Hmmm. I should have thought the powerful voices of communications experts shrieking at Richard Dawkins to hide under his bed would have had some effect, but no…he’s gone ahead and written his review of Expelled. And lo, in the camp of the Framers, there was much wailing and weeping and grinding of teeth, and rending of garments, and epic despair, because surely this will cause the destruction of Science.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Seeing as how Dawkins’ article is titled “Lying for Jesus?” you’ll hear no “Weh is mir” from me.
“shot himself in the foot”? Let’s hope he amputated both his legs.
Nisbet’s “concern” is duly noted.
All I have to say to you, my dear Professor Sabot, is this:
D-VON! GET– the TABLE!
Cross-posting from Dawkins’ site:
I think the site has been Slash Dotted.
Darn that Dawkins and his ill-communicatin’, ridculin’ ways!
Nurse! Sackcloth and ashes, stat!
http://dododreams.blogspot.com/
Here’s a good site well worth more visitors.
No, it’s not mine.
What they did was to take off all of the screenings that remained after the brouhaha at the Bloomington mall.
Oh, and at #7, the dododreams blog is quite good, I’ll add. It’s John Pieret’s site, and he’s sharpened his claws at Talkorigins.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Sean Carroll has a well reasoned post on the kerfuffle over at Cosmic Variance:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/03/23/politicians-and-critics/
While waiting for access to Richard Dawkins dot net, we can find out who the true winner is regarding this event.
Google Fight!
i can’t get to the Dawkins piece. the little connection indicator just spins and spins and spins (not unlike the counter-evolutionists)…izzit slash-dotted, too?
Richard Dawkins writes:
Seemingly oblivious to the irony, Mathis instructed some uniformed goon to evict Myers while he was standing in line with his family to enter the theatre, and threaten him with arrest if he didn’t immediately leave the premises… did he not know that PZ is one of the country’s most popular bloggers, with a notoriously caustic wit, perfectly placed to set the whole internet roaring with delighted and mocking laughter?
You know, as I read this, something occurred to me regarding the reasoning behind Mathis’ “bungling incompetence,” as Dawkins calls it. I wonder if Mathis made a serious blunder in his assumptions on what PZ’s reaction to being thrown out of the theater would be.
He just made a film where all the academics are whining and looking pathetic about being rejected, humiliated, and tossed unceremoniously out of academia and the Halls of Science. He has been surrounding himself with people playing the poor-me victim card, claiming ignominous oppression and unfair suppression.
What then if Mathis assumed that PZ Myer’s reaction would not be “delighted and mocking laughter,” but what he was used to — whimpering bellyaching. And then he could use that to make a point.
PZ was to have gone to Phayngula to lick his wounds. “People, I have sad news. I am so ashamed and humiliated. I was kicked out of the theater when I went to see Expelled. I have never heard of someone doing something like that to an academic like me. It felt awful.”
And then Mathis and his publicists would go in for the kill:
Ah-ha! Now the scientist knows JUST HOW IT FEELS! What has been done to other academics was done to him! And he complains, too. How ironic is THAT??”
Instead, PZ reacts with amusement. Extreme amusement. And, worse, there is the Dawkins angle, which no, Mathis had not been expecting when he decided to play a game and toss PZ out. If PZ whines, he wins on tit for tat. If PZ creates a nasty, messy scene, he wins on ‘look at the immoral fascist-like atheist temper.’ But instead, PZ laughs and laughs, and with Dawkins in the theater Mathis just looks like a fool.
More I think about it, the more I think Mathis underestimated PZ’s sense of humor about things, and how he would not be mortified by the incident, but jubilant. He’s been around too many pretentious professorial sob-sisters. He thought they were all like that.
Dawkins’ review was nothing less than exquisite!
#12
Wonderful hypothesis Sastra!
Sure, it’s pretty good.
