Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Discovery News Release on Richard Dawkins Crashing EXPELLED Screening

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS CONTACT: ROBERT CROWTHER
DISCOVERY INSTITUTE
(206) 292-0401 X107
ROB@DISCOVERY.ORG

Richard Dawkins, World’s Most Famous Darwinist, Stoops to Gate-crashing Expelled
by Bruce Chapman, www.evolutionnews.org

Like many films im pre-release, Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is being selectively screened around the country to develop a buzz.

There is a growing fear by the producers that Darwinists may be trying get into the showings to make bootleg copies (for the Web?), possibly in hopes of damaging the commercial value. Others may be crashing because they want to trash it before it even gets reviewed by the media. P.Z. Myers, who was not let into a showing last night in Minnesota, probably falls in the latter category.

Amazingly, the best selling Oxford scientist/author Richard Dawkins also crashed a showing of Expelled in Minnesota last night and he not only was let in, but introduced at the end of the showing.

Dawkins apparently acknowledged that he had not been invited and did not have a ticket. A sophomoric side to his ideological is thus revealed.

Dawkins, understandably is nervous about this film, among other reasons because Ben Stein has him on camera acknowledging that life on Earth may, indeed, have been intelligently designed, but that it had to have been accomplished by space aliens! This is hilarious, of course, because Dawkins is death on intelligent design. But it turns out that that view applies only if it includes the possibility that the designer might be God.

Myers, of course, relished being expelled from Expelled, but objective observers know that Myers is the most vociferous advocate of expelling Darwin critics from academia. Not from movie pre-screenings where he wasn’t invited, mind you, but from their jobs. Too bad the film doesn’t show (and I wish it had), his promotion of advice to attack teachers and professors who dare question Darwin’s theory. The whole point of Myers is that he is a take-no-prisoners, crusading atheist scientist who has made it his purpose in life to harass people who disagree with him. Dawkins turns out to be his buddy and mutual admirer.

Frankly, I wish the producers would have a special pre-release screening for the Darwinists who are interviewed in the film — and invite some of the rest of us who have seen their depredations up close. We’d be glad to debate right there.

Among other things, I’d like to read some of the Darwinists’ statements and charges back to them and ask them to defend themselves. One of the most preposterous is that the well-funded’ Discovery Institute is funding this film! ( 1-They seem to have far more money available to them than we do, and 2-We are saving our pennies for the upcoming Broadway musical comedy, Darwin’s Folly.)

I have to say something else, personally. I have been sandbagged by one TV and documentary crew after another. So have Discovery-affiliated scientists. The interviewers all say they just want to understand the issue. Going in, they are quite clear about definitions, for example, and only start using Darwinist definitions of our positions when they report. They never provide questions in advance and even if they say they will stick to science questions and public policy, almost all sneak in questions about personal religious beliefs. Then, of all the footage, guess what gets on TV or in the documentary?

So it really is pathetic of Dawkins, et al to complain that when they were interviewed for Expelled they didn’t know that the film was inherently unfriendly. These are interviewees who received pre-agreed questions, signed release forms after the interviews were conducted, and actually got paid for their time.

I am getting more excited about Expelled myself and can’t wait to see the finished version. I suspect I’ll wish that the film was twice as long and had twice as much from Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, et al. From what I already have seen, they really expose themselves as the anti-intellectual, bullying poseurs they are — small men who above all are afraid of a fair contest.

