…and this is a 
Still straining to find an excuse
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 21, 2008 11:46 PM, by PZ Myers
The New York Times has weighed in, and they contacted the producers of Expelled…and what do you know, they're still scrambling to find a credible story. They haven't succeeded yet.
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."
Unbelievable. So basically it's a baseless implication that I would be a troublemaker, and the arrogant and absurd assumption that Dawkins flew to Minneapolis from Oxford to see their preview of the movie.
Lying is just a reflex for them at this point. He also claims that he made Dawkins "shrink" in the Q&A, which is total nonsense. Mathis is a shrill and frightened man when he's confronted; back in November, I called in to a radio interview he was doing, and he practically broke down in hysterics. He ended the "debate" by yelling into the phone, "Go to his website! Myers is an atheist! He's an atheist!", classic ad hominem.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim Mathis was afraid of me — he was on home ground yesterday with a friendly audience — but it's clear that he really, really dislikes me. The simple explanation for what happened at the screening is that he spotted me in the line, let his irrational venom get the better of him, and he had me evicted while he retreated back into the theater, and therefore missed spotting Dawkins. Everything else now is transparent spin to hide the fact that they were hypocritical about expelling me, and screwed up big time in allowing a more prominent critic slip by.
As for the implication that I'd be a horrible, disruptive presence, here's one excerpt from the movie; it's also on a DVD that they were giving away at a table at the screening*. Look what a horrible, malign ogre I am.
I heard that people in the audience gasped in distress at my comment that I want to see religion reduced to a "side dish" instead of the "main dish", but seriously — I saw that and thought that gee, I'm awfully conciliatory on screen.
Socratic Gadfly takes on the NY Times article in more detail; I'm getting a little tired of the story myself, after spending much of the afternoon with reporters. I think I'll spend more time at the American Atheists meeting tomorrow, and look forward to our gathering of pharynguloids tomorrow night.
The story is now also on Salon.
By the way, one of the other things I'm doing here is taping some conversations with Richard Dawkins. Our discussion of our experiences at that movie are now on the web.
*By the way, another interesting thing is on the DVD. They've got excerpts from the Inner Life video. Creationists are certainly drawn to stealing that work, aren't they?
Comments
That was very elegant and gracious on your part. Kudos!
Posted by: Mike Fox | March 21, 2008 11:55 PM
A side dish? Did DOCTOR Myers just compare religion to BOILED CAULIFLOWER??!!?
/ben stein voice
Posted by: The Kenosha Kid | March 22, 2008 12:01 AM
I thought your comments were very tame all things considered. Is this just a money making thing for the expelled team? Otherwise they seem to violate everything they pretend to believe in, but then I guess that is the thing isn't it? Pretend is the basis of their whole being.
Posted by: afterthought | March 22, 2008 12:02 AM
PZ, this 'event' could give you the opportunity to raise a huge stink. You could stand on a soap box and decry how foul these people are. You could fill your blog with a huge rant on how despicable they are.
You could use this high traffic day to attack them.
Instead, you have two small posts, and didn't forget our Friday Cephalopod.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for you taking the moral high ground.
Posted by: Bart Mitchell | March 22, 2008 12:06 AM
I watched that video and kept nodding throughout. "Religion is just fantasy, basically. It's particularly empty of any explanatory content. And it's evil."
So obviously true all I kept wondering was why the "scary music" had to play underneath such uplifting and freeing words. That should be set to "Ode to Joy."
Posted by: H. Humbert | March 22, 2008 12:07 AM
A side dish? Did DOCTOR Myers just compare religion to BOILED CAULIFLOWER??!!?
Both remain unpalatable. The asparagus in cardamom butter from Legal Seafoods or the pumpkin at Helmand? Then I might go to services. But boiled cauliflower? *shudder*
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 22, 2008 12:11 AM
I hadn't heard they interviewed chemist Peter Atkins too. To what degree do they go after chemists and astronomers in the movie? Does Stephen Hawking have a cameo?