But I think he might be agreeing too much with Mooney. This incident is virtually an earthquake on these blogs, with barely a ripple beyond. I think that’s good, because if they were getting a lot of free publicity from this I would not be happy.
And anyway, why have they guarded their boring movie from competent critics? It’s because it is boring (seriously, does anyone think that Dawkins and Myers being interviewed about science and God is going to appeal to the general public? No matter that people here are interested…), it’s dishonest, and it’s largely an incoherent and unevidenced attack on evolution. Dawkins rips the lid off of their carefully-orchestrated PR campaign, and as the film is increasingly advertised this fact will filter out to potential viewers.
The hoped-for appeal beyond the ignorant and the hopelessly religiously biased types is that there is this “new science” of ID which is being “suppressed.” Any questioning of “Darwinism” is supposedly “suppressed,” indeed. As it happens, Dawkins, one of the best-known scientists of our time, now can directly respond to a movie that he has seen, and point out exactly where they are wrong.
They didn’t want that. Between Dawkins and NYT, much of the media will tend to follow the points that the film is utter bilge and boring, and that they are trying to suppress criticisms in the bargain. Let Mathis and other liars crow about the “free publicity,” the fact is that this publicity undercuts the appeal that this movie is supposed to have.
No, it won’t stop church groups from busing in to the theaters. But the “mystery” of this dreck is being exposed, and I suspect that rather fewer fence-sitters are going to think that there is something interesting in this movie.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
You’re confusing framing with the argument as to whether or not one should do anything to draw notice to creationists. But then you’re confused about framing (everybody does it, whether it’s called “baggage” or “connotation” or “framing” — it’s just how people perceive your work, and how you can improve that). As for drawing attention to creationists, that should be, I would think obviously, depend on the circumstances and the abilities of the folks involved. In this case, I think it’s a very good idea.
Sastra @#12, I’d been wondering the same about Mathis’ motivation, and I think you’ve provided a good hypothesis for what he might have been thinking.
But that’s what makes Mathis’ blunder even more delicious! I certainly don’t know PZ except for what I glean from his writing, but I can’t imagine him doing anything other than what he did: run to the nearest internet access, chuckling in amused bewilderment all the way, because if he’d waited until he got back to his hotel to share this hilarious event with his readers his head would’ve positively a’sploded!
“Lying for Jesus”. Perfect. My guess is that they think their cause is so important that lying is justified.
Sastra @#12
While I have no proof that your hypothesis is completely accurate, I want to go out on a limb and say I think you probably hit the nail so hard on the head that it split the board in two, shot through six more feet of plywood and got lodged in the foreman’s hardhat. Thankfully the foreman is ok.
He might not have shut up, but I’ll bet Dawkins had to sit down to write that review.
Richard Dawkins said:
dishonourable spinning: What a great euphemism for lying!
I’m still getting over the thought of Richard Dawkins in the Mall of America.
I’m embarrassed he had to see that AND Expelled.
Hopefully they went to Legoland to clear the palate.
But it’s much worse, he’s lying for Nixon’s fat sycophant. One with tube socks.
Wow, Dawkins positively thrashes Mathis and the movie. So much for the statement that Dawkins is “well behaved” thus ok’d to see the movie. No, I’m afraid Dawkins isn’t refered to “Darwins Rottweiler” because he plays fetch and rolls over for religion and intelligent design proponents.
I just went to my lab to look at some data, and the whole thing had VANISHED!!!
I am sure it is because Dawkins wrote a bad review of this movie, and now science is DEAD FOREVER! Oh woe, woe, woe….
Dawkins’ description of Stein putting his head in his hands when being told about the Holocaust, as if he just found out about it, is pretty mean… and pretty darn well deserved.
I second Carrol’s post. Really solid thinking on this issue, and an insight that Mooney and Nisbet really seem to be missing.
Yikes! That film sounds even worse than I imagined. I definitely won’t be going to see it if it ever comes out.
