Friday, March 21, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

by Chris Hewitt, TwinCities.com

Thanks to Glen Davidson for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_8653837?nclick_check=1

A list of all blogs writing about this:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/pz_myers_expelled_gains_sainth.php

It's almost too perfect: P.Z. Myers tried to see the movie, "Expelled," at the Mall of America Thursday.

But he was expelled.

"Expelled," subtitled "No Intelligence Allowed," is the controversial film that argues schools should be teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution. Myers, an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota-Morris — and, more to the point, a prominent atheist — was interviewed for "Expelled" last April, although he says he was told the film was an evenhanded look at the intersection of science and religion and was to be called "Crossroads."

Myers was in the Twin Cities this week for the American Atheists Conference 2008 in Minneapolis and, coincidentally, he learned there was to be a free screening of "Expelled" at the Mall of America Thursday night. So he registered to attend with his wife, Mary, along with what Myers called "a whole parade of atheists," including internationally famous science writer, Richard Dawkins, whose books include "The God Delusion."

They all got in, but Myers did not.

"The filmmakers had been advertising it. They'd been sending out e-mails to people who subscribed to their Web site and all you had to do to go was click on the site and tell how many guests you were going to bring," said Myers, who did just that. "I wanted to be completely above-board. I signed under my own name and I didn't think they would object because, after all, I am in the movie."

At about 7:15 p.m., 15 minutes before showtime, Myers was informed that "Expelled" was expelling him. Myers believes Mark Mathis, who interviewed him for the film "under false pretenses," and who was in attendance at the Mall of America, recognized his name and barred him from attending (attendees had to show identification before being admitted).
"It shows off the hypocrisy of these people, as well as their outright incompetence," said Myers, who reports that his blog — www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ — had an all-time high-traffic day Friday. "I could not imagine a better result for this. They've shown themselves to be completely dishonest and that they're trying to hide the truth about their movie, which is to my advantage. And they've shown themselves to be such flaming idiots."

Ironically, Mathis did not recognize Dawkins, who also is in the film and who says Mathis "tricked" him into an interview.

"What surprised me is it is a really lousy film, even if you happen to agree with it," said Dawkins, who took advantage of a question-and-answer session after the screening to ask why Myers wasn't allowed in. "P.Z. is in the film extensively. If anyone had a right to see the film, it was him. The incompetence, on a public relations level, is beyond belief."

Although he hasn't seen the movie, Myers said his wife confirmed what he has heard about it: "She said they would have a biologist talking about evolution and they would intercut that with lots of shots of the Nazi Holocaust, so it's a blatant appeal to emotions. It's propaganda, and it's trying to associate us with acts that, obviously, neither Richard Dawkins nor I would call good or would associate with science."

Representatives of Motive Marketing, a specialist in marketing such faith-based films as "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Chronicles of Narnia," did not return phone calls about Myer's claims and about his barring from the film (they had previously attempted to bar Orlando film critic Roger Moore from a screening, but he got in, anyway). In any case, Myers will probably have to wait to see himself on-screen until the movie opens April 18, nationwide.

In the meantime, Myers is entertained by this irony: "Expelled's" closing credits include a thank-you to him. So he knows the filmmakers are grateful for the couple of hours he gave them last year. Just not grateful enough to let him see their movie.

Chris Hewitt can be reached at chewitt@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5552.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, March 21, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 58 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #147924 by Ian Bamlett on March 21, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Priceless!

It has altogether been a good day following this story on various blogs and websites.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

2. Comment #147939 by Luis_Cayetano on March 21, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Thank you, creationists, for such fine work on behalf of evolution.

Other Comments by Luis_Cayetano

3. Comment #147944 by The Truth, the light on March 21, 2008 at 4:20 pm

I really think this film should go by its subtitle of "No Intelligence Allowed". It sums up the film beautifully in just three words.

Other Comments by The Truth, the light

4. Comment #147947 by kram50 on March 21, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Mathis,...dishonest, flaming idiot, coward. Just another example of the fools desperate attempt at damage control. Somehow you just get the feeling that these creationist fools are going to lose all control of their frontal lobes and shoot themselves in the foot for the last time! Oh, but gawd will be there to save the day!!! Isn't there a pill that they can take.

Other Comments by kram50

5. Comment #147952 by TruthByEvidence on March 21, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Once more, showing the silliness of the propaganda the people behind it.

Dishonestly established interviews and unkind alleged ties to factual information that does not promote the violence that has previously incurred.

Hitler, the Roman Catholic...using the societally established terminology 'Darwinism' does not make science responsible for those events.

I didn't see Paul McCartney arrested for writing 'Helter Skelter' which allegedly inspired the greatly disturbed Charles Manson...

The parallels are silly! Just hearing about this nonsense makes me want to do something about it! There needs to be more emphasis on a banding of rational, capable atheists that can help prevent this ridicule and contempt.

P.S.

Ben Stein as a narrator... is that supposed to be a joke? I don't know about you, but his voice is not stimulating, nor are his ideas in this film very worthy of attention.

Other Comments by TruthByEvidence

6. Comment #147956 by Kubenzi on March 21, 2008 at 4:39 pm

"Dishonestly established interviews"

i think they got the idea from Borat.ironic because i believe atheism is about to have a sexy time with these fools

Other Comments by Kubenzi

7. Comment #147960 by Gymnopedie on March 21, 2008 at 4:43 pm

The irony is divine.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

8. Comment #147962 by Partisan on March 21, 2008 at 4:49 pm

An intellectual and PR debacle: seeing these Creationists in action is like watching someone eat their own head. It seems impossible but, here we are.

Other Comments by Partisan

9. Comment #147976 by PJG on March 21, 2008 at 5:29 pm

It IS laughable, and probably good as an expose of the hypocrisy and dishonesty (and fear!) of the whole creationist movement.

However, I wonder if the positive (to us!) influence of this ironic situation will be as great as the negative influence of the film itself on an ignorant, and largely atheist-hating, public ?

Other Comments by PJG

10. Comment #147979 by Lagomort on March 21, 2008 at 5:41 pm

My belief is that they knew they were letting in Richard Dawkins, and had no doubt he would stand-up and question what they did to Myers. I believe it was a set-up and they had some set attacks against Dawkins ready.

The problem is, Dawkins does not, no matter how many seem to adore him, think quickly on his feet. He simply sucks at debating creationists. Does he write well? Yes, he certainly does, but debating and writing are far from one and the same.

They did not allow PZ in simply because PZ has shown himself to be able to be well prepared and think extremely fast on his feet. I believe they knew PZ could talk circles around them based on a recent interview/debate on a certain Christian talk show, and they knew they could not respond to him well-enough to keep the crowd on their side. Again, in the recent debates, PZ has shown the ability to win over the other side which frightened the producers.

In the end, I believe PZ and Dawkins are still thinking this is a fair debate waiting to happen, and it is not, and has never been so. Dawkins is polite and easy to deal with when you are a complete snake, but the fact is, PZ is a mongoose.

Rikki Tikki Tavi lives...

Other Comments by Lagomort

11. Comment #147990 by dragonfirematrix on March 21, 2008 at 6:10 pm

I wonder how embarrassed the movie management will be when they find this spreading all over the internet :) Maybe even some of it with audio/video taken by hidden camcorders...who knows...could be...

We need to start a whole new Internet world for the religious, and lets call it U-Bube.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

12. Comment #147992 by CanadAdam on March 21, 2008 at 6:16 pm

If anyone is interested, here is a short clip of Expelled on youtube. Interviews are shown with Myers and Dawkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX2HORTRm4I

Other Comments by CanadAdam

13. Comment #148002 by agg on March 21, 2008 at 6:54 pm

The story even got to the New York Times (registration required):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html

I did not know Richard's first name was Clinton. May be this is how they missed him.

Other Comments by agg

14. Comment #148005 by Arturo on March 21, 2008 at 7:00 pm

This is beyond hilarious, expelled from a movie whining about being expelled themselves... oh the irony!

Other Comments by Arturo

15. Comment #148007 by chuckgoecke on March 21, 2008 at 7:11 pm

I went to the original article at twincities.com, link above, and just for fun, read some of the comments there about the original article. I was expecting some fun, and a lively discourse. I am sick to my stomach. This was my home state, and the number of utter idiots, with absolutely nothing to add to the discussion, was just appalling. There were a few good commnets, even a few from the wrong side, but ... it just hurt my brain. Interestingly, the behavior of PZ, when confronted by the officer and theater management, were independently described by two fellow attendies, and he was of course, very well behaved. Their comments about the chilling effects of having an officer patrolling about were equally priceless. I haven't read PZ's account yet, I'm heading that way next.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

16. Comment #148032 by RationalistHomeTchr on March 21, 2008 at 9:19 pm

I disagree with Lagomort (#147879, above); I think that Professor Dawkins usually thinks very well "on his feet." Of course, he sometimes makes missteps, I suppose - like the rest of us, he's not perfect - but in the radio interviews and debates I've heard, he is usually polite AND funny AND intelligent AND in-your-face, all at the same time.