###

Comments
MacNeill @ #63: "The canceled check didn’t have the name of the movie on it; only the name of the production company (i.e. Rampant Films), which apparently specializes in films of a religious nature" Mr.Macneill, if it is apparent that Rampant specializes in religious films, then how could you have been misled as to the intent of their interviews?JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
JPCollado asked (in #64): "Are we still talking about the name of the film?" No, we're taking about the intentions of the film makers to defraud those being interviewed for the purposes of making a propaganda film. Discussions of the name of the film are only supporting evidence. Obviously, the film makers are free to produce any kind of propaganda they like. What they are not free to do is to deliberately mislead the people they are interviewing for the purposes of producing such propaganda. Once again, I would not have answered their questions any differently had they represented themselves honestly. That's not the point. The point is intellectual integrity and honesty, neither of which the film makers have one iota.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill "Am I missing something?" Yes - its called "academic freedom" - otherwise known as freedom of speech and of religion. Consider being required to "believe" or spout neo-Dawinism under fear of looking one's job, grants etc. - Even when one sees that most evidence is not explained by it. Since neo-Darwinism is enforced by self selected atheists, it is natural that those who believe in inalienable human rights would work to expose this discrimination.DLH
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Jerry asked (in #59): "How many biology departments allow criticism of Darwin? And if they do, then how many actually do it." Mine does (that is, the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University). Not only that, but they criticize each other's work with a vehemence that surpasseth understanding. That's why we are so careful to have as much empirical evidence in support of our hypotheses as we can possibly gather. That's what science is all about: subjecting one's favorite hypotheses to the most withering criticism imaginable. Have ID supporters done this? Not on this site, as far as I can tell...Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
JPCollado wrote (in #55): “…I don’t see enough compelling evidence that the producers lied to Mr. MacNeill.” MacNeill @ # 57: "My lawyer was of exactly the opposite opinion, and advised suing the filmmakers" Are we still talking about the name of the film? If only on this count, the lawsuit would not have enough thread to run the course. Defense lawyers could simply counter and say that name changes are commonplace in the industry. Kudos to Jerry @ # 52 who has some good pointers on this.JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
P.S. The canceled check didn't have the name of the movie on it; only the name of the production company (i.e. Rampant Films), which apparently specializes in films of a religious nature. Odd; I thought that ID is a purely secular endeavor, not tied in any way to a particular religious agenda. Am I missing something?Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
JPCollado asked (in #60): "...how does a cancelled check establish that a lie has been committed on the part of the company?" The canceled check was not intended as direct evidence for prevarication on the part of the film makers. It was intended to substantiate the chronology listed in my post, which made it very clear that the film makers were completely aware of the nature of the film they were actually intending to make when they interviewed me. As I was actually present at the interviews and heard (and responded to) the questions that they asked, and the context within which they asked them, in the absence of a recording you will have to take my word for it that they repeatedly lied about their intentions before, during, and after the interview.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
William Wallace wrote (in #58): "Speaking of coincidences beyond the upper credibility bound, macro evolution certainly satisfies that. At least we have researchers like Dr. Behe trying to quantify the bounds of micro-evolution." This is a classic diversionary tactic in rhetoric as well: if one has no substantive rebuttal, then change the subject. He also wrote: "You’ve got a domain name, and a date." Have you actually followed the link to the DNS registrar I posted above? If you have, how could you possibly have asked this question, as all of the information you asked about (plus much more) is available at that link.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
MacNeill @ # 46: "I was interviewed by Mark Mathis & Co. on May 3, 2007. I have a canceled check from Rampant Films (canceled on May 5, 2007, the day after I deposited it), in payment for my interview (which, as I mentioned in my original post, was cut from the film)." Mr.MacNeill, the check was cut from the original film name and not in the name of the issuing company? A savvy company like Rampant actually spending money in creating blank checks for a film name that hasn't been registered yet doesn't sound like good business practice to me. Otherwise, how does a cancelled check establish that a lie has been committed on the part of the company?JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan, You make a distinction without a difference. The movie is reporting research. It is not your typical research but is on the opinions and thoughts of evolutionary biologists about ID and then using those opinions to show what happens to people in the world who espouse ID. There is an obligation to accurately report their views. You can argue that it may not be a true sample but I doubt that it is not that biased. How many biology departments allow criticism of Darwin? And if they do, then how many actually do it. In the real world there is no need to go through an IRB. And in this