I don’t think people are going to forget the “Good Friday Massacre of Mark Mathis’ Reputation” when the internet roared with “delighted and mocking laughter” any time soon. Quite the public relations debacle!
I’m having problems getting onto Dawkins website. Apparently PZed’s minions are viewing the review enmasse.
This is sort of tangental to the whole
ExpectoratedExpelled debacle, but:One of the things that Dawkins mentions is Crick’s idea of Directed Panspermia. I hadn’t heard of Directed Panspermia until a creationist first claimed that Crick had asserted that evolution on Earth was impossible. Since I was naturally sceptical and curious about this assertion, I did some research.
Well, the original paper (Crick and Orgel (1972)) is online, and can be read here (only 6 pages, too):
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/P/_/scbccp.pdf
It is, as it ought to be, a very tentative and highly qualified hypothesis. Note that it makes suggestions on experiments that might be done.
Were they in fact only semi-serious in proposing the idea? I dunno — but I think both would agree that there are probably more useful research plans for discovering the evidence for the origins of life.
SciBlogs is getting a little self-referential with the cycles of Nisbet vs Everybody grudge matches.
New fuel for the fire: Jon Marks (Yale, book: Human Biodiversity)
Jon Marks:
“So here is my proposition. Scientific racism is worse than un-scientific creationism. After all, nobody was ever killed or maimed or sterilized in the name of creationism.
So as we look towards the upcoming Darwin anniversary (bicentennial of birth, 150 years since the Origin) maybe we need to think less about the creationists – the external enemies – and think more about the erosion from within. The creationists can’t embarrass science; only scientists can do that.”
http://savageminds.org/2008/03/21/ventriloquists-for-darwin/
(I have to have to wonder if Larry Moran would want to weigh in. Razib? Anyone?)
A vast conspiracy by evil scientists? To suppress scientific evidence that god_did_it?
Just imagine the scope of the international effort to co-ordinate such nefarious plans, all over a time span of centuries. There’s only one possible explanation.
Satanic Forces. In the guise of mild mannered professors, these soul thieves are indoctrinating our youth and enrolling them in the fight against Truth & Light Inc.
I draw your attention to Hex genes. That’s right, HomEoboX genes. These are used in morphogenesis and control whether an experimental animal grows up to be a frog or a monkey in a suit. Witchcraft, by any other name.
Premise Media Corp,
a division of Truth & Light Inc.
Dawkins’ link here doesn’t wanna load, and i canna get the dawkins.net page to open either…anybody got a working link?
A blinding review by Dawkins!
I find the whole ‘Lord Privy Seal’ thing very, very funny indeed, it brings to mind loads of shoddy documentaries I’ve seen over the years. I’ll know how to describe this ‘trick’ in future – see, it’s not just science you learn from these guys!
I’m another one who thinks Sastra has got it spot-on. Not only are they incapable of making a half-decent documentary or doing a vague amount of research, they can’t even glean a moderately accurate character assessment from one of the most prolific bloggers on the net. What a terrible shame…
Sastra = one smart cookie.
I had a hard time getting in as well. Is it kosher to publish it on another host so people can read it? I’ve copied it on a page on my server that I will gladly share with others, but only if it’s OK to do so. I imagine that in a few days the Dawkins site will be back up, but right now they are likely having bandwidth issues.
Sastra is “sharp as a tack” as my grandmother would say.
It is awfully funny how Dawkins was once the frothing beast of anti-religion, and now all the sudden they’re saying he’s the nice, reasonable one and that’s why they let him in.
Wankers.
Sean Carroll writes a reasoned post, but I think he makes several mistakes along the lines that Glen comments on. Mooney referring to the crocumentary writer’s blog isn’t very convincing – how does he expect Miller to croc (frame) it? And who knows what Randy Olson says on this – at least his list of ten things to improve communication doesn’t list controversy as a promotional tool. It does list quality control, concision, prioritization, humor and sincerity, all things that Mathis forget to bring to Mooney’s “controversy”.
Instead I think Phil Plait has nailed this:
Precisely this movie and its argumentum ad Hitlerum is such a foul thing that no Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists’ politician appeasement will suffice. It is much more hurt by being dragged out into the light.
And then stomped on. Repeatedly.
Sean Carroll writes a reasoned post, but I think he makes several mistakes along the lines that Glen comments on. Mooney referring to the crocumentary writer’s blog isn’t very convincing – how does he expect Miller to croc (frame) it? And who knows what Randy Olson says on this – at least his list of ten things to improve communication doesn’t list controversy as a promotional tool. It does list quality control, concision, prioritization, humor and sincerity, all things that Mathis forget to bring to Mooney’s “controversy”.
Instead I think Phil Plait has nailed this:
Precisely this movie and its argumentum ad Hitlerum is such a foul thing that no Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists’ politician appeasement will suffice. It is much more hurt by being dragged out into the light.
And then stomped on. Repeatedly.
Wait a minute:
But … but …
… watered dust is …
Is there some correlation between fundamentalism and irony impairment?
Bad Gnus:
Why, thank you.
Great response by Dawkins about the movie! I guess I’m not the only one who finds Stein’s voice annoying.
We really should get the word out about the post at the Dawkins site. If anyone is interested, they can digg it by going to http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins .
I don’t get it: If “Expelled” is so dull, artless, and amateurish,” why devote a 3500-word review to it (Much less a video on Youtube)? Sounds to me like damage control on an epic scale.
Have you watched American TV lately? Dull, artless and amateurish doesn’t mean people won’t watch it and, if advertizing revenues are any guide, swallow just about anything. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t warn about the dangers of cigarette smoke or shoddy and dangerous cars.
Well, yes. But, unfortunately, it may be too late to save the brains damaged by dreck like Expelled.
You wouldn’t.
Love it. Richard was the first; I wonder who the next contestant is on “pwn Ben Stein’s Movie”….
I posted a comment to Dawkins’ review, mainly critiquing those who carped at Dawkins’ use of certain words. It’s taking a while to appear over there, so I’m cross-posting it here, in case I did something wrong in my attempt to comment:
[Okay, PZ, I’m done. You may now blush modestly.]
That was so beautiful Hank. Thanks for posting it in both places. I wish I would have thought of something like that to write. I also have been annoyed at the commenters on Dawkins’ site who are armchair quarterbacks.
This should make Nisbet proud. The creationist screen writer of Expelled totally agrees with Nisbet:
http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/2008/03/move-on-over-pz.html
The creationist screen writer of Expelled totally agrees with Nisbet
Well, it should make Chris Mooney happy.
Hank— I hope Mooney and Nesbet read your comment and see how they are contributing to the problem.
Kevin Miller seems hurt over Dawkins’ review.
I hope the rest of the Evil Liberal Atheist Conspiracy-run media is kinder to his writing.
I want to be Sastra when I grow up.
Nonetheless, I suspect the reality is slightly less complicated. IMO, Sastra’s assessment of Mathis’s baseline mindset is accurate, but I doubt Mathis thought (or cared) much about what PZ’s reaction would be. He assumed that any reaction of any kind would benefit the Expelled!* PR campaign (which is why they’re all claiming that it has). I think he simply didn’t want PZ in the theatre with his ID-sympathetic audience and, more importantly, he didn’t want PZ to be the fly in the post-viewing Q&A ointment. I also believe Kristine’s claim that Mathis appeared to be very surprised to see Dr. Dawkins at the Q&A, and that he is trying to conceal the egg on his face by lying about having intentionally let RD in despite the “do not admit” order next to his name.
That’s just my opinion; I could be wrong (and it wouldn’t be the first time).
Lessee, what else… Oh yeah:
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” ~ Clarke. :-)
_______________________________________
* jazz hands
* jazz hands
But Kseniya, those were clearly ‘Spirit Fingers’, not
‘Jazz Hands’.
