Discovery News Release on Richard Dawkins Crashing EXPELLED Screening

My understanding is that PZ Myers registered via the web like everybody else at that screening. According to TwinCities.com, Myers claims:

“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.”

So if people could sign up via the web, why the complaint about him being “invited”? And why use police to keep him out of the area?

And why say that critics “want to trash it before it even gets reviewed by the media” when regular movie critics have been excluded from screenings? “Bullying poseurs” indeed.

Hey, why not check out an eye witness account here http://lookingcloser.wordpress.....#more-3247

PZ seems to be good at telling his own version of special truth.

“I was literally 3 feet away from Myers when he was “expelled,” I heard every word. It was obvious he was being kicked out by theatre management because he was not invited nor was he on the pre-submitted list. He didn’t cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out.

Dawkins himself acted as a perfect gentleman during the Q&A. He was respectful of everyone present, even though he was a little upset about Myers and his own role in the film.”

hey idnet.com.au, look at comment #7, by PZ himself:

Tsk, tsk, Stuart.

I had an invitation. I had applied through the channels Expelled set up. I applied under my own name, and was approved. I have the first email that confirmed it, and the second email reminder, all from Motive Entertainment. Wanna see them?

And so forth.

This is just priceless. No doubt this little ruse is going to increase ticket sales by leaps and bounds.

PZ et. al. are causing such a ruckus that one guy over at PT joked that, “Now, when you google Richard Dawkins its an ad for ‘Expelled’”. ROTFL.

This debate is so entertaining…

On 8-22-2007 PZ Myers threatened:

I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen…

Is it any wonder PZ Myers was prevented from attending this private screening? He had planned on disrupting it since at least 8-22-2007.

Furthermore, who RSVPs to events that you are not invited to?

The New York Times
But Walt Ruloff, a partner in Premise Media, the film’s producer, said the screening was one of a series the producers have organized for the film, which opens April 18, in hopes of building favorable word-of-mouth among people likely to be sympathetic to its message. People like Dr. Myers and Dr. Dawkins would not have been invited, he said.

Gate crashers: Yep.

Also, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are in Minnesota for an Atheist Convention. During the weekend Christians celebrate Christ’s victory over Satan.

Please pray for the atheist scoffers in Minneapolis this weekend that they may come to know Christ.

William Wallace, I share your concern. But when Myers was kicked out of a film screening and then the people who kicked him out lied about what happened and why, he got a lousy witness. The fact is that “invitations” are irrelevant, since anybody could sign up simply via the web.

Myers and Dawkins, especially Myers, along with a ton of other Darwinists that could be mentioned, are first class babies. They cannot take what they give out. And demonstrate it well in word and actions here.

They are already in the way of the dinosaur - on the verge of extinction. And thank God for that.

They have to be among the world’s most insecure atheists.

The following was deleted at an unmentionable site. I would like to copy it here instead because it demonstrates that PZ Myers might have learned to game the RSVP system from Glen Davison:

William Wallace wrote (at an unmentionable site):

RSVPs are responses to invitations. Could you produce PZ Myers’ invitation? If he did not receive an invitation, what is he doing responding to an RSVP? The New York Times piece clearly states this was a private function.

I happen to be in possession of an email invitation to the event, sent out to a Christian preacher.

Paul Lauer wrote:

…
You are invited to a FREE PRIVATE SCREENING of Ben Stein’s upcoming, history-making film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (Opening in theaters April 2008).
…

Paul Lauer is the CEO of Motive Entertainment.

Mr. Myers, can you produce the email invitation that you received?

If not, do you know what RSVP means?

Have you ever RSVP’d for a function you were not invited to before?

Glen Davidson wrote:

I found their rsvp site and I stuck it on this site, at Talkorigins, on AtBC, at Pharyngula, and at PT[Pandas Thumb]. It may have been discovered by others who they weren’t targeting, as well. All I know for sure is what I found and what I did with it.

Also, the source of the Glen Davidson quote is down, coincidentally, and may be undergoing some PT-mafia memory hole revisions.

Background: PZ Myers admits that he RSVP’d to a private screening. Yet, it is reasonable to believe that he may never have been invited to the screening in the first place, and thus, had no business RSVPing. I have the invitation to the same screening, as received by a Christian pastor. I have challenged PZ Myers to produce his invitation. don’t hold your breath waiting for a response.

The use of an RSVP page to crash a private screening is deceitful at best.

Meyers just wanted to see the movie cause hes a left wing atheist ego-trip. He wanted to find out as much as he could so he could go to work trashing the movie. For people like him its all about thier absurd poltical idiology. We ID advocates never ask that evolution not be taught- but his side does everything in their power to squash free speach- and that’s sad.

Well said, Frost122585.

Frost122585: And the fact that he actually is in the movie cannot have anything to do with it?

William Dembski: Panspermia does not solve the origin of life problem and pretending that it does is incorrect and dishonest IMHO.

leo

“Why hold up Dawkins for derision for making a statement that is wholly compatible with the current state of ID research?”

If you read “The God Delusion” you will see that for Prof Dawkins, there is no chance of a more developed space alien unless they first evolved in a Darwinian manner. The fact that Prof Dawkins admitted that detecting ID (space alien designers) was a scientific possibility, yet he excluded the possibility that God could be involved is not evidence based.

Borne, “They have to be among the world’s most insecure atheists.” In my view, the insecurity comes from the producers of Expelled, who are trying to game the reception of their little project.

“Furthermore, who RSVPs to events that you are not invited to?”

William Wallace,
I suppose you could argue that only people who have invites should use the signup website, but the open nature of the site means many people will be signing up without an invite. I did, and did not have an invite, and attended a showing in Raleigh. But then I am a nobody who was not expected to be disrupting the proceedings. I think this is very much sound and fury about very little, and simply demonstrates your oversensitivity and that of the producer. Freedom should be freedom for all not just for ID supporters. Isn’t that our point about the Darwinists in reverse?

sincerely,
d. grey

Not to be contrary, but I think this shows poorly on our side.

First, how do you gate crash a movie that has a website offering free tickets?

http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/ev.....l/expelled

I mean, anyone can sign up and bring up to 3 guests. They don’t have a list of people that can’t come. I’m planning to go see it when it comes to my city, will that make me a gate crasher if my wife reserves 3 guest tickets, and I’m not on the list?

Second, when doing a movie about how we’re not allowed to discuss intelligent design in universities, and then we don’t allow Darwinists in to the movie… That’s irony, and not in a good way. We’re better than that. We don’t need to stoop to their methods. We should rise above it. The producers should have been brave enough to show the movie, even to as awful a man as that Prof. Meyers.

Today, I’m embarrassed by how our side behaved.

… small men who above all are afraid of a fair contest.

As opposed to the DI fellows who testified at Dover.

Please.

IMHO, none of this matters. It was a private screening, and the producers can turn away *anyone* they like.

No one is keeping Myers from seeing the documentary, so this is nothing even remotely close to being “expelled”. Myers can go see the movie as many times as he likes. It opens in theatres across the country in about 27 days.

To compare this to Darwinists suppressing academic freedom in regard to ID is nonsense. Myers just needs to show a little patience.

I think it’s great publicity and sure to bring more peole to the theatres April 18.

FtK,

You’re right, this isn’t the same as ruining careers. But it’s still petty. And it shows a disturbing quality of character, that is similar in tone if not in magnitude as the Darwinists.

Are we trying to be like them? Or are we trying to be better than them?

And the claim that he was ‘crashing’ the movie. Please. Go to the website. It’s *easy* to get tickets.

Why are we rallying around this behavior? Is it because they’re on our side? Wouldn’t we be mad if it were Dawkins doing this to Dr. Dembski?

Wrong is wrong. Petty is petty. No matter who’s side it’s on.

Personally, I don’t believe Dembski, Wells, Behe or any of the IDists would do what PZ did. It’s sophomoric. Obviously, these are private screenings, and it’s also obvious that Myers went in just to be a shyster.

Think about it. If Myers thought what he was doing was on the up and up, he would have blogged about it before hand just like he blogs about everything he’s involved in.

Internet Darwinsts have been joking about getting into the movie by signing up as preachers, etc. They understand that the screenings aren’t meant for the general public at this point. Myers knows that as well.

Obviously, Myers wanted to create commotion by slipping into the flick, and he did. Actually, he created even more than he planned to. Personally, I see nothing wrong with turning a guy like him away, and like I said…this *will* bring more people to the theatres.

I think everyone with a brain should see Expelled.

I would like to apologize if I’ve ever been rude or offensive to anyone on this blog. Sometimes I can be a bit.

Yea Expelled!

dnmlthr: “Panspermia does not solve the origin of life problem and pretending that it does is incorrect and dishonest IMHO.”

It solves the problem of the origin of observed life. Since ID is science, it can only infer based on what is observed.

But I’m curious now. What sort of science do you support that can figure out the origins of what it cannot observe? Or is this something you only require of ID?

Incidently, which incorrect solution to the origin of life problem do you ascribe to?

FtK,

This is still going to ring badly in the public’s eye. Americans hate hypocrites. If you make a movie about censorship and expulsion, and then turn around and do the same thing (whether it is to someone who is sophomoric, or whatever), Americans will hate that. And then to defend those actions because they were on our side?

I think we should all denounce what the makers of Expelled did (and those of you with influence should try to get them to apologize). It doesn’t matter if the other side behaves poorly. WE HAVE TO BEHAVE BETTER. Otherwise to Joe Public, we look like poorly behaving hypocrites. And there’s nothing Americans hate worse than hypocrites.

Nochange says, “If you make a movie about censorship and expulsion, and then turn around and do the same thing (whether it is to someone who is sophomoric, or whatever), Americans will hate that… It doesn’t matter if the other side behaves poorly. WE HAVE TO BEHAVE BETTER.”

Nochange has a point here. If there’s no evident moral difference between the sides, then there’s no real difference. And if something’s so fragile that it can’t bear a few unsolicited jibes from the opposition, well, it’s a bit too fragile, don’t you think?

The little piggy in the brick house doesn’t care how much the wolf huffs and puffs.

Hmmm…I guess after listening to the rants and foul rambling of PZ Myers for so many years, I believe it is *completely* justified to keep him out of the private screenings.

True, Joe Public has no clue who Myers is, but my hope is that episodes like this will raise their curiousity enough to check out Pharyngula. Going through that man’s archives will certainly be a wake up call for those who have no clue about the dogma that is presented by the scientific community as “fact”.

It will also open their eyes to the goal that many of those in the scientific community have…to eradicate religion.

What the producers ought to do is invite all those who are featured in the movie to a special private screening before the flick hits the big screen.

They can all sit together in a theatre and enjoy each other’s company. LOL. Now, *that* would be an interesting way to get more publicity.

Maybe Dembski, Scott, Myers, Dawkins, Sternberg, and Behe could all pile together in a big group hug while the cameras flash…tee hee.

And if something’s so fragile that it can’t bear a few unsolicited jibes from the opposition, well, it’s a bit too fragile, don’t you think?

But, they allowed Dawkins and a whole group of other ID bashers in. That certainly doesn’t seem to justify the thought that they “can’t bear a few unsolicited jibes from their opposition”.

As an interesting addition to this debate, Will Provine and I were interviewed by Mark Mathis and his crew last year. Like PZ myers, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott and others, we were lied to about both the title of the film (they said it was “Crossroads”, not “Expelled”, for which a website domain listing was acquired several months before our interview) and the purpose of the film, which they said was to present an even-handed look at both sides of the debate.

However, unlike PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, the interviews with Will and I were not included in the film. Why not? Because (as many posters at this site are well aware), we regularly invite ID proponents (such as Michael Behe, John Sanford, Hannah Maxson, and Phillip Johnson, among many others) to make presentations in our evolution courses at Cornell. But this fact would clash in an unfortunate way with the premise of the film, which is that “Darwinists” unfairly discriminate against ID supporters and creationists.

In other words, “Expelled” is a propaganda piece, pure and simple, as are virtually all of the public pronouncements of the Discovery Institute and their supporters. Scientists don’t make propaganda movies (although we are sometimes invited to participate in them under fraudulent pretenses). No, we go out into the field and the laboratory and investigate nature.

This fascination with the way the universe works is the heart and soul of science, not a desire to undermine religion. If that were the case, why were many of the founders of the science of evolutionary biology (including Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Sewall Wright, Theodosius Dobzhansky) and so many current evolutionary biologists (including Ken Miller and myself, among others) members of various religious traditions?

Treating people with whom you disagree as “enemies” is the antithesis of the intellectual tradition. Just because you happen to agree with one “enemies” list and therefore eagerly participate in demonizing those with whom you disagree doesn’t absolve you of committing a heinous sin against the ancient and honorable traditions of the academy. Just the opposite, in fact. And using ad hominem arguments (not to mention resorting to agumentum ad hitleram, as did the producers of “Expelled”) are the tactics of propagandists, not scholars.

Shame on Ben Stein, Mark Mathis, and their supporters, and shame on anyone who resorts to character assassination, mendacity, and subterfuge in the pursuit of what should be an argument based on reason and evidence.

“Scientists don’t make propaganda movies (although we are sometimes invited to participate in them under fraudulent pretenses).”

Allen, have you not viewed BBC “The war on science”? Is this not a propaganda piece?

Have you not viewed the extensive “Beyond Belief” videos of the recent Atheist fest, or seen Richard Dawkins videos? Are you saying that Richard is not a scientist?

That is “beyond belief”!

[…] When have you ever debated evolutionary biology? So to decline to do so on the basis of my… idnet.com.au: “Scientists don’t make propaganda movies (although we are sometimes invited to participate […]

(1) Allen,

Very well put!

I am not a professional scientist. I’m admittedly a bit skeptical of the ID-as-legitimate-science position - the demographic this film is intended to likely target - and I must say: I am not impressed by what I’ve heard so far.

In fairness, I haven’t seen the film, but I have been following the publicity, and out of every remark in this above thread, yours is by far the most informative.

If what you say is true, and I don’t doubt it, I think that neutral viewers will recognize this film for what it is.

(2) All,

Frankly the original post doesn’t make sense: why was Dawkins “allowed” to see it, but Myers turned away? And if Dawkins was allowed in, how does this square with the argument that this screening was not intended to be seen by “pro-Darwin” folks? And in addition, something seems fishy about the claims that their acquisition was not “legitimate” when a web site freely allowed people to register for tickets, as Nochange states above. Myers is very clear about how he registered. Oh, he can be a jerk alright, but frankly, his position is a lot clearer than the voice above explaining why he wasn’t allowed in.

The more I read through these threads, the more I think that Myers and pro-ID advocates deserve one another.

-brandon

“Treating people with whom you disagree as “enemies” is the antithesis of the intellectual tradition.”

Have you been to the “scientist” PZM’s blog recently? Have you seen Richard Dawkins video entitled “The Enemy of Reason”? Take some time Allen to view http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/ note that this is on THE SCIENCE NETWORK and is SCIENTISTS talking PROPAGANDA against those they see as their ENEMIES.

“doesn’t absolve you of committing a heinous sin against the ancient and honorable traditions of the academy.”

Who is moralising now? Who decides what is, and is not sin? If our opposition lies, calls us enemies, and calls what we say is the truth, “a lie”, how can we say who is or is not sinning?

“Shame on Ben Stein, Mark Mathis, and their supporters, and shame on anyone who resorts to character assassination, mendacity, and subterfuge in the pursuit of what should be an argument based on reason and evidence.”

By assassinating the character of these men (and their supporters) Allen, have you not condemned yourself with your own words?

Dennis Grey wrote:

Freedom should be freedom for all not just for ID supporters. Isn’t that our point about the Darwinists in reverse?

These were private screenings designed to create buzz for the film. They were provided free of charge by the producers. They should have the freedom to decide who they will and will not buy movie tickets for.

PZ Myers will get to see the film when it is released. His biggest problem is a town like Morris might only have one theater.

Nochange

I’m planning to go see it when it comes to my city, will that make me a gate crasher if my wife reserves 3 guest tickets, and I’m not on the list?

If you are not invited, you should not RSVP. If you RSVP, that is gaming the system. If you want to get invited, send an email to:

jessica [at] motiveYYYmarketing dot biz minus the YYY

NochangeAnd the claim that he was ‘crashing’ the movie. Please. Go to the website. It’s *easy* to get tickets.

Don’t game the system. When I was younger I worked at a concert, and figured out a way to get into concerts for free. But pretending to be a worker to gain access through a service entrance would have been as bad as PZ Myers pretending to have been invited to a private screening.

The Myers/Dawkins atheist entourage cost the producers of this film. Specifically, other guests such as preachers and elders who could have helped create even more positive buzz.

RSVPing to events you’re not invited to is gate crashing, period.

MacNeill@ 31:
“we were lied to about both the title of the film”

How do you know it was a lie, Mr. MacNeill? Do you really believe that film-makers, or even authors for that matter, actually stick to the first title that comes to mind? There are a number of possibilities that you may not be accounting for, like copyright infringements, maybe.

JPCollado, the producers registered a domain name for “Expelled” in early 2007, and then contacted interviewees a few months later and told them they were producing a film called “Crossroads.” But they already had the “Expelled” name and never registered “Crossroads.” Therefore, they lied. QED.

larry @ #37:
“JPCollado, the producers registered a domain name for “Expelled” in early 2007″

larry, where is the evidence for this. I would like to see it.

Relevant to post # 38:
Considering the fastidiousness with which Darwinists operate in collecting evidence against their so-called enemies, it would not be too much of a demand when asking for this little bit of evidence.

Easy enough. A whois search produces:

Domain name: EXPELLEDTHEMOVIE.COM

[snip[
Record last updated on 16-Feb-2008.
Record expires on 02-Mar-2009.
Record created on 02-Mar-2007.

Emphasis added. I clipped all the stuff that’s irrelevant, because it’s mostly avoid protecting the privacy of the site owner.

Maybe someone else happened to register the domain name “Expelledthemovie.com” months before PZ Myers and others were contacted. Then the movie producers happened to buy the domain name from them.

That would be a coincidence beyond the Upper Credibility Bound.

correction: for “avoid protecting” above, read “avoid releasing.”

JPCollado, anyone with a browser can check the domain name issue out. It’s a standard tool that’s been around for years: whois. You can also get this info via command line tools for various platforms(i.e. Linux, BSD, Windows, Mac, etc., etc.).

Anyway, go here:

http://www.networksolutions.co.....emovie.com

And you’ll see the domain record first appeared in Network Solutions’ database on 3/2/2007, which indeed is well before the interviews were conducted. This is all publicly accessible information. If you look at the page a bit more closely, you’ll see a link to the actual registry data, which pushes the date back to 3/1/2007 (if you use a command line whois client, you’ll get this date listed first. As to the two dates, it’s down to the vagaries of domain registration, as the database records aren’t instantly updated and can take a little while to propogate around the net).