case all you have to say is that we are trying to get your opinions about evolution and intelligent design. You can be a vague as that but if you want to get valid opinions you have to be careful how you ask your questions and disguise your objectives especially about politically charged issues. I would get entirely different answers on beliefs and opinions depending upon how you asked the questions and what you told the subject up front. If they didn't know the purpose of the research, you would get more accurate answers because they didn't know how to game the answers. So I have no problems with the approach. Let's wait and see how this plays out. My guess is that this movie will just play to the choir and that few not directly interested ahead of time will see it. Stein is courting all the familiar religious sources for this movie so let's see who goes besides the faithful. I cannot imagine anyone in my extended family that would be interested in it besides me.jerry
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan wrote: Maybe someone else happened to register the domain name "Expelledthemovie.com" months before [Paul Z.] Myers and others were contacted. Then the movie producers happened to buy the domain name from them. That would be a coincidence beyond the Upper Credibility Bound.
Speaking of coincidences beyond the upper credibility bound, macro evolution certainly satisfies that. At least we have researchers like Dr. Behe trying to quantify the bounds of micro-evolution. You've got a domain name, and a date. You don't know who bought the domain, who knew about the domain purchase within the organization, etc. Besides, as far as I can tell, Paul Z. Myers is going out of his way to come up with stunts that generate free publicity. Makes me wonder if he has a royalty agreement. I think it is more likely that this is a set up leading to a Paul Allen funded Darwinitst response to Expelled, which will become mandatory viewing in public schools.William Wallace
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
JPCollado wrote (in #55): "...I don’t see enough compelling evidence that the producers lied to Mr. MacNeill." My lawyer was of exactly the opposite opinion, and advised suing the filmmakers if my comments were included in the film. However, on further consideration, I thought that this would only add support to the main thesis of the film: that evolutionary biologists have "unfairly persecuted" proponents of ID. And so, I decided not to pursue a lawsuit against Rampart Films, which (in the fullness of time) would have been pointless anyway, as my comments were not included in the movie for the reasons I posted earlier. For those who require documentation from primary sources, I have originals of all of my email correspondence with Rampart Films, Mark Mathis, Will Provine, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, and my lawyer on the aforementioned points, and would be happy to share them (with personal information redacted for the sake of privacy) with anyone interested. You can find a link to my email address at my blog: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
I intend to both go to see "Expelled" and post a review of it at my blog. If there are any substantive arguments in it (i.e. supported by evidence), I will assess them and post that assessment, whichever way it falls. In particular, I intend to do an analysis of the logic of the arguments presented in the film. One that I am already aware of is the argumentum ad hitleram noted earlier. There may be others; we shall see...Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
larry @ #49: "JPC, I never said “fraud” but “lie.” Same difference. Either/or, I don't see enough compelling evidence that the producers lied to Mr.MacNeill.JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeil, You said "jerry also wrote: “The Darwinist can have the same complaint if Expelled does the same, but not if the interviews are good samples of what they said.” In other words, if one is quote-mined, but the quote is verbatim, it’s okay, right?" That is a distortion of what I was trying to say. How can you come to that conclusion when even your own quote says I said "if the interviews are a good sample on what they said." Quote mining usually refers to when the selection is not a good sample of what was said. You cannot use all of an interview but if what you do use is representative of what was said in total, then it is not quote mining and is ok. The much ado about nothing refers to the complaints being made. If the movie is a distortion then it will not be much ado about nothing. I can almost guarantee that the interpretation of what was said will be along party lines no matter what was actually in the movie. But I bet the people here will be more honest about the content than any pro Darwin site. Come late April check out the civility of the standard pro evolution sites such as Panda's Thumb and PZ Myers's site.jerry
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
jerry, I'm prepping for Easter so this'll be my last comment for a bit. But I have to comment, as I've been involved in survey research myself, on controversial subjects (the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse). I'm surprised at this:
My dissertation was to explore ways to get accurate responses from respondents during research. You never asked direct questions or let them know what your intentions were.
First, of course, the producers of Expelled weren't conducting research (they didn't conduct a random survey, for example). They were clearly playing "gotcha." Second, although researchers may withhold the purpose of the research from the subjects, they will not intentionally deceive subjects as to the point of research. Not if they expect it to gain approval from the IRB (that's Institutional Review Board for those who aren't familiar with this kind of work). Deceiving subjects about the purpose of research -- encouraging them to think it's about one thing when it's about anohter -- is different from withholding the purpose, and is unethical. Period. But again, all this is beside the point, since Expelled seems not to be research.larrynormanfan
