Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

by PZ Myers, Pharyngula

Thanks to rowed for the link.

Reposted from;
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php#more

Last April, I received this nice letter from Mark Mathis.

Hello Mr. Myers,

My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, "Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion."

At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of our equipment.

We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.

Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time.

I look forward to speaking with you soon.

Sincerely,

Mark Mathis
Rampant Films
4414 Woodman Ave. #203
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
www.rampantfilms.com


I looked up Rampant Films. Yes, they are doing a movie called Crossroads, and it has perfectly reasonable blurb.

crossroads

So I said, sure, I'd be happy to talk with you, and as long as any travel expenses are covered, I'm willing to do it gratis (academic, you know…we aren't used to charging big fees to explain things to people). They came out to Morris, set up cameras and gear in my lab, and we did an interview for a few hours. I got paid (woo hoo!). They left. I figured that, as a fairly minor figure in this argument, I might well get cut out altogether — they talked about also interviewing Dawkins and Eugenie Scott and Pennock and various other people — and that was OK.

Now we've got this new ID creationist movie, Expelled, coming out, and there's a press release with this claim:

Unlike some other documentary films, Expelled doesn't just talk to people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. The creators of Expelled crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.


What? I didn't do any interviews for pro-creation films, and I certainly haven't said that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry" aren't part of the university. There must be some mistake.

But then I noticed in the credits for the movie that a certain familiar name is the associate producer, or ass-prod, as I'll henceforth consider him.

assprod

Denyse O'Leary also ties Mathis of Rampant Films to this movie, and this page from Expelled uses the same graphic that Rampant Films used for Crossroads. The case is closed: Ben Stein's propaganda film for ID is the one I was interviewed for.

Well. I guess I didn't end up on the cutting room floor after all, although I'm sure a select set of my words did. Unless, that is, the whole movie is me sitting in my lab, talking. It's real. I'm going to be featured in a big-time movie with second-tier character actor and game-show host Ben Stein. I bet my whole family is going to go out to the moving-picture theatre to see me on the big screen … and since my family lives near Seattle and the Discovery Institute is so happy about it, they'll probably have the opportunity.

I do have a few questions, though.

I'm wondering why the Discovery Institute would be so enthused about this movie. It lays it's premise on the line: science is flawed because it excludes god and the supernatural. It's one big promo for religion — which means it's going to further undercut Intelligent Design creationism's claims to be a secular idea.

Randy Olson points out that this is clearly a well-funded movie. It's slick, they're paying Ben Stein, they had to have shelled out a good chunk of money for the rights for the "Bad to the Bone" theme. Randy's probably wondering why he couldn't get that kind of money for Flock of Dodos.

So who is funding the movie? Some people with deep pockets are throwing quite a bit of cash at this thing, and I can assure you that it didn't end up in my hands. I think I was paid something like $1200. I should have asked for much more!

Isn't it a little ironic that a fairly expensive production like this is billing itself as representing the ordinary people, and is pretending to be the "rebel"? There's a bit of the no-expenses-will-be-spared (except in the case of their evilutionist dupes!) glitz about it — it really doesn't look like the work of some brave independent film-maker living hand-to-mouth while making his artistic vision manifest.

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.

I don't mind sharing my views with creationists, and do so all the time. By filming under false pretenses, much like the example of the case of Richard Dawkins' infamous "pause", they've undercut their own credibility … not that that will matter. I suspect their audience will not question whatever mangling of the video that they carry out, and the subterfuges used to make it will not be brought up.

Oh, well. I have two warnings for the creationists.

One, I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That's going to be fun.

Two, next time I'm asked to be recorded for a creationist propaganda film, I will demand more money, and a flight and a limousine to the premiere. They can pay for my tuxedo rental, too. And my hotel room will have a jacuzzi and a bowl of M&Ms — green ones only.

Comments 1 - 50 of 109 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #65094 by Mitchell Gilks on August 22, 2007 at 10:12 pm

 avatarThose dishonest bastards. I'd be far more pissed off than you are about this if it happened to me. I'd try to make some kind of public spectical about it, so people knew that they had tricked me. Tricked me with lies!

