Home » Intelligent Design » Clinton Dawkins: Guilty as Charged

Clinton Dawkins: Guilty as Charged

In my previous post where it was confirmed that Paul “PZ” Myers fooled the hosts of a private screening of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” by RSVPing to an invitation he never received I reserved judgement on Richard Dawkins, giving Dawkins the benefit of doubt that he may have been duped by Myers into thinking he was an invited guest at the private screening.

Well, there is no longer any doubt. Richard Dawkins registered for the screening as “Clinton” Dawkins. How many of you knew Dawkins’ first name was Clinton? Registering for the event using a first name which he never uses for anything else is about as red-handed as you can get. Dawkins was fully aware he was sneaking into a private screening to which he wasn’t invited and attempted to hide his presence by using his legal first name in the registration.

Anyone who continues to think that Myers and Dawkins are not guilty of chicanery in this matter is in denial.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

50 Responses to Clinton Dawkins: Guilty as Charged

  1. Those who registered for these screenings (like me) were instructed to bring ID. If Dawkins’ legal first name is Clinton (as he says it is) and this is the name that appears on his passport or other ID, then doesn’t it make sense he use the name that would match his ID?

  2. ck1

    Dawkins’ passport reads Clinton Richard Dawkins. He goes by Richard. You’re in denial.

  3. DaveScot wrote:

    “Richard Dawkins registered for the screening as “Clinton” Dawkins.”

    No, he didn’t. Guests were not required to register at all. Indeed, it’s not clear at the RSVP website (now heavily redacted) that guests were even required to show ID.

    Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly, Dawkin’s passport has his legal name – Clinton Richard Dawkins – and so that was the name presented at the door.

    So, every single assertion you made in this post is in error.

  4. P Z Myers says that the person registering had to give their own name, but they could also apply for a number of additional tickets for their guests, and that the names of these guests were not asked for.

    He says he registered as himself, and that Dawkins and his (Myers’s) family were his (un-named) guests.

    This would imply no express duplicity on Dawkins’s part.

  5. Registration of guests was required at the door, Allen. You’re in denial.

  6. I can easily understand wanting to whip up on PZ and company given the relentless chain of crap they spew. I personally think they are vial and vacant humans.

    But really, what does this have to do with the fact that there are protozoa with the toolkit for building metazoan organisms?

    We have to beat them at the science, no?

  7. I imagine the ID sorts want to clear the air about what has become a ridiculously (and probably Expelled-benefiting) issue.

    Personally, I’m getting a kick out of the fuss. Even if the worst (and, according to DaveScot’s post, untrue) allegation is correct – the invitations were utterly open to the public, and PZ Myers was told to leave – I’m having a hard time entertaining the idea that it would be an incident of note.

    But oh well. Hell hath no fury like a blogger who feels dissed.

  8. Allen_MacNeill:

    the RSVP website (now heavily redacted)

    What, precisely, has been “redacted”, please?

    Dawkin’s passport has his legal name – Clinton Richard Dawkins – and so that was the name presented at the door.

    But he in fact excised the “Richard” portion from his registration, did he not? Why, when one is commonly known as “Richard Dawkins” would one not sign in as “Richard Dawkins” or (if one was concerned about their ID matching their registration) more fully as “C. Richard Dawkins” or “Clinton Richard Dawkins”?

    Do you not see an inconsistency in substituting an uncommonly known first name for a commonly known middle name?

  9. Dave:
    “How many of you knew Dawkins’ first name was Clinton?”

    First one for me. Now I wonder why didn’t he use this name in his books instead?

    MacNeill:
    “it’s not clear at the RSVP website (now heavily redacted) that guests were even required to show ID”

    The ID issue was brought up by Mr/Ms. ck1.

  10. Charles @ 8;
    “What, precisely, has been “redacted”, please?”

    Yes, I also want to know, Mr. MacNeill.

    Now the producers can’t even change or edit their website’s content without some allegation of questionable charges being thrown their way?

    It is only natural to expect these changes to occur given the demands and highlights the movie has received.

  11. As far as I know, the people in line didn’t have to register at the door. Indeed, that was the whole point in having an online registration system. Those who had registered online had to show ID to match the names on the list, generated from the online reservation system. However, their guests were simply admitted after showing ID, which in Dr. Dawkins’ case consisted of his passport, which listed his full legal name.

