Peabody Award for PBS NOVA "Judgment Day"

When a billionaire such as Paul Allen wants a movie made, you can be assured that it will be well done.

And, as propaganda, it was well done.

What, an event that PZ didn't crash?

"WW" has confused the NOVA segment with the forthcoming Ben Stein flick on that "propaganda" bit, though indications from early reviewers indicate that "Expelled" is propaganda poorly done.

"Propaganda" doesn't apply to re-enacting verbatim sections of the trial transcript. Nor does it apply to scientists discussing their fields of research or specific research findings, as Neil Shubin and Kevin Padian did. But I guess some people, like "WW", have to kvetch no matter how nonsensical what they say sounds.

Well said, Wesley. Congratulations to the "Judgment Day" team!

William Wallace: When a billionaire such as Paul Allen wants a movie made, you can be assured that it will be well done. And, as the truth, it was well done.

Like I wrote on Talkorigins, this was well-deserved because it was well-done, but even more so because it was done at all.

The IDiots do try to intimidate PBS into not making programs about their frauds (there's your suppression), and reportedly one of the key figures at PBS initially was not going to do it, partly because of the intimidation. Yet they went ahead and made it, doing a great job of exposing the vacuity, and dishonest machinations, of the IDists.

And indeed, it was respectful of religious folk, of the various types of creationists, and of the science side (religious and otherwise).

By contrast, Expelled tries to win primarily by being disrespectful and dismissive of everything and everybody (including Xians like Collins) who disagrees with them. Then too, how could it be otherwise, since they don't have a case that ID is science, nor that ID has been unfairly treated.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

I thought NOVA did a remarkable job of being even-handed considering the highly one-sided material they were presenting. How would it be possible to do an informative and accurate documentary without showing that Buckingham lied about the meetings, about his own statements, about his deposition, about the source of the money for the books, etc.? When the testimony of the defendents clearly shows consistent misrepresentation and duplicity and you're supposed to document that testimony accurately, but NOT supposed to make them look duplicitous, what are you supposed to do?

NOVA did it very carefully and very well. I admit if I were doing the show, I'd have drawn a few more conclusions rather than trusting the audience to do it for themselves. But as WW demonstrates, even creationists noticed that the facts painted them as lying dummies, and so the facts must be propaganda.

When a billionaire such as Paul Allen wants a movie made, you can be assured that it will be well done. And, as propaganda, it was well done.

Dear Wes,

Thanks for a great post. The Peabody Award was well-earned for the "Judgement Day" team. Especially when some may recall how much the PBS "NOVA" "Evolution" miniseries led to more federal government scrutiny of PBS' programming (As someone who regards himself as a conservative with a strong libertarian bias, that was a serious mistake by the Bush administration. Am glad "Judgement Day" was made at all, and especially with such superb production values.).

As for someone who's obviously intellectually-impaired like William Wallace, I can only note this. I know propaganda when I see it, and "Judgement Day" doesn't even remotely qualify as such. Instead, I trust that Mr. Wallace - as he enjoys his Disco Tute IDiot Borg Collective membership - will be watching some of the rather blatant examples of Disco Tute-sponsored Kremlinesque agitprop propaganda, like, for example, "EXPELLED".

Appreciatively yours,

John

Nope, I checked. There is a Peabody award for the Category "Documentary". There is no award category for "Propaganda". Guess WW got is wrong again.

Wonder if Expelled will win this award? Now that was propaganda.

The Peabodys are controlled by the Evil Darwinist Atheist Child-Eaters! They're everywhere! And they look just like us!

Wesley R. Elsberry: "WW" has confused the NOVA segment with the forthcoming Ben Stein flick on that "propaganda" bit, though indications from early reviewers indicate that "Expelled" is propaganda poorly done. "Propaganda" doesn't apply to re-enacting verbatim sections of the trial transcript. Nor does it apply to scientists discussing their fields of research or specific research findings, as Neil Shubin and Kevin Padian did. But I guess some people, like "WW", have to kvetch no matter how nonsensical what they say sounds.

