Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Discovery News Release on Richard Dawkins Crashing EXPELLED Screening

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS CONTACT: ROBERT CROWTHER
DISCOVERY INSTITUTE
(206) 292-0401 X107
ROB@DISCOVERY.ORG

Richard Dawkins, World’s Most Famous Darwinist, Stoops to Gate-crashing Expelled
by Bruce Chapman, www.evolutionnews.org

Like many films im pre-release, Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is being selectively screened around the country to develop a buzz.

There is a growing fear by the producers that Darwinists may be trying get into the showings to make bootleg copies (for the Web?), possibly in hopes of damaging the commercial value. Others may be crashing because they want to trash it before it even gets reviewed by the media. P.Z. Myers, who was not let into a showing last night in Minnesota, probably falls in the latter category.

Amazingly, the best selling Oxford scientist/author Richard Dawkins also crashed a showing of Expelled in Minnesota last night and he not only was let in, but introduced at the end of the showing.

Dawkins apparently acknowledged that he had not been invited and did not have a ticket. A sophomoric side to his ideological is thus revealed.

Dawkins, understandably is nervous about this film, among other reasons because Ben Stein has him on camera acknowledging that life on Earth may, indeed, have been intelligently designed, but that it had to have been accomplished by space aliens! This is hilarious, of course, because Dawkins is death on intelligent design. But it turns out that that view applies only if it includes the possibility that the designer might be God.

Myers, of course, relished being expelled from Expelled, but objective observers know that Myers is the most vociferous advocate of expelling Darwin critics from academia. Not from movie pre-screenings where he wasn’t invited, mind you, but from their jobs. Too bad the film doesn’t show (and I wish it had), his promotion of advice to attack teachers and professors who dare question Darwin’s theory. The whole point of Myers is that he is a take-no-prisoners, crusading atheist scientist who has made it his purpose in life to harass people who disagree with him. Dawkins turns out to be his buddy and mutual admirer.

Frankly, I wish the producers would have a special pre-release screening for the Darwinists who are interviewed in the film — and invite some of the rest of us who have seen their depredations up close. We’d be glad to debate right there.

Among other things, I’d like to read some of the Darwinists’ statements and charges back to them and ask them to defend themselves. One of the most preposterous is that the well-funded’ Discovery Institute is funding this film! ( 1-They seem to have far more money available to them than we do, and 2-We are saving our pennies for the upcoming Broadway musical comedy, Darwin’s Folly.)

I have to say something else, personally. I have been sandbagged by one TV and documentary crew after another. So have Discovery-affiliated scientists. The interviewers all say they just want to understand the issue. Going in, they are quite clear about definitions, for example, and only start using Darwinist definitions of our positions when they report. They never provide questions in advance and even if they say they will stick to science questions and public policy, almost all sneak in questions about personal religious beliefs. Then, of all the footage, guess what gets on TV or in the documentary?

So it really is pathetic of Dawkins, et al to complain that when they were interviewed for Expelled they didn’t know that the film was inherently unfriendly. These are interviewees who received pre-agreed questions, signed release forms after the interviews were conducted, and actually got paid for their time.

I am getting more excited about Expelled myself and can’t wait to see the finished version. I suspect I’ll wish that the film was twice as long and had twice as much from Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, et al. From what I already have seen, they really expose themselves as the anti-intellectual, bullying poseurs they are — small men who above all are afraid of a fair contest.

###

Comments
Could it be that the name of the film changed from Crossroads to Expelled because of the research and interviews? I would say that is a very reasonable possibility.Joseph
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill has made the accusation of "dishonesty" against the amkers of "Expelled". Has Allen seen "Inherit the Wind"? That's was about as dishonest of a representation as one can get. How about the PBS series "Evolution"? Again about as dishonest as one can get. The only Creationists they put on was a church service. Not one scientist was allowed to speak on Creation. And not one scientists was allowed to speak on ID. To larrynormanfan, What experiments demonstrate that the changes required for universal common descent are even possible? How about that lowly bacterial flagellum- what experiments demonstrate that it can arise via non-telic processes?Joseph
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
scordova @ 126: "I was filmed for the movie as well… The ID side were given the same line that this was for the documentary “Crossroads”. I felt uncomfortable with the way they secured the interviews as it did not seem completely forthright and appeared deceptive." Your statements, scordova, completely annihilate the unfounded assertion that the motives of the producers were propagandistic in nature, and at the same time show that ingenious interview techniques were democratically used to get at the bottom of an emotionally-charged amd polarizing issue. These tactics are similar, I guess, to how researchers use placebo pills. For one thing, the movie is also an examination of the sociological and psychological side to a brewing controversy. It is well known in social science that behavior is best explored when participants are unaware they are being particularly studied.JPCollado
March 24, 2008
March
03
Mar
24
24
2008
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
OK, thanks StephenB. So he didn't use the word "fabricate" (so why did you put it in quotation marks?), and he didn't comment about the stories in Expelled, but rather about the main premise.Bob O'H
March 24, 2008
March
03
Mar
24
24
2008
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
DLH asked (at #105): "The contents of these pages do not necessarily reflect the views of UW-Superior and are not officially endorsed by the university." That's a standard boilerplate disclaimer, commonly used when members of a university faculty have a blog that is not officially sponsored by their department. I have essentially the same kind of disclaimer in the masthead for my blog: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/ It's just smart business practice.Allen_MacNeill
March 24, 2008
March
03
Mar
24
24
2008
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
I don’t have a publicly available quote on hand but I remember hearing via private email exchanges that the ID proponents who were interviewed were similarly not given a full explanation of the producer’s long term intentions. I think Sal Cordova was one of them? So if it’s true that Allen was “misled” or “lied to” then so were the ID proponents being interviewed.
That is correct. I was filmed for the movie as well... The ID side were given the same line that this was for the documentary "Crossroads". I felt uncomfortable with the way they secured the interviews as it did not seem completely forthright and appeared deceptive. Although, at this point, if there is a question of the ethics of how evidence was gathered, it will probably increase the publc interest to see the movie. Have I ever lost interest in a journalistic piece because the journalist lied in order to acquire facts (like Celeste Biever)? I can't recall that I ever had less interest as a result...scordova
March 24, 2008
March
03
Mar
24
24
2008
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
-----Bob O'H: "Where does Allen say this? The only place in this thread I can find “fabricated” is in your post (oh, there’s one more now. :-)). And looking through Allen’s comments, he has almost nothing to say about the contents of the film, and certainly nothing about the stories." Here is what Dr. MacNeill says at #87. "The point I have been trying to make since my very first post is precisely the point that the main premise of the film “Expelled” — that ID supporters/evolution critics are unfairly “expelled” from academic discussions — is, in fact, a deliberate falsification."StephenB
March 24, 2008
March
03
Mar
24
24
2008
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Jack @ 115 - there's nothing for Seelke R* in Web of Science for the last 5 years, so that's a "no". Of course, it could be that he has something submitted but it hasn't been published yet. StephenB @122 -
The fact remains that he has no evidence to support his claim that the stories in the film were “fabricated.”
Where does Allen say this? The only place in this thread I can find "fabricated" is in your post (oh, there's one more now. :-)). And looking through Allen's comments, he has almost nothing to say about the contents of the film, and certainly nothing about the stories.Bob O'H
March 24, 2008
March
03
Mar
24
24
2008
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
Hi Patrick, Here's the first I heard of the movie, and the DI's trepidation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/hollywood_gets_the_message_abo.htmlCharlie
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
-----larrynormanfan: "Here’s a question: does the movie show any people like Allen, or are all the examples of behavior on the other side negative? If the latter, I’d say Allen has a point. He has a tiny point. I think he is about 10% right and about 90% wrong. That’s the way I nuanced it at post number 87. The fact remains that he has no evidence to support his claim that the stories in the film were "fabricated." That is a reckless thing to say.StephenB
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
I don't have a publicly available quote on hand but I remember hearing via private email exchanges that the ID proponents who were interviewed were similarly not given a full explanation of the producer's long term intentions. I think Sal Cordova was one of them? So if it's true that Allen was "misled" or "lied to" then so were the ID proponents being interviewed. If they were "lying" to everyone, does that make it much better? Not really in my opinion (and, yes, I realize that journalists in general often rely on the interviewee not knowing the interview's intentions for the final product). The key question is whether they were honestly considering multiple options at the time. It should be easy enough to ask them whether they ever registered a domain for Crossroads or any other potential title. Also, I remember when news of the film first became public there was a general tone of wariness until it became known whether the movie would be "good". The producers were keeping their cards close to their chests the whole time. Personally, until I see the film I'm withholding judgment but I have told people I know it's "probably" worth seeing.Patrick
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
Jack Krebs: Here’s a question: does the movie show any people like Allen, or are all the examples of behavior on the other side negative?If the latter, I’d say Allen has a point. I don't get this. It seems to me that you are setting an unreasonable bar of expectations here that I bet wouldn't be set given a different subject matter. Look, if I were out to make a film about how cruel, overt racism still exists in many small southern towns, could my piece be easily dismissed as propoganda if I didn't include an interview with some sheriff who claims in his particular town he embraces affirmative action? I mean, it seems to me that including or excluding the interview would fall well within my artistic license depending upon what my film set out to demonstrate, would it not? Dismissive claims of propoganda would be just that. Dismissive. Not addressing the content of my film. Avoiding the real issue.Phinehas
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
Phin: Of course it was deliberately omitted. It was irrelevant to the premise of the movie. Leo: Not to speak for Allen, who seems quite capable of doing so for himself, but I think the word you are looking for is inconvenient I freely admit to using the wrong word from time to time. But I'm pretty sure I meant irrelevant here. I haven't seen the movie yet, so maybe I'm wrong in this, but I've never gotten the impression the film was out to show that academic discrimination happens on every campus at all times. I'm pretty sure the film is meant to show that academic discrimination against some ID supporters exists and is an issue that should be exposed. If I set out to show in a film that academic discrimination exists and to tell some of the stories that expose its ugliness, I imagine that I would interview all sorts of professors. The fact that some of those professors report that their particular institution has not participated in academic discrimination is neither convenient nor inconvenient to my film. It is irrelevant. Now, if Allen MacNeill claimed in his interview (and had proof to back up the claim) that there is no academic discrimination occuring at any institution or program, that would be inconvenient. Is anyone claiming that this is what Allen MacNeill said/demonstrated in his interview?Phinehas
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Bad at 92
Claiming that a being that could potentially do anything did it in an unknown way is just a polite way of rephrasing “I have no idea how it happened.”
Precisely. That is Clarke's 3rd law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I may be able to detect that an intelligent agent did something without being able to say how he did it, or who he is. For example see John Kanzius burning salt water. What if the equipment and experimenter were hidden and all you saw was the beaker burning salt water on/off in response to a command?DLH
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
-----Jack Krebs: "I just checked Keith Miller’s home page at Kansas State University. He has a lot of religious stuff on his page as well as stuff related directly to his work with the university, and I don’t think there is a problem." Jack: I don’t think you sufficiently understand the rules of the Darwinist community. It’s perfectly all right to talk about religion and evolution as long as you are not pro-ID. Theistic evolutionists, for example, are given complete freedom of speech and unlimited access to research facilities. That is because they persecute ID and deny the reality of design in nature. Keith Miller attributes everything to the Darwinian mechanism and nothing to intelligent agency. That is what counts. I hope that helps.StephenB
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill at 95
All he has done is to formulate a couple of mathematical models based on highly questionable assumptions.
If the model is sound, does it not apply whether or not a person has done experimental research? eg. Einstein? Seelke's results affirm Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution with Stephen Meyers paper. What of Behe's model do you find "questionable"?DLH
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Has Seelke published his latest results? Sounds like now he has enough data.Jack Krebs
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
StephenB, I think you're overly optimistic. I have no idea whether the examples presented in the movie are true, having not myself seen the film yet. I do think Allen's experience strongly suggests that the producers of Expelled were interested in painting a one-sided picture without complicating examples even when such examples are readily available: a good description of propaganda, if true. Here's a question: does the movie show any people like Allen, or are all the examples of behavior on the other side negative? If the latter, I'd say Allen has a point.larrynormanfan
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan 109 Yes, to our collective shame.DLH
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Jack Krebs, I was spitballing as to why. I really don't know. I do recall lots of people putting disclaimers at the tail end of postings back in the heyday of Usenet groups. DLH, I note with interest the part immediately following your ellipsis:
The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed . . .
I'd say that part fared even worse than the part you quoted.larrynormanfan
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill at 95 Behe appears to be affirming Barry Hall:
“..A very general problem of molecular adaptive evolution: How is an advantageous phenotype selected when it requires multiple mutations, none of which are advantageous until all are present?... (This presents) a barrier that would appear to be difficult when two independent random mutations are required to improve fitness, and insuperable when more than two are required”.
(italics added) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 88: 5882-5886, July 1991 as cited by Seelke Jack Krebs at 101 See Seelke's more recent presentation: Seelke in What can evolution really do, April 27, 2007
What happens when you try to evolve the one with 2 mutations? It doesn’t evolve to make tryptophan, not in: 3600 generations >2 trillion cells
A requirement for two mutations for evolution to occur remains an evolution-stopper. Even when a single mutation (in theory) results in a fitness advantage, other mutations may place it on a fitness peak that precludes further evolution.
DLH
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Larrynormanfan 103 That is fascinating, considering the organic law on which that University was founded was Art 3 of the NorthWest Ordinance:
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. . .
They seem to have forgotten their raison d'etre
DLH
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Based on the responses to my earlier post, (about the movie, “Expelled”) I take it that we are all now in agreement. The examples presented in the movie are true. Further, I gather we have abandoned Allen MacNeill’s argument, which may be summarized as follows: “I don’t do it, therefore it doesn’t happen.”StephenB
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
to LNF: I don't think that's it. I just checked Keith Miller's home page at Kansas State University. He has a lot of religious stuff on his page as well as stuff related directly to his work with the university, and I don't think there is a problem. Seelke's university may have a different policy, or Seelke may feel that the disclaimer is necessary because of work in the ID community even though his university doesn't care whether he has a disclaimer or not, or some other situation.Jack Krebs
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
I didn't know Seelke was going to be in Expelled. I'll be interested in seeing why also.Jack Krebs
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Perhaps the disclaimer is necessary because the contents of the page contains a lot of religious content. As a state institution, the university can't "endorse" a religious view.larrynormanfan
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Jack Krebs at 101 Perhaps Seelke "wasn't expelled from anything for doing his work". However, could you please explain why Ralph Seelke has to prominently declare at the top of his web page:
The contents of these pages do not necessarily reflect the views of UW-Superior and are not officially endorsed by the university.
if not political correctness being imposed by Darwinian orthodoxy? Whatever happened to: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment US Constitution. It will be instructive to find out why Seelke is featured in Expelled:
I’m in a MOVIE! (at least, I’m in the super-trailer). I gave an interview in Nov. 2006, about my research and some of the events that led to my sabbatical at Stanford. It’s part of a major documentary that’s coming out this spring. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php is the link
DLH
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
to DLH: In his testimony at the Kansas science standards hearings in 2005, Seelke said,
And so at this-- last year at this time I was a visiting scholar at Stanford University and I basically built some molecules. I made some changes in a gene and I put in one mutation, two mutations, three mutations, and four mutations all in different types of that gene. All mutations inactuate the gene. And so if this-- and then-- and now I'm in the process-- I only have ten-- I only have ten billion cells that I'm looking at which is whoosy in this field. I wouldn't publish this until I had probably 10 to 100 trillion,...
That is, he had 1000 to 10,000 times too few cells to publish. However, even with this little data, when Board chair Steve Abrams asked,
Q. (BY CHAIRMAN ABRAMS) Are you saying that the evolution in the bacteria that you are doing and the other experiments that you have been describing are actually adding genetic material?
Seelke replied,
A. What I would do-- now, the ones that I am doing, you would be-- you would be-- yes, you would-- that is a-- there is a small addition-- right, there's an addition of capabilities that occurs. Now, if I-- for instance, if I take my gene and I have one mistake in it and by random processes that one mistake can be fixed. And I think you would say that, yes, that cell is better and it has gained a little bit of information. It is-- it hasn't-- this is a small gain that produces a very large change. The gene that I'm looking at has 268 amino acids, 267 of them are right. Okay. There's one mistake. There's one base change causing one amino acid change and the thing is broke. And so, yeah, I'm making one change. Has that cell gained information? It would appear, yes, that it has gained information. Not a lot of information.
So I don't think it's valid to claim that Seelke has done research which supports ID. But, to Seelke's credit,he was trying to get experimental data to support his ideas about the limits of evolution, which is more than Behe has done. And it's worth noting that as far as I know Seelke wasn't expelled from anything for doing his work.Jack Krebs
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Yes, Behe has experimental publications. He just doesn't have experimental Intelligent Design publications. Coincidentally, his experimental work declines as his interest in ID rises.larrynormanfan
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
Wow. To bolster the non-experimental publications of Behe, you offer . . . the un-published experiments of Seelke. Who's supposed to be wowed by this? Apparently an audience that likes a talk beginning "Hello- I’m Ralph Seelke, and I’m a microbiologist. . . . ." Well, hello Ralph. Why is your unpublished talk that announces amazing experimental results apparently not worth submitting for publication?larrynormanfan
March 23, 2008
March
03
Mar
23
23
2008
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply