XI, ksī, *sigh*

I think I found a good theme song for the faux documentary.

So there are creationist organizations that have not abandoned poor old Kent. I thought Ray Comfort had replaced the Hovinds as creationism's primary bottom feeder of bottom feeder.

Wow, you would think he might try to keep up appearances but come on, Kent Hovind? Seriously, even other YEC should be ashamed of Hovind, his stuff has been some of the most laughable and pathetic stuff out there and his persecution the most deserved.

Kevin is from British Columbia isn't he? Ugh, I loved living in Vancouver but somehow knowing he lived nearby sort of makes me feel dirty.

I would love to know how these cell biologist make use of the assumption of design in their work...of course I somehow doubt anything like that will come to light, that would imply doing real research.

Travis
http://pretendbiologist.blogspot.com

A "humorous and tearful story"? Well, perhaps in the sense that one must either laugh or cry at the sheer fucking stupidity on display. . . .

"a humorous and tearful story of a high school biology teacher's struggle to expose the lie of evolution"

Since when was Hovind ever a biology teacher?

"Dr" Hovind? With his "dissertation" from Patriot "University"? Ha ha! Good one, Kevin!

The biology teacher angle is part of Hovind's standard schtick. I'd have to look up all the backstory, but IIRC, it's a less than forthright take on his real background (he was a high school level teacher, though, I think).

All the usual nonsense, the last was new to me and made me laugh. "as a documentary filmmaker, I'm under no obligation to be objective" Hello?

Heraclides, I believe Kevin-eleven actually meant "As a propaganda filmmaker, I'm under no obligation to be objective."

As far as I know, there has never been any evidence that Hovind the Fucktard ever taught in a high school.

I wonder if the film is gonna dramatize Hovind's massive tax-evasion.

Oh. My. Dog.
What a farkin' weasel.
He throws all sorts of pseudo-intellectual generalizations out there, then, when he's challenged to come up with evidence (oh dear, how unfair!!!), he flounces off in a snit.
I think he was the dork, who referred to a whole raft of software engineer types who were coming up with PROOF!!! of Intelligent Design, but were being suppressed by the big bad Darwinian bullies. Of course, he never named a single one. Come on, Kevin, I'm dying to know!
I am ashamed to be sharing Canadian citizenship AND BC residency with this maroon.

I wonder if this one will have our friend Ben in it too. Given that Ben just lost his job at the New York Times, he must have enough free time to help out with this one also...

#7-8: Well, actually, documentary filmmakers are not under any obligation to be objective. Vide Michael Moore. They should, however, be honest, and not deceptive, about their agendas.

... a humorous and tearful story of a high school biology teacher's struggle to expose the lie of evolution, based on the life of ...

I was so sure the next words were going to be John Freshwater. (Anyone who doesn't recognize the name should search for it at Panda's Thumb.)

Ya gotta admit, the cross-burning scene would be absolutely Mel-tastic!

Please correct me on this if you have better information:

On his tapes Hovtard says, "I taught high school kids for fifteen years." Translation,(from Hovtard to English) "I taught a Sunday school class of high school aged kids for fifteen years.

To my understanding he has never been accredited to teach in any state.
That might have something to do with his not having a degree from an accredited university.
This guy is a conman. Every word he says is meant to deceive at some level.

He better not steal my plotline.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2008/10/lizardman-of-pensacola-in-jailb…

Please correct me on this if you have better information:

On his tapes Hovtard says, "I taught high school kids for fifteen years." Translation,(from Hovtard to English) "I taught a Sunday school class of high school aged kids for fifteen years.

To my understanding he has never been accredited to teach in any state.

That might have something to do with his not having a degree from an accredited university.

No degree or certificate of any sort is required to "teach" in private Xian schools, so it's quite possible that Hovind was a "teacher" by that definition.

This guy is a conman. Every word he says is meant to deceive at some level.

No argument there.

More evidence that intelligent design is not creationism

Creation, Resurrection Pictures' first original film project-- a humorous and tearful story of a high school biology teacher's struggle to expose the lie of evolution, based on the life of creation evangelist Dr. Kent Hovind and written by Kevin Miller the writer of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is scheduled for production in 2010.

holy shit

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

If a documentary is not objective isn't it just propaganda?

Lurker:

I think I found a good theme song for the faux documentary.

That's good, but Kent already has a theme song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sEIiWKSzJA

"(you write documentaries?)"

You do, actually. You think the story lays itself out for you, nice and neat and completely to time all by itself? If you're lucky, you might get an editor who has some story skills and this will make your job easier, but most of them are all about the images and how pretty they look and are more tree than forest thinkers.

I've been a documentary writer/producer for over a decade. It's actually harder than writing fiction in some respects because you can't make shit up, you have to work with what you've got.

Well, I do. Ken Miller, not so much.

My sole point is that yes, there are people who really do write documentaries.

20: There is no definition of documentary that says they cannot be propaganda.