Couldn't the Peabody people have waited until April 18 to announce this award? Oh well--it's probably close enough to still be news when "Expelled" opens....

John,

Can you give me more information? I hadn't heard that W punished PBS for airing the Evolution miniseries.

Allow me to preemptively summarize all the trolls:

<sarcasm>
Well, of course, this whole thing is obviously the left-wing MSM congratulating itself for religion bashing.
</sarcasm>

I always thought William Wallace got off too easy in Braveheart.

This has to be good news for PBS and Nova.

One can always tell how good the news is by the loudness and bitterness of the squealing barometers of bad news for ID/Creationists. William Wallace’s bitterness tells it all.

The harder he tries to bad-mouth the award, the worse he makes himself and his heroes at the Discover Institute look.

William Wallace: Portraying Judge Jones as a renaissance man instead of the ACLU cut-and-paste-artist he was is propaganda. Using footage from the motion picture Inherit the wind, and only subsequently mentioning that it was "loosely" based on the facts of the scopes trial (Indeed, very loosely based on the facts of the scopes trial, as anybody who has ever read Edward J. Larson's Pulitzer Prize winning book Summer for the Gods knows) qualifies as propaganda--just not at Panda's thumb. What's next? DNA co-discoverer James Watson, in consultation with the NCSE, makes documentary that uses footage from Gone with the Wind to further their premise that African Americans liked slavery?

Reed,

Didn't I read somewhere - I think it was here - that PBS received more scrutiny from the Bush administration due to protests from creationists for having funded the NOVA "Evolution" miniseries? It sounds about right, in light of increased government oversight of PBS programming. But if I'm mistaken, I'll admit it - unlike our resident Disco Tute IDiot Borg drones like William Wallace who still insist that "Judgement Day" is propaganda - and do so here at Panda's Thumb.

Best regards,

John

PBS/Nova have won their "Peabody Award", and nothing can be done about that, but...

...ARN, Discovery Institute, Ideacenter, Evolution News and Views, and various individual leaders/spokesmen of the Intelligent Design movement, have done an utterly professional and very thorough job, of answering and refuting the various claims presented in PBS's Judgment Day and the Dover trial/decision.

I think I've printed off nearly every single response, every single article, every single Expert Report and analysis, and every single refutation, for use whenever opportunity (eiter offline or online) presents itself to discuss the issues raised in the PBS program.

It's "Judgment Day" for Intelligent Design, thou sayeth?
Well, Peabody or no Peabody, ye evolutionists had better NOT bet the farm on that!!

FL :)

Portraying Judge Jones as a renaissance man instead of the ACLU cut-and-paste-artist he was is propaganda.

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

The assumption that judges don’t care about the law and will ignore it if it conflicts with their ideology is not reliable.

...have done an utterly professional and very thorough job, of answering and refuting the various claims presented in PBS’s Judgment Day and the Dover trial/decision.

It’s “Judgment Day” for Intelligent Design, thou sayeth? Well, Peabody or no Peabody, ye evolutionists had better NOT bet the farm on that!!

you clowns ALREADY bet the farm on that.

and lost (though I don't recall Dembski ever ponying up the whiskey he wagered).

that was the point, numbwit.

you're just ghosts, rattling chains and moaning without realizing you're dead.

Portraying Judge Jones as a renaissance man instead of the ACLU cut-and-paste-artist he was is propaganda.

You mean the same Judge Jones that was recommended as a Bush appointed federal judge by Rick Santorum?

THAT Judge Jones?

moron.

FL: It's "Judgment Day" for Intelligent Design, thou sayeth? Well, Peabody or no Peabody, ye evolutionists had better NOT bet the farm on that!! FL :)

Quidam Wrote: Ooooh, and what was the Uncommonly Dense crowd saying before Waterloo?

