The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Expelled: the Denial

Posted 12 March 2008 by PvM

More from Pharyngula which I had missed

We also have expectations of honesty that are not being met. The makers of this film had to hide their motivations every step of the way, because they know that they can't stand the harsh light of criticism. And they just can't stop lying. Logan Craft, executive producer of "Expelled" and chief of Premise Media, said he thought Mr. Moore had been wrong to attend the screening after being disinvited, but both he and Mr. Lauer denied any involvement in an online "media alert" that purported to be from a backer of the film. The alert accused Mr. Moore of posing as a minister to gain admission, calling his actions a "security breach." Mr. Moore said he never represented himself as other than a reporter.

Oh, come on. I've got a copy of the "media alert," and it's from promotional material put out by Motive Marketing. Look at the official movie site, and right there on the bottom right is the logo for Motive Marketing. They've been bragging about using Motive for marketing, since this is also the firm that promoted Gibson's snuff movie, The Passion of the Christ. This Lauer fellow is the founder of Motive. A reader has sent me more promotional mail from these guys, and they are peddling the movie hard. And now they're lying to the New York Times and claiming they've got nothing to do with it? It seems to be a kind of pathological reflex to deny, deny, deny even when they're caught red-handed in something relatively inocuous. Wow... I'd love to see that copy of the "media alert". And guess what, here it is

In response to Moore's charge that the film's manipulation of Holocaust imagery is "despicable", Stein states that "The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters.

See Wikipedia for more info Double Wow

35 Comments

Ichthyic · 12 March 2008

projection and denial...

denial and projection...

dance, suckers, dance!

Ron Okimoto · 12 March 2008

From the Wiki link:

However, the Discovery Institute has been critical of some of the statements made in promotion of the film, such as American television personality and social commentator Bill O'Reilly equating intelligent design with creationism.

I wonder why they are showing Expelled to religous organizations and groups? The Wiki link should have something about the fact that ID perps at the Discovery Institute have expelled ID from their switch scam. What did the Florida rubes get to teach about ID in the last few weeks? Didn't they want to teach the science of intelligent design? How is running a bait and switch scam supposed to support the teaching of intelligent design? There has to be something to say about academic censorship when even the guys that perpetrated the teach ID scam have a new scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. It has to be a conspiracy when even the ID perps are censoring themselves.

Frank J · 12 March 2008

From Wikipedia:

[Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis, a young earth creationist organization] Purdom is glad that the film will highlight the discrimination against scientists who rely on the Bible, instead of human reason, for their work. She complains that the only scientists featured appear to be connected with the intelligent design movement, rather than creationists like herself. Purdom also expresses uneasiness about the "big tent" approach of intelligent design and this film, since it does not look like it will promote the bible as a better source of truth than the Koran or human reason. She equates the use of human reason with agnosticism.[77]

Ya gotta respect AIG for its honesty. The DI and associated snake oil peddlers behind “Expelled” are not discriminating only against scientists who rely on the Bible, but against any promoter of anti-evolution pseudoscience, including (and especially?) those like Michael Behe, who not only does not rely on the Bible, but is on record stating that reading the Bible as a science text is “silly”. Darn it, people. For all their demonstrably wrong claims of natural history and misrepresentation of evolution, AIG can actually help us expose the antics of the DI. The all too common practice of lumping all these diverse groups, not to mention scammers and rubes alike, under a vague “creationist” label is self-defeating. Ron, you’re better with words than I am. Can you help?

Science Nut · 12 March 2008

When the clergy and Roger Moore were invited to the screening, did the producers pull a bait and switch? IOW, did the nondisclosure agreement only pop up when viewers arrived at the theater or were they told in advance within the invitation?

Anyone know?

Science Nut · 12 March 2008

Ooops...that's Robert Moore...sorry Mr. Bond.

J-Dog · 12 March 2008

From AIG's basic lesson plan:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Or, in the vernacular - Lier, Lier, Pants On Fire!

Oooops = DI Loses Again = Going To Hell

Frank J · 12 March 2008

In comment 145,964:

"...are not discriminating only against scientists who..."

should be

"...are not whining only about perceived discrimination against scientists who..."

David Stanton · 12 March 2008

So, who was expelled from what now?

What a bunch of hypocrites. First they invite some guy to see their movie, then they change their minds for no apparent reason, then they get mad when he comes anyway. Do they really think that they can prevent anyone who will be critical from seeing the movie? Do they really think that they can expel all people with a modicum of intelligence and then complain about discrimination? What have they got to hide? Wasn't the purpose of making the movie to get the word out? Not invitinig reporters seems to be a counter productive strategy where publicity is concerned. Does it have an "R" rating and this guy wasn't old enough?

He said what after he say it? Oh, never mind. It all makes perfect sense now.

harold · 12 March 2008

Stein states that “The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters".
Unbelievable on so many levels. A film that is about "censorship" should be hidden from reporters. Reporters shouldn't do investigative journalism (*there are plenty of ethically wrong things one could do 'dressed as a minister', having a look at this film isn't one of them, and yes, I know he wasn't even dressed as a minister*). Misrepresenting the holocaust is less despicable than going to a film preview where you might not be welcome. His language even carelessly implies that dressing up as a minister is more despicable than the holocaust itself. Of course he didn't mean that, but he was insensitive enough to imply it. Optimistic prediction - ID and the DI have peaked and have now entered a long period of exponential decline into irrelevance. Not long ago, it seemed like every year some new garbage-filled book was coming out, and supporters of science and rational thought were kept busy pointing out the errors. This film has been released, and all it consists of, as far as I can tell from the excerpts I've seen via this site, is Stein doing softball interviews with a few isolated crackpots who, while obviously comfortable and non-persecuted, whine about being persecuted, admixed with offensive and inappropriate images of things like the holocaust. It's the holocaust stuff that really destroyed it, of course. They could have left that out and created a minor, trivial amount of interest among bong-hit philosophers. But that holocaust garbage is going to be - quite rightly - a lightening rod for human rights and Jewish groups. It is deeply offensive. Not merely to scientists. It's an obnoxious form of revisionism to misrepresent the "cause" of the holocaust. At least Stein doesn't deny that it happened or entirely blame it on the victims; I'll give him that much, but it's still repugnant to exploit an unimaginable tragedy as a way to petulantly insult "liberals". By the way, people of Jewish heritage are represented among holocaust revisionists; being Jewish is not in itself a license to misrepresent the holocaust.

raven · 12 March 2008

Ben Stein: In response to Moore’s charge that the film’s manipulation of Holocaust imagery is “despicable”, Stein states that “The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters.
It is despicable. What do you expect from Nixon's speechwriter? FWIW, I thought I'd get the Jewish perspective on the causes of the Holocaust. Since these have been happening for 2,000 years, they must have an interest in the reasons why. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem has a department called Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology. No, it isn't a secret cabal of Darwinists planning the next Holocaust. Not in Jerusalem. There are 11 scientists who are evolutionary biologists. Just normal people doing normal science. Most serious historians, Xian, Jewish, and Other trace the Holocaust back to German Xianity. Stein probably knows that but like all creos, the truth is of no interest. He got his 30 pieces of silver for rewriting history.

Pat · 12 March 2008

I am SO hoping John Hodgman of the Daily Show parodies this when it finally goes "public." If anybody could counter Stein's literate deadpan it's Hodgman pedagoguery and wit so dry it could pucker the Sahara.

MPW · 12 March 2008

Is there any credible evidence that Moore did anything close to posing as a minister to get in? I haven't seen any yet, just accusations from the Expelledists.
Wikipedia via Ron Okimoto: the Discovery Institute has been critical of some of the statements made in promotion of the film, such as American television personality and social commentator Bill O’Reilly equating intelligent design with creationism.
Doesn't the film itself equate ID with creationism, at least implicitly? The opening section of the extended trailer does, anyway, where Stein babbles warmly about what sounds to me like straight-up creationism. The IDists seem to be in a confused "do we or do we not keep pretending we're not creationists?" phase. And of course, that should be "...Bill O'Reilly's equating..." Sheesh... Wikipedia.

Frank J · 12 March 2008

Doesn’t the film itself equate ID with creationism, at least implicitly?

— MPW
Doesn't matter. The DI's specialty is playing word games. As long as the public defines "creationism" as "honest belief in a 6-day, ~6000 year ago Creation" and critics define it as "any strategy that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution ad proposes an untestable design-based alternative" the ID scam artists will get mileage with "ID is not creationism." From the reviews of "Expelled" it seems that the film doesn't even describe ID, let alone creationism, so it's all about allowing the audience to infer whatever it wants, as long as they come away thinking that there's a conspiracy in mainstream science. Which, sadly most nonscientists already believe, whether or not they are Biblical literalists - or even theists.

Ron Okimoto · 12 March 2008

Frank J: From Wikipedia:

[Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis, a young earth creationist organization] Purdom is glad that the film will highlight the discrimination against scientists who rely on the Bible, instead of human reason, for their work. She complains that the only scientists featured appear to be connected with the intelligent design movement, rather than creationists like herself. Purdom also expresses uneasiness about the "big tent" approach of intelligent design and this film, since it does not look like it will promote the bible as a better source of truth than the Koran or human reason. She equates the use of human reason with agnosticism.[77]

Ya gotta respect AIG for its honesty. The DI and associated snake oil peddlers behind “Expelled” are not discriminating only against scientists who rely on the Bible, but against any promoter of anti-evolution pseudoscience, including (and especially?) those like Michael Behe, who not only does not rely on the Bible, but is on record stating that reading the Bible as a science text is “silly”. Darn it, people. For all their demonstrably wrong claims of natural history and misrepresentation of evolution, AIG can actually help us expose the antics of the DI. The all too common practice of lumping all these diverse groups, not to mention scammers and rubes alike, under a vague “creationist” label is self-defeating. Ron, you’re better with words than I am. Can you help?
Beats me, what can you say about the collection of nutcases. Is it incompetence? If it is ignorance it is an ignorance so willful that insanity isn't out of the question. For the ID perps, dishonesty is an obvious factor. It isn't like all these guys didn't get whomped up the side of the head. Why aren't the rubes that fell for the ID scam clamoring to give equal time to scientific creationism? What is the difference? Why did they switch? What about the guys in Texas that had fallen for the teach ID scam, but have had the bait and switch run on them and they are now for the switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed, or the poor rubes in Dover that are still wondering where the wonderful science of intelligent design went to? These guys have all had to face the reality that what they have doesn't make the cut, but they are still willing to go on. The sad thing is that it probably takes a higher level of dishonesty and less moral integrity to keep running the intelligent design scam than it does to support the scientific creationist bull pucky. The guys still pushing intelligent design at the Discovery Institute gave up on it as the wedge years ago. They are only using it as smoke to make it look like there is some controversy that the creationist rubes might want to teach, but when the rubes get the scam they find out that creationism and ID can't even be mentioned as one of the controversies. All they get is a stupid obfuscation scam, only meant to keep their kids as ignorant as possible, or give some dishonest or incompetent teacher an opening to so what they know they can't do. Every single time a legislator or school board has popped up and wanted to teach the science of intelligent design the switch scam gets run in by the same ID perps that used to claim that ID was their business. We are talking about 100% here. Anyone have an example where the switch was not run in besides Dover? The only ones that they couldn't convince to take the switch or drop the issue has been Dover. Everyone has to admit that the Discovery Institute did just about everything they could do except admitting that they were running a bait and switch scam to get the Dover rubes to not teach the science of ID. The poor Dover rubes went ahead even though the ID perps couldn't give them any science to teach. Look what just happened in Florida. 3 or 4 county school boards had members that claimed to want to teach the science of intelligent design, but what did they get? There were legislators that wanted to teach the science of intelligent design, but what did they get from the ID perps? Read the bill. Everytime you hear someone like Luskin say that the Florida bill does not permit the teaching of intelligent design just remember who is running the bait and switch on the creationists in Florida. It isn't the science side. The ID perps are running the scam on their own creationist supporters. Scientific creationist groups like AIG and the ICR were honest enough to call their oganizations Christian ministries. The Discovery Institute is called a "think tank." Geez, what can you say about a group of guys that make such stupidly transparent lies part of their propaganda? The guys responsible for writing the Wedge document. The same guys that are hawking their junk at relgious events and getting the "right" people to see a movie who just happen to be a group of pastors. Maybe it is lies, damn lies, and ID, but over 10,000 clergy came out against running these bogus creationist scams, so there are people involved in this issue with enough moral integrity to stand against what they can see is wrong. Not all religious groups fall into the anti science category. Not all religious people are willing to prostitute their integrity to push this issue. I know the Methodists have been against this junk since Scientific Creationism reared up. I was baptized a Methodist when I was old enough to know better. I haven't given up on it. I just believe that what the scientific creationists and ID perps are doing is wrong. I call them scam artists because that is exactly what they are and they know it. You can't run the bait and switch scam and not know that you are running a dishonest scam. How many times have guys like Luskin talked about intelligent design "theory" after the Dover debacle when they know for a fact that they never had a scientific theory. Why didn't Johnson come out with his admission that he knew that they never had the science to back up the ID scam until after Dover? Why were the ID perps working on the switch scam years before they had to use it in Ohio in 2003? The Methodists were plantiffs in the Arkansas equal time case back in 1980. They were among the Christian churches that the Kansas mob claimed were not real Christians. Anyone that wasn't for what the Kansas boobs were doing, didn't rate. It really ticked me off when the Kansas creationist boobs made that claim. A bunch of dishonest guys that knew that equal time wasn't going to cut it, so they just dropped what they didn't like out of the science standards. The big bang, radioactive decay, the age of the earth, biological evolution etc. If they had something worth teaching they would have tried to teach it, but instead they just tried to get rid of what they didn't like. Sad but true. With the AIG, you can never tell if they think that the ID scam is wrong, or if it is just cutting into their share of the rubes. The saddest thing is that they are all stuck with lying about their beliefs. For some reason it never dawns on these guys that if they do get the lie in, they have to live with the lie. Just think if teach the controversy does get implemented sucessfully? The only way that what they really want to teach gets taught is if some teacher is incompetent enough or dishonest enough to sneak it in. All they get stuck with is a scam and have to depend on dishonesty or incompetence to get any more out of it. The reason for challenging a law is to right some injustice or get the law changed. If you don't challenge the law, but dishonestly try to sneak around it, nothing changes, you just get stuck with having to sneak instead of standing up straight and walking with dignity. Just think if Rosa Parks had powdered her face white and didn't go back to the back of the bus? So what if she had gotten away with it? The creationist perps are trying to powder their faces to sneak past the law. What type of person would want to keep doing that for the rest of their lives? You just have to go down and visit the Discovery Institute web sites to find just what kind of person is willing to do that. Sad but true. Ron Okimoto