What else do they link to the rise of Hitler? The "theory" of Brownian motion? The "myth" of stellar evolution?
In the end, creo-IDists really hate mechanistic explanations of the universe. These are people who don't want to understand how the universe works--I think Dembski has said as much about mechanism. They want to see pretty, shiny things and say "Oh, wow, goddidit."
Posted by: jeh | March 22, 2008 12:14 AM
In the end, creo-IDists really hate mechanistic explanations of the universe. These are people who don't want to understand how the universe works--I think Dembski has said as much about mechanism. They want to see pretty, shiny things and say "Oh, wow, goddidit."
"There are some things we don't want to know, important things!"
--Ned Flanders
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 22, 2008 12:16 AM
Accusing someone of being an atheist is not an ad hominem :)
Posted by: Tea | March 22, 2008 12:16 AM
I'm just kind of sour that I missed the free showing of "Expelled: No Intelligence Required" at the MOA on Thursday.
It sounded like classic mirth making!
Posted by: Eric | March 22, 2008 12:17 AM
the human species is so queer. reality stares itself in the face and it opts for something out of thin air.
Posted by: genesgalore | March 22, 2008 12:17 AM
By the way, I hate to do a shameless plug, but here it is:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11938451981
A facebook group to protest Expelled. Please join. They have a 600+ strong group to lionize Stein's idiocy, and no (well, one, now) counterbalance.
Posted by: Ames | March 22, 2008 12:17 AM
Why does the narrator speak in a monotonous drone?
Why is the cameraman obsessed with Richard Dawkins' nose?
Posted by: j | March 22, 2008 12:18 AM
Hey PZ, your new video is up at richarddawkins.net!
"Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled"
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2389,Discussion-on-PZ-Myers-being-expelled-from-Expelled,Richard-Dawkins-PZ-Myers
Posted by: matthew | March 22, 2008 12:21 AM
I agree with you guys but come on.
The people behind the Expelled film booted PZ on purpose for the publicity, NY Times/Salon publicity no less - as they knew PZ would raise a stink.
Now who was had?
Dawkins and PZ may be Professors but have absolutely no street smarts and just slipped on 'their' intellectual banana peel.
Duh.
LOL.
Posted by: philos | March 22, 2008 12:21 AM
Who was it that was meant to be playing Joseph Stalin, again?
No wonder they had to intersperse the interviews with disgraceful and manipulatory imagery, PZ.
You could have at least flashed your jaws teeth a few times!
Posted by: Damian | March 22, 2008 12:22 AM
Accusing someone of being an atheist is not an ad hominem :)
Unfortunately it is in our society. We now effectively have a religious test for higher office. It will be a very long time before an admitted agnostic or atheist will be elected president.
Posted by: jeh | March 22, 2008 12:24 AM
>>>"I watched a man who has been a large figure, an imposing figure, I watched this man shrink in front of my eyes."
Oh. My. Gosh. That just literally made my jaw drop. I think pigs will grow wings and halos before Mathis is anywhere near doing that.
Posted by: Mus | March 22, 2008 12:26 AM
The people behind the Expelled film booted PZ on purpose for the publicity, NY Times/Salon publicity no less - as they knew PZ would raise a stink.
funny, but if the producers really had planned it that way, and you thought it so clever, don't you think they would have spun it that way themselves?
I don't exactly see Mathis making your case for you.
which leaves only three possibilities:
you're wrong.
you're an idiot.
both.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 12:27 AM
I for one was chilled by Dr Myers's low-key unemotional statement of his position. Is there really much of a step from sitting in a lab to lrching around shopping malls crying out 'Brainnssss...'.
In fact, science cannot definitively prove that PZ is not a zombie. Therefore is simply a matter of faith that he is a 'Professor' of evolutionary biology in 'Missouri'.
Schools MUST teach the controversy.
O and also that proves God's real too. Didn't want to forget that.