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/life-after-dover/ The assumption that judges don't care about the law and will ignore it if it conflicts with their ideology is not reliable.

the comment was made by DaveScot, and it was rather unfortunate on a number of levels.

heh, that's Davey the auto-didact for ya.

but what about what Dembksi said?

he bet a bottle of scotch on the outcome, IIRC.

I'm sure before I can dig up the exact reference, someone will beat me to it.

you lost, and you whiny bitches just can't stop rattling your chains, can ya?

...and you morons have the gall to claim liberals are still mad about Gore losing to W.

pathetic.

The correct link is here, and the comment was made by DaveScot, and it was rather unfortunate on a number of levels.

“I considered [Dover] a loser from the start,” Johnson begins. “Where you have a board writing a statement and telling the teachers to repeat it to the class, I thought that was a very bad idea.” The jaw drops further when he continues: I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world. sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution

...the ACLU cut-and-paste-artist [Judge Jones] was

...ARN, Discovery Institute, Ideacenter, Evolution News and Views, and various individual leaders/spokesmen of the Intelligent Design movement, have done an utterly professional and very thorough job, of answering and refuting the various claims presented in PBS’s Judgment Day and the Dover trial/decision.

umm…ok. I’m still only an *aspiring* scientist who can’t speak for others, but…I don’t think they’re really worried about an ID takeover anytime soon.

Glen Davidson:

The correct link is here, and the comment was made by DaveScot, and it was rather unfortunate on a number of levels.

More to the point, Phillip Johnson explained why ID had to lose at Dover:

...

...at least Phillip Johnson has enough of a legal mind to understand why Dover was bound to lose. WW can't even understand that much. Glen D

That always gives me a giggle. Anyone who can't tell that black and white footage of Darren Stevens isn't part of the documentary doesn't have 2 brain cells to rub together.

William Wallace, I know you need to go paint yourself blue, get ronked on cheap whiskey, and run around screaming with a sword in your hand. But before you go, I wonder if you can tell us exactly how many "ACLU cut-and-paste-artists" have been appointed to the bench by George W. Bush? How about some names?

the comment was made by DaveScot, and it was rather unfortunate on a number of levels.

the comment was made by DaveScot, who is rather unfortunate on a number of levels.

What's most interesting about DaveScot's analysis is that he absolutely takes it for granted that ideology will trump facts. Always has in his mind, always does in the opinions of everyone he trusts. It never crossed his mind that Jones would, or that anyone CAN, make decisions on the merits despite personal religious convictions.

But I'm optimistic enough to think that just maybe, someday before I die, Justice Scalia will do just that. He hasn't yet, but he might!

Quidam: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/life-after-dover/ There was nothing 'incorrect' about the link I posted or 'more correct' about yours...

Funny how William Dembski thinks the team with the most lawyers wins. What a dunce.

"the comment was made by DaveScot, and it was rather unfortunate on a number of levels."

Doesn't that sum up ALL of davescot's comments? I mean it doesn't take long to realize the guy is missing a few brain cells.

Sure, snark all you want but the NOVA crew is unlikely to *ever* be awarded the coveted Phillip E. Johnson Licensed to Promote Truthiness Award.

William Wallace: When a billionaire such as Paul Allen wants a movie made, you can be assured that it will be well done. And, as propaganda, it was well done.

Okay, hands up, who didn’t see this coming?

Portraying Judge Jones as a renaissance man instead of the ACLU cut-and-paste-artist he was is propaganda.

In the Orwellian world of the creationist, "propaganda" is anything at all presented honestly and objectively, attributes creationism cannot tolerate. "Truth" (dishonest material supporting creationism) is spearheaded by the Discovery Institute, an organization dedicated to the suppression of discovery. Censorship of uncongenial science is called "academic freedom". Creationist political organizations dedicated to ruthless theocracy invariably have words like "liberty" and "freedom" in their titles. Anti-abortion license plates emphasize "choosing".

I suppose this list could go on endlessly. Someone in the creationist ranks realizes that it's damn near impossible to fight them when they've stolen and re-encoded every term in the language that opposes their methods and goals.