I think there may be a line.
I think Glen D has the right of this situation. Sometimes we all embrace the false dichotomy . . . on the right, PZ and the defenders of truth — on the left, the Liars for Jesus.
But there is a huge middle out there, what Glen calls the “fencesitters” and I call the pewsitters, who don’t have a strong opinion either way. It’s hard for me to imagine it, but those folks don’t know much about the issue . . . whereas we’re all passionate about it. (The other side, of course, is just crazy.)
The folks in the middle are vulnerable to the “teach the controversy” lie because they’re basically fair-minded — but they don’t want to be associated with dolts. Anything that works to expose the lyin’, cheatin’, delusional, and incompetent DI and all its damned works is a WIN for us. And “Expelled from EXPELLED” does that in spades.
Heh. Well, yes.
But the point, which I perhaps did not make clear, was that Francis Crick had actually said no such thing, but merely speculated scientifically — much as did Richard Dawkins. And Crick’s speculation was twisted into something it wasn’t, much as Dawkins’ speculation was by Ben Stein.
“When a Creationist says anything at all about science, he is almost certainly wrong. The only questions that remain is whether he is deliberately lying or merely confused, and whether the false statement is original to him, or instead mindlessly repeated from another Creationist source.” ~ Owlmirror
I don’t get it: If “Expelled” is so dull, artless, and amateurish,” why devote a 3500-word review to it (Much less a video on Youtube)?
Because it’s an offensive, bigoted pack of lies. And it’s being marketed to people who don’t know better.
But Kseniya, those were clearly ‘Spirit Fingers’, not
‘Jazz Hands’.
You Canadians may not have seen this American program called Will and Grace, but one of the characters–somewhat flamboyant, it’s safe to say–used to do the *jazz hands* when announcing his one-man shows “Just Jack!” and “Jack 2000!”
*Jazz hands* is the appropriate move in this circumstance.
Here is another way to “frame” this bit of controversy:
“Shorter Matt Nisbet: ‘Go drink bleach.'”
MAJeff, have you ever seen male dancers? Those guys are buff and built–real manly men. Since when do ‘flamboyant’ men know anything about the performing arts?
At any rate, this video should clear up your confusion.
PS: Of course we watched that show. Eric McCormack, like all of the best of American film and television comedians, is Canadian.
Epic scale? Have you visited Youtube? People create videos to celebrate the exceptionally good hamburger they ate that day.
And Dawkins is a professional writer. 3400 words to review the most ambitious creationist movie in the last decade, as well as to point out the buffoonery of its creators, is hardly excessive. He can probably bang that out in an hour or so.
Torbjörn (@38) observes:
Over on the original The Intersection thread, Randy Olson is agreeing with Chris Mooney. Olson’s made several comments, the first of which starts out:
Last I checked that thread, he’s continued to make additional comments supporting Chris’ position.
Once again Sastra shows why she’s been Mollyfied.
I want to be both Hank and Sastra when I grow up…help!
I don’t write words too well, so here’s my “musical” comment on this whole affair.
It lasts just 4 minutes and the title is : EXPELLED – another hole in their socks.
http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes
The version in the official Myspace player is of even poorer quality than the original (sorry about that) which you can find in the other standalone player by scrolling don the same page.
#52
The least complicated explanation would be that Mathis just hates PZ’s guts and kicked him out on impulse not thinking about the PR aspect at all.
I’ve had troubles loading pages at the richarddawkins.net ever since this review was posted? Is their server getting hammered by requests? Is god orchestrating a HDoS attack (Heavenly Denial of Service)?
Well, poop. My comment on Professor Dawkins’ site somehow didn’t make it in, and now I can’t even seem to get signed on over there.
If anyone talks to him, let him know that his server is letting him down.
Good one, #67 – HDoS indeed – i like it! But it may just be an overloaded server. I finally got the article just now, on my sixth or seventh attempt. Just keep trying until you succeed, but let some time pass between attempts, or all the people stampeding to get the article will just stomp on each others’ toes. Now I’ll settle down and enjoy what is bound to be a good read.
I do get it, you’re trying to keep out competent critics who will tell it like it is, while you try to sell this pile of dung to the rubes. You’ve gotten much mindless praise from the believers you’re out to shear yet again, and now you’re trying for damage control when a real review gets out.
We remember the squalling from your shill Ben Stein when an actual movie critic, Roger Moore, also got in after being disinvited.
Christ, Kevin, you are one dishonest jerk from beginning to end.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
It’s great fun being a propagandist. If people kick back against your output, you can say that they’re taking it seriously so it must be true. If they don’t, you can say that they’ve got no answer to it, that’s how true it is. Can’t lose!
Except, that is, when you actually have to deal with the consequences of some of the things you say and do – then it gets a bit harder.
Has anyone seen that statement the producers promised on why they kicked PZ out of the showing?
Just a minor caveat to what I posted @#4, which was:
The first site has listings up through February, not stopping January as I had said. Which doesn’t change anything, really. I just want the information to be right.
I read RD’s review and:
OMFSM!! You gotta love the English and their way with the language; I’m getting over a chest cold and had a laughing/coughing fit at this bon mot about Ben Stein:
Well, shoot, I was right the first time about my link.
It’s another page that goes up through February:
rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/events/list
They have a bewildering proliferation of pages, and I don’t really know why. Apparently, though the “private screenings” site was meant to be more exclusive. But if so, they oughtn’t be putting it on the web for anyone to use.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
@ Kseniya:
But your devoted public wants both. Can’t you just all agree to be friends instead?
@ blf:
Good catch, thanks.
Seems Randy is saying that when you don’t care for the truth you can use controversy, so IDC is an exception from his main rules. But his support is an anecdote, plural of anecdotes isn’t data.
And later on he discusses another anecdote on a social documentary on religion (Jesus Camp) that could have used some controversy on “the other side”.
Reactions comes from several commentators. Dan points out that the problem in Randy’s example is just that the public hasn’t heard the truth, so this give little support to not say it now. Melusine points out that the camp was shut down as a result of publicity from the movie Jesus Camp – which of course is just trading an anecdote for another.
So yeah, while I like the fact that Randy presents a flexible approach, but I’m not sure any longer how much his experience is worth considering he seems to rely on singular examples, he is definitely with Mooney on this.
@ Kseniya:
But your devoted public wants both. Can’t you just all agree to be friends instead?
@ blf:
Good catch, thanks.
Seems Randy is saying that when you don’t care for the truth you can use controversy, so IDC is an exception from his main rules. But his support is an anecdote, plural of anecdotes isn’t data.
And later on he discusses another anecdote on a social documentary on religion (Jesus Camp) that could have used some controversy on “the other side”.
Reactions comes from several commentators. Dan points out that the problem in Randy’s example is just that the public hasn’t heard the truth, so this give little support to not say it now. Melusine points out that the camp was shut down as a result of publicity from the movie Jesus Camp – which of course is just trading an anecdote for another.
So yeah, while I like the fact that Randy presents a flexible approach, but I’m not sure any longer how much his experience is worth considering he seems to rely on singular examples, he is definitely with Mooney on this.
Latest Google Fight numbers:
Dawkins: 2,970,000
Stein: 990,000
I’m ROFLingMAO here. I mentioned Expelledgate a couple of days ago to my good friend, a nonscientist and “recovering Catholic,” and pointed him to a few links on the subject. Since then he’s been giving me infinite grief for having gotten him so fascinated by the whole business that he hasn’t gotten anything done since. Now mind you, this is a guy who almost never spends any significant time on line unless he’s looking for a new video game.
One of his latest comments to me: “I had no idea just how scary those Fundamentalists really are!”
Score another one for the Good Guys.