guys, were allegedly involved with radical causes during the 1960s.
William Wallace 03/24/2008 1:42 pm
Well, an idea is that PZ and the producers of Expelled are in cahoots with each other to get free publicity. The New York Times even covered the story.
Now, why PZ wants to bring publicity is another question. I suspect that a wealthy angel investor is in the background waiting to fund a counter film, only the new film will be shown in the public schools.
PannenbergOmega 03/24/2008 1:46 pm
William Wallace,
I'm pretty much a nobody, but for what it's worth, I will defend the integrity of people like Dembski and Behe till I'm blue in the face.
I will not accept that the producers are in cahoots with PZ to make money.
PannenbergOmega 03/24/2008 1:29 pm
I just thought of something. What PZ Myers did may have been some kind of social protest tactic.
Barging in rudely to 'protest' the film and get in the news. You see what I'm saying?
PannenbergOmega 03/24/2008 1:40 pm
Alot of the current Darwinian guys, were allegedly involved with radical causes during the 1960s.
PannenbergOmega 03/24/2008 1:10 pm
Mr Reeves,
"Or was it actually an ID stooge dressed up in a monkey suite to look like PZ in order to give him a bad name?"
With all due respect,
1. This supposibly fits Myer's "M.O."
2. Do you really think the ID community would stoop that low? I don't.
Timothy V Reeves 03/24/2008 4:23 pm
No I suppose not. It probably helps to believe that one has decended from a common primate ancester before one is prepared to run around with bent back and knuckles dragging on the ground a la 2001 space odyssey. So it must have been PZ after all.
JPCollado 03/24/2008 4:49 pm
Stuart Blessman's description of Myers' disruptive and rude behavior is consistent with Myers' offensive persona, thus confirming our original hunch for why he was shown the exit door.
It's almost sad that Myers is so easy to read.
JPCollado 03/24/2008 5:05 pm
I'll wait and see if Myers is preparing to sue the theatre for giving him the boot for no specific reason, 'cause we all know Myers' fondness of the judicial system. If he really was wronged, and he did everything right, legal recourse will show the light day.
JPCollado 03/24/2008 5:21 pm
congregate:
"Stuart Blessman doesn't actually say that PZ Myers was the man he saw behaving badly."
Oh, so there was another guy with Dawkins that got booted in addition to Myers?
My, oh my. ACLU is going to have a field day.
Who is this other 'Personality Type A' individual?
Damn but there is so much comedy gems to be had. But there is great danger in killing my brain cells while wondering there. Thanks Thomas S. Howard.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 25, 2008 3:37 AM
John Sharperthanyou, some words for you. Best is never to have been born. Next best is to realize this and go back from where you came from.
Funny how the healing power of god increased when humans developed modern medicine. If we depended purely on the healing power of prayer, half of my family would be closer to god right now.
Just why did you give yourself such an ironic name?
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 25, 2008 4:01 AM
Sure, Janine. My favorite is still the bizarre idea that there exists some sort of sinister link between "current Darwinian guys" and 60s radicalism. Because, you know, people like the Weather Underground loved to sit around and pen monographs on population genetics while waiting for the next opportunity to blow stuff up.
Posted by: Brachychiton | March 25, 2008 4:16 AM
Johnmarginallysharperthananegg @ 1444
Easy. You're lying through your teeth, which may or may not be your own.
You wrote a post, knucklehead, not a blog.
Posted by: jimboforreason | March 25, 2008 5:03 AM
John (marginally sharper than an egg) is suffering from high self-esteem. I wonder why he had two herniated discs from his intelligently-designed lower back? And young, believing soldiers (and their believing families) are praying constantly to stay alive, yet they are killed...but god heals this guy's sore lower back...kids believe the darndest things...
Posted by: Michael X | March 25, 2008 5:22 AM
Maybe while John is at it he can pray away that "breathing-swallowing/same tube" issue we've had for so long. Though I guess god might get jealous, having created us in his image. I'm sure he'd rather be able to breath and swallow through different tubes too. If only he were a dolphin...
Posted by: Ken | March 25, 2008 5:50 AM
Excluding PZ from seeing this film solely based on the fear of what he might write in review greatly discredits the film itself...that is a blunder for sure...but the response by many here is equally extreme.
I respect that you may have chosen to rely on your own intellect instead of faith as a frame of reference for interacting with the world - even though I do not personally embrace that perspective. All I would ask is that you consider reciprocating such respect, where due. Instead, what often (and I read it here by some) develops is a sense of intellectual superiority by those who think that they are so smart to have broken free of the "burden" of faith and all that it entails. Science is great for providing the answers to many questions, faith is no different. Faith is not a prerequisite for morality and science is not required for intelligence. My position is that we all make informed choices and we all live with the consequences, whatever they may be.
Posted by: minxlj | March 25, 2008 6:05 AM
The very definition of irony - I love it!!!
I'm off to read Dawkins' review of the film. Or 'Lying for Jesus' as he calls it :-)
Posted by: John Morales | March 25, 2008 6:23 AM
Ken,
That you claim to respect my choice does not require I reciprocate.
I don't.
Posted by: ken | March 25, 2008 7:14 AM
Then, John, you are no better than they are.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | March 25, 2008 7:22 AM
WOW.
I figured this would summon plenty of comments just from the Dawkins emailed heads-up I got, but...
...just wow.
PZ: there ain't no hole in the ground low enough for these guys to stoop. On the other hand, even if the center of the friggin' EARTH was accessable, they're somehow beyond it billions of light-years deeper, in a holle of their own making...I suppose because it's cute to be stupid and deluded. And they're SOOOO PROUD of it.
I mean, how low can anyone go? These idiots/scoundrels give new meaning to the concept of "bottomless". It figures: don't they always claim to be able to go deeper than physically possible?
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 25, 2008 7:27 AM
Gack. Too..much...irony. DaveScot strikes again:
"
Expelled - RSVP System
ADDENDA: 3/25 There is no way to get to the URL above from the main page www.getexpelled.com. The above is not a publicized address. The links from the main page all go to TOUR BUS events not movie screenings."
No, not publicized at all on the front page of Uncommon Descent. Sweet Jesus....
Posted by: dj357 | March 25, 2008 7:36 AM
this is extremely hilarious and serves the producers right for having the gall to both dupe PZ about the kind of film they were doing in the first place, and then to kick him out of it, but what I don't understand is what authority the police officer had to remove PZ. Surely some kind of restraining order or court order would have been required in advance of PZ showing up for this to be a lawful action, especially when there had been no disturbance from him before he was approached, and I'm sure any claims that he would have caused a disturbance had he been let in were dubious at worst!
Posted by: GuerrillaScientist | March 25, 2008 7:39 AM
Amanda Gefter, Opinion Editor for New Scientist has written a detailed account of the Q&A after a screening of Expelled she attended. Not only is Mathis planting his own staff to ask questions but he also resorts to name calling and threatening to expel members of the audience who don't ask 'nice' questions. Fascinating reading!
Posted by: Cheezits | March 25, 2008 8:12 AM
Science is great for providing the answers to many questions, faith is no different.
*boggle* Are you KIDDING me? Faith is completely different! It is the opposite of science as far as providing answers is concerned. It encourages you to turn off your bullshit detector, and accept dogmatic answers for no other reason than appeal to authority. (And that authority isn't always necessarily the Bible, either.) At best, faith gives you a (usually false) sense of purpose in life. At worst, it produces travesties like "Expelled", a bigoted pack of lies calling itself God's Truth.
Posted by: John Morales | March 25, 2008 8:20 AM
Ken, I respect you inasmuch as I give it to you straight.
Posted by: knightwhosaysni | March 25, 2008 9:39 AM
PZ, I'm not sure if much of the media has contacted you about this stuff, but I recommended you as guest for George Stroumbouloplyse's "The Hour".
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/
As you recall, he interviewed Dawkins earlier as well.
Posted by: Marie | March 25, 2008 11:13 AM
Dude. This is like denying Eeyore entrance because you're afraid he'd be too active and then letting Tigger in. Seriously.
Posted by: Christopher M | March 25, 2008 11:59 AM
"Don't let the milk in, but the cow can go."
(My wife's fantastic comment, reading the story :)
Posted by: SylvreWolfe | March 25, 2008 6:11 PM
As long as they did not mention any reasons that reflected on federally protected rights then they do have the "right" to expel *yes, it is a pun* anyone from the place of business. If they did mention anything regarding religion, race, gender, etc then there is grounds for legal actions. Owners, managers, and "at times" employees do have the authority to remove people from a place of business and according to a federal judge in Texas, in a decision more than ten years ago, they do not have to mention a reason, they can just do it. But, if they do mention a specific reason then it cannot be for anything regarding a federally protected right. Even if this expulsion was for religious reasons or free speech reason, if they did not mention a reason, or state that was the reason PZ was not allowed to enter, then their butts are covered.
So, has there been any new information regarding this? Have the producers said anything?
Posted by: Steve_C | March 25, 2008 6:29 PM
No one cares if it was legal or not. They were wankers to kick him out. Period.
PZ used the online reservation system to go to the screening... it was an open invitation. PZ wanted to see the disaster of a movie for himself and see if he was represented honestly. That's it.
He got a laugh that they kicked him out for no other reason than they don't like him. It's petty and hypocritical. And really really funny.
It wasn't a stunt or a set up. Mathis recognized PZ in the lobby whigged out and had him booted. Mathis is a big baby and an asshole. It's really that simple. PZ has gotten as much press as the movie. So now they're trying to spin it so they don't look like the pricks they are...
It's not working.
Posted by: Yreka | March 25, 2008 7:49 PM
Seriously. I'm currently at school and had a few people come over to me and ask why I nearly fell off of the chair I was in, laughing. One of them fell over when I showed them.
Not sure it was legal for you to be kicked out that way, but oh well. That's what other theaters are for, even if you're not seeing the premere.
Posted by: sweeney | March 25, 2008 9:44 PM
"Many of these comments serve only to dispel the notion that ID'ers and other religious folk corner the market on arrogance and feelings of self-satisfied superiority regarding their beliefs."
"Fucking hell...when did all these concern trolls start popping up? Fuck off. Creationists are WRONG. Period. No matter what we say to them is going to seem arrogant. Fuckwit."
Point.
"Posted by: Steve_C | March 24, 2008 6:40 PM
Yawn."
Set.
"Easy. You're lying through your teeth, which may or may not be your own."
Match.
"if I'm right and you are wrong, 100 years from now I will laugh as I watch you trying to explain to God that he doesn't exist... as you burn....Good luck with that. If you are right and I am wrong, I just get to go through life being a better person than you. hahahahahahahaahaha"
Corroboration. This just in--one's beliefs on origins has zero correlation to making you more or less likely to be a pompous asshat.
Posted by: Michael X | March 25, 2008 9:56 PM
Christopher M,
Please High Five your wife for me.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 25, 2008 10:46 PM
Sweeney
I wasn't being pompous.
I'm just tired of the same shit, different asshole, day in and day out. There's a difference between being tired of people talking out of their asses and wanting respect, being tired of concern trolls telling us how we should respect the creationists and being pompous.
You're just too dense to get it.
Also, you're just ANOTHER fuckwit telling us we're "just like the fundies".
Posted by: Friendo | March 25, 2008 11:09 PM
Nonsense. It's even better at giving answers, cause, like, you get to make them up. I mean without that you have to, like, wait thousand of years to find out how the universe started. Fuck that shit.
Pompousness may not be correlated, but asshattery surely is. An asshat being someone who is, you know, wrong.
Perhaps you could do us all a favor and pray that your god relieve you of your enormous stupidity.
Posted by: brandon | March 25, 2008 11:41 PM
That's nice, dear, but there are a bunch of amputees, in fact, all of them, that would like to know why gawd has been so generous with your discs and so neglectful of their limbs. But I suppose god works in mysterious ways, manifesting in toast, and stains on shower stalls, and salty crudescence beneath overpasses.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 26, 2008 12:34 AM
"Prayer works." So they say.
It didn't seem to do much for my mother, though.
[waits for the explanation]
Posted by: Brian | March 26, 2008 12:42 AM
Respect is a cheap word.
So often, religious folk will frequent these blogs, claiming that we scientists are assuming an "intellectual superiority," and lamenting our brash and, admittedly, cruel responses. Under a guise of respect, they post some minor claim, "I agree with everything you said except for X," or "your perspective is just different from mine," etc. At the end, the call for support is always the same: "I respect your opinion." In a feeble and self-serving way, it is a call for affirmation. "I like you, won't you like me?"
There's a problem, though.
You don't respect our opinion. If you had even the slightest respect for our opinion, you would place even a cursory effort into understanding it. Could you explain why we find evolution so convincing? After all, most of us could recite your claims point-by-point. We know what you believe, because we care enough to figure it out. Yet, after the dust settles, that perspective is clearly and often hilariously inadequate. That you persist, despite our genuine efforts to analyze your position, displays a tremendous lack of respect.
So please, religious-types, stop demanding our respect. You deserve none of it.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 26, 2008 12:58 AM
"This just in--one's beliefs on origins has zero correlation to making you more or less likely to be a pompous asshat."
WE DON'T CARE. Film at eleven.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | March 26, 2008 1:18 AM
"... my two herniated disks were miraculously healed after praying for healing to the God you say doesn't exist."
The god you say exists let 30,000 babies and children die today. This invisible thing you worship has been doing that day in and day out for centuries. That's a lot of suffering and death.
The universe was created as a backdrop to this one very significant planetary system. The Sun and planets revolve around the Earth. All plant and animal species were put on the Earth for the benefit of one person. Adam was made in his creator god's image. The creator god attends to every event in the life of every one of Adam's descendants. Prayer will cause god to change his mind about his plans.
How naively egocentric.
Science taught us about sanitation and eliminated Small Pox. Let me guess, it is your god that gets all the credit and none of the blame.
Posted by: Tucker | March 26, 2008 1:54 AM
I'm really sorry to continue arguments... But
"I respect that you may have chosen to rely on your own intellect instead of faith as a frame of reference for interacting with the world - even though I do not personally embrace that perspective..."
You ask for respect... But if your intellect isn't your frame of reference, what are you asking me to respect here? If you don't place your intellect as the be-all end-all for your actions(and I can tell you right now that I know I do), for my actions), who or what am I supposed to respect? I can't actually respect what I don't know the origin of in this case. Am I supposed to respect your faith? Why on earth would that make any sense, please explain to me? You sound diplomatic and all, but as a sophomore in high school I can see right through your post as devoid of any real meaning.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | March 26, 2008 3:15 AM
Late to the game, as usual, but just had to add to such a mammoth thread, if only for posterity :-). This has been one of the funniest items I have read about for a very long time :) If you tried to push such a script to a program maker they would laugh at you on the grounds that no other film maker could ever be that stupid. As they say, truth really is stranger than fiction and it hurts, in the sense that my sides are aching from laughter, high fives PZ. Obviously, Cthulhu has your back, presenting you with such a gift :-)
Though it does make one wonder where their god is through all this, assuming for sake of argument we take their claims of his existence as read. Unless of course he dislikes their dishonourable shenanigans as much as any reasonable person should. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised, for reading from god's own so called proclaimed autobiography it can be seen that the film makers actions are very reminiscent of many of their god's self-professed traits, few of which are nice or honourable.
In fact, if their god does exist, he appears much more of a Loki type trickster than a benevolent one. After all, apparently it spends most of it's time making guest appearances on various types of snacks, rocks water stain on walls, etc. etc., the odd minor health repair while ignoring the serious ones, running round fiddling with the geological record to fools us and in his remaining spare fiddling with the genome of the planet's living organism.
Oh and lets not forget about planting fossils to fool us, or is that his side kick, the devil. I can never keep it straight, after all they are so inconsistent even among themselves that it is hard to find little real coherence among the various cults. And yes, I call all religions cults, numbers don't give you legitimacy or credibility, at least not with the rational among us.
Posted by: Paula | March 26, 2008 5:51 AM
"they are so inconsistent even among themselves that it is hard to find little real coherence among the various cults."
Reflecting on the current state of affairs, the community of Washoe, who lay claim to the gene of wisdom that evaded their cousins, this is the most enlightened collection of words on this thread.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 26, 2008 6:56 AM
Of course, we are now all supposed to recognize that it is Paula who is truly wise. So, c'mon everybody: you better recognize!
Posted by: Mal | March 26, 2008 7:07 AM
Yeah, and I heard Dawkins had an AWESOME time at the movie.
Not sure why they expelled you from the movie... (don't know who you are) but who really cares? just your fan club ;)
Posted by: Ken | March 26, 2008 7:22 AM
"You ask for respect... But if your intellect isn't your frame of reference, what are you asking me to respect here? If you don't place your intellect as the be-all end-all for your actions(and I can tell you right now that I know I do), for my actions), who or what am I supposed to respect? I can't actually respect what I don't know the origin of in this case. Am I supposed to respect your faith? Why on earth would that make any sense, please explain to me? You sound diplomatic and all, but as a sophomore in high school I can see right through your post as devoid of any real meaning."
You are supposed to respect the fact that others may not hold to the same belief system that you hold. I don't ask for respect, I simply state that you will get the same respect that you give. If you attack someone whose views differ from your own, then you are no better than these people you mock. Civil discussion is excellent, and questioning your faith or those of others is normal and even a growth experience. Attacking zealots only emboldens them regardless of where their zeal lies.
All of these phenomena that scientists are able to "discover" and measure are simply the systems that God created. In my mind, the miracle that such complexity and beauty exists confirms a higher presence more likely than just happening by chance. Many prominent scientists have also arrived at this conclusion.
I see scientists as myopics floundering in the early dawn trying to make sense of what they can measure. I think its honorable to try and discover what we can and build upon others...just realize that we are relatively feeble when compared to the likes of The Creator...he wants us to be amazed and so reveals the inner workings to us (I often tell him when looking at my wife that, when he made her he was just showing off), but progress is slow despite our best efforts (think of our progress in space exploration and medical science for example). We have accomplished relatively little when you think of the volume of secrets held by the natural world.
When I look at our world, I share the same wonder as many of you, I simply attribute those wonders to The One who made them. If you choose not to, I believe you do so at your own peril. I hope you would give your heart the same attention that you give your brain, but I will not disrespect you for taking a critical look at faith and its place in your life's journey.
Posted by: Paula | March 26, 2008 7:26 AM
No, no, it was the community of Washoe who inherited and is passing on the wisdom meme. I'm just learning - but learning fast from the data laid out before me!!
Posted by: Marc | March 26, 2008 7:29 AM
Is there any chance that you could sue on grounds of religious intolerance. He did, after all, single you out because you were atheist. If he'd singled out someone for being christian and not let them in it i'm pretty sure that it would be grounds for legal action. It'd be an interesting test case as well.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 26, 2008 7:41 AM
Ken:
"I often tell him when looking at my wife that, when he made her he was just showing off"
Well, it's a good thing you're already married to her, because that would be one horrific fail of a pick-up line.
Posted by: John Morales | March 26, 2008 7:52 AM
Ken, you're shifting your ground.
Now you say #1485:
Initially you said #1455:
So, is it that I should respect you have a different belief system, or that I should respect your belief system is based in faith rather than rationality? They're not the same thing.
I'm bemused that, having written the above, you claim you don't ask for respect.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 26, 2008 7:56 AM
I'm gonna regret this, I'm sure, but what the hell...
Paula, what the hell is this "community of Washoe" and what relevance does it have? Are you alluding the tribe, or its eponymous Nevadan county? To the signing chimp, mayhap?
I'm guessing the idea is that basically, you're calling everyone here a shit-flinging band of well-trained chimpanzees, but you know, not having perfect wisdom myself, I could be wrong about that.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 26, 2008 8:04 AM
Let me just say that I actually hope I'm right about the Washoe thing, because despite the fact it's completely wrong, I think it'd be pretty fucking funny if you actually do mean that.
Posted by: Ken | March 26, 2008 8:35 AM
"Ken, you're shifting your ground.
Now you say #1485:
You are supposed to respect the fact that others may not hold to the same belief system that you hold
Initially you said #1455:
I respect that you may have chosen to rely on your own intellect instead of faith as a frame of reference for interacting with the world [...] All I would ask is that you consider reciprocating such respect, where due.
So, is it that I should respect you have a different belief system, or that I should respect your belief system is based in faith rather than rationality? They're not the same thing.
I'm bemused that, having written the above, you claim you don't ask for respect."
Semantics.
No shift in meaning...just made the second statement more general. Mutual respect is a necessary part of any civil dialog and not limited to the discussion of one's faith. It also goes for collective bargaining, international diplomacy, city hall, and talking over the fence to your neighbor.
Bemused as you may be, I was not personally asking for respect. Thats where the "consider" and "where due" parts come in.
Posted by: ekwhite | March 26, 2008 9:35 AM
Ods Blood, that was great! The cops must have had a picture of you, but they didn't recognize RICHARD DAWKINS! My dogs are wondering why I am laughing out loud right now.
Posted by: j.allen | March 26, 2008 9:43 AM
"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant -- which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."
-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.
It seems like the religious fanatics aren't the only ones feeling "holier than thou." I think this statement oozes (it may even be primordial) an intillectually superior attitude.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 26, 2008 9:49 AM
Fundies really hate it when people who are their intellectual superiors recognize the fact, don't they? :-D
Posted by: Jerry in NC | March 26, 2008 10:01 AM
Interesting reading,and I share your righteous indignation at how you were denied access, now can we cut to the chase and get a review of the movie? That should really be hilarious. What did Dawkins have to say about it and has he written a critique yet?
Posted by: Brian | March 26, 2008 10:28 AM
Hi Ken,
I do appreciate your ability to subtly dig at scientists throughout your post (noting both our myopia and sloth), but you've failed once again to understand some basic rules of respect. I should respect your right to STATE your opinion, but that in no way requires me to respect either you or your opinion. Your post is available for all to see, and you chose to make that happen. My 'respect' checklist is all filled out now.
You argue that your opinion should be respected (indeed ALL opinions should be respected) by virtue of ... what? The fact that they're opinions? And they're different? That's a pretty loose criteria. I wonder how we'll deal with racism.
Posted by: j.allen | March 26, 2008 10:41 AM
I'm just glad you got it all figured out...Thanks Cheezit (very superior) for letting the blogging world know what a kindergarten snack has to offer...
Posted by: Cheezits | March 26, 2008 10:48 AM
I see scientists as myopics floundering in the early dawn trying to make sense of what they can measure.
That's what we *all* are. The difference is, scientists are generally a lot less myopic than the average person. And many religious fanatics (the sort that go in for creationism) are willfully blind, preferring a comforting fantasy over the real world.
The movie "Expelled" and this latest flap show the world why creationism isn't science. Renaming it "Intelligent Design Theory" didn't change anything - it is still just a disguise for an outmoded religious idea.
Posted by: szqc | March 26, 2008 11:15 AM
1500 comments and nearing the date of Origin of Species (with a tip to Kseniya's idea to go for 2001 for Clarke...)
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 26, 2008 11:17 AM
It would not be an interesting test case. It is a very bad idea for this simple reason, fundamentalists will be able to point at the case as "proof" that atheism is a religion. They have an easy enough time pulling things out of thin air to make accusations about atheism. There is no need to hand them a lead pipe.
Posted by: Don | March 26, 2008 11:21 AM
NO SOUP FOR YOU!!
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 26, 2008 11:32 AM
Janine ID said:
Not only that, in this particular instance it would be the most spectacular case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory that I can conceive of. This incident is simply about the Expelled team exposing themselves for what they are - incompetent, vindictive and mendacious hypocrites, whilst PZ just points it out and laughs at them.
There is no need to take things any further and trying to do so would merely give them a chance to pull the martyr routine and claim that PZ is trying to sue the film out of existence because he's frightened of what it has to say. Why give them such an easy way out of the PR hole that they have so obligingly dug for themselves?
Posted by: Cheezits | March 26, 2008 11:55 AM
Why give them such an easy way out of the PR hole that they have so obligingly dug for themselves?
I'll say. Making a federal case out of being barred from seeing the stupidest movie of the year would make PZ look like a lawsuit-happy jerk and spoil a perfect moment. Fortunately I see no sign that he would even consider it.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 26, 2008 12:26 PM
Ken,
We have accomplished relatively little when you think of the volume of secrets held by the natural world.
The scientific method has allowed us to make those accomplishments, and while many religious people helped in the endeavor, religion has made no contributions to our knowledge.
It isn't that we are intellectually superior (some are, of course, but I known very smart theists of a variety of religions, but it is out methodology that is superior.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 26, 2008 2:32 PM
So, Ken, by your (logic?NO - reasoning?NO - thought processes?NO) ahh, got it, by your argument, we should give children's belief in the Tooth Fairy equal weight as the painstaking results of millions of observations, experiments, and repetitions of the process in accord with the investigatory laws of the Scientific Method, simply because it is someone else's point of view?
Ken, whether you think I'm arrogant is irrelevant. You are a moron. You have offered definitive evidence for that conclusion. I hope you are happy living in the dank cavern of your own ignorant delusion, but your opinions have no validity at all.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 26, 2008 2:32 PM
So, Ken, by your (logic?NO - reasoning?NO - thought processes?NO) ahh, got it, by your argument, we should give children's belief in the Tooth Fairy equal weight as the painstaking results of millions of observations, experiments, and repetitions of the process in accord with the investigatory laws of the Scientific Method, simply because it is someone else's point of view?
Ken, whether you think I'm arrogant is irrelevant. You are a moron. You have offered definitive evidence for that conclusion. I hope you are happy living in the dank cavern of your own ignorant delusion, but your opinions have no validity at all.
Posted by: Jacob Arminius | March 26, 2008 6:03 PM
Darwin and his blind dogmatic followers who accept Darwinian origins soley by faith. Why? Science, and the scientific method CAN NOT PROVE ORIGINS.
So why so dogmatic about Darwinism? Because it is a matter of faith on behalf of its followers. PZ and Dawkins as the poster children of this modern dogmaticism. Idiots !!!
So scared to allow debate with science that contradicts their godless religion.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 26, 2008 6:23 PM
"So why so dogmatic about Darwinism? Because it is a matter of faith on behalf of its followers. PZ and Dawkins as the poster children of this modern dogmaticism. Idiots !!!"
Wait a minute. I thought faith was supposed to be a GOOD thing. I thought you guys considered it a virtue to believe in things you can't see.
"So scared to allow debate with science that contradicts their godless religion."
If both sides are nothing but "faith", then why would you want to debate? By definition, neither side would have any convincing argument. What makes you think your faith is better than anyone else's? Other than that you were raised in it?
Well, thanks for confirming my suspicions that creationism (and, for that matter, Christianity as practiced by its noisiest proponents) is nothing but a sports team.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 26, 2008 6:30 PM
Jacob you're not even wrong.
Logic. You're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 26, 2008 6:42 PM
"Soley by faith" - in addition to being a ranting illiterate, you seem to be conveniently overlooking the monumental pile of evidence from many different scientific disciplines, all of which support evolutionary theory. You also seem to be conveniently overlooking the simple truth that evolution is a proven fact. The theory of evolution is the undergirding web of explanation of the mechanisms behind the observable process of evolution. In other words, you don't know enough about what you are so glibly pontificating about (with your Stone Age understanding of the world) for your commentary to have any validity. Go read some REAL books and learn something, then you might be worthy of being heard.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 26, 2008 6:48 PM
Note the characteristic tunnel vision of the creationist, entirely focused on "origins" (that's a shibboleth if ever there was). Often, this is accompanied by a strange belief that science is like mathematics, a collection of "proofs".
Note as well how it is trapped by the constraints of it's own mental world, incapable of properly modeling a mind that does not share those selfsame constraints. And then, it creeps steadily closer and closer, lurking in the shadows....and STRIKES...completely missing it's prey only to retreat to the darkness once more, howling it's inchoate rage and frustration. Truly, a curious organism, one whose continued survival is a deep mystery as yet unsolved by modern science.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 26, 2008 6:51 PM
All "it's" to "its". Usually I'm better about that.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 26, 2008 6:59 PM
Jacob you're not even wrong.
That expression is so overused, it's not even clever. You tell someone they're not wrong, it normally means they're right.
Posted by: spurge | March 26, 2008 7:07 PM
You are not even wrong Cheezits.
Posted by: Steve_Cs | March 26, 2008 7:09 PM
there's subtlety there you fail to grasp...
Do I really have to explain the joke?
So far from understanding the idea that they haven't even approached just getting it wrong.
Why am I explaining it? And why do I give a fuck if you think it's clever.
Grammar nazi.
Posted by: Cheezits | March 26, 2008 7:15 PM
That wasn't grammer, dumbass! I'm a *cliche* nazi, get your insults right. :-D
Posted by: Kseniya | March 26, 2008 7:21 PM
*clears throat*
Oh yeah?
Well, I'm a Capitalization Nazi.
Posted by: George Mortensen | March 26, 2008 7:51 PM
This is exactly the premise of Expelled. Why do most of you believe this man's account? Could it be that you assume rather than think, that you believe what someone else has taught you?
How did they know who PZ was? Do you know PZ? Do you know his credentials? Where does this supposed conspiracy begin and who orchestrated it? How was he singled out? Ben Stein lives in La. Kevin Miller live in Canada? How did they manipulate this man's expulsion from a Minnesota movie theater? How gullible are you people?
As a biologist myself, I can tell you no one, no one, has all the answers. When you stop questioning anything, when you surrender to the current orthodoxy, you surrender your intellectual honesty. Science is not about consensus!
I know the writer of this movie. He is a friend. Yes, God forbid, he is a Christian. Is that your problem? Is his crime being able to think out of the box?
The only thing this movie asks of you is to think in a different way, to question that which has been spoon fed to you.
I am sixty years old and if I have learned one thing in my life, it is follow the money. Scientists are not immune to the siren call of funding. And unfortunately, if you don't tow the line you don't have a career.
I ask only one thing before you gleefully condemn your neighbor...think! Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: Cheezits | March 26, 2008 8:04 PM
I know the writer of this movie. He is a friend. Yes, God forbid, he is a Christian.
Oh bullshit, he is NOT a Christian if he produced that pack of lies.
You can output all the meaningless soundbites you like but the truth is, there is NO THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The movie is asking us to link evolution with Nazis. That is not my idea of intellectual honesty.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 26, 2008 8:07 PM
WTF? George, while some may favor a conspiracy-tinged explanation, the dominant hypothesis is that Mathis is just a petty dick who saw a chance to pick on a mean 'ol atheist opposed to Mathis' favored brand of pseudo: ID. It's helpful that Mathis has basically said as much himself. The rest of it is just down to incompetence and general jackassery.
Posted by: amphiox | March 26, 2008 8:09 PM
My personal words to live by:
Never attribute to conspiracy what can be equally well explained by incompetency.
Occam's razor and all. . . .
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 26, 2008 8:12 PM
Jebus. Do you read anything? This has all been explained multiple times.
Mark Mathis interviewed me. Mark Mathis was at the theater. Mark Mathis had me expelled out of spite. It's really that simple, and you're really being that stupid.
Science is about following the evidence. ID has no evidence. So why are you, O Biologist, supporting it?
Yes, the writer is a Christian, like 90% of the people in this country. He is not thinking out of the box. He is sitting right there in the middle of the box, defending the box.
Science is not spoon fed to us. It requires hard work to follow the evidence, it requires expertise, and it requires details. The only people doing any spoonfeeding are these liars for Jesus who claim goddidit is sufficient answer.
And no, you haven't learned anything about science. Sixty years old? What a waste.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 26, 2008 8:19 PM
George Mortensen
Outside the box?! Think?!
George, you fucking asshole, I've done more thinking in my thirty-two years than you have in your sixty.
Either practice what you preach, or shut the fuck up. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: Cheezits | March 26, 2008 8:25 PM
I have to disagree - the writer is *not* like 90% of the US, assuming that statistic is accurate. Because not all Christians are creationists or liars. He is in a different class from either scientifically literate Christians, or the honest but clueless majority.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 26, 2008 8:26 PM
I know it'll be lost on you George, you brainless twit, but thinking outside the box is how the majority of us here threw off the intellectual shackles of that collection of myths you call religion.
Condescending asshole.
Posted by: Bob Hannah | March 26, 2008 8:51 PM
Alas! I was so looking forward to seeing what I thought must be a very clever satire on the creationist "rationale"--"Expelled". As with so many things in our country these days, what appears to be ludicrous at first glance turns out to be murderously serious. Is this how many Germans felt in 1933? This sentiment was expressed to me, a Vietnam vet, by a WWII vet that I was marching with before Bush invaded Iraq. I was amazed because that was exactly the thought that was going through my mind then and, unfortunately, still is. I love a good joke, but this is just so sad.
Posted by: Paula | March 27, 2008 5:47 AM
"I'm gonna regret this, I'm sure, but what the hell..."
My wise cousins, the Great Apes, tell you not to despair; they are encouraged by your enquiring mind ...
"Paula, what the hell is this "community of Washoe" and what relevance does it have? Are you alluding the tribe, or its eponymous Nevadan county? To the signing chimp, mayhap?"
I am alluding to the delegation of Great Apes who travelled to Minneapolis from their natural habitat not to those in captivity!! Why Minneapolis? Because they were told they would witness the unique coming together of the last vestiges of all that it means to be human prior to agreeing to the signing of a declaration that afforded them human rights. They came away with an enlightened understanding of the meaning and need for the declaration in the world of humans in the first place.
"I'm guessing the idea is that basically, you're calling everyone here a shit-flinging band of well-trained chimpanzees, but you know, not having perfect wisdom myself, I could be wrong about that."
Here?! Goodness, no; this place is a mere spill over of the madness. Its only benefit is that it has the potential to exercise wisdom in the observer both here in cyberspace and on earth as my Great Ape delegation discovered for themselves.
"Let me just say that I actually hope I'm right about the Washoe thing, because despite the fact it's completely wrong, I think it'd be pretty fucking funny if you actually do mean that."
I afford you the right to make up your own mind in accordance with your capacity to select what you digest and how you choose to process it. I will offer you one point of observation: PZ Myers and Mark Mathis are only two human beings out of multiples of millions of human beings on this planet. How is it possible for two human minds in opposition with each other to create such mayhem and discord? Peace, peace where there is no peace!
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 27, 2008 8:05 AM
Damn it. I knew I was gonna regret that.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 27, 2008 8:36 AM
Eeerrrrr, I think she means that Myers and Mathis has equal weight in what they think and being in opposition cause mayhem and chaos. But I think her main message is that Paula is a gibbering new age woo merchant. I think the main reason I think that is because my brain starts to frizzle and fry when I process her words.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2008 1:17 PM
Ahahahahahahaha! I suppose this may be a testament to the true breadth of their reading. More likely to the true depth of their powers of observation.
Posted by: Amit | March 27, 2008 8:10 PM
It happened to Ralph Nader in 2000 when he tried to attend the Presidential debate at UMass Boston - in a side room with TV feed. He was told by a state trooper that he had to leave or be arrested. The honchos of both parties had handed out to the police a sheet with pictures of third-party candidates (Buchanan etc.). I guess people start caring a bit more about democracy and such issues when it happens to them. :)
Posted by: Steve_C | March 27, 2008 8:54 PM
Nader pleeze. He's a waste of airtime.
Posted by: Thomas Beck | March 27, 2008 10:43 PM
"For 'tis the sport to have engineer hoist with his own petard."
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 27, 2008 11:37 PM
I think we should introduce Paula to Gerry. Just think of the crazy fun!
Posted by: Milo Johnson | March 28, 2008 2:29 AM
Well, the crazy, at any rate.
Posted by: Thomas S. Howard | March 28, 2008 3:01 AM
I'm still bummed that Paula wasn't insulting everybody here. I mean, that would have been a pretty clever and fairly oblique way to call everybody a pack of conditioned primates whose understanding of the language they use is doubtful at best. Alas, 'twas not to be.
Posted by: Michael | March 28, 2008 5:06 AM
The reason why PZ Myers could attend the screening of "Expelled" because it was a private showing. So he had to wait to buy a ticket to see it just like everyone else. The movie has a lot do with censorship, and you know why many interest groups have been trying to convince movie theaters not to show this film? It's because they fear this might encourage more skeptics who use science as a means to prove creationism.
For example, Evolutionists would laugh at someone claiming to create energy out of nothing. Creationists would call that "witchcraft" unless it was God, or another Harry Potter movie...lol...However, Evolutionists seriously claim the Universe was created out of nothing by chance, it's not witchcraft they say because nobody did it, it was "chance" that caused it...lol
The bottom line is this, anything that defies the laws of physics, is supernatural. Whether it's Harry Potter or Random chance, or God, the outcome is the same (something was created out of nothing).
THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Defines energy as a mass which cannot be created out of nothing, and can be changed from one form to another but the total amount remains the same.
I think teacher should not loose their jobs over questioning such statements from Darwinism. Expelled has brought an important issue to the forefront...
Posted by: John Morales | March 28, 2008 5:12 AM
I see this thread becomes moribund.
Posted by: Damian | March 28, 2008 7:36 AM
Er, no, the reason that PZ wasn't allowed in was because his afro is so large nobody else would have been able to see how skillfully the producers managed to rearrange large portions of human history in a couple of hours. Replacing "rearrange" with "obliterate" may be a truer reflection, however.
If there is a world record for the number of mis-truths uttered in a couple of hours, this film is unmatched.
And it wasn't a private screening, either. Or, if it was, the producers must be more dense than I has previously thought. Not only did 5/6 other people who were with PZ get to see the movie, numerous others have also been to see screenings in other cities. So, to maintain that utterly absurd stance, the producers are admitting to gross incompetence in letting probably 30/40 other people in who are easily as hostile to the film as PZ, and went through exactly the same procedure.
Hilarious. Ignoring for a moment that Evolution has precisely nothing to do with Cosmology and the early universe, you will find that those of us who at least attempt to exhibit some intellectual honesty are quite adept at saying, "we don't know", for a whole range of questions that we don't have answers for.
What I would like to know, however, is why are creationists fixated by the idea that you can't accept any science until we know all that there is to know? It makes not an ounce of difference whether we can fully explain what happened 13.7 billion years ago. Life still evolved on this planet.
Having said that, we have a fairly decent idea about what did happen 13.7 billion years ago, though there are still a number of fundamental questions that remain. For instance, we are pretty certain that all of the matter in the universe came from energy, and we know that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero. Therefore, we can explain where all of the matter came from, and it required zero sum energy for it to happen.
Are we satisfied? Not a chance. We don't know what happened in the first few tenths of a second, and we don't know why. What we are not prepared to do is throw our arms up and claim that, therefore, it really must have been that eccentric Jewish preacher, after all.
Who'd have thought that so many people would be in favor of teachers being able to tell 8 and 9 year olds there own theory about how the Holocaust never happened. Truly amazing. And so liberal, as well.
And it is absolutely wonderful that you are in full support of a teachers right to tell those same children that 9/11 was an inside job.
You know, there are an almost unlimited number of possibilities now that so many people are in favor of a teachers right to question, and thus,
confuseintellectually stimulate small children, particularly as they are so well developed mentally.If I can be serious for a minute. You crackpots are a danger to your own country. I am not even an American, but it scares the shit out of me that so many people can become convinced by such idiocy, when they clearly haven't thought it through to its logical conclusion.
There is a reason why we teach the prevailing scientific consensus to children, especially when those who oppose it don't even have a clue what they are talking about.
Brain. In. Gear. (or, alternatively, teach children that Hitler was really a humanitarian)
Posted by: Thomas Howard | March 28, 2008 7:39 AM
Hey Michael: Cosmology and Biology are two very separate disciplines. Also, ex nihilo isn't really an accurate characterization of current cosmological theory. The simple fact of it is, no one really considers the "ultimate" question of the beginning of the universe to be answered. Speculation, hypotheses, sure, and some scenarios seem to have more going for them than others based on what is currently known. And, yeah, some ideas could kind of be characterized as "by chance", but that's a pretty distorted oversimplification. Probabilistic is what you're talking about, but that's not the same thing as sheer random chaos. In any case, the current well-accepted model really only properly addresses what started happening immediately after the Big Bang.
All of which, to reiterate, has nothing to do with biology in any direct fashion. Obviously, biology is constrained by fundamental physics, by which I mean the general descriptions we derive from General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, as everything in existence is, but that has precious little to do with the day-to-day work of most biologists. The physics that is used regularly by biology is much more specific than the kind of stuff that cosmologists deal with.
Okay, well, lecture over. In truth, I'm not sure how sincere you are about all that nonsense, but someone else might buy it, so I figured I'd counter.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 28, 2008 7:55 AM
I don't know of anyone who is trying to get theaters to not show the film. They have been ridiculing it, there's a difference. You seem to have skeptics confused with people of faith. Scientists are not afraid of anyone "proving" anything. No one (skeptical or otherwise) is using (or has used) science as a means to prove creationism. Creationism/intelligent design has failed repeated attempts to be proven with science for well over a century. That's the reason it's not called science, and why it should not be taught as science. The issue is not people questioning Darwinism; the issue is mythology, whimsy, religion and wishful thinking being taught as science.
Evolutionists claim no such thing. Biology is not the study of cosmic origins, and nobody knows what preceded the Big Bang or why it happened.
THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: ("The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.") is a description of the universe as it is. No one knows what preceded the Big Bang or why it happened, and given the plethora of incorrect facts stated by the bible, "The God of the bible did it" is not a good working theory.
Indeed it has: the appalling ignorance and scientific illiteracy of huge numbers of people in America.
Your entire post is a compilation of incorrect facts born of ignorance and wrong thinking
Posted by: Cheezits | March 28, 2008 8:55 AM
Expelled has brought an important issue to the forefront...
Yes, that issue is called Lying For Jesus. If any of the producers of that pack of lies really are Christians (a pretty big "if"), they may wake up one day and realize what they've done. Then they'll pull the movie from the theaters themselves. (Hey, I can dream, can't I?) :-D
Posted by: Brad Cooper | March 28, 2008 9:36 AM
Thank you for your website/blog - it adds all kinds of reinforcements to the arguments made in this provocative film.
Posted by: Paula | March 28, 2008 9:57 AM
Thomas S Howard: "I'm still bummed that Paula wasn't insulting everybody here. I mean, that would have been a pretty clever and fairly oblique way to call everybody a pack of conditioned primates whose understanding of the language they use is doubtful at best. Alas, 'twas not to be."
Thank you Thomas. You are right and I give you credit for that observation. It is a most unusual quality in those who argue on these kinds of forums in the current climate.
On the issue of language, it can be framed in such a way that it becomes detached from the truth of its subject matter. It is becoming a well practiced art! Hence the reason we have become very selective in what language we accept as having any credibility depending on its source and not its subject. Historic sayings fall into this category. One such saying has never been more applicable than it is today: 'Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.' Language exposes the inner man.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 28, 2008 10:01 AM
When did provocative and insipid start to mean the same thing?
From what I've read, they don't even make the case for ID. They don't even defend their own ideas.
Brad's a rube.
Posted by: Ryo | March 28, 2008 1:16 PM
Great!
LOL, that was so stupid :)
Well, on the other side i'm afraid of this fundamentalistic aggression. How long will it take, to get expelled from the everyday life, if you do not back up the religious christian stories, you have to learn at shool.
But this is priceless :) I can't wait for a review from Richard Dawkings about that movie.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 28, 2008 1:27 PM
"I can't wait for a review from Richard Dawkings about that movie."
Then maybe Steven Hawkins will weigh in. *thbbt*
Check out Dawkins' web site, he does have a review.
Posted by: PLuS | March 28, 2008 4:29 PM
Off-topic comment: You're either going to love this or hate it, PZ. But you're no longer just a movie star. you're a hip hop homeboy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&fmt=18
Posted by: Dave Begley | March 29, 2008 9:56 AM
Mr. Myers,
Unfortunately you missed the point of being expelled from the movie. You were not invited and it was done to show you what it was like to be expelled as you do to people who have questions about Darwinism:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/ben_steins_new_film_expelled_n.html
It had nothing to do with hiding anything from you.
Posted by: javascript | March 29, 2008 4:04 PM
Somewhat related... "Ben Stein for President" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yANioHcP79E&feature=related
Posted by: Josh | March 29, 2008 7:27 PM
On a different note, might I add how proud we evolutionary biologists are that folks like you and Dawkins are out there facing off against the unscientists? When science is dragged from the lab into a battle of politics and faith, stepping forward to show our measure of logic and the record of our observations becomes an act of bravery and determination.
Posted by: Paguroidea | March 29, 2008 8:00 PM
Well put Josh! I totally agree with you. I think too often we forget that it is easier to sit by and do nothing, or complain in hindsight about how others should have done things differently. Bravo to PZ and Dawkins! Keep up the great work! I think it would be a good idea if the rest of us would try to think of ways we can be supportive, even if only in small ways.
Posted by: toolman | March 29, 2008 8:48 PM
Not sure how you pretentious "scientists" get so worked up when the evolutionary quasi-dogma is questioned.....must be a big chink in the armor. lol
Posted by: John Morales | March 30, 2008 3:28 AM
Toolman, how does
translate to "worked up"?Posted by: Michael X | March 30, 2008 4:06 AM
Stein, a Nixon speech writer, aped "The revolution will not be televised"? That's almost as ironic as calling themselves the "silenced majority".
Do me a favor kids. Give me a prediction ID makes, empirical evidence backing this prediction, the method by which you studied it and the mechanism by which it works. I would also love to read the journal it's published in. If you can't provide that, yet complain that you're not getting a fair shake in the scientific arena, well, you sound as smart as someone voting for Ben Stein for President.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 30, 2008 9:09 PM
It had nothing to do with hiding anything from you.
that's a rather laughable attempt at post-hoc, Dave, considering that Dawkins himself got in, along with PZ's family, several others.
...along with the fact that NONE of the audience of that showing were actually invited to begin with. They signed up on the website, just like PZ did.
give it up, moron, you fools have run out of feet to shoot yourselves in.
Posted by: David Begley | March 30, 2008 9:32 PM
Ichthyic: First, I don't think you understand "post-hoc". You may want to check the definition. Second, if you took a glance at the very short article I linked to, you will see that Mr. Myers gained access to a proprietary website and signed himself up. Other people including Mr. Dawkins did the same thing but that is not the same as the rest of the audience who were invited. The website was an RSVP site for the people invited, not an open site for anyone to invite themselves.
I am looking forward to this movie. I hope it opens some eyes and will allow people to question Darwinian theories without costing them their jobs.
Posted by: Paguroidea | March 30, 2008 9:42 PM
Now that various reviewers have discussed the movie and noted how awful it was, I certainly won't be going. Why waste the time and money? Besides we know what is in it already. Dawkins and Timonen have already given lots of details and their opinions at the RichardDawkins.net site. If you haven't read their reviews, you should check them out.
Posted by: Michael X | March 30, 2008 9:42 PM
You wouldn't have any evidence to back up this claim would you?
Posted by: javascript | March 30, 2008 10:05 PM
Paguroidea:
You've read ALL the reviews, eh? Judging the movie by Dawkins perspective would be like trusting a shark telling you to "jump in the water's fine!"
Expand your research outside of Atheist columns a bit maybe. Just a suggestion. Here's one for example... just posted today. WORLD MAGAZINE
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13903.
Posted by: javascript | March 30, 2008 10:10 PM
The link doesn't work with a period on the end...
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13903
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 30, 2008 10:29 PM
I checked out that "World" review, javascript, and--sorry--couldn't get much past this:
"rightly equates"?
"rightly"?
"equates"?
"stifling of free speech"???
oh, then there's this:
Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 30, 2008 10:38 PM
check the byline on the review...Olasky's the fuckwit who brought buying off churches, er faith-based policy, into the Bush white house.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 30, 2008 11:10 PM
Professional liar and dominionist David Barton worked on the Bush campaign, too. The fun never stops!
Posted by: javascript | March 31, 2008 2:08 AM
Yea, I read Dawkins review as well Sven... I especially loved his hilarious attempt at explaining how he gave credit for the design of the human race to E.T. in the film. He should run for office somewhere... He's got a Politicians tongue. I'm sorry some of you are going to miss seeing your boy Ricky squirm in that scene. I've been to a screening already... the audience roared with laughter at that part. You probably wouldn't know good humor if you saw it anyway though.
Maybe... you just don't know "dick." ;-)
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 2:24 AM
You probably wouldn't know good humor if you saw it anyway though.
oh we would. You don't know quotemining when YOU see it. Moreover, you, like apparently most of the audience for this drivel, seems to have entirely missed Dawkins' point in laughing at Ben Stein's clown act.
Dawkins was clearly saying that of course some unknown putative designer might have had a hand in things (he uses the example of an alien because the IDiots THEMSELVES have used that to avoid calling it god. It's irrelevant though, as without knowledge of a putative designer operates in the world, there is no way to construct a testable hypothesis to begin with.
hence, ID is not and cannot be science.
bet you never got to see THAT part though, did you.
moron.
oh, we know good humor alrighty.
I'm laughing at you right now.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 2:32 AM
Ichthyic: First, I don't think you understand "post-hoc".
oh yes i do. considering I've seen idiots making up post-hoc explanations for the utter failure of the producers in this case left and right.
you guys can't keep making up shit to cover your stupidity forever, you know.
or maybe you can, and this thread will be a testament to just how much idiocy a group of people can generate in an attempt to defend the indefensible.
Second, if you took a glance at the very short article I linked to, you will see that Mr. Myers gained access to a proprietary website and signed himself up
if you meant PRIVATE (not proprietary - all websites are proprietary - look it up), then I wonder how all the audience that WAS there managed to get into a private website with no password?
there were lots of other folks who went there to laugh at this travesty of a flick, too. They weren't kicked out though, were they?
nope. the evidence was quite clear that there was a public website available where anyone who wished could sign up.
it was documented by several independent sources right after the showing, in fact.
funny, but now the expelled folks are frantically trying to modify the original site to remove the ability to sign up for showings.
keep throwing though, one of these days a pitch might actually get to the plate instead of hitting the dirt 20 feet in front of it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 2:37 AM
You've read ALL the reviews, eh? Judging the movie by Dawkins perspective would be like trusting a shark telling you to "jump in the water's fine!"
show me ONE instance where Dawkins has ever lied in public.
If you can show me that (hint: you can't), I can show you where Mathis has lied.
several times, in fact.
so who should we trust as to their view of the movie again?
the liar, or the professor?
Dawkins wasn't the only one at the showing, btw, many others have reviewed the film as well.
NONE favorably.
Posted by: javascript | March 31, 2008 2:41 AM
LOL! Oh I'm the moron, eh?
Have you seen the movie yet?
I can tell you haven't.
Let's just wait and see the wide spread reviews and opinions after the film is out OK? I can tell you right now, the numbers of those that won't be laughing their heads off at Dicky will be few and far between. Dick's not laughing at anyone in that scene my friend... He's sweating his Atheist ass off. Don't miss it!
Keep laughing pal...
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 2:55 AM
Let's just wait and see the wide spread reviews and opinions after the film is out OK? I can tell you right now, the numbers of those that won't be laughing their heads off at Dicky will be few and far between.
will you be screaming WATERLOOOO! in the near future.
yes, you ARE a moron.
the whole world is putting one over on you.
and guess what, moron?
the clip of Dawkins featured in the movie is on youtube.
so I guess that means I have seen the part of the movie you seem to have found so amusing.
do you like clowns?
Posted by: Robster, FCD | March 31, 2008 3:17 AM
java, since Dawkins was lied to about the topic of the film (evenhanded examination of both evolution and ID) and had been led to believe that the interviewer was not hostile, your claim that he was "sweating his Atheist ass off" is just another lie in a series of falsehoods.
The best part of this whole fiasco is that ID takes its secular mask off and reveals itself to be a purely religious endeavor. ID had counted the Raelian cult among its supporters, and quite simply, seeding by ETs is only a tiny fraction less ridiculous than claiming that god/s did it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 3:21 AM
seeding by ETs is only a tiny fraction less ridiculous than claiming that god/s did it.
which is exactly why Dawkins chose it to expose ID for the empty room that it is.
It was the LEAST ridiculous position claimed by the IDiots.
Java won't get it though, he thinks Ben Stein is funny.
Posted by: javascript | March 31, 2008 3:23 AM
Ichthyic:
Does using words like "hence" make you feel... intelligent?
Does labeling someone a "moron" make you feel... superior?
Dawkins was interviewed more than once for the movie. There are scenes from both interviews in the film. Which interview have you seen? Did you see the one where he admits that "design" is evident in our world? Is the clip you saw on youtube the one where he clarifies that the apparent design could not have been the result of a god but just might be highly evolved aliens... And of course, the aliens evolved from even higher evolved aliens... and so on and so on and so on... The odd thing is though... all this fuss by Dick and PZ to refute I.D. when all along Dawkins admits he believes in it!
Now really... you don't find that funny?
Posted by: Michael X | March 31, 2008 3:27 AM
"Did you see the one where he admits that apparent "design" is evident in our world?"
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Michael | March 31, 2008 3:29 AM
Enlisting the police to try to evict you from the premises when you did not intend to challenge their stupid ban--now that's really over the top.
The Police didn't "try" to evict, they did evict PZ Meyers. I can tell you why, it's pretty obvious. Let's begin by one of his pre-screening statements in the blog format.
I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That's going to be fun.
Also, there were observations of him being aggressive (pushy) going through the line in order to see the production.
Cheering "loudly" every time you see yourself on the big screen is being disruptive. So obviously he was stating his intentions and thought nobody of on the other side would read them...Being "pushy" in the line is another bad sign, so in reality if a person is displayed intent, acting pretty aggressively, he should have been evicted.
Let's put it this way, if he would have displayed his actions in more of a civil manner, and if his conduct would have been more respectful to those others waiting in line, he would have most likely seen the production with himself in it, and feel the sense of fame and do what everyone who knows the man would do, write a review tells the public how bad it is...lol...Well he still can, he'll have to buy a ticket to see the whole production. Not writing a review without seeing the whole film.
Posted by: Michael X | March 31, 2008 3:33 AM
Get another handle asshole. The report you site about PZ being pushy has been retracted by the idiot how spouted the nonsense in the first place. Please do try and keep up, you make yourself and those you ineptly represent look dumber than they should. Which is saying something.
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 31, 2008 3:37 AM
Hm, you mean that you are absolutely certain that a nonhuman or nonhumans cannot possibly have "intelligently designed" the human race?
So you agree, then, that "intelligent design" is false? You agree that the entire premise of
ExpectorationExpelled is false? You agree that those who posit that any life on Earth is "intelligently designed" are deluded, laughable idiots, and do not deserve to have academic success?So... what are you arguing for, anyway?
Posted by: Michael X | March 31, 2008 3:37 AM
Michael,
Maybe I was a bit harsh. Upon further review I'd actually like to thank you for supporting the cause of Intelligent Design by linking, through your name, to a page that states: "Creationism: Science in Agreement with God's Word".
You make our case for us. So excuse me for pointing out any nonsense you stated earlier. I now see that I never had to waste the time. You do a fine job all by yourself.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 3:41 AM
Does using words like "hence" make you feel... intelligent?
hardly. One syllable words don't usually satisfy my language Jones. Must work for you, though?
Does labeling someone a "moron" make you feel... superior?
nope. does it make you feel inferior?
maybe that's not why I do it at all?
maybe you're too fucking dumb to understand why focusing on it is an obvious deflection on your part?
Did you see the one where he admits that "design" is evident in our world?
yup.
do you understand what he meant by that?
of course you don't.
... I see Michael X does though.
Is the clip you saw on youtube the one where he clarifies that the apparent design could not have been the result of a god but just might be highly evolved aliens.
nope. That's not what he says. He is answering the question as to what the designer might be (the part you don't get to see in the movie, because they quotemined the hell out of him), and just for argument's sake, he picks up the old idea of panspermia and runs with it to explore how ID would flesh out if one were to attempt to even try using it to formulate a hypothesis of alien designers.
you can't even recall what he actually said, likely because you didn't get the whole video to see.
what you see in the movie is a clipped up version where the context is not apparent at all.
I've tried to explain this to you twice now, I doubt a third time would help.
the idea of aliens begetting aliens is the philosophical problem of infinite regression that all conceptual "deities" face (if god designed men, who designed god, whatever designed god, what designed that? etc, etc, on ad-infinitum). That is what he was explaining; he just chose aliens like one would choose "Zeus" or Cthulhu, or the FSM. You're just too dumb to get it, though the producers didn't help you any by cutting out the context and splicing in what amounts to a laugh track furnished by Stein.
You're a dupe.
how's that make you feel?
You should feel inferior at this point, but it hardly makes me feel superior to point it out to you.
I do kinda feel a bit of schadenfreude at your level of credulity, however.
Posted by: javascript | March 31, 2008 3:52 AM
Michael: You fixed "what" for me. You didn't fix anything. Try as you may to twist what Dawkins said in that interview, I'll still wager that the vast majority who see the film will be able to tell, his cover-up explanation (that you all have already memorized already), is a complete joke. The guy admitted to evidence of design in our universe. (I.D.) No one was pushing him to say what he freely admits. He elaborated all on his own that the brain behind the design could not have been of this world. Ironic, eh?
Michael said: "Fixed that for you."
Dream on Mikey... you aint fixed nothing.
Posted by: Paul W. | March 31, 2008 3:52 AM
Golly, javascript,
You might try reading just about anything Dawkins has ever written. He's very upfront about "design", i.e., the appearance of design in our world. Most of his writing is about how we have come to know that it's an appearance, not a reality of (intelligent) design, and how very interesting that is.
But surely you know that, don't you? You couldn't have missed his main point, which everybody else gets, could you?
If you can twist this point around 180 degrees, you're very special.
Not unusual---pretty typical of a creationist troll--just "special." (Short bus special.)
That'd have to be a yes, j.
(You're probably also a liar, but that's the kind of really crappy lie typical of a lying moron. And you could well be insane, if you wanna go for the creationist troll hat trick.)
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 3:57 AM
Michael: You fixed "what" for me. You didn't fix anything.
actually, he did, you just don't even grasp what it was that he fixed. Ignorance is bliss, eh? I know it's a big word, but you're a big boy now (aren't you?) so I think you can handle it.
try reading this to understand what "teleology" means
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
then you at least have some chance of understanding what it was Michael X fixed for you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 4:03 AM
his cover-up explanation (that you all have already memorized already), is a complete joke.
uh, you mean his "coverup" that has existed as the same question in philosophical terms since long before Dawkins was born? you did note I made mention of the infinite regression issue, yes?
let me rephrase it for you:
It's turtles, all the way down, baby!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
just because you are entirely ignorant of what he was actually referring to, hardly makes it a coverup on his part.
In fact, it's your ignorance of the basic concepts being discussed, even in the film itself, that I find so damn amusing, and why I even bother to keep responding.
I keep wondering how much longer you will keep it up.
Posted by: Michael X | March 31, 2008 4:04 AM
Oh noes Java! You got me. If only Dawkins had clearly written about such ideas far before Expelled had been written maybe then I'd have a leg to stand on. If only Richard could grasp the fact that in his explanations he was really endorsing ID, instead of dissecting it piece by piece.
Oh, wait. He has.
I'm drowning in the irony here.
Posted by: Michael X | March 31, 2008 4:07 AM
If only that were true Paul. He's just dumb enough to talk about the fact that he does it.
Posted by: javascript | March 31, 2008 4:10 AM
No... you boys/girls haven't even come close to fixing anything except your own minds and egos. Try to obtain at least a reasonable level of maturity people... Disagreement does not equal ignorance. Arrogance does however equal Intolerance in most cases...
Good night fellows.
Posted by: Michael X | March 31, 2008 4:14 AM
My favorite type of sign-off. The content free kind.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 4:14 AM
I'll still wager that the vast majority who see the film will be too ignorant to be able to tell,
his cover-up explanation (that you all have already memorized already)wtf he is actually talking about, which isa completethe real joke.Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 4:16 AM
Try to obtain at least a reasonable level of maturity people... Disagreement does not equal ignorance. Arrogance does however equal Intolerance in most cases...
LOL
yeah, you sure told us alrighty.
what a maroon.
Posted by: javascript | March 31, 2008 4:26 AM
My apologies Michael X... I shouldn't have "signed off content free." I'll leave you with this...
"Chance" and "information" are synonymous only in the empty mind of the Darwinist who wants to stand in the way of REAL answers to force their personal religious beliefs.
Good night again fellows.
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 31, 2008 4:35 AM
Not only was that content-free, it wasn't even grammatical.
Are you quoting some IDiot that you're trying to mock?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 4:42 AM
Are you quoting some IDiot that you're trying to mock?
I think he was trying to ape something Dembski wrote about, but probably is getting the "7th hand" version of the spiel, which was idiotic even coming straight from Dembski, the "Isaac Newton" of information theory.
:P
"chance" producing more "information":
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html
strike
333? i dunno, I've actually lost track of just how many things poor Java got wrong today.Ignorance is no excuse, boy!
Posted by: Michael X | March 31, 2008 4:48 AM
Speaking of which Java, you wouldn't happen to have any predictions ID makes, it's method of study or the mechanism by which it operates would you? Maybe even a published paper in a respectable journal documenting the empirical evidence supporting ID?
See, I've asked this to nearly every cdesign proponentist that waltzes through here and to no avail. So, please, please: what positive evidence do you have for your creationism? Er, ID. Whatever.
Posted by: John Morales | March 31, 2008 4:50 AM
Well, I still think this thread was moribund, but now I see it's become an ambush for Expelled supporters - who (hint) haven't come out with anything new in the last few days.
How many more will perish before the thread itself does?
I guess... 3.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 4:51 AM
See, I've asked this to nearly every cdesign proponentist that waltzes through here and to no avail. So, please, please: what positive evidence do you have for your creationism? Er, ID. Whatever.
you're expecting way too much of someone who isn't even familiar with the concepts of teleology and turtles.
;)
still, I guess it's another data point, yes?
you won't even have to do statistics on this dataset.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 4:53 AM
I guess... 3.
oh no.
on any NORMAL thread, that would be a good guess.
here?
they will still be trickling in months from now.
I'm guessing at least a dozen more over the next 6 months.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 4:59 AM
btw, just to further freak out poor little Java...
Oh my Cthulhu, grant me to be the first to be eaten! a new species in a single generation!
I gots me the vapors!
:p
Posted by: Michael X | March 31, 2008 5:02 AM
you're expecting way too much of someone who isn't even familiar with the concepts of teleology and turtles.
And I thought everyone knew Russell's joke about Hindus and turtles! Troll, educate thyself.
As for "data points" that just reminds me of the recently departed Joe Blow. Now that was a troll. I don't think I've ever seen one of that magnitude before him. And much a like a bright star, he burned too quickly and fizzled out.
Sadly for Java, he was doing much better when he was obfuscating the fact of how movie screenings work to an audience of mostly science types. Then it was only the few artists here with film experience who could confidently call him on his bullshit. But he's really shown his lack of depth, when after being rebuked there, he ignorantly wades into biology, ID and Richard Dawkins. I almost have to pity him. Almost.
Posted by: Michael X | March 31, 2008 5:08 AM
Seeing as the movie doesn't come out till the 18th, and their webpage doesn't actually change often, I'm guessing that nutters will trickle in at a steady rate here till after the movies release. Then I think everyone will back away from all the bad reviews in the mainstream press, and this tread will be laid to rest.At that point Ben Stein will do a "documentary" about how the moon landing was faked and the evidence is being suppressed by Big Moon.
Posted by: Michael X | March 31, 2008 5:10 AM
And I totally scored the 1600th comment. I'd like to thank all the little people. PIGMIES + DWARVES.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 5:10 AM
But he's really shown his lack of depth, when after being rebuked there, he ignorantly wades into biology, ID and Richard Dawkins.
you mean, just like every other damn idiot creobot?
yeah.
it does get old after a while.
meh, I'm done for tonight.
May you and yours be eaten first.
cheers
Posted by: John Morales | March 31, 2008 5:15 AM
Cripes!
You guys sound convincing.
Still, evidence will tell. As usual.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | March 31, 2008 6:42 AM
A beautiful conclusion to this thread :
http://cectic.com/129.html
Posted by: javascript | March 31, 2008 11:17 AM
Good morning everyone. That was a delightful bit of morning reading you left for me last night. I'm always amused at how "self proclaimed Intellects" feel it necessary to use intimidation when attempting to force their views down someone's throat. Similar to a bad comedian who relies on potty humor to get a chuckle from the crowd. If you were truly confident in your views, you could easily argue your points without the need to belittle those who don't agree... or understand.
One thing I don't understand for sure is how most of you agree with Dawkins when he admits (in writing and in the film) that "no one" really knows how life began and yet you condemn a creationist for having a belief or an I.D. proponent who seeks a scientific answer. They are definitely not one in the same by the way... That you simply should attempt to accept. Why does it threaten you so much that some have an opinion and some continue to look for answers? Why would you want to suppress the rights of others? Are you satisfied with simply admitting "we don't know" and leave it at that? You should be thankful there are those in the field of science brave enough to step forward and admit they have a different perspective and they want to discuss it openly and fairly. Those scientists should be admired... It's not easy to go against the current. Especially not from the likes of you. But without brave souls willing to take an unpopular position, countless discoveries would never have been made.
One of you brought up my earlier comments on screenings. Again, you amusingly but incorrectly take the stand that one of you was right and I was wrong. No one in here set me strait on that, but again those attempts were made with intimidation rather than confident rebuttal so I simply walked away. Screenings have many uses throughout the course of the creation of a film. They are done at different stages of production and for entirely different reasons. One month out from a film release screenings have only a couple specific motives... 1) Media: Present the film to the media who can reach mass numbers with their reviews. It's free advertising. Last I checked PZ is not part of the media. 2) Reach your grass roots market... those you know are interested in your type of product and will spread the word to like minded individuals. That late in the game you are not looking for "opinions." It's too late to make any changes so criticism is not the goal. What good would that do? The Q&A portion at the end of a screening has a completely different purpose 6 months prior to release than it does 4 weeks before. In the particular case of Expelled, there is a clear reason why the advertising for the screening was done on the Motive web site rather than on the main theatrical site. The Motive site is public, yes... but at the same time it is only marketed to the grass roots conservatives and for the most part, to churches. That is what Motive Marketing does. That is the only market they have. The invitations by Motive, were intended to those that are sympathetic to the issues of this movie. That is clear from the opening page on their web site. Even someone without a PHD can figure that one out... if they want to that is. So that brings us back to the original topic of this thread but begs the question... Did PZ really think he was accepting the invitation legitimately and honestly? Or was he already laughing hard to himself while standing in line with Dawkins only steps away from the screening room? The two of them were interviewed for the film. Do you not think they would have received a direct invitation to a screening if they were truly welcome? The two have done nothing but trash and threaten the producers in the media for over a year. Why would the producers feel compelled to invite them to a screening, only a few short weeks from the opening, just so they can do what Dawkins did which was write a trashing, biased review? PZ knows he was sneaking in somewhere he wasn't really welcome. Bringing the family along was a nice touch. Some roll model.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 31, 2008 11:42 AM
I like 'em. I cannot lie.javascript, go away. You really are ignorant (might want to look that one up before taking umbrage) and the hole just keeps gettin deeper as you continue to type your inanities.
Personally, I would not go so far as to call you a "moron."
However, the following errors in your most recent post provide some positive evidence for that claim:
PHD
roll model
one in the same
an I.D. proponent who seeks a scientific answer
set me strait
(and several missing hyphens).
Plus you once again willfully conflate the issues of evolution and the origin of life. No, we don't know how life started. We do have an excellent picture of what happened then though. Your claim that Mainstream Science is content with "we don't know" as an answer and that the only people even asking questions about the origin of life are creationists (and, yes, ID is a subset thereof) is just so unforgivingly ignorant that I'm going to change my mind:
You are a moron.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 31, 2008 12:15 PM
No where does it say on the Expelled website...
If you accept evolution... or are actually in the movie, you aren't welcome.
A free screening with an open invite at the website for the movie is just that. Unless of course they're psychic and determine the "intent" of every person who requests to see the movie.
Javascript is another tool.