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
Dr. MacNeill, I have no quarrels with the deception on the name and the purpose of the movie. Having been involved in market research, I know you often do not get accurate responses when asking direct questions and your intentions are known. We rarely if ever identified who was sponsoring the research. I was ABD in a Ph.D program in consumer behavior until my advisor wanted me to change what my dissertation was about to his pet project. My dissertation was to explore ways to get accurate responses from respondents during research. You never asked direct questions or let them know what your intentions were. So I have no problems with the deception. It is standard in controversial areas. I would be willing to bet the ranch that if they ever addressed the real topic of the film, they would 1) not have gotten the interviews and 2) not gotten valid answers from those that accepted. The word would be all over the planet in nano seconds about what was happening and the interviews would have failed to get any responses. You have a valid objection if the interviewee's words are distorted as Michael Moore has done in his documentaries. Let's wait till we all see it and then we can assess if everyone's view points is consistent with their views expressed in the interviews or cherry picked to make them look bad. If Ben Stein has egg on his face because he distorted the interviews, then it should be acknowledged. But if he accurately portrayed what was in the interviews, then so be it. Then it will not be propaganda but an valid portrayal of how people behave and think on this issue. My guess it will be a little bit of both. I agree that either your's or Will Provine's opinion should be included just to show some other opinions that evolutionary biology has. But from what I understand your position is rare. I hope the eggs were fun to color.jerry
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Jerry also wrote (in #45): "This much ado about nothing." And here I agree whole-heartedly with Jerry. The movie "Expelled" is quite literally "about nothing." It has about the same bearing toward the real issues at play in this debate as Disney's "The Little Mermaid" has to marine biology.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
Jerry wrote (in #45): "Dembski has said he has been sandbagged by Darwinist who edit his comments out of context." This is known as an argumentum tu quoque and is a classic rhetorical move when one has no logical support for one's argument. Jerry also wrote: "The Darwinist can have the same complaint if Expelled does the same, but not if the interviews are good samples of what they said." In other words, if one is quote-mined, but the quote is verbatim, it's okay, right? And what if one says something that doesn't fit with one's thesis? If one is dishonest, one pretends that it was never said. Let me remind you once again what T. H. Huxley said about this: "[Science] warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief than for one to which I was previously hostile." http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/letters/60.html That is, if one is being honest, one requires more proof for an assertion that is close to one's own position than for one with which one disagrees. But propaganda is just the opposite, and propaganda is all that this movie is about.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
JPC, I never said "fraud" but "lie." I don't really think of this in terms of litigation (others might, of course.) But it raises an interesting possibility. Suppose somebody sues the producers of Expelled for fraud or something like it. Then, of course, the discovery process follows. When you shake a tree, all sorts of things may fall out. Maybe we'll find an intermediate form of the movie title:
Expecrossroadslled
I've seen something like that before somewhere, I'm sure. [LNF scratches head.] Can't remember, though.larrynormanfan
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
Now, as to what I would have said to the film makers had they been honest about their intent from the beginning: I would have said exactly the same thing, and in exactly the same way. I am proud of the fact that both Will and I always invite members of the "loyal opposition" to make extended presentations in our evolution courses at Cornell. I am even more proud that our students make up their own minds about where they stand on these issues. For the record, I have given A grades to students with whom I vehemently disagreed (because their research papers were brilliantly argued and impeccably supported by references from the primary literature) and C grades to students with whom I strongly agreed (because their research papers were unoriginal and badly supported with few or no original references). It is not an ad hominem argument to call someone a liar when you have proof positive (including citations to reliable primary references) that they have lied. No scientist would ever be allowed to get away with this kind of distortion of the facts in a scientific publication. Indeed, it would be the end of their career as a scientist. The fact that some of the commentators to this blog think just the opposite is a clear indication to me of what they think of academic integrity and the level of respect due to one's opponents in an intellectual debate.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Jerry asked: "Were they all after the February 12th date?" My interview (and Will Provine's) was three months after the domain name "expelledthemovie" was registered. Unless the video crew was on the road for several months (pretty expensive), I would guess that nearly all of the interviews were conducted in late April and early May. Ergo, the film crew lied about the name and the intent of the film, and did so to hoodwink us into participating. And, given that both Will Provine and my interviews directly contradicted the main thesis of the film, and were subsequently cut from the film, it should be clear to anyone what the actual intent of the film makers was from the beginning: Propaganda, pure and simple.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