You are a far better sport than I would be.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

2. Comment #65096 by Richard Morgan on August 22, 2007 at 10:20 pm

 avatarSomebody once said : "Clearly God hates money. Just look at the people he gives it to!"
Clearly Jesus loves liars and cheats and frauds - because ironically it's always the "Thou-shalt-not-bear-false-witness" born-again faith-heads that feel the need to resort to dissimulation (at best) and downright lies (at worst). Probably doing it in the name of Jesus makes it OK.
OK.
Why am I not surprised?
"You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you... very embarrassed." (Morganic Translation of the New Tasty-Mint)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

3. Comment #65098 by robotaholic on August 22, 2007 at 10:32 pm

 avatarok, you need a lawyer, you need to sue and make a HUGE STINK dirty the film before it starts (or will that just give it more advertisement?) I dunno but you should be madder DAMN IT!

Other Comments by robotaholic

4. Comment #65099 by Synaptix on August 22, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Ben Stein? Give me a break that guys is a looser, who cares what he has to say. Ohh he was on a gameshow, lets all give these producers an applause for that influencial celebrity. That's like being stoked about Tony Danza having a cameo in a movie starring Pauly Shore and K-Fed. Waaa Waa WAAAAAAAAAA!

Of course once it's released almost anyone with a brain will know it's a pile of rotting deuce.

Other Comments by Synaptix

5. Comment #65100 by JDAM on August 22, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Prima facie evidence of the success we're having against the faith-heads. Quite similar to the "end-justifies-the-means" tactics of Muslim goons but at least much less deadly.

Mathis and his pals have done us a great favor by exposing themselves for what they really are...con artists to the very last preacher. This film will play, very likely for money, to the Rubes and Boobs across the country who will never know of the despicable actions used to obtain the interviews. Just as well...without minds they wouldn't last very long in this forum, anyway. It's nothing more than another of their ever more laughable attempts to keep the money rolling in from their cross-section of closed minds and open wallets.

Other Comments by JDAM

6. Comment #65111 by Lil_Xunzian on August 22, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Just when I thought ID had been descredited and that Demski and Behe had been outed as crockpots...

One would supposed that if the universe had been intelligently designed, God would have designed the rules of logic in ID supporter's favor. How is it that an idea can persist after it's been shown to be both logically incoherent and evidentially unsubstantiated?

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

7. Comment #65115 by Auld on August 22, 2007 at 11:48 pm

PZ Meyers,

Looks like you've sold your soul for 12 bags of a hundred silvers!! : D

Other Comments by Auld

8. Comment #65118 by jagmarz on August 22, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Ben Stein is not only an actor, he's an economist and a lawyer. He also has regular columns in the American Spectator (or did; I only read it in the library), so he may even have helped fund it.

I find it a bit disturbing that members of the rational community are ready to jump all over this film, based on faith, before they even see it. Although I'm sure we all expect that they will have twisted everything PZ said, we don't KNOW that, yet.

After the film comes out, THEN will be the time to raise a stink.

Also, heads up: folks, make a personal recording of your interviews for just such situations. How interesting it might be to present a comparison of "what I said" vs "what they included".

-- Mario

Other Comments by jagmarz

9. Comment #65121 by Lh'owan on August 23, 2007 at 12:29 am

 avatarjagmarz,

I suggest you should check out the website, it'll give you a good idea of these people's 'honesty'.

www.expelledthemovie.com/

I gotta run, but their listing of Einstein on 'their side' because of one of his God quotes springs to mind.

I wouldn't hold out much hope.

Other Comments by Lh'owan

10. Comment #65124 by Ohnhai on August 23, 2007 at 1:00 am

 avatarHeh. as they obtained the interview under false pretences, wait till just before their launch and then slap an injunction on them citing miss-representation and force them to re-edit the film to remove your contribution.. also if any other respectable people have also bee duped in this way, organise with them to also get injunctions to remove their footage (but get them to stagger the injunctions so to keep causing the film hassle.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

11. Comment #65125 by pissinintothewind on August 23, 2007 at 1:01 am

P Z..... Look on the bright side, the money will go to supporting your trophy wife and lavish life style.