    So, here is the scenario, as verified in multiple locations online (including this website):

    1) A publicly accessible website (with no language about “restricting access”) has an unrestricted link via which anyone can register for an advanced screening of a film.

    2) There is also an option to bring up to three guests, with no mention of having to register them or bring ID.

    3) A person (who, BTW, is featured in the film being screened and is thanked publicly for his participation in the film’s credits) registers for an advanced screening via the public website and follows all of the instructions contained therein.

    4) However, upon reaching the theatre, he is asked to leave and complies peacefully with the request.

    5) This request is verified as having originated with Mark Mathis, who is also on record as saying that the reason he asked the person to leave is that he wanted him to pay admission to the film, rather than attend the advanced screening.

    6) When one of the guests, having been admitted under the published procedures noted above, stands up to ask a question during the Q&A following the film, he is recognized by Mark Mathis and is publicly thanked for his participation.

    7) People who attended the Q&A session noted that the person asking the question was polite and well-mannered, and that having received an answer to his questions, he sat down and yielded the floor to other participants without a fuss.

    Some questions:

    Were any laws broken by anyone, regardless of which side they were on?

    Were any publicly stated rules broken by anyone, regardless of which side they were on?

    If the answer to the foregoing is “no”, then this is clearly and simply a matter of difference of opinion about the propriety of what happened.

    Under such circumstances,
    who comes off as having committed anything but childish and petty insults in this scenario?

  12. I was asked:

    “What, precisely, has been “redacted”, please?”

    The list of forthcoming advance screenings of the film, some of the procedures for registering, and the list of dates (all of which are now listed as “TBA” and “Waiting List”.

    BTW, the term “redacted” means essentially “edited, following changed interpretation”.

  13. MacNeill @ 12:
    “As far as I know, the people in line didn’t have to register at the door.”

    Mr.MacNeill, did you go to any of these screenings?

  14. Security procedures at these events apparently need beefing up. In fact, for similar future events, why not keep a set of photos with all the usual suspects’ mug shots at the registration table.

    Better yet, since such individuals are likely to be in disguise, and since Darwinism has led to such incredible advances in biology and related technology, we will simply set up a monitoring device that will beep wildly when PZ, Dawkins, or others of the same ilk attempt entry in disguise. The device will operate by scanning the brains (since this is now possible) of such individuals, searching for extremely vitriolic thoughts for ID, God or anything divine, and design in general, except the design associated with their investment portfolios as their atheist books’ sales go through the atmosphere.

    Or, rather than beeping, perhaps the device will begin flashing photos of Charles Darwin on the screen. Or better yet, the classic series of figures depicting early primates evolving to human beings. This is sure to get the ID crowd on its feet, frantically scanning for the imposters!!

  15. This looks like a fuss about nothing. It’s not unusual for Brits in the States to use their first name when signing up for something because the passport gives their full name – and when you have to go through US Immigration, you have to put your name EXACTLY as written on the passport. Believe me, my family has been through this – my wife was pulled over at the entry airport because she hadn’t put her name quite as it appeared on the passport (her first name is not what she is usually called by).
    After that kind of episode, you take great care when giving your name. That includes giving ALL forenames where asked, but where there is only space for one forename you give the first one as stated in the passport. I would have done exactly what Dawkins did and so would my wife (using our names, that is, not Dawkins!).

  16. MacNeill @ 13:
    “I was asked:

    “What, precisely, has been “redacted”, please?”

    The list of forthcoming advance screenings of the film, some of the procedures for registering, and the list of dates (all of which are now listed as “TBA” and “Waiting List”.”

    And are you saying/implying that this is an isolated case, oftentimes not seen with other movie productions?

    Have you made comparisons with other exhibitions of similar significance and controversy?

  17. Personally, I think Dawkins and Meyers to be fat headed hypocrites of the worst kind and unable to reason coherently on anything.

    Whatever they intended to do, wished, imagined or did is nothing we would not have expected. Both of them need a thorough thrashing by the media.

    But this is starting to look like a TPT thread of bitching and whining over the real facts.