Glen Davidson · 12 March 2008

Someone here might be interested in the times and places of advanced showing of Expelled:

AZ Tempe Harkins Arizona Mills April 3 7:00 PM RSVP
CA Dublin Regal Hacienda Crossings 21 March 26 7:00 PM RSVP
CA Santa Clara AMC Mercado 20 March 27 8:00 PM RSVP
CO Broomfield (Denver) AMC Flatiron Crossing April 2 7:00 PM RSVP
FL Lake Buena Vista (Orlando) AMC Pleasure Island 24 March 18 7:00 PM RSVP
GA Decatur (Atlanta) AMC North Dekalb Mall 16 March 25 7:00 PM RSVP
IL Deerfield Trinity International University March 18 1:00 PM RSVP
IL Schaumburg (Chicago) AMC Loews Streets of Woodfield 20 March 18 7:00 PM RSVP
KY Louisville National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Stoneybrook March 31 7:00 PM RSVP
MA Cambridge AMC Loews Harvard Square 5 March 19 7:00 PM RSVP
MD Owings Mills (Baltimore) AMC Owings Mills 17 April 1 7:00 PM RSVP
MI Grand Rapids Grand Rapids First March 4 3:30 PM Done
MI Livonia (Detroit) AMC Livonia 20 March 26 7:00 PM RSVP
MN Bloomington AMC Mall of America 14 March 20 7:00 PM RSVP
MO Creve Coeur (St. Louis) AMC Creve Coeur 12 March 12 7:00 PM Done
MO Kansas City Ward Parkway Theater March 4 7:00 PM Done
NC Charlotte AMC Carolina Pavilion 22 March 10 7:00 PM Done
NM Albuquerque Century Rio 24 March 6 2:00 PM Done
OH Brooklyn (Cleveland) AMC Ridge Park Square 8 March 19 7:00 PM RSVP
OR Portland PENDING - CLICK BUTTON TO BE ADDED TO OUR WAITLIST March 25 TBD Waitlist
PA Plymouth Meeting (Philly) AMC Plymouth Meeting March 27 7:00 PM RSVP
TN Franklin Carmike Thoroughbred 20 March 10 7:00 PM Done
TX Houston River Oaks Theatre March 13 7:00 PM RSVP
TX San Antonio Santikos Palladium IMAX March 12 7:00 PM Done WA Seattle PENDING - CLICK BUTTON TO BE ADDED TO OUR WAITLIST March 24 TBD Waitlist
WI Milwaukee AMC Mayfair Mall 18 April 8 7:00 PM RSVP
rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Ichthyic · 12 March 2008

