Comments

  1. Will K. says

    I like Chris Mooney talking with cartoon word balloons. It puts him in the proper context.

  4. Sastra says

    Ok, I knew about Chris Mooney — but oh my gosh Matt Nesbit is cute too!
    “He came with the frame.”

  5. bPer says

    Sastra @#4:

    “He came with the frame.”

    LOL! Too true! And like all pictures that come with the frame, he’s destined for the garbage pail … er … recycling bin.

    I’ll be chuckling over this comment for days. Thanks, Sastra.

    βPer

  6. firemancarl says

    Hmm, I heard Genie was in a thong and you and Dawkins where dressed in black leather with horns growing out of your heads. But, I could be wrong.

  7. Sili says

    That’s Nesbit?!!

    I thought he was some old geezer! (No offence meant to old geezers and geezettes … geeztrixes? … geeztrices? … geezices? … )

    Don’t judge a book by its cover &c &c &c, but … if I had any doubt left about whether to try to find out more about the man (boy? man-boy?) and his idea(s), they’ve evaporated now.

  8. HP says

    I do believe we’ve discovered our next frame: “Great hair, Chris.” “Great hair, Matt.”

    If it’s not too late, you could update the “I’m supposed to sit down and shut up” post to replace “Fuck you very much” with “Great hair, Matt.”

  13. Brendan S says

    I think this comic is poor framing.

    Surely people will take one look at Matt’s hair and see it as final proof of intelligent design! Hari looking that good can’t happen by chance!

  14. Richard says

    Much is being made of this expelled debacle, but I wonder if there is not a sinister plot here – basically to make a lot of money. Imagine you are the film maker of expelled – you want to stir things up, get some press (in the NYT) and get lots of people talking about your flick. Kicking a prominent atheist out of your movie, while allowing an even more prominent one in might do the trick. You want to get folks all worked up before the movie comes out.

    Now the atheists are talking about it – any many will go and see it. The IDers are going to go and see it – if only because the evolutionists have trash talked it so much.

    At the end of the day, Ben Stein and crew made a 3rd rate documentary and get to laugh all the way to the bank. I bet they don’t even care a damn about the ID – evolution debate.

    Of course I could be wrong, but its probably worth considering in between all the high fives we are giving each other. Think about it – who is going to get the last laugh?

  15. Brendan S says

    #14:

    I doubt it was staged by them. I think they would have had their story straight from the beginning if they were really trying to drum something up. Plus all the ‘mainstream’ news outlets seem to carry PZ’s version.

    And, in the bigger picture… so what? I think this fight is about science, and facts. And how belief cannot change facts. ID is a belief that goes against facts.

    These events serve to cast the proponents of Intelligent Design in the light we know their true natures to be. That is, as dishonest, hypocritical petty whiners. THIS IS GOOD. Even if they make some extra money, science, and truth, win in the end.

  17. says

    Funny, but… honestly, do you think that Richard Dawkins has ever once in his life said “blimey”? “Crikey”, maybe…

  18. says

    Who the heck does Denyse O’Leary think she is?

    Taken from her multiple self-promoting blogs:

    I have myself attempted to resolve Myers’s expulsion problem by paying for his ticket, if he will agree to watch the whole film, and not run out to trash it halfway through or something similar. I have e-mailed producer Mark Mathis with my offer. It will likely cost me US$8.00 or so, and my freelance writing business can easily spring for it.

    What a complete tool. Here’s a thought, Denyse. Maybe it’s not that PZ is bitter about having to pay for a ticket, but maybe he and others simply find the whole incident hilariously ironic. I wouldn’t call it an uproar, although you and your fellow creationists are a riot. Yes, we know your career promoting pseudoscience, link-farming and preaching to the choir earns you enough dough to pay for a movie ticket, but maybe you should first buy yourself a clue.

  19. says

    Question: Does Nesmith or Nebbish or whatever the name is of the self-appointed concern troll have any fame outside of being an attacker of PZ? Seriously, I’d never heard of the guy until I started reading Pharyngula. Is he just some kind of energy creature, hoping to get publicity from asinine attacks on his betters, operating on the “Ha! Made ya looook!” principle?

  20. szqc says

    Great job there – the full series is excellent!

    But where’s PZ’s Trophy WifeTM in that?

    [aside: The *public* photo I’ve seen of PZ and said Trophy WifeTM on one of his webpages communicates sheer joyfulness about family and living in a nice town like Morris – it belies those that believe PZ is a some mean grumpy man – well yes he is that way with dipsticks, boo hoo.].

  21. Karley says

    Dawkins is British- of course he says “blimey”. Constantly.
    But where’s his monocle? :c

  23. Cdesign opponentist says

    Richard: many will see it while it’s free. But I’ll be damned (talk about unlikely!) before I give those clowns one thin dime of my money, and I think many other people feel likewise.

    So I’m not at all sure it’ll lead to making any money.

  25. October Mermaid says

    I was there! The sound of one hand clapping was the time I carried you with my other hand because I’m super buff.

  26. says

    PZ:

    I’ve been doing so digging about the production company behind ‘Expelled’ and I talk about what I’ve found here.

    As always, I’d appreciate any feedback or other input from your readership. Every now and then I find things of interest, that might profit by being better-known.

    BTW, while ‘ExpelledGate’ is getting some airplay here and there as a label for recent events, I’ve decided to just call it ‘PZX’.

  27. Anton Mates says

    At the end of the day, Ben Stein and crew made a 3rd rate documentary and get to laugh all the way to the bank. I bet they don’t even care a damn about the ID – evolution debate.

    Of course I could be wrong, but its probably worth considering in between all the high fives we are giving each other. Think about it – who is going to get the last laugh?

    Really, who cares? We’re worried about whether this movie will seriously damage public perception of science, not about whether it will make money. If 500 million people go and watch it, and most of them come away laughing about how stupid creationists are, I will happily congratulate Stein and Mathis on their now being rich enough to buy Estonia. In fact, in that case I’d like them to make a sequel or two.

  28. says

    #27 – “I will happily congratulate Stein and Mathis on their now being rich enough to buy Estonia.”

    Well, being an Estonian, I strongly resent that notion. We have our own crackpots here…
    But since our current government is talking about mandatory religion studies in high school and our foreign minister has an history of selling out to megacompanies (read: Microsoft) it is not entirely impossible…

  29. Michael X says

    For the love of (something important)!
    Can we please get off this, “talking about it will make people see it”, idea? I know too many people think tv cliche is real life, but damn.

    Imagine Ben Stein is exposed having sex with a sheep. He’ll be all over the news. But that does not equal buzz for his latest movie. It equals at best “Sheep fucker Ben Stein (who’s latest film before fucking sheep was Expelled), was found fucking sheep today…”

    More to the point, would a pacifist, filming a doc. on pacifism, sell more tickets if he attacked someone? If the producers of a doc. on academic freedom started turning away dissenters, do you think they would benefit? It’s like talking about the plagiarism of those recent scientists and expecting their work to be more successful within the scientific community, or even by the public at large, simply because we’re talking about it and bringing it into the spot light. But it isn’t, because plagiarism undercuts the very reason anyone would take such scientists seriously. This is about credibility. How much more HTML must a guy use before we get this idea?

    This is bad press (this much HTML in case you were wondering). What is being reported undercuts the very talking points made by the producers. Hearing that Expelled is expelling people and are thus hypocrites: Is. Not. Enticing. The papers have reported them as a joke headline producing group – The public sees them as a joke headline producing group. If you think this works in their favor, you must be in communications.

    Quit watching tv. Read a book.

  31. says

    I have to say, I’ve just read the NYT coverage of this “affair”, and I’m struggling to see what PZ has achieved here. The NYT article makes PZ look as stupid at Ben Stein, like they’re having some kind of playground fight: “On those facts, everybody agrees. After that, things break down.”

    Frankly, this affair will (like Dawkins himself, as much as I love his writing) have precisely 0% effect on the debate over creationism in the U.S., let alone elsewhere.

    I don’t agree with Nisbet, before people get their knickers in a twist, but PZ, I wish you would reach outside the comfort zone of writing to your own friendly blog audience or attacking nutters (both very easy), and actually put some of this effort into targeting the average American on the street. At the moment, it seems like you’re just playing to the opposite poles of the debate.

  32. MorpheusPA says

    We’re ignoring the really important question here.

    Did Skatje save PZ any Charleston Chews, or did he have to make do with the stale popcorn stuck in her pant cuff?

  33. Hilda says

    People get the message about creationism/evolution and other science issues in various ways which is why we need people working in various areas of the media. Since Pharyngula is an extremely popular science blog, it is just one effective way to get science information out. What I find especially cool about Pharyngula is the vibrant community of commenters. Although blog readers are self-selected, there is a lot they can do, and probably do, when inspired to promote science themselves. I know a lot of “average Americans on the street,” and I’m a regular Pharyngula reader who tries to spread the word to the average American on the street.

  34. says

    @Hilda

    I don’t disagree with you at all, it just frustrates me that the SB crowd are acting like this is a Big Deal when really it isn’t, and the coverage of it in the NYT article was quite bad for us.

  35. Dahan says

    I’ve never heard Dawkins speak, but am sure that he would say “blimey”. In fact, in my head he sounds just like Wooster, from Wooster and Jeeves.

  37. says

    Dawkins is British- of course he says “blimey”. Constantly.

    Unlikely. ‘Blimey’ is very lower-class and Dawkins is, if not a toff, then certainly upper-middle class gent with an RP accent.

    So, ‘blimey’, no. However, ‘crikey’ is another matter entirely.

  39. Mike from Ottawa says

    “Blimey” and “crikey” are right out for Bertie Wooster. Jeeves would give his notice.

    But Jeeves and Wooster are beside the point. We’re supposed to be fans of evidence here. Clearly what’s needed is for PZ to ask Dawkins if he ever uses those expressions and report back. We must know!

    And indeed, Expelledgate isn’t really a big deal (like we need more evidence creationists are fools), but it is a lot of fun. Not as much fun as Jeeves and Wooster, mind, but a lot of fun nonetheless.

  41. Dianne says

    300 references

    I first parsed this as 300 references (as in references given in an academic paper) rather than 300 references (as in, references to the film) and was puzzled by the lack of references at the end of the cartoon. Also I read “Charlston Chews” as “Charlston Heston Chews”. Sigmund Freud could make a lot out of those two slips no doubt.

  42. Reginald Selkirk says

    Skatje seems to be reduced to a fetch-and-carry role. Don’t think she’ll go for that.

  43. says

    that genie and skatje are played-up for humor was just comic license… i’ve never met skatje, but if she was offended i’d happily add a bubble… maybe even a hand holding a box of charleston chews… it’s just a cartoon, after all, and is based on some precedent… in real life, veronica was not as shallow and vain as illustrated in archie… and i believe jughead was finishing his dissertation through most of the strip’s run…

  45. BaldApe says

    Shouldn’t there have been a beak and a radula inside that mouth in the last frame?

  46. Bride of Shrek says

    PZ,

    You really need to start smiling more in photos. You’re in danger of becoming the Victoria Beckham of science. Besides, I bet you have really nice teeth.

  48. says

    Dianne (#41), it’s okay, I wrote that and when I just reread it I was wondering what I was talking about too. Should have used italics.

  49. says

    So, ‘blimey’, no. However, ‘crikey’ is another matter entirely.

    Oh, hell, there goes my heuristic. I thought “crikey” was Australian, not English.

    But what the hell do I know, anyway–that damn gecko in the Geico ads is supposed to be Cockney, but I swear he sounds just like the Aussie programmer guy in my old lab. /tin ear

  50. Kseniya says

    Oh, hell, there goes my heuristic. I thought “crikey” was Australian, not English.

    Ditto.

  52. arqam says

    mthr fckrs .y r ll sn f btchs

    [expect more of this as the creationists get fired up by the bad movie. -pzm]