The producers of Expelled aren’t exactly the brightest bunch. Their latest blog entry is a silly whine about me.
Paul is one of the stars in the film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. He’s probably remembering all of the things that he said on camera, when we interviewed him and faithfully recorded it all. That couldn’t be making him feel very good.
Their movie is doomed if they’re relying on my star power to draw in the audiences … and I’ve noticed that all the early reviews found my performance so unmemorable that they failed to remember what I said. (Trust me, it’s the only thing I’m looking for in the reviews, and I even wrote to ask one reviewer if he’d noticed me — he hadn’t.) And actually, I don’t remember precisely what I said in the interview, nor am I concerned about it. I get interviewed on this stuff all the time, and I say what I think without concern. If they’d like to release the complete recording of my interview, I’d be happy to host it unedited; if it’s so damning, they should be thrilled to do so.
But mainly, I’m baffled. They’ve got Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins in the movie — and they’re playing up the role of some obscure guy with a blog? And it’s a “modest science-blog” at that!
Now it appears that the associate professor Myers is regretful, and lashing out against the film again in his modest science-blog, “Pharyngula,” attempting to mitigate the inevitable criticism of his performance, in advance. His latest is a vein-popping, eyes – bulging, 3,000 word, eleven-screen diatribe posted on his website, a “critique” of a simple eight-hundred word editorial that the producers of EXPELLED wrote on Darwin Day.
From his lengthy, over-the-top screed, we can’t really sort out what it is that upset him so, but one thing is painfully obvious: he is literally sweating over the upcoming release of our film.
Hmmm. That “vein-popping, eyes – bulging, 3,000 word, eleven-screen diatribe” actually went through the false claims in their mere editorial fairly thoroughly, pointing out the errors. If they want to complain that they made so many egregious mistakes that it took 3,000 words to document most of them, that’s fine by me.
They don’t seem very perceptive, though. I am not at all “upset” or “sweating” over their movie, or my interview. There was a lot of similar babbling after the movie was announced that I was going to sue them, which was similarly incomprehensible and completely divorced from what I was actually thinking; they seem to believe that I’m sitting here raging over having my words reported in a movie, when every day I’m openly and immoderately arguing against religion right here on the web, without a pseudonym and without reservation. Their movie can only fall far short of portraying the depth of my contempt for the charlatans of creationism. I know full well what criticisms I’m going to get about my performance in this movie: I will be told that I don’t come across as sufficiently fire-breathing in person.
The reason I wrote that criticism of their editorial was simple. They’re liars. They lied. They’re ignorant. They made up crap.
It’s actually rather funny how often the purveyors of nonsense make complaints that someone has made a lengthy criticism of their distortions, in which the whole issue is not the substance of the criticism, but the mere fact that a criticism has been made. Go ahead, search in vain throughout their blog entry, and you’ll discover that they completely ignored every point I made, and their entire argument is reduced to the fact that there were 3000 words in my article.