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 31, 2008 12:20 PM
Now you acknowledge that you don't understand?
Sigh...
Basic Science 101:
Look, no "ID" proponent is seeking any scientific answer. In fact, they are actively resistant to scientific answers, because they don't even have a scientific question.
Basic science core concept: A scientific question; a scientific hypothesis, must be testable.
When Dawkins says that no-one really knows how life began, he means that none of the current hypotheses about the origin of life have yet been shown to work. That doesn't mean that they aren't being worked on. That simply means that the testable hypotheses of the origin of life have, so far, failed the current tests.
What is a testable hypothesis of the origin of life? It is one that is based on evidence.
Basic science core concept: A scientific question; a scientific hypothesis, must be based on the current evidence.
All of the evidence that we have for life is that it is a vastly complex organic chemical process. Everything you are can be broken down to chemical reactions of one sort or another. There is no evidence of anything like a non-material vital fluid; no evidence for a soul, a spirit, a ghost, a divine nature, a psychic body. Nothing like that has been found.
Therefore, all testable hypotheses for the origin of life involve chemistry; they look at the evidence that life is chemical, and try to come up with testable hypotheses that involve the evidence of chemistry.
In addition, "ID" is not just not testable, not just lacking in evidence; it is also fundamentally incoherent.
Basic science core concept: A scientific question; a scientific hypothesis, must be logically coherent.
When "ID" invokes a supposed divine creator, it completely fails to hold together logically. It makes the assumption that all natural models for the origin of life are false. This is not just not testable, this is assuming a negative proof. In addition, it is fundamentally contradictory: All models of intelligence that are known arise from the complexity of life. "ID" asserts that the complexity of life cannot arise without the preexistence of the complexity of intelligence. So by their own assumptions, the complexity of intelligence can never have arisen in the first place!
In contrast, all current models of the origin of life and its evolution include observations from evidence that complexity can arise without pre-existing intelligence.
Sigh. I spent too long composing this, and now I have to go. To be continued...
Posted by: javascript | March 31, 2008 12:59 PM
Owlmirror,
At least you responded in a mature, non-intimidating way. I respect you for that. But I can't agree that professionals who study Intelligent Design are not seeking scientific answers. I don't attempt to argue science because I am not a scientists. But the subject of this debate interests me so I've taken the time to listen to what Scientists and Biologists studying I.D. have to say. I've already heard from the strictly Evolutionist's side all my life. It's the only version taught in schools. But contrary to what you say I don't hear any I.D. scientists or biologists talking about God or religion. They talk of the same things your esteemed and admired professionals do but ask different questions and make different assumptions based on the very same evidence. Many I.D. scientists are agnostic and have no religious beliefs at all. It is far too simplified of an argument to equate all I.D. to creationism in disguise.
But I know I'll not convince this crowd. At least YOU had the maturity and patience to argue your point without stooping to name calling and intimidation. I thank you for that.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | March 31, 2008 1:08 PM
I'm sorry. This is simply wrong.Posted by: javascript | March 31, 2008 1:21 PM
Steve C. said: If you accept evolution... or are actually in the movie, you aren't welcome.>>
Steve, the invite was not on the "Expelled" web site. It was on the Motive Marketing "Get Expelled" web site. Go to the home page and read the intro paragraph. It's pretty clear who they are welcoming.
Motive Site: http://www.getexpelled.com
Expelled Theatrical Site: http://www.expelledthemovie.com
Notice also there are three marketing credits posted on the Expelled web site, but only one on the Motive site. Different sites, different owners, different purposes, different messages, different target markets. There were no invitations to screenings offered on the Expelled site... None that I've seen anyway. Please, if I am wrong send me the url.
When I come on this web site I know I am on a site that is intended for those who think differently than I do. That is clearly why I am labeled a toll by many of you. Correct? So if I'm a troll for being in here... what was PZ when he went on the Motive grass roots web site? The funny thing is, many of you labeling me a troll, also post on the Expelled blog page. What does that make you? This group is big on labels... It's cute sort of.
Posted by: quirK | March 31, 2008 1:57 PM
Owlmirror, you may want to update yourself on thermodynamics in physical chemistry before obfuscating the issue with a blanket reference.
Professor Gibbs of chemical fame would have you know that the synthesis of certain biological molecules is highly non-spontaneous. Only in the specialised environment of even the simplest procaryotic cell are activation energies lowered for anabolism to proceed efficiently. Without the aid of proteins, non-racemic mixtures of such molecules are also impossible.
That rules out abiogenesis. The ruling out of abiogenesis also rules out evolution, sadly.
What has your school been teaching you?
Posted by: Laser Potato | March 31, 2008 2:08 PM
OBVIOUS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY IS OBVIOUS^
Posted by: Stanton | March 31, 2008 2:11 PM
Please explain, in detail, specifically why one can not examine or even appreciate the cumulative changes between successive generations within a lineage of organisms, be it of orchids, bacteria, protozoa, algae, pigeons, pigs, apples, apple maggot flies, fruit flies, brontotheres, brachiopods, trilobites, or snails without understanding abiogenesis.
Posted by: True Bob | March 31, 2008 2:14 PM
quirK, why do you think any process has to be "efficient"?
Why do you think origin of life is the same as change with time?
What is your school teaching you?
Posted by: Laser Potato | March 31, 2008 2:16 PM
Wait, quirK's just trotting-out long-debunked ID tropes.
OH, WHAT A SURPRISE.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0
"Even the simplest life is incredibly complex"-check.
"DNA needs proteins to form; proteins need DNA"-check.
"Not all amino acids needed for life have been formed experimentally"-check.
"Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have"-check, check, check.
Posted by: Stanton | March 31, 2008 2:25 PM
Then, how come no one has informed either you, or Professor Gibbs of the fact that cell biologists and biochemists have been able to create "cell-free systems" where they take the protein-synthesizing mechanisms and ribosomes within either prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells out and placed the aforementioned mechanisms within test tubes to synthesize and modify proteins?Really, people have been using these 'systems to synthesize proteins for study for 1, maybe 2 decades already.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 31, 2008 2:39 PM
Sir or Madame javascript,
Then you are not really listening. And yet you allow yourself to believe your opinions are strongly supported by fact. Why? Even if we ignore Phil Johnson's overtly Christian view of ID, there's plenty of theistic chatter coming from the more science-literate lights of ID.
Are you aware that the original logo of the CRSC was a picture of Michaelangelo's God reaching out to touch a strand of DNA?
And of course, it's no secret that Wells is Sun Myung Moon's "secret weapon" in pursuit of the publically stated goal of "destroying Darwinism."
Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe I could spend the rest of the afternoon doing this. However, I have neither the time, nor the inclination. Feel free to go at it yourself, though, if you're interested in adding to your personal store of knowledge.
Yes, I agree that some of these people are seeking scientific answers to their essentialy theistic questions. (Or, they intend to seek, if they ever figure out exactly how to do so.) The problem is not so much that they fail to seek, it's that they fail to find - and yet, they want their non-findings to be given all the recognition and respect of the actual findings of 150 years worth of scientific inquiry which has yielded zoological, biological, bio-chemical, geological, paleontological and anthropological evidence in support of the theory as we know it today. And they dare cry foul? It's ludicrous.
"As Christians, we know..."
We know. We just know.
Kinda says it all, doesn't it?
Don't you see the intellectually dishonest and inherently unscientific foundation to the entire enterprise of ID? They've already arrived at their conclusion, and are trying to filter the evidence to make it fit. To date, they have failed in that endeavor as well.
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 31, 2008 3:24 PM
quirK:
Professor Gibbs... do you mean Professor Josiah Willard Gibbs (February 11, 1839 - April 28, 1903, says Wikipedia...)?
I'm sorry, are you trying to say that someone who died more than a century ago has the absolute last word on abiogenesis? Are you trying to say that all of the chemists and biochemists that have been working since 1903 have somehow managed to miss that abiogenesis is impossible? Or do you mean that they haven't told anyone of this completely obvious fact?
Wait, what do we see when we follow the link to talkorigins?
quirK, again:
You mean, your school taught you to bear false witness; to speak from ignorance as though it was knowledge; to pretend that you actually know anything at all about a complex and difficult subject?
Where did you go to school?
Posted by: Kseniya | March 31, 2008 3:42 PM
quirK wrote:
Emphasis mine.
Hypothesis: quirK is a satirist.
Either that, or we've been lapped again.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 4:38 PM
. Similar to a bad comedian who relies on potty humor to get a chuckle from the crowd. If you were truly confident in your views, you could easily argue your points without the need to belittle those who don't agree... or understand.
why not do both?
I gave you both clear explanations, AND mocked you for both your ignorance and your dishonesty.
frankly, I think the bases have been well covered wrt to you.
pwnd.
Posted by: Mark | March 31, 2008 4:55 PM
"That rules out abiogenesis. The ruling out of abiogenesis also rules out evolution, sadly."
I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about here.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 4:56 PM
(Or, they intend to seek, if they ever figure out exactly how to do so.)
or they state they intend to seek, without ever having the intention of doing so.
which of course, is by far the most common case.
It's all just an alternative career choice instead a legitimate one for guys like Luskin and Dembski and Wells.
you will never, ever, see them publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal testing any aspect of the concept of ID.
one, it isn't even possible to formulate a testable hypothesis to begin with, and two, they never intended to anyway.
they intend just to make money off of ignorant rubes like Java, and use them as pawns in a power struggle. They are simply tasked with the extra job of furthering "evolution" as the next red-state rabble's "hotbutton" issue, to help mobilize the morons as a voting block.
money and politics isn't ALL that's behind ID (Howard Ahmanson), but that's by far and a away the largest part of the motivation behind those claiming to represent the "movement".
folks like Java, being too wrapped up in their own ignorance and denial, just go along for the ride.
at some level, they even know this, yet are unable to stop themselves; out of fear, most likely.
I always find their usage of the Darwin->Hitler meme to be doubly ironic, as they indeed do remind me of the rabble that went along with the manipulations of Goehring and Goebbels in Nazi Germany.
maybe the reason the false meme rings a bell with them is because at some level, they realize the parallels.
http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/goering.jpg
unfortunately, as in all things, they form a shield of denial that they could so easily be duped, and at the same time, must project their own ignorance on to everything they see around them in order to rationalize it for themselves.
it's beyond pathetic.
it's disgusting.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 5:02 PM
@Morales
Quirk makes one new one.
are you going to keep track?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 31, 2008 5:06 PM
"That rules out abiogenesis. The ruling out of abiogenesis also rules out evolution, sadly."
ummm...
Isn't creation by a deity essentially abiogenesis?
like humans created from dust?
ergo, quirk has concluded we don't exist.
fascinating, Spock.
Posted by: Michael X | April 1, 2008 1:49 AM
This is of course the crux of Java's entire argument against PZ's attendance. Naturally, no where was such a statement made on Motive's website. And thus PZ had no reason to believe that the open invitation to all who were interested (much less in the film) was not meant for him or anyone else for that matter with opposing views. That is how such screenings work, by bringing in those who are most motivated to see it and them creating buzz. The fact that unsympathetic people will also be motivated to see the movie is just part of the game, and they have every right to attend screenings such as those. Unless, Expelled *jazz hands* wishes to continue its rather uncommon stealth screenings in order to show the movie to only the faithful, Java hasn't a leg to stand on with this proprietary argument.
My goodness, I feel so intimidating right now.
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 1, 2008 2:50 AM
Oh, yeah, that reminds me:
So in other words, you do in fact explicitly agree that the film is nothing more than religious propaganda?
I'm going to rephrase the question I asked at #1244:
Are you seriously suggesting that the registration process should have included an ideological purity test of some sort? "I hereby swear and affirm that I am not now, nor ever have been, an atheist?"
Posted by: Wazza | April 1, 2008 3:01 AM
Have you no sense of decency, Owlmirror?
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 1, 2008 3:35 AM
Oh, and then there's this:
There are very, very few "ID" scientists in the first place, and as far as I know, none of them are agnostic. I will admit that I've seen that some "ID" proponents are agnostic — but they are not scientists. As far as I can tell, they're cranks.
And that line about "different assumptions based on the very same evidence" fails, too. I've already pointed out that "ID" has no evidence, no testability, and no coherency. But hey, maybe I missed something. Maybe there's something I overlooked; something all of us atheists overlooked...
Except, there's a little matter of a trial. A trial that gave "ID" proponents every chance to show that those "different assumptions based on the very same evidence" were indeed valid science...
A trial that was heard by a religious, conservative, Republican judge.
A trial where the best argument that the "ID" proponents could come up with, in the testimony of an "ID" scientist, was that hey, maybe evidence, testability, and coherence were over-rated, maybe even unnecessary, for something to be called science.
It was pointed out that this would allow astrology to be called science as well.
The religious, conservative, Republican judge listened to this, and to all of the other nonsense, and even sometimes genuinely false testimony by the "ID" team, and the evidence for evolution presented by the plaintiffs, and made his verdict very clearly on the side of the plaintiffs.
Now, the courts are not exactly laboratories, and judges are not (usually) scientists. But Judge Jones was presented with the basics of how science is defined by scientists, as refined over the past century. And he agreed that given that definition, "ID" is not science.
But hey, maybe Judge Jones got it wrong. Maybe he missed something.
Well, you know what? The entire trial transcript is online. You can Google for "Kitzmiller" and "Dover", and find it in the first 10 hits. Go ahead. Sift through it. Give it to lawyers to sift through. Go nuts.
But you know, I'm going to bet that the religious, conservative, Republican judge didn't make a mistake.
Eh, tell it to the judge.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 1, 2008 4:17 AM
There are very, very few "ID" scientists in the first place
oh, i think you can safely label that accurately and precisely as "none".
why hedge it?
there really are, and simply CAN'T be such a thing as an "ID scientist"
It's simply not possible without identify the identity and operation of a putative designer first.
It's like saying we could have anthropologists... when there are no humans.
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 1, 2008 11:09 AM
[*::pauses briefly from the various tasks involved in powering up the terawatt laser, warming up the deadly neurotoxin emitters, and aligning the deadly whirling knives armatures on the army of killer robots, as the countdown for the Doomsday device drones on in the background::*]
I'm sorry, I don't quite get the point of your question.
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 1, 2008 11:16 AM
You're right, I was overtired when I typed all that.
For '"ID" scientist', please read 'scientists who happen to also be "ID" proponents'.
Posted by: Sean | April 1, 2008 11:22 AM
I think they've got a tiger by the tail with this movie. How do you control the public's opinion of this film? The press will tear this film apart. Scientists will do the same. Strange. Ben Stein promoted Expelled as being brave and rebellious. But he also said that you could lose your job just by seeing this dangerous film. TZ, Ben was probably trying to save your job.
Posted by: Sean | April 1, 2008 11:33 AM
Does anyone know if TZ or Dawkins were thanked for their contribution to the movie in the credits? That would be funny. Normally, stars of films get the red carpet treatment.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 1, 2008 12:47 PM
Sean, if you mean PZ Myers by TZ, then yes, both he and Richard Dawkins were thanked in the closing credits.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 1, 2008 4:36 PM
Oh yeah? That's nothing. I've seen worse.
Posted by: Ben Stein | April 1, 2008 4:41 PM
#1636
Oh yeah? That's nothing. I've seen worse.
Long live the new flesh. Wowwwwww.
Posted by: Newberry | April 2, 2008 12:02 PM
How come the scientific community are always so afraid of being challenged on an idea ?
Neither Evolution or Creationism has been even close to proven as far as I am concerned.
Don't be afraid of actually doing some work and finding the truth.
Repeating what you read in a book is not proof of anything other than you can read !!
Mocking others is not science it's childish.
Don't be afraid to think and don't be afraid of the truth, Whatever the truth may be.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | April 2, 2008 4:07 PM
Newberry,
Science embraces new ideas as hypotheses. But here is the kicker. It discards those that fail to produce supporting evidence, as creationism (and it's bastard child, ID) has done.
Evolution, on the other hand has large amounts of verifiable evidence, and happens constantly in the world around us. Evolution is fact, but the exact mechanisms and details are debated.
What we mock here isn't beliefs, but ignorant beliefs, like, "Neither Evolution or Creationism has been even close to proven as far as I am concerned."
Reality doesn't wait for your consent, and is unconcerned with convincing you. However, to be an informed and scientifically literate citizen, you need to teach yourself. Don't just rely on books, but go out and do some looking for yourself, especially in the peer reviewed primary literature. Interestingly enough, creationists /ID pushers have no research to point to. They have no testable hypothesis, no data, no publications that can pass peer review. They aren't pursuing science, but self congratulatory egoism.
Pay attention to bacterial resistance in the news. Learn about polyploid organisms. Go to a spot where you can observe many layers of sedimentary rock and look at the different fossils separated by strata.
Every single experiment, with training and equipment can be replicated.
The other thing we mock are people who are dishonest or abuse the public interest. If someone comes in and is honestly interested in learning, we give them the resources to do so. But when someone simply repeats lies and slanders (evolution = Nazi but no offense) you could understand that we might get a bit pissy.
But if it would make you feel better, neener neener neener.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 4:16 PM
newberry makes 2.
Posted by: javascript | April 2, 2008 5:11 PM
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080402a.html
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 5:18 PM
what's your point in linking to a story that gets all the details wrong?
oh, that's right.
you're short-bus special that way.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 2, 2008 5:21 PM
Yeah? So?
You think we haven't already seen the right-wing spin on these events, oh thou-who-abhors-the-spin-game?
Here's another enlightening item from the same site.
Posted by: John Morales | April 2, 2008 7:16 PM
Ichthyic, not sure if Newberry is an Expelled supporter or just a science denier. Close enough, since the former is a subset of the latter, so yeah, that's two.
The new berry is ripe for the picking, but I can't muster any enthusiasm for it other than to note that the exhortation at the end of the comment
lives up to the expected irony quotient.Posted by: javascript | April 2, 2008 8:36 PM
My point was in response to many of you who have said that all the reviews of the movie are negative. I've shown you a couple that contradict you (from countless options), and you now say the positive reviews are wrong and right wing spin. Wow... now you claim authority over someone's perspective. For a site that seems mostly full of Atheists there sure seems to be a great many of you who apparently think you are God.
For what it's worth... here's another view from someone who just saw the film and posted their review on the Expelled blog. This will give you guys something to rage at this evening... Have fun!
...........
LQQKinEast Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
E-X-P-E-L-L-E-D! (Movie Review, unabridged, and back by popular demand...)
Having just seen the screening, I was even more impressed than I thought I'd be at the sheer brilliance of Ben Stein, as well as the overall cinematic (I'm prone to look at films that way), technical and scientifically-credible (with NO evangelical agenda whatsoever!) quality of this amazingly riveting and most urgently necessary production.
At times I almost felt sorry for the bad guys. Again, almost. But it was rather unfair, like shooting fish in a barrel, the way that Ben, in his typically unassuming calm, silent assassin-like demeanor, single-handedly and cerebrally dismantled these unsuspecting but entirely deserving evolutionary/atheist-types...with the uncanny surgical precision and "hands" of a hungry Dr. Lector, preparing for dinner...
Almost like the first SugarRay/Hearnes fight, it was hard to figure who took the worst beating, PZ or Dick (Ooops, meant "Clint")? In any case, I thought it was close...but you can decide for yourself who took the worst pummeling. (I mean these are very smart men, don't forget: PZ & 'da Dawkster! But...what comes out of their very own mouths during this film is just not to be believed! You'll know what I mean on 4/18...)
It's overwhelmingly clear that EXPELLED not only has, but will continue, in the days ahead, to ruffle some major feathers within the witless collective primordial soup of American evolutionary academia. And, of course, for all the right reasons! And...NOT A MINUTE too soon! Short review: WOW - what a film!
Conclusion: Dick and/or PZ are clearly NOT up for "Best Supporting" roles here! Instead, due to this historically unprecedented and most humiliating on-screen display of TRUTH-as well as darwinian shallacking, I'm not sure that Dick or PZ or any of their other conspiracy-minded Orc buddies will ever want to show their faces in public again!
I'd venture to say they'll probably even have some trouble getting a table at the local hoot, the San Francisco Fraternal Order of Atheists Bar & Grill...
No matter what side of the fence you happen to be on, trust me...this film's an absolute "MUST SEE" for EVERYONE!
P.S. - Popcorn was good, too!
Posted by: Joe | April 2, 2008 8:44 PM
Richard Dawkins got in - excellent! But this brings up a much more serious question. How long are we going to allow superstitious drivel like Expelled to be foisted on an ignorant public? As scientists it would appear that our duty is to ensure disinformation like this is stopped in it's tracks. In the present political climate certain difficulties might arise but, eventually, we can work toward laws that can absolutely prevent presentations such as Expelled from being shown. We know the real truth, it is up to us to make sure the real truth is presented to the less educated of the world as absolute undisputed fact.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 8:49 PM
Wow... now you claim authority over someone's perspective.
yes, I am Mentok the Mindtaker, and I claim authority not only over your perspective (weak minded one), but over your every thought!
Not asking... TAKING the mind...
now it's time to take your meds, boy.
woooeeeeoooooo
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 2, 2008 8:50 PM
Like we'd fall for your stupid BS, troll.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 8:52 PM
eventually, we can work toward laws that can absolutely prevent presentations such as Expelled from being shown.
bad idea.
we don't fight racism by banning racists from speaking.
we mock them for their stupidity openly.
same with creationists. Freedom of expression is a given; that doesn't mean we can't make fun of particularly stupid expressions, and the people who vent them.
look one post above yours to see the value.
Posted by: Colugo | April 2, 2008 8:55 PM
Ichthyic, I suspect that "Joe" is a creationist agent provocateur. Am I correct, Joe?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 2, 2008 8:57 PM
Would that be called "bad reverse-parody trolling?"
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 8:58 PM
Ichthyic, I suspect that "Joe" is a creationist agent provocateur. Am I correct, Joe?
Glen tapped that (it's obviously just Java).
I figured I might as well attack the argument itself.
all bases covered.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 9:00 PM
Would that be called "bad reverse-parody trolling?"
hmm.
yes, I believe it would.
could you shorten that up a bit so we could include it in the urban lexicon?
Posted by: wazza | April 2, 2008 9:04 PM
barepat?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 2, 2008 9:04 PM
BuRP trolls
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 9:08 PM
BuRP trolls
Ooh, give than man a cigar.
go man, go:
http://add.urbandictionary.com/definition.php?word=
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 2, 2008 9:11 PM
Oh, no. I shan't be entering it. I wouldn't know what to do. You take the honor, you're far more familiar than I.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 2, 2008 9:13 PM
Damn, Pharyngufest and BuRP Troll. I maked two terms up. I feelz gud and smrt.
Posted by: Joe | April 2, 2008 9:21 PM
"Freedom of expression is a given"
Freedom to express incorrect thoughts is presently a "given" in the United States, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Freedom of expression is not a given in large parts of the world now, and even European countries severely restrict certain expressions, sometimes resulting in criminal charges. My point is that the idea that any idiot can say any silly thing and try to convince others it is true is outdated. As scientists who know the truth it is our duty to promulgate the truth and, when the time comes make sure the bearers of untruth are silenced.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 9:27 PM
ooh, ooh, I hope I'm not stepping on Jeff's toes here, but...
when the time comes make sure the bearers of untruth are silenced.
BuRP troll!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 2, 2008 9:30 PM
I think we could maybe also just use *belch* as a shorthand
Posted by: John Morales | April 2, 2008 9:36 PM
I'm not sure BuRP Trolls count. So I still make it 2.
javascript #1645: that piece of smarm is not a review; it's an encomium which seems indistinguishable from a piece written by someone who has not actually seen the film.
Fixed.Posted by: Owlmirror | April 2, 2008 9:36 PM
Ah, javascript. I'm so disappointed in you. I had the vague hope — very slight, to be sure, yet still a hope — that on writing a rather detailed set of explanations on why "ID" is not science, you might re-think your advocacy of the film. Instead, you pull this. Oh, well.
Who are the "many" here who said that "all the reviews of the movie are negative"? Especially since those who were actually following the thread know that there were at least two positive reviews that were linked to and quoted shortly after the screening?
Indeed, taking the time to simply search on the word "review" in this thread, it certainly looks like you misread comment #1559. The author of that comment wrote "various reviewers", and you mistook that to mean "all". You're the only one who did that. Your mistake.
They certainly have all been creationist and religiously and ideologically biased spin.
And yes, they are all wrong. No-one who was knowledgeable and intellectually honest would be in the least supportive of the idea that Darwin's theory of evolution — and the theory of evolution alone, out of all the ideas and trends that were going on in Germany — led to the Holocaust. It is simply wrong, false, and incorrect to even suggest that a scientific theory, in and of itself, is somehow at fault. PZ Myers has already addressed this with the posting titled "The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled", and in many, many other postings on that particular topic.
For that matter, it is also simply wrong, false, and incorrect to exclude Christian anti-Judaism among the German populace, and Hitler's appeals to Christian anti-Judaism in his speeches. And that's just one social trend that is incorrectly excluded.
There are facts, and there are falsehoods, and since Expelled rejects and denies facts, and propagates falsehoods, any positive reviews are necessarily doing the same.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 9:38 PM
yeah, I can imagine doing just that, right in anyone's face who came up to me in a bar and actually said something like that.
Joe does not appear to be a fan of Voltaire*.
*please don't start with me on the issue of whether Voltaire ever actually uttered the now famous phrase that is the obvious reference here.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 9:40 PM
I'm not sure BuRP Trolls count. So I still make it 2.
agreed.
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 2, 2008 9:50 PM
"Certain expressions"? Why not specify them? Come now, what countries are these, and what expressions do they severely restrict?
The only one I can think of is Germany suppressing expressions of Nazism. What else?
Oh, the irony...
You mean, like idiots who try to convince others that freedom of expression is outdated? That sort of silly thing?
Posted by: J | April 2, 2008 10:00 PM
#1663 owlmirror wrote:
But it did! And that's why, with evolution almost universally accepted in the scientific community, the world is currently one vast Nazi empire, with swastikas all over the place!
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 10:06 PM
sorry for the late response:
Javascript is another tool.
thankyou!
I've been trying to tell people for years that it's not a proper programming language.
;)
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 10:12 PM
But it did! And that's why, with evolution almost universally accepted in the scientific community, the world is currently one vast Nazi empire, with swastikas all over the place!
or rather:
Darwin-->George Bush
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 2, 2008 10:20 PM
Have we just witnessed a corollary to Poe's Law? Something along the lines of 'creationists cannot create parodies of evolutionists that cannot be detected as parodies by actual evolutionists.'
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 10:24 PM
Something along the lines of 'creationists cannot create parodies of evolutionists that cannot be detected as parodies by actual evolutionists.'
again, I believe that is correct.
How would you go about documenting it for addition to the wiki on Poe's law, though?
Posted by: Stanton | April 2, 2008 10:25 PM
Some questions about the movie for javascript:
First off, does Ben Stein specifically explain exactly what sort of benefits Intelligent Design proponents would add to Mainstream Science if they were allowed to participate in Mainstream Science?
Does Ben Stein specifically state how Intelligent Design "theory" describes the diversity of life as we know better than the Theory of Evolution?
Does Ben Stein show us how Adolf Hitler was inspired by Charles Darwin, even though none of Hitler's speeches, writings, memoirs or other missives, or even the journals, memoirs, and other missives of Hitler's aides, and servants suggest that Hitler knew very little of Biology, and suggest that Hitler never so much as approached "On The Origin of Species"?
Does Ben Stein show us how Josef Stalin was inspired by Charles Darwin to allow him to hire one Trofim Lysenko, an agronomist who rejected Darwinian Evolution in favor of Lamarckian Evolution, an action that lead to Trofim Lysenko literally single-handedly crippling both Soviet Agriculture and Soviet Biology for literally decades?
Posted by: Kseniya | April 3, 2008 12:00 AM
Holy mother of god! What hypocrisy! Every post Javascript has made here has been an attempt to claim authority over opposing perspectives. Also, the linked CNS article was nothing more than the right-wing slant on the events involving PZM and RD, it wasn't a review! Just look at the language: "Infiltrate"... etc. Not to mention this rather misleading lie:
Posted by: ebonkrieg | April 3, 2008 2:32 AM
This site is outstanding and this thread is incredible. I was led here by one of the blogs i regularly read the night of the screening and contributed a post and bookmarked the address. Cruising through my bookmarks 4 hours ago I return and find "it is still alive."
The original issue at the "origins" of this thread has mutated and the thread has evolved into FLYPAPER. A more perfect example of natural selection could not be replicated. The prey goes to the hunter; fabulous.
I have made an observation of two characteristics that are common to the ID grouping; projection and denial. There are many others, but these two seem to be consistent in most individuals of the ID group.
I tip my hat to my fellow travelers for the hours of pleasure you have provided. Thank you and no, I can not join your club, but I will defend your right to worship the great god Darwin to my death.
"It moves..."
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 3, 2008 2:41 AM
I have made an observation of two characteristics that are common to the ID grouping; projection and denial.
congratulations!
you're absolutely correct.
I have over 1000 data points now, and less than a handful didn't exhibit both of these psychological defense mechanisms in their most extreme forms.
One of these days, I'm gonna write a book about it, and focus on the approach that all of these creationists exhibit the exact same behavioral psychology as any cult indoctrinee, and should be approached in the exact same fashion.
Posted by: MutualDisdain | April 3, 2008 2:53 AM
Congratulations, you have become a propaganda tool for the very movie and movement you despise. I seriously cannot believe how intelligent men like yourselves have been drawn in by such an obvious ploy...
Posted by: John Morales | April 3, 2008 3:12 AM
Bah. MutualDisdain makes number 3.
I should've known better.
Posted by: MutualDisdain | April 3, 2008 4:21 AM
I am seriously beginning to see how these men were drawn into giving interviews for this movie. Their ego outweighs their common sense. Why give this movie free propaganda?
If I were a conspiracy theorists I would look for a financial connection between Meyers and the movie, but I think what we are really seeing here is intelligent men being tricked by theists.
Posted by: wazza | April 3, 2008 4:45 AM
As has been said several times, MD, they were tricked by the fact that the movie was described to them as looking at the issue from a neutral perspective
and the reason they exposed it was so we could laugh at it and belittle the makers of the film, thus negating its effects
Posted by: John Morales | April 3, 2008 5:22 AM
MutualDisdain #1678: (#682->#689)
Posted by: debbyo | April 3, 2008 9:33 AM
But isn't Joe's "bad reverse-parody trolling" so revealing! He has to fabricate evidence of sinister motives obviously because he can't find any real evidence. Can't find a single "Darwinist" threatening free speech on the internet.
On the bright side, this kind of role-playing could force Joe (or his friends) to bone up on the arguments of the other side - so as to look more realistic. This could be dangerous for Joe. And when you look at what he says -- other than the crazy censorship argument, I think he's starting to swing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 3, 2008 9:05 PM
I should've known better.
:)
it's just experience.
Posted by: debbyo | April 3, 2008 9:07 PM
Here's an hypothesis: Creationists are less likely to be able to convince evolutionists of a parody of them than vice-versa.
The results should help to decide which group is best versed with the opposing argument. Although, it could also be influenced by other factors such as intelligence, satirical skills and imagination. Hmmm, is it unethical to put money on the results?
Posted by: wouldntulike2know | April 4, 2008 1:50 AM
Myers will probably have no trouble seeing it as soon as it is released to the public. I think it was a good idea to save his seat for someone who actually wants to hear the truth for once.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 4, 2008 2:04 AM
wouldntulike2know?
No, not really.
Have fun with the persecution complex though.
Posted by: wazza | April 4, 2008 2:17 AM
What is the truth, wouldntyoulike2know?
Is it what's supported by the evidence, or your favourite fairytale?
Posted by: Tom | April 4, 2008 10:40 AM
This is just unbelievable. A police officer tells someone they are not allowed to go in and watch a movie, simply because the manager said so, and is escorted off the premises...yet in Canada, a night club gets sued because it doesnt want to let in a couple Sikh's.
Posted by: MartinM | April 4, 2008 10:54 AM
Yeah, I'm sure that's why they expelled him; because they were short a seat.
On any other thread, that would have been a strong contender for most idiotic suggestion to date, but here, I'm afraid you'll have to try much harder.
Posted by: sun | April 4, 2008 12:00 PM
An absolute classic! Well done for keeping your cool PZ, the people behind the movie are always going to make fools of themselves.
Posted by: Kapil | April 4, 2008 6:37 PM
Must we really be so troubled by this movie? There have been numerous attempts my ID promoters who are really nothing but partisan theists attempting to promote their religion; to question the voracity of Evolution and each attempt has been more miserable than its predecessor...
Posted by: thalarctos | April 4, 2008 6:49 PM
nom nom nom
nope, the trolls don't taste very good.
that's *one* way to damp the voracity of Evolution.
Posted by: thalarctos | April 4, 2008 7:03 PM
ps to Kapil -- I hope that comment didn't come across as too harsh. I was just playing with similar-sounding words and their meanings, and anyone, whether a native English speaker or not, can make a typo. so if I was a jerk, please forgive me :)
Posted by: Stanton | April 4, 2008 7:20 PM
So has javascript attempted to answer my questions about "Expelled" yet?
Posted by: Yokefellows | April 5, 2008 12:50 AM
Quote from above
"Freedom of expression is a given"
Freedom to express incorrect thoughts is presently a "given" in the United States, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Freedom of expression is not a given in large parts of the world now, and even European countries severely restrict certain expressions, sometimes resulting in criminal charges. My point is that the idea that any idiot can say any silly thing and try to convince others it is true is outdated. As scientists who know the truth it is our duty to promulgate the truth and, when the time comes make sure the bearers of untruth are silenced.
Yoke responds:
So speaks the voice of every oppressor that has ever lived. Those who perceive themselves to be in the right always believe they have the right to suppress every other point of view and do so with whatever force they can muster. Woe to the man who knows the truth to be different than those in power and shares that knowledge.
Perhaps you are the idiot saying the silly thing that should be silenced by those who know better ? I will agree with your opinion if I have equal rights to apply it to you. I'm sure that Galileo would have liked to apply that rule to those who were applying it to HIM when they asserted with all their might that the earth was the center of the universe and forced him to recant his belief that the sun was the center of the solar system and to live under house arrest for the remainder of his life for daring to express a different view from that of those in power.
Whether you place the power in the hands of religious fanatics or in the hands of scientific fanatics (whose discoveries this year constantly disprove last years theories) the result is still tyranny. What you are saying basically is that anyone who believes themselves to be the holder of truth has the right to deny others the right to speak a different opinion. You are saying that any majority that styles itself as "the experts" on the subject (and wholeheartedly believes it) has the right to determine that they alone speak the truth and to suppress all other opinion and views through force.
It seems to me that you forget, as do all tyrants, that your rights end where mine begin. And in saying that "freedom of expression" is not a given elsewhere you are merely pointing to tyranny in other parts of the world as the reason why it ought to obtain in this situation.
My American ancestors fought to throw off the yoke of the very same tyranny - the opinion of those holding power that they had the only viewpoint and the only right to speak. I believe I begin to understand why they did.
Yoke
Posted by: Colugo | April 5, 2008 1:05 AM
"scientific fanatics (whose discoveries this year constantly disprove last years theories)"
Well, at least they're scientific in their fanaticism.
Yokel, Joe's message is disingenuous. Or are you in on it?
Posted by: wazza | April 5, 2008 1:15 AM
Generally speaking, if you let a thousand voices be heard, you only have to listen to the ten or so that are actually making any sense
it's when the people in power can't detect sense that we're in trouble
Posted by: Yokefellows | April 5, 2008 1:18 AM
In on what ? I'm just an ordinary reader that happened to stop by to see what all the fuss was about. I found his comment offensive and responded to it.
disingenuous
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating
In what way ?
Yoke
Posted by: Yokefellows | April 5, 2008 1:26 AM
wazza said: Generally speaking, if you let a thousand voices be heard, you only have to listen to the ten or so that are actually making any sense
it's when the people in power can't detect sense that we're in trouble
Yoke says:
I've read quite a bit tonight ... on this site, on Dawkins site, on the Expelled site. I came to it cold, knowing nothing about any of it until someone mentioned this documentary to me and I started to research it. It seems to me that it's not really about who's making sense ... it's about what it's always about ... ego, arrogance, power, control and force.
Yoke
Posted by: Yokefellows | April 5, 2008 1:34 AM
After scanning the rest of the thread I see what you mean by disingenuous.
Lacking in candor ... there's a lot of dishonest posting going on at all three boards. Guess I'll go on to bed - it'd be more productive.
Yoke
Posted by: wazza | April 5, 2008 1:39 AM
Well, scientists and their supporters have a certain level of truth and hold to that. We use that to find out real things. ID followers are called IDiots in our circles because they don't adhere to that level of truth. In fact, they lie. We don't like it when they lie, particularly as they want their lies to be taught as truth in public schools. That's why we get into this.
The ego trip of being able to rip someone else's arguments apart is just a pleasant side effect
Posted by: Stanton | April 5, 2008 2:39 AM
Yoke...
How to put this in terms you understand?
Intelligent Design "theory" is a pseudoscience, and its proponents have demonstrated that they are not interested in making any positive contributions with or even about Intelligent Design "theory" to science at all. In fact, Intelligent Design proponents tend display a gross ignorance of Biology and science are done, in general, too.
That being said, Intelligent Design proponents, especially those of the Discovery Institute, want Intelligent Design "theory" taught in schools, despite the fact that Intelligent Design "theory" does nothing to explain anything, specifically in order to make science more "Christian friendly," even though transforming Science from a meritocracy into a theocracy would destroy it utterly.
Having said that, Yoke, I must ask you: Do you want people to force children to learn nonsense as fact, and reject reality for piety's sake? This is what the people behind "Expelled!" want, you do realize.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 5, 2008 2:46 AM
hmm, I'm wondering if you all are taking Yoke's comments the wrong way.
I took them as an attack on "Joe's" BuRP, where it tried to defend the use of repression in other places to rationalize it's ridiculous notions that there should be repression here.
Yoke might or might not be aware of the status of ID, but I rather think he was attacking the arguments put up by "Joe" (AKA-little girly javascript).
However, it's late; I might have missed something.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 5, 2008 2:54 AM
Ichthyic, I agree - but "Joe" may have succeeded, to a degree, by making Yoke believe that "Joe"'s comment in some way represented the "scientist" point of view.
I could be wrong.... yeah it's late here, too, and I'm not re-reading it all now. LOL. Time for bed.
Posted by: DJR | April 5, 2008 12:41 PM
All evloutionist who arrogantly deney the very exsistance of our creator will become creationist a moment after their unescapable death. Believers seek only to save them from eternal separation from our loving creator God by introducing them to the only one who can save them Jesus Christ.
Posted by: DJR | April 5, 2008 12:42 PM
All evloutionist who arrogantly deney the very exsistance of our creator will become creationist a moment after their unescapable death. Believers seek only to save them from eternal separation from our loving creator God by introducing them to the only one who can save them Jesus Christ.
Posted by: DJR | April 5, 2008 12:44 PM
All evloutionist who arrogantly deney the very exsistance of our creator will become creationist a moment after their unescapable death. Believers seek only to save them from eternal separation from our loving creator God by introducing them to the only one who can save them Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Martin | April 5, 2008 12:48 PM
Did you think that posting this silly, childish blather three times would make it less silly and childish, DJR?
Go on back and play with your blocks and your book of fairy stories, boy. The grownups are talking.
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 12:57 PM
[deadmikeg]
Holy crap, you're real? Wow. You coulda left some better clues. Oh well, you're benevolent, right? No? Cast into a lake of fire, eh?
Well, fuck you too!
[/deadmikeg]
Posted by: DR | April 5, 2008 1:19 PM
I have to admit, I am quite newly exposed to both sides of the ID issue. I have just finished Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" and quite recently finished Charles Darwin's book, "The Origin of Species".
Crichton speaks at the end of the book of something called Eugenics, and the support it had in the early 1900's. I am just now reading about this and the horror it brought about in the 1930's and 1940's.
Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"). "At some future period," said Darwin, "...the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
I see the two of these ideas, Macro Evolution and Eugenics as being linked, or at least supporting each other.
So my question is, if we all did evolve, then are we not by definition of the theory of evolution able to claim superiority of one race over another? How could this be morally wrong if this is the basis of the origin of the species?
Not taking either side yet, but this seems to be a fairly intellectually oriented place to ask the question without getting too badly flamed. I look forward to reasonably thought out comments.
Posted by: Martin | April 5, 2008 1:39 PM
What evolution actually demonstrates is that all life forms are connected. The idea of eugenics did not in fact originate with Darwin's theory. Animal breeders for centuries have been artificially selecting for various traits. Darwin's real innovation was to discover that nature, all on its own, engages in a selection process as well.
"Social Darwinism," however, is a pseudoscience under which practices like eugenics justified themselves in the 20th century. Racists and bad people all through history have tried to find ways to justify themselves both morally and intellectually, and both religion and science have been employed in such justifications. The fact is, there's a vast difference between understanding the principles of evolution as a fact of biology, and trying to adopt them as some kind of moral imperative. It's only people who misunderstand what science really is, or who simply want validation for a preferred ideology, who think evolution somehow validates ideas about presumed "superiority." (In fact, there's nothing whatsoever in evolution that backs up the idea that there is fundamentally any difference at all between races in homo sapiens; the only reason difference races exist in humans is due to genetic drift, but there's no science that supports the idea one race -- blacks, whites, Asians, whatever -- is "superior" to the other.)
In short, science does not make moral arguments. It simply shows us reality as it is. If people want to attach moral justifications to things and make phony scientific arguments backing them up, well, that's ideology speaking, not science.
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 1:46 PM
DR,
I'm afraid you're still stuck with the idea of the "Great Chain of Being," i.e. that there is a long and linear history of evolution that ultimately culminates in us humans (or in the era in which Darwin was writing, white, English humans). First to address that: there is no higher or lower. The living great apes have been evolving exactly as long as we have. So have the nematodes and the oak trees. There is no "Great Chain". Every living species has had around 4 billion years to find it's niche and adapt using the history and toolkit its ancestors have given it. We are no more evolved than a parakeet, we just have a different history.
On to race and Eugenics:
I haven't read Origins in a long time, but you have to remember when he was writing. The slave trade was nearing its end, but was still going, and Darwin himself (born on the same day as Lincoln) was fairly enlightened regarding race (modern use) for his time. His use of the word "race" in origins is more closely related to what we would now call a species, or strain.
Moreover, what Darwin was describing was what he saw in the natural world, and how he thought it may have happened. It turns out that many of his ideas about natural selection and coral atoll formation were right, but they were descriptive, not prescriptive. They described what was, not what ought to be.
Once more information came along over the last 150 years, we have learned a crapload more about how evolution works, and it remains descriptive, not prescriptive. we have learned that race (modern sense) is almost wholly illusory. As Zimmer put it (paraphrased from Evolution: triumph of an idea) "You could wipe out all humans on the planet, except for a small population in a small valley on Papua New Guinea and still preserve 85% of human genetic variation."
In other words, Eugenics was a really horrid, nasty, evil and capricious thing that is rightly relegated to the compost heap of human history. If the genetics of race are not showing reality, how can we say the genetics of those perceived as "imbeciles" are not also illusory?
Further, evolution requires variety of genetics to select from. Reducing variety can spell doom for a species should the environment change. Systematically culling a group or groups of humans could have nasty, long term consequences.
Well, I guess I better end it there. I hope that helps, and I am sure others will be around to elaborate and berate me for getting wrong whatever I got wrong.
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 1:49 PM
And Martin beats me to the punch. Well said.
Posted by: Joe | April 5, 2008 1:52 PM
"Certain expressions"? Why not specify them? Come now, what countries are these, and what expressions do they severely restrict?
The only one I can think of is Germany suppressing expressions of Nazism. What else?"
Several examples from Wikipedia should suffice:
On 10 June 2004 Bardot was convicted by a French court of "inciting racial hatred" and fined 5,000 Euros, the fourth such conviction/fine she has faced from French courts. The courts cited passages where Bardot referred to the "Islamisation of France" and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam"
Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland.
Therefore there is a significant and growing legal precedent for suppressing the expression of ideas that are incorrect or unacceptable. We, as scientists, work hard to prevent the presentation of silly ideas like ID in schools. Teaching of Charles Darwin's theories without superstitious folderol is needed to properly educate young minds. Someday we may be able to totally suppress outrageous superstition like ID and religion in general. Some of the posters here seem to be a little uncomfortable with the idea but an absolutely guaranteed "freedom from religion" backed by laws similar to above is necessary and desirable.
Posted by: Colugo | April 5, 2008 1:57 PM
DR: "Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian")."
Nobody is under any obligation to accept everything Darwin believed. Likewise, we need not agree with every one of Newton's ideas in order to accept a scientific understanding of physics. These were fallible human beings, men of their own times and places. Modern evolutionary biology is far more the theories of Darwin and it does not include all of Darwin's ideas.
More specifically, the notions that some human populations (or "races") are closer to nonhuman apes or are inferior to other populations is now known to be totally wrong. Thomas Jefferson held similar racist views, and we do not have to accept them in order to value his political and scholarly contributions.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | April 5, 2008 2:18 PM
That's not how it works. In Austria and AFAIK Germany, what is actually forbidden is "to make National Socialism appear harmless". The reasoning behind this is that, after having been to school (and there is no homeschooling), you cannot possibly be so ignorant as to actually believe NS was a remotely good thing -- so, if you claim so anyway, it is considered proven that you have an ulterior motive, namely, abolishing the very freedom of expression you probably whine about.
(Wow. Over 1700 comments. Incredible.)
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 5, 2008 2:26 PM
people, you aren't paying enough attention.
DR=DJR=Joe=Javascript
all the same person, having fun wanking.
Posted by: DR | April 5, 2008 2:26 PM
Fantastic!
MikeG Not stuck yet! Still in the infantile questioning phase, thus very open to understanding the what's and why's. Thanks for the great post, gives me a good line to research.
Others, thanks for understanding that I am still getting up to speed, and your comments help direct that path.
Back to MikeG, You stated:
"As Zimmer put it (paraphrased from Evolution: triumph of an idea) "You could wipe out all humans on the planet, except for a small population in a small valley on Papua New Guinea and still preserve 85% of human genetic variation.""
What I am reading is that the separations between different lines of life, trees - vs - a small child in New York, is very small, genetically. I seem to have read that there is a 2% or something difference in the DNA code. (Yikes! I might be wrong with the number, but the question I have is still the same.)
The question is: If there is such a small difference between most living things, does this not lead us back to 1 (symbolically) pool of murk that "we all" sprang from?
Here is where I am going. Going back as far as we need to, pick a date or time, and there was no life on Earth. There was then, again at some point of your choosing, an "event" that fostered "life". In my way of thinking, a entity that was able to divide itself, or be divided, in such a way that the genetic code of the "parent" was carried over to the "child" or "other". (Trying REALLY hard not to get caught in the terminology.) (or theocracy!)
Is it better to think that this "life" was a one time thing, and then other life emerged from this one pool, or were there many pools over many different locations from which life emerged?
Thanks!
Posted by: DR | April 5, 2008 2:38 PM
Ichthyic,
No, I am not DR=DJR=Joe=Javascript
I am asking questions about this topic. One of the first things that I read was to be very suspicious of those who choose not to engage in debate, but simply flame and berate. I honestly hope that you are more intellectually honest then to be one of the latter.
If you would like to help elucidate me on my questions, I would greatly appreciate it. If on the other hand you would like to ignore what I am asking, and simple try and convince people to not pay attention to what I am asking because you are not equipped to help answer them, please just keep to yourself. I would really appreciate it.
(And if you do not want me to ask questions, what then is your point in posting?)
Cheers!
Posted by: Jason | April 5, 2008 2:42 PM
This is what you call science? You're trying to sneak into a movie, which before even seeing it you call propaganda, with the expressed purpose to try and debunk it?? Again, you call that science? I'd hate to imagine how you approach a real problem!!
Posted by: Michael X | April 5, 2008 2:52 PM
This is what you call science?
No, Jason. It's what we call going to a movie that we're in, that we also have a legitimate pass to see. While scientists arn't always doing science at every waking moment, I do see that IDiots have a phenomenal capacity for continuous stupidity.
Posted by: Nick Dellhall | April 5, 2008 2:53 PM
Hi PZ, this is pretty damn funny.
I hope you got that officer's name and you should write a complaint to the police department. He had no right to arrest you for that!
Posted by: Physicalist | April 5, 2008 3:01 PM
Just to add to the already absurd size of this comment thread, here's a quick correction to Nick Dellhall (#1721!): PZ wasn't arrested. He was just told to leave the theater by a security guard (though he was threatened with arrest for trespassing if he didn't comply). PZ, of course, did ask he was asked and didn't make a scene.
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 5, 2008 3:06 PM
Actually, PZ does present "ID" in his introductory classes. He does so in order to explain why "ID" is not acceptable as science; why it has no evidence, no testability, and no coherence.
The conflict over "ID" is not one over expression of ideas, but rather over labeling; over proper strict definitions of science.
Proper teaching of science is only useful if it imparts the general methodology of science; if the explanations given include mention older, more naive explanations, and why they are wrong.
But once the explanation of the methodology is taught, and the falsifications of the incorrect theories are taught, we no longer need to penalize the incorrect theories. Those who still adhere to the incorrect will be known by the rest of the populace to be deluded. It will be known not just that they are wrong, but far more importantly, why their arguments are wrong. No further penalties are necessary.
Your use of the phrase "Charles Darwin's theories" is suspicious, since while his basic biological theory is accepted, we do also know that he got some things absolutely wrong. And we teach those mistakes, and why they are wrong, just as much as we teach why "ID" is wrong.
The proper phrase would be "modern evolutionary biology".
Wrong. Simply, absolutely, utterly wrong. Science does not progress by having any ideas outlawed. Science only progresses by having the same standards for all ideas offered: evidence-based, coherent, and at least in some way testable.
Just as an irrelevant digression: Are you the same Joe who posted in the "ahistorical garbage" thread? A devil's advocate argument against religion does seem like something a socialist mystic Catholic might come up with. But sometimes I see patterns where none actually exist...
Posted by: DR | April 5, 2008 3:06 PM
This is really great. Could you guys suggest other places to read/blog on the topic(s) of ID/Evolution?
Seem sto me to be fasinating stuff, and at ~1721 posts, a fairly open topic.
Ichthyic, I would even be happy to register to post someplace so that you feel better about who I am or might be. :-)
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 3:09 PM
Ichthyic: warning duly noted, but on the off chance DR is an honest broker in this discussion, I'll try to answer his/her questions.
DR,
It seems I may not have made myself clear in my last comment. Let me grab a beer and think of another way to say it...
the genetic differences between a tree in central park and the hypothetical child sitting under it are indeed great. Our last common ancestor was a very long time ago: the first animals (very, very simple multicellular creatures) are already separate from the plants' ancestors at least 600 million years ago. Lots of time for major genetic changes to occur. The point I was trying to make in the first bit of my last post was that both the plants and what would eventually, through happy accident, lead to us, have both been evolving the same amount of time. I was trying to dispel the myth of the "great chain".
The more closely related organisms are to each other (think almost like cousins, but with whole populations rather than individuals), the more they will have in common, genetically. We and chimps (very close cousins indeed, only about 7 million years separated) share 99% or so of our genomes. Our second cousins, the macaques (maybe 3rd cousins, separated about 25 million years ago) share less. A 234562th cousin twice removed (approximate ;-P ) like the Oak in central park shares some basic genes and pathways but is very different genetically.
Going back far enough, before compartmentalization of the first cells, it's possible that there was kind of a great genetic ooze experiment. About 4 billion years ago life may not have been divided into nice cells like we are used to. Bits of chemistry may have been swapping pathways and competing for resources. Eventually a few got really good at competing, while still swapping pathways, that they beat out the others. The really early stuff like that is very fuzzy and not too well understood, but the mental picture I have found useful s to think of a red mangrove: lots of prop roots eventually coming together into a trunk that almost immediately splits into 3 (bacteria, eukarya and archea) but even then, there are connections between the 3 stalks. Eukaryotes got a type of bacteria that became our mitochondria, and we kept them around. Then a group of eukaryotes engulfed a type of cyanobacteria that became that Oak's chloroplasts. The bacteria (you're familiar with those) and the archea (they look like bacteria, but are genetically as different from bacteria as we are) have been swapping the occasional gene ever since the split.
So the answer to your question is yes, but no. We did all spring forth from a single common gene pool (waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy back) but there really is much more than a 2% difference between us and trees. Heck, our closest living cousins are 1% different, and we split a geologic "nanosecond" ago.
This really long term stuff is hard to visualize. I mean, really on human terms, how the hell do you picture a billion years when our life span is .0000001 times that? And the Earth has been here almost 5 times that long and life, it appears, didn't waste any time getting started!
Does that help? I'm sorry if this was rambling, but I'm avoiding writing a paper and a portion of my brain is elsewhere.
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 3:18 PM
Wow, that was long-winded. Sorry for my logorrhea.
DR, some of the more modern popular evolution writings might be up your alley.
I have a fondness for anything by Carl Zimmer. He is able to present complex topics without jargon in a very entertaining, readable and informative way.
May I suggest Evolution as a nice introduction to the development of the theory of evolution from before Darwin's time through today.
Posted by: Damian | April 5, 2008 3:19 PM
DR:
Try these:
The TalkOrigins Archive
Palaeos: The Trace of Life on Earth
Talk Origins is not only has a world of information about evolution, but it also deals with many of the creationist and ID arguments, as well. It is a little outdated now, but most of it is still entirely relevant.
Enjoy!
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 3:23 PM
Oh, and DR,
Ichy is one of the good guys. He's a bit gruff, but once you get to know him, he's got some really great insight. It's just that we've seen so many commenters open with the "I just have some honest questions" line who turned out to have nothing of the sort that we've all become a bit jaded.
Posted by: DR | April 5, 2008 3:30 PM
Yes, that is great MikeG. The 2 items I am trying to contemplate are:
1) There was a shared pool, thus the similarities of all living things will be there throughout the variations, so the similarities prove the common ancestry, even waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy back) :-)
2) The data that I am reading about now suggests that there is a need for very long periods of time, and very harsh forks in the evolutionary path.
The tough part that I am working through right now is back to your point that our life span is .0000001 times less then a billion years of evolution, and Darwin brought us this thought just a couple dozen decades ago, and we crawled out of mud huts in the last 5000 years... And now I am faced with the fact that my father did not have a color TV, and my kids can't imagine life without a microwave and the Internet. So the point I am trying to understand it, where is this all leading us, and what is the point?
Seems to me that our collective intelligence is gaining speed. That being the case, what is it that we can learn from evolution that will help us in the future? And increase the speed of our body of knowledge?
And you are right, the really long term stuff is hard to visualize. (Makes me think of Carl Sagen (spelling?) and his Billions, and Billions of ......)
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 3:44 PM
It's Sagan, and he never actually said "billions and billions," that was from an SNL skit. (Funny skit, too.)
I totally understand the trouble with huge time scales. I have the same trouble with huge distances (how the hell do you envision a light-year?) and speed (light goes from the sun to us in 8 minutes? WTF?)
As for your concerns about where are we going and what is the point... well...
What if there isn't a point? We just do what we do, as does every other living thing on the planet. Try to survive, reproduce. The nice, lucky, thing is that we evolved as a social species with enough intelligence to ask these questions, love, have fun and make our own point.
It's a pretty frickin cool thing, ain't it?
Posted by: DR | April 5, 2008 3:48 PM
MikeG,
"I just have some honest questions"
Yes, I can understand that. Mine might be better classified as:
"I just have some ignorant questions"
Thanks all for the sites/books. I just bought:
Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea (Hardcover) from Amazon, and I will look at the other sites.
Just a follow on comment about this thread. I got here due to a link a friend sent me about going to the movie, Expelled. That brought me to read more about it. Then I found this thread, and posted, and then bought a book. That just about proves evolution to me, and should be a point of rejoicing for the huddled masses here that the movie did, at least, have 1 good outcome. I brought me to the point of asking questions, and that should be the basis for any body of thought. To make us think, question, and then draw conclusions. I am going to go see the movie, most likely on DVD from blockbuster. (I have the online subscription so I don't have to schlep about the theater.) And I will read the book and other sites. From there I hope to have more questions then I do now, and with luck, a more solid base from which to ask them. I thank you all for your time, and answers. I think that I will stop posting here as the thread has gotten to the length of ludicrous.
Thanks all.
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 3:53 PM
DR,
Have fun. There's a whole lot of really cool stuff to learn.
Thanks for an engaging chat.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 5, 2008 4:12 PM
And there was much rejoicing on ScienceBlogs! (I can't find a youtube clip of Monty Python Holy Grail to link to.)Posted by: Damian | April 5, 2008 4:13 PM
Before you go, DR, there is a site that will be gathering all of the counter arguments to the film - Expelled Exposed, by the NCSE (National Center for Science Education).
It may seem a little excessive, but this film makes some very serious charges which will fool an awful lot of people. Apparently, though I haven't yet seen the film, it tries to make a link that suggests that "Evolution leads to Atheism, leads to Eugenics, and to Nazism and the Holocaust."
It is extremely poor scholarship and historically inaccurate, of course, but that doesn't matter to the makers of the film. They aren't engaging in an honest discourse, unfortunately. It seems that, if you don't have the evidence to back up your position, it may be necessary to politicize the debate and attempt to persuade the public with terribly dishonest arguments.
Good luck with your search. Thanks.
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 4:19 PM
I don't know about the rest of you all, but that was fun.
I got a chance to talk about stuff that I enjoy and we may have started someone on a nice journey of learning.
*swoon*
Posted by: Kseniya | April 5, 2008 4:23 PM
Mike (#1712):
Actually, Mike, I'm way behind the curve here, but I thought your post was very well written and nicely complementary to Martin's, even given the necessary overlap. Kudos.
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 4:35 PM
Thanks, Kseniya. Compliments from a Molly winner are very nice.
I need to be working on a manuscript every weekend. It gets me commenting here more often.
Wait... That may be a bit counterproductive...
The kitchen is clean, too, but the results section is still embryonic.
Drat!
Posted by: Kseniya | April 5, 2008 5:06 PM
Yes, yes, I know how it is. My room gets a lot cleaner when I have a paper to write. How mysterious! LOL!
Posted by: Stanton | April 5, 2008 5:10 PM
Macro-Evolution is about how two or more populations of one species accumulate enough differences through a number of generations that lead to each population being recognized as different species.
An example of Macro-Evolution is the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestans, which infests the sewers and tunnels of London, is descended from a population of Common Gnat, or European Mosquito, C. pipiens, which became stranded in the sewers and tunnels of London over a hundred years ago. Nothing to do with "superiority" here, in fact.
To put it bluntly, Eugenics is, for the most part, an ancient set of ideas that will hypothetically allow the leaders of Society to produce the perfect human, allegedly free of any human flaw and frailty. Most have attempted to achieve this ideal through purging anyone deemed inferior. Inevitably, "inferior" equates with whatever the local leaders deem to be offensive to their own aesthetics and sensibilities.
If you understand Evolutionary Biology, a healthy population is one that has a large genetic diversity: when you have a large diversity, the population can adapt very easily to changes in the environment. The problem with Eugenics is that practitioners of Eugenics seek to homogenize the population: a genetically homogeneous population is inevitably inbred, and can not adapt to either new environments or even changes to the old environment. This is why so many domesticated plant and animal breeds can no longer survive without constant human intervention.
Some people, such as Aristotle, have advocated "positive" eugenics, where the best and brightest examples of Society should be accorded the best breeding privileges. Today, positive eugenics survives in various forms, such as programs to screen out certain debilitating or deadly genetic disorders, such as thalassemia and Tay-Sach's disease, and silly things like "Genius Sperm-Banks."
Posted by: Kseniya | April 5, 2008 5:51 PM
Heh... Well, in my case, take the Molly thing with a grain of salt. One month a bunch of people voted for me but I never quite understood why. I'm just a lowly undergrad sitting at the low end of the IQ and education scales here on Pharyngula. (Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased - but at the same time, kinda puzzled.)
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 6:09 PM
Heck, Kseniya, I was one of 'em, I think. You had a hell of a month, there.
Procrastinating on a paper, were we?
And I understand a bit about the intimidation here. Especially if David Marjsonklhskfjdfnovic shows up.
And Stanton, after just being exposed to Heinlein, some of that "positive eugenics" is interesting food for thought. Breeding only for longevity, for example.
Posted by: Sir Padgett | April 5, 2008 7:05 PM
Standing in line is hardly standing up for a cause. In the mind of a myopic simpleton, the scenario is fraught with irony. In the mind of any objective observer, however, you were simply trying to crash a party that you were not invited to. Your manners (or more precisely lack thereof) leave much to be desired. Why don't you pay for the ticket like any other regular member of the public to watch the movie? I have one theory why: You're a cheapskate!
Posted by: Physicalist | April 5, 2008 7:57 PM
@ Kseniya (#1740): You've got a great wit, which many of us who are older and more educated are envious of.
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 5, 2008 8:05 PM
Commenting without knowing or addressing the context is hardly commenting meaningfully. In the mind of any objective observer, however, you are simply blathering on and on without understanding. Your intelligence (or more precisely lack thereof) leaves much to be desired. Why don't you pay attention like anyone who actually cares about the truth? I have one theory why: You're an IDiot!
Posted by: John Morales | April 5, 2008 8:15 PM
#1742: #596. Also #1595.
Posted by: Jason | April 5, 2008 8:34 PM
You say: "I do see that IDiots have a phenomenal capacity for continuous stupidity." First of all, I'm actually agnostic, so to imply that I believe in Intelligent Design is very ignorant of you! Furthermore, to call someone an idiot, on a science blog, who questions your tactics furthers my point! You are not a scientist!! You can not even take criticism without resorting to childish name calling. No wonder Ben Stein is portraying you in his movie. You are the perfect example of what he is trying to communicate! Congrats on being so well educated to play right into his plan! Again, like I said, I'm agnostic, but that also said, I'm more than willing to listen to others point of views, because last time I checked, no one could prove either THEORY.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 5, 2008 8:54 PM
You don't PROVE theories dumb ass. You test them, falsify them or support them with evidence.
ID has done none of these things.
Are you open to my dragon and the unicorn theory of creation to Mr. Agnostic.
Posted by: James F | April 5, 2008 8:56 PM
#1746
Jason,
ID is not a theory. A scientific theory requires a huge body of work, it takes time and scrutiny; ID has not produced a single piece of data in a peer-reviewed research paper supporting its claims. ID is an idea based on special creation and supernatural explanations, as well as a political vehicle to introduce religious views into science classes; it is not science. There is nothing fair or logical about presenting an untested explanation as an alternative to a true scientific theory.
Posted by: Jason | April 5, 2008 9:20 PM
Pardon? There is no theory of Intelligent Design? A quick Google search brings up many results regarding the theory of Intelligent Design.
Also, by no means am I saying that evolution did not happen, nor that the Big Bang did not happen. What I am saying is that NO ONE at the moment can answer: what actually happened moments after the Big Bang and what caused it? If you can answer such a question, I assure you, the Nobel Prize is yours! If you can not, Intelligent Design is just as possible as what ever else you can come up with! The fact is, at the moment, no one knows! What I do know however, is that even suggesting anything other than what the "status quo" believes makes one an heretic, which is just as "idiotic"!
Posted by: wazza | April 5, 2008 9:33 PM
Jason: the big bang is essentially uncaused, because, as a singularity, the "universe egg" that exploded in the big bang is not describable using the current laws of physics, which break down at singularities. As for what happened moments after the big bang, there are two or three hypotheses out there, and evidence is being collected even as I write this. We're close to figuring it out.
Intelligent design is not a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis. It makes no testable predictions, which is the definition of a hypothesis, and the evidence doesn't support it, which is what upgrades a hypothesis to a theory. Calling it one doesn't change the facts; ID is just an idea. It doesn't qualify as anything more than that.
And scientists often question the status quo. That's what research is. Consensus means that everyone has looked at the evidence and said "yes, that's what it looks like". Only if new evidence is presented will the consensus change, so in some ways you're right. But those challenging the consensus now don't have any evidence. So complaining that they're not being listened to is a bit stupid. Of course they aren't. They can't back up what they say.
Posted by: Damian | April 5, 2008 9:59 PM
Jason, you may well be an agnostic, but you are clearly not very knowledgeable about this issue.
For a start, science can't prove anything, only falsify. The longer that a theory, or a single component of that theory, goes without being falsified - assuming that it has been tested many, many times - the more confident we can be that we are on the right track.
As for ID, just because some people say that there is a theory doesn't make it so. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, as I have said. ID is not. It must make viable predictions. ID does not. It must explain all of the known facts. ID can't even explain a fraction of them. And it has to be tested over and over and over again. Nobody is performing experiments in an attempt to test ID. How would you test ID, anyway?
But you don't have to believe me. Let's see what the father of ID, Phillip Johnson, has to say:
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
Hmmn.
We understand very well what happened a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. We are not absolutely sure what happened at the exact moment, or just before. The physics break down at that point. That doesn't mean that we don't know anything, however. It is what is known as the intellectual honesty of science.
All ideas are not equal, Jason. Just because there are questions that we can't answer with confidence, it doesn't mean that all possible answers are equally as likely. Science follows specific rules. If you are not willing to play by those rules, you ain't doing science. Sorry.
Posted by: Jason | April 5, 2008 10:02 PM
I will go out on a limb, and assume that of course you are knowledgeable regarding criticism of Darwinism? If not, there are many biology/medical scientists who do find problems with the theory. For instance, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity: http://www.pssiinternational.com Furthermore, what Ben Stein is trying to point out, is that anyone who dissents from the Darwinist point of view is immediately discredited and in fact, despite what you say, not heard! The limb I went out on is more likely than not broken, and is obvious by the emotional outburst in questioning present on this very forum! Perhaps it's just me, as I'm an Engineer, but I find it more often then not to be true that the more emotional people become about science, the more problems there probably are with it!
Posted by: George Cauldron | April 5, 2008 10:18 PM
Furthermore, what Ben Stein is trying to point out, is that anyone who dissents from the Darwinist point of view is immediately discredited and in fact, despite what you say, not heard!
No, his main point is that Darwinists are all Nazis and they killed all those Jews. So therefore IDers shouldn't have to do research.
So, Jinx, is that you?
Posted by: Janine, ID | April 5, 2008 10:21 PM
Jason, before you do anything, you must drop all the blather about the Big Bang. The theory of evolution deals with how organisms survive and how changes can occur over countless generations. And ID is meant to be a counter to the theory of evolution.
Ben Stein uses the Big Bang for one of two reasons, maybe both. First is he understands even less about science than he does about economics. Second is that he is muddying the conversation about evolution by throwing in other subjects.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 5, 2008 10:21 PM
Perhaps it's just me, as I'm an Engineer,
surprise, surprise!
Posted by: Damian | April 5, 2008 10:26 PM
Jason, just remind me what physicians and surgeons know about Modern Evolutionary Theory, again?
Would you listen to PZ, a biologist, if he said that he has problems with Cardiothoracic surgery, or would you listen to the surgeons themselves, who didn't?
You can play the emotional card if you wish, it doesn't change the fact that 99% of the "problems" that people have with MET are either religiously motivated, strawmen, or based on an unbelievably poor understanding of the science involved.
The question that you should be asking yourself is, how many of those in the relevant fields express doubt about MET? The answer to that question is almost none. In fact, statistically it has almost universal support around the world.
The reason that we come across as annoyed is because we are! We are sick of the dishonesty, the disgraceful distortions of history like those that are found in this film, and the constant attempts to destroy the education of children, all because some adults can't get over the fact that they weren't specially created.
I suggest that you do some homework before telling us that some surgeons don't support modern evolutionary theory.
Posted by: James F | April 5, 2008 10:29 PM
Project Steve: actual scientists that support evolution...but just the ones named Steve (or Stephanie):
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
Relative percentages of peer-reviewed scientific papers presenting data for evolution vs. ID:
Evolution: 100%
ID: 0%
Checkmate!