Here is when the domain name "expelledthemovie" was registered at TUCOWS INC.: http://whois.domaintools.com/expelledthemovie.com That is, March 1, 2007. No domain name for "crossroadsthemovie" has ever been registered. If you have ever registered a domain name yourself, you know that it never appears in the WHOIS listing before you register it; only after. Therefore, the very latest that this domain could have been registered is March 1, 2007. Here is the "meta: description that goes with the aforelisted registration: "Ben blows the horn on Suppression! Science and Education has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. What they forgot is that every generation has its Rebel…" I was interviewed by Mark Mathis & Co. on May 3, 2007. I have a canceled check from Rampant Films (canceled on May 5, 2007, the day after I deposited it), in payment for my interview (which, as I mentioned in my original post, was cut from the film). How much more evidence would you like that I (and Will Provine, and every other evolutionary biologist that was interviewed for this film) was lied to, repeatedly and for blatantly political (i.e. not scientific) reasons? And BTW, the reason I did not immediately respond to the posts following mine was because I was coloring Easter eggs with my four kids. So sue me...Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
When were the first interviews conducted? The movie was being promoted last August so I assume all the interviews were complete by then. Were they all after the February 12th date? I do not understand the significance of the name change. Maybe the Expelled name would have tipped them off but so what. Would the interviewees have said something different if they knew the purpose of the movie? If so then, then the use of a false name is appropriate in order to get valid reactions. Otherwise they would have given false reactions. I hardly see the purpose of this posturing about the name of the movie or its intent. By complaining they are admitting they would have changed their story and admitting they are not fair on this issue. Otherwise why the objections. They can object if the editing distorts their position which would be revealed by a fairer editing. But they have no complaints if the editing is representative of their statements. Dembski has said he has been sandbagged by Darwinist who edit his comments out of context. The Darwinist can have the same complaint if Expelled does the same but not if the interviews are good samples of what they said. This much ado about nothing.jerry
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
larry, according to the link you provided,
Tucows makes this information available "as is," and does not guarantee its accuracy.
Not very good evidence from the standpoint of a fraud investigation.JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
larry, Mr.MacNeill mentioned that he was lied to when the producers referred to a movie called "Crossroads." Do you have any information regarding this? Fraud charges are not valid until a connection is made between these two titles, along with the relevant dates. We are still in a "he said, she said" stage, and until there is evidence corroborating that the producers did in fact lie to the interviewees, Mr. MacNeill should refrain from using this sort of mudslinging. Also, I find it odd that Mr.MacNeill is not answering these questions, preferring instead to have someone else do it for him. Not a very good idea since statements could be mixed and lead to confusion.JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
larry @ # 40, Perhaps I've missed something. Exactly how does one prove that a fraud has been committed here?JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
JPCollado, anyone with a browser can check the domain name issue out. It's a standard tool that's been around for years: whois. You can also get this info via command line tools for various platforms(i.e. Linux, BSD, Windows, Mac, etc., etc.). Anyway, go here: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=expelledthemovie.com And you'll see the domain record first appeared in Network Solutions' database on 3/2/2007, which indeed is well before the interviews were conducted. This is all publicly accessible information. If you look at the page a bit more closely, you'll see a link to the actual registry data, which pushes the date back to 3/1/2007 (if you use a command line whois client, you'll get this date listed first. As to the two dates, it's down to the vagaries of domain registration, as the database records aren't instantly updated and can take a little while to propogate around the net). The other piece of the puzzle is the fact that until yesterday, there was no record for "crossroadsthemovie.com". Apparently, some guy in Texas decided to create it. I have no idea what for. Based on the raw registry record, he still hasn't actually gotten control of the domain yet.twindbt
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
correction: for "avoid protecting" above, read "avoid releasing."larrynormanfan
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Easy enough. A whois search produces:
Domain name: EXPELLEDTHEMOVIE.COM [snip[ Record last updated on 16-Feb-2008. Record expires on 02-Mar-2009. Record created on 02-Mar-2007.
Emphasis added. I clipped all the stuff that's irrelevant, because it's mostly avoid protecting the privacy of the site owner. Maybe someone else happened to register the domain name "Expelledthemovie.com" months before PZ Myers and others were contacted. Then the movie producers happened to buy the domain name from them. That would be a coincidence beyond the Upper Credibility Bound.larrynormanfan
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply