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?
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...
Am I 1000?
DING DING DING DING DING
we have a winner!
Sounds like a "worst person in the world" scenario to me.
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
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…
I am a number! I am not a free man!!
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.
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.
Da! And then, in honor of Sir Arthur, we can rocket up to 2001.
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. (:
I don't see what you're trying to point out in that picture Auntie Em... what exactly was "hacked"?
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.
"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.
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!
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.
Wow. That's some rapid turnaround from the spamcatcher. PZ must be online right now.
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.
Oh YES - we are
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...
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?
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!)
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)
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?
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.
Avekid:
NO!!! I am the righteous 100th commenter!!! Impostor!!
I demand a recount of the comments!!!!!!
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.
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."
I am the righteous 100th commenter, not 100th.
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.
Paul Hassell, Stalin was an atheist, Hitler was a Christian. What's your point about them again?
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.
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)!!!
#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?
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...
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.
Hey Windarr: doesn't your god tell you not to lie? I hope he's watching.
LOL.
Ben Stein and the Expelled bunch embarrass themselves again.
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.
So you've hit the big time now, huh, P.Z.
Your reputation precedes you.
Keep up the good work.
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.
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?
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?
HYSSSS-terical! Thanks. Can't wait to hear more.
Roger- it's the tentacles.
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.
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.
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.
I can't believe I missed these goings-on. Just further evidence of Big Imbecilism trying to keep dissenting views from being heard.
"Roger- it's the tentacles."
---Perhaps he shouldn't wear short shorts...
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.
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.
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.
Where are the ID scientists?<?I>
Having tea with the unicorns, leprechauns, and other fictitious beings, I suppose.
-jcr
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
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.
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.
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
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.
I think, this is what some might call "pant-wettingly funny". Or maybe that is just me.
Ah. Just remembered. Poe's Law, natch.
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!
Absofrickinlutely priceless.
"Stupid is as stupid does." ~Forrest Gump
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_)
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?
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...)
So ID supporters claim they can recognize design in nature, but they can't recognize Richard Dawkins, star of their own movie? Brilliant.
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.
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
PZ was singled out
You just made me giggle again!
Uh... I did?
0.0
How?
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?
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<\quote>
Denying entry because of your "lack" of religion, IS discrimination based on religion.
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!
Kseniya, I mean The image of PZ being singled out, not you!
My impression of Dawkins and PZ waiting in line.
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?
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.
Bravo!
I'm a Christian, tho not a 6 day creationist. Personally I find it hilarious and a nice kick in the arse for creationists
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.
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.
Laughing as hard? Oh HELL yes! HAHAHAHA
That is absolutely fantastic!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Flashback:
Posted on: August 22, 2007 4:55 PM, by PZ Myers:
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.
I thing GREEN M&Ms might be a step too far. Other than that, you're on the mark, PZ.
1880 diggs. That's not bad.
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.
Damn! I see in post #1085 I was thinking with my thing again (I hope that doesn't make me a closet creationist).
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.
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.
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
Just caught this and don't have the sobriety to read through all the comments, but would like to add the venacular
PWNED!!!
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.
#1094
Someone kinda did. Kick it old school, MC Hawking! (Not safe for work, natch)
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.
More have commented here that will pay to see the movie.
#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.
With any luck the same will happen when you get to heaven!
Then you can have some fun.
That's just about the funniest story I've ever heard.
NY Times coverage
That is altogether too funny! Oh, the irony! The sweet, scrumptious irony!
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.
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.
"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.
"Bow down ye skeptics to your fleshy Messiah."
umm.. are you talking about Ed Brayton?
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.
I can't believe this hasn't been added yet, so I will have to, I guess:
BREATHTAKING INANITY!
$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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
That's the best ending to a story since Robert Redford opened his eyes just after Doyle Lonigan gimped out of the betting parlor.
Robster, I think you mean to address your comment to Rick Broussard, comment #1104.
Illuminating to see how strangers are treated by Dawkinsians, though It doesn't bode well for humanity under the iron fist of materialism.
Thanks, Brownian, I realized it after I hit submit.
Hilarious. I believe congratulations are in order. A beer on me PZ should we ever meet.
That was cute, Rick! Although I like my pewter fist better. Just a bit more stylish, and less prone to rust.
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.
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.
@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
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm just speaking my narrow, sad, pitiful mind.
Like, no shit. The output speaks for itself.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Wow. That really puts the "csi" in "my precious." I detect design!
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You poisoned your own well
You're far too kind. The man is a puddle.
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?
an
Not only that. Adams and Dawkins were very good friends. It was Adams who introduced Dawkins to person who he married, Lalla Ward.
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.
:)
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.
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.
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...
OH MY GOD. RICHARD DAWKINS? They kicked YOU out and let RICHARD DAWKINS in?! I'm laughing so hard my side hurts.
Oh, I'm here, I just can't afford to divert my attention too much to commenting or I won't get anything done. :-/
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.
Hey! I gave him a pain curse! But only because he persisted in being an ass.
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.
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
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.
"...a rational person of faith."
---Well, good luck with that snipe hunt.
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.
@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.
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.
Javascript, please try reading before posting. Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
When is the T-shirt coming out?
Major chuckle.
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!"
Javascript and likeminded types,
Is your faith really so fragile? Someone convinced of his god should be impervious to doubt. Even serene.
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!)
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.
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.
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!
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?
I was worried we wouldn't have any bigoted, illogical rants on the movie but thankfully Richard Dawkins has our back.
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.
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.
I don't think I've *ever* seen a blog post with 1200 comments. Wow!
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.
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.
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.
#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.)
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?
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".
#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.
Since when does someone giving talks about their beliefs constitute a religion?
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.
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.
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.
So how *does* it feel to be a more famous atheist than Richard Dawkins?
Amazing how those who came here to condemn do not have their facts straight.
Writer of Expelled repents! Read all about it here: www.kevinmillerxi.com.
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.
Care to give us the true "facts", then Janine?
Or are "facts" a godless Communist thing, which should never be taught to children?
Yet still open to the public. How about that?
Dan C, what do you mean? I was commenting on the likes of Keith Eaton, William Wallace, Rick Broussard and javascript.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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?
Priceless. You've made my week. Abrahamists would be a funny sort if they weren't so damned dangerous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
This begs to be LOLblogged.
Your picture: "DO NOT WANT"
Recaptioning Richard Dawkins: "IM IN UR THEETRE, MOCKIN UR DOGMAS"
@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)
"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...
#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.
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?
NMcC, this issue was addressed months ago. The answer is no, they are not seeking a lawsuit.
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......
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.
Bad Astronomy's post on the movie has made Digg.
"Amazing how those who came here to condemn do not have their facts straight."
---You mean the superstition-based buffoons, I take it?
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.
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.
"What an uncivil shit this Mathis must be. Either that or he is a disgracefully bad liar."
Can't he be both?
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.
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.)
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.
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...
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.
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?!!
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.
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.
Never underestimate the power of the closed mind that will find you in complete darkness!
Here's the correct link.
Sorry for the mistake. I'll blame my computer. ;-)
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...
That account has already been discredited, shredded, mangled and tangled. Please keep up. And you are welcome to try again.
"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*
Crap. I meant Rampant, not Premise. Oh, well.
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.
3 "EXPELLED" movie trailers
and
a Bill O'Reilly interview can be viewed
at: http://www.ExpelledTheMovie.com/video.php
"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.
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.
To paraphrase Kathy Griffin:
"Up yours, Mathis. PZ is my god now!"
"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.
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 ...
Well, at least we now know who put the ID in idiot, as well as flaccid, vapid and stupid.
*sigh* now that's poetry!
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.
Holy non-sequiturs and bad grammar, Batman! Sorry about he state of that last post, folks. Je suis fatigue.
Sir or Madame Javascript was right. I am foolish. I expected a solid argument from him/her, and now I am disappointed.
Kseniya, now you are just being sarcastic. Just chew the IDiot out like everybody else.
Wait! Am I being sarcastic?
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.
"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!!
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.
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.
Now that's funny and I'll bet Dawkins is laughing harder than all of us!
Beautiful irony :-)
A new composition from atheist composer, Richard MORGAN for PZ Myers::"Expelled : another hole in the sock."
http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes
No Janine, I wasn't being sarcastic. I am surprised that 'javascript' turned out to be a vindictive little coward.
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.
"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!
Larry, here's how we know: Monsieur Myers isn't affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
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.
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.
"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.
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...
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.
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.
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: Larry
...farfarman?
If so, I wonder if he and Keith Eaton share a wing at the same mental institution.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
Sorry, "if THEY simply admitted . . ."
In too big a hurry to be #1300.
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.
Drat!
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)
Yeah. The "Stan Palmer" thread drove me batty.
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.
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!!
PLease, could someone give a short discription to a german? two or three sentences? thanks
#1308
I think i spoiled it. But i just wanted to get the point...
btw what is Michael Moore`s opion of this issue?
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.
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.
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.
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.
This post is hilarious. My sides, they ache from laughter!
Thats not surprising. Christians are all about exclusion and suppression of dissention.
No, the post is far too short, and doesn't include any whining about 'arbitrary censorship.'
Fascists...Dawkins was thrown out of a megachurch. Just as he was leaving...SO no surprises
"Love thy neighbor", and thou not their neighbor thus thou is expelled. :)
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!
#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.
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!!
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.
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. ;-)
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
"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!
Beautiful. Sage advice. Kseniya, I think I love you!
"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!"
If there is a god (which I doubt), she has an awesome sense of humor!
Mike FTW!!
Paula, you are a botfly larva on the back of rationality.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.]
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.]
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.
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.
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.
"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!:)
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?
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.
Wonderful! (No fan of Richard Dawkins and quite a fan of Michael Behe BTW.)
So you admit to having poor taste.
Did you love "The Secret" too?
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.
*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!
Well, I can't argue with that. OK, the manager (et. al) behaved inexcusably.
Hilarity.
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.
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.
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]
Classic.
But look at it this way - you're bigger than Dawkins dude!
"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.
The irony of an ID movie being premiered in the same city and WEEKEND of a large atheist convention are beyond ... well ... ironic.
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?
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
AMAZING!!!
Let's hear it for Paula the concern troll everybody.
@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."
_______________________________________________
Sorry, I meant "kthnxbai". Should have just said, "Thanks a lot, Yoeruek". I'm stupid when I try to be cute.
LOLDawkins Redux:
http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lolexpelledpz0.jpg
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;
That's the best punchline I've heard for awhile.
The 'devil' got into 'heaven' without being noticed...
First: Apologies to everyone for the bilingual rambling!
I'm a she :). Good translation there, Leigh -- except for one thing, the first question as I understand it (even native speakers can misunderstand things ;)) is "what is the current status of the debate", which I find very hard to answer -- there isn't even much of a consensus about whether there should be any drawn-out discourse between the two sides to begin with; not that the majority doesn't think the Cdesign Proponentsists are simply wrong and should STFU, but the creationist strategy is to create an illusion of controversy within the scientific community when there is none, and as far as I understand it opinions differ on whether or not taking the time to constantly argue with creationists doesn't just help the creation of that illusion.
As to "where else is this happening" -- I can answer that question to a certain extent. We do have people here who would like to see creationism taught in school, but they are (so far) a tiny, tiny minority. When they do make the news, the reports tend to reference the situation in the US, with the suggestion that the ID movement in the US influences/emboldens these people. For what it's worth, the only incident that made me go "WTF" and worried me slightly was when a state education minister (education is a state thing here) more or less endorsed creationist ideas. Fortunately, she was immediately verbally spanked by the German Biologists' Association and there was a lot of (outraged) media coverage. Good.
I haven't seen the television programme that Yörük referred to, but I'm pretty sure I know which he means; it was an extensive documentary for the channel arte which examined how creationists are trying to influence German schools. That was what sparked the latest media coverage of the problem. The shocking bit was that they did find two schools using creationist material (one church-run, one state school).
According to an estimate by the Biologists' Association, there are 1.3 million creationists in Germany, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to adopt the ID "wedge strategy" to gain influence here.
As for other countries, I have only ever heard from British teachers who were sent creationist materials for inclusion in their lesson plans, but those are Friend-of-a-friend tales. If anyone is really interested in this, I'd be glad to assemble and translate some German news articles on the subject (I've had fun doing the reverse for an American Studies paper, so why not do the opposite).
All in all, interesting question, hard to answer. Maybe one of you guys has a better overview of this? Or maybe there should be a collaborative effort to get a creationist index going, à la "Rapture Ready Rapture Index" -- you know, worldwide signs of people doing their darndest to get back to the stone age (the middle ages were far, far too enlightened for these people IMHO). ;)
[Yörük: Ich würde die Frage wirklich gern beantworten -- spannend ist sie -- aber ich glaube nicht, daß das so einfach ist; die Geister scheiden sich schon an der Frage, ob es überhaupt eine Debatte gibt. Mal sehen, ob jemand eine gute Antwort hat, bei Bedarf übersetze ich gern nochmal. Aber ein paar Kreationisten gibt's hier schon, ab und an sieht man dazu mal Zeitungsartikel und Berichte im Fernsehen wie den bei Arte. Bei Bedarf suche ich auch noch ein paar.]
Awesome, Hilarious. LOL
Yeah, right. Pull the other one.
Tell the truth. The producers had no knowledge of you being there. The police DIDN'T know who you are, and you didn't have a ticket.
"I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins' academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn't, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film's producers to be found, and the man certainly didn't identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it's possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre's management didn't want to take any chances."
LOL... "Mark" commits the usual error of ignoring the other eyewitness accounts, all of which contradict the lie he quoted, a quote which was essentially retracted by the guy who posted it in the first place.
Mark, you're wrong on every point. Are you proud to be ignorant, or are you just too lazy to care?
It will take you less than five minutes to figure this out for yourself, if you care to. Go for it.
Right, "apparently" trying to sneak in, "apparently" hustling people. "Apparently" the idiot who wrote that piece just assumed that anyone being asked to leave by the police must be a troublemaker.
Does anyone else find this ironic?
from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Fairly_OddParents_characters"
"The Pixies (voiced by Ben Stein) are dull and boring creatures (sometimes they rap) that wish to take over Fairy World and the Earth to make it dull and boring."
So - Ben Stein *is* more than qualified (as a matter of face, he's typecast!) to be a spokesperson for a megalomanic group that believe in imaginary beings ...
Read this quote:
"Basically, we've got one possibility out of two possibilities that's taught, and it's Darwinism and it's taught to the exclusion of any other idea," said Mark Mathis, a TV news reporter turned speaker who is credited in the film as an associate producer.
Mr. Mathis is wrong. There are far more than two possibilities. There are thousands. For instance, consider Martianism -- the theory that all living creatures came from Mars on a giant spaceship called ARK and piloted by NoWa. There is exactly the same amount of proof for this theory as there is for Creationism.
You're rather amusingly wrong. Mathis has already confessed that he specifically and deliberately demanded that PZ be expelled, for no other reason than being angry over what PZ has written about ExcretedExpelled.
With Ben Stein being both a christian AND a republican, I suspect the odds are better than even that he is quite well acquainted with the Fairy World...
Can't say anything about the doc or its intent as I have not seen it. It may be balanced it may be biased.
This is a funny incident... too bad Dawkins is too high up on himself that it's impossible for him not to be anything but critical. I figure he already made his mind up when he heard the movie synopsis. So I don't really care what he has to say.
Anyone with a brain can't be anything but critical.
Marian obviously has her head checked at the door.
Dang! Another irony meter becomes a smoking ruin!
Marion 1) hasn't seen the movie, 2) doesn't know what Dawkins has to say about, and yet she cavalierly dismiss his opinion - unheard, mind you - because she "figures" that he had already made up his mind prior to seeing the film.
Wow.
No offense, Dr. Myers, but I wish you would have allowed yourself to be arrested, maybe then this incident would have garnered the media attention that it needs right now. These people need to be exposed for what they are.
"Impossible for him not to be anything but critical", what the hell does that mean? He has to be anything but critical? I guess it's impossible for some people not to be anything but unwilling not to make sense. :-D
These people need to be exposed for what they are.
They have been.
You creationists amaze me. Dawkins was waiting to see the movie before he commented. His only previous comments pertained to the deceptive manner in which he was recruited to be interviewed for an imaginary film called "Crossroads".
Having now seen the film he has commented on it (find it yourself).
But YOU know that he is so full of himself and already had his mind made up. Hmm, sounds to me like projection on your part. You had YOUR mind made up and have not bothered to seek out available information. Instead you condemn Dawkins for doing exactly what you have done and what he hasn't done.
I don't really care about creationist nimrod. I just want to be a part of this record thread. :)
Catta- "'you know, worldwide signs of people doing their darndest to get back to the stone age"
Well, you know, there are some interesting developments in this line of thought. I believe Professor Dawkins has backed a proposal for the United Nations to confer human rights on apes. Soon, humans may take to the forests to begin interbreeding their way back to our first ancestor. I guess by then there will be nothing for intelligent consciousness to interact with!
Owlmirror-"You're rather amusingly wrong. Mathis has already confessed that he specifically and deliberately demanded that PZ be expelled, for no other reason than being angry over what PZ has written about ExcretedExpelled."
Did PZ not explicitly state his intent in his writings? I have already asked whether, based on that intent to protest during the actual screening, was the expulsion justified? What would PZ or Richard Dawkins have done in similar circumstances? I'm not taking sides here, but there are critical questions relating to certain public facts that demand answers in this case. Did anyone here read Richard Dawkins' appalling hate filled article on his own website yesterday. Subsequent posts illustrate the effect such venom can have on the human mind. Where is all this leading to...? Is this a public crash course in ideal human behavior and is this really science?!
Paula, your lack of intellect seems to provide definitive evidence for the fact that humans have already bred with apes.
People, you are ALL missing something here:
1. Movies (all movies) are produced for one reason alone.
2. The Producers care not a whit about "the argument" only it's controversial nature.
3. You are propagating hype exponentially here, and falling into their trap. Marketing strategy is a subtle science and PZ was probably a pawn in these peoples hands.
I'm convinced.
To be honest, I don't find it funny at all.
I can understand, I guess if I have to, having an anti-guest list for a propoganda movie.
But they threatened to *arrest* you. For staying in a theatre. Sure, we can laugh at these over-reacting religious extremists, but if you hadn't left immediately, would you be writing this from a holding cell waiting to talk to an officer? For being in a cinema??
Not good.
Ichthyic seems to be all hung up on the fact that local police may have been providing security for the event. This is not as you put it "the real story"
LE officers frequently work extra security details that are paid for by the event organizers. This is often a requirement of police unions that officers are paid for security out of the pocket of the group requesting security. So if you're trying to make an issue out of who pays for that, it is a non-issue. This is a common practice around the country and it just seems it is news to you because you are are uninformed.
Also, it would seem this was a private screening event at a private business, and right or wrong if the producers do not want a certain individual to attend for some reason, that is their right and they apparently chose to exercise it.
" that is their right and they apparently chose to exercise it. "
The whole legality issue is dead and buried, it's a red herring. The point is that the Expelled people are wankers.
Blah blah blah.
PZ IS IN THE MOVIE. It's goofy that they had him expelled. He would of written a review. So Mathis is just being vindictive. Of course they had a right to expell him. Doesn't mean it wasn't a goofy thing to do.
It wasn't an INVITE only screening... they let everyone else attend that was in PZ's group. They weren't "invited" either.
Several other Atheists from the conference went to the screening... were they invited? Of course not.
This movie will NOT make money. It won't get onto any substantial number of screens.
There's no "MUTHAFUCKINSNAKESONTHEPLANE" with this one.
"Gee the producer is a dick... I really need to go see this movie that everyone says is boring."
It that really what you "concerned" people thinks is happening?
You are ignorant and a smart ass. You just expose your ignorance every time you put fingers to keyboard.
His intent was to view the film asshole. Any joking about cheering when he came onscreen was tongue in cheek or if done it would have been no more disruptive as the creationist honks that laughed out loud during the movie in all the wrong places. Ever been to a movie? People make noise, talk to the screen and be generally rude at times. PZ is an adult. He wanted to view the film so he could rip it apart later on his blog. He's not a teenager for shit's sake. He is not a prankster. He wanted to see how bad they quote mined his interview and then comment on it. Once again you prove to be an ignorant slut Jane.
I read nothing hate filled at all. You must have special hate seeking glasses that you use to detect hate. I read a review that was critical but not hate filled. You claim to be dispassionate and fair minded but your rhetoric exposes your creationist bias.
Aren't we missing the point, here, talking past each other? In and out of the theatre? But what an exhilarating emotifest!
Since there was no intent to protest, the expulsion was not justified.
Even Mathis did not even suggest that he feared protest. He just didn't like PZ because PZ was critical of the film ExpectorantExpelled.
The point is that the Expelled people are wankers.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 24, 2008 2:38 PM
...and smeg heads.
...and fleegle-snorks.
Wow, Paula. Work on your reading comprehension. And your history. And logic. And biology, and... oh, never mind. The only thing you seem to be good at is cherry picking, and that's something you're better off doing on a farm.
It may be news to you, but you're not compelled to bonk every creature you decide not to torture or mistreat. The second thing: Find out what a species is. There are some reasonable arguments against the Great Ape Project, but yours aren't among them. And they have absolutely nothing to do with Yoerueck's question.
Oh, and I'd just like to add...
...and people to whom the Renaissance was just a thing that happened to other people. ;)
I just posted this amazingly funny story on my blog (it's in French). There is only one thing I'd like to say, and it's how sad I am that Bill Hicks is not alive anymore to read this great story.
In other words, if there was a machine to bring back the dead and it would cost the amount of energy produced by all human beings in an hour, I think it'd be worth it to pour it into that machine and bring back Bill just to hear him laugh all the way back to the end of the galaxy.
Thanks PZ.
Many of these comments serve only to dispel the notion that ID'ers and other religious folk corner the market on arrogance and feelings of self-satisfied superiority regarding their beliefs.
Fucking hell...
when did all these concern trolls start popping up?
Fuck off.
Creationists are WRONG. Period.
No matter what we say to them is going to seem arrogant.
Fuckwit.
"Many of these comments serve only to dispel the notion that ID'ers and other religious folk corner the market on arrogance and feelings of self-satisfied superiority regarding their beliefs."
Yawn.
leigh #1369
thank you for translating so nicely. When i read my Questions they were so dumb, i felt. But your translation is so vivid...
catta #1403
thank you for reviewing Leigh´s translation and your offer for research.
Tuesday 23:00 MET german regional TV SWR will show "Dokumentation" named "Fanatisch fundamentalistisch, fromm".
I got some Information about it in german language:
"Christen fahren auf Schlauchbooten den Colorado River hinab.Sie glauben nicht, dass der Grand Canyon durch die Erosion in Millionen von Jahren entstanden ist, sondern in wenigen Tagen durch die Sintflut.
Solche angeblichen Forschungstripps führen fundamentalistische Christen in USA regelmäßig durch. Ihr Führer Tom Vail..., wurde aber durch ein Erweckungserlebnis zu einem sogenannten Wiedergeborenen. Diese Christen in den USA nehmen die Bibel wörtlich, auch die Schöpfungsgeschichte aus dem Alten Testament.
Früher galten Fundamentalisten als Schwärmer, heute ist Fundamentalismus ein politischer Kampfbegriff. ... Seit 9/11 ist die Wahrnehmung der Weltöffentlichkeit für religiös motivierte Gewalt geschärft. Filmteams begeben sich den USA, in Israel und im Jemen auf Spurensuche, wie aus Frömmigkeit Fundamentalismus und Fanatismus werden kann. ...
Des weiteren zeigt der Film christliche Kreationisten im Grand Canon und das Warten auf das Ende der Welt mit Pastor Haggee.
Der Film skizziert Entstehung und Gesichter des Fundamentalismus in Judentum, Christentum und Islam."
greetz Yörük Baba
first god created adam, then he used his rib and was like hell yea, im gonna make a girl. god did this cuz he was bored as hell. god has a big white beard. god put some animals in there, and no dinosaurs, fossils are imaginary figments of heretics. um. yea. i think i got the whole story down. the earth is one year old. power OVERWHELMING
Yoeruek #1409
just made an AI Translation of that description. I gave it a short review, but not be sure it is translated properly.
"Christians go tubing on the Colorado River boats. They do not believe that the Grand Canyon has been made by erosion over millions of years, but in a few days by the flood.
Such alleged science trips lead fundamentalist Christians in the United States regularly. Your guide Tom Vail ..., but by an awakening experience to a so called awakened christian again. These Christians in the United States take the Bible literally, but also the creation story from the Old Testament.
In former days fundamentalists were considered gushers. Today fundamentalism is a political fight term. ... Since 9 / 11, the perception of the world public for religiously motivated violence sharpened. Film teams go to the United States, to Israel and to Yemen in search of clues, as piety fundamentalism and fanaticism can be. ...
Furthermore, the film portrays Christian creationists in the Grand Canon and the wait for the end of the world with Pastor Haggee.
The film outlines and faces the emergence of fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. "
Ah, martyrs for science. How can we survive the march of creationism? After the 20th century, we should all strive for atheism and unfettered scientific discovery. After all, if the 20th century doesn't prove their merits, I don't know what will. I'm sure there were some bible-thumping preachers behind the scenes paying the producers off. Oh brother. I haven't heard things like this since I was in high school listening to kids tell how they told off the cops whenever they were pulled over. Yep. Uh huh. I wonder what the other part of the story is.
Actually, a very careful reading of my Wholly Babble leads me to the conclusion that Gad just created the universe a few minutes ago and that all comments before #1413 were just placed there by him to make me think that this thread has existed for several days...
#1414
Your last companion neuron just died didn't it?
dgrffy, the other part of the story is: Mark Mathis is a petty prick who was miffed at Mr. Myers for not properly greeting his cinematic masterpiece with the proper amount of sycophantic hosannahs. Why don't you IM Paula and have a nice concern troll commiseration conference? The only aspiring martyrs are those flogging the film. Jesus Christ....
Here's what Yoeruek said; it's an announcement for a documentary called "fanatical, fundamentalist, faithful" that will air tomorrow night on a German TV channel. Sounds interesting, but unfortunately I have no means of recording it:
"Christians go rafting on the Colorado River. They don't believe that the Grand Canyon was created by erosion over millions of years, but that it was created in a few days by the great flood.
Purported 'research trips' like this are offered on a regular basis by fundamentalist Christians in the USA. Their leader, Tom Vail, became a so-called "born again Christian" after an "epiphany". These US Christians take the Bible literally, even the Old Testament creation stories.
In previous times, fundamentalists were regarded as dreamers; today, fundamentalism is a political catchword. Since 9/11, the world's awareness of religiously-motivated violence has increased. Film crews visit the USA, Israel and Yemen in order to find out how faith can turn into fundamentalism and fanaticism.
The Film also shows Christian creationists at the Grand Canyon, and waiting for the end of the world with pastor Haggee. It offers a sketch of the development and faces of fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam."
Oh, man, this is simply great. DaveScot, over on UD has declared that:
"Richard Dawkins isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...."
and goes on to speculate that poor widdle Richard was possibly somehow tricked into participating by PZ. DaveScot is of course a "certified" genius, by his own admission.
Rest of the contextual tripe here.
Oh, and nicely someone in response to Dave discovered that in fact, the RSVP is easily and publicly accessible. Go here:
http://getexpelled.com/
then click on "Events and Tours". Right at the top can be found this:
CLICK HERE to RSVP now at a location near you!
So, contrary to the myth that the RSVP system requires some sort of actual invitation via email, it really is open to any and everyone. To be fair, I should note that the website does declare:
"This site is specifically designed for students, teachers, pastors, youth leaders, and organizations to provide useful tools and resources to promote the ideas surrounding this highly anticipated film"
Leaving aside how anticipated a film must be before it counts as "highly", PZ is certainly a teacher, and it doesn't say which surrounding ideas one must promote. Obviously, they're interested in certain very particular ideas, but, you know, they don't want be suppressive or anything, right?
Anyway, the page also declares:
"You and your community are invited to attend FREE of charge!"
Again, I think we know which community they would prefer, but also again, they're interested in inclusion, not exclusion, right? Well, wrong, but too bad for them. It's their hypocritical bed...
Oh, and proper credit to Todd Berkebile for pointing out the website over on UD. His site is here:
http://www.berkebile.org/
I suspect, as am sure you do, that they were targeting Richard Dawkins and not you... unless you are more notorious than Dawkins.
I know how you feel, though. I have been "expelled" myself from a number of equally ironic environments. Places that tout themselves as bastions of open-mindedness and critical thinking... universities. Why? For discussing ideas of God and spirituality with people.
While this event is incredibly odd and unfortunate, it happens frequently to people of faith. Now you know how it tastes.
OK, sorry to keep harping on this, but the whole RSVP thread on UD is comedy fucking gold. To wit, this sinister contribution from "PannenbergOmega":
"Alot of the current Darwinian guys, were allegedly involved with radical causes during the 1960s."
WTF?
"Vengeance is mine" sayeth the TIM...
OK, mea culpa. The aforementioned links are for the Expelled tour bus thingy, rather than the screenings of the film. See what happens when you don't do your research?
While this event is incredibly odd and unfortunate, it happens frequently to people of faith. Now you know how it tastes.
Ah, you mean you relish the taste, and find it all quite amusing?
Q: How many evolutionary biologists does it take to get into an "Intelligent Design" movie?
Pick the answer you like and feel free to create more.
A1: Two, one to to ask the bouncer to explain the ontological argument and one to bolt for the door.
A2: Two, but why would you bother?
A3: A multitude, but bring loaves and fishes.
A4: Two, but they must have a low international profile.
A5: God would never allow it.
A6: When it does happen it is a sign of the end-times.
A7: I have no idea, but blessed are the evolutionary biologists for theirs is the realm of amusement.
A8: Two, but one will be caste into the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
OR
Q: How many evolutionary biologists does it take to change an "Intelligent Design" light globe?
A: None. It isn't blown, it's just very dim.
"I have been "expelled" myself from a number of equally ironic environments. Places that tout themselves as bastions of open-mindedness and critical thinking... universities."
I like how you put "expelled" in quotes, so we know you're bullshitting.
"While this event is incredibly odd and unfortunate, it happens frequently to people of faith. Now you know how it tastes."
He's laughing it off. Were you paying attention at all?
Oh, there's a outside observers interpretation of these events: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle.php?article=11
Here's what he saw:
I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins' academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn't, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film's producers to be found, and the man certainly didn't identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it's possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre's management didn't want to take any chances.
Milo Johnson - "Paula, your lack of intellect seems to provide definitive evidence for the fact that humans have already bred with apes."
Ok. Got that .
Rick T - "You are ignorant and a smart ass. You just expose your ignorance every time you put fingers to keyboard."
Got that.
"His intent was to view the film asshole."
Got that.
"Any joking about cheering when he came onscreen was tongue in cheek or if done it would have been no more disruptive as the creationist honks that laughed out loud during the movie in all the wrong places."
Well, how could I have missed seeing that tongue lodged in his cheek? I guess laughing is infection - honks do it all the time!
"People make noise, talk to the screen and be generally rude at times. PZ is an adult. He wanted to view the film so he could rip it apart later on his blog. He's not a teenager for shit's sake. He is not a prankster. He wanted to see how bad they quote mined his interview and then comment on it."
Well of course....
"Once again you prove to be an ignorant slut Jane."
Ouch! Got that.
"I read nothing hate filled at all. You must have special hate seeking glasses that you use to detect hate. I read a review that was critical but not hate filled. You claim to be dispassionate and fair minded but your rhetoric exposes your creationist bias."
Guess you just didn't see that tongue lodged in my cheek...
Catta - "Wow, Paula. Work on your reading comprehension. And your history. And logic. And biology, and... oh, never mind."
Must work harder... ok, got that.
"The only thing you seem to be good at is cherry picking, and that's something you're better off doing on a farm."
I prefer strawberries!
"It may be news to you, but you're not compelled to bonk every creature you decide not to torture or mistreat."
Got that ...I think!:0
"The second thing: Find out what a species is. There are some reasonable arguments against the Great Ape Project, but yours aren't among them."
I have to make a declaration. I accompanied a delegation of my cousins to Minneapolis last week. They were so excited about signing a declaration pledging The Right to Life, The Protection of Liberty and the Prohibition of Torture with their fellow Great Apes that they wanted to celebrate with a toast of 'Human kindness'. After attending the Atheist Convention and watching a movie called Expelled, two venues they had been told encapsulated the last vestages of all that it means to be human, they decided to renege on signing the agreement. Washoe would never forgive them for lowering their standards. Huh, intelligence, they scoffed... In a display of love and compassion, they extended an invitation to join their community in the hope that I would escape eradication in the next wave of a eugenics program. I'm packing my toothbrush.....
OFGS Tim! Do try to keep up. That version has been discredited by other eyewitnesses, and was recanted by the lying jackass who tried to pass it off as truth in the first place. This sequence happened within a few hours of the event that triggered it - days ago.
Actually, Tim, I'm glad you posted that link. The fact that Blessman's distortion of the actual events is still up on expelledthemovie dot com serves as a testament to the persistently dishonest tactics of the Expelled! production and marketing teams.
Of course the idiots over at UhDuh are clinging to the original Blessman commentary as proof that PZ was creating a disturbance. How silly of me to think that perhaps ONE of them might have actually been following the story close enough to realize Blessman changed his story when his original lies were exposed.
Tim, you obviously have no idea what a wankering gomer you look like bringing that quote back to this thread as though it's the first time it has been presented, or for suggesting that we are "sure they were targeting Richard Dawkins and not you...", or for comparing your experiences to PZ's, or insinuating that we must think this event is 'unfortunate". You are giving religion a bad name. That's the last thing you want to do, right?
That quote is never going to stop circulating, is it? It will resonate forever in the halls of anti-science , and Creationists will embrace it wholeheartedly and keep it alive because--why? Say it with me, "It's a lie."
IOW, Tim was "apparently hustling and bothering" people.
Anyone want to introduce Paula to Gerald Spezio? I'm getting the feeling that they might be the only two people who can understand each other.
They can play "Go Fish: The Conspiracy Version" with William Walleye.
I promise, Kseniya's and RamblinDude's comments were not there when I posted (I'm a slow typist). I wouldn't have piled on had I seen them.
This is slightly off-topic, but fwiw here's another insight into the disturbed/disturbing mindset of the contemporary Christian:
About a year ago, I posted a fairly innocuous parody of Carrie Underwood's 'Jesus Take The Wheel' on Youtube, and ever since then it's been the target of a steady stream of hate comments from putative Christians. A few of the comments express pity and forgiveness for the error of my ways, but the vast majority are just toxic eruptions of illiterate bile. I won't pretend to be shocked by all the incoherence and swearing, but still, I was a little taken aback.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jm5ZwV3xPk
We used special evilutionary magic to make our comments temporarily invisible to YOU, Don Smith, FCD! Hah!
Now you know how it tastes.
Watching creationists makes asses of themselves is delicious. I've known that for years. :-D
Actually, I thought it tasted remarkably similar to chicken.
Tim, if you're interested in a more credible eyewitness account, check this out:
Also, FYI, the producer himself wrote this: "I banned PZ because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more."
Perhaps you'd like to get a taste of the Q&A session that followed the screening:
And so on... and so on... and so on.
Can I just say, I love DaveScot. Truly, truly a genius:
"This doesn't bode well for Myers' upcoming tenure review. If enough of his peers start viewing him as a liability to science and the University of Minnesota then they'll give him the bum's rush just as quick as they did Guilliermo Gonzalez. And PZ Myers', unlike Guilliermo Gonzalez, has no impeccable publication record to fall back on in protest so it won't be difficult or unseeming for the tenure committee to give him a thumbs down.
This is very, very bad for us. If PZ Myers didn't exist we'd have to invent him. Myers does more to give Darwinists a bad name than any man alive. If he's denied tenure we might be forced to put together a "Save the Myers" foundation to solicit donations to keep his blog alive."
Discovered here: http://tinyurl.com/2jy2ov
Man, and they accuse "Darwinists" of concocting absurd fantasies based on little to no evidence.
No kidding. UhDuh rocks. Thomas, did you continue to read the comments? It gets better. DaveScot's musings triggered these fabulous insights:
LOLOL
I guess all you smart guys can explain how my two herniated disks were miraculously healed after praying for healing to the God you say doesn't exist. I have xrays and mri's before and after to prove it. Must've been a robot fish doctor from outer space entered my bloodstream and curred me while I wasn't looking or when I got abducted. Or I just imagined all the excruciating pain I was in. Maybe the mri's were switched. Or maybe you can't see him because he doesn't like you. No, it was probably a coincidence, yeah that's the ticket. I may be wrong about God, but if I'm right and you are wrong, 100 years from now I will laugh as I watch you trying to explain to God that he doesn't exist... as you burn....Good luck with that. If you are right and I am wrong, I just get to go through life being a better person than you. hahahahahahahaahaha. I'm already better looking than PZ, but that ain't saying much. Can't wait to see you knuckleheads go ballistic over this blog.