Well, I do. Ken Miller, not so much.

Posted by: 24fps

Kevin Miller. Not Ken. Ken's on our side. :)

My bad. Kevin Miller is what I meant. Very tired, shouldn't type with my eyes crossed.

Also, Martin is correct in that some docs are propaganda. Documentarians don't take a vow of objectivity, as Kevin Miller (got it right this time?) pointed out, although most have a thing about outright lying - a twinge of conscience Kevin seems to be immune to. Michael Moore, for example, makes pretty good documentaries but he makes zero pretense of objectivity.

Direct to Church DVD!

Ah well, at least this will give people like the ExtantDodos even more material to rip to shreds.

Regards "documentaries" and "objectivity", there appears to be a disconnect between the expectation of viewers and film makers technical definition of what this means.

Film makers appear to base their meaning on the fact that the material is "existing" material, without regard to how it's put together or what it aims to convey with that material.

I would like to think that the viewing public distinguishes films based on what the film purports to show, as opposed to the source of the material: an account of "how things are" (i.e. objective) or an opinion (or propaganda or whatever). This distinction is clear in print media and are identified as such, think: editorials and opinion pieces as opposed to reportage (or advertising). It seems a bit strange to me that the film industry doesn't apply the same distinction.

(I realise there is an element "shades of gray" in that to some extent there will always be opinion, but this issue doesn't differ from that in print media, so my key point remains.)

Hm. Well, there is a disconnect in that some people think documentaries and news media are the same thing. They aren't. You could say that documentarians are sort of "cousins" to journalists, but they are not journalists per se.

The distinction between opinion pieces vs news articles is no different than documentaries and news features. Different venues, styles, tone. Articles in print media are often heavily biased anyway, as is a massive amount of news media. The expectation of objectivity in any form of media is naive.

"Film makers appear to base their meaning on the fact that the material is "existing" material, without regard to how it's put together or what it aims to convey with that material."

When I make a documentary, it's much like writing a non-fiction book as opposed to a novel. It's factual, or is supposed to be. True, there are unscrupulous documentary-makers who make documentaries that are more fiction than fact, but there are writers who do the same thing in the genre of literary non-fiction.

Our process goes more or less like this: We start with a premise, go through a research phase, find support (or not!), adjust our thinking, rewrite our treatments and then go into production. In production, we generally find even more information and again, we adjust. If we get something wrong or misrepresent someone, we can be sued.

The material of the documentary itself does not necessarily exist on its own - not until we conduct the interviews, or follow the unfolding action. Often, we ask questions that are very specific to what we think our story is and attempt to explore the issue from more than one angle, and the answers we get can change the story significantly. We are very conscious what we aim to convey. There would be no point to making a documentary if we didn't have a message. And as a writer, how it all goes together is my primary responsibility, so please take my word for it, we're concerned about that, too. At bare minimum, if you don't have a comprehensible story arc you've got something unwatchable. Beyond that, you will find that most documentarians aim to be engaging and informative.

Thanks, nice to see Wesley R. Elsberry get caught in a patent lie.

And, while we have an opportunity for questions, why is it that Rob Pennock's interview for the "Crossroads" "Expelled" project ended up on the cutting room floor? --Wesley R. Elsberry

Of course, when called on it, he dismisses it as a simple case of mis-speaking

So I misspoke concerning a cutting room floor...--Wesley R. Elsberry

You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is. This is supremely ironic in a field that introduced us to ideas like transitional forms, evolutionary trajectories and continuums of change. You just can't seem to shake free of the "either/or" "black/white" thinking that pretty much became untenable during the first decades of the 20th century. You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who [disagrees] with you.--Kevin Miller

True.

You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is. This is supremely ironic in a field that introduced us to ideas like transitional forms, evolutionary trajectories and continuums of change. You just can't seem to shake free of the "either/or" "black/white" thinking that pretty much became untenable during the first decades of the 20th century. You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who [disagrees] with you.--Kevin Miller

True.

Posted by: William Wallace

No, gibberish, there is nothing fundamentalist about requiring evidence for claims about the nature of the universe and the contempt/ridicule for people that attempt such claims without evidence. In fact, it's the antithesis of fundamentalism.

It may be the the mark of an educated person to be able to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time but there is no requirement to do so forever. One may be quickly dismissed as the ramblings of those that are afraid of the dark and afraid to die.

Some of us love the truth because we care whether or not our beliefs conform to the universe. Some of us love the truth because we are searching for the cure for a disease that kills us by the very act the sustains our species and the data that nature provides is our only chance at success. Some just want to be comforted by a sky daddy.

It may be the the mark of an educated person to be able to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time but those that expect or desire anything other than eternal vigilance against those that want comfort over the truth is the mark of an idiot.

William, any closer to revealing some of your computing handywork you were talk about a while back? I would still be very interested in knowing more about how you are doing your analysis and the results you are getting.