The other piece of the puzzle is the fact that until yesterday, there was no record for “crossroadsthemovie.com”. Apparently, some guy in Texas decided to create it. I have no idea what for. Based on the raw registry record, he still hasn’t actually gotten control of the domain yet.

larry @ # 40,

Perhaps I’ve missed something. Exactly how does one prove that a fraud has been committed here?

larry,

Mr.MacNeill mentioned that he was lied to when the producers referred to a movie called “Crossroads.” Do you have any information regarding this? Fraud charges are not valid until a connection is made between these two titles, along with the relevant dates.

We are still in a “he said, she said” stage, and until there is evidence corroborating that the producers did in fact lie to the interviewees, Mr. MacNeill should refrain from using this sort of mudslinging.

Also, I find it odd that Mr.MacNeill is not answering these questions, preferring instead to have someone else do it for him. Not a very good idea since statements could be mixed and lead to confusion.

larry, according to the link you provided,

Tucows makes this information available “as is,” and does not guarantee its accuracy.

Not very good evidence from the standpoint of a fraud investigation.

When were the first interviews conducted? The movie was being promoted last August so I assume all the interviews were complete by then. Were they all after the February 12th date?

I do not understand the significance of the name change. Maybe the Expelled name would have tipped them off but so what. Would the interviewees have said something different if they knew the purpose of the movie? If so then, then the use of a false name is appropriate in order to get valid reactions. Otherwise they would have given false reactions.

I hardly see the purpose of this posturing about the name of the movie or its intent. By complaining they are admitting they would have changed their story and admitting they are not fair on this issue. Otherwise why the objections. They can object if the editing distorts their position which would be revealed by a fairer editing. But they have no complaints if the editing is representative of their statements.

Dembski has said he has been sandbagged by Darwinist who edit his comments out of context. The Darwinist can have the same complaint if Expelled does the same but not if the interviews are good samples of what they said.

This much ado about nothing.

Here is when the domain name “expelledthemovie” was registered at TUCOWS INC.:

http://whois.domaintools.com/expelledthemovie.com

That is, March 1, 2007. No domain name for “crossroadsthemovie” has ever been registered. If you have ever registered a domain name yourself, you know that it never appears in the WHOIS listing before you register it; only after. Therefore, the very latest that this domain could have been registered is March 1, 2007.

Here is the “meta: description that goes with the aforelisted registration:

“Ben blows the horn on Suppression! Science and Education has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. What they forgot is that every generation has its Rebel…”

I was interviewed by Mark Mathis & Co. on May 3, 2007. I have a canceled check from Rampant Films (canceled on May 5, 2007, the day after I deposited it), in payment for my interview (which, as I mentioned in my original post, was cut from the film).

How much more evidence would you like that I (and Will Provine, and every other evolutionary biologist that was interviewed for this film) was lied to, repeatedly and for blatantly political (i.e. not scientific) reasons?

And BTW, the reason I did not immediately respond to the posts following mine was because I was coloring Easter eggs with my four kids. So sue me…

Jerry asked:

“Were they all after the February 12th date?”

My interview (and Will Provine’s) was three months after the domain name “expelledthemovie” was registered. Unless the video crew was on the road for several months (pretty expensive), I would guess that nearly all of the interviews were conducted in late April and early May.

Ergo, the film crew lied about the name and the intent of the film, and did so to hoodwink us into participating.

And, given that both Will Provine and my interviews directly contradicted the main thesis of the film, and were subsequently cut from the film, it should be clear to anyone what the actual intent of the film makers was from the beginning:

Propaganda, pure and simple.

Now, as to what I would have said to the film makers had they been honest about their intent from the beginning:

I would have said exactly the same thing, and in exactly the same way. I am proud of the fact that both Will and I always invite members of the “loyal opposition” to make extended presentations in our evolution courses at Cornell. I am even more proud that our students make up their own minds about where they stand on these issues. For the record, I have given A grades to students with whom I vehemently disagreed (because their research papers were brilliantly argued and impeccably supported by references from the primary literature) and C grades to students with whom I strongly agreed (because their research papers were unoriginal and badly supported with few or no original references).

It is not an ad hominem argument to call someone a liar when you have proof positive (including citations to reliable primary references) that they have lied. No scientist would ever be allowed to get away with this kind of distortion of the facts in a scientific publication. Indeed, it would be the end of their career as a scientist.

The fact that some of the commentators to this blog think just the opposite is a clear indication to me of what they think of academic integrity and the level of respect due to one’s opponents in an intellectual debate.

JPC, I never said “fraud” but “lie.” I don’t really think of this in terms of litigation (others might, of course.)

But it raises an interesting possibility. Suppose somebody sues the producers of Expelled for fraud or something like it. Then, of course, the discovery process follows. When you shake a tree, all sorts of things may fall out.