:)
Posted by: George Cauldron | April 5, 2008 10:37 PM
I will go out on a limb, and assume that of course you are knowledgeable regarding criticism of Darwinism? If not, there are many biology/medical scientists who do find problems with the theory. For instance, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity:
Next Jason will gift us with a list of property managers, automobile mechanics, and tax accountants who Have Grave Concerns About Evolution. Why aren't their voices being heard??
Funny that Jason gives a lot more value to being "knowledgeable regarding criticism of Darwinism" than about biology itself.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 5, 2008 10:39 PM
@ Jason: First, you should recognize that cosmology, including the big bang, has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology or the misguided criticisms that go under the label "intelligent design." Evolution is a theory about the diversity and functionality of biological species, no more, no less.
Second, regarding your list of surgeons, how many of them are named Steve? If you really are open-minded about this debate, you should be aware that the claims about there being "real scientists" who question the basic facts of evolution are just a bunch of lies and spin. If you honestly want resources to document this simple truth, many here will be only too glad to provide them.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 5, 2008 10:46 PM
You authoritarianistic, dogmatismistic Darwinismisticists! I have a list of literally dozens of accomplished Duplo engineers, culled from the rosters of pre-schools across the Bible Belt, that says you're wrong!
I don't expect this comment to last long, because you tax-paid leftist scientismists never fail to squash all dissent of your only-a-theory. The truth will out.
Posted by: Damian | April 5, 2008 10:47 PM
Hey, I would sign up to this:
"As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory."
As would almost all evolutionary biologists, as well. Very few people believe that it is possible for "random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life", anymore. It's a good job that there is much more to MET, isn't it?
I hadn't realized that anyone thought that random mutations and natural selection were responsible for abiogenesis, either.
What was I saying about strawman, earlier? Dishonesty all the way, I'm afraid.
Posted by: John Morales | April 5, 2008 10:52 PM
Jason #1752:
...
1. You can't "go out" on a broken limb, even metaphorically.
2. So, is it broken or not?
3. I like the bolded "emotional" and the exclamation mark.
4. Why use a circumlocution? Far easier to say "science" than "the Darwinist point of view".
5. You're funny.
Oh yes, in that first sentence, the question mark should be a full stop, since it's an assertion not a question.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 5, 2008 11:02 PM
Good catch Damian. ". . . skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination . . . of life." Does it even make sense to speak of a "mutation" before there's replication (i.e., life?).
But Ben Stein wants more than abiogenesis. He wants (du-du-du-DUNGH) GRAVITY to be explained by the biological process of evolution:
Jason, it's this sort of utter stupidity (hiding behind ridiculous claims of political persecution) that's offered by the "intelligent design" movement. They've got absolutely nothing of value.
Posted by: Jason | April 5, 2008 11:03 PM
John Morales, I was waiting for the fine pointed grammar criticism to begin. It's the usual last resort for someone who is losing an argument. I'm sorry you do not seem to understand the metaphor, but on another note, I'm happy to see that you find me funny. I'll take that as a compliment! :)
Posted by: MikeG | April 5, 2008 11:04 PM
Yeah, I'm willing to have a discussion with someone who appears to be an honest broker, like DR. As for Jason, not so much. Too frustrating. It's bad for my blood pressure, or something like that.
Posted by: wazza | April 5, 2008 11:09 PM
Ha! He thinks we're losing the argument!
how does he figure that?
Posted by: Physicalist | April 5, 2008 11:12 PM
#1760: Damn! I didn't know that Duplo engineers are willing to question evolution! Maybe the ID folks are right after all. Maybe evolution's a paradigm of the past! (Oh, wait . . . maybe not!)
Posted by: Kseniya | April 5, 2008 11:13 PM
I'm with you, MikeG - as long as "DR" isn't short for "Dr. Intellectual".
Posted by: Stanton | April 5, 2008 11:19 PM
That, and he apparently think that his gross, self-imposed ignorance of Evolutionary Biology entitles him to critique Evolutionary Biology.
Posted by: John Morales | April 5, 2008 11:22 PM
Jason, I consider that my comment had more content than yours. But at this stage I'm feeding a troll, so I shan't further refer to you in this thread.
Um, you would go out on to a broken limb, but you're not sure if it's broken. What's not to understand?
<giggle>
Posted by: Kseniya | April 5, 2008 11:28 PM
Physicalist (#1767)
Wow, that is cool! My brother is looking at Brandeis...
Posted by: thalarctos | April 5, 2008 11:28 PM
Quite so, John; lots more. But someone who thinks a Google search that returns the terms "theory" and "intelligent design" in close proximity means that intelligent design is therefore a theory could hardly be expected to appreciate that fact, could he?
Posted by: George Cauldron | April 5, 2008 11:35 PM
That, and he apparently think that his gross, self-imposed ignorance of Evolutionary Biology entitles him to critique Evolutionary Biology.
Hey, Jason's dentist told him once how Darwinism totally can't explain the origin of life on earth, and that's good enough for him!
Oh yes, and Hitler was a Darwinist. So Jason wins the argument.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 5, 2008 11:36 PM
@ Kseniya: Brandeis is a good school. I sat in on a quantum gravity class there once upon a time, and I know a few of the professors there. (But tell your brother to look at Boston University too, there's a certain advocate of physicalism there . . . who is actually supposed to be finishing an article rather than commenting on blogs . . .)
Posted by: Stanton | April 5, 2008 11:41 PM
Plus, then there's the painful little fact that none of these sites in a google search of "intelligent design" + "theory" actually describe how Intelligent Design "theory" explains anything in a meaningful way (if at all).
Really, all Intelligent Design proponents never actually bother to demonstrate how to do science using Intelligent Design "theory." All they do is say "Gee, I don't understand this, ergo, GODDIDIT/
GODDESIGNERDIDIT," and then they grouse and whine about the all of the alleged shortcomings of "Darwinism" while inadvertently exposing their own gross ignorance of Evolutionary Biology.Posted by: Kseniya | April 5, 2008 11:44 PM
Yup. My mom was a freshman at Brandeis once upon a time. She wound up graduating from that ivy-covered joint a few miles east on the same side of the Chuck. (The reasons why are complicated and wouldn't be appropriate for a family blog like this.)
Little bro is interested in environmental engineering, among other things. He's very bright and broad-minded. The most incredible thing about him is that, at the tender age of 16, he knows aboslutely everything and is never wrong about anything. I'm hoping college can relieve him of this... burden. ;-)
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 5, 2008 11:44 PM
Obviously false. You have heard of it, therefore you contradict yourself.
What are you an "Engineer" of, anyway?
And why do you condemn emotion? You yourself only have emotional outbursts, and have no reason or logical arguments.
Posted by: Stanton | April 5, 2008 11:45 PM
And Hitler became a Darwinist because Darwin stole H.G. Wells' Time Machine to go back in time to murder and assume the identity of Martin Luther, then go into the future in order to murder and assume the identity of Adolf Hitler, as well.Can't leave anything to random chance, of course.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 5, 2008 11:55 PM
That's what we're here for. Day 1: Socratic Wisdom.Posted by: James F | April 6, 2008 12:00 AM
Physicalist, have you been to the PharynguFest or Skeptics in the Pub? Mike the Mad Biologist gave a presentation at the Asgard. You should drop by!
Posted by: Physicalist | April 6, 2008 12:06 AM
I'm ashamed to say that I missed both, as much as I would have liked to be there. It's hard for me to make time to get out (being a parent and being in the publish-or-perish zone). But hopefully I'll be able to poke my nose into one of the events before too long.
Posted by: James F | April 6, 2008 12:08 AM
No worries - I'm not a parent and the publish-or-perish world is still brutal. Here's hoping you can make one!
Posted by: debbyo | April 6, 2008 12:13 AM
For an engineer, you make a very good psychologist, Jason.
Isn't it funny when scientists just present the facts, they are called cold-blooded, boring and lacking in feeling and imagination. And when they react with feeling and imagination, their science is called into question.
Jason, if the expression of emotion is a sign that people are on shaky ground, as you say, then we should have been very suspicious of passionate advocates for the abolition of slavery or equality for women. Human beings, wonderful animals that they are, can feel highly charged when faced with injustice. That's what I like about them. Teaching children lies is an injustice. Scientists, because of the nature of their jobs, are particularly passionate advocates for truth.
Surely, you feel emotional about injustices, don't you?
Posted by: thalarctos | April 6, 2008 12:16 AM
Physicalist, this, er, advocate, whoever he or she might be, may take some consolation in one of the worst-kept pharynguloid secrets--that extensive commenting, and especially getting into arguments with creationists and trolls, is a time-honored form of work avoidance around here.
In fact, some people's paper deadlines can be directly correlated with how much they argue with creationists around here. *whistles innocently*
Posted by: Physicalist | April 6, 2008 12:31 AM
thalarctos: Somehow I'm not surprised to learn of this secret. Perhaps we need a new battle cry: "If that article isn't sent off by 2a.m., the creationists win!!"
Posted by: Michael X | April 6, 2008 2:58 AM
Oh Jason, I figured you'd come back bitching. Here's a little hint, if you don't like being ridiculed then have the sense to make sure that you're not parroting a claim that has been shown false countless times on this very thread.
Namely: "You're trying to sneak into a movie"
This is a red flag for us. It's a bullshit claim against PZ, touted only be the ID crowd, and when someone comes onto the thread saying it, we can be pretty sure where they're getting their information. So to then attempt to gerrymander some intellectual clout by claiming you're an agnostic rings pretty hollow when you're obviously parroting religiously grounded ID nonsense.
You then scribble something about PZ criticizing the movie before it opens. As if one needed to see a movie based on a nonexistent issue founded on a false ideology to criticize it? Well, if you have a problem with that I have a toothfairy documentary I'd love to sell you tickets to.
You then finish with more sputtering about "science" as if PZ must be doing science when he's brushing his teeth and waiting in line for movies or else somehow something has gone wrong. This is of course laughably dense, and I've pointed it out as such. If you wished to be viewed as anything other than a talking-point-vomiting-charlatan then I'd suggest not waltzing onto blogs such as this making claims refuted just nanoseconds before your arrival with an air of over-caffeinated arrogance.
(As a side note, in your comments following your original masterpiece you've failed to distance yourself from ID nonsense and you've given a bad name to agnostics while doing so. So much for any pretense of intellectual honesty.) As far as I can see, my original conclusions stands.
"ID: They sho do bring on tha stupid!"
Posted by: GATEMAN45 | April 6, 2008 10:04 PM
Wow what a bunch of idiots, this group is about as smart as rag-head Muslims, who kill people for their belief. There is not one direct fact to prove evolution only unreasonable speculation. Where are all of the missing links? There are billions of them, and not one found. Evolution is not a fact nor science, it is nothing but myths fallen for by people who don't believe in anything so they believe in stupid false ideas to fit in with the crowd. Evolution is impossible, except in cartoons...and true science is not a cartoon. If any of you are capable of reading more than a comic book. Read "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael J. Behe.
Posted by: J | April 6, 2008 10:19 PM
OK, you convinced me. But I will go further than Behe. Creation science must be taken seriously!
Posted by: Michael X | April 6, 2008 10:24 PM
Gateman, that was hilarious!
The "where are all the missing links!!11!!!1!!one!" is still a classic.
And the "rag-head" slur is a lesser used turn on the "militant" canard. So points for that. Scientists killing to defend their theory instead of doing science! That whole gag gets me every time...
Posted by: Colugo | April 6, 2008 10:39 PM
Between all of the parody and meta-parody both good and bad, the blogosphere has eaten itself. I can hardly tell whether Gateman45 is real or satire.
I'm going with real.
Posted by: Stanton | April 6, 2008 10:41 PM
So, tell me again why I should listen to advice from a pompous Christian bigot like GATEMAN45?
Posted by: Michael X | April 6, 2008 10:43 PM
Yeah, Colugo, you are right of course. I just like to point highlight that what counts as a serious argument to them, is actually the set up to a punchline for me.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 6, 2008 11:04 PM
Whoa, Gateman, you really have a point there. Didn't mama ever tell you not to run with an icepick in your hand?
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 7, 2008 2:29 AM
Because he's trite, boring, ignorant (egnorant?), indoctrinated, and a complete moron?Hm, wait, there's something wrong there...
No worries. That boy's about as sharp as a bowling ball. A sack of rocks could think him under the table. Mathis could probably use the inside of his skull to screen
ExpectoratedExpelled, and hey, maybe he already did.Speaking of Behe, I wonder if we should be emphasizing more that he has claimed to not have any problem with the basic evidence for evolution, just so as to blow the minds of the YECs who try offering Behe as a counter to Darwin. There's plenty of quote-miney fun in the Kitzmiller v. Dover material.
"No matter what some people in the general public may say or hope, ID theory does not concern the age of the earth or common descent or any other claims of Darwinian theory except its proposed mechanism."
— Michael J. Behe, in his disclosure of Expert Testimony for Kitzmiller v. Dover
(emphasis mine)
See that, Gateman44¼? In other words, Behe does agree that we're cousin to apes. Oook!
Posted by: True Bob | April 7, 2008 6:29 AM
So there I am, waiting for my commuter bus this AM, in a rental car. My car is broken, so for a change I have a radio to listen to. Tuning in to some guy who sounds preachery, but is talking a bit of science.
OH NO! It's a christer interview with Stein and Ruloff! Teh Stoopid, it burns! By the time the bus came, I was reduced to slowly singing: "Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do, I'm half crazy..."
In the maybe ten minutes I heard, these are the excretes from the radio:
Darwinism is in the service of Atheism
Hitler greatly affected by Darwin
Pre-WWII Germany was most scientifically advanced country in the world
Nazis were all about accelerating Darwinism
Curator at a killing camp claims it was all about Darwin
Stein - "I know a woman spent 5 years in Auschwitz - if she can believe in god, anyone can choose to."
Evilutionists think lightning struck a mud puddle to create life
Referring to Dawkins - "You took him apart"
Dawkins thinks aliens could've created life here
Punished in the USA for believing in god
And one moment of honesty. Per Ruloff, in setting up the mockumentary, they wanted to create a "Hero's Tale". Stein: "I'm no hero."
Looking it up, here is the station to avoid: WAVA 105.1 in N VA. It was my best buddy, James Dobson (gag!) conducting the interview.
Posted by: J | April 7, 2008 6:36 AM
True Bob,
Come on, everyone knows that Hitler was greatly affected by werewolves, not Darwin.
Posted by: True Bob | April 7, 2008 6:56 AM
J,
Hence Teh Stoopid!!1!1
Posted by: True Bob | April 7, 2008 8:41 AM
Well, still recovering from the AM's brain damage.
Another thing Stein et al pointed out: Dawkins doesn't "like" god! The horror! They think Dawkins sees god as misogynistic, violent, capricious, etc. Just like the babble god, actually.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 7, 2008 9:07 AM
TrueBob, I just had a thought. Given that the real star of Expelled! is not Stein, but Zombie Hitler, maybe we should adopt the alternate title Exhumed!.
Owlmirror, I'm always bemused by cdesign proponentsists who cite Behe while arguing against common descent.
Posted by: True Bob | April 7, 2008 9:44 AM
Forgot this, too. I live in Spotsylvania county, VA, around 45 miles from Charlottesville. If there were ghosts, Thomas Jefferson's would've been wailing loud enough to hear from there. Stein said all they want is what TJ wanted - Free Speech. I'm not so sure TJ would lie to make bogus points for cheeses (see The Jefferson Bible) nor promote supernatural legends.
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 7, 2008 10:47 AM
Everybody, True Bob needs our help. He wandered into a Christian talk radio fallout zone and sprang a few synapses in the process. Now we've all been there and know what it feels like, so be gentle. It might be best to avoid referring to anything untrue or misleading or patently false or unbelievably stupid for a little while, even in parody or jest, at least until his eyes refocus, K? We feel your pain, Bob.
Posted by: True Bob | April 7, 2008 10:55 AM
Thanks Dude. I'm feeling better already. I picked a heck of a week to quit sniffing glue.
Posted by: Lyndon Unger | April 7, 2008 5:37 PM
PZ wasn't kicked out by a policeman.
Mall Security escorted him out. I was standing right there.
I wish I would have known about the Expelled screening though...I saw the Spiderwick Chronicles and it sucked!
Posted by: InHisName | April 7, 2008 11:06 PM
I wanted to post as I happened upon this blog as I was Googling the Expelled movie and this site caught my attention. After I read quite a few posts, I too was on the floor laughing, although I am sure for many different reasons than the most that post here.
First I find it ironic that this movie is dubbed as propaganda from most. I guess that word would be defined in the eyes of the beholder. I'm sure no one would want to call it freedom of speech. Look at Al Gore's movie on global warming... would most of you call that propaganda or because it is claimed as science it is true?
Second, for those who say we must believe Prof Myers or anyone in academia because of his/her credentials need to break free. I believe at one point in time these same people (scientists) claimed that Pluto was a planet and now it's not. I remember from undergrad and grad school challenging many a professors claim- that's what learning is about- thinking for yourself.
By now most can guess where I fall in this issue- but your wrong. I am neither an ID or Evolutionist. I am a strict, literal six-day Creationist. Go ahead and rip me all you want- swear at me- whatever makes you feel good. I compare this debate, ID vs. Evolutionism, to the Apple vs. Microsoft situation (I've been a Mac head since '87). There are the majority who just float along going with the flow and believing/using what everyone else does because that's what society claims to be the truth/best. However, there are those who "think different" and don't believe what everyone else does. We march to a different drummer so to speak.
I'll end my post with this... a person once said something to me that has stuck throughout my life. For those who don't believe in God, take this as you will. If you are right, then you and I have nothing to worry about when we die. However if I am right in my belief in God and what happens with someone after death, then one of us has a problem. I'll stick down my path and you do as you wish- which will probably be a profane-laden response to this post.
God Bless!
John 3:16
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 7, 2008 11:08 PM
damn, the stupid runs thick, don't it.
So much nonsense....
...just not worth it.
Posted by: James F | April 7, 2008 11:14 PM
No profanity from me, just suggestions. Go to evolutionsunday.com. Go watch the videos here relating to Young Earth Creationism. Then ask yourself, why would God deceive us about the nature of the universe?
Peace.
Posted by: Techskeptic | April 7, 2008 11:30 PM
a person once said something to me that has stuck throughout my life. For those who don't believe in God, take this as you will. If you are right, then you and I have nothing to worry about when we die. However if I am right in my belief in God and what happens with someone after death, then one of us has a problem.
You knew Blaise Pascal?!? wow man, you are over 400 years old! And you haven't bothered to keep up to date with your education in all that time?
as if we haven't heard all the tired sorry crap before.
Here, I made you a bingo game for your next church meeting.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 7, 2008 11:54 PM
Whoa... I never thought of that! That sheds a whole new light on everything. Anyone with a 3rd-grade education has always known that Pluto is a dog! All of science must now be called into question!
And that's only the tip of the iceburg. Did you know that geographers once claimed that Zimbabwe was called Rhodesia and now it's not? And that New York was New Amsterdam, but now it's not? All of geography, cartography, history, and political science must be called into question!
Did you know that devoutly religious people used to claim, "The earth is the center of the universe, and the sun, moon, planets and stars revolved around it" and now it isn't? All devoutly religious thought must be called into question!
Hey, this is fun. I'm having fun being even more stupid than usual, and a creationist is lighting the way. Thank you, sir!
By the way, "InHisName" is an anagram of "Him Insane". I detect design.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 7, 2008 11:57 PM
And that's only the tip of the iceburg.
And iceburg is inedible lettuce. Lettuce is like inedible cabbage. Darwin talked about races of cabbages. Darwin is a racist. Evolution is Nazism.
QED.
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 7, 2008 11:57 PM
You sound very sure about that. Very, very sure. So sure, that it even sounds a little smug. Indeed, it sounds so smug that it might even be called pride, or as the Greeks said it, hubris.
Yeah, maybe there's a God. And maybe he has standards such that we're not pure enough for him because we take reality on its face.
But maybe his standards are such that he doesn't like pride, either. I wouldn't know. But I've reconciled myself to that fact that, if your God exists, I'm not getting into heaven. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
You, on the other hand, may be very, very surprised to find yourself after death in the same damn place as all of us atheists.
Posted by: Damian | April 8, 2008 12:09 AM
To a certain extent this is true, but it is entirely dependent on the accuracy of, and motivation behind, the content.
As far as we can tell from all of the pre-release blurb and those who have seen the movie, the accuracy of the content is appallingly bad, and many would say, intentionally dishonest. If it is possible to show, using the very best scholarship, that the arguments made are without foundation, then we can certainly say that the movie is half-way to being a propaganda piece. To clinch the deal we will need to show that there is a motive behind the content.
And once again this isn't too difficult. The film is made by creationists, for creationists, and given that there is a long history of this sort of thing from creationists, it is fairly obvious that the arguments are intentionally misleading, and not just appallingly researched.
Therefore, I would suggest that it would be positively perverse for anyone not to conclude that this is indeed a propaganda movie, and a disgraceful one at that.
As for Al Gore's film - I condemn any poorly researched science, and there was some. I condemn the fact that it overstated the case just a fraction. But I applaud the fact that it was made as it really did express the overwhelming scientific consensus. That is, I am afraid to say, all that we have. We could of course be wrong, but if you have a better way of doing things, I would be delighted to hear it.
Ah, Pascal's wager. Yes, we have heard that one before (it's a daily occurrence, it seems). The problem is that there have been thousands of God's throughout the ages, so you really aren't in a better situation than us, I'm afraid. What if the "True" God is not the God that you worship? Unless you can show that it is more likely the God that you worship is the one true God and not simply an accident of your nationality, there really is no good reason for us to believe that you have access to knowledge that we don't.
And besides, atheists would be going to heaven if it existed, not theists: The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven
Posted by: amphiox | April 8, 2008 12:09 AM
This has already been written in many places regarding Pascal's wager, but boy it would be funny to watch, if there really were an afterlife, some fundie christian entering into the presence of the divine, only to find that it is Zeus, all thunder and lightning, demanding "why hast thou forsaken me?"
At least the atheist could say "well I didn't believe in that Yahweh dude, either."
Posted by: Physicalist | April 8, 2008 12:09 AM
Sorry, Creationist ("InHisName"), YOU LOSE! I just sent off my paper! SUCKER!! I own you!
(cf. #1785. And now, I go to bed.)
Posted by: Kseniya | April 8, 2008 12:09 AM
Right. The possibilities are infinite in number, and Pascal ignored an infinite number of them.
Maybe the Bible - unlike all those goddamned fossils, unlike radiometric dating, unlike the apparent size and rate of expansion of the known universe - is simply God's Trick, a worm on a hook meant to lure and catch the non-skeptics, who will be tossed into a wicker basket, gutted, and broiled in butter and served as the evening's entree to the heavenly host. The Bible is God's way of keeping credulous fools out of Heaven.
Hey - you have to admit it's possible. It makes as much sense as anything else.
Besides, the tea leaves at the bottom of my mug reveal to me that Zeus is royally pissed at all this Christianity nonsense. There's gonna be some lightning this summer, you mark my words. Lightning. Everywhere.
Rain, too.
Zeus!
Posted by: Kseniya | April 8, 2008 12:13 AM
Ulp...
Zeus will not be pleased at my slowness of mind and fleetlessness of finger.
:-(
Posted by: Damian | April 8, 2008 12:32 AM
I hadn't considered that we are simply part of the food chain, before. While we fatten up the livestock ready for consumption, God is peering down on us - knife and fork in hand, of course - eyeing up the juiciest, choicest cuts of human flesh. It's all rather Hitchcockian, is it not?
What this says about the mind that has revealed this, I will leave for others to decide. Thanks, Ksenyia, I won't sleep tonight (or eat again).
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 8, 2008 12:33 AM
Aha! Someone else who heeds the warning in Rev. 3:15-16!
Posted by: That guy from The Twilight Zone | April 8, 2008 12:46 AM
"The Bible... it's... it's a cookbook!"
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 8, 2008 1:09 AM
But Kseniya, it also translates to "Simian Hen". Don't you see what this means? This means that not only must we take the bible literally
But evolution is true, also!
Either that or it's all a great cosmic joke and we're all going to be eaten like June bugs when we die!
(Mmmmmmmmmmm......gutted, and broiled in butter non-skeptics. Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa........)
(I think this thread has run waaaay too long)
Posted by: Michael X | April 8, 2008 2:12 AM
Dude,
Thanks to people like InHisName (his name is Sven, by the way), this thread has the potential to reach 2000. And on that day, I will make a t-shirt of commemoration.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 8, 2008 2:18 AM
GodCthulhu is peeringdownupon us - knife and fork in hand, of course - eyeing up the juiciest, choicest cuts of human flesh. It's all ratherHitchcockianLovecraftian, is it not?fixed that for ya.
"May you and yours be eaten first"
cheers
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 8, 2008 2:21 AM
...oh, and replace "hand" with, uh, "tentacle".
"appendage" would technically be more accurate, if not as precise.
Posted by: John Morales | April 8, 2008 4:26 AM
Ichthyic, I can't believe my eyes.
Your apostasy no doubt has greatly displeased Dagon.
Posted by: Sally Morem | April 8, 2008 11:21 PM
Hi,
I just saw the trailer for "Expelled." I stopped being impressed when Ben Stein described evolutionists as believing that we are "NOTHING BUT mud..."
Didn't the Bible include the ancient mythic story of God creating Adam from clay? Hmmmmmm?
Also, somewhat more seriously, when I see the words "NOTHING BUT used, I know I'm in the presence of someone who doesn't have the foggiest notion of the difference between warranted and unwarranted reductionism in science.
Example of Warranted Reductionism: Human beings are made up of organs, that are made up of organelles, that are made up of cells, that are made up of molecules, that are made up of atoms, that are made up of subatomic particles...
Example of Unwarranted Reductionism: Human beings are NOTHING BUT a collection of organs, that are NOTHING BUT a collection of organelles, that are NOTHING BUT a collection of cells, that are NOTHING BUT a collection of molecules, that are NOTHING but a collection of atoms, that are NOTHING BUT a collection of subatomic particles...
If you think I have a bee in my bonnet about this NOTHING BUT stuff, you're right. Creationists don't have the slightest conception of self-organization, let alone emergent properties in evolutionary systems--physical, biological and cultural. We human beings are NOT NOTHING BUTS.
Enough preaching. Don't spend any money on this movie. Wait for the unofficial transcripts that are sure to be posted in numerous places on the Internet for your education and entertainment.
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 8, 2008 11:27 PM
"this thread has the potential to reach 2000."
And all without a single peep from truth machine. Is this thread still being linked to on the Excreted blog? I suppose the steady trickle of morons will continue for a while then, at least until PZ sees the movie and makes another target.
Posted by: Anna Persgard | April 8, 2008 11:40 PM
It is so amazingly childish, not to mention cowardly to have a mall security guard evict Dr. Myers rather than ask him to leave themselves. I know, we all think they can't sink too low, but I am still awed at the depths of hypocrisy that the creationists continue to go.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 8, 2008 11:44 PM
Sally, can you clone yourself a few times? We could use a few more like you dropping in here from time to time.
Rey, I do miss ol' t.m. I hope he just got sick of us.
Posted by: Leland Howard | April 8, 2008 11:46 PM
I sure hope kids opting out of science class don't watch this.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 1:59 AM
Ichthyic, I can't believe my eyes.
Your apostasy no doubt has greatly displeased Dagon.
no, you just don't appear to grasp the actual underwater Pantheon.
hmm, let me try to simplify it:
Dagon is like the head honcho, and Cthulhu is the ultimate enforcer.
Dagon is like the Judeo-xian God, and Cthulhu is like Jesus when he comes back "in wrath".
There are other minor underwater powers as well, but since we are just talking about these two at the moment, I figured a basic analogy would work.
Dagon doesn't mind a bit when I talk up Cthulhu. A deity has to have some way of instilling impending doom, after all.
:P
P.S.
I'm still in the process of clarifying with Dagon whether it is OK for me to publish the entire underwater pantheon and how it works. So far, I get the impression that He thinks you pure-strain humans aren't ready for another complete pantheon yet.
Soon, though.
Posted by: DanioPhD | April 9, 2008 2:13 AM
Is this the part where we pay exorbitant amounts of money to learn more of Dagon's wisdom?Posted by: thalarctos | April 9, 2008 2:17 AM
Clearly you're not spending *nearly* enough time commenting and picking fights, Physicalist. :)
(seriously, congrats! hope you hear soon that it's accepted.)
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 2:20 AM
Is this the part where we pay exorbitant amounts of money to learn more of Dagon's wisdom?
True(tm) religions never charge for the gift of wisdom.
Donations are always welcome, though.
(that's my story, and I'm sticking to it)
;)
Posted by: Janine, ID | April 9, 2008 2:21 AM
I'd like to be, under the sea...
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 2:28 AM
I'd like to be, under the sea...
*sniff*
now I'm homesick.
Posted by: John Morales | April 9, 2008 5:46 AM
Cthäat Aquadingen 2nd ed. by Ichthyic?
PS
Suggested reading for InHisName.
Posted by: J | April 9, 2008 6:14 AM
#1835 John,
Start off with something more accessible, like Cthulu's Clues.
Posted by: True Bob | April 9, 2008 6:45 AM
Well thanks a lot, J. I was hoping to see the actual clues, so I could be insane too.
Really though, that was pretty damned funny.
Posted by: hyrcan | April 9, 2008 12:11 PM
I had to double check the date of this post a couple times... and was searching through for the April Fools punch.
This is too funny.
Posted by: Michael Class | April 9, 2008 1:30 PM
I wonder, would a public school teacher in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
be allowed to say the following:
"It is interesting to contemplate ... [all the many forms of life on
earth] ... so different from each other, have all been produced by
laws acting around us. ... There is grandeur in this view of life,
HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR
INTO ONE; and that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Just imagine a public school teacher who says those words: that God
creates life and places it on the earth in a few forms, and then that
life evolves according to the physical and natural laws that God put
into place in the universe.
Would that be allowed?
Actually, it should be REQUIRED FOR THE TEACHER TO SAY THAT.
Why? Because the quote is from: On the Origin of the Species, Chapter
XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion, By Charles Darwin.
If you are going to teach Darwin's theory of evolution in public
schools, you should teach what Darwin actually wrote about it.
Michael S. Class
Author / Photographer / Publisher
E-Mail: class@MagicPictureFrame.com
Address: Magic Picture Frame Studio, P.O. Box 2603, Issaquah, WA 98027-0119
Web Site: http://www.MagicPictureFrame.com
---------------
Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame: The History Book with a Message for Today's Young Americans
Read the book. Remember the truth. Share it with your children.
Web Site: http://www.MagicPictureFrame.com
Watch the Video: http://www.magicpictureframe.com/home/watchthevideo.html
---------------
Posted by: Michael Class | April 9, 2008 1:32 PM
I wonder, would a public school teacher in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
be allowed to say the following:
"It is interesting to contemplate ... [all the many forms of life on
earth] ... so different from each other, have all been produced by
laws acting around us. ... There is grandeur in this view of life,
HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR
INTO ONE; and that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Just imagine a public school teacher who says those words: that God
creates life and places it on the earth in a few forms, and then that
life evolves according to the physical and natural laws that God put
into place in the universe.
Would that be allowed?
Actually, it should be REQUIRED FOR THE TEACHER TO SAY THAT.
Why? Because the quote is from: On the Origin of the Species, Chapter
XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion, By Charles Darwin.
If you are going to teach Darwin's theory of evolution in public
schools, you should teach what Darwin actually wrote about it.
Michael S. Class
Author
Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame: The History Book with a Message for Today's Young Americans
Read the book. Remember the truth. Share it with your children.
Web Site: www.MagicPictureFrame.com
Watch the Video: http://www.magicpictureframe.com/home/watchthevideo.html
-----------------------
Posted by: Steve_C | April 9, 2008 1:37 PM
hi crazy Mike!
welcome to your worst nightmare.
We're people with brains, raising our children without religion.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | April 9, 2008 3:10 PM
So what, Michael? You can quote mine. Congrats. A poetic turn of phrase will overturn the last hundred fifty years of scientific progress.
--------
Ichthyic, I think you have your hierarchy a bit messed up. Great Cthulhu is higher up in the mythos ranks than Dagon (who with Mother Hydra is considered a lesser Old One, holding few followers outside of the Deep Ones), unless you take the possibility that Dagon is a biblical name that the Marshes used to give a culturally significant name to Cthulhu.
Now those are some gods that one can really fear (and are just as fictional).
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 9, 2008 6:26 PM
Michael Class,
If you are going to teach Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools, you should teach what Darwin actually wrote about it.
Do you have any idea what a sanctimonious moron you look like coming in to a science blog and lecturing scientists on what Darwin said, and how science should be taught?
Should this quote by Darwin also be taught in public schools?
Your understanding of science is not good. "Darwin" is not being taught in public school science classes, biology is.
I hope the research you did for the other characters in your book was not as sloppy.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 9, 2008 6:36 PM
My psychic powers are kicking in: I see a trip to the dungeon in Michael's future.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 6:55 PM
unless you take the possibility that Dagon is a biblical name that the Marshes used to give a culturally significant name to Cthulhu.
exactly; you can't build your pantheon from what Lovecraft had to say, if you want to be at all precise.
frankly, he embellished quite a lot (he had to, Dagon hasn't granted license for an accurate portrayal yet).
Dagon actually had a HUGE number of worshipers long before anyone ever knew of the Judeo-xian "God".
that should tell you something, I think.
Now I've said too much.
shhh!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 9, 2008 7:24 PM
K, how's it look for the Mets tonight against Philly?Posted by: Sally Morem | April 9, 2008 7:27 PM
Ksenya,
Thanks for the compliments.
While trying to get to sleep last night, I pondered what the producers of "Expelled" might have been up to when they accepted our U of M Morris Prof's mail request for seats in the movie for himself and a guest, and what they may have been up to when they arranged for the screening at the Megamall...oops, I mean the Mall of America, we Minnesotans have our own pet name for that gigantic shelter from blizzards...and planning to boot him out if he showed.
Try this on for size: They KNEW there was a national atheists convention going on in Minneapolis that weekend. They KNEW that the Mall of America is in Bloomington, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis, and they KNEW if they booted out a reasonably well known atheist (the Morris prof) it would probably hit the news wires in minutes (it did). So the whole thing was staged as a gigantic publicity stunt.
What they DIDN'T know was that the "and guest" of the prof was the world-renown Richard Dawkins! Oh, they must have been ticked when they realized they didn't alert the cops to the possibility that Professor Dawkins himself might be dropping by and to BOOT HIM OUT WHEN YOU SEE HIM! :) They missed a sure bet for achieving Publicity Stunt of the New Century!
What do you think?
BTW, being expelled from "Expelled" is a genuine Eye Ron Eee, as Vince Scully used to say on nationally televised baseball games. :)
Posted by: Kseniya | April 9, 2008 7:28 PM
The Mets are up 1-zip in the first, but I'd go with the Phils, behind Kendrick, to pound Pelrey and add to the Mets' woes.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 9, 2008 7:32 PM
OK, now will you marry me?
Posted by: Sally Morem | April 9, 2008 7:52 PM
Michael S. Class
"It is interesting to contemplate ... [all the many forms of life on earth] ... so different from each other, have all been produced by laws acting around us. ... There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
There was no possibility that Darwin could figure out how non-living chemical processes could gradually become living processes in the middle of the 19th century. Our scientists on the cutting edge are just beginning to grapple with this subject early in the 21st century.
As you'll note from the portion you typed in ALL CAPS, Darwin made two guesses as to how life came about. That's all he could do--guess. He couldn't know.
He also used Biblical imagery; "breathed by the Creator..." is straight out of Genesis. Do you suppose this was an attempt on his part to forestall the almost certain uproar among religious folks that was sure to come in response to the highly controversial hypotheses on biological evolution through natural selection offered in his book? That these hypotheses certainly were not Biblical in the least? An attempt that was surely doomed to failure?
If we're going to teach biological evolution in the schools, we have to teach Darwin...and what we've learned since Darwin, including modern genetics, chaos and complexity theory, and the wily ways of autocatalytic chemical systems.
That's why it's called Neo-Darwinism.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 9, 2008 8:10 PM
There is an important lesson to be learned here about fr*ming. Darwin added that reference to the Creator in the second edition. (First edition (1859) text can be consulted here; second (1860) edition here. It's the last sentence in the book.) He was fr*ming, trying not to piss off Christians, and what did he get for his trouble? Misinterpretation of his meaning by knuckleheads like Michael Class for a hundred and fifty years!!
Moral of the story? Abstain from the fr*me.
(Except, oops, I forgot we atheists have no morals. Call it a life lesson.)
Posted by: James F | April 9, 2008 8:25 PM
Also, note that in the first edition of On the Origin of Species, "by the creator" did not appear in that passage. I normally see the first edition quoted; that version of the passage is from the second edition.
What is more germane, however, is that it has been said that Darwin felt God created life through the laws of nature, a view perfectly suited to modern theistic evolutionary philosophy espoused by Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and many others.
Posted by: James F | April 9, 2008 8:28 PM
*sigh* I need to compose these things faster. Good catch, Sven! :-)
Posted by: Sally Morem | April 9, 2008 8:38 PM
James F.
"What is more germane, however, is that it has been said that Darwin felt God created life through the laws of nature, a view perfectly suited to modern theistic evolutionary philosophy espoused by Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and many others."
Sounds like what Pope John Paul II believed, at least that's what I've heard about his encyclical on the subject of biological evolution. I haven't actually read that encyclical.
Sorry about not knowing that Darwin added that nod to Christianity in the second edition of On the Origin of Species. I'll have to change my point somewhat to...Darwin felt he had to RESPOND to the firestorm of criticism from religious folks for his highly controversial hypotheses.
Posted by: Melissa Springer | April 9, 2008 9:24 PM
watch the whole thing lol
Posted by: Kseniya | April 10, 2008 2:26 AM
Sven:
Oh my! Well, the Mets won, 8-2, so you may want to withdraw the proposal. My crystal ball has joined my halo in the "tarnished" drawer. ;-)
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 10, 2008 7:26 AM
John: "I guess all you smart guys can explain how my two herniated disks were miraculously healed after praying for healing to the God you say doesn't exist. I have xrays and mri's before and after to prove it."
I wonder how your x-rays and MRI's actually prove God healed your back, rather than confirming that your back was somehow healed. Did he leave a note?
And as to your overall point, you might get some sympathy for your assumption that your prayers had anything at all to do with your back, but in me you will receive nothing of the sort. I cannot count the number of times I saw soldiers pray for protection only to come back disfigured, or many times not come back at all. And I distinctly remember a chaplain blessing and praying for my platoon on a September night in 2005, only to get 30 minutes out of the gate and get hit with an IED that has left me with a mild brain injury, nerve damage from the back of my skull to my lower back, migraines every two weeks that last for four days, and a limp that means I'll be walking with a cane for the majority of my life. So excuse me if I don't take your assumption that prayer fixed your back at face value. Besides being blatantly self-serving along with being highly implausible, it is really quite annoying. And besides being annoying, in my opinion, it is nothing more than using the unexplained (if that's even true) improvement of your back problem as an opportunistic platform to both trumpet your faith and get smiling approval and recognition from those who already share your beliefs.
In conclusion, I consider myself smart, so I'll give your challenge to explain how your back healed the old college try -- you have no idea how your back healed, and prayer seemed good enough for you. The problem is, prayer wasn't good enough for those men I never saw alive again, and I can safely assume for myself that the majority of those guys deserved it much more than you.
**To all those whom I see eye-to-eye with on this thread, I'm sorry for the long winded post...This John character hit one of my still-functioning nerves.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 10, 2008 11:36 AM
No apology necessary, Soldier. I still have friends who say "Prayer works!" and say it within earshot of me, knowing full well that prayer failed to save my mother from succumbing to cancer at the age of 43. I let it pass... for now.
We all know that studies have failed to show that prayer has any effect on anything, but people believe what they need to believe when they feel they have to have some control over the events that unfold without our permission here in the real world. At least they're not seeking control by doing things the old way, like going to the tops of mountains to cut the hearts out of still-breathing young girls.
Posted by: Benny | April 10, 2008 1:42 PM
Of course, this story is true. Why would anyone make-up such a story?
Posted by: Janine, ID | April 10, 2008 2:00 PM
brokenSoldier, there is no need to apologize, that was the furthest thing from being long winded. You were on point and everything you said backed up that point.
All I have to say is I am sorry you were in Iraq. I am sorry that you lost friends. And I am sorry that you have wounds that will never go away. I wish you well.
Posted by: Sally Morem | April 10, 2008 2:01 PM
Have you ever noticed news reports of survivors of a natural disaster praising "The Lord" for their deliverance while uttering nary a word about "The Lord's" failure to deliver their fellow citizens who were killed?
Do Christians really think through the implications of a purportedly all-powerful, all-knowing God?
If they did, they'd get ill with disgust.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 10, 2008 5:25 PM
Kseniya & Janine,
Thank you for your kind thoughts - they are much appreciated. It is people of your demeanor and caring that - to me, at least - make what we went through worth it despite the results.
As for my comments on prayer, I want to make a further point. I had already doubted my faith (Catholicism) before going overseas, but it was the situation that we were all put in that turned my indifference to disdain. By that, I mean that we were soldiers placed in combat by a President not only convinced he had been selected by God for his office, but also entirely sure that God approved of his plans for invasion. (It is one thing to privately hold these beliefs, but when he voiced these opinion in public, I believe he crossed the line.) And in addition to that, I was hit by a bomb planted and detonated in Allah's name. What we ended up with was an Army caught between two religious camps, both of them convinced that their beliefs were not only right, but worthy of sending humans to die for. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 10, 2008 8:01 PM
Soldier, this war tastes bad to a lot of us. I am both sorry and enraged for what you went through, and are still going through, in our name. But I want to thank you for your service to my country, which I love despite its leaders and most of its citizens. If I were
kingPresident I'd try to put you guys to better use!So: thank you.
Posted by: James F | April 10, 2008 8:17 PM
Soldier,
Thank you for your service and for your moving words - I can't even imagine what you've been through and continue to deal with to this day. I will happily pray on someone's behalf at that person's request or the request of that person's loved ones, and I appreciate it when people pray for me - it is a way of showing a sort of solidarity and compassion with other human beings. For those who make snide claims about being miraculously healed, as if they get special divine treatment, well...you said it better than I could have.
Posted by: True Bob | April 10, 2008 8:26 PM
Soldier, you have my good wishes as well. I am sorry you were sent to Iraq, as I am sorry for all who were sent over there. First rule of "supporting the troops" should be: "Use them sparingly and with great consideration." It's a travesty that your benefits are so inadequate (where's your damned GI bill?).
I wish I had thought of it sooner, but the next time some 19 year old "elder" tells me prayer works, I'm going to ask him, "If so, why the hell are you going door-to-door?". The only thing prayer does is make the pray-er feel special.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 10, 2008 8:40 PM
Soldier,
Welcome home. I wish more of your buddies were here (and that you hadn't been there in the first place, to be honest). Best of luck (and with some political will, a better administration with more invested in provided care to those who've served...)
Be well.
Posted by: Michael X | April 10, 2008 9:36 PM
I think those who are wondering where T.M. went, this thread seems to explain it best. At about comment 25, Truth Machine begins again to harp on The Obama Failing post, and PZ calls him out. I haven't seen T.M. since. I also heard nothing about the Molly for that month. C'est la vie.
Posted by: Andy | April 10, 2008 10:25 PM
I just recently was turned on to Richard Dawkins and the wisdom he speaketh. I now find out that here in my little home state of Minnesota PZ Myers resides. Woo Hoo! Go science go!
Posted by: Damian | April 10, 2008 11:06 PM
Erm, I was going to mention it. I noticed that it was being talked about last night, but I was too tired to respond. That thread is indeed the answer to the conundrum. I noticed it at the time and have checked back on several occasions since. As someone put it in one thread (perhaps even that one, though I haven't checked), Truth Machine seemed to worry over an issue almost incessantly, and regardless of its perceived importance.
As someone who didn't really comment at that time, I was fascinated by his amazingly sharp intellect, but it seems that his brand of Truth may have been simply overwhelming for some people (including the boss, unfortunately).
Alas, my first Molly nomination was all for nothing in the end. C'est la vie, indeed. Life is a much duller without T.M, though.
May the Truth be with you, always.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 10, 2008 11:21 PM
PZ's usually upfront about banning people, and he did not explicitly do so in that thread. TM is not listed in the dungeon which, I am perhaps naive enough to believe, is a complete list of the banned. (I must say, though, that is it was my blog, somebody who called me an "asshole" and then directed a "fuck you" at me would indeed be banned. But I wouldn't do it secretly, and I don't see why PZ would.)
On the other hand, it does not seem much like the Machine to stay away just because (s)he didn't feel wanted.
Maybe somebody unplugged it.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 10, 2008 11:25 PM
I nominate this thread for most meandering.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 10, 2008 11:33 PM
Yet does not even the mightiest river meander through featureless prairie plains en route to its final union with the great Sea?
...but to get back on topic, can you believe it? they kicked out PZ but let Richard Dawkins in! I mean, the irony! And, oh yeah, those Expelled guys are Teh Stoopid! Don't you think?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 10, 2008 11:36 PM
Don't you think?
Yah sure, you betcha!
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 10, 2008 11:53 PM
I am very nearly certain that T.M. is alive and well and still posting to Pharyngula. Although, obviously, not using that name.
It's possible that my analysis is mistaken, but the similarity of style and interests is, I think, far too strong to be merely a coincidence.
Posted by: Damian | April 11, 2008 12:36 AM
Owlmirror, I am intrigued by your suggestion, although I don't want to know who it is that you have in mind...yet.
Quite how he could get around the I.P. thingymabob if he has been banned, I don't know.
T.M. once suggested that he couldn't reveal his identity and I had visions of him being "ultra-strident PZ" in disguise, so that he could really insult the people that pissed him off (which is where my theory breaks down, I suppose). But he had to kill off T.M. because his creation had become so popular that it was about to be awarded a Molly.
Of course, I really need to stop allowing my imagination to run wild.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 1:06 AM
Wow, Damian... LOL... cool idea, but... Naaaah. I can't imagine PZ banning TM on the sly, Molly-candidate or not.
So, Owlmirror... so you think old TM is now posting as "Joe Blow", do ya?
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 11, 2008 1:36 AM
brokenSoldier,
Thanks for posting; you express yourself well. It's good to hear from people who are serious minded enough to face reality honestly. I assure you, the characters who come here to chide us for failing to worship their god and cultivate the proper obsequiousness with the rest of Christian America, get on our nerves, too.
As for your observations about the president, and that --"What we ended up with was an Army caught between two religious camps, both of them convinced that their beliefs were not only right, but worthy of sending humans to die for." -- I hope that your perceptions are shared by many more within the armed forces (and that they share their insights as you are doing.) If so, then something good will come out of this fuck up of a war--an increased measure of sobriety and sensible thinking. It is certainly needed.
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 1:40 AM
Funny...how Mr. Meyers characterizes this story. First, it was a private screening. He knew it and was trying to get in under false pretenses. Second, not only was Mr. Dawkins allowed in (uninvited as well) but he consumed his share of time and was never disrespected. If says otherwise, he's not being truthful. I find it strange that if one feels that their argument confirming their faith in Evolution and Atheism is so compelling, then why does the conversation so quickly deteriorate into insults and character assassination? Truth should be able to stand on its own.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 2:03 AM
It does, scott... but then people come along and try to insist we're wrong
As for whether or not PZ was supposed to go to that screening... Both PZ and Dawkins are in the movie. They're allowed to see how they're portrayed, especially since it was edited by people known to lie and to use underhanded tactics. Wouldn't you say that's fair? And he didn't try to get in under false pretenses. He gave them his real name, and when they decided they didn't want him there he accepted their decision. If they couldn't recognise Richard Dawkins, it's their fault.
The character assassination is part and parcel of the argument, I'm afraid. We do it to the creationists because they do it to us... generally it backfires, but we still aren't going to take it lying down. Plus, it's fun. We're allowed to have fun, right?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 11, 2008 2:06 AM
He knew it and was trying to get in under false pretenses.
Lie
Inaccurate. The "invitation" is a red herring. People signed up and were registering, as did PZ and Dawkins. Your honesty is sinking.
If says otherwise, he's not being truthful. I find it strange that if one feels that their argument confirming their faith in Evolution and Atheism is so compelling, then why does the conversation so quickly deteriorate into insults and character assassination?
because having to deal with the same ridiculous bullshit from continuous streams of fuckwits becomes tedious and tiresome.
Truth should be able to stand on its own.
And yet you idiots keep rejecting it....
next time, try to engage honestly.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | April 11, 2008 2:22 AM
Scott, go fuck yourself. All of your lies have already been spewed around and debunked countless times IN THIS VERY THREAD. There were no false pretenses, PZ signed up on a publicly available website using his real name, then got thrown out by rent-a-cops because Ass Prod Mathis is a petulant child. The whole "he wasn't invited" bullshit was made up after the fact when the nutcase who falsely accused PZ of bothering people in line revealed himself to be a liar.
It's YOUR side that isn't being truthful. You've changed stories so damn many times you can't keep straight which lie you're supposed to parrot today. I know it's hard for you Liars For Jesus™ to grasp this, but repeating the same lies over and over doesn't magically make them true.
Truth SHOULD be able to stand on its own. But you don't have any. You never did. You're just another Liar For Jesus™, a walking disgrace to everything you stand for. You wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the ass.
And you've wrapped yourself up so tightly in your delusions that reality will never penetrate. No matter how many times it's shown that the lies you've been trained to parrot about this incident are false, you'll never admit it. The truth is no longer relevant when talking to you, it's already publicly available, you just need to scroll up to learn the facts, but you've gouged out your own brain for fear of seeing it. You're violently allergic to the slightest speck of truth, you won't even go near it. Telling you the truth is pointless, you'll just pretend it doesn't exist. Ridicule is the only thing left.
It's impossible to assassinate your character. Your character committed suicide long ago. Don't blame the murder on the coroner.
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 2:38 AM
MAJeff...PZ was not invited to a private screening. Second, why then did Mr. Dawkins sign in as Clinton Dawkins (clearly knowing that he was not invited) instead of Richard Dawkins? He was never disrespected and was allowed to say anything he wanted.
Third, you just illustrated my point. You fuckwits can't stand someone asking straightforward questions without talking down to people with your bullshit answers. What bullshit are you talking about? I never said anything for or against. Fourth, I never claimed to be a creationist. However, there is not one scientific fact that proves any theory of Evolutionist's explanation for the beginning of life. If there was, it wouldn't still be just a theory.
By the way "wazza" Mr. Dawkins sat through the entire movie and admitted, in the discussion following, that he was portrayed honestly. He acknowledged so in front of the crowd. Get your facts straight.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 2:43 AM
Oh, the irony. The excruciating, endless irony.
What part of "All of your lies have already been spewed around and debunked countless times IN THIS VERY THREAD" don't you understand?
If you weren't so goddamned lazy you could answer your own questions. Get to it, or prepared to be mocked... or worse, mocked in a French accent.
Go on. Hop to it. You can do this! I have faith in you.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 2:46 AM
Oh, by the way: statements like that only make you look like an ignorant fool. You're clearly not unintelligent, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to solve that one, too - IF you're willing to spend a little time educating yourself.
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 2:48 AM
phantomreader42 - You guys are hilarious...and proving the point...all you do is talk down to people...never, and I mean never willing to answer anything. I have said nothing about what I believe ...yet you assume anything you put your mind to. And, you show just where you are coming from...willing to screw over anyone who might disagree with your opinion...with the language of a slut sixth grader.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 2:54 AM
ROFLMAO
He says he's not a creationist, then says there's no evidence for evolution, otherwise it wouldn't be just a theory...
Ever heard of the theory of relativity? Think that's just bullshit?
Go on, get out of here, ya little scamp... get back to high school, I think you're missing a few science classes.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 2:57 AM
What was that about character assassination and personal remarks?
We've answered these questions hundreds of times. The answers are publicly available. You don't seem to understand them, thus earning yourself a good talking-down-to
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 3:08 AM
ok "wazza" how does the Theory of Relativity explain the origin of life? This should be interesting. Because I just saw on TV the other day a prominent scientist try to convince the host that somehow life started by aliens dropping off their remnants here on earth. I thought in your eyes this shit was already settled. So, if it is...then why are they still trying to find ways to explain it? Can't you guys ever talk to anyone without insulting them at the same time? Geeezzz it gets old. Just put forth your answer.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 3:17 AM
I invoked the theory of relativity as another theory which is accepted by all scientists who actually looked at the evidence as the best explanation we have... which is exactly the same as evolution. Relativity has nothing to do with the origin of life. Nor, technically, does evolution; evolution is a force which acts on life once it is present, causing it to increase in fitness to its environment.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the alien thing, but it seems to be some form of directed panspermia. This is one of the explanations for the origin of life on earth, but most scientists find it intellectually unsatisfying, since the origin of life is merely moved back to whatever world delivers it here...
And yes, we can talk to people without insulting them. This is dependent, as with all people, on our finding the subject worthy of not being insulted. Unfortunately, I've never met a creationist yet who wasn't willfully ignorant, logically fallacious and willing to twist anything to his cause. Nor have I ever seen any evidence which casts the slightest doubt on the theory of evolution. Ergo, anyone who disbelieves in it is either misinformed or an idiot. Given that it is taught in schools, the latter seems the most likely option.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 11, 2008 3:18 AM
Scott, you're making baby Jesus cry.
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 3:20 AM
Scott,
The "invitation" canard has been long debunked. PZ signed up online on a public website, and registered a guest. Dawkins just happened to be that guest. You're claims are demonstrably false.
Please move along.
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 3:21 AM
Ok..Kseniya I will give you one example (by the way...I was just repeating the same language that MAJeff, OM had used. Ok, the one example...explain how life can come from non-life? Because, if memory serves me right, didn't Pasteur dispel that back in the mid-1800's? ...and isn't it the Second Law of Thermodynamics (proven scientific law) that states that all kinetic energy in the universe is in the process of running down...not the other way around as Evolution tries to state?
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 3:24 AM
As for TM, forgive the meandering ;-), I highly doubt he's been banned, or is posting under a different name. Though he may be a grade a asshole, I think he has more anal-retentive integrity than that. I simply believe he left, having no wish to remain.
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 3:26 AM
Scott,
The second law deals with closed systems, not open ones such as the earth. Please move along, you're acting like a troll.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 3:26 AM
Life is not a special kind of matter, man
at its most basic, it is just a special collection of chemical reactions
the second law applies to a special model of gaseous motion, but fails when applied to more complex systems. Plus, living things give off heat, so I would assume that overall entropy increases nevertheless.
And yeah, that pasteur thing... he just proved that some guy had flunked basic experimental design. It happens. Now we're designing proper experiments, and we're making life and stuff. Very cool. And not debunked.
Am I allowed to add an insult here? No? It's just you're being kind of obtuse...
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 3:37 AM
Hey wazza...there is a whole lot that is taught in schools that is complete BS. Just because this is taught doesn't mean that it is correct. And, Evolution IS being taught as fact as an explanation for the beginning of life...when it is clearly flawed. If it is fact, then why are we still debating it?..even within your own community. Yet, as magnanimous as you would like to sound, you still characterize anyone who disagrees with or questions your "faith" (because that is what it truly is..."faith) in Evolution as an "idiot" or ignorant. This effectively nullifies any true and honest debate (or questions for that matter) because, sooner or later, you have shown yourself as one who cannot objectively see anything past your own opinion.
There are many holes in Evolution. I have never said that I know the answers. However, there is not one person on this thread that has not characterized a person who disagrees with Evolution or questions its very premise as anything less than an "idiot" as you have done more than a few times.
What is so dangerous about asking questions? And, why must you always believe that I (or others) are trying to turn everyone else into some sort of religious freak? I don't give a rip who or what you bow to. However, I see the same zealousness any time someone is challenged on Man-made Global Warming.
Posted by: Colugo | April 11, 2008 3:42 AM
Scott, think of aliens seeding life on earth as an example of the problem of infinite regress of creators. Say that aliens did seed life on earth. That cannot be a complete explanation of how we came to be; it merely posits another event in a chain of events that led to us. Where did the aliens come from? We need an explanation of their origins.
Likewise with God. God in your theological thought experiment is simply playing the role that aliens did in the panspermia thought experiment. Positing that God did it is simply adding another step to the ultimate explanation. Because it doesn't explain where God came from.
And since God not only created life on earth but the universe itself* He/She/It must be even more complex than the universe. That is to say, claiming that God did it presents an even more complex thing to be explained than the universe itself. Where did god come from? Did an Uber-God make Him? The Uber-God must be even more complex and amazing than God. But from whence the Uber-God? I know; the Hyper-God? Yet another entity demanding an explanation. See the problem?
(*And not just as a mindless - "infinitely simple" - prime mover but specifically assigning the properties of each and every thing like an engineer, watchmaker, animator in those Daffy Duck cartoons in which creator interacts with his creation, what have you)
That's an infinite regress of creators. Of so-called explanations. But it's worse than that - each explanation leaves even more to be explained. That's worse than unparsimonious; it's "explaining" something by creating even more mystery.
You probably don't like the chain of God-creators. So let's leave it at one omniscient, uncreated God. Still the same problem - you have "explained" something (life, the universe, everything) by asserting the existence of something else (God) that requires even more explanation. Something that adds to the sum total of mystery. On the basis of what evidence? None.
So go ahead and laugh at evolutionists for not knowing precisely how life on earth formed. You've assigned yourself a much bigger explanatory problem. Unless you're not really interested in explaining anything at all, but are just delighted in basking in a self-imposed mystery borne of ignorance.
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 3:48 AM
Wazza - hate to break it to you... but the Second law of Thermodynamics applies to all energy...not just a certain kind. It is a scientific law. ..which means that is a proven fact. Organization and Complexity does nothing but descend into Disorganization and Chaos. If I leave a VW in the dessert over a 100 years...it does not become a Mercedes. Life does not spontaneously come from non-life. It never has...and never will. I don't know what the heck you are talking about. Energy is energy. Spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 3:51 AM
There's nothing dangerous about asking questions... so long as you're interested in the answers. In fact, science is all about asking questions, and going out and finding the answers.
If anything in schools is wrong, it's because it's simplified to aid understanding, and will later be replaced by a more precise truth. Evolution is taught because all the evidence supports it. What holes there are don't disprove evolution; they guide scientists towards fruitful areas of research.
How is evolution "clearly flawed"? The theory has evolved with the findings, to provide explanations and predict what we'll find next. It explains everything we see in biology and tells us what to look at, and so far all the surprises we've had have been within the bounds of the theory.
I'd like to hear what you think the flaws in evolution are. I'll bet you a toe that I can explain all of them... because evolution has been carefully examined, and proven to work. It doesn't have any flaws yet. If it does, we'll find something new that explains things even better, because that's what science is about.
And Scott, when the evidence says one thing, and you insist on another, or when you don't even know the most basic evidence... yes, you are an idiot, and yes, you are ignorant. That's pretty much the dictionary definition. Hence our characterisation of anyone who denies evolution as an idiot. Because they are, by definition. The evidence says yes, and it won't change if you yell "no" loudly enough.
And the same goes for global warming, too. The evidence is behind the idea that we've caused it, and no amount of blubbering is going to change that.
As for not wanting to convert us... Insisting on intelligent design is insisting on a deity, which is, by necessity, against my personal view of the universe. Like many scientists and sciencers (a neologism referring to amateur enthusiasts of science), I don't have faith in anything but the observational power of the human mind - and even that, I have to check with other people before I'll trust it. Oh, and I suppose I have faith that I'm not the solipsist, but that's pretty much a given. If you insist on intelligent design, you try to force belief in a deity on me, so yes, you are trying to convert me. Show me the evidence, and I might believe. If it's convincing, and peer-reviewed by people I trust.
Posted by: Colugo | April 11, 2008 3:51 AM
Then how can a zygote become an embryo become a fetus become a baby become an adult, Scott? Isn't this process in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 3:56 AM
See, Scott? that last comment on thermodynamics is why I want to insult you. You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics (which, by the way, is simply a theory that has lasted so long it's called law because it's easier. It can still be disproven. Nothing in science is proven) and then you use that ignorance to disprove evolution, another theory you don't understand.
Also, the VW analogy doesn't work. Cars don't reproduce with slight errors and get selected based on how much tail they get their driver. If they did, a vw WOULD turn into a merc.
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 4:00 AM
Colugo - I am not trying to explain any position. I don't have the answers...and am not trying to say that I do. However, when engaging anyone in a debate relating to or questioning Evolution, one is either labeled a "religious nutwad" or irreparably ignorant. But, it (people arguing for Evolution) has become such a fascist response...that it has gotten to the point of almost down right persecution. I have neither disrespected or insulted anyone. Yet, look at all the responses to the contrary to my inquiry. My kids are being taught something that I know has so many holes in it. But, they are not allowed to ask questions for fear of the same "religious" Evolution response that I am getting here.
Can I explain the origin of man? No. I never said I could. But I know bullshit when I see it. And, if proponents of Evolution are so indignant of anyone challenging their point of view, it just makes the argument even more suspect.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 4:04 AM
Scott, you haven't explained these holes. I see no holes. That you see holes in evolution is itself an example of pure, burning stoopidity.
If you tell us what these holes are and we can't explain them, we may revise that estimate. Or maybe we'll just call PZ, and we'll all get a lesson in biology.
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 4:10 AM
Wazza...sorry, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a proven scientific fact. Plain and simple.
Colugo - since when is a zygote non-living matter? Pasteur proved that life cannot come from non-life.
Didn't you guys ever take biology in school? An alligator cannot become an Elephant. A cell (or whatever you want to call it) did not just appear somewhere. Also, a micro whatever does not, over time, become something else. It has never been duplicated ever. If you believe it has...then where are all the supposedly transitional figures/fossils proving it such? There is not one example found anywhere. Fossils found show completely formed entities.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 4:20 AM
Crap. Now I'm involved... and with these kinds of misconceptions... I blame it all on SIWOTI.
A zygote isn't non-living matter, but it has to necessarily become more complex in order to become a full-grown animal... breaching your conception of the second law of thermodynamics, which is proven, but not as widely applied as you seem to believe. It works on gases. Horses, not so much.
I took biology. Did you? Alligators don't become elephants. The leap is just too huge. But an alligator can, with time, become something else which is crocodilian, lives in the water, is cold-blooded, has a splayed gait... but is not an alligator. Evolution is all about tiny changes adding up over long periods of time.
It has been duplicated. My dad did it in university level biology as a simple lab experiment.
And all fossils are transitional. It's just that each transitional form between one thing and another also has to be a thing in and of itself, and so they look complete... but the tiny squirrel-things of the tertiary period became apes, in the fullness of time, despite being fully formed themselves, and snakes for example have been found with vestiges of the legs they were losing, as a transition from lizards to snakes.
Plus, we're a transitional form. Do you realise how many compromises there are between our bipedal form and our quadripedal past? Very poor "design".
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 4:43 AM
I am sorry...but can you really believe what you are actually saying?
First, I never said a "zeygote" was a Non-living matter. Colugo was making that statement. Pasteur proved that something cannot come from nothing. Life cannot come from non-life. However,that alone is the basis for Evolution...that something just spontaneously started. That never happens...never.
An egg/embryoe or whatever, evolves through its own LIVING genetic design. How does that contradict The Second Law of Thermodynamics? You lost me on that one.
As for Transitional figures...there is not one example anywhere. How does a cell decide it will become a tree or a shark or a bumble bee? It simply doesn't ...and there is no evidence to the contrary. Man did not come from apes...or something that used to swim. That is the most ridiculous argument of all. If it were true...we would have found many many examples of transitional figures everywhere. And, why are there still apes?
Biogenisis is simply a FACT/axiom of Biology that states that only life can come from life...which leaves Evolution baseless. Life did not just appear...then become other forms of life...over billions of years. Basic science and biology prove that.
Even Darwin admitted that.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 4:56 AM
Ugh
Do I have to?
Colugo made the point I made, then you misunderstood him. Pasteur merely disproved the model someone else proposed, which was that boiled beef broth (!) could produce life if left alone long enough. He didn't disprove the later experiments in abiogenesis, which have been fairly successful.
The egg grows, and as it grows, it increases in complexity. If you're going to apply the second law to evolution, you have to apply it to development, too, which makes growth theoretically impossible. Or you could accept that the second law is limited in its application - which any physicist could tell you - and then there's no objection to growth OR evolution.
Did you not read my explanation of transitional forms? They're not some half-elephant, half-tree freak. They're a working form which is going to be selected in some way that will eventually change into something else, without themselves being less then well adapted to their environments. Everything on earth is either a transitional form, or headed for extinction. Or both. Panda bears have a carnivorous gut, but are gradually changing into herbivores, including growing a bone spur as a thumb, allowing them to pick the food they eat.
Saying "life can only come from life" does not disprove evolution. You haven't proved it. You haven't even provided evidence of it.
And all the evidence of "basic science and biology" is what lead us to the theory of evolution. If evolution was wrong, it would have lead us elsewhere. Because that's what science is: the best way of explaining the facts.
Posted by: Zarquon | April 11, 2008 5:05 AM
The second law of thermodynamics states that dS >= dQ/T. Which bit of that disproves evolution? Show your work. Otherwise, admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: John Morales | April 11, 2008 5:13 AM
Oh for goodness' sake!
Scott, go see responses to all the claims you've made and the ones you will make, and stick to the topic of the post. You know, the irony of PZ being expelled from Expelled.
I doubt you will, just as I doubt you've read this thread where every one of your claims has been exposed.
<sigh>
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 5:17 AM
Thanks, Zarquon...
spending that long immersed in stoopid has to be bad for my brain
Posted by: Colugo | April 11, 2008 5:17 AM
We are certainly not dealing with a Michael Denton or Michael Behe grade of "Intelligent Designist" here. (Not that those two have not fallen into extreme error themselves, but they know far better than to use such utterly unsophisticated and egregious arguments.) More of a Jack Chick or Kirk Cameron level in terms of knowledge.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 5:27 AM
Colugo: that's why it hurts so much
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 11, 2008 6:05 AM
but they know far better than to use such utterly unsophisticated and egregious arguments
If you watched the back and forth between Behe and ERV, you might think twice about whether Behe knows when not to use such arguments.
It was like watching a uni professor argue with a 5 year old.
...and Behe was most certainly playing the role of the 5 year old.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 11, 2008 6:10 AM
Scott sez:
I don't have the answers...and am not trying to say that I do.
followed by:
Biogenisis is simply a FACT/axiom of Biology that states that only life can come from life...which leaves Evolution baseless. Life did not just appear...then become other forms of life...over billions of years. Basic science and biology prove that.
O.o
you gotz issues, boy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 11, 2008 6:15 AM
Oh, the irony. The excruciating, endless irony.
indeed.
I'm sure this thread will make it over 2k posts, though it's getting so slow to load I doubt I'll bother to check on it much after that.
Hey John,
what's the count up to at this point?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 11, 2008 6:19 AM
Maybe somebody unplugged it.
actually, I'm a tad worried it might have unplugged itself.
He always was a bit high strung.
Posted by: True Bob | April 11, 2008 6:56 AM
Scott, you lost when you wrote this:
;)
2nd Law - you have so egregiously misapplied this that it's amazing you can spell "thermodynamics". You were already told that's for closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. The solar system could be (crudely) modeled as a closed system, but tell me, what's at the center of it? A great honking source of energy. That source of energy is dying, but dying very very slowly. As it dies, it is pumping out HAAAYYYUUUUGE amounts of energy, a miniscule fraction of which this planet intercepts. That tiny fraction of the sun's energy output is sustaining life on this planet, and has been doing so for eons; such a very long, long, LONG time that the life that occurred has evolved to the present variety of terran flora and fauna.
I'm trying to give your remarks as much objective treatment as I can, but I will happily join in the mocking (in French accent) if you continue with your willfull, intentional ignorance. Educate yourself: you have the friggin intertubez at your fingertips.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 7:06 AM
Where were you guys?
It was horrible...
Posted by: John Morales | April 11, 2008 9:08 AM
I dunno, Ichthyic . This thread's prolixity seems to be on an asymptotic decay curve.
I suppose it's a bit much to expect new commenters to read the comment thread before posting; even more to expect them to do a page search for terms. And it's only April 11!
Die, thread! Die!
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 9:20 AM
oh, but it's so close to 2000 posts!
it's like staying alive for your telegraph from the queen. Probably not going to seem worth it from the back end.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | April 11, 2008 10:14 AM
Scott the Liar for Jesus™
What, you had a point? Besides the one on top of your head? Where?
You came in here repeating lies that had already been debunked. And it's not like you can claim it was an honest mistake, every one of your lies was dissected and proven false IN THIS VERY THREAD. All you had to do to know you were wrong and find out the actual truth was to READ THE PAGE YOU WERE POSTING ON! You clearly didn't do that. You have demonstrated that you have no interest in honest discussion and you place no value whatsoever on the truth. What could possibly make you worthy of any response other than ridicule?
Contrary to your lie that I am "never willing to answer anything," I demolished your idiotic parroting of the "he wasn't invited" lie, and pointed out that this had been done before, several times, and all you had to do was scroll up to see it. But you didn't do that. You just keep vomiting up more lies. Lies are all you have. Lies are all you've EVER had.
Scott, you are stupid, dishonest, and lazy. These are not insults, they are FACTS. You are stupid in that you have been presented with clear and accurate information proving you wrong, but you fail to even attempt understanding it. You are dishonest in that you continue to repeat false statements, which you must know are false. You are lazy in that you cannot bring yourself to read the very page you are commenting on and see that all your pitiful excuses for arguments have already been addressed, and found to be utterly devoid of merit.
More of Scott Lying For Jesus™
The stupid, it burns. You didn't need to claim to be a creationist. It's clear from this statement that you ARE one. You irrationally reject the evidence for evolution, which is the act of a creationist. In doing so, you repeat long-debunked creationist talking points. If you are not a creationist, you are so similar to one that there is no meaningful way to discern the difference.
You dumbass, you don't even understand the meaning of the word "theory" in context! You don't have the slightest fucking IDEA what the hell you're talking about! And you clearly don't WANT to know.
The "just a theory" canard is total bullshit. You've already had this explained to you, with the Theory of Realtivity as an example, but you refused to listen.
Evolution has been observed to happen, in real time, in the real world. In that sense, it is a fact. The Theory of Evolution refers to the mechanisms and principles used to explain these observed facts. To say "it's only a theory" shows nothing but your own willful ignorance.
Scott hallucinating controversy to deny reality:
In this case, because morons like you persist in refusing to look at the evidence, and lying about it.
Among people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about, the debates are in regard to improving our understanding of the mechanisms and details of how evolution works. Among actual qualified scientists, there is no debate about the fact that evolution occurs, only about HOW it happens.
Scott shows he doesn't understand thermodynamics either:
Scott, you're a real Renaissance Idiot. You're willfully ignorant not just on one subject, but on EVERYTHING you comment on.
The Second Law Of Thermodynamics states that the total entropy of the universe, or any closed system, will always increase. However, it is entirely possible for the entropy of some part of a system to decrease. Doing so requires expenditure of energy, and results in an increase in entropy elsewhere in the system, but it is not impossible as you claim. If it were, crystals could never form. And yet they do. This can be observed in real time, in the real world. A solution of random disorderly particles produces a rigid and regular solid lattice, while the whole thing is just SITTING there. The excess entropy is exhausted into the surrounding environment, without any need for some invisible sky daddy or mysterious Noodly Appendage to push the molecules into place one by one. It's self-organizing. You can try this AT HOME. Ever made rock candy? You can actually cook up a jar of bubbling undifferentiated goop and leave it sitting for a few days and have something exhibiting obvious order. If you weren't so terrified of learning, you could find information on this online.
It is impossible for entropy to decrease in a closed system, because there is nowhere for it to go, and no energy supply to get it there. But the Earth is not a closed system. It receives massive amounts of energy from the Sun. Living things are not closed systems, they take in food, excrete wastes, and interact with their environment in countless ways.
Scott objects to accurate labels:
But you aren't irreparably ignorant. That's the sad part. Your ignorance could be easily repaired if you were willing to take a little time and actually learn some things. For example, if you'd actually read the comments on this very page, you would've known that your first post was nothing more than a worthless steaming pile of bullshit. But you didn't do that. You CHOSE not to do that.
The problem isn't that your ignorance is irreparable. It's that you CAN repair it, but refuse to do so. You are ignorant by choice.
More burning stupid from Scott:
Ugh, you fucking moron, can't you even come up with some ORIGINAL lies? You've never even had a thought in your head have you? Every single claim you've made has been parroted countless times, after being debunked again and agai, in some cases DECADES AGO. You're not the first to tell these lies, you won't be the last, but damnit can't you even PRETEND to think for yourself? Your bullshit has been pre-refuted in the Index To Creationist Claims.
You have access to the Internet. So much information at your fingertips. You could educate yourself. You could actually learn something. But you choose not to.
It's not bad enough that you're an idiot. You have made a conscious and deliberate decision to remain an idiot. That's SAD. I actually pity you. What's it like to go through life with your brain deliberately turned off?
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 10:14 AM
Michael X: "I simply believe [t.m.] left, having no wish to remain."
Oh, anything's possible, I suppose - but I agree. I've always thought that was the most likely explanation. (I also suppose that he preferred to reserve the right to return, rather than escalating the argument only to get banned after all.)
Holy crumbling shortcake! Scott's like a walking, talking, typing compendium of creationist claims. He's obviously not stupid, he's just uneducated, and too arrogant to realize it. Sigh. Willful ignorance, the enemy of enlightenment....
Wrong again. I didn't call you an idiot, Scott. I said you were lazy for not finding out the truth behind the lies and disortions swirling around the "Expelled!" screening brou-ha-ha. I pointed out that you are uneducated about the theory of evolution and science in general, but that you are more than capable of educating yourself if you are willing to put a little time into it. I don't see how that reduces to "You're an idiot." Your claim is therefore refuted.
I did get a chuckle out of your creationist take on the Second Law, though, which always reminds me of the infamous "Creationist Almost Discovers the Sun" comment.
No offense, boyo, but please. Do your freakin' homework.
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 11, 2008 10:16 AM
If you weren't so goddamned lazy you could answer your own questions.
Perfect. I'm adopting that as my standard response from now on when dealing with people like Scott. The time he spent here doing a perfect imitation of a creationist could just as easily have been spent Googling his questions and learning. The entire internet is at his disposal! There are science sites everywhere that explain why evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics!
Googling the phrase: "Does evolution contradict the second law of thermodynamics" gives a site called Curious about Astronomy that explains it rather well. It's the very first site at the top of the page! Five minutes, tops!)
Why this stubborn, insistent, coordinated resistance to leaning?
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 11, 2008 10:25 AM
LOL! I see I'm not the only one irritated by this willful dumbness.
Posted by: True Bob | April 11, 2008 10:27 AM
Dude, it's the Fear.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | April 11, 2008 10:30 AM
RamblinDude:
In the immortal words of Mr. T, I pity the fool!
Posted by: True Bob | April 11, 2008 10:36 AM
Dude, it infuriates me. Not only can these shlubs not find their ass with two hands, they can't find it after we say "It's right behind you!". No, they say "Impossible! Show me the evidence.".
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 11, 2008 10:36 AM
Oh, (sheesh) there's also a resistance to learning : )
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 11:04 AM
You know, that remark was uncharacteristically short-tempered of me. Of course, Scott wouldn't know that, being new around here. Sorry, Scott. Patience does eventually wear a little thin after the same crap (and the "Clinton Dawkins" thing is a perfect example) gets recycled over, and over, and over, and over, by people who suck up all the lies, demand explanations, and often don't listen to the answers. This is why you see a lot of short-tempered and dismissive come-backs here - not because the irritated commenters are necessarily born assholes, but because 1,000 creationist trolls will wear you down.
When someone shows up and appears to be trying to honestly engage in discussion and to be open to absorbing new information and adjusting his views accordingly, he's typically treated not only fairly, but kindly. And even then, sometimes the mask comes off and the "honest engager" turns out to be a troll anyway, and those who spent time and energy trying to share knowledge feel burned - justifiably. And so it goes.
LOL @ TrueBob and "resistance to leaning" - I missed that!
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 11, 2008 11:27 AM
Dude, it infuriates me. Not only can these shlubs not find their ass with two hands, they can't find it after we say "It's right behind you!". No, they say "Impossible! Show me the evidence.".
Yes, it's even more puzzling when it's backed up by the bible!
Posted by: Stanton | April 11, 2008 11:28 AM
How is this supposed to be a bad thing, especially given as how every new concern moron who comes here uses the exact same moronic arguments?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 11, 2008 11:30 AM
Anyway, I stuck this on another thread, but it probably belongs here more. There certainly is one reviewer, Bruce Bennet, working for the New York Sun, who is as dumb as any creo troll on this thread:
Dear Bruce,
First of all, God you're a dumb suck-up to Stein's lies.
Why don't you, like, act as if you were a thinking person, and ask what fucking evidence exists that there is an "inflexible Darwinist dogma" in existence, and ask why a lying hound like Stein should be believed by you. The fact is that Stein is too damn ignorant even to know what is covered by evolutionary theory, and pretends that issues like gravity and the Big Bang can't be questioned due to the suppression by "Darwinists".
But then apparently the ignorant readily deceive the gullible like yourself. You're a disgrace to all journalism, as well as to anybody who actually thinks prior to speaking or writing. You're a pathetic waste of air. The only good thing is that you're in an area that has many people much smarter and better informed than yourself, and you will be jeered for your gullibility, lies, and general stupidity.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: James F | April 11, 2008 11:33 AM
Glen,
Let's not forget that Paramount is doing a movie version of the Dover trial. The Global Darwinist Conspiracy™ will prevail!
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 11, 2008 11:39 AM
Yes, but we had better not be complacent. Suppress, persecute, expel. We must make use of all of the investments we've made in torture devices, high-quality temperature-resistant stakes which will take the flames of burning theists, and dungeons into which we cast our enemies.
I know, I know, we're killing and imprisoning thousands every day, but that's just not enough!
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2008 11:53 AM
meandering on toward 2K...
I don't know. Scott made a couple of good points, I think--arguments I have never heard before that really do cast some doubt on my entire worldview. The arguments to which I refer:
1. Evolution is full of holes. How could I have been so blind all these years not to notice all those holes? They gape! How they gape! The scales have fallen from my eyes and now I see the holes!
2. the Second Law of Thermodynamics--you know, that proven scientific fact that all kinetic energy is running down (so I guess the inevitable endpoint is every particle standing stock-still in space). Why has nobody else ever brought this proven scientific fact to bear against the silly notion of biological evolution? Scott, hurry and publish!
3. Why, indeed, are there still apes? I just can't seem to shake this haunting question...Kudos, Scott, for your brilliant and original thinking. If only someone had asked this question in my presence before I wasted all those years learning biology, years I now realize would have been far better spent trolling scientific websites and asking, again and again, that simple, devastating question.
There's just one word for the damage Scott's penetrating insights have done to my formerly deluded psyche:
WATERLOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2008 11:59 AM
Ahhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Colugo | April 11, 2008 12:13 PM
Sven DiMilo: "How could I have been so blind all these years not to notice all those holes? They gape! How they gape!"
You're right! Evolution is a ... Goatse!
Posted by: Pauli Ojala | April 11, 2008 1:45 PM
I think such a documentary film should also be made out of the DINOGLYFS or dinolits:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say, really!)
pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, Finland
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-the-Movie-Evolution-Intelligent-Design-ID.htm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 11, 2008 2:06 PM
Stein's usual ignorant driveling tripe.
The guy can't learn a damn thing, you know.
Anyway, here it is:
No, liar, it was the Jews who were more inclined to accept good science. The Nazis weren't teaching Darwinism, by contrast, and it is said that they even banned Darwin (I haven't checked, so I can't say for sure).
I suppose the obvious, if hardly new, question is why the anti-evolutionist leaders always lie (if anyone knows of an exception, it'd be news to me).
Now that would be worthy of some news coverage, although we already know that many like Stein lie because they know nothing and aren't at all willing or able to learn. Indeed, they are far from open-minded, so don't know what freedom even is, and cannot make any intelligent comments about it.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 2:10 PM
Oh Pauli, not only are you a disgrace to Biochemists and scientists in general, this quote:
"two Darwinian defenders, who accepted payment to talk like buffoons on the film, tried to bust into a private screening in Minnesota."
also makes you a fool. An ignorant fool or a lying fool is the only question now. But it's probably a waste of time answering that as I suspect you're both.
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 11, 2008 2:26 PM
Refuting Scott's mad Gish Gallop could bring this thread to three thousand comments. But I would just ask one question to Scott to keep things somewhat on-topic: Why would PZ and Dawkins NOT be allowed to see the movie that they appeared in? Is it because the Expelled crew are a bunch of hypocritical wankers, out to suppress the very debate that they claim to want so badly?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2008 2:38 PM
Owlmirror (##1874):
Ah. I think you refer to Holbach, no?
you could be right...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2008 2:44 PM
oo...can I pile on Stoopid Scott just one...more...time?
If you're serving desserts big enough to leave a VW in, I hope you also get some regular exercise.
(And, by the way, you probably think that your hypothetical VW to Benz transition represents some kind of "progress," don't you? If so, you would be wrong yet again. The 1967 VW "Beetle" represents the absolute pinnacle in efficient, effective automotive design, and it's all been downhill since.)
Posted by: windy | April 11, 2008 2:49 PM
(for Pauli)
"von Döbeln rode, inspecting the holes"... in EVOLUTION!
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 11, 2008 3:06 PM
Sven diMilo, my cousin the ambulance driver told me that ambulance personnel hate the Volkwagon bug because in an accident it cuts people's throats. I'll take padded dashes and airbags.
Posted by: Colugo | April 11, 2008 3:06 PM
I propose a new term:
Goatseist
Those who fixate on alleged gaping holes (or big gaps) in evolutionary theory, or are "just asking questions" about the same.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2008 3:17 PM
Monado:
Well, uh, yeah, there's that.
But, see, you're not supposed to crash 'em.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 11, 2008 3:51 PM
For whoever said that the makers of Expelled can't be Christians because they told a pack of lies: some years ago I was shocked to discover that some of the Inquisition's tools were special-effects gadgets. Picture a six-inch needle with a seven-inch handle. It was used to probe all over a supposed witch's body to find the one insensitive spot where the imaginary Devil had allegedly kissed her. (Being female was tantamount to evil and half-way to being a witch.)
But this tool had a secret button----so that sooner or later, the Inquisitor could press the button, stab with the needle of inquiry, and have the needle slip back up into the handle! Then the Inquisitor could announce that he had detected the numb spot, the sign of the Devil. All Good Christian practice in the bad old days.
With an example of Christian Honesty(TM) like that, why would anyone want to go back to the Good Old Days? Remember that you could be arrested if your neighbour dreamed that you were a witch, if someone coveted your property, or (and there are historical records of this) if you refused to be the supposedly celibate priest's mistress.
Give me nice, clean atheism any day. Except, back then, you'd be executed for admitting you were an atheist or even guessing wrong on some theological nicety.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 11, 2008 5:11 PM
Re comment #1465.
Oh, PZ, say you''ll come up to Toronto for an interview on The Hour with George Stromoboulopoulos ("Strombo" for short; you can see why). We have brew pubs! Dark beer! Meet me at C'Est What. I'll wear my "Great Lakes 666 -- The Devil Made Me Brew It!" black T-shirt or, if it arrives on time, the "Lock Ness Imposter" which is brighter and easier to find in a pub. Or somewhere closer to the CBC, if you like - though I think a little 15-minute stroll thru downtown would be nice. Just head for Church and Jarvis, SE corner, and downstairs.
Posted by: James F | April 11, 2008 5:30 PM
"There are people who believe that dinosaurs and men lived together. That they roamed the Earth at the same time. There are museums that children go to, in which they build dioramas to show them this. And what this is, purely and simply, is a clinical psychotic reaction. They are crazy. They are stone cold f*** nuts. I can't be kind about this, because these people are watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary."
-Lewis Black
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 5:33 PM
Hey wazza et al. I went to your web site...I find it actually funny...because I found in your very own web site that Evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Duh...
Since you all love to insult and talk down to people...here goes: Hey asshole, I will explain one simple hole: Transitional figures...because this was put forth by Darwin himself.
Fossil record of transitional remains is the assertion by Charles Darwin that if evolution were true there would exist ample evidence of transitional skeletal remains otherwise known as "missing links" within the earth's geological strata. He predicted man would find a gradual upward evolution of species to greater and greater complexity among the sedimentary levels of the earth. But the record from Mr. Darwin to today has revealed just the opposite. Paleontologists have devoted whole careers to looking for these transitional forms, but what they have found in the fossil records are species fully formed with no transitional intermediates or missing links. If evolution were true, they would have found literally millions of transitional forms from one species to the next. The following excerpt is taken from "Acts and Facts," which was authored by Dr. Duane Gist, who received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley.
The fossil record shows the sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, and trilobites) without a trace of ancestors.
The fossil record also shows the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. If evolution has occurred, our museums should contain thousands of fossils of intermediate forms. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!
Now even though evolutionary stages or links between separate species have never been proven to exist, there is ample evidence that supports evolution within a species. In fact any person is an evolutionary step from the combination of DNA from his father and mother.
Get it fuckwit?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2008 5:37 PM
Unbelievable.
It's kind of sad that Scott will probably never know what a fool he's making of himself.
By the way, Scott, your lying hero is named Gish.
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 5:43 PM
Scott, there is a post on this very website, that is up right now, called "fossil snake with legs."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/fossil_snake_with_legs.php
That is even the link to it. Go there, and educate yourself. You're making a fool of yourself otherwise.
Posted by: windy | April 11, 2008 5:47 PM
A list of these major kinds of fish, please?
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 5:49 PM
It's ok Sven DiMilo - don't know who Gish is...however, since you cannot complete a sentence without an insult (which is typical), have a nice Evolution. I am sure that your lying hero is named Gore.
Posted by: Scott | April 11, 2008 6:02 PM
Michael X - you guys are such a fucking joke. First, how in the world can you prove it was 92 million years old? Second, if Darwin was right...we would be knee deep in this type of evidence. You all argue from a standpoint of ruling out any answer that you absolutely will not consider, then ask the question. One freaking fossil, which could be a species of something that has since gone extinct...and you point to that as proof to pave your theory into fact? Unfucking believable.
By the way...since you can only seem to argue by insulting people...thought I would try it myself in order to relate to you assholes.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 11, 2008 6:08 PM
Now wait a minute, Scott! Gore's Law only applies to discussions with climate change denialists!
Posted by: Physicalist | April 11, 2008 6:13 PM
Oh, and Scott? If you really want answers to your questions (viz. how they know the age of the legged snake fossil, how many transitional fossils one would expect according to modern science, and how many transitional fossils we've actually found), they can be easily found. I strongly recommend that you educate yourself. It's not that hard, and it's extremely rewarding.
Education: try it, you'll like it!
Posted by: Edward Current fan | April 11, 2008 6:16 PM
Scott is right, it's all a fairy tale!
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 6:24 PM
Scott,
Childish and foolish as you're acting I have yet to insult you. You will be very aware when or if I choose to do so. As it stands acting a fool is acting a fool. You happen to be doing that. I'm trying to get you to stop.
But onto you're, er, statements. We know the ages of rocks by measuring the steady radioactive decay of certain isotopes. Not just carbon mind you, but many others that last longer and help us trace ages further back, such as phosphorus and argon among others.
Here is a link to wiki that outlines it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
As for fossilization, we shouldn't actually expect to be knee deep in anything. Fossilization is a rare occurrence. This link (and the whole website in general) is a good starter: http://science.howstuffworks.com/fossil.htm
As for the fossilized species itself, it has gone extinct. And it is an intermediary of lizards and snakes by the very fact that it has legs like a lizard and the body of a snake. Simple.
I now have a question for you. If every fossil that is shown to have intermediate traits, is simply brushed off by you as "just another fully formed species" then how in your logic can intermediate species exist at all? Thus, by your own logic you shouldn't be asking us to provide them. By the way, do you actually know what it would take for you to be proven wrong? I'm guessing nothing will, but I'll post this in hopes that I'm wrong.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 11, 2008 6:31 PM
@ #1959: Wow! I never realized the they had proof that we aren't descended from animals. Unfortunately, I also discovered that Scott isn't actually descended from Adam and Eve. I wonder how he got here with no ancestors . . .
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 6:47 PM
Scott:
The ToE attempts to explain the diversity of life on earth.
The ToE does not attempt to explain the origin of life. You're not shocking anyone by pointing this out, doing so has all the rhetorical punch of claiming that a Porsche is not a car because it cannot fly.
Gore? Al Gore? He's a paleontologist? o_O
Are you making this a political issue, now? How surprising.
And yet you cite him as an authority. Hmmm...
By the age of the rocks in which is was found? Radiometric dating, maybe?
Not necessarily. Anyway, it's not all about Darwin. He got some thing wrong, you know. Are you aware that he knew nothing of genetics? It was 150 years ago, and the world didn't stop spinning on its axis when Origin was published.
Fossils are relatively hard to come by, and by no means do fossils "prove" the theory, nor are they the be-all or end-all of evidence. Fossils are a snapshot, nothing more, but snapshots can be useful.
Nice pocket description of ID! :-)
One of many. Surely you haven't convinced yourself that it's the only transitional form ever uncovered. Of course it's extinct, but that difference does it make?
There is no "proof" for a theory - you keep saying things that only serve to demonstrate that you don't know what a theory is. Observation show us that evolution occurs. The theory attempts to explain how. Not every mechanism is understood. The same can be said for theories of gravity.
Back to the fossil. Here we have a snapshot of a creature that is very much like a modern snake, but which nonetheless has legs unlike any modern snake. This suggests that we have a snapshot of a branch of the evolutionary bush which includes a snakelike thing at one end, and a lizardlike thing at the other. The lack of thousands of fossils which show an unbroken chain of incremental variations connecting the two ends of the chain does not mean that no such creatures exist.
You say no fossil is transitional. Try looking at it another way: All fossils are.
You really need to take a stand here, Scott. Either fossils are meaningful, or they're not. If you think they are not, then you cannot complain about "gaps". If you decide they are meaningful, then you must acknowledge the many forms that have been uncovered that serve, as does our legged snake, as snapshots of creatures at certain points along other evolutionary branches.
Consider Tiktaalik roseae. The significance of this find was not so much that it provided another snapshot along a certain branch, but that its existence was predicted - but not in the casual sense of "there must be a fossil fish with leg-like fins somewhere on earth to fill a gap between fish and amphibians." It was predicted - by application of the Theory of Evolution, mind you - that a creature much like Tiktaalik must have existed during a very specific range of geological space-time. Scientists went looking for fossils in rocks which represent locations in that geological space-time, and sure enough, they found the creature we now call Tiktaalik.
This was a significant find, but it's just one of many. It's important to note that although fossil evidence is fascinating and significant, it's a quantitatively small proportion of the sum of evidence that supports the theory. Much of it is cross-disciplinary, and includes geological, biochemical, genetic, anthropological evidence and more.
Are you so well-acquainted with this evidence that you can offer a reasoned and well-supported refutation?
The theory stands until disproven, and after a century and a half of trying, nobody's been able to do it. A scientist who disproved Evolution would be as famous as Newton, Darwin or Einstein. Why, then, do you think there's a conspiracy to protect the theory from critical examination? That's what EVERY experiment is: a critical examination of the theory.
Geez, I told myself I wasn't gonna do this...
You realize, of course, that a thorough explanation of the theory, and of the evidence that supports it, could fill thousands of pages. May I ask how you justify dismissing it as nonsense when you know virtually nothing about it, and do not even seem to know what a scientific theory is?
[Cue David Marjanović...] :-D
Posted by: Kseniya X, OM | April 11, 2008 6:50 PM
Yes, Michael X! That's exactly what I was getting at when I spoke of taking a stand!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2008 6:53 PM
Then why do you cite him as an authoritative source on all things biological? Just because he has a PhD (in biochemistry) from UC Berkeley? Well, Scott, I too have a PhD from the University of California (LA, 1993, and mine's in Biology). Now will you believe me when I advise you that you're making a perfect fool of yourself?somehow I doubt it...
Posted by: RamblinDude | April 11, 2008 7:02 PM
Cue Scott to say radiometric dating has been proven to be rubbish in 3..2..1..
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 7:02 PM
Kseniya X, OM
I see you brought out the big guns ;-)
You on the other hand explained the intermediate significance of the fossil far better than I could. So well done yourself there. I think a high five may be in order.
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 7:05 PM
Dude,
I was thinking the exact same thing. I only hope he sees the words "Phosphorus" and "Argon" before his fingers pound the keys.
Posted by: Colugo | April 11, 2008 7:07 PM
I'm not sure what can be gained by indulging an especially uninformed Goatseist (see above) like Scott, but for more information on transitional forms I suggest that he consult Wikipedia. Specifically, the articles with these titles:
Tetrapod
Evolution of mammals
Evolution of cetaceans
Human evolution
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 7:08 PM
Sven: GMTA. Dude, Michael: Yes! I confess that I framed my response to the dating issue a pair of questions in hopes of stimulating some investigation...
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 11, 2008 7:11 PM
MAJeff, there's no Pharyngufest on Urban Dictionary yet.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2008 7:15 PM
Colugo, "Goatseist" is pretty funny, even though I hadda drive the Google to figure it out.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 11, 2008 7:18 PM
Well, for one thing, we can get to a nice round 2,000 posts. Am I correct that this is far and away the record breaker?Posted by: Colugo | April 11, 2008 7:25 PM
Sven, you get half the credit since you came up with the inspiration: "They gape! How they gape!"
I like Goatseist more than IDiot since the latter is case-sensitive. "cdesign proponentist" is funny but uses a lot of characters. Goatseist is more subtle than creotard. And it goes along with terms like theist, deist, and atheist. But one never knows which memes will thrive.
Posted by: James F | April 11, 2008 7:32 PM
cdk007 has some fantastic videos on the subject, including What Every Creationist Must Deny. Triumphantly set to Green Day. Check out transitional fossils bit around 3:00. No transitional fossils, my ass.
Posted by: Damian | April 11, 2008 7:37 PM
I hope that everyone has read "'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation", by David Bolinsky, the medical illustrator chiefly responsible for The Inner Life of the Cell?
I don't know what's happened to the big man today, but while the cats away.....we keep the place nice and tidy by cleaning up all of the mess that is deposited by the likes of Scott. Good job team.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 7:39 PM
Ah... the cooling balm of factual evidence...
Scott, it's not that we're maliciously trying to destroy your worldview... it's just that you're trying to convince us that, metaphorically, black is white, when you've never even opened your eyes
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 7:47 PM
Yeah Damian,
I posted a link to it on the Peter Irons thread as well. Bolinsky rips those guys something fierce.
Now a message to everyone else. I'm leaving for my fiances show opening tonight, and I leave for a weeks vacation tomorrow. (Life is hard, I know) SO! Being that we're under 25 comments to 2000, do me the favor of talking alot while I'm out tonight, so that I won't miss this trivial but nonetheless mind-boggling benchmark of endless trollsmackdownery that will be the 2000th comment of the Expelled thread. Thank you, that is all. You may now return to your regularly scheduled smackdownery.
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 11, 2008 7:54 PM
Goodness! No. Or at least, not from my observation.
Holbach has never, to my knowledge, posted anything other than an insanely angry rant. And (to respond to Kseniya, who may not have been entirely serious) Joe Blow has never, to the best of my knowledge, been anything other than merely a particularly annoying troll.
It was precisely the progressive descent from rational discourse into an insanely angry rant of a particular idiosyncratic style that provided the clues.
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 7:58 PM
Owlmirror you coy little bugger! Now I don't even care if it's true, I'm just interested in who you're thinking of.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 8:03 PM
Michael, me too!
Owlmirror: Goodness! I was totally kidding when I proposed that tm=JB!
Posted by: True Bob | April 11, 2008 8:06 PM
Oh, the price of education. I could not stand to remain ignorant of goatse, and now I'm scarred for life.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 8:07 PM
On a side note: is anyone here an electronic or computer engineer and regular visitor of bash.org's quotes board?
I'd like an update on the device for stabbing people in the face through the internet
Just, you know, out of interest
Posted by: ennui | April 11, 2008 8:07 PM
The David Bolinsky letter was hilarious, especially the part about following the money trail. And Dembski - is there a foot big enough that it would not fit his mouth? Even with snakes already in it?
I reserve judgment on 'Goatseist' until it is vetted by MAJeff and/or Sastra. But it does make me grin.
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 11, 2008 8:08 PM
Scott, could you do me a little, tiny favor, and read comment 1608 above?
I took quite a lot of time to make it very, very simple.
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 8:09 PM
Yeah Bob, I did the same thing about 10 minutes ago. I'm glad I only looked at the wiki description and not the page itself. I think I may have saved my dinner that way. But still, I think it will take some time to not twitch at mention of the word "gaping".
Posted by: True Bob | April 11, 2008 8:10 PM
Scott, you may have missed my post above, but it applies to you as well. Your ass is behind you, where your legs and back meet, around where your poo comes out. With both hands behind you, you may be able to find it.
Posted by: Damian | April 11, 2008 8:15 PM
Oh yeah, of course you were!
Anyway, I think that Keith Eaton is Truth Machine gone bad. Hurt and confused, he has turned to the dark side and is now out to destroy the evolander world view.
Whaddya think? You know I'm right.
Posted by: ennui | April 11, 2008 8:25 PM
Goatseist. I will no longer be able to make a 'God of the gaps' argument with a straight face.
Posted by: gene | April 11, 2008 8:33 PM
Truly, you are a great clairvoyant. You did not see the film, yet you conclude it is propaganda. I believe you are a twit.
Sincerely;
Gene
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 11, 2008 8:36 PM
Gene, didn't your mother tell you not to play with your brain when she isn't around? Now go put it back and wait for her to get home.
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 8:45 PM
Gene, any film that conflates evolutionary biology with nazism HAS to be propaganda. There's no way anyone could be that stupid accidentally
Posted by: Colugo | April 11, 2008 8:50 PM
GOd of ThE gApS -> GOATSE
Posted by: amphiox | April 11, 2008 8:52 PM
"First, how in the world can you prove it was 92 million years old?"
Sigh. The dates of fossils are determined using multiple lines of evidence derived from virtually every branch of modern science, physics, geology, biology, chemistry, just to name the most obvious ones, all converging on agreement on the same number. If you cannot accept that evidence, Scott, then you are denying the validity of ALL of modern science.
Your comments make it clear that there is no intersection between your world view and mine upon which a meaningful discussion can be based.
Your definition of "fish" is not the same as my definition of fish.
Your definition of "fully formed" is not the same as my definition of fully formed.
Your definition of "appeared" is not the same as my definition of appeared.
Your definition of "evolution" is not the same as my definition of evolution.
Your definition of "law" is not the same as my definition of law.
Your definition of "thermodynamics" is not the same as my definition of thermodynamics.
Your definition of "life" is not the same as my definition of life.
I will never be able to answer any of your questions to your satisfaction because the very words you use to ask them mean something different to you than they do to me.
As such, it is pointless to continue debating with you. We can do nothing more but agree to disagree and be done.
Nor is there any reason for you to continue commenting on this thread unless your goal is to annoy people.
Posted by: Sastra | April 11, 2008 8:54 PM
Good grief, is this thread still active?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 11, 2008 8:59 PM
Hey dudes, keep pushing. We're too close to not 2000 comments!
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 9:02 PM
Indeed, o Sastrinacious one...
nearly 2000 posts, y'see? We're doing our best to perpetuate the decimalist bias.
Posted by: Dee | April 11, 2008 9:03 PM
OK, I can't stand it. Nothing in particular to say that hasn't been said more clearly or eloquently above, just posting to help get the count to 2000. Yeeehawwwwww!
Posted by: thalarctos | April 11, 2008 9:05 PM
come on, 2000!
what did I win?
Posted by: thalarctos | April 11, 2008 9:07 PM
rats! so very close...
Posted by: ennui | April 11, 2008 9:07 PM
I was kinda hoping for another Friday blockbuster. Guess this will have to do. This plus Guinness and hockey. A good weekend to all!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 11, 2008 9:07 PM
Expelled 2000! (or 1999 or 2001)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2008 9:08 PM
2K?
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 9:08 PM
No, thalarctos, you didn't
anyway, I think getting the 2000 will be a victory for all pharyngulites, not just the one who gets there.
Posted by: James F | April 11, 2008 9:08 PM
Dammit, I wanted 2001.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 11, 2008 9:09 PM
I'm gonna give my own ennui some bourbon and diet coke....but you can't have any!
Posted by: wazza | April 11, 2008 9:10 PM
Damn, I got the number of years between Jesus' birth and Bush's invasion...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 11, 2008 9:10 PM
Who's up for 3? Come on!!!
Posted by: Dee | April 11, 2008 9:11 PM
Damn you guys are funny. Thanks for giving me something better than housework for use in avoiding work I had to bring home.
And yes, it's a pretty sad comment that this is the highlight of my Friday evening.
Posted by: slam | April 11, 2008 9:12 PM
PZ
I understand that you didn't see the film...but have you seen the [missing] link, yet?
Now that would be talking about. ...til then, your "science" is really just belief packaged for those who are willing to believe.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 11, 2008 9:12 PM
The page takes several seconds to load because there are just too goddamned many comments! Can we let it die now? (Of course not, because invariably there will be someone else who is wrong on the internet.)
Posted by: ennui | April 11, 2008 9:14 PM
*smiles* Sorry, Biscuits. *jazz hands*
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 11, 2008 9:15 PM
I am reluctant to state it clearly without a clearer characterization of the similarities I noticed. And I'm too busy just now to write up such a detailed analysis.