    So I think maybe we should can it. We all know those 2 fustilarian prigs are guilty just by their presence there. ;-)

  18. Allen_MacNeill #12:

    1) A publicly accessible website (with no language about “restricting access”) has an unrestricted link via which anyone can register for an advanced screening of a film.

    But the screenings to which Myers RSVP’d are clearly labeled “Private” and the link was not published, not on the website. Do you dispute this? Here is the Google cached RSVP private screenings page again as it looked on or about March 20th. Note the ” MN AMC Mall of America 14″ entry midpage and the clear designation of Private at the top of the page.

    3) A person (who, BTW, is featured in the film being screened and is thanked publicly for his participation in the film’s credits) registers for an advanced screening via the public website and follows all of the instructions contained therein.

    Uninvited. He registered for a “Private” screening to which he was not invited.

    Were any publicly stated rules broken by anyone, regardless of which side they were on?

    So, is it your position that “Private” by invitation needs to be explained as a “rule”, to university biology professors, noless? Is that the standard you wish applied to any private parties you might host?

  19. MacNeill @ 12:
    “This request is verified as having originated with Mark Mathis, who is also on record as saying that the reason he asked the person to leave is that he wanted him to pay admission to the film, rather than attend the advanced screening.”

    And where can we find proof of this that Mathis did in fact say these things?

  20. Allen_MacNeill #13:

    The list of forthcoming advance screenings of the film, some of the procedures for registering, and the list of dates (all of which are now listed as “TBA” and “Waiting List”.

    BTW, the term “redacted” means essentially “edited, following changed interpretation”.

    And does not Cornell similarly “redact” upcoming course schedules and enrollments as classes are filled and/or reopened or rescheduled? Does not Cornell similarly “redact” enrollment procedures from time to time?

  21. The controversy over Dawkins and Myers is wonderful publicity. Everyone who participates in this debate is party to it–including us. The Expelled people ought to milk this controversy for all its worth, then offer a special private screening to Dawkins and Myers with much fanfare and an apology (and perhaps yet another snub of the two) so as to gain even more attention for the film and stir up another round of public bickering.

    The people marketing this film are geniuses. Let the debate roll on! :)

  22. 22

    Maybe I missed it somewhere in this thread, but where did you get the information that Richard Dawkins had signed up as “Clinton” Dawkins?

    Also, my wife and I went to see a screening of this(excellent) film as well, I had to register my name and then it just asked me how many guests I was going to bring, I just typed in the number “1″. You say “registration of guests was required at the door”, was this different at that particular screening? because that wasn’t the case at the one I went to.

    As someone else pointed out though, this is really much ado about nothing. Two scientists tried to get into the screening of the film, one was denied access…I think there are more important things we can worry about. Like Dawkins horrible and dishonest “review” of the film or maybe how all the negative reviews of the film resort to mere name calling and fail to refute any of the films claims, etc.

  23. Nick Manderson:

    Did you and your wife receive an email invitation to attend the screening, or did you (like many of those attending such screenings) find out about it online and go to the RSVP site to register?

    If the latter, you did nothing different than did PZ Myers; according to most of the commentators above, you “crashed” the “private” screening of the movie.

  24. As for discussing the actual content of the film, that will be difficult for me, as no screenings of the film are planned for central New York as far as I can tell. Ergo, I will either have to schlep down to The City (difficult with four kids, one of whom is only a year old) or wait for it to come out on DVD.

    Not to mention the fact that my kids won’t be able to see me up on the silver screen, as my interview was cut from the film (as I have stated before, Will Provine and I always invite ID and YEC supporters to make presentations in our evolution courses at Cornell, and so our interviews were “inconvenient”).

  25. Allen_MacNeill @ 30:

    If the latter, you did nothing different than did PZ Myers; according to most of the commentators above, you “crashed” the “private” screening of the movie.

    Unless of course there are public showings and also private screenings at which the producer held a post-screening Q&A, to which private screening an individual was first invited and to which the RSVP URL is different from that of the public tour URL.

    Is both a public tour and private screening really all that complex to comphrehend, or are you just in denial that PZ Myers would continue to let you defend his boorish behavior at the expense of your integrity?

  26. I will reserve judgment on that until we hear from Nick Manderson.

  27. And what of your judgement on the links of Private screenings already posted?

    Are you reserving that as well? What is missing?

  28. 28

    vjtorley #10

    “Very interesting. Can you give me a link to any articles on this subject? Thank you.”

    It is one of the points of a Design Inference in “The Design Matrix” by Mike Gene. Buy it, its a very interesting read.

  29. Hi Allen,
    Why do you say your interviews were “inconvenient”?
    Is that a quotation from someone who had the authority to cut your interviews?

    Regards,
    Charlie
    (not Charles)

  30. Allen_MacNeill @ 30:

    Further on the two types of events:

    Compare the URLs:

    Here is the public tour URL:
    http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/movies/expelled

    Here is the unpublished, unlinked “private” screenings URL
    http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/ev.....l/expelled

    Look at the differences in the two URLs and note the “private” screenings URL has “special” in place of “movies” in the URL.

  31. Richard Dawkins registered for the screening as “Clinton” Dawkins.

    A source for this assertion would be valuable. Are you claiming that Dawkins also RSVP’d to an event he was not invited to? Or by register, do you mean at the door.

    As some of you know, I was Expelled from PZ’s Evolander blog because the topic of PZ’s gatecrashing came up. Of course, PZ still has not substantiated his claims that “just about everybody” who used the RSVP system to the private screening did so without an invitation.

  32. Allen

    What don’t you understand about what an RSVP is? Myers and Dawkins RSVPed to invitations they never received. Both of them have been following this movie closely, to say the least as they’re both stars in it, and are absolutely well aware that these were private showings by invitation only to “receptive” audiences. To get a “buzz” on it going. Everyone in the world that’s been following this movie knows that. If you have any doubt whatsoever that Myers and Dawkins weren’t aware of all this and took advantage of the host’s open but not advertised web address for people RSVP private screening invitations screening then you are in denial. Plain and simple, denial.

  33. Allen

    Per your numbered points

    1) A publicly accessible website (with no language about “restricting access”) has an unrestricted link via which anyone can register for an advanced screening of a film.

    You are is equivocating. The page is titled RSVP. Pretty much everyone as smart as a 5th grader in the U.S. knows what that is and that you don’t RSVP an invitation you didn’t receive. The URL was not advertised. It appeared only on invitations to private screenings. A well known ID detractor, Glen Davidson, found it not long ago and found you could get your name on the guest list without being invited. He told all his buddies on (at least) talk.org the week before the Minnesota showing. Myers leapt at the chance to sneak in.

    2) There is also an option to bring up to three guests, with no mention of having to register them or bring ID.

    Yeah. Let’s count the members in the party, shall we? There was Myers, his wife, his daughter, his daughter’s boyfriend, Dawkins, and three unnamed Dawkins Foundation employees. That’s 8 people. Unless my math is wrong that requires TWO invited people with 3 guests each.

    ID was required and if you actually got an invitation you’d know that. If ID wasn’t required and Dawkins was not registered under his own then why did Dawkins have to show his passport? Please explain.

    3) A person (who, BTW, is featured in the film being screened and is thanked publicly for his participation in the film’s credits) registers for an advanced screening via the public website and follows all of the instructions contained therein.

    They knew they weren’t invited and these screenings were by invitation only.

    4) However, upon reaching the theatre, he is asked to leave and complies peacefully with the request.

    Why was he singled out of a crowd and why were 7 others in his party allowed in? Does Myers get an applause for obeying the law or just what’s so significant that it deserves mention? Millions of Americans obey the law every single day.

    5) This request is verified as having originated with Mark Mathis, who is also on record as saying that the reason he asked the person to leave is that he wanted him to pay admission to the film, rather than attend the advanced screening.

    So basically Mark was gracious enough to let a number of others he knew were hostile to the movie and never invited to see a pre-release version but drew the line with PZ Myers who’s called Mathis every name in the book at every opportunity. Seems like a good enough reason to me. It was a private showing after all and Myers had not been invited to it.

    6) When one of the guests, having been admitted under the published procedures noted above, stands up to ask a question during the Q&A following the film, he is recognized by Mark Mathis and is publicly thanked for his participation.

    Mark was quite gracious about someone hostile to the movie showing up uninvited was he not? He trusted Dawkins would not act out.

    7) People who attended the Q&A session noted that the person asking the question was polite and well-mannered, and that having received an answer to his questions, he sat down and yielded the floor to other participants without a fuss.