John,
If your god is so great, cut off your arm, and pray for it to grow back.
Otherwise, if your faith in your god is so petty, then please remove yourself for being a faithless troll.
Kseniya, despite my banning (thrice now under various names), I've grown quite fond of UD. For example, another great move by DaveScot, which I completely overlooked in my earlier rush to judgment on the whole RSVP thing, is the fact that the inestimable Dave, in his condemning screed, Dawkins, Myers, and what R.S.V.P. means has himself posted a direct link to the RSVP site, which he so eloquently argues is only for the Elect, right out in the open for any wandering "Darwinists" to click upon. Jackass.
Umm, wait, why is all that text blue? **fearful voice** God?
@Johndumberthanabrick (#1444): "If you are right and I am wrong, I just get to go through life being a better person than you. hahahahahahahaahaha."
Wow. You're the dude who just got through saying that he'll laugh when he sees us burning.
Yeah, you keep on with that "better person" crap -- maybe you'll find some cretin who'll believe it. We here in the reality-based community are keen on empirical evidence. The evidence of your own words convicts you of being a fucking sociopath.
Droppings from Cloudcuckooland.
JPCollado 03/24/2008 5:05 pm
I'll wait and see if Myers is preparing to sue the theatre for giving him the boot for no specific reason, 'cause we all know Myers' fondness of the judicial system. If he really was wronged, and he did everything right, legal recourse will show the light day.
PannenbergOmega 03/24/2008 1:40 pm
Alot of the current Darwinian guys, were allegedly involved with radical causes during the 1960s.
William Wallace 03/24/2008 1:42 pm
Well, an idea is that PZ and the producers of Expelled are in cahoots with each other to get free publicity. The New York Times even covered the story.
Now, why PZ wants to bring publicity is another question. I suspect that a wealthy angel investor is in the background waiting to fund a counter film, only the new film will be shown in the public schools.
PannenbergOmega 03/24/2008 1:46 pm
William Wallace,
I'm pretty much a nobody, but for what it's worth, I will defend the integrity of people like Dembski and Behe till I'm blue in the face.
I will not accept that the producers are in cahoots with PZ to make money.
PannenbergOmega 03/24/2008 1:29 pm
I just thought of something. What PZ Myers did may have been some kind of social protest tactic.
Barging in rudely to 'protest' the film and get in the news. You see what I'm saying?
PannenbergOmega 03/24/2008 1:40 pm
Alot of the current Darwinian guys, were allegedly involved with radical causes during the 1960s.
PannenbergOmega 03/24/2008 1:10 pm
Mr Reeves,
"Or was it actually an ID stooge dressed up in a monkey suite to look like PZ in order to give him a bad name?"
With all due respect,
1. This supposibly fits Myer's "M.O."
2. Do you really think the ID community would stoop that low? I don't.
Timothy V Reeves 03/24/2008 4:23 pm
No I suppose not. It probably helps to believe that one has decended from a common primate ancester before one is prepared to run around with bent back and knuckles dragging on the ground a la 2001 space odyssey. So it must have been PZ after all.
JPCollado 03/24/2008 4:49 pm
Stuart Blessman's description of Myers' disruptive and rude behavior is consistent with Myers' offensive persona, thus confirming our original hunch for why he was shown the exit door.
It's almost sad that Myers is so easy to read.
JPCollado 03/24/2008 5:05 pm
I'll wait and see if Myers is preparing to sue the theatre for giving him the boot for no specific reason, 'cause we all know Myers' fondness of the judicial system. If he really was wronged, and he did everything right, legal recourse will show the light day.
JPCollado 03/24/2008 5:21 pm
congregate:
"Stuart Blessman doesn't actually say that PZ Myers was the man he saw behaving badly."
Oh, so there was another guy with Dawkins that got booted in addition to Myers?
My, oh my. ACLU is going to have a field day.
Who is this other 'Personality Type A' individual?
Damn but there is so much comedy gems to be had. But there is great danger in killing my brain cells while wondering there. Thanks Thomas S. Howard.
John Sharperthanyou, some words for you. Best is never to have been born. Next best is to realize this and go back from where you came from.
Funny how the healing power of god increased when humans developed modern medicine. If we depended purely on the healing power of prayer, half of my family would be closer to god right now.
Just why did you give yourself such an ironic name?
Sure, Janine. My favorite is still the bizarre idea that there exists some sort of sinister link between "current Darwinian guys" and 60s radicalism. Because, you know, people like the Weather Underground loved to sit around and pen monographs on population genetics while waiting for the next opportunity to blow stuff up.
Johnmarginallysharperthananegg @ 1444
Easy. You're lying through your teeth, which may or may not be your own.
You wrote a post, knucklehead, not a blog.
John (marginally sharper than an egg) is suffering from high self-esteem. I wonder why he had two herniated discs from his intelligently-designed lower back? And young, believing soldiers (and their believing families) are praying constantly to stay alive, yet they are killed...but god heals this guy's sore lower back...kids believe the darndest things...
Maybe while John is at it he can pray away that "breathing-swallowing/same tube" issue we've had for so long. Though I guess god might get jealous, having created us in his image. I'm sure he'd rather be able to breath and swallow through different tubes too. If only he were a dolphin...
Excluding PZ from seeing this film solely based on the fear of what he might write in review greatly discredits the film itself...that is a blunder for sure...but the response by many here is equally extreme.
I respect that you may have chosen to rely on your own intellect instead of faith as a frame of reference for interacting with the world - even though I do not personally embrace that perspective. All I would ask is that you consider reciprocating such respect, where due. Instead, what often (and I read it here by some) develops is a sense of intellectual superiority by those who think that they are so smart to have broken free of the "burden" of faith and all that it entails. Science is great for providing the answers to many questions, faith is no different. Faith is not a prerequisite for morality and science is not required for intelligence. My position is that we all make informed choices and we all live with the consequences, whatever they may be.
The very definition of irony - I love it!!!
I'm off to read Dawkins' review of the film. Or 'Lying for Jesus' as he calls it :-)
Ken,
Then, John, you are no better than they are.
WOW.
I figured this would summon plenty of comments just from the Dawkins emailed heads-up I got, but...
...just wow.
PZ: there ain't no hole in the ground low enough for these guys to stoop. On the other hand, even if the center of the friggin' EARTH was accessable, they're somehow beyond it billions of light-years deeper, in a holle of their own making...I suppose because it's cute to be stupid and deluded. And they're SOOOO PROUD of it.
I mean, how low can anyone go? These idiots/scoundrels give new meaning to the concept of "bottomless". It figures: don't they always claim to be able to go deeper than physically possible?
Gack. Too..much...irony. DaveScot strikes again:
"
Expelled - RSVP System
ADDENDA: 3/25 There is no way to get to the URL above from the main page www.getexpelled.com. The above is not a publicized address. The links from the main page all go to TOUR BUS events not movie screenings."
No, not publicized at all on the front page of Uncommon Descent. Sweet Jesus....
this is extremely hilarious and serves the producers right for having the gall to both dupe PZ about the kind of film they were doing in the first place, and then to kick him out of it, but what I don't understand is what authority the police officer had to remove PZ. Surely some kind of restraining order or court order would have been required in advance of PZ showing up for this to be a lawful action, especially when there had been no disturbance from him before he was approached, and I'm sure any claims that he would have caused a disturbance had he been let in were dubious at worst!
Amanda Gefter, Opinion Editor for New Scientist has written a detailed account of the Q&A after a screening of Expelled she attended. Not only is Mathis planting his own staff to ask questions but he also resorts to name calling and threatening to expel members of the audience who don't ask 'nice' questions. Fascinating reading!
Science is great for providing the answers to many questions, faith is no different.
*boggle* Are you KIDDING me? Faith is completely different! It is the opposite of science as far as providing answers is concerned. It encourages you to turn off your bullshit detector, and accept dogmatic answers for no other reason than appeal to authority. (And that authority isn't always necessarily the Bible, either.) At best, faith gives you a (usually false) sense of purpose in life. At worst, it produces travesties like "Expelled", a bigoted pack of lies calling itself God's Truth.
Ken, I respect you inasmuch as I give it to you straight.
PZ, I'm not sure if much of the media has contacted you about this stuff, but I recommended you as guest for George Stroumbouloplyse's "The Hour".
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/
As you recall, he interviewed Dawkins earlier as well.
Dude. This is like denying Eeyore entrance because you're afraid he'd be too active and then letting Tigger in. Seriously.
"Don't let the milk in, but the cow can go."
(My wife's fantastic comment, reading the story :)
As long as they did not mention any reasons that reflected on federally protected rights then they do have the "right" to expel *yes, it is a pun* anyone from the place of business. If they did mention anything regarding religion, race, gender, etc then there is grounds for legal actions. Owners, managers, and "at times" employees do have the authority to remove people from a place of business and according to a federal judge in Texas, in a decision more than ten years ago, they do not have to mention a reason, they can just do it. But, if they do mention a specific reason then it cannot be for anything regarding a federally protected right. Even if this expulsion was for religious reasons or free speech reason, if they did not mention a reason, or state that was the reason PZ was not allowed to enter, then their butts are covered.
So, has there been any new information regarding this? Have the producers said anything?
No one cares if it was legal or not. They were wankers to kick him out. Period.
PZ used the online reservation system to go to the screening... it was an open invitation. PZ wanted to see the disaster of a movie for himself and see if he was represented honestly. That's it.
He got a laugh that they kicked him out for no other reason than they don't like him. It's petty and hypocritical. And really really funny.
It wasn't a stunt or a set up. Mathis recognized PZ in the lobby whigged out and had him booted. Mathis is a big baby and an asshole. It's really that simple. PZ has gotten as much press as the movie. So now they're trying to spin it so they don't look like the pricks they are...
It's not working.
Seriously. I'm currently at school and had a few people come over to me and ask why I nearly fell off of the chair I was in, laughing. One of them fell over when I showed them.
Not sure it was legal for you to be kicked out that way, but oh well. That's what other theaters are for, even if you're not seeing the premere.
"Many of these comments serve only to dispel the notion that ID'ers and other religious folk corner the market on arrogance and feelings of self-satisfied superiority regarding their beliefs."
"Fucking hell...when did all these concern trolls start popping up? Fuck off. Creationists are WRONG. Period. No matter what we say to them is going to seem arrogant. Fuckwit."
Point.
"Posted by: Steve_C | March 24, 2008 6:40 PM
Yawn."
Set.
"Easy. You're lying through your teeth, which may or may not be your own."
Match.
"if I'm right and you are wrong, 100 years from now I will laugh as I watch you trying to explain to God that he doesn't exist... as you burn....Good luck with that. If you are right and I am wrong, I just get to go through life being a better person than you. hahahahahahahaahaha"
Corroboration. This just in--one's beliefs on origins has zero correlation to making you more or less likely to be a pompous asshat.
Christopher M,
Please High Five your wife for me.
Sweeney
I wasn't being pompous.
I'm just tired of the same shit, different asshole, day in and day out. There's a difference between being tired of people talking out of their asses and wanting respect, being tired of concern trolls telling us how we should respect the creationists and being pompous.
You're just too dense to get it.
Also, you're just ANOTHER fuckwit telling us we're "just like the fundies".
Nonsense. It's even better at giving answers, cause, like, you get to make them up. I mean without that you have to, like, wait thousand of years to find out how the universe started. Fuck that shit.
Pompousness may not be correlated, but asshattery surely is. An asshat being someone who is, you know, wrong.
Perhaps you could do us all a favor and pray that your god relieve you of your enormous stupidity.
That's nice, dear, but there are a bunch of amputees, in fact, all of them, that would like to know why gawd has been so generous with your discs and so neglectful of their limbs. But I suppose god works in mysterious ways, manifesting in toast, and stains on shower stalls, and salty crudescence beneath overpasses.
"Prayer works." So they say.
It didn't seem to do much for my mother, though.
[waits for the explanation]
Respect is a cheap word.
So often, religious folk will frequent these blogs, claiming that we scientists are assuming an "intellectual superiority," and lamenting our brash and, admittedly, cruel responses. Under a guise of respect, they post some minor claim, "I agree with everything you said except for X," or "your perspective is just different from mine," etc. At the end, the call for support is always the same: "I respect your opinion." In a feeble and self-serving way, it is a call for affirmation. "I like you, won't you like me?"
There's a problem, though.
You don't respect our opinion. If you had even the slightest respect for our opinion, you would place even a cursory effort into understanding it. Could you explain why we find evolution so convincing? After all, most of us could recite your claims point-by-point. We know what you believe, because we care enough to figure it out. Yet, after the dust settles, that perspective is clearly and often hilariously inadequate. That you persist, despite our genuine efforts to analyze your position, displays a tremendous lack of respect.
So please, religious-types, stop demanding our respect. You deserve none of it.
"This just in--one's beliefs on origins has zero correlation to making you more or less likely to be a pompous asshat."
WE DON'T CARE. Film at eleven.
"... my two herniated disks were miraculously healed after praying for healing to the God you say doesn't exist."
The god you say exists let 30,000 babies and children die today. This invisible thing you worship has been doing that day in and day out for centuries. That's a lot of suffering and death.
The universe was created as a backdrop to this one very significant planetary system. The Sun and planets revolve around the Earth. All plant and animal species were put on the Earth for the benefit of one person. Adam was made in his creator god's image. The creator god attends to every event in the life of every one of Adam's descendants. Prayer will cause god to change his mind about his plans.
How naively egocentric.
Science taught us about sanitation and eliminated Small Pox. Let me guess, it is your god that gets all the credit and none of the blame.
I'm really sorry to continue arguments... But
"I respect that you may have chosen to rely on your own intellect instead of faith as a frame of reference for interacting with the world - even though I do not personally embrace that perspective..."
You ask for respect... But if your intellect isn't your frame of reference, what are you asking me to respect here? If you don't place your intellect as the be-all end-all for your actions(and I can tell you right now that I know I do), for my actions), who or what am I supposed to respect? I can't actually respect what I don't know the origin of in this case. Am I supposed to respect your faith? Why on earth would that make any sense, please explain to me? You sound diplomatic and all, but as a sophomore in high school I can see right through your post as devoid of any real meaning.