Posted by: Andrew C | March 22, 2008 12:27 AM
PZ:
1. You rock. I always like it when a person more intelligent than myself shares a philosophy or hobby of mine. It's nice to hear a better man state my arguments in a clarity which I cannot equal.
2. Did you ever think, growing up, "I'm going to put my ideas in a place where anybody can read them, and the NYT will talk about it." I don't see how anyone could see that coming. I bet it puts a great big grin on your face when you really think about it. It does mine.
Keep it up buddy.
Posted by: Monsignor Henry Clay | March 22, 2008 12:27 AM
Interesting, the NYT article had a link to Pharyngula, but none to the Expelled folks. Anyone looking to explore the issue is going to get the correct version of the story first!
Posted by: Andrew Cooper | March 22, 2008 12:28 AM
lol, hehehehe. Jesus, would you kindly send me a text message to settle this brouhaha.
Posted by: genesgalore | March 22, 2008 12:29 AM
Tea wrote:
In this instance, yes, it was. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy where an argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person making the argument--literally arguing against the man--instead of making a cogent rebuttal to the argument itself. So pointing out the fact that PZ is an atheist as a ruse to distract from PZ's points was classic ad hominem fallacy.Accusing someone of being an atheist is not an insult, however. That I'll grant you. Just be aware that they aren't the same thing.
See here for further clarification:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Posted by: H. Humbert | March 22, 2008 12:29 AM
While you guys might already be tired of the story, there are plenty more people who'd love to revel in the irony. Go over to Slashdot.com and vote for any of these submissions so that the tale can be featured on the main page.
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=585414
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=585514
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=585524
Posted by: Eric | March 22, 2008 12:32 AM
Is there any part of the film where Dembski does his trademark anti-evolution farting noises? If not, then I'm just not interested.
Posted by: dave | March 22, 2008 12:34 AM
This clip actually looks like something that you'd see on one of Dawkins' TV shows. IF the rest of the movie wasn't there I'd be congratulating the producers for doing such a good job of explaining why reasonable people find religion to be silly.
Posted by: JScarry | March 22, 2008 12:39 AM
Damn! Not one lightning bolt out your eyes! Not even a tentacle wriggling out from under your coat! You're going to ruin your reputation.
Posted by: John Pieret | March 22, 2008 12:39 AM
Wait, wait, whoa whoa HOLD ON a minute here.
Isn't ID supposed to be science?
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 22, 2008 12:41 AM
Y'know, it seemed like everything Dawkins, Atkins, and you, Dr. Myers, had to say was incredibly eloquent, well-reasoned, and hopeful. Ben Stein sounded like a snide bastard.
Posted by: Matt | March 22, 2008 12:42 AM
Is there any part of the film where Dembski does his trademark anti-evolution farting noises? If not, then I'm just not interested.
no, but evidently they use the clip from Harvard that Dembski stole to use on his own speaking tour, and was later forced to apologize to Harvard for plagiarizing.
What's more, evidently not only does Expelled plagiarize the Harvard film, but they re-dub the explanations and replace them with cretinist drivel.
I wonder how they are going to avoid a lawsuit on that?
I think I can reasonably assume that Harvard wouldn't have given them permission to use the video in such a fashion.
BTW, the original Harvard vids are located here:
http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/
fantastic vid.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 12:43 AM
Could have used more vehemence, fire breathing, and squid. Especially the squid.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | March 22, 2008 12:44 AM
Ichthyic: Your self-esteem must be low if you have to respond with insults.
The producers had to spin it like this, it's obvious and if you don't see it - then think some more - no other way.
Go back to playing with your fish and quit annoying people.
Posted by: philos | March 22, 2008 12:44 AM
The atheist accusation is meant as an insult, by people who don't see it as a compliment.
Oh, PZ, thanks for the link!
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | March 22, 2008 12:44 AM
Ichthyic: Your self-esteem must be low if you have to respond with insults.
I didn't have to.
In fact, it was my pleasure to burst your very tiny balloon.