Other Comments by pissinintothewind

12. Comment #65127 by Sigmund on August 23, 2007 at 1:19 am

 avatarThe constant use of the 'academic freedom' angle within the ID community is nauseating. It just shows that these people are not scientists. If I write a grant application with the premise that everything on Earth was flown here last Tuesday by the masked chicken-men from the planet Mongo, who have cleverly covered up their tracks and left no evidence behind, it really isn't lack of academic freedom that stops me getting the grant.
The use of the term 'freedom' strikes a cord with many non scientists which is why it is being used in this way. And its not only members of the public that get caught out - I see that (former?) skeptic Michael Shermer has chimed in with a defence of the basic premise of this movie in his latest column for Scientific American.
"the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion."
So, Michael, does the Discovery Institute get to define 'freedom'?

Other Comments by Sigmund

13. Comment #65129 by steveroot on August 23, 2007 at 1:40 am

 avatar
...a certain familiar name is the associate producer, or ass-prod, as I'll henceforth consider him.

D'oh! Another lawsuit!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

14. Comment #65131 by scooternyc on August 23, 2007 at 1:49 am

 avatarGiven religion's pattern of transgressive behavior and the charlatans who smarm money from people, it's not surprising that they would "slight of hand" their interview with you, just goes to show how DISHONEST they really and truly are and on a regular basis.

"Once again, religion poisons everything".

Other Comments by scooternyc

15. Comment #65140 by drive1 on August 23, 2007 at 2:18 am

 avatarHow interesting .. it appears that the umm 'pragmatic' methodologies of the political world are contaminating religious pursuits. God must be very proud of his earthly warriors (media division).

Other Comments by drive1

16. Comment #65141 by scooternyc on August 23, 2007 at 2:20 am

 avatarBTW - this is a great website:

http://godisimaginary.com/

Other Comments by scooternyc

17. Comment #65144 by Adrian on August 23, 2007 at 2:33 am

Sitting here in the more secular UK, I feel a rising alarm at what I read here.

I have had a brief look at their website (thanks Lh'owan for the link) and am impressed with their marketing skills. This is the sort of drive I have been hoping to see coming from the 'Out' campaign and others.

Quotes, misused like this:

'Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and author of "The God Delusion" states,

'"Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion."

'Your students are being bombarded with such propaganda throughout their education; despite the fact that MOST Americans do NOT believe we're the result of "random chance".'


are dishonest and misleading, but it is their 'drive' to '...recruit young, articulate spokespersons' to 'to sign-up and be part of a nationwide campaign' which makes we worried.

I do not think this is time for flippancy but for direct action - perhaps in the courts as Robotaholic and Ohnhai suggest. Certainly, by obtaining sufficient financial support to wage war on an equally efficient MARKETING front.

Richard Dawkins has recently aired a tv show against superstitious nonsense like 'faith-healing' and 'alternative medicine' (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763&q=dawkins, and whilst I applaud his efforts, the program lacked any bite. Such attacks need to be more strident and bare sharpened teeth.
.

Other Comments by Adrian

18. Comment #65157 by bamboospitfire on August 23, 2007 at 3:40 am

 avatarAdrian, I don't see what is wrong with the first RD quotation - viewing the world scientifically is indeed incompatible with religious belief and all those who say otherwise are compartmentalising like fury. What is your concern about it? I agree that the second one looks very odd. Couldn't find it on the site though.

Why is Behe not listed amongst the "troublemakers"? I would have thought he'd be top of the list following his ostracision.

It seems that the point of the film is to "expose" science for ridiculing ID rather than allowing a serious debate in which proponents of ID can challenge Darwinism. I'm more than happy for them to challenge away and I look forward to reviewing their testable evidence.

Lastly, the great PZ Myers does not own a dinner jacket?! Surely some mistake!

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

19. Comment #65167 by Calilasseia on August 23, 2007 at 4:47 am

 avatarIf that had been me, I'd have demanded full copies of all the tapes. BEFORE they took the tapes to the edit suite.

Any honest organisation would let an interviewee have them. The moment they said "er, we can't do that", the antennae would twitch in my case.

Other Comments by Calilasseia

20. Comment #65170 by Pi Guy on August 23, 2007 at 4:52 am

PZ:

Sorry and, er, congrats.

At any rate, I just can't wait to see how you tear it apart!

Other Comments by Pi Guy

21. Comment #65174 by jagmarz on August 23, 2007 at 4:59 am

So here's how I see this.

They're making a movie, with a heavily biased point of view. That's their right. No complaints on that score.