William Wallace: When a billionaire such as Paul Allen wants a movie made, you can be assured that it will be well done. And, as propaganda, it was well done.

Portraying Judge Jones as a renaissance man instead of the ACLU cut-and-paste-artist he was is propaganda.

The correct link is here, and the comment was made by DaveScot, and it was rather unfortunate on a number of levels.

Just had the opportunity to see "Judgement Day". Truly a great documentary. I like the way it presents Bonsell and Buckingham, not as caricatural villains, but as weak, human individuals, ready to lie and distort in any possible way just to defend the beliefs they cherish. I was struck by the good-natured and affable character of Neil Shubin, and now that I'm reading his book, I can see how good he is at communicating his adventures in science. I was awed by the crash course on evolution, and science in general, provided to the court by the scientists witnesses. I was impressed by Judge Jones, and shocked by Mr Buckingham describing him as "having graduated from Clown College". Do you really have the right to speak this way? Isn't there a law in the US against insulting a judicial officer and contesting a court decision?

Anyway it makes me want to congratulate the courageous people of Dover who stood for their kids' science education and took some real risks.

…ARN, Discovery Institute, Ideacenter, Evolution News and Views, and various individual leaders/spokesmen of the Intelligent Design movement, have done an utterly professional and very thorough job, of answering and refuting the various claims presented in PBS’s Judgment Day and the Dover trial/decision.

— FL

I like the way it presents Bonsell and Buckingham, not as caricatural villains, but as weak, human individuals, ready to lie and distort in any possible way just to defend the beliefs they cherish

— Christophe Thill

they are cheapening the very beliefs that they so cherish. It is the height of hypocrisy.

Nigel D: I have not seen the documentary (anyone know when it will come out in Region 2?), ...

I took a particular interest in that episode as during the time of the trials I was having a slow month and ended up reading the majority of the court transcripts when it was happening. I wanted to understand how such a trial could even be happening in this day an age. The Nova doc like all their episodes, was spot on. If anything, they left out a lot of good Plaintiff arguments like from the theologian that testified and even bent over backwards to explain the creationist side of things. Episodes of Nova almost always end up showing in one way or another how the scientific process works. How it starts with a theory and some evidence then others come along and either present evidence for or against, and knowledge is advanced. The wholesale skipping of the process led to the inevitable rise of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is certainly as good a theory as ID has presented. Can I get a Ramen?

Btw you can watch it here for free.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

In case it would be necessary to specify, I do not advocate lying and distorting... It's just that when I saw and heard those 2 guys on the screen, I almost felt their pain. They looked so depressed. They protested of their sincerity and desire to help the community. The filmmakers sort of let us get into their mind (which Flint has rather brilliantly summarized). And that's terrible. What happens when all the world goes against the beliefs you hold most dear ? You can try to fight back (and believe you're going to win), but you're doomed. I mean, personnally, I'm glad they're doomed. But isn't that the very definition of "tragic" ?

NARRATOR: Creationists like Bonsell reject much of modern science in favor a literal reading of the Bible. They believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that God created everything fully-formed, including humans, in just six days. Although most mainstream religions made peace with evolution decades ago, many creationists still see evolution as incompatible with their faith. And both creationism and evolution are no strangers to the court. Their legal battles stretch back to the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Dick York As Bertram T. Cates/Clip from Inherit the Wind): As I told you yesterday, Darwin's theory tells us that man evolved from a lower order of animals. NARRATOR: In that case, a high school science teacher in Tennessee, named John Scopes, was accused of violating state law by teaching evolution. (Frederic March as Matthew Harrison Brady ): I hereby place you under arrest. NARRATOR: Loosely portrayed in the classic film Inherit the Wind, the trial turned into a courtroom showdown between legendary lawyer Clarence Darrow... SPENCER TRACY As HENRY DRUMMOND Clip from Inherit the Wind): The defense wishes to place Dr. Keller on the stand so that he can explain to the gentlemen of the jury the exact meaning of the theory of evolution. NARRATOR: ...and three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. ELLIOT REED As PROSECUTER TOM DAVENPORT/Clip from Inherit the Wind): If you had a son, Mr. Sillers, what would you think if that sweet child came home from school and told you that a godless teacher... SPENCER TRACY As HENRY DRUMMOND Clip from Inherit the Wind): Objection! NARRATOR: Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution, and slapped with a mere hundred-dollar fine. But the verdict would have a chilling effect on science education throughout the country for the next three decades.

This case is now before the court upon a motion by the attorney general to exclude from the consideration of the jury certain expert testimony offered by the defendant, the import of such testimony being an effort to explain the origin of man and life. The state insists that such evidence is wholly irrelevant, incompetent and impertinent to the issues pending, and that it should be excluded.

Tell me that the parents of this day have not any right to declare that children are not to be taught this doctrine? Shall not be taken down from the high plane upon which God put man? Shall be detached from the throne of God and be compelled to link their ancestors with the jungle, tell that to these children? Why, my friend, if they believe it, they go back to scoff at the religion of their parents! And the parents have a right to say that no teacher paid by their money shall rob their children of faith in God and send them hack to their homes, skeptical, infidels, or agnostics, or atheists.

Religion is not hostile to learning, Christianity has been the greatest patron learning has ever had. But Christians know that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" now just as it has been in the past, and they therefore oppose the teaching Of guesses that encourage godlessness among the students.

Wesley R. Elsberry,

Two problems are:

1. The scopes trial was mischaracterized in the Judgment Day. A more accurate portrayal can be found in Edward J. Larson’s Pulitzer Prize winning book Summer for the Gods.

2. Using motion picture images of G-men arresting what was in reality a volunteer defendant/physical education teacher is propaganda, not documentary.

NARRATOR: Loosely portrayed in the classic film Inherit the Wind

We seem to have come to the end of any meaningful discussion on Scopes in "Judgment Day". Comments that should have been written on the Bathroom Wall are routed there. Additional BW-worthy stuff entered here may result in moderation holds applied to commenters.

Nigel D: I have not seen the documentary (anyone know when it will come out in Region 2?), but I think it is worth expanding on your comment.

Need an escort to the bathroom, sir?

Some people just can't take a hint.

Wesley R. Elsberry: Some people just can't take a hint.

Re: the ethics of the use of re-enactments, documentary filmmaker Errol Morris (who I believe has an M.A. in Philosophy of Science) has a thoughtful piece in the New York Times regarding his and others' uses of reinactments. I recommend reading it for anyone interested in the subject.

Nice article, Kristine. IIRC, all the re-enactments in "Judgment Day" were explicitly labeled as such.

Good article there. Nice contrast between problem 1 (whether or not the film maker set out with the intent to deceive the audience into thinking the re-enactment was actual footage of the event itself) and problem 2 (that even when there's no intent to deceive and the re-enactment is clearly labeled as such, people persist in perceiving it as original).

In watching "judgment day", it was easy (at least for me) to start thinking I was watching footage taken at the actual event. Unlike the Adams case (who would seriously think the film maker just happened to be out on some highway at night with full crew and equipment filming a random shooting?), the Dover trial was a staged event like any other trial, fully planned out long in advance. The notion that someone was in the courtroom filming it is entirely plausible. Furthermore, it was recognized at the time to be a significantly newsworthy event, so meticulous care was taken to record every word.

And this means that Errol Morris' Thin Blue Line really occupies a gray area between the Birmingham film (clearly fraudulent) and the Dover trial. Morris did more than a re-enactment, he did a speculative recreation of what he thought most likely happened, in the face of insufficient evidence and conflicting testimony. Morris was constructing a story, not repeating one. Maybe he got it right; maybe not. But there's no question the Dover re-enactment got it right, and you can look it up.

Last night I met a Christian family visiting from Dover who hadn't realized that their town was the subject of national attention. I reminded them of the trial and the teenagers vaguely remembered it. I mentioned that I'm a friend of the lead witness for the Kitzmiller side, and encouraged them to read his book "Finding Darwin's God". I also noted that my high school - which is noted for its many distinguished scientific alumni including 4 Nobel Prize laureates (I mentioned that fact as well as that there are a couple of famous actors too like Tim Robbins and Lucy Liu.) - doesn't teach ID there, since the school's principal has vowed that it will never be taught there while he remains its principal (I also said that the high school served as the recovery center immediately after 9/11.).

I think the father wasn't thrilled that I, being a New Yorker of Asian-American descent and a "Darwinist" - was trying to be helpful, but I was. They had seen the UN earlier in the day and were on the subway en route to see "Phantom of the Opera" (I was off to a panel discussion at AMNH after having a quick dinner at home after work.). So I told them how to get to the theater from the nearest subway exit at Times Square.

On the other hand, the son stated that he thought religious ideas should be taught only in religion classes, and agreed with me that those pertaining to science should be taught only in science classes.

I realized that they were from Pennsylvania when one of the teenagers mentioned Harrisburg, and I asked them if they were from Pennsylvania. The mom volunteered that they were from York, and then, I asked if they were from Dover. Much to my surprise they answered yes. The mom said that her husband has strong opinions, which is why there kids attend Christian schools, but agreed to take a look at "Finding Darwin's God". I also mentioned Lauri Lebo and her upcoming book on the trial itself.

What a small world.

Cheers,

John

"Expelled" is smattered with gloomy scenes of the Berlin Wall's construction, the Holocaust and other World War II-era footage, with Stein arguing during the course of it that a handful of academics have been persecuted for their beliefs that run counter to the scientific establishment. Many of the ID supporters and sympathizers Stein interviews in the movie, however, were let go, not offered tenure or other career incentives because of expired contracts, improper publishing ethics and other conduct unrelated to their religious views, according to university and institution spokespeople who appeared in "Expelled." Stein claims he "encountered many more [academics] who didn't want to appear on film," because of their fear of being persecuted. But among the millions of scientists currently working in schools and institutions across the world, thousands of whom are trained evolutionary biologists, the overwhelming consensus is that evolution is a well-supported theory backed by observations in several fields using multiple lines of evidence.

In a press release issued by Premise Media, which has also helped finance "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Chronicles of Narnia" movies, film producer Walt Ruloff claims the makers avoided distorting interviews. "The incredible thing about 'Expelled' is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the 'shock effect,'" Ruloff said. But Michael Schermer, editor of "Skeptic Magazine" and an on-screen interview in the movie, said Stein and Mathis asked him the same question a dozen times during his interview for the film to extract an answer they were looking for. "In frustration I finally said something like 'Do you have any other questions to ask me or do you keep asking me this question in hopes that I'll give a different answer?'" according to a statement by Schermer on richarddawkins.net.

During a March 20 screening of "Expelled" at the Mall of America in Minneapolis, which Myers registered to attend via a public Web site with his family, he was asked to leave by security while standing in line. The security guard said a film producer gave the orders to remove Myers from the theater. According to various news reports, producers accused Myers of being a "gatecrasher" — someone trying to attend an event uninvited — but he was registered for the event via the open, online registration process. Dawkins, who also registered to attend the screening, saw the documentary without incident along with Myers' family. "It's an incredible piece of inept public relations to expel somebody ... from a film about expelling people for their opinions," Dawkins said during a videotaped discussion with Myers, "a film in which [Myers is] present, and acknowledged and thanked in the acknowledgements at the end of the film."

"Expelled" opens in theaters nationwide starting on April 18.

Hilarious. What is it about Phillip E Johnson that irresistably reminds me of The Brain, from "Pinky and the Brain", a cartoon about a mouse who is forever plotting to take over the world?

Portraying Judge Jones as a renaissance man instead of the ACLU cut-and-paste-artist he was is propaganda.

the comment was made by DaveScot, and it was rather unfortunate on a number of levels