Suffice to say for now that it was/is a comment thread from the past week that at first seeded the suspicion, then clinched it for me.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 9:25 PM
No, really. I would never seriously say Joe Blow was t.m., for lots and lots of reasons, not the least of which is that they've both posted to the same threads at least as far back as January. Also, they're not very similar at all.
It was totally a joke.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 9:30 PM
Oooh! And MAJeff wins the Discovery One Award! I am so pleased! :-D
I was also totally joking when I suggested that we "rocket up to 2001" ... that was waay back in the Middle Ages... and yet, here we are....
Posted by: Zarquon | April 11, 2008 9:40 PM
Bu no one's mentioned Summer Glau yet!
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 11, 2008 10:39 PM
We can head for 2030, the estimated date of the artificial intelligence singularity, when processing power exceeds brain power.
Ichthyic (1821), I find that "May you and yours be eaten first" joke a little depressing. It reminds me of growing up waiting for World War III and not really expecting to live to grow up. Going out in the first wave was something that some people seriouly hoped for. "And the living will envy the dead." And then I think about the places where they probably did... Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur. While I sit here safe and sound.
Posted by: Hap | April 12, 2008 12:52 AM
Well, it would seem like remembering the people who died would be the most appropriate thing to do, in the hope that we might learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately, we seem to have at least two large subsets of humanity - those who willfully refuse to learn (ID advocates didn't invent moral and intellectual blindness - they aren't that smart) and those who wish others to suffer for their pleasure. Also lots who lack the "power of facing" (some incorporated in the previous sets, but some not).
We are still some of the most fortunate people to have walked the earth. There is lots to be glad of. "It had now been laid to my own charge to keep my heart free from hatred and despair." James Baldwin, quoted in "For The Sake of Argument" (Christopher Hitchens) I don't know how to do it, but it seems like a good idea.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 12, 2008 1:04 AM
Well, for one thing, we can get to a nice round 2,000 posts. Am I correct that this is far and away the record breaker?
yes, this breaks the previous record held by one of the Scott Adams threads.
That's for THIS blog, though.
over at the "bar" for the 'thumb, we had a thread that had well over 2000...
before we split it into two, and then it had another 1500 or so.
....and all that was just debating ONE creationist.
for extra credit, is there anyone around these parts that remembers who that person was?
hint:
he did the same damn thing over on Dawkins.net
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 12, 2008 1:08 AM
[Cue David Marjanović...]
oh...
should I?
I saved an entire copy of that monster response he made a couple months back to that one creationist.
I think it would fit well in this thread...
if it doesn't break it, that is.
muhahahahaha!
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 12, 2008 1:14 AM
Originally posted by David in response to the creationist "andria", whose list of "20 questions" pretty much just came straight out of the Index to Creationist Claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
David, with WAY too much time on his hands, apparently took it upon himself to answer each question, in detail.
...and here 'tis, choke on it creobots:
Just for documentation purposes, in cases Andria decides not to post my comment:
===============================================
Here's your monster comment 220 that is for the most part a plagiate. It's a Gish gallop: a debate tactic that consists of spouting so much nonsense in so little time that the opponent is dumbfounded, not knowing where to begin, and knowing that refuting all of it would take several hours.
So what? It'll be easy.
My dear evolutionists, This has been fun. I believe in one kind of evolutionism.
Two mistakes right there.
First, scientific theories aren't something you believe in or don't believe in. They are testable -- falsifiable (otherwise they wouldn't be scientific) --, and that means that if they are wrong, we can find that out, no matter how sincerely and fervently we or anyone else believes in them. Belief is irrational. Science is not.
Second, scientific theories aren't ideologies. They aren't "-isms". To call them such is dishonest. Or would you call yourself a gravityist?
Micro-evolutionism. But Macro-Evolutionism
There is no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Biologists invented these terms in the early 20th century when evolution wasn't well understood yet. It has since turned out that the terms are useless. Let mutation, selection and drift (if you don't know what exactly these terms mean, ask me or ask Google) go on for long enough, and you'll see "macroevolution" no matter how you define it. That's because there's simply nothing to prevent it from happening.
continues to have nothing but circular reasoning behind it.
So? Explain, if you can.
I realize, though, that this is a dead-end where debate is concerned, because none of you will change, and I will not change.
Wrong. We are talking about science, not about religion. We, and you, will go wherever the evidence leads us, and we -- like you -- will immediately change our minds when our opinions are disproven. This is of crucial importance for science. If we are wrong, we can find out that we are wrong. That's the big advantage of science over any other so-called "way of knowing".
"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
-- Thomas Henry Huxley. Called "Darwin's Bulldog" because he defended On the Origin of Species with more fervor than the ever-cautious, ever-polite Darwin did.
Here I thought I was just randomly posting a query to someone else's opinion on a random blog!
Hundreds like you have come before you. Pharyngula has been among the most widely read blogs in its field for years. Hundreds of creationist drive-by trolls have posted the ever-same talking points, believing they had made an original point.
It's not your fault you didn't know this situtation, but I think you could have easily imagined it.
And it seems I have become the only defender of faith, God, and a divine Creation.
"Defender of God"? Isn't that, like, blasphemy or something? Are you saying God can't defend himself?
Also, you have never answered the question of why you confuse Christianity and creationism. The two are not the same.
I will however give a couple of parting thoughts, because while no one can win at this, what is there to lose in at least saying what you believe anyway?
Your beliefs might be either disproven or shown to be untestable and therefore outside science. That's what.
(Which is apparently what you are doing, and I will continue to do throughout my life).
We don't believe. We test hypotheses.
The only proof of Creation is in the objects of Creation.
All of which can also be explained in other ways -- so they aren't proof. No surprise there. Outside of math and formal logic, nothing can ever be proven.
That's the point of the "flying space monkey" and "Santa Claus" comments I forwarded.
I love examples, so I'm going to use a nice simple example for you guys. Our example lies in the beautiful example of a car (you've probably heard this before). Take your pick which kind of car you'd like to imagine. Okay, even such a normal thing as a car, could not exist, without a creator.
See, that's where the analogy already breaks down. Cars don't reproduce. They don't even grow. Try again.
Evolution is something that happens to populations, not to individuals. It requires reproduction with imperfect inheritance. That means that living beings (including viruses) evolve, languages evolve, and evolution can be simulated in computers, but that basically is it. Oh, universes might evolve, too, but that's very difficult to test and probably not the simplest explanation for the observations it's supposed to explain. (Therefore it's not a very popular hypothesis at the moment.)
Normal plausibility tells us, that things prone to disorder do not HAPPEN upon order. Shake things up in a blender, and you're not going to come up with anything but a shake.
You overlook that order is sometimes the energetically preferred state of affairs. Water vapor is disorder -- liquid water is partial order -- ice is order. That's because of electrostatics: water molecules have a positive and a negative pole, so that they stick to each other in a certain pattern. Destroying that pattern requires energy. Or take the paranut effect. Take random solid objects, put them in some container, and shake that container. If you shake long enough and then open the container, you'll find that the biggest objects are on top and the smallest at the bottom. That's because the shaking creates spaces between the objects -- the small ones can fall through, the big ones can't. Or take well-shaken sandy and muddy water and let it settle. Regular layers will settle on the bottom: the biggest grains will fall out first, so the bottom layer will be coarse sand, and the finest grains will fall out last, so the top layer will be fine clay. Geologists call this a fining-upwards sequence. I've seen several on top of each other in a 10-million-year-old nearshore seafloor in northwestern Austria: every time a storm came, it stirred the water at the shore where it stirred up sand and silt, the water spread offshore to the point where I was, and then the coarsest grains fell to the bottom, then the next coarsest grains, and so on. Coarse sand grading into middle sand grading into fine sand, coarse silt, middle silt, fine silt, coarse clay, middle clay, fine clay. Then the fine clay continues upwards till the next storm layer, which again begins suddenly with coarse sand.
In answer to those of you who demand proof of God - I offer you the very breath you use to speak out against God. Who gave it to you?
This has already been answered on the Pharyngula thread.
Let's put it this way: Those babies who didn't have the reflex to start breathing when they were born have already died, so that nobody has inherited the lack of this reflex, so the trait has disappeared from the population. That's called natural selection.
Don't you even know that most Christians today believe that God's existence cannot be proven? That God is above the understanding of puny humans?
In Austria, all schoolchildren who at least nominally belong to one of the largest local religions get religious instruction in school. My Catholic RI teacher told me that a God who could be proven would be poor! The idea is that 1) God is simply greater than that, greater than a puny human brain; 2) if God were proven, there would be no free will anymore, but God wants us to have free will, so he refuses being provable.
I should also mention what might be the most important point here: Atheists aren't dystheists. Dystheists like Dr. Behe believe that God exists and is evil. They can "speak out against God". Atheists believe that God does not exist. Logically, they cannot speak out for or against God. They speak out against the -- in their eyes delusional -- belief in any deities. Can you speak out against Ea, the Sumerian water god who sent the worldwide flood that only Utnapishtim and his family survived in their ark? No, because you believe he's a fairytale in the first place.
You think I'm going to offer you a proverbial offering of fire like that of Elijah?
Huh?
You think I'm going to say that Leviticus is what all good Christians base their lives around (which, btw to be 'technical', the Old Testament way of sacrificing animals was [...]
Blah, blah, blah. No, the vast, vast majority of atheists are ex-Christians. Everyone knows Leviticus isn't the whole Bible. Everyone knows, for example, the New Testament and what it says.
The only proof in God is when you know him personally.
Do you?
And yes, (thank you for pointing this out) by know, I do mean believe.
Then you should say "believe" rather than "know". By doing so, you would also no longer conceal the fact that a belief cannot be a proof.
Often, as you well know in your own studies, for even the most objective scientist, their bias sneaks into their hypothesis and they will present their beliefs as 'fact'.
See? You didn't follow my link, so you still don't know what "fact" even means. Go read it, and then come back. It's just about 12 lines of text.
"Even the most objective scientist" will occasionally overlook evidence and therefore present a hypothesis that is already disproven, or (more commonly) will overlook an alternative hypothesis and will therefore present their own as the only one that can so far explain the facts when that is not the case. No scientist will ever present a hypothesis as a fact, because hypotheses explain facts. They cannot become facts.
What did Creation and God ever do to you?
Why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi?
Lastly, many of you complained that you wanted me to answer your dozens of specific questions concerning Evolution.
"Specific"! Hah! We were asking you the very basics!
I'm not going to pansy around and pretend I have all the answers. I don't. And you do?
We understand the very basics, yes. We understand what on Earth we are talking about.
But since I have been demanded answers for my beliefs, I have a few questions of my own.
How logical.
And no, they are not original with me (so if you pick them apart, you're picking apart someone else).
So what? Whether something is wrong doesn't depend on who came up with it.
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
Why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi?
This is yet another wrong question. There is no such thing as "space for the universe". The universe is space, with energy and matter in it.
2. Where did matter come from?
Matter is a form of energy. When you inject energy into a vacuum, you create elementary particles. This is inevitable according to quantum physics, and indeed it is observed. Heating a lightbulb creates photons (particles of light), for example.
Energy... in sum, the universe apparently contains zero energy, because the sum of all energy (including matter) is equal to the sum of all gravity.
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
We don't know. But we're working on it. Spend a few hours in Wikipedia, and you will get a glimpse into this active field of research.
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
What do you mean?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
See above.
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When? Between 4.4 and 3.85 billion years ago. Where? Somewhere in liquid water, probably on Earth. Why? Because it could happen. Everything that can happen happens sooner or later.
The numbers I got from a paper (which I think I can send you) that showed the Earth already had a crust and an ocean 4.4 billion years ago, and from another (which I don't have, but which is cited in textbooks) that found chemical evidence for life in 3.85-billion-year-old layers. If you don't know how radiometric dating works, just look it up on Wikipedia, it has a good article on that.
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
"Learn"? That's again a wrong question. If you leave nucleic acids alone under certain conditions, they will get copied, because of nothing else than temperature and electrostatics.
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
It didn't reproduce sexually. It reproduced asexually. And then its offspring started mating occasionally.
Man, that was easy. Did you really believe that the ability to reproduce sexually automatically makes asexual reproduction impossible? Sorry -- did you even read what you copied from Hovind?!?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
"Want" simply doesn't enter into the question.
(Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
It's simple: those who haven't had enough surviving offspring have already died out, and their lack of fertility and/or protection and/or nourishment for the young with them. Natural selection. We are the descendants of those that had enough surviving offspring. It really is that simple.
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code)
This doesn't mean anything. Whoever wrote it doesn't know what a mutation or the genetic code are.
create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is that supposed to be a comparison?
Any mutation creates something new. If it manages to change the amino acid in the resulting protein (about 1 in 3 mutations does that), and if this doesn't change an amino acid into a chemically very similar one, then something new will happen to the organism.
What "improved" means depends on the circumstances. The most famous example is sickle cell anemia. If you have two copies of the mutated gene, you die from sickle cell anemia. If you have one copy, you suffer from things like shortness of breath. Bad, no? Not in the region in West Africa where sickle cell anemia is widespread. It just so happens that the malaria parasite cannot enter the deformed red blood cells that result from the mutated gene. So, over there, those who have two copies of the mutated gene die from sickle cell anemia -- and those who have two normal copies die from malaria. Those who have one copy of the mutated and one of the normal version survive.
Or take vitamin C. Normally, vertebrates can make vitamin C. Apes (such as us) and guinea pigs have lost this ability: one of the genes for an enzyme in the chemical pathway has acquired a mutation that disables it. Bad, no? No, because we get enough vitamin C from our food. Not needing to produce all those enzymes, which would require energy, is an advantage: we can invest this energy in growth or reproduction.
(Incidentally, humans and chimps at least have exactly the same mutation in that gene. Why could that be? Guinea pigs have another.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
By "prove", you don't mean "prove", you mean "are evidence for". Similarities alone are compatible with both ideas, so we'll have to look for something else.
So let me present the fact that the similarities have a pattern. A tree-shaped pattern. Why are there intermediates between "reptiles" and mammals, but none between mammals and insects? If there were intermediates between everything and everything, the theory of evolution would be in trouble. (I told you it's falsifiable.) The speculation of creation, on the other hand, is compatible with all imaginable scenarios. It can "explain" everything and nothing. If it were wrong, we could never find that out by disproving it. Therefore it is not science.
Simple, isn't it?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available
Yes, but don't forget that the available information changes all the time -- mutation.
and tends only to keep a species stable.
This depends on the enviroment. When the environment is stable and the species (or, rather, population) is well adapted to it, we see stabilizing selection. When the environment changes, a few individuals have traits that fit the new environment better than the majority of the population, and then we see directional selection. By "see" I mean it has been observed in the field; check out e. g. the studies by the Grants on the Darwin finches.
How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
Increasing complexity? No, increasing diversity of complexity. Sometimes, being complex is an advantage, so it's selected for. Sometimes, it's a disadvantage, so it's selected against. There is no overarching trend in evolution. It really is just mutation, selection, and drift -- or at least these three factors are enough to explain everything we observe.
13. When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled?
Several times independently: red algae once, green algae twice. (Yellow and brown algae once more each, but they aren't actually plants -- they have red algae inside their cells.) The fossil record of marine plants isn't good, but the oldest known remains of multicellular red algae were 2.1 billion years old last time I read something on the topic.
Where: Somewhere in the sea.
Why: Because cooperation sometimes has net advantages.
(Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Learn about colonial green algae, will you? Google Micraster and Volvox, for instance. Also, what about cell chains that are so common among fungi and green algae?
Really, isn't that taught in biology lessons in the USA?
Single-celled animals evolve?
At least 1.3 billion years ago, probably.
Where: Somewhere in the sea, probably on the floor.
Why: Because filter-feeding sometimes is the easiest way to get food. Compare choanoflagellates and sponges.
Fish change to amphibians?
Not directly. Limbs evolved from fins sometime between 380 and 390 million years ago, probably in a vegetation-rich body of water, perhaps an estuarine swamp. Amphibians ( = everything more closely related to the frogs, salamanders and caecilians than to us) evolved from other limbed vertebrates sometime around 350 million years ago, most likely in a possibly coastal swamp; this has no "why", it's simply a split.
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Never. The closest relatives of the amniotes (mammals, "reptiles", and birds) are not the amphibians, but the diadectomorphs; amphibians and amniotes have a common ancestor that lived sometime around 350 million years ago (see above). By definition, the origin of Amniota is the divergence between the mammal branch (Theropsida) and the bird branch (Sauropsida -- turtles, lizards and crocodiles are on the bird branch); this probably happened sometime between 315 and 335 million years ago, on land. Sorry for not being more precise -- I can't be, because the fossil record consists mostly of holes, and because the formation of Pangea had progressed pretty far at that time.
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
Congratulations! I am a paleontologist, my specialty are... drum roll... dinosaurs! The "where" of all this questions is easy: on Pangea. The "when" and the "why" are different for each.
Bird lungs are shared by at least one of the two dinosaur branches, as well as by the pterosaurs. So let's say 240 million years ago, for greater endurance. Many of today's "reptiles" have lungs that approach a crude version of bird lungs to various degrees; imagining how the bird-style lungs evolved is very easy. Unfortunately the only good description I've seen is in a very technical book, and it relies heavily on illustrations, so I can't reproduce that here. (I don't even have the book here with me in the first place.)
How do we know? Because bird-style lungs usually leave traces on and in bones: first the vertebrae in the shoulder region, then all neck and trunk vertebrae and ribs, then the sacral vertebrae, then the tail vertebrae (sometimes), then the wishbone, breastbone, and hip bones, then the upper arms and thighs, and so on. This we find in the fossil record in this order.
The eyes? The eyes aren't different. Birds have ordinary vertebrate eyes -- more normal ones than most mammals, in fact. What is your source talking about?
By the reproductive organs I suppose you mean the fact that in most birds only the right ovary is functional and that they lay one egg per functional ovary at once? Oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and troodontids (close relatives of birds) laid their eggs pairwise: one egg per functional ovary, like in birds. We've found their nests, complete with brooding parent on top and baby skeletons inside. Other dinosaurs, like crocodiles, laid eggs en masse.
The shift to a single egg per functional ovary must have happened between 230 and 170 million years ago (fossil nests are rare), on Pangea, as a shift from r-strategy (lots of cheap offspring, of which a few will survive simply because they're so many) towards K-strategy (heavy investment in a few offspring that get a good start into life and will therefore more likely survive). The shift to a single egg per ovary must have happened between 170 and 70 million years ago, probably at the later end of this span, anywhere on land (birds can after all fly), probably for the same reason. (K-strategy and r-strategy are extremes of a very broad spectrum.) It may also have been an advantage for flying (two ovaries are probably heavier than one).
The hearts of birds and crocodiles are almost identical. This type of heart (4-chambered) differs from that found in lizards (3-chambered with varying degrees of separation of the left & right halves of the main chamber) only in degree. The 4-chambered heart must have evolved about 260 million years ago, on Pangea, and has the advantage of giving greater endurance.
"Method of locomotion" means "flight", I suppose? How flight evolved is an active field of research, but a few things are clear. For example, feathers and probably wings were already present; it is also logical that wings had evolved for something else (like sexual selection or brooding) before they were first used for flight. Around 180 to 160 million years ago, on Pangea. The advantages of flight are self-evident.
Feathers are scales that are lengthened, split down the middle of the underside, and in most cases opened. The first bristle-like feathers must have appeared between 170 and maybe 200 million years ago (they don't fossilize normally) and had advantages like insulation, but may have first appeared as something that sexual selection acted on.
14. How did the intermediate forms live?
Between what? In most cases it's self-evident how intermediate forms lived. Be more precise.
15. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
About 55 million years ago, from chevrotain-like even-toed ungulates. (So did the hippos, the whales' closest living relatives.) Probably on the shores of the Tethys ocean, maybe in Pakistan. How? Here you are asking for a treatise because we are have discovered a whole tree of intermediate forms in the last 20 years!!! Spend a few hours in Google. Why? Because they had no competition in the sea -- the mosasaurs had died out 10 million years earlier.
Sea horses evolve?
No idea. I'm not an ichthyologist.
Bats evolve?
Also about 55 million years ago. Their closest identified relatives are the odd-toed ungulates plus the carnivorans plus the pangolins (together called Zooamata). The last common ancestor of all these animals must have looked like a shrew. The bat branch took to the trees and perhaps started gliding and using its arms to grasp insects... the fossil record is poor here. Only two weeks ago it was found out that flight appeared before echolocation in bats. The advantages of flight to a tree-living insectivore are obvious.
Eyes evolve?
Whose eyes? Eyes evolved several times independently from light-sensitive cells. (Those cells, however, are very old.)
Ears evolve?
Whose ears? A cricket's?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Skin is, basically, simply the outer -- or upper -- cell layer of a two-layered animal.
Feathers -- see above. Hair, feathers, scales, and claws including nails are all just outgrowths of the skin. You'll be surprised to learn that the same gene, called Sonic hedgehog (no joke), is involved in all outgrowths from animal body walls, all the above as well as teeth, taste buds, and limbs.
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested
The food came first. Not all organisms even eat other organisms, you understand.
the appetite
Very late.
the ability to find and eat the food
When you swim in a watery solution of your food, and when the food diffuses through your cell membrane, you don't have this problem.
the digestive juices
See above.
or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
Must have evolved in tandem with the digestive enzymes and the acid production. Step by step.
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Cell division comes automatically.
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat
The throat. Lungs are just an outgrowth of the esophagus. The mucus came last, because when you live in water, you don't dry out.
or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
"Perfect mixture" is ridiculous. We have adapted to the mixture that is there.
Of course, oxygen was dumped into the air long before lungs evolved.
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
RNA. Pretty obviously. Go read Wikipedia.
The termite or the flagella[te!] in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
First the "flagellates" which were originally free-living. I bet lots of such free-living organisms still exist.
The termites originally ate rotting wood where the cellulose was already mostly decomposed. One of the two branches of the termite family tree still does just that.
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The plants. Ever heard of wind pollination? I mean, please!
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
Never noticed that animals without bones have muscles, too? If you're small enough, you can have one without the other.
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
Hormones first, nerves later. There is no such thing as a "repair system". You know, Hovind likes making stuff up.
The immune system or the need for it?
The need for it -- but gradually, like the immune system. It's an arms race.
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation.
Provide one if you can. Hint: you can't.
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
By mutation and selection. Mutation is random, selection is not -- those who look most similar to what they're imitating are eaten the least often. Simple. Really simple.
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings?
Man didn't. They're all much older.
Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Wrong. Look up "kin selection" and "reciprocal altruism". It's all quite obvious, really.
19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?
AsteriscMost of the intermediates are still alive. The form most widespread today, which uses water as the hydrogen source, is the chemically most difficult one and came last. The precursor uses hydrogen sulfide instead, which is much safer; bacteria that use it are widespread in oxygen-poor or -free and sulfur-rich layers of seashores today. A yet older method is to directly use hydrogen. That's easiest. This, too, still exists today.
20. *How did thought evolve?
We're working on it.
21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
That's a very active field of research. The "how" is pretty obvious: more and more protection layers accumulated around the seed. What their closest relatives are is unclear: either bennettites or cycads or pentoxylopsids or glossopterids or gigantopterids or gnetaleans or all of the above plus conifers. Come back in 10 years, and I'll probably be able to tell you.
22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
Tell me about those "kinds". I don't know what you're talking about.
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
"Really? That I wanna see."
Except what you mean isn't 50 but 70 years ago. This happens when creationists copy from each other over 20 years. The first Latimeria chalumnae was discovered in 1938.
24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
See above on the lack of a difference between "micro-" and "macroevolution". Also see above for the treelike pattern of similarities among organisms. Also see above for how science works: you should ask "is there one clear prediction of the theory of evolution that has proven wrong, and is there one clear prediction of the speculation of creationism that has proven wrong?"
25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
Huh?
26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
"Believe" doesn't enter into the question. It currently looks like everything came either from nothing or from nothing-with-quantum-physics-in-it (which is a more realistic state of affairs than "nothing" can be); I don't know of any evidence against this, so I have to accept this hypothesis for the time being.
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
I am sure they are reasonable. I am not absolutely sure they are all absolutely right -- science isn't finished yet! I am, however, certain that all reflect the best of my knowledge of the evidence.
There is no such thing as "scientifically provable". Is not understanding science a prerequisite for being a creationist, or what? (On second thought, it probably is.)
My religion? I'm an apathetic agnostic, I have no such thing as a religion.
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
They show a complete lack of faith. It's all "show me the evidence, show me, show me, show me". Compare the story of St Thomas. :-)
3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe?
It's certainly possible, but it's neither testable nor a necessary hypothesis to explain anything. Thus, it is a completely useless assumption, at least for now.
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
No. It is wise and fair to present evolution as an observed fact, because that's what it is, and to present the theory of evolution by mutation, selection and drift as the only testable explanation that people have so far come up with.
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
There is no such thing as "belief in evolution" in the first place. The evidence is clear -- it doesn't go away if we stop believing in it.
But even if, what end result should there be? I can't think of one.
6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
- It is all they have been taught.
That's certainly the case for some people, but not for scientists. Scientists follow the evidence where it leads.
- They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
Does not follow. What are you talking about? Has it ever entered your mind that not all Christians are creationists (for the fifth time now)?
- They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
Ridiculous! If you can overturn a widely accepted theory, you get the Nobel Prize. In this case the one for Physiology Or Medicine. The more revolutionary your results*, the greater your fame.
* I didn't say "beliefs". I didn't even say "opinions". I said "results". Research results.
- They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
People for whom this is true shouldn't go into science. And indeed, very few of them do. Among creationists, on the other hand... ouch.
- Evolution is the only philosophy
BZZZT! Wrong. The theory of evolution is science, not philosophy. The difference should be clear by now.
that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Various distortions of the theory of evolution have been used to "justify" any political ideology, except theocracy. Various forms of any religion have been used to "justify" any political ideology, no exceptions this time.
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Why exactly did Napoleon cross the Mississippi?
Please. Nobody has used the Piltdown forgery as evidence for anything in biology ever since it was discovered to be a hoax (by paleoanthropologists who noticed it didn't really fit into the human family tree). Every biologist, as far as I can tell, knows that Haeckel's "law" of recapitulation is a drastic oversimplification (ontogeny evolves, too -- the Pharyngula stages of mammals, birds and frogs are very, very similar, but their blastula stages are very different, for example, because of the different amounts of yolk they carry). Nothing is wrong about Archaeopteryx -- Sir Fred Hoyle's claim of forgery were easily and quickly disproven, and several new specimens of Archie have been discovered in the decades since, not to mention lots of other ancient birds and near-birds. Nothing is wrong about Lucy, Java Man, or the Neandertalers -- if you think otherwise, please explain. Horse evolution is very well documented: it's not a pole, as it was illustrated in the 19th century and unfortunately in general textbooks till much later, but a tree. Google for it. And what's up with vestigial organs?
8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
Note the misuse of "theories".
Firstly, "equal time" is a bit silly. Some ideas require more time for explanation than others. Creationism is just "goddidit" -- evolution is more complicated than that. Secondly, did you follow this link? Its point is that Christianity is not the only religion with a creation myth. You'd have to teach literally hundreds of such stories. That would easily fill up an entire school year, and I don't just mean the biology classes. Thirdly, we are talking about the USA. According to the big-C Constitution, you are allowed to teach either all religious ideas of creation or none. Given the aforementioned time constraints, it's much easier to teach none of them and to teach science instead.
9. What are you risking if you are wrong?
Nothing, why?
As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
And therefore neither of them can be true, or what?
But did you notice? Hovind or whoever changed the topic here: from evolution to religion.
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?
We aren't. We are afraid of evolution not being sufficiently presented in public schools -- plus all the problems mentioned above, such as the Constitution.
If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Wrong, see above.
11. Aren't you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true?
Faith doesn't even enter the question here, and "cannot be true" is something you will have to demonstrate. Good luck.
Wouldn't it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Once again a change of topic from evolution to religion...
Sure, it would be great, if he exists in the first place. That remains to be demonstrated. Many Christians, never mind believers of other religions, agree that it can't be.
Posted by: Brian | April 12, 2008 2:18 AM
Is there a functional difference between posting several screens of blank space, and posting several screens of words no one will read?
Posted by: Michael X | April 12, 2008 2:38 AM
I want to thank you all (trolls included) for getting us past 2000! T-shirts are in order. And Greg, if you can't see propaganda like expelled coming from a mile away, I have tickets to a toothfairy documentary I'd like to sell you.
Posted by: ryan.... Y | April 12, 2008 4:02 AM
Yep, as soon as there is an alternate view about some apple store bloggers comments, they instantly become trolls.
Thanks a lot.
And can you guys please refresh me on where those single cell ogranisims came from in the first place?
Posted by: Colugo | April 12, 2008 4:16 AM
Ryan, by alluding to the mystery concerning the origins of single-celled organisms, are you suggesting that there is a gap, a gaping hole if you will, in evolutionary theory?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 12, 2008 4:25 AM
Oh, great. Another 'questioning mind' who styles himself some kind of out-of-the-box thinker but who can't be bothered to acquaint himself with literature that's already four decades old, who thinks he's gonna stump us with the same tired old questions he picked up from his friends.
Here's a gimme for you: protobionts. No, it's probably not the case that these were the precursor organic molecules to the first things we would start calling 'life', but they are self-organising, self-replicating molecules that spontaneously form from non-life. You can argue whether those conditions match those that existed during the earlier parts of the Earth's history or not, I couldn't possibly care less. The point still stands.
Now, if you're going to keep lobbing softballs like that at us (and since you probably haven't a clue as to why it's a soft lob (hint: this research is 40+ years old), you're probably going to keep lobbing them), you might want to read a few books written by the scientists who are actually trying to answer these questions before tediously demanding our attention like a spoiled child and whining when we tell you to sit in the corner.
Try doing your homework. I can assure you we've all done ours.
Posted by: Loki | April 12, 2008 5:32 AM
I love it when a plan comes together.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 12, 2008 5:37 AM
hey guys, for all of us evidence-needy, actual knowledge-ists out here that took so much time talking at the brick wall named Scott, I thought I'd put a little humor in here for you. And the humor is even provided BY Scott -- how considerate of him, huh?
The guy that took so much trouble to discredit the conclusion we drew about him being a creationist obviously doesn't cover his tracks very well at all. I had never heard of "Acts and Facts" before he cited it in a post, and a simple Google search turned up this gem. You should check it out:
http://www.bibleone.net/print_SF2.html
a. This was Scott's Post, copied and pasted into my own:
Fossil record of transitional remains is the assertion by Charles Darwin that if evolution were true there would exist ample evidence of transitional skeletal remains otherwise known as "missing links" within the earth's geological strata. He predicted man would find a gradual upward evolution of species to greater and greater complexity among the sedimentary levels of the earth. But the record from Mr. Darwin to today has revealed just the opposite. Paleontologists have devoted whole careers to looking for these transitional forms, but what they have found in the fossil records are species fully formed with no transitional intermediates or missing links. If evolution were true, they would have found literally millions of transitional forms from one species to the next. The following excerpt is taken from "Acts and Facts," which was authored by Dr. Duane Gist, who received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley.
The fossil record shows the sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, and trilobites) without a trace of ancestors.
The fossil record also shows the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. If evolution has occurred, our museums should contain thousands of fossils of intermediate forms. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!
Now even though evolutionary stages or links between separate species have never been proven to exist, there is ample evidence that supports evolution within a species. In fact any person is an evolutionary step from the combination of DNA from his father and mother.
b. And THIS is what was on that magical page I found via Google...compare for yourselves:
Fossil Record of Transitional Remains--the assertion by Charles Darwin that if evolution were true there would exist ample evidence of transitional skeletal remains otherwise known as "missing links" within the earth's geological strata. He predicted man would find a gradual upward evolution of species to greater and greater complexity among the sedimentary levels of the earth. But the record from Mr. Darwin to today has revealed just the opposite. Paleontologists have devoted whole careers to looking for these transitional forms, but what they have found in the fossil records are species fully formed with no transitional intermediates or missing links. If evolution were true, they would have found literally millions of transitional forms from one species to the next. The following excerpt is taken from "Acts and Facts," which was authored by Dr. Duane Gist, who received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley.
The fossil record shows the sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, and trilobites) without a trace of ancestors.
The fossil record also shows the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. If evolution has occurred, our museums should contain thousands of fossils of intermediate forms. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!
Now even though evolutionary stages or links between separate species have never been proven to exist, there is ample evidence that supports evolution within a species. In fact any person is an evolutionary step from the combination of DNA from his father and mother.
Apparently, even though hasn't yet mastered reading comprehension and critical thinking, he's doing a bang-up job with plagiarism!
And Scott, one of the reasons you run into this problem is your lack of research ability, which can be remedied. But running onto a site populated by individuals such as the ones on this one and parroting old arguments is that research and information-seeking is a well-honed skill (and I would call it an obsession in my case...) shared by most here. What this means for you is that if you ARE plagiarizing (aka STEALING), not only will your malfeasance inevitably be discovered, but - since we put so much effort on our own intellectual endeavors - it will be looked upon with a great deal of disgust and contempt by almost everyone who frequents this website. (I hope I didn't presume too much by speaking for more than myself there, but something tells me I'm not alone in those thoughts.)
PP.S.: Really, Scott? You copied it from a website that not only has "bible" in the address, but the first thing on the damn page is a box at the top left that clearly says:
"Print This Bible Study"
Lazy, Scott...very lazy. Next time, try using your own brain to come up with responses rather than someone else's. The majority of our race finds that to be a much more satisfying endeavor.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 12, 2008 10:31 AM
Nice catch, Soldier. :-)
Posted by: True Bob | April 12, 2008 11:21 AM
Thanks everyone, I'm glad to see this thread past the 2k mark. And on the shoulders of a particular giant...IDiot named Scott.
I for one hope he DID find his ass.
Posted by: Janine, ID | April 12, 2008 11:53 AM
Yikes! I would hate to sit next to that person. Fecal matter has to be caked on.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 12, 2008 4:08 PM
This thread has gotten too long! The other sciencebloggers are whining that it's dragging the server down, so I'm closing it.
Continue the discussion here.