They've interviewed Mr Myers under false pretenses. Well, that seems a bit slimy, but, probably, that's done all the time, too.

The question is not "Will the movie be heavily slanted in favor of ID?" - we know it will. The question is "Will they misrepresent the opinions of the interviewed?" That remains to be seen.

I've visited the website and watched the trailers. There's one clip from an anti-ID interview, but it's very short, basically saying that ID can't be considered science. Probably if it were a longer clip, the point would be clearer, but -- hey -- it's the trailer, after all.

So, we'll see.

-- Mario

Other Comments by jagmarz

22. Comment #65177 by j.mills on August 23, 2007 at 5:08 am

 avatarAdrian quotes from the film-makers' website:

'Your students are being bombarded with such propaganda throughout their education; despite the fact that MOST Americans do NOT believe we're the result of "random chance".'

What most Americans believe, this is the criteria upon which science is made?! Sheesh! In that case there are definitely aliens and angels visiting Earth and we should all re-institute the death penalty.

(And it's not as if EVOLUTIONISTS believe we are the result of "random chance"! Bah!)

Other Comments by j.mills

23. Comment #65189 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 5:45 am

 avatarOn the subject of movies?

I just found a link to a movie:-
"The God who wasn't there"

http://www.thegodmovie.com/

The trailer is here:-
http://www.thegodmovie.com/clips/Trailer.mp4

The trailer looks good, but has anyone seen or heard of it?

Cheers

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

24. Comment #65192 by J.C. Samuelson on August 23, 2007 at 5:54 am

 avatarLee,

The God Who Wasn't There - Seen it, own it, would watch it again, and highly recommend it. A local freethinkers group is also screening it coming up soon too.

Though it's a bit on the short side, this is to be expected. There's no way to address everything comprehensively in a film of reasonable length. Still, they did an admirable job, I think.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

25. Comment #65193 by epeeist on August 23, 2007 at 5:55 am

 avatarComment #65118 by jagmarz

Also, heads up: folks, make a personal recording of your interviews for just such situations. How interesting it might be to present a comparison of "what I said" vs "what they included".

If you watch any televised interview with the British (ex-) politician Tony Benn you will note that he always uses a Dictaphone.

Other Comments by epeeist

26. Comment #65196 by nancy2001 on August 23, 2007 at 6:12 am

The politico-religious right wing in the U.S. has a long history of using dirty tricks against its opponents. No one motivated enough to film a documentary about evolution vs. creationsm could possibly feel neutral about the topic in 2007. Mathis's strangely noncommital letter and "the perfectly reasonable blurb" on the Rampart Films website should have raised PZ's suspicions immediately.

Other Comments by nancy2001

27. Comment #65201 by Peacebeuponme on August 23, 2007 at 6:48 am

Have you read the blog?

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/

He actually starts it with "I'm Ben Stein - many of you know me"

Troy Maclure will be smiling down from heaven.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

28. Comment #65202 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 6:53 am

 avatarOil companies and related industries use the "academic freedom" meme a lot in their disinformation campaigns re: global warming. I wouldn't be suprised to see moments of common cause between oil related interests and the ID crowd.

Ignorance is strength.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
God is love.

Always record interviews with journalists or media. Always. You can't trust any of these characters.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

29. Comment #65204 by Adrian on August 23, 2007 at 7:01 am

The problem bamboospitfire, is not the quote - which of course is entirely accurate - it's the treatment they give it: Your students are being bombarded with such propaganda... and so on. As if a) they are being bombarded and, b) implying it's a lie and just propaganda.

Looking at the site, it seems to me that, having failed at trying to introduce ID from top down, through school governors and other legislators, with the Dover result, they are now trying to introduce it from bottome up, through students.

This film seems to be a propaganda process at trying to get as many student voices as possible to rise up and shout out loud, "We want the truth and you are preventing us from obtaining it..." and so on. Read this from their site:

It's critical that we take a stand to fight for the truth. In EXPELLED Ben questions why all the Neo-Darwinists are so nervous right now. What are they so afraid of? That's what I'd like to know, too. What are they hiding?

Wherever you are on the spectrum of belief, it's critical that all students have as much information as possible in order to make the most informed decisions they can. This fight is about making sure we all have access to the truth.


So beware, they are NOT arguing ID but emphasising a search for "truth" (as they call) and saying scientist are part of a conspiracy in preventing that search. That's the battle they are introducing and ID - like a battle commander - sits on the hill and waits for the weaknesses to be exposed before sneaking down and claiming a victory.

That's why we need to be serious about this. It's a deliberate, alternate strategy that might work unless we are on our toes, Mr Myers et al.

Other Comments by Adrian

30. Comment #65205 by mcadamsdj on August 23, 2007 at 7:08 am

 avatarWow, I just lost all respect for Ben Stein...I mean, he is actually a brilliant guy when you get past the B-list acting, eye-drop commercials, etc. His knowledge of economics and investing is amazing. But this is just pathetic.

Other Comments by mcadamsdj

31. Comment #65206 by Alter_GX on August 23, 2007 at 7:27 am

 avatarI like this from their website

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-22-2007/0004649742&EDATE=

"The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don't resort to
manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the 'shock
effect,' something that has become common in documentary film these days,"
said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-Executive Producer.


Oops.

Other Comments by Alter_GX

32. Comment #65218 by a-teapot-ist on August 23, 2007 at 7:57 am

I declare, fraud, fraud, just like god! I'd like to clip that flick up, and insert the scene where the "Great and Wonderful Oz" is revealed at strategic points. Then have George Carlin's rant about god play during the credits. What's most annoying is that it'll get the same audience that made box office history for "The Passion", thereby lending the illusion of seeming validity to its message. Must we fight a new dark age into the new millenium?!?

Other Comments by a-teapot-ist

33. Comment #65227 by plastictowel on August 23, 2007 at 8:43 am

 avatarhttp://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comments

If you want comment back against ben!

Other Comments by plastictowel

34. Comment #65229 by Elli on August 23, 2007 at 8:45 am

 avatarBueller?...Bueller?...Bueller?...

Other Comments by Elli

35. Comment #65241 by RHMC on August 23, 2007 at 10:12 am

I wouldn't be surprised if this movie is the only scientific information the faithful will take in for the year.

How sad that it will convince them that what they previously thought was in fact true.

Other Comments by RHMC

36. Comment #65251 by RHMC on August 23, 2007 at 10:47 am

My post to the Expelled blog is awaiting moderation. Can't wait to see if it is approved.

Here it is:

In a letter to biologist PZ Myers;

"Hello Mr. Myers,

My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, "Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion."

At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of our equipment.

We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.

Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time.

I look forward to speaking with you soon.

Sincerely,

Mark Mathis
Rampant Films
4414 Woodman Ave. #203
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
www.rampantfilms.com"

There is a site setup describing this movie. Only problem is the associate producer uses the interview in a different science/religion movie…Expelled!

Why did Mathis lie about his intentions, the name of the movie, and the underlying concept when requesting an interview with PZ Myers?

I would say lying about your intentions is EXACTLY the kind of tactic I would expect from the faithful.

Not very godlike was it? But it is what we've come to expect from religious types.

Seems Stein has found a new way to bilk the ignorant.

Other Comments by RHMC

37. Comment #65253 by maton100 on August 23, 2007 at 10:52 am

 avatarWe took care of Mr. Stein yesterday:

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

38. Comment #65258 by Tumara Baap on August 23, 2007 at 11:24 am

ID is not remotely about science and reason. It's about a propaganda war masquerading as a scientific controversy. Their victory in this case is clear. They have duped atheist scientists into the exchange. This is invaluable with the American public. The public will reflexively recoil against the godless. What frustrated them all along was to be put into the fighting pen alongside pious scientists like Ken Miller of Brown University. They must be smiling ear to ear with this one under their belt.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

39. Comment #65268 by The Smart Patrol on August 23, 2007 at 12:09 pm

 avatarStill, $1200 for a couple of hours work can't be that shabby. Good work if you can get it!

Other Comments by The Smart Patrol

40. Comment #65271 by foolfodder on August 23, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Can anyone afford to fund a FSM version of this?

Other Comments by foolfodder

42. Comment #65309 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 2:41 pm

 avatarRights to intellectual property get bought and sold all the time. Maybe the interview was legit initially and only later someone saw the chance to sell the material to another production with a different agenda.

Having the same ass-prod in both productions does raise an eyebrow.