Maybe we’ll find an intermediate form of the movie title:

Expecrossroadslled

I’ve seen something like that before somewhere, I’m sure. [LNF scratches head.]
Can’t remember, though.

Jerry wrote (in #45):

“Dembski has said he has been sandbagged by Darwinist who edit his comments out of context.”

This is known as an argumentum tu quoque and is a classic rhetorical move when one has no logical support for one’s argument.

Jerry also wrote:

“The Darwinist can have the same complaint if Expelled does the same, but not if the interviews are good samples of what they said.”

In other words, if one is quote-mined, but the quote is verbatim, it’s okay, right?

And what if one says something that doesn’t fit with one’s thesis? If one is dishonest, one pretends that it was never said. Let me remind you once again what T. H. Huxley said about this:

“[Science] warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief than for one to which I was previously hostile.”

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/letters/60.html

That is, if one is being honest, one requires more proof for an assertion that is close to one’s own position than for one with which one disagrees. But propaganda is just the opposite, and propaganda is all that this movie is about.

Jerry also wrote (in #45):

“This much ado about nothing.”

And here I agree whole-heartedly with Jerry. The movie “Expelled” is quite literally “about nothing.” It has about the same bearing toward the real issues at play in this debate as Disney’s “The Little Mermaid” has to marine biology.

Dr. MacNeill,

I have no quarrels with the deception on the name and the purpose of the movie. Having been involved in market research, I know you often do not get accurate responses when asking direct questions and your intentions are known. We rarely if ever identified who was sponsoring the research. I was ABD in a Ph.D program in consumer behavior until my advisor wanted me to change what my dissertation was about to his pet project. My dissertation was to explore ways to get accurate responses from respondents during research. You never asked direct questions or let them know what your intentions were.

So I have no problems with the deception. It is standard in controversial areas. I would be willing to bet the ranch that if they ever addressed the real topic of the film, they would 1) not have gotten the interviews and 2) not gotten valid answers from those that accepted. The word would be all over the planet in nano seconds about what was happening and the interviews would have failed to get any responses.

You have a valid objection if the interviewee’s words are distorted as Michael Moore has done in his documentaries. Let’s wait till we all see it and then we can assess if everyone’s view points is consistent with their views expressed in the interviews or cherry picked to make them look bad.

If Ben Stein has egg on his face because he distorted the interviews, then it should be acknowledged. But if he accurately portrayed what was in the interviews, then so be it. Then it will not be propaganda but an valid portrayal of how people behave and think on this issue. My guess it will be a little bit of both.

I agree that either your’s or Will Provine’s opinion should be included just to show some other opinions that evolutionary biology has. But from what I understand your position is rare.

I hope the eggs were fun to color.

jerry, I’m prepping for Easter so this’ll be my last comment for a bit. But I have to comment, as I’ve been involved in survey research myself, on controversial subjects (the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse). I’m surprised at this:

My dissertation was to explore ways to get accurate responses from respondents during research. You never asked direct questions or let them know what your intentions were.

First, of course, the producers of Expelled weren’t conducting research (they didn’t conduct a random survey, for example). They were clearly playing “gotcha.” Second, although researchers may withhold the purpose of the research from the subjects, they will not intentionally deceive subjects as to the point of research. Not if they expect it to gain approval from the IRB (that’s Institutional Review Board for those who aren’t familiar with this kind of work).

Deceiving subjects about the purpose of research — encouraging them to think it’s about one thing when it’s about anohter — is different from withholding the purpose, and is unethical. Period.

But again, all this is beside the point, since Expelled seems not to be research.

Allen MacNeil,

You said

“jerry also wrote:

“The Darwinist can have the same complaint if Expelled does the same, but not if the interviews are good samples of what they said.”

In other words, if one is quote-mined, but the quote is verbatim, it’s okay, right?”

That is a distortion of what I was trying to say. How can you come to that conclusion when even your own quote says I said “if the interviews are a good sample on what they said.” Quote mining usually refers to when the selection is not a good sample of what was said. You cannot use all of an interview but if what you do use is representative of what was said in total, then it is not quote mining and is ok.

The much ado about nothing refers to the complaints being made. If the movie is a distortion then it will not be much ado about nothing. I can almost guarantee that the interpretation of what was said will be along party lines no matter what was actually in the movie. But I bet the people here will be more honest about the content than any pro Darwin site.

Come late April check out the civility of the standard pro evolution sites such as Panda’s Thumb and PZ Myers’s site.

larry @ #49:
“JPC, I never said “fraud” but “lie.”

Same difference. Either/or, I don’t see enough compelling evidence that the producers lied to Mr.MacNeill.

I intend to both go to see “Expelled” and post a review of it at my blog. If there are any substantive arguments in it (i.e. supported by evidence), I will assess them and post that assessment, whichever way it falls.

