Home » Intelligent Design » Darwinist threat to sue pro-ID filmmakers? Friend of the studio thinks they have no case

Darwinist threat to sue pro-ID filmmakers? Friend of the studio thinks they have no case

I just heard from a contact who knows his way around that studio who saw my recent post about the anonymous warning that Darwinists might sue the makers of the Ben Stein Expelled film. The film does not flatter them, and perhaps they’d want to at least stop it from opening on Darwin’s birthday next February. Said studio rat writes,

Not only would any lawsuit be a waste of time, but there was nothing unethical about how they obtained interviews from what I’ve heard. In some cases, namely Richard Dawkins but a number of others as well, the interviewee saw the questions prior to the interview and it was very clear what the subject matter was about. Interviewees were told that the working title was Crossroads, which it was for a while (remember some interviews happened more than a year ago). It’s not uncommon for a movie to have one or even a few working titles while it is being produced.

At the end of each interview the interviewees were asked to sign a release form. If they didn’t like how the interview had gone it seems that would have been the time to say ‘no, I won’t sign that’ which would have protected them from being included in the film.

He wonders how likely it is that Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers said anything that they haven’t said or written publicly before.

Not likely.

Is anyone other than the Pharyngulite complaining? Funny, I would have thought that the Prophet of the Pharyngula would be too busy with other legal matters.

Anyway, Ratsy says he was kind of expecting the Darwoids to make these noises because they don’t have many other options. The picture ain’t pretty, apparently, but it isn’t illegal either. I’m waiting to see if Premise Media wants to issue a statement. Might clear the air a bit.

Update: Here’s a podcast with the executive producer of Expelled, Walt Ruloff.

Ruloff gives a brief overview of Expelled, explains how he came to spend over two years making the film, talks about intelligent design as a disruptive technology compared to dogmatic Darwinian evolution, and tells how the film will show that Darwinian evolution is a science stopper. Rather than get mired in the politics of the debate, Ruloff explains that Expelled gets to “where the rubber meets the road, where the science is being done.”

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

22 Responses to Darwinist threat to sue pro-ID filmmakers? Friend of the studio thinks they have no case

  1. They can’t help it. It is part of the natural authoritarian bent of athiests. They can’t win the battle of ideas so their only hope is to silence opposing ideas by legal action.

  2. Yup, Jehu. That is the mentality which drives them to sue anyone who presents *scientific* arguements against unguided evolutionism.

  3. An unnamed source commenting on an anonymous threat? Come on, Denyse, spill the beans. We want the gossip.

  4. The Darwinists are not likely to sue because they do not want the additional publicity for the film. The last thing they need is for more people to go to the film and see how pathetic they behave and how worthless their science is.

  5. rrf, … please state the spacetime coodinates of your planet.

    “Unnamed” and “anonymous” are the currency of gossip.

    If you don’t believe me, fine and dandy, write the whole thing off. I wouldn’t recommend that just now because the stakes are high, but hey.

    The one thing you can be sure of is that I protect my sources as best I can.

    People who don’t do that don’t hear stuff.

    You can be sure that when I know more, I will say more.

  6. PS rrf: I realize you are not serious. I am only pretending to act injured because it is afternoon in late August, and I need another hot weather story. – d.

  7. Oh, well.

    Does your source have any good dish on Brangelina?

  8. darweenies are such sore losers

    their science is so bad they can only resort to lawsuits to get their “proof” – so nothing surprising here but it is fun to watch them chase their monkey tales ;-)

  9. Does your source have any good dish on Brangelina?

    Are the Darwinists suing them also?

    A lawsuit to stop this movie would be great advertisement- free advertisement.

    The fallout from suit would do a better job at making the point than the actual movie.

  10. Denise, I think in this case your anonymous source in engaged in a little wishful thinking. I have read most of everything the people in question have written so far, and I have yet to find any hint of a threat to sue.

    Sure, a lot of their supporters are encouraging them to do so, but I see no signs at all thus far from any of the potential litigants.

  11. Tyke, did you read Denyse’s post?

    It starts with:

    I just heard from a contact who knows his way around that studio who saw my recent post about the anonymous warning that Darwinists might sue the makers of the Ben Stein Expelled film.

    IOW it is exactly as what you said, just not the same words:

    Sure, a lot of their supporters are encouraging them to do so, but I see no signs at all thus far from any of the potential litigants.

    And her source isn’t engaged in wishful thinking. The studio rat was just telling it like it is.

    Have a good day.

  12. Well, we’ll see who is right soon enough. I’m quite willing to admit I’m wrong if a law suit happens, but I just don’t see it.

  13. [...] I knew the creationists were obtuse, but this is going a little far. Denyse O’Leary is twittering about all these paranoid suspicions that Richard Dawkins or I are planning to sue to block the release of that silly creationist movie, Expelled, in a post titled Darwinist threat to sue pro-ID filmmakers? Friend of the studio thinks they have no case. It’s a bit bizarre. Neither of us have even made any faint noises to that effect. In my post on the subject, I wondered who funded it, why it was being favored by the DI since it was endorsing the religious nature of ID, and why they had to be dishonest in asking for the interview — and concluded by saying I was looking forward to seeing it and shredding its arguments. How is that to be interpreted as a threat to sue to prevent the release of the movie? [...]

  14. 14

    These Darwinists should just be grateful for the opportunity to publicize their views. Most of us are not lucky enough to get the opportunity.

    Related items:

    (1) Francis Collins, director of the human genome project, made such a big stink about his interview being included in the Darwin-to-Hitler “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy” TV program that he was dropped from the program.

    (2) The Discovery Institute’s Casey Luskin refused to grant a full interview to “Monkey Girl” author Edward Humes.

    (3) One source says that the Discovery Institute staff “stonewalled” requests to be interviewed for a PBS Nova TV program about the Dover trial.

    Details are here.

  15. PZ Myers denies any intention by him, Dawkins or anyone else to sue.

  16. Tyke,

    Do you have reading comprehension problems?

    Denyse’s source was speaking about the HYPOTHETICAL scenario. IOW IF someone sues.

    No one, I repeat NO ONE, is saying a lawsuit is immanent.

    This was just a “what if” excercise.

  17. [...] I knew the creationists were obtuse, but this is going a little far. Denyse O’Leary is twittering about all these paranoid suspicions that Richard Dawkins or I are planning to sue to block the release of that silly creationist movie, Expelled, in a post titled Darwinist threat to sue pro-ID filmmakers? Friend of the studio thinks they have no case. It’s a bit bizarre. Neither of us have even made any faint noises to that effect. In my post on the subject, I wondered who funded it, why it was being favored by the DI since it was endorsing the religious nature of ID, and why they had to be dishonest in asking for the interview — and concluded by saying I was looking forward to seeing it and shredding its arguments. How is that to be interpreted as a threat to sue to prevent the release of the movie? [...]

  18. PZ Myers denies any intention by him, Dawkins or anyone else to sue.

    No one said they had any intention to sue.

    Please re-read the OP.

  19. Post 17 proves that PZ cannot comprehend a simple post.

    Denyse specically stated the warning was anonymous.

    It is also obvious that she was talking about the mob trying to goad PZ et al. into a lawsuit against Stein.

    A fourth grader has a better reading comprehension level than these anti-ID twits.

    And then they wonder why people doubt the theory of evolution-

    Look pal, if you can’t even follow a simple post how the heck can we expect you can follow the scientific data?

    PZ, time to buy a vowel…

  20. OT,
    PZ’s failure to comprehend is on display in this post as well.
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn....._to_be.php

    He wrote to the Expelled producer saying:

    it’s really a gung- ho pro-creationism/anti-science film

    if you’d been honest with me about the subject

    I don’t understand why you felt you had to conceal your intent.

    Care to explain yourself?

    When he got this reply:

    Mr. Myers,
    Thank you for your recent communication. Please know that I strongly disagree with the insinuations and characterizations made in your e-mail to me. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for sharing your viewpoints, and I wish you the best in all your endeavors.

    He saids:

    What a curiously defensive response. There was no insinuation at all in my email: he wasn’t honest with me, and he did conceal his intent. I gave him an opportunity to respond, and all he can say is that he disagrees with me on something in that email? What was it?

    With what in PZ’s email does he disagree? The insinuations and characterizations, as he said.
    What was insinuated? For one, that he was dishonest in his presentation to PZ.
    What was characterized? His presentation, as dishonest, and his movie, as gung-ho- pro-creationism and anti-science, obviously.

  21. PZ should look in a mirror before accusing others of being dishonest.

    Neither ID nor Creation are “anti-science”.

    Being anti- the blind watchmaker does not make oine anti-science.

    Being anti-materialism does not make one anti-science.

    Was Newton anti-science? No.

    Was Kepler anti-science? No.

    Was Linneaus anti-science? No.

    Was Copernicus anti-science? No.

    Was Planck anti-science? No.

    If one chooses to accept a designing agency was responsible then one can only be as scientifically literate as thsoe aforementioned scientists.

    I, for one, can live with that. As a matter of fact I would think that the vast majority could live with that.

  22. Most Darwinists are betting their whole future on one big lie –that ID is faith based. Since their science is no good, they must discredit the opposition, and the only way they can APPEAR to do that is to knowingly make the false claim that CS and ID are synonymous That is why they continue to use the phrase “creationist” indiscriminately. They can’t possibly be stupid enough not to know the difference, but they are couting on their listeners being that stupid.

    Our job, from a public relations standpoint, is to dramatize the difference between CS and ID, and therefore expose the militant- style Darwinists as liars. We have never lied about what they think, so why should we permit them to lie about what we think. For those few who are not yet impervious to reason, dialougue remains a viable alternative. Still, we should care less about winning converts from the Darwinist camp and more about recruiting future scientists who have not yet made up their mind.

Leave a Reply