Other Comments by RationalistHomeTchr

17. Comment #148061 by Mitchell Gilks on March 21, 2008 at 11:35 pm

This was also linked from the first thread, so I read it. I'm happy that this is stirring up such a shit storm.

Hopefully the IDiots get caught in a flood and drown.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

18. Comment #148065 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 12:17 am

"I disagree with Lagomort (#147879, above); I think that Professor Dawkins usually thinks very well "on his feet." Of course, he sometimes makes missteps, I suppose - like the rest of us, he's not perfect - but in the radio interviews and debates I've heard, he is usually polite AND funny AND intelligent AND in-your-face, all at the same time. "

Fine to disagree. Now back what you said by giving me a link to one of those debates he had with a creationists in-which he acts in the manner you suggest. I mean a real creationist, not just someone defending the existence of God or not.

Other Comments by Lagomort

19. Comment #148125 by Galactor on March 22, 2008 at 6:42 am

In reponse to comments 147979 and 148065 by Lagomort. You state that Dawkins performs poorly when debating creationists and you then demand of someone who disagrees that they provide evidence of how well Dawkins performs. I think the onus is on you to provide evidence as you make the original claim, particularly given the fact that it is well publicized (see A Devils Chaplain) that Dawkins attempted a long time ago to propose with S. J. Gould that all serious scientists avoid public debates with creationists in order that they might prevent providing credibility where none is merited. I am under the impression that this is why Dawkins does not enter into debates with creationists and that the volume of such recorded debates must be very small indeed. Perhaps you know otherwise and I for one would be extremely fascinated to hear a debate of Dawkins and a creationist.

I trust you are not referring in your original post to the widely viewed creationist interview where Dawkins is made to look unable in answering a creationist question regarding information increase in phenotypes.

Other Comments by Galactor

20. Comment #148226 by Duff on March 22, 2008 at 11:51 am

Lagomort,
Dawkins response to a questioner, at I think Bob Jones University, who asked " what if you're wrong?" is one of the more brilliant responses I've ever seen. If I'm not mistaken it is somewhere in the archives on this site and surely on UTube.

Other Comments by Duff

21. Comment #148234 by Jiten on March 22, 2008 at 12:13 pm

They should change the subtitle to No Inteligence At All. !!

Other Comments by Jiten

22. Comment #148238 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 12:36 pm

"I trust you are not referring in your original post to the widely viewed creationist interview where Dawkins is made to look unable in answering a creationist question regarding information increase in phenotypes. "

No, I am not referring to such. The fact is Dawkins is not prepared for such debates while people like PZ Myers are prepared. PZ knows the type of crap used and is willing to fight the BS spewed by these people.

In other words, of course they knew Dawkins was in the crowd and they planned for that if it happened. They knew Dawkins would be polite and follow a civil style debate. It is as if they were street fighters and they stepped into the ring with a guy who uses the Queensbury Rules. Dawkins put up his dukes and they kicked him in the balls, but they made sure to get the ultimate street fighter out of the ring first.

Try thinking of it this way. In Darwin's day, Darwin was not one for public debate. Did he have great ideas? Did he write them out well? Of course he did or we would not be here discussing things in the same manner in which we are. Huxley, on the other hand, saw that public debate was an animal separate from simple science writing. He knew that techniques were required that are separate from simple expression of ideas. He knew debates were fights.

Simply put, Dawkins is not prepared for such debates with creationists, and, unless he decides to get prepared for such debates, he should avoid them at all cost.

Other Comments by Lagomort

23. Comment #148244 by Galactor on March 22, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Lagomort, I find it difficult to agree with you that the whole escapade was stage-managed. The producer, Mathis, has come away looking like a complete idiot and he has to answer to charges of lying (he claims he knew it was Dawkins) or being extremely discourteous by not approaching Dawkins and at least welcoming him; Mathis claims Dawkins must have travelled the Atlantic to appear at the screening; what would you do if you saw one of the main protagonists of the "debate" who is someone you had interviewed personally, i.e., you'd previously met and you assumed that they'd travelled three thousand miles to be at your film? You'd at least say "hello" wouldn't you? I find it hard in the very least to reconcile this with Mathis's claims.

As regards your remarks concerning Dawkins's debating skills with creationists, I think you have a point as regards style but your original comments give an impression that Dawkins regularly takes on creationists in debate and should avoid doing so.