In particular, I intend to do an analysis of the logic of the arguments presented in the film. One that I am already aware of is the argumentum ad hitleram noted earlier. There may be others; we shall see…

JPCollado wrote (in #55):

“…I don’t see enough compelling evidence that the producers lied to Mr. MacNeill.”

My lawyer was of exactly the opposite opinion, and advised suing the filmmakers if my comments were included in the film. However, on further consideration, I thought that this would only add support to the main thesis of the film: that evolutionary biologists have “unfairly persecuted” proponents of ID.

And so, I decided not to pursue a lawsuit against Rampart Films, which (in the fullness of time) would have been pointless anyway, as my comments were not included in the movie for the reasons I posted earlier.

For those who require documentation from primary sources, I have originals of all of my email correspondence with Rampart Films, Mark Mathis, Will Provine, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, and my lawyer on the aforementioned points, and would be happy to share them (with personal information redacted for the sake of privacy) with anyone interested. You can find a link to my email address at my blog:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/

larrynormanfan wrote:
Maybe someone else happened to register the domain name “Expelledthemovie.com” months before [Paul Z.] Myers and others were contacted. Then the movie producers happened to buy the domain name from them.

That would be a coincidence beyond the Upper Credibility Bound.

Speaking of coincidences beyond the upper credibility bound, macro evolution certainly satisfies that. At least we have researchers like Dr. Behe trying to quantify the bounds of micro-evolution.

You’ve got a domain name, and a date. You don’t know who bought the domain, who knew about the domain purchase within the organization, etc.

Besides, as far as I can tell, Paul Z. Myers is going out of his way to come up with stunts that generate free publicity. Makes me wonder if he has a royalty agreement. I think it is more likely that this is a set up leading to a Paul Allen funded Darwinitst response to Expelled, which will become mandatory viewing in public schools.

larrynormanfan,

You make a distinction without a difference. The movie is reporting research. It is not your typical research but is on the opinions and thoughts of evolutionary biologists about ID and then using those opinions to show what happens to people in the world who espouse ID. There is an obligation to accurately report their views. You can argue that it may not be a true sample but I doubt that it is not that biased. How many biology departments allow criticism of Darwin? And if they do, then how many actually do it.

In the real world there is no need to go through an IRB. And in this case all you have to say is that we are trying to get your opinions about evolution and intelligent design. You can be a vague as that but if you want to get valid opinions you have to be careful how you ask your questions and disguise your objectives especially about politically charged issues.

I would get entirely different answers on beliefs and opinions depending upon how you asked the questions and what you told the subject up front. If they didn’t know the purpose of the research, you would get more accurate answers because they didn’t know how to game the answers.

So I have no problems with the approach. Let’s wait and see how this plays out. My guess is that this movie will just play to the choir and that few not directly interested ahead of time will see it. Stein is courting all the familiar religious sources for this movie so let’s see who goes besides the faithful. I cannot imagine anyone in my extended family that would be interested in it besides me.

MacNeill @ # 46:
“I was interviewed by Mark Mathis & Co. on May 3, 2007. I have a canceled check from Rampant Films (canceled on May 5, 2007, the day after I deposited it), in payment for my interview (which, as I mentioned in my original post, was cut from the film).”

Mr.MacNeill, the check was cut from the original film name and not in the name of the issuing company? A savvy company like Rampant actually spending money in creating blank checks for a film name that hasn’t been registered yet doesn’t sound like good business practice to me. Otherwise, how does a cancelled check establish that a lie has been committed on the part of the company?

William Wallace wrote (in #58):

“Speaking of coincidences beyond the upper credibility bound, macro evolution certainly satisfies that. At least we have researchers like Dr. Behe trying to quantify the bounds of micro-evolution.”

This is a classic diversionary tactic in rhetoric as well: if one has no substantive rebuttal, then change the subject.

He also wrote:

“You’ve got a domain name, and a date.”

Have you actually followed the link to the DNS registrar I posted above? If you have, how could you possibly have asked this question, as all of the information you asked about (plus much more) is available at that link.

JPCollado asked (in #60):

“…how does a cancelled check establish that a lie has been committed on the part of the company?”

The canceled check was not intended as direct evidence for prevarication on the part of the film makers. It was intended to substantiate the chronology listed in my post, which made it very clear that the film makers were completely aware of the nature of the film they were actually intending to make when they interviewed me. As I was actually present at the interviews and heard (and responded to) the questions that they asked, and the context within which they asked them, in the absence of a recording you will have to take my word for it that they repeatedly lied about their intentions before, during, and after the interview.

P.S. The canceled check didn’t have the name of the movie on it; only the name of the production company (i.e. Rampant Films), which apparently specializes in films of a religious nature. Odd; I thought that ID is a purely secular endeavor, not tied in any way to a particular religious agenda. Am I missing something?

JPCollado wrote (in #55):
“…I don’t see enough compelling evidence that the producers lied to Mr. MacNeill.”

MacNeill @ # 57:
“My lawyer was of exactly the opposite opinion, and advised suing the filmmakers”

Are we still talking about the name of the film? If only on this count, the lawsuit would not have enough thread to run the course. Defense lawyers could simply counter and say that name changes are commonplace in the industry.

Kudos to Jerry @ # 52 who has some good pointers on this.

Jerry asked (in #59):

“How many biology departments allow criticism of Darwin? And if they do, then how many actually do it.”

Mine does (that is, the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University). Not only that, but they criticize each other’s work with a vehemence that surpasseth understanding. That’s why we are so careful to have as much empirical evidence in support of our hypotheses as we can possibly gather. That’s what science is all about: subjecting one’s favorite hypotheses to the most withering criticism imaginable. Have ID supporters done this? Not on this site, as far as I can tell…

JPCollado asked (in #64):

“Are we still talking about the name of the film?”

No, we’re taking about the intentions of the film makers to defraud those being interviewed for the purposes of making a propaganda film. Discussions of the name of the film are only supporting evidence.

Obviously, the film makers are free to produce any kind of propaganda they like. What they are not free to do is to deliberately mislead the people they are interviewing for the purposes of producing such propaganda.

Once again, I would not have answered their questions any differently had they represented themselves honestly. That’s not the point. The point is intellectual integrity and honesty, neither of which the film makers have one iota.

MacNeill @ #63:
“The canceled check didn’t have the name of the movie on it; only the name of the production company (i.e. Rampant Films), which apparently specializes in films of a religious nature”

Mr.Macneill, if it is apparent that Rampant specializes in religious films, then how could you have been misled as to the intent of their interviews?

DLH wrote (in #66):

“Consider being required to “believe” or spout neo-Dawinism under fear of looking one’s job, grants etc.”

I’m not required to believe anything by anybody else, nor are my students, nor my colleagues. On the contrary, the only thing we are “required” to do is to support our arguments using empirical evidence and citation of published research. That requirement is not “legal”, however; it’s moral. Indeed, it is the bedrock foundation of the scientific tradition.

DLH also wrote:

“Since neo-Darwinism is enforced by self selected atheists…”

…like Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ken Miller, and myself, right?

JPCollado asked (in #68):

“…if it is apparent that Rampant specializes in religious films, then how could you have been misled as to the intent of their interviews?”

Unfortunately, I naively believed their representations to me at the time, and did no research into their activities then. Indeed, I only became aware of their true nature when I found out about the real focus of the film “Expelled” and did some digging into their other productions. I guess academics and scientists are a little too trusting: we expect people to tell the truth about what they are doing, rather than to lie repeatedly for the sake of producing propaganda. silly me…

MacNeill @ #62:
“you will have to take my word for it that they repeatedly lied about their intentions before, during, and after the interview.”

Well, I don’t know about that considering that you have mischaracterized other ID projects, like identifying Discovery Institute as a Neo-Creationism Propaganda Ministry, for instance. With such antagonostic predispositions, a person’s memory and perception could be warped in a negative way.

Dr. MacNeill,

I appreciate your attitude toward allowing criticism in your classes. I don’t deny that there is general criticism across the country in evolutionary biology but I doubt much has to do with criticism of naturalistic methods for macro evolution in the sense of how complex novel functionality came about. This is what ID is critical of and seems to be lacking in nearly everywhere I have seen. Maybe Cornell is an exception.

By the way I am through about 2/3 of the Jablonka and Lamb’s book. It is quite interesting and gets a little too abstract at places so it will require a couple more readings to understand everything. My reactions are that it should be a required addition to the standard discussion of evolution but have not seen anything yet that undermines ID. ID should have no problem with any of the propositions proposed since none really address macro evolution in the sense ID is interested in macro evolution. Though I have not finished the book, only through chapter 7 on the interaction of epigenetics and genes. I love the discussion of the unmasked genes and how this might be important. But the relationships to Lamarckian evolution is a little stretched since the gene change or changed phenotype may not related at all to the type of stimulus causing the change.

MacNeill @ #70:
“Unfortunately, I naively believed their representations to me at the time, and did no research into their activities then. Indeed, I only became aware of their true nature when I found out about the real focus of the film “Expelled” and did some digging into their other productions.”

So you have no case, Mr.MacNeill. None whatsoever. How could your lawyer propose a lawsuit when due diligence would have placed the onus on you to make the necessary discovery. It is not like Rampant is hiding the nature of their films, as you said.

On that note, Fox also specializes in religious films. Does that make them propaganda-driven as well?

Oh, and before I forget, I checked Rampant’s webpage and found these titles:

A Tale of Two Laredos

The Hitchhiker

Band Aid - Why Foreign Aid Isn’t Working

These don’t sound religious to me.