Posted by: ichthyic | March 22, 2008 12:49 AM
"Why does the narrator speak in a monotonous drone?"
Ever seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off? It's Stein's whole shtick.
"This clip actually looks like something that you'd see on one of Dawkins' TV shows."
Gotta love how their cheerleaders keep crowing about how "embarrassed" PZ and Dawkins et. al are going to be with what the movie is going to show of them. Why the heck would PZ or Dawkins come off any different on a program where they were calling the shots? More of that cdesignproponentsist projection, they just can't imagine anyone acting honestly.
"Religion is just fantasy, basically. It's particularly empty of any explanatory content. And it's evil."
And then the guy started giggling. I think he was toying with 'em. :)
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 22, 2008 12:51 AM
If you look at the Harvard video it starts with a warning that it is totally prohibited to use it for commercial purposes. I assume at some point they are going to charge entry to Expelled ? That should be fun.
Michael
Posted by: Michael | March 22, 2008 12:56 AM
If you look at the Harvard video it starts with a warning that it is totally prohibited to use it for commercial purposes
*smiles*
glad you noticed.
funny that Mathis didn't... unless Dembski was where he got his copy from, and 'ol Bill neglected to tell him about the whole "I stole this from Harvard" thing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 1:00 AM
I read somewhere else that they are cancelling the prescreenings. Perhaps the studio is getting nervous about the theft of the Harvard animations and is demanding that the producers cut that out. It'd be interesting if they lost their distrubution deal out of this. From what I've heard it sounds more like a straight to video cheapie than a real movie anyway.
The only thing holding it up is the ready made audience of easily gulled fundamentalists who are willing to fork over $10 to watch some badly made propaganda that purportedly supports their prejudices.
Posted by: Mark B | March 22, 2008 1:03 AM
Personally, I wouldn't put past them to be actually counting on that. "Look! They're oppresing us!"
Posted by: Andrés | March 22, 2008 1:03 AM
I'm just waiting for this Mathis to be involved in a scandal of some kind. Seems to be a trend for these crazies. I'm still not sure if it'll be paying for homosexual sex in a bathroom or tax evasion. Maybe he'll get sued for stealing a video from Harvard, as discussed on Dawkins site: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2389,Discussion-on-PZ-Myers-being-expelled-from-Expelled,Richard-Dawkins-PZ-Myers
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | March 22, 2008 1:04 AM
You sir, PZ, are way ahead of the curve, which is the primary reason why your blog is so popular. You have given a voice the the speechless and have provided legs to the halt. For that you are beloved and honored by some and reviled and rejected by many.
The events of the last thirty odd hours shed a particularly revealing light. That is, defense of knowledge enjoys its own rewards while defense of belief is constantly beleaguered. The choice between the two would appear to be academic but is not. Some GodBotheredBusyBody must, I say Must! call you the bad man, the fool, a tool.
Not only is this defense predictable, it is also easily deflected. For instance:
P1You don't like what I say.
P2 I don't like what you say.
C1 I am correct and you are wrong.
Unspoken Corollary: To the Death, Myers! Or until you yield because I cannot die. Dog sezzo.
I've got to tip my hat to you,sir. You have not only carved out a niche and defined its limits; you have also fully occupied that niche. At a stretch it could be said that your own life is by itself a glowing testament to the usefulness of Darwin's first insight into the question that reads like this:
How the hell did we come from there to here?
The answers supplied by the IDiots tell only old stories. Even a brief look at the state of bio-chemistry, recent advances in all life sciences, the recent saga of vaccines, and such silly shit as how you can dilute a medicine to undetectable amounts tell an old and too familiar story. So many place so much confidence in so little promises offered by those with so little knowledge.
If you will, compare my last paragraph with the accolades given to the Royal Air Force's victory over the Luftwaffe's in the Battle of Britain. In that event the assumed weakness (erroneously reported by a crippled and undermined counter-intelligence) of the RAF was misinterpreted by a German air force that took it upon themselves to assume that Britain's defense was easily penetrable.
I say nothing of Hitler while referring to the Luftwaffe. Hitler was, in terms of the tactics of WWII, ineffective. Compared to those who resisted. Those who resisted won. In my own personal estimation or the current state of things, Hitler is a non-participant. Things would have turned out much the same had he never been born. It did not take him to make people hate and fear one another; that was already the background of life for anyone who left their home tribe.The fact that some of us make war against some others of us is old news and arouses no reaction in me. The fact that some of us make up new reasons to make war against the rest of us causes me to stop and reflect deeply. Both cannot be right.
Thank you for your honesty and your adamancy. Hope I get to shake your hand someday.
I think that there might be a lesson here that might be instructive.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 22, 2008 1:13 AM
Philos speculates that PZ was "had" by the clever people responsible for Expelled, who were willing to look like idiots who didn't recognize Dawkins because all publicity must be good publicity. Right.
For some reason this reminds me of former state Senator John Briggs of California. Never heard of him? He was going to be governor of California and had worked out a perfect way to get the attention of the state media: Briggs crafted a initiative campaign that, if approved by the voters, would empower school boards to fire gay teachers and any straight colleagues who defended them. A real statesman, that Briggs! He decided to maximize his publicity by introducing his anti-gay initiative campaign from the steps of San Francisco's City Hall. As he expected, a hostile crowd turned out to heckle him. What he hadn't expected, apparently, was that he would be frightened by all the protesters (weren't they supposed to be limp-wristed sissies?!), his voice would quaver, and he would stumble on the steps while hustling his ass out of there. He looked a fool.
And his initiative failed at the polls at he failed to be competitive in the GOP primary for governor. Gone and forgotten, poor John.
Posted by: Zeno | March 22, 2008 1:15 AM
I thought the trailer was supposed to portray something objectionable on the science side of the debate... That all seemed very positive and reasonable.
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | March 22, 2008 1:17 AM
"That all seemed very positive and reasonable."
Didn't you hear the MUSIC? DUNNNNNNNNNNWWWWWWWWWRRRRRNNNNN...
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 22, 2008 1:26 AM
Joshua Arnold, why not have the Daily Double of venal criminality? Paying for gay sex from a high-dollar gay prostitution ring, then getting busted for money laundering?
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | March 22, 2008 1:28 AM
Lets not assume they stole that video just yet. It's certainly possible, but Harvard might well have sold them the rights... to use it in a film called "Crossroads" about the intersection of science and religion.
Seriously though, hold the accusations until the Harvard folks have clarified. If it is proven to be stolen, we can have a whole 'nother round of delicious entertainment.
The "OMG Expelled is getting free publicity" thing doesn't do much for me. Yes, they are getting some free publicity, but to anyone who isn't already committed to the creationist/ID camp, it's obvious what they did here was petty and rude. It also gives a great opportunity to point out their earlier dishonesty.
The IDists dishonesty is one of our best weapon against them. It's easy to make a "sciency" argument that sounds plausible in soundbite, and the general public often has a hard time telling that from real science. Blatant dishonesty OTOH, is easy to see, and doesn't require one to evaluate obscure scientific arguments. It's also an affront to what are commonly referred to as Christian values.
The fact that some more hardcore creationists will hear about the film at same time is a minor issue... the movie wasn't going to change their view anyway.
Posted by: Reed | March 22, 2008 1:31 AM
I thought the trailer was supposed to portray something objectionable on the science side of the debate... That all seemed very positive and reasonable.
goood, goood, the subliminal messages are working...
er, I mean, yes, quite. reasonable. yup.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 1:31 AM
"I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film"
LOLOL
Like having to presume that the earth is only a few thousand years old?
Gotta love presumption.
Hilarious that this hit the NYT.
Off to watch the clip...
Posted by: Caveat | March 22, 2008 1:37 AM
It's certainly possible, but Harvard might well have sold them the rights
possible, but given the fact that individuals with tangential relations to the film have abused the right before (*cough*Dembski*cough*) there is precedent for them being stupid enough to try it anyway.
Moreover, there is a very clear warning on the front of all the vids:
I suppose Mathis might have lied to them and told them the documentary was an "educational nonprofit" endeavor, but that would still bring up a whole nest of issues that dwarf PZ and Dawkins being lied to about what the movie was going to be about.
seems odd they would grant rights that are exactly opposite what they actually state at the beginning of their films.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 1:39 AM
btw, part of the Harvard project is funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which has some very nice vids and animations that Pim over on the 'thumb linked to a short time back:
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/
also well worth checking out.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 1:41 AM
seems odd they would grant rights that are exactly opposite what they actually state at the beginning of their films.
Yeah, it seems to me, if they used the Harvard clips, they had to be stolen, or procured under false pretenses. In either case, it would be theft of intellectual property, and you can bet that Harvard would not take it lying down.
One possibility that was mentioned above is that they could have hired another company to do a look alike work and not used the Harvard animations. That doesn't seem likely to me, given what I've heard about the cheapness in ineptness of the film, but it's still possible. I'm guessing that the Harvard legal team will be on the case Monday morning.
Posted by: Mark B | March 22, 2008 1:46 AM
Wow, you evil people should learn to tone it down a bit when you're being interviewed for video. You came across as a bunch of pitchfork-wielding fanatics planning a necktie party for all who reject your creed.
Especially that last guy...what a bully!
Sheesh.
Posted by: Caveat | March 22, 2008 1:52 AM
The fact the video is for "educational use only" doesn't imply that you couldn't buy rights for other uses. It just means that if you download it from the web you can only use it for educational purposes.
I'm not saying they didn't steal it. Given the Dembski affair, there's a pretty good chance. However, we will know for sure soon enough, so there's no need to risk embarrassment by accusing them without solid proof. It will be far more fun to say LOLCREATIONISTS with a statement from the Harvard group in hand :)
Posted by: Reed | March 22, 2008 1:52 AM
Sorry, that should read "pitchfork-wielding haberdashers planning a necktie party..."
Posted by: Caveat | March 22, 2008 1:54 AM
I thought the trailer was supposed to portray something objectionable on the science side of the debate... That all seemed very positive and reasonable.
LOL! That's what I thought. Then I remembered that I had to think like a Christian and OMG! The appropriate place for religion is a side dish!?! These scientists are possessed by Satan!
*sigh* Mathis may be a lying coward but he knows his audience.
Posted by: RamblinDude | March 22, 2008 1:55 AM
If philos were right, they would have kicked out Dawkins for the publicity.
Posted by: idlemind | March 22, 2008 2:00 AM
Is it just me or does the background music in this clip sound remarkably like "The End" by The Doors?
Posted by: UmmoSirius | March 22, 2008 2:02 AM
doesn't imply that you couldn't buy rights for other uses.
you can't download the originals from the web (they are flash vids, like youtube). you have to have permission to even get copies of the originals, which is why Dembski got popped. You can't link to the originals from a film, or from an unconnected laptop, which means someone had to get original copies for use.
and the message appears quite clear, and I repeat:
The use, duplication, or distribution of this material for any commercial purpose is strictly prohibited.
If it is being used in a commerical film (uh, mathis didn't intend this to be a free documentary, right?) then that would clearly violate the terms of usage clearly stated on the films themselves.
It's not uncommon that academic produced materials have exactly this kind of rights limitation attached.
I'm merely going by what the probabilities are, given the actions shown by the people associated with things like Expelled, and what Harvard actually gives as their terms of usage for the vids themselves.
now, it IS possible that Harvard changed their TOU after they sold the rights to Mathis...
do you REALLY think that's likely?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 2:04 AM
The appropriate place for religion is a side dish!
To Serve Man...
"It's a cookbook!"