Late to the game, as usual, but just had to add to such a mammoth thread, if only for posterity :-). This has been one of the funniest items I have read about for a very long time :) If you tried to push such a script to a program maker they would laugh at you on the grounds that no other film maker could ever be that stupid. As they say, truth really is stranger than fiction and it hurts, in the sense that my sides are aching from laughter, high fives PZ. Obviously, Cthulhu has your back, presenting you with such a gift :-)
Though it does make one wonder where their god is through all this, assuming for sake of argument we take their claims of his existence as read. Unless of course he dislikes their dishonourable shenanigans as much as any reasonable person should. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised, for reading from god's own so called proclaimed autobiography it can be seen that the film makers actions are very reminiscent of many of their god's self-professed traits, few of which are nice or honourable.
In fact, if their god does exist, he appears much more of a Loki type trickster than a benevolent one. After all, apparently it spends most of it's time making guest appearances on various types of snacks, rocks water stain on walls, etc. etc., the odd minor health repair while ignoring the serious ones, running round fiddling with the geological record to fools us and in his remaining spare fiddling with the genome of the planet's living organism.
Oh and lets not forget about planting fossils to fool us, or is that his side kick, the devil. I can never keep it straight, after all they are so inconsistent even among themselves that it is hard to find little real coherence among the various cults. And yes, I call all religions cults, numbers don't give you legitimacy or credibility, at least not with the rational among us.
"they are so inconsistent even among themselves that it is hard to find little real coherence among the various cults."
Reflecting on the current state of affairs, the community of Washoe, who lay claim to the gene of wisdom that evaded their cousins, this is the most enlightened collection of words on this thread.
Of course, we are now all supposed to recognize that it is Paula who is truly wise. So, c'mon everybody: you better recognize!
Yeah, and I heard Dawkins had an AWESOME time at the movie.
Not sure why they expelled you from the movie... (don't know who you are) but who really cares? just your fan club ;)
"You ask for respect... But if your intellect isn't your frame of reference, what are you asking me to respect here? If you don't place your intellect as the be-all end-all for your actions(and I can tell you right now that I know I do), for my actions), who or what am I supposed to respect? I can't actually respect what I don't know the origin of in this case. Am I supposed to respect your faith? Why on earth would that make any sense, please explain to me? You sound diplomatic and all, but as a sophomore in high school I can see right through your post as devoid of any real meaning."
You are supposed to respect the fact that others may not hold to the same belief system that you hold. I don't ask for respect, I simply state that you will get the same respect that you give. If you attack someone whose views differ from your own, then you are no better than these people you mock. Civil discussion is excellent, and questioning your faith or those of others is normal and even a growth experience. Attacking zealots only emboldens them regardless of where their zeal lies.
All of these phenomena that scientists are able to "discover" and measure are simply the systems that God created. In my mind, the miracle that such complexity and beauty exists confirms a higher presence more likely than just happening by chance. Many prominent scientists have also arrived at this conclusion.
I see scientists as myopics floundering in the early dawn trying to make sense of what they can measure. I think its honorable to try and discover what we can and build upon others...just realize that we are relatively feeble when compared to the likes of The Creator...he wants us to be amazed and so reveals the inner workings to us (I often tell him when looking at my wife that, when he made her he was just showing off), but progress is slow despite our best efforts (think of our progress in space exploration and medical science for example). We have accomplished relatively little when you think of the volume of secrets held by the natural world.
When I look at our world, I share the same wonder as many of you, I simply attribute those wonders to The One who made them. If you choose not to, I believe you do so at your own peril. I hope you would give your heart the same attention that you give your brain, but I will not disrespect you for taking a critical look at faith and its place in your life's journey.
No, no, it was the community of Washoe who inherited and is passing on the wisdom meme. I'm just learning - but learning fast from the data laid out before me!!
Is there any chance that you could sue on grounds of religious intolerance. He did, after all, single you out because you were atheist. If he'd singled out someone for being christian and not let them in it i'm pretty sure that it would be grounds for legal action. It'd be an interesting test case as well.
Ken:
"I often tell him when looking at my wife that, when he made her he was just showing off"
Well, it's a good thing you're already married to her, because that would be one horrific fail of a pick-up line.
Ken, you're shifting your ground.
Now you say #1485:
Initially you said #1455:
So, is it that I should respect you have a different belief system, or that I should respect your belief system is based in faith rather than rationality? They're not the same thing.
I'm bemused that, having written the above, you claim you don't ask for respect.
I'm gonna regret this, I'm sure, but what the hell...
Paula, what the hell is this "community of Washoe" and what relevance does it have? Are you alluding the tribe, or its eponymous Nevadan county? To the signing chimp, mayhap?
I'm guessing the idea is that basically, you're calling everyone here a shit-flinging band of well-trained chimpanzees, but you know, not having perfect wisdom myself, I could be wrong about that.
Let me just say that I actually hope I'm right about the Washoe thing, because despite the fact it's completely wrong, I think it'd be pretty fucking funny if you actually do mean that.
"Ken, you're shifting your ground.
Now you say #1485:
You are supposed to respect the fact that others may not hold to the same belief system that you hold
Initially you said #1455:
I respect that you may have chosen to rely on your own intellect instead of faith as a frame of reference for interacting with the world [...] All I would ask is that you consider reciprocating such respect, where due.
So, is it that I should respect you have a different belief system, or that I should respect your belief system is based in faith rather than rationality? They're not the same thing.
I'm bemused that, having written the above, you claim you don't ask for respect."
Semantics.
No shift in meaning...just made the second statement more general. Mutual respect is a necessary part of any civil dialog and not limited to the discussion of one's faith. It also goes for collective bargaining, international diplomacy, city hall, and talking over the fence to your neighbor.
Bemused as you may be, I was not personally asking for respect. Thats where the "consider" and "where due" parts come in.
Ods Blood, that was great! The cops must have had a picture of you, but they didn't recognize RICHARD DAWKINS! My dogs are wondering why I am laughing out loud right now.
"It's (EXPELLED) going to appeal strongly to the religious, the paranoid, the conspiracy theorists, and the ignorant -- which means they're going to draw in about 90% of the American market."
-Atheist blogger and fabulist PZ Myers, on a film he has not yet seen.
It seems like the religious fanatics aren't the only ones feeling "holier than thou." I think this statement oozes (it may even be primordial) an intillectually superior attitude.
Fundies really hate it when people who are their intellectual superiors recognize the fact, don't they? :-D
Interesting reading,and I share your righteous indignation at how you were denied access, now can we cut to the chase and get a review of the movie? That should really be hilarious. What did Dawkins have to say about it and has he written a critique yet?
Hi Ken,
I do appreciate your ability to subtly dig at scientists throughout your post (noting both our myopia and sloth), but you've failed once again to understand some basic rules of respect. I should respect your right to STATE your opinion, but that in no way requires me to respect either you or your opinion. Your post is available for all to see, and you chose to make that happen. My 'respect' checklist is all filled out now.
You argue that your opinion should be respected (indeed ALL opinions should be respected) by virtue of ... what? The fact that they're opinions? And they're different? That's a pretty loose criteria. I wonder how we'll deal with racism.
I'm just glad you got it all figured out...Thanks Cheezit (very superior) for letting the blogging world know what a kindergarten snack has to offer...
I see scientists as myopics floundering in the early dawn trying to make sense of what they can measure.
That's what we *all* are. The difference is, scientists are generally a lot less myopic than the average person. And many religious fanatics (the sort that go in for creationism) are willfully blind, preferring a comforting fantasy over the real world.
The movie "Expelled" and this latest flap show the world why creationism isn't science. Renaming it "Intelligent Design Theory" didn't change anything - it is still just a disguise for an outmoded religious idea.
1500 comments and nearing the date of Origin of Species (with a tip to Kseniya's idea to go for 2001 for Clarke...)