Other Comments by Galactor

24. Comment #148268 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Of course they recognized him. I have seen the pics from the event and he would have stood out to anyone that knew him. Of course the producers knew it was him as they have him in the damn film. Mathis had probably already realized long before this event that Dawkins was easy to handle based on his demeanor but PZ was not. He probably also knew he could play the situation to his advantage with the crowd, and did so, but only after removing PZ.

And yes, I have heard tonnes of interviews with Dawkins, and the way he handles phone calls from creationists is simply to go tell them to read a book, or go to a library. Yah know how "not well" that works here in the states? It simply makes Dawkins look elitist and in the US, the elitist label is about equal to the "liberal" label.

Another example is when he talks to people like Ted Haggard. Ted would would have been easy to shoot down simply by turning and asking him details about the science and why they do not point towards evolution, instead Dawkins response to Haggard's statements were, Want to make a bet?" and other such non-helpful remarks.

Again, as I said above, Dawkins never uses the debate techniques required to show creationists for what they are. He simply takes a position of authority, which may work for him in some venues, but does not work in the US whatsoever.

Other Comments by Lagomort

25. Comment #148275 by Galactor on March 22, 2008 at 2:15 pm

"Of course they recognised him." What is the rationale behind your statement? It can't be based upon your having seen pictures! How do you reconcile the points I have made in the previous post? Has Mathis been (deliberately) discourteous or is he lying and which is plausible? Has Mathis grossly underestimated the effect of not publicly recognising Dawkins prior to his admittance to the screening or do you feel he has made a coup? Mathis is looking like a fool in the blog community - he can't possibly have wanted the reaction he has earned and surely no-one with a shred of decency would ignore a man like Dawkins whom Mathis knows personally. Forget the pictures you have seen unless they show Dawkins standing next to Mathis telling him he doesn't know his arse from his Tiktalik. Evaluate the plausibility of how Mathis has behaved and what he belatedly stated and the effect he has caused. Your conclusion makes no sense to me.

The examples you provide aren't really debates - they are radio programmes where Dawkins doesn't know who will call and the other is an interview with a preacher where presumably the subject was to be religion and not evolution/creationism. These aren't exchanges along the lines of Myers-Simmons. Haggard, if I remember correctly, was the one who brought up how some scientists believed the eye could have merely appeared without evolving. Dawkins was trying to discuss the fervent nature of the congregation. Preparation for this hardly seems possible. I can imagine that Dawkins is perceived in many ways but I am not sure that the original statements you made about how Dawkins should avoid debates with creationists are really applicable.

Other Comments by Galactor

26. Comment #148287 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 2:49 pm

The screw-up would be the same for Mathis if he had thrown-out just PZ or PZ and Dawkins. The irony does not last long based on one not recognizing Dawkins. The true irony is expelling people from a movie based on claims these same people are expelling people based on their beliefs from academia. This irony remains the same for Mathis no matter what he does, and we know he did it. If he had not recognized Dawkins, there is no good evidence that worked against him that night, as he easily made Dawkins look the fool in front of the crowd he had. I am asking, do you really think he did not know he was going to be able to do this?

One then must ask why would he do such a thing? Well, we know PZ is a street fighter and we have seen evidence that Mathis is afraid of him. We have seen nothing of the kind when it comes to Dawkins.

Now, as so many in here have stated, Dawkins is far more recognizable a figure by everyone's standard. That is why it seem so ridiculous to everyone that Dawkins got in while PZ did not. The claim is that they "threw-out the demon only to let Satan in." In reality, they knew who was the lion here based on personal experience and observation, and planned accordingly. They set Dawkin's up to look foolish in front of the crowd, and the sooner everyone grasps their tactics the better off they will be.

Stop being fooled by these people. I mean really now, haven't you people ever dealt with creationists before? Setting up the playing field in you favor is rule number one for creationists. Learn that, and learn it fast!

Other Comments by Lagomort

27. Comment #148323 by righton on March 22, 2008 at 4:18 pm

"They set Dawkin's up to look foolish in front of the crowd"

Can someone please tell me how Dawkins looked like a fool? I think I missed something.

Other Comments by righton

28. Comment #148326 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 4:27 pm

""They set Dawkin's up to look foolish in front of the crowd"

Can someone please tell me how Dawkins looked like a fool? I think I missed something. "

Dawkins was laughed at by the crowd as Mathis played to the prejudices of the crowd. This has been stated by reliable people discussing the events. They knew it was because the crowd were mostly uneducated backwards religious morons, but THAT DOES NOT CHANGE A THING. The fact was Mathis knew how to play to the crowd and Dawkins was not prepared to fight back in this manner, or refused to. PZ would have fought back and it is well established that Mathis knew this. This is why he would have removed PZ but would have allowed Dawkins in as a sacrificial lamb to make Mathis look good.

Please people...learn to know the freakin' enemy. We should not be so damn green, as we have been here before many times in different ways. Stop acting as if the tactics are different for this "movie"

Other Comments by Lagomort

29. Comment #148329 by righton on March 22, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Laughed at about what? What was said?

Im just curious im not trying to disprove your conspiracy theory.

Other Comments by righton

30. Comment #148330 by Partisan on March 22, 2008 at 4:43 pm

I think you're giving them too much credit Lagomort - in my opinion they actually are as stupid as they look. Besides, given the massive amount of negative press this event's given them, isn't it more to our credit if they tried to stage it? It's either a fail or an epic fail, depending on how you look at it.

Maybe the Hitch should have been released on the premiere, then there would have been some noise in the back row =]

Other Comments by Partisan

31. Comment #148336 by Dr Benway on March 22, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Never attribute to malice what incompetence can explain.

From the account PZ gave, the entry list had "PZ Myers & x guests" on it. The daughter, wife, daughter's boyfriend, Josh, RD, etc., weren't listed.

So someone scanned the list, saw his name, and asked a guard to kick him out.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

32. Comment #148347 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm

All people had to show ID at the door, and PZ was standing beside what we have all agreed to is one of the most recognizable figures in the debates.

They also did not yell out, "Is a PZ Myers here?" the guards went directly to him. This is because he was recognized by site, not computer, and again, Dawkins was standing right next to him.

Mathis has also used this issue to explain how Dawkins "melted" right in front of him. He used this to promote the idea that when confronted, these people just "melt" away. THIS WAS THE SPIN HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO GO FOR.

He simply knew that PZ would not use the Queensbury Rules and that Dawkins would. He knew it would be easy to take someone down that tried to follow polite rules. He knew he could predict Dawkins comments based on this and have a series of set responses. This would not work for PZ as he thinks too damn fast on his feet and is willing to kick one in the groin as well as the head if he sees fit to do so.

Please people, learn who you are dealing with. If you keep thinking they are not using these tactics, you are going to be tricked over, and over again.

Other Comments by Lagomort

33. Comment #148392 by Richard Morgan on March 22, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Excuse me for interrupting this thread.

MUSIC UPDATE

For PZMyers : "EXPELLED : another hole in the sock."

The Myspace dedicated player :

1. We saw the comet.
In "Climbing Mount Improbable", Richard Dawkins mentioned taking his baby daughter out one night to see a comet. He explained that she was probably too young to know what was going on, but since she would live to see it again (and he would not) he wanted her to be able to say, later in her life, that she'd seen it twice. I was very touched by this idea, and so composed this piece of music for Richard and his daughter.

2. Paula Kirby : TNT Truth, not Tales.
Well, it all started with Paula KIRBY, didn't it, this "Fleabytes" business!
3. MPhil : Emfill Rox!
An amazing young philosophical mind. (I asked my son Anthony to compose this piece, being a little unwell myself at the time.)
4. Past Fleas.
RD asked this question :

What would music inspired by the fleas sound like?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2303,Add-another-flea-to-the-list,RichardDawkinsnet

Something to make them seem ridiculous, pathetic, desperate?

This composition is my answer.

5. Cartomancer : Gunshots and a Wobbly.

I'm chronically tone-deaf to the point where I didn't know what all the fuss was about when Jemini were the UK entry to the Eurovision Song Contest. My beloved teases me mercilessly about it. I tried to come up with some praise beyond "That sounds nice", or "I liked the wobbly bit with all those notes in it" but my abilities fail me utterly when it comes to describing my appreciation of music..

But Cartomancer is one of our most remarkable contributors, and deserved an, er, shall we say, appropriate musical portrait, with recognisable sounds.

6. Steve Zara : Simply SteveZ.
Enough said. Steve has a fine mind, and is totally lovable.

Standalone player (right column)
1. EXPELLED, another hole in the sock.
For PZ Myers
2. Sock on the Stair Reel : Bullshit!
3. Past Fleas.
4. Fleabytes : a thredley.
This is a medley of themes which expresses my impression of this everlasting thread.
5. Fingerprints, past time. (from The Lava Lizard's Tale.) (Voice : Richard Dawkins)
6. Broken Rings (from The Salamander's Tale) (Voice : Lalla Ward)
7. DIACANU.
(Mike told me himself that he felt that this portrait was pretty accurate. If you don't believe, read his comments!)
8. Bryan English : Bryan of OZ.
One of Australia's finest rock musicians.
9. Hitchindebate.
I composed a spontaneous impression of Christopher Hitches in debate with, well, just about anybody really.
10. The Quote Miner's lament.
11. Weeflea's always right.
Guess who this is?
12. Call me "Richard".
And guess who this is?

Standalone player (left column)
Sound track : Fingerprints, past time. (without the voice)

http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

34. Comment #148394 by Dr Benway on March 22, 2008 at 9:39 pm

Ok Lagomort, I've tried to imagine myself in the producer's shoes. From that vantage point, I'm confident that I would be aware of the atheist conference in town, of Dawkins, and of PZ. That seems a pretty minimal level of homework anyone would do.

As the producer of a mediocre flick, I believe I also would want a public confrontation with The Enemy, in order to create a buzz and drum up interest.

I can see how booting PZ might seem like a good idea. I'd feel more in control of the situation without him there. And I'd probably feel I could handle Dawkins simply by modulationg my own approach toward him. Dawkins isn't the sort to go out of his way to fuck with people. On top of that, he's in a foreign country facing too many unknowns for any serious fuckery.

So your hypothesis seems reasonable.

Still, these guys do seem a bit dim. So I can't rule out incompetence.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

35. Comment #148397 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 10:31 pm

"Still, these guys do seem a bit dim. So I can't rule out incompetence. "

There is no way for me to rule it out either, but, in the situation we are all in here, with the tactics they have already shown ready to use, we must consider these possibilities at all times if we are not to fall prey to their shenanigans.

Other Comments by Lagomort

36. Comment #148401 by Dr Benway on March 22, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Lotta drug/alcohol abuse among those Hollywood guys.

Note that the Expelled crew ran the movie from a friggin' laptop.

Mebbe the producer was up all night with Windows Movie Maker trying to take some of the shit outta teh thing. So no have time for de master plan to pwnz teh worldz.

Of course we shouldn't feel over confident.

I'm just sayin'...

Other Comments by Dr Benway

37. Comment #148457 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 23, 2008 at 6:10 am

"If anyone had a right to see the film, it was him. The incompetence, on a public relations level, is beyond belief."

HA HA HA! Truth in irony...

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

38. Comment #148657 by righton on March 23, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Thanks Beth!!!

Very entertaining review of the events. I cant even imagine how exciting that would have been to see Dawkins stand up and ask that question. Awesome!

Other Comments by righton

39. Comment #148658 by AllanW on March 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm

A really useful and interesting eye witness account, Beth. Thanks a lot.

Other Comments by AllanW

40. Comment #148662 by righton on March 23, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Lagamort,

I think you are half right.

Saying that Dawkins is not a good debater and cant think on his feet is wrong. This is a subject he has devoted his life to. He does know the ins and outs of every argument and has already heard all the arguments on this topic. Saying that they let him in because he cannot debate this topic seems completely stupid. A QandA session is not even a debate. Do you think mathis would want to debate dawkins? Also this was a fairly small, untelevised event that had a lot of atheists attending. Saying that mathis premeditated these "tactics" for such a small event seems a little conspiracy theory to me. You really think mathis planned to let dawkins in because he KNEW he could make him look stupid.

If you want to say that they let him in because they knew he wouldnt go out of his way to cause problems then thats fine, although given the personal accounts of the event by RD and others, including Beths comment above, this seems highly unlikely.

Other Comments by righton

41. Comment #148672 by Dr Benway on March 23, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Thanks, Beth.

Not everyone in the herd must be vaccinated to prevent an outbreak of disease.

Likewise, probably if a minimum of 25-30% of the population can think critically, we won't lose our democracy. But that 25% has to insert itself into things like the screenings of this nonsense. That 25% has to write letters to the editor. It has to say "bollocks" on the interwebs at the appropriate moments. It has to continuously break the spell of false authority.

If certain corners of our country have grown so dark that the mere juxtaposition of images of Hitler and some scientist can fool people into thinking that the scientist is wrong, we need to know about it so we can send a little light that way.

I used to like Ben Stein the few times I saw him on that game show. He seemed pretty smart. Now I'm suspecting the show was rigged.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

42. Comment #148675 by Geoff on March 23, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Thanks for that, Beth.

Comment ranked "excellent" (and I think I've only done that twice before).

Other Comments by Geoff

43. Comment #148789 by Lagomort on March 23, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Dr Benway said: "I used to like Ben Stein the few times I saw him on that game show. He seemed pretty smart. Now I'm suspecting the show was rigged."

The memorizing of facts is the lowest level of cognitive skill used in the sciences, but often appears to be the sign of brilliance to the uneducated. Stein knows raw facts but shows no signs of critical and objective thinking whatsoever. This level of education, no matter how in depth it gets, is simply parroting, and is not science at all.

Righton said: "Saying that Dawkins is not a good debater and cant think on his feet is wrong. This is a subject he has devoted his life to."

I am very open to being shown I am wrong here. Please give me an example of Dawkins debating a creationist publicly in a successful manner. Just one will do...

Other Comments by Lagomort

44. Comment #148834 by Galactor on March 24, 2008 at 3:02 am

Lagomort, your post #148789 where you ask for an example of debating a creationist in a public manner beggars belief. I have already discussed this with you - Dawkins does not debate creationists and has publicly stated as much and further advises that other respected scientists avoid lending credibility to creationists by debating them. We won't find examples of Dawkins debating creationists whether it meets the standards that you feel are accomplished or not. Once again, I ask you as in my original post, what evidence do you have of Dawkins debating (as opposed to brief verbal interview/radio discussions) creationists whether good, bad or ugly?

Other Comments by Galactor

45. Comment #148839 by Galactor on March 24, 2008 at 3:17 am

Further to the discussion on whether Mathis knew Dawkins was present, I think that for this to be true, Mathis is guilty of being extraordinarily discourteous and rude. To not have at least welcomed Dawkins after having (in Mathis's mind) travelled so far and being a interviewee of the production is a disgrace. Lagomort believes that Mathis planned the expulsion of Myers (whom he presumably could have known was present by the very fact that Myers disclosed his intended presence as a requirement of attendance) and allowed Dawkins to stay (having recognised him - remember that Dawkins' name was not registered as this was not a requirement for guests) with the anticipation that Dawkins could be made to look foolish because his debating style was not up to the task. I do not disagree that Dawkins could be made to look bad in the presence of a weighted and biased crowd by someone as unscrupulous as Mathis and indeed, it would seem to be the case that Dawkins was pilloried and eventually withdrew from further exchange. I do, however, find it incredulous that Mathis, despite being such a bungling and incompetent fool, would elect for such a strategy (expel Myers and admit Dawkins) and not foresee the long term consequences! It's tantamount to taking a pawn and sacrificing your queen. Once again, Mathis appears in the science blogworld as an utter twit. His only gain has been to "humiliate" Dawkins in front of a select group of psycophants. Clearly Mathis is capable of behaving disgracefully. Clearly he can behave stupidly and incompentently and this makes it still harder to believe that he stage-managed Dawkins attendance once he had supposedly seen him in the foyer.

Other Comments by Galactor

46. Comment #148872 by Lagomort on March 24, 2008 at 12:31 pm

""Lagomort, your post #148789 where you ask for an example of debating a creationist in a public manner beggars belief. I have already discussed this with you - Dawkins does not debate creationists and has publicly stated as much and further advises that other respected scientists avoid lending credibility to creationists by debating them. We won't find examples of Dawkins debating creationists whether it meets the standards that you feel are accomplished or not. Once again, I ask you as in my original post, what evidence do you have of Dawkins debating (as opposed to brief verbal interview/radio discussions) creationists whether good, bad or ugly? ""

In other words, there is no evidence of Dawkins knowing how to debate creationists at all, yet the crowd still feels Mathis accidently let in "Satan" after throwing out a minor demon (PZ). As you see from your own statements above, there is no damn evidence for Dawkins knowing how to debate these people. Claims by people that he knows how to do this leaves me asking, "How the hell do you know he knows how to debate them when there is no evidence of it whatsoever?"

There is, however, plenty of video of Dawkins debating and confronting fundamentalists and apologists who are also creationists. He never sways them or counters their debates in any way that would ever cause one of these people to even begin to question their own ideologies when it comes to creationism, despite the fact they often bring the subject up. He, at best, shows their arguments for a god, is circular in nature. This does not have any effect on the creationist debate whatsoever.

In other words, I am sick of people saying how great a swimmer Dawkins is while he walks around the pool dipping his feet in and shaking them off. If you guys want to claim he not only knows how to swim, but is great at it, then show me picks of him at least doing the freakin' backstroke. In short, Dawkins does not know how to confront these people, and anyone who has watched his videos knows that.

Other Comments by Lagomort

47. Comment #148877 by Bonzai on March 24, 2008 at 12:38 pm

So PZ got kicked out of a screening because they thought he was a trouble maker up to no good. It back fired and now they have even a bigger PR problem and try to spin themselves out of it.

That should be the end of the story.

How many threads do we want to make out of this? How many more posts do we want to read about what a dishonest scumbag Mathis is? It is tempest in a teapot, really, maybe involving a couple of bruised egos.

Snap out of it.

Other Comments by Bonzai

48. Comment #148880 by Lagomort on March 24, 2008 at 12:46 pm

"Further to the discussion on whether Mathis knew Dawkins was present, I think that for this to be true, Mathis is guilty of being extraordinarily discourteous and rude."

No shit, really?

Of course he was discourteous and rude, he damn well has already admitted that. How does the fact that he did not let in PZ show he did not realize Dawkins was there? The main "consequence" that Mathis has been dealing with, as you have seen, is not that Dawkins got in, but the fact he explelled someone in the movie from the movie despite the title claiming the reverse behavior. How does letting Dawkins in or not change this?

I will tell you how I believe he thought this would change things. I believe he thought most people think of Dawkins as the far bigger fish. This is agreed upon by most everyone. He could also see that PZ was a freakin brute and would fight tooth and nail, while Dawkins plays by the Queensbury rules most everytime. It is easy to kick the butt of someone who plays fair, and Mathis should know this if he has been paying attention to how Dawkins handles himself.

The next day all Mathis could do was say how Dawkins melted away in front of him, and from what people say that went there, it would have very much appeared this was true to most of the creationist crowd at the film. The idea that a lion got in and poor Mathis was a sheep is ludicris. Dawkins was the sheep in that crowd, and Mathis would have known that. This works in Mathis's favor quite a bit, but the fact he "Expelled" PZ is what is getting the press more than anything. Despite this we know Mathis did in fact expel PZ and no one is doubting it.

In short, you are being played by rather typical creationist tactics, and you are falling for them. It amazes me that so many do not get it. I however have been debating these bastards for over 20 years on and off, and everything I have seen so far is standard creationist tactics.

Other Comments by Lagomort

49. Comment #148886 by righton on March 24, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Lagamort wrote:

"Please give me an example of Dawkins debating a creationist publicly in a successful manner. Just one will do..."

Show me evidence that Mathis let in Dawkins because he knew he could kick his butt, any will do.

This is all just speculation on your part. If thats what you think then fine, thats not what I think. Dont act like its "so obvious" Its actually not obvious if you read the accounts from Beth and from Dawkins himself.

Other Comments by righton

50. Comment #148895 by Lagomort on March 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I have read the accounts and it all seems very obvious..

Next,
"Show me evidence that Mathis let in Dawkins because he knew he could kick his butt, any will do."

Mathis said he knew Dawkins was there. Could he be lying? Of course he could be. Where is the evidence he is?

Did Mathis say he saw PZ? Yep...he did. How could he have not recognized Dawkins if this was the case?

How do we know Mathis saw him, or people in the know saw him? Easy. The guard did not ask, "Is there a PZ Myers here?" but went straight to PZ and told him to leave. There is little reason for the guard to recognize PZ. He would have been pointed out by someone that did know what PZ looked like. How many people know what PZ looks like, but has no clue what Dawkins looks like?

Now, why would he haave let Dawkins in and not PZ? Have you heard PZ debate creationists? It is effin' brutal, and we know Mathis is afraid of him based on his previous actions when dealing with PZ.

On the other hand, everyone that knows Dawkins knows he is not aggressive and brutal like PZ. Dawkins is as Darwin as PZ is to Huxley. It stretches the imagination to imagine that, by this time, that Mathis would not know the huge differences in the Nature of these two, and that it would be in no way beneficial to let PZ in.

On the other hand, creationist tactic number one is to set-up a sheep for the slaughter. Knowing Dawkins does not debate these issues, but only really debates the circular logic used to justify the existence of God, any half-ass creationists could trip him up in front of a creationist friendly crowd. Mathis knew he had all these traits to make Dawkins look silly, and we know he had the crowd laughing at Dawkins. He also talked about Dawkins just "Melting away" the next day. Isn't more logical that he was setting this up as a promo, but the expelling of PZ, due to fear, backfired on him?

Plainly put, if you do not realize that this was a set-up, you are too damn green to deal with these people and come out on top...

Other Comments by Lagomort

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last