Do they really think that they can expel all people with a modicum of intelligence and then complain about discrimination?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Isn't that basically a restatement of the wedge strategy?

yes, that is exactly what they think.

Nigel D · 13 March 2008

...discrimination against scientists who rely on the Bible, instead of human reason...

— Frank J quoting Wikipedia quoting Dr Georgia Purdom
I think this is an indication that AiG, at least, acknowledges that one has to stop using one's reason if one wishes to use the bible as a science text.

Nigel D · 13 March 2008

MPW: And of course, that should be "...Bill O'Reilly's equating..." Sheesh... Wikipedia.
Heh. And I thought I was a pedant. I didn't even spot this grammatical error.

Nigel D · 13 March 2008

Someone here might be interested in the times and places of advanced showing of Expelled:

— Glen Davidson
Er, Glen, I think you meant "advance" showing. I shudder to think of associating Stein's pack of lies with the word "advanced".

Frank J · 13 March 2008

I think this is an indication that AiG, at least, acknowledges that one has to stop using one’s reason if one wishes to use the bible as a science text.

— Nigel D
While I think AIG is relatively honest among anti-evolution activist groups, I think they stop short of admitting it in such clear terms. Anyway, since I too had to clear up some grammar, I'll repeat my point that the DI and the "Expelled" crowd complain about their perceived (and nonexistent) discrimination against anyone trying to sneak in pseudoscience where only real science belongs. Whether or not that pseudoscience begins with the Bible (as AIG's does) or not (as Behe's does). This is part of my long-running complaint that, while the courts must emphasize the religion angle, and so far are doing an excellent job of it, we don't have to. I think that the most mileage we can get is to show what a cacophony of internal disagreements there is among anti-evolution activists on "what happened when in biological history," "do we know who the designer is?" and "how best to get the masses to reject evolution." As Robert Pennock put it 9 years ago, there's a "Tower of Babel" under that big tent. It's our choice to weaken the tent, or prop it up with the simplistic "us vs. the creationists" approach.

Nigel D · 13 March 2008

Anyway, since I too had to clear up some grammar, I’ll repeat my point that the DI and the “Expelled” crowd complain about their perceived (and nonexistent) discrimination against anyone trying to sneak in pseudoscience where only real science belongs. Whether or not that pseudoscience begins with the Bible (as AIG’s does) or not (as Behe’s does).

— Frank J
Erm ... sorry, but there's a tautology there. However, the point is taken. No-one in science is discriminating against IDC or YEC. IDC and YEC are both facing exactly the same rigorous scrutiny as any other idea that wants to claim scientific credentials.

This is part of my long-running complaint that, while the courts must emphasize the religion angle, and so far are doing an excellent job of it, we don’t have to. I think that the most mileage we can get is to show what a cacophony of internal disagreements there is among anti-evolution activists on “what happened when in biological history,” “do we know who the designer is?” and “how best to get the masses to reject evolution.”