    Mark’s trust was well placed.

    I don’t really see how any of this is contrary to the point that Dawkins knew he wasn’t invited.

  34. Please see The smoking gun: Comment #81 and #83 which leaves absolutely no reasonable doubt that PZ Myers knew he was gaming the RSVP system.

  35. Upright Biped

    We have to beat them at the science, no?

    First we have to have a non-hostile work environment where the science is done. In fact exposing that hostile work environment is what the documentary is all about.

  36. William Wallace

    Press release from Premise Media:

    http://www.businesswire.com/po.....ewsLang=en

    The producers were notified that Myers and others who were not invited had signed up for the screening. They were also aware that Dawkins, who oddly used his formal surname “Clinton” instead of Richard to sign up, was in attendance.

    He signed up -somewhere-. My guess is that he was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement at the door and that was the “sign up” Premise is referring to or that he did indeed RSVP through the unpublished portal for invited guests. Take your pick.

  37. DaveScot,

    Thanks. Also, did you see the comments at PZ’s own blog yet?

  38. William

    I’ve seen more comments than Carter has little liver pills. You’ll have to be more specific.

  39. Sorry, the comments described here.

  40. DaveScot-

    How many of you knew Dawkins’ first name was Clinton?

    Probably quite a few of us, since it was mentioned less than a year ago on this blog. I think it was when some individual was trying to minimize Prof. Dawkins’ publication record, but botched the whole thing. I can’t recall the details. If you search Uncommon Descent for “Clinton” you get a link to the post, but clicking on the link just gets a 404 search error. Unfortunate the way computers make things disappear.

  41. In my humble opinion they should have just let Myers and Dawkins watch it. Sure they are belligerent, but so what, don’t we have the moral high ground here? Why resort to their tactics. Did the producers have a right to “expel” them? Sure, but why not just let them watch it?

    As for Dr.Allen, your comments are appreciated, and helpful. The discourse has proved enlightening to myself at least, a devout theist and mostly ID’er. To the other faithful ID’ers keep up the good work and don’t stoop to the level of the Myers and Dawkins of the world.

  42. *Sorry, I know Dawkins was not expelled as my post made it sound.

  43. William

    Yes, I read those but I found the Glen Davidson smoking gun myself by simply googling the private URL and discovering Glen Davidson on talk.origins describing how to get in without an invitation then advising that the non-disclosure agreement could be violated without getting caught by anonymous web posting. Actually advising people to commit a crime… hmmmm.

    http://groups.google.com/group.....4?lnk=raot

  44. Here is an interesting comment in response to a March 11th announcement of the Chicago private screening including the private screening RSVP address:

    http://onegreatcityblog.blogsp.....ening.html

    Why are you sharing this secret RSVP site with the general public? Wasn’t it given to you in utmost confidence? What would happen if people who were not wholly in sycophantic agreement with the film’s message were to get hold of it?

  45. MacNeill:
    “As for discussing the actual content of the film, that will be difficult for me, as no screenings of the film are planned for central New York as far as I can tell.”

    So this answers the question I posed to you @ 16, where I asked you if you had seen any of the screenings. So therefore, Mr.MacNeill, I think you are not in the position to confidently state what you wrote @ 13:

    “As far as I know, the people in line didn’t have to register at the door.”

    There is no way you can claim this without having been to any of the screenings.

    Allen, you come across as a kind and respectable fellow and it is just a pity to have to see someone like you defend people that are not in league with your candor and goodwill and then to needlessly suffer the consequence of fiery, but rightful criticisms.

  46. Dave @ 44, that is some damning evidence for those who still claim a RSVP system was not in place. The date reference is of particular importance. I’m going to have use this one in my response to another poster who keeps insisting that these screenings were offered to the general public.

  47. DaveScot #43

    I did not realize PZ still bothered with USENET. Don’t you think it is a little easier for PZ to deny reading USENET articles than his own blog’s comments?

  48. William

    Davidson was posting it everywhere he thought it might be seen. That just happened to be the first place I saw it. It comes up on a regular google web search – I didn’t search google groups.

  49. DaveScot,

    Keep up the good fight!

  50. Borne 17

    Whose catastrophe has Dawkins tickled recently?

Leave a Reply