Stranger Fruit

Bruce Chapman is a liar

Posted by John Lynch on March 21, 2008
(4)
More »

Truth:

This was a private screening with no admission charge, and you had to reserve seats ahead of time; you also had to sign a promise that you wouldn’t record the movie while you were there, and they were checking ID. Everyone in my family reserved seats under our own names, myself included. There was no attempt to "sneak in" [emphasis mine]

Lie:

Others may be crashing because they want to trash it before it even gets reviewed by the media. P.Z. Myers, who was not let into a showing last night in Minnesota, probably falls in the latter category.

No surprises. Myers (and Dawkins) did not "crash" the viewing – he applied for tickets just like everyone else (scroll down to the MN viewing at the Bloomington Mall of America AMC 14 showing; screen capture here just in case it slips down the memory hole).

Bruce Chapman is telling lies, plain and simple. I seem to remember a commandment against that.

Update: As this Panda’s Thumb post notes, “If Expelled expected these showings to be ‘private’, why would they provide a public RSVP site where anyone can signup to attend one of the many showings of the movie?” And the DI has issued a, *gasp*, press release. Imagine that.

(4)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Alexandra
    March 21, 2008

    Bruce Chapman is telling lies, plain and simple. I seem to remember a commandment against that.

    Lying? No, there’s no commandment prohibiting lying except in the very specific form of bearing false witness against someone. But, since that’s exactly what’s being done here, you’re covered. Damn, if there was a commandment against lying they’d pretty much have to pack up and go home.

  2. #2 bibanu
    March 24, 2008

    It seems like he is lying (though he may simply be wrong – he does not know for sure: notice the words “may” and “probably.”). So – I would take it easier on him.

    [In my opinion - this is a publicity stunt (see the controversy stirred for the Passion) - and you are one of the many who help promote this film. I hope you will get a "Thank You" note :) :) ]

    What do you have to say about the FACT (no maybes and probablys here) that most Biology textbooks (high school and college) had the forged embryo drawings of E Haeckel in them until recent years (some may still have them?). This is a well documented (and easy to prove fact).

    Notice your buddy Stephen Gould who wrote: “we should be astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.”

    Isn’t this a much bigger lie and distortion of TRUTH that poor Chapman who qualifies his statements???

    He does NOT appear in a textbook :)

  3. #3 Jim Lippard
    March 24, 2008

    bibanu:

    How about:

    P.Z. Myers, “Wells and Haeckel’s Embryos”

    Pickett, Wenzel, and Rissing, “Iconoclasts of Evolution: Haeckel, Behe, Wells & the Ontogeny of a Fraud” (PDF)

  4. #4 bibanu
    March 27, 2008

    John – thanks for the links. I will try to take a look at them. I read some of PZ’s article (I do not have the time right now).

    However – notice what PZ says about Wells:

    “Wells is particularly incensed at the authors of introductory textbooks who, he claims, are misleading their students. I agree that he can reasonably argue that textbooks should not use the obsolete and inaccurate drawings done after Haeckel’s work…”

    He can reasonably argue??? Well – if they are using the WRONG and discredited drawings of Haeckel (c. 100 years later) – shouldn’t PZ be more incensed?? At least more incensed than you and others are at Chapman who used the words “may” and “probably”?

    I think you guys are using a double standard and are not fair in your criticism.

    I think that the reproduction of fake pics in biology textbooks (see also Gould’s comment above) is reason enough to be more incensed than for a probable statement on a blog.
    Apparently you do not think so. I wonder why?