Travis
http://pretendbiologist.blogspot.com

I love when creationists get into a corner and resort to the "everyone starts with their own assumptions and has their own truth", i.e. different ways of knowing. I refer to this as the poor man's Derrida. I also get a kick out of stating exactly that, i.e. when it's time to collect on the bet so to speak, all of a sudden people who supposedly have the truth rely on exactly the same kinds of obfuscation that modern European sophists use. Come on guys, why so shy all of a sudden? Why all the weasel words? We got the truth, and we can show it. Whatchoo got?

Thanks, nice to see Wesley R. Elsberry get caught in a patent lie.

What's extra shocking is that when I read the exchange, I saw no evidence of a lie! Elsberry must have superhero levels of, um, liability. I'm going to have to keep my eye on that guy. Lying with no obvious evidence! Wow.

Hate to break it to you, Erv, but in this case you may not be working with all of the relevant data. Feel free to verify your sources any time.

Hate to break it to you, Erv, but in this case you may not be working with all of the relevant data.

[Citation needed]

Kevin, I've seen you make a similar comment at PZ's blog and here. Why don't you just say what is wrong with it instead of simply saying there is something inaccurate?

There was a press release, it does appear to be gone. You could shed light on it but choose not to. You might even get an apology or a retraction if you did that.

Oh, Kevin Miller's here!

Hey, Kevin, I've got a question you were too much of a coward to answer before.

Do you, Kevin Miller, consider it morally acceptable to lie about the Holocaust for political and financial gain?

After the despicable fraud and slander that was Expelled *jazz hands*, it's no surprise you're celebrating a tax cheat and fraud like Hovind. But isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

24fps,

I think you're not quite getting my point. (Close, but not quite!) In print media, the public distinguish between in-depth articles (which are longer than the typical "news" report and have a different style and, as you put it, "tone" to them) and opinion pieces and so on. Same difference for film. (That they are longer and have as a consequence approach the presenting the material differently isn't of the essence; it's what they purport to be with respect to accuracy.)

I'm not naïvely saying that print media is objective, by the way. (The reporting of "science" or "health" news is so shonky at times that it makes you wonder how they manage to do so badly.) I'm saying that different types of articles purport to be objective, or opinion or whatever. They have their intended objective up front (more-or-less). By contrast all types of documentaries seem to be lumped under one moniker.

On the same note, I didn't need an explanation of how you make a documentary! ;-) (Nice explanation, though.)

[...] There would be no point to making a documentary if we didn't have a message. And as a writer, how it all goes together is my primary responsibility, so please take my word for it, we're concerned about that, too. At bare minimum, if you don't have a comprehensible story arc you've got something unwatchable. [...]

You could debate this aspect, really. You don't have to turn it into a "story" as such, and you know the word "story" comes with it the risk of "filling in", etc., etc. It is possible to present material and leaving the "resolving" of it to the viewer. It does mean you assume your audience has some intelligence, which wouldn't suit a cable channel, I suspect! :-) I feel an element of making it into a "story" may have more to do with who you sell your material to and the nature of larger media companies, etc.

Sometimes is is useful to have context.

Me:

And, while we have an opportunity for questions, why is it that Rob Pennock's interview for the "Crossroads""Expelled" project ended up on the cutting room floor? Would it have something to do with the content of his answers to the questions, that indicate that IDC is commonly included into courses at the college level and is criticized there on both its empirical deficiencies and also its problematic claims at odds with aspects of Christian theology? Would that account for Pennock being "expelled" from the project? Or would one need the additional information that Pennock is both a Christian believer and a trenchant critic of IDC arguments?

Kevin Miller:

Wayne: To the best of my knowledge we never interviewed Robert Pennock. If we had, the transcript and footage would have definitely crossed my desk.

Kevin Miller's incompetence extends so far as to fail to get even a first name correct when it is displayed on the screen. If WW were consistent, he would quote that mistake of Kevin's and call it "a patent lie". But I have no expectation of consistency from WW.

Me:

No film... that's right, the rejection came after the initial telephone interview. So I misspoke concerning a cutting room floor, but there was contact between the producers and Pennock. Pennock's response, though, wasn't considered a "side" of the discussion that the CrossroadsExpelled producers felt their audience needed to hear.

Whatever one cares to believe about my use of the "cutting-room floor" metaphor, the point remains that the CrossroadsExpelled producers contacted Rob Pennock under the same false pretenses as others, assessed his responses to questions, found them inconvenient to their propaganda mission, and failed to incorporate Pennock into the film. Was Kevin Miller really that far out of the loop?

Hate to break it to you, Erv, but in this case you may not be working with all of the relevant data. Feel free to verify your sources any time.

Why? Are you shooting the movie under the name of "Roads Cross" and interviewing Hovind under the pretenses of making a creationist film, when in fact this time you're actually truthfully presenting science (and Hovind's snake oil)?

Oh, you're not?

*Sigh* indeed.