I wonder if PZ signed away control over subsequent use of his interview. That ought to be worth more that $1200, considering.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

43. Comment #65311 by troodon on August 23, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Does this movie signal a shift of strategy for the ID movement? After the Dover trial, especially Barbara Forrest's testimony, they lost all credibility in trying to pretend that ID was not religion. Then they came up with the "teach the controversy" strategy.

Now their argument seems to be that the Big Science bullies are suppressing the groundbreaking discoveries of a few maverick, rebel scientists. They don't seem to care so much anymore about trying to hide god behind the bacteria flagellum, but instead are playing the underdog role squealing out that "it's just not fair, they're suppressing evidence of god!".

Their choice of interviewees - RD, PZ and Eugenie Scott - suggests that they are attempting to divide and conquer the opposition. Eugenie has been trying to maintain support from moderate christians, frequently speaking out that there is no conflict between religion and evolution. Richard, of course, disagrees with that view as PZ likely does as well. With the movie they will probably try to highlight this disagreement and present Big Science as being the meanie, using evolution to force god out of public life.

One has to suspect that they are trying to drum up public support for the anti-evolution candidates leading up to the 2008 election. If one of these candidates wins the presidency, it could possibly lead to the end of church-state separation. The Wedge document makes it clear that this is their goal.

Other Comments by troodon

44. Comment #65318 by Lucas_the_heretic on August 23, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Dear Mr Myers.

I feel that you have gone too far and am outraged. Terming Ben Stein a "second-tier character actor" gives Ben Stein far too much credit; he is actually third-rate or worse. Please recant this egregious mis-statement at the earliest opportunity.

Oh the depths creationists will stoop to. I wonder if Mr. Myers has considered filing suit against these filmmakers. I know I would.

Other Comments by Lucas_the_heretic

45. Comment #65335 by pdiff on August 23, 2007 at 4:54 pm

 avatarThe writers include Kevin Miller, a well known right wing talk show personality. So this is no surprise an it is pretty obvious this is a new tact by the ID crowd to push their agenda.

On the other hand, a law suit by Dawkins or Myers is probably a desirable outcome on their part. It may have even been an objective for making such a film. Foisting their opponents into the public sphere with a negative light as the attackers and nay sayers will appear to support the premise of the movie and allow them to immediately claim " See, see. It's true. The academics are trying to censor us!" It plays directly into their hands. The best strategy is to let this farce launch, and promptly sink as it inevitably will (can you actually remember the last Ben Stein movie? :-)

On the other other hand, at least the right wing nuts can't continue to brand Hollywood as that evil liberal satan. They'll be part of that crowd now too :-)

Pdiff

Other Comments by pdiff

46. Comment #65337 by Veronique on August 23, 2007 at 5:12 pm

 avatarHas it struck anyone that Mathis and Durkin have similar modus operandi? I believe the Great Global Warming Swindle is now facing at least a couple of lawsuits. Someone can disabuse me.

Are the scientists beginning to be picked off, not quite systematically? Are the conservative religious lot and the carbon-based fuel corporations hand-in-glove with each other to further present selected interview data, quotes and old, now disproved, scientific results in an attempt to subvert their power bases to a more quiescent and self-serving state?

Is that form of discrediting or seeming co-opting of proper scientists, who are publishing authors, now using the law rather than superstitious belief structures to denigrate those scientists' well considered comments?

I hope this sort of thing isn't a pattern forming. Are they going to start a legal terrorising of people whose comments, reviews and op-eds they don't like? Who's next?

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

47. Comment #65372 by z8000783 on August 24, 2007 at 12:13 am

I had a great deal of respect for PZ Myers before I saw this.

It completely baffles me how an atheist can have any sort of desire for green M&Ms let alone a bowel full.

He will need to do a fair bit of work to build trust with me again but buying, eating and liking Peanut M&Ms would be a start.

John

Other Comments by z8000783

48. Comment #65411 by CJ22 on August 24, 2007 at 5:34 am

 avatar"a bowel full"?

Other Comments by CJ22

49. Comment #65423 by z8000783 on August 24, 2007 at 6:12 am

LOL

A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.

John

Other Comments by z8000783

50. Comment #65430 by Ian on August 24, 2007 at 6:38 am

It amazes me how these people can believe they are righteous when they are not even honest.

Fighting fund, professor Myers, fighting fund.

Other Comments by Ian
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE