…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: CanadianChick | March 20, 2008 9:32 PM
bwahahahaha....
can't...
breathe...
laughing...
too hard...
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Wesley R. Elsberry | March 20, 2008 10:01 PM
You can stop calling the Star Tribune. They know about it now.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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:
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 an