We always knew that PZ was a front man for Cthulhu, he is just making it clear.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 2:05 AM
Well, PZ, as the 'side dish' of Good Friday runs its course, I wish you a very happy weekend. This Easter, at least, you've outdone yourself. I'm still tickled over how this went down.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | March 22, 2008 2:06 AM
If philos were right, they would have kicked out Dawkins for the publicity.
that too.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 2:07 AM
Reed, now that we've seen what Leni Riefenstahl Mark Mathis has produced, we know it ain't for educational purposes.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | March 22, 2008 2:07 AM
"Still straining to find an excuse". Yes, indeed. I think any muscle they might have must surely be torn and sore from all that overstretching.
Posted by: Sam | March 22, 2008 2:10 AM
hey scott-
are you still following Vox blowhard?
if so..
any updates on whether your communications with him have affected his "contributions" on his site yet?
and-
has he jumped in with his own "unique" insights on the expelled issue yet?
I could use another irony fix.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 2:11 AM
I agree 100% that religion should be a "side dish" as it was put. Right now people (and by people I mean hard-core fundies) are raising science illiterate children. I watched and read a story about these two men that do creationists science tours in a normal museum (here is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/story?id=4467337&page=1). It makes me sick that Christian parents are brainwashing their kids. Anyway, back to the topic of the movie, I think that you are absolutely right PZ.
Posted by: bama_girl | March 22, 2008 2:12 AM
PZ Myers:
Did you receive an invitation that requested that you RSVP?
If not, why did you RSVP?
Posted by: William Wallace | March 22, 2008 2:12 AM
That is why we are all followers of PZ, so that we may be among the first eaten. Less time spent in horror.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 2:12 AM
Expelled getting more publicity? GOOD! People need to see the idiocy of these people. And I'm really disappointed that there are people protesting the film.
Posted by: Brian W. | March 22, 2008 2:14 AM
That is why we are all followers of PZ, so that we may be among the first eaten. Less time spent in horror.
I think we need a formal blessing; something like:
"May you and yours be eaten first."
so...
May you and yours be eaten first.
cheers!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 2:17 AM
Little Willie is just a little bit stupid. He cannot seem to understand that PZ registered through the Expelled site.
These are among the many reasons Cthultu will have Little Willie sitting at his tentacles while Cthultu devours his faithful.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 22, 2008 2:18 AM
Little Willie is just a little bit stupid
...and a whole lot nuts.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 2:20 AM
Reed, now that we've seen what Leni Riefenstahl Mark Mathis has produced, we know it ain't for educational purposes
From what Dawkins has said, there's a big difference in that Riefenstahl actually had skills as a filmmaker.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 22, 2008 2:21 AM
That excerpt was beautiful.
They can't make the science side look evil with its own words so they have to resort to using the unrelated, connotative imagery.
Posted by: Stefan | March 22, 2008 2:21 AM
MOAR VIDZ KTHX
Posted by: zer0 | March 22, 2008 2:22 AM
I suppose atheist can be an insult or compliment depending on who used the word for what purpose. So what.
Fundie Xian is getting to be an insult. This is because it has become synonymous with "ignorant", "moron", "hater", "liar", and "killer" all rolled into one.
They are even starting to deny it when you call them that.
BTW, Mathis is a fundie Xian. The continual lying, low IQ, and nearly homicidal hatred gives him away.
Posted by: raven | March 22, 2008 2:24 AM
They are even starting to deny it when you call them that.
LOL
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 2:26 AM
Sheesh, Wallace, you're desperate.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 22, 2008 2:30 AM
William, please do us all the great favor of not asking questions that have been answered about 15 times or more. It will irritate us less, and you will get insulted less for trolling.
We all benefit.
Posted by: Michael X | March 22, 2008 2:30 AM
Speaking of excuses, PZ, someone affiliated with the Crimson needs to figure out how that Xvivo product pilfered by Bill Dembski ends up in this dreck, as well.
Hopefully, you or ERV or someone will get to the bottom of this. Velly intellesting, as Arte Johnson used to say.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | March 22, 2008 2:30 AM
Idlemind, I do believe you are correct.
Aside/Prediction: One day, Daniel Radcliffe will portray Richard Dawkins on screen.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 2:38 AM
"I smell something fishy," said William Walleye.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 2:43 AM
For those who repeat the tired mantra of "No such thing as bad publicity", take it from someone who is actually in the entertainment industry: you are the products of t.v. cliche.
Anyone in the entertainment industry (much less industries like drug companies or oil companies) knows that PR people are paid for a reason. PZ has stated himself that there is knowledge to be known in this arena and I appreciate his saying so.
But to put it in a more logical way that all my lovely reasony types will relate to, if any publicity was good publicity, then if follows that Ben Stein could go on a shooting spree at the mall of america to promote the movie instead of screening it there. It would make bigger news, and more references to the movie would be made. Despite the vile act itself, it would be publicity yes? And no publicity is bad.
In the end, PR and publicity consultants are professionals in a difficult craft of their own. THIS is not something any PR consultant worth their salt would endorse. To then imply that this was their intention, is to not only assume that these producers are even dumber than suspected, but also to imply that you have no idea about the industry and professions therein of which you speak.
Moral of the story? Stop watching TV. Go read a book.
Posted by: Michael X | March 22, 2008 2:43 AM
Ichthyic prods:
hey scott-
are you still following Vox blowhard?
(sigh).....Yes....
if so..any updates on whether your communications with him have affected his "contributions" on his site yet?
(sighhhh) .....No....
and-has he jumped in with his own "unique" insights on the expelled issue yet?
Not yet, but....(sighhhhhhhhh)....I'm sure, any day now, he'll pop off with something tangential that will seem wise to him.
I could use another irony fix.
This is what I get for messing with a smart fish.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | March 22, 2008 2:46 AM
"I smell something fishy," said William Walleye.
*hatip*
May you and yours be eaten first, Kseniya
cheers!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 2:46 AM
You sir, PZ, are way ahead of the curve, which is the primary reason why your blog is so popular. You have given a voice the the speechless and have provided
Nonetheless, I have high expectations for my (our) survivors. That is, I assume that they will learn from my (our) misapprehensions of what it means to live as we see fit.
In a way, I am tired of talking about this. It has all gone down so many times before. You'd think I'd learned. You'd expect that many more of us would have learned.
Thank you PZ, not for your posts that call to task many foolish worldviews. Thank you more for your own world view, which leads and challenges anyone with a brain.
Interesting aside: isn't it amazing that there are so many who's world views are predicated on myth rather than science? Yet they, the believers, will pick up a ball point pen without a second thought. Ball point pens are the last thing that true xtians want to admit. Why? Because it puts power into other hands. Got any idea how much human brain power is invested in your Bic Clic? More than most sustpect.
And that is what stands as the testiment to human accomplishment. It does not come from a "still voice" in the night. It comes from real people putting forth real effort to solve real problems in the real world. What is so hard to understand about that. I do it every day and get paid for it.
My only complaint is that I am paid less to fix a leak under someone's sink than I would be if I told them that prayer would stop it. Some people will actually pay more to someone to talk to them about a problem than they would pay me to fix it. Shit. I must be Dog.
No matter. If you need it fixed, Don't Pray, Call Me Today!! Results guaranteed before the End O Time! Or until I die.
A bit disjointed. Distractions, doncha' know.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 22, 2008 2:48 AM
This is what I get for messing with a smart fish.
well, I know I prod, but seriously, I was curious. Just to be clear, I'm not expecting the irony fix to come from you.
May you and yours be eaten first, Scott.
cheers!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 22, 2008 2:49 AM
Thank you!
*beams*
Posted by: Kseniya | March 22, 2008 2:49 AM
Religion as a side dish and the Sacrament of the Pharyngula as the main course? PZ turns his body into a cephalopod?