I think this is one useful angle, and I feel it is the driver behind your repeated questioning of the anti-evolutionists posting on PT. If we (as defnders of science and rational thought) can persuade those opposed to evolutin to express some opinion about what they actually think happened instead, we can expose the intrinsic incompatability between YEC, OEC and IDC (although IDC can accommodate any other form of creationism in principle, YECs in particular object to its lack of commitment). I am convinced it is also worth pointing out at every opportunity how frequently the creos (of every stripe) lie. All of the strawman attacks on MET are founded on misprepresenting the science. Many of the arguments from personal incredulity stem from a conflation of evolution with abiogenesis. And so on. Most of the leading figures in the antiscience movements know that their claims are wrong, but repeat them anyway (the old Gish gallop) because they can convince the uninformed.

Nigel D · 13 March 2008

Nigel D:
MPW: And of course, that should be "...Bill O'Reilly's equating..." Sheesh... Wikipedia.
Heh. And I thought I was a pedant. I didn't even spot this grammatical error.
D'oh! I just realised that I have misused the word "grammatical" (a "grammatical error" is an oxymoron - if it is erroneous, it cannot be grammatical). What I meant was that the error renders the sentence ungrammatical.

Frank J · 13 March 2008

I am convinced it is also worth pointing out at every opportunity how frequently the creos (of every stripe) lie.

— Nigel D
Given that I made another grammar error I hesitate trying to make another of my usual points: Another thing that drives me nuts about "my own kind" is how they accuse anti-evolution activists of "believing this," not "understanding that," and yet "lying." You may notice that I almost never use the L-word. OTOH I also think that "innocent until proven guilty" is applied far too liberally. Granted, we the "choir" can infer from the context of the criticism that anti-evolution antics are usually some mix of dishonesty, honest belief, and honest misunderstanding. And that, especially for the "don't ask, don't tell" ID peddlers, it is weighted heavily on the side of dishonesty. I could be wrong, but it seems that the groups we most need to reach - e.g. uncommitted deniers of evolution, and those who accept evolution for the wrong reasons - get mixed messages from most criticisms of anti-evolution pseudoscience. Another thing that is almost never mentioned, even as a possibility, is how the activists might not be "lying" per-se, but promoting (indirectly in the case of ID) fairy tales that they don't personally take literally, but honestly believe the "masses" need to take literally.

Stacy S. · 13 March 2008

This is just silly ...
Frank J: Given that I made another grammar error I hesitate trying to make another of my usual points:
It should read ... "I made another error of the grammatical type" ... :-)

Glen Davidson · 13 March 2008

"Grammatical" is an adjective with, unsurprisingly, more than one meaning. One is simply "of, or pertaining to, grammar," as pointed out by dictionaries:
gram·mat·i·cal (gr-mt-kl) adj. 1. Of or relating to grammar. www.thefreedictionary.com/grammatical
The other major meaning of "grammatical" would be oxymoronic when modifying "error," but "grammatical error" is a perfectly reasonable term, thanks to the first meaning. Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 13 March 2008

From the reviews of “Expelled” it seems that the film doesn’t even describe ID, let alone creationism, so it’s all about allowing the audience to infer whatever it wants, as long as they come away thinking that there’s a conspiracy in mainstream science.
IMO there are several signs that DI will consider ID (and bait-and-switch critical analysis) "historical" and go for "academic freedom/scientific integrity" in education. (While still using 'scientists' to argue education, of course.)
I think you meant “advance” showing.
I don't know, Nigel. I do know where creationists can show their long propaganda piece, and whether it will be an advance or advanced showing, I hope they get the point eventually.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 13 March 2008

where creationists can show
D'oh! Considering the error discussion here, one would think I would spot the apostrophe omission: "where creationists can 'show' ". Another bad pun destroyed by prolonged puntification.

Frank J · 13 March 2008

Apologetics to John Wilkins (& Norm Crosby), but creationists like to puntificate because they are always 4th and 10 on their own 20.

Stacy S. · 13 March 2008

Frank J: Apologetics to John Wilkins (& Norm Crosby), but creationists like to puntificate because they are always 4th and 10 on their own 20.
LOLOLOL!!! LMAO!!! Thanks for nthat one!!! :-)

Ron Okimoto · 14 March 2008

Frank J: Apologetics to John Wilkins (& Norm Crosby), but creationists like to puntificate because they are always 4th and 10 on their own 20.
Hey, with fumbles and penalties like Ohio and Dover they usually are a lot worse off than that. You must be an optimist. The glass isn't half full it is empty.

Ralph Davis · 15 March 2008

You should check the Tallahassee Democrat last Wednesday and Thursday where the state legisture was invited to a private showing of Expelled. No outsiders allowed. The reason for a private showing is laughable. Ben Stein was there to say that this was not really about Intelligent Design. I could make more comments but from the write ups it is obvious the DI'ers are up to their old tricks.

Frank J · 16 March 2008

The reason for a private showing is laughable. Ben Stein was there to say that this was not really about Intelligent Design. I could make more comments but from the write ups it is obvious the DI’ers are up to their old tricks.

— Ralph Davis
So Stein finally read the memo. As for the DI, it's a new variation of the old trick of trying to sneak pseudoscience in science class. Instead of ID or "critical analysis," the current scam if "academic freedom." IOW, neither student nor teacher should be penalized if Johnny can't read. Ironic how the far right has become more liberal than the far left.

Ron Okimoto · 16 March 2008

Frank J:

The reason for a private showing is laughable. Ben Stein was there to say that this was not really about Intelligent Design. I could make more comments but from the write ups it is obvious the DI’ers are up to their old tricks.

— Ralph Davis
So Stein finally read the memo. As for the DI, it's a new variation of the old trick of trying to sneak pseudoscience in science class. Instead of ID or "critical analysis," the current scam if "academic freedom." IOW, neither student nor teacher should be penalized if Johnny can't read. Ironic how the far right has become more liberal than the far left.
What is the documentary supposed to be about if it isn't about the poor treatment intelligent design advocates are getting? What kind of mental machinations do you have to go through to claim that Expelled isn't about the ID claptrap? What are they going to claim next? Just because ID is bogus doesn't mean that these guys are not being treated unfairly and that they should be given their due even if ID turned out to be just a dishonest creationist scam to get creationism into the public school classroom? Is Stein going to start claiming that if ID hadn't been such a bogus scam that these people would have been treated unfairly, or that even though ID turned out to be a bogus scam that these people were treated unfairly? Are they going to pretend that they could have picked any topic and shown the same thing? Shouldn't they have picked a legitimate topic with a controversy like global warming? I haven't heard either side of the global warming issue running the bait and switch scam on their own supporters like the ID perps did. Ron Okimoto

Benjamin Franklin · 16 March 2008

Here’s my version- “Expelled: No Bones About It”

The scene begins in a nice restaurant whose specialty is steaks. The waiters go about their business serving people their meals. One day, one of the waiters, Guillermo, announces to the rest of the waiters – “God has spoken to me and in his manifestation as a cow, told me that eating meat is all wrong. Julia Child was wrong! Emeril? Wrong! Martha Stewart? Spawn of Satan! This restaurant should not serve steaks, but only vegetarian dishes!”

The other waiters may think this is a little nutty, but let it go. Guillermo then starts announcing to all the restaurant patrons “My Cow -God has told me that that eating meat is completely wrong – you should all just order salads or leave”. He refuses to serve the customers their steaks, and disrupts the restaurant’s business.

The owners of the restaurant let Guillermo go, and Guillermo finds another job at a vegetarian restaurant.

Now enters the Vegetable Institute, a small, well-funded think tank of Cow-God believers who shout to the world – “Waiters are being EXPELLED and SILENCED because they believe in the Cow-God. Children are being taught in school to eat meat! We need to change the cafeteria menus! They proceed to make a movie including an interview with Guillermo saying that he was fired for his beliefs. The movie shows disturbing scenes of filet mignon, prime rib, and Hitler.
.
.

Dear readers - I ask you –

Did the other waiters at the steak house want Guillermo to shut up just because his concept of God differed from theirs? Where they just too committed to their “meatism” to see the truth? Or was it that they felt Guillermo was promoting something that they could find no rational basis for, and interfered with their profession needlessly?

I wonder if Ben Stein is ready to do a sequel.

Stacy S. · 20 March 2008

OT - TOOOOOO Funny!!! I feel sort of wierd bringing this news to you - hat tip to James F. - This is a must read !!!
PZ was expelled!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php