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
Relevant to post # 38: Considering the fastidiousness with which Darwinists operate in collecting evidence against their so-called enemies, it would not be too much of a demand when asking for this little bit of evidence.JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
larry @ #37: "JPCollado, the producers registered a domain name for “Expelled” in early 2007" larry, where is the evidence for this. I would like to see it.JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
JPCollado, the producers registered a domain name for "Expelled" in early 2007, and then contacted interviewees a few months later and told them they were producing a film called "Crossroads." But they already had the "Expelled" name and never registered "Crossroads." Therefore, they lied. QED.larrynormanfan
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
MacNeill@ 31: "we were lied to about both the title of the film" How do you know it was a lie, Mr. MacNeill? Do you really believe that film-makers, or even authors for that matter, actually stick to the first title that comes to mind? There are a number of possibilities that you may not be accounting for, like copyright infringements, maybe.JPCollado
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Dennis Grey wrote: Freedom should be freedom for all not just for ID supporters. Isn’t that our point about the Darwinists in reverse?
These were private screenings designed to create buzz for the film. They were provided free of charge by the producers. They should have the freedom to decide who they will and will not buy movie tickets for. PZ Myers will get to see the film when it is released. His biggest problem is a town like Morris might only have one theater.
Nochange I’m planning to go see it when it comes to my city, will that make me a gate crasher if my wife reserves 3 guest tickets, and I’m not on the list?
If you are not invited, you should not RSVP. If you RSVP, that is gaming the system. If you want to get invited, send an email to: jessica [at] motiveYYYmarketing dot biz minus the YYY
NochangeAnd the claim that he was ‘crashing’ the movie. Please. Go to the website. It’s *easy* to get tickets.
Don't game the system. When I was younger I worked at a concert, and figured out a way to get into concerts for free. But pretending to be a worker to gain access through a service entrance would have been as bad as PZ Myers pretending to have been invited to a private screening. The Myers/Dawkins atheist entourage cost the producers of this film. Specifically, other guests such as preachers and elders who could have helped create even more positive buzz. RSVPing to events you're not invited to is gate crashing, period.William Wallace
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
"Treating people with whom you disagree as “enemies” is the antithesis of the intellectual tradition." Have you been to the "scientist" PZM's blog recently? Have you seen Richard Dawkins video entitled "The Enemy of Reason"? Take some time Allen to view http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/ note that this is on THE SCIENCE NETWORK and is SCIENTISTS talking PROPAGANDA against those they see as their ENEMIES. "doesn’t absolve you of committing a heinous sin against the ancient and honorable traditions of the academy." Who is moralising now? Who decides what is, and is not sin? If our opposition lies, calls us enemies, and calls what we say is the truth, "a lie", how can we say who is or is not sinning? "Shame on Ben Stein, Mark Mathis, and their supporters, and shame on anyone who resorts to character assassination, mendacity, and subterfuge in the pursuit of what should be an argument based on reason and evidence." By assassinating the character of these men (and their supporters) Allen, have you not condemned yourself with your own words?idnet.com.au
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
(1) Allen, Very well put! I am not a professional scientist. I'm admittedly a bit skeptical of the ID-as-legitimate-science position - the demographic this film is intended to likely target - and I must say: I am not impressed by what I've heard so far. In fairness, I haven't seen the film, but I have been following the publicity, and out of every remark in this above thread, yours is by far the most informative. If what you say is true, and I don't doubt it, I think that neutral viewers will recognize this film for what it is. (2) All, Frankly the original post doesn't make sense: why was Dawkins "allowed" to see it, but Myers turned away? And if Dawkins was allowed in, how does this square with the argument that this screening was not intended to be seen by "pro-Darwin" folks? And in addition, something seems fishy about the claims that their acquisition was not "legitimate" when a web site freely allowed people to register for tickets, as Nochange states above. Myers is very clear about how he registered. Oh, he can be a jerk alright, but frankly, his position is a lot clearer than the voice above explaining why he wasn't allowed in. The more I read through these threads, the more I think that Myers and pro-ID advocates deserve one another. -brandonov_
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
[...] When have you ever debated evolutionary biology? So to decline to do so on the basis of my... idnet.com.au: “Scientists don’t make propaganda movies (although we are sometimes invited to participate [...]But - why does PZ Myers NEED to see the Expelled film? | Uncommon Descent
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
"Scientists don’t make propaganda movies (although we are sometimes invited to participate in them under fraudulent pretenses)." Allen, have you not viewed BBC "The war on science"? Is this not a propaganda piece? Have you not viewed the extensive "Beyond Belief" videos of the recent Atheist fest, or seen Richard Dawkins videos? Are you saying that Richard is not a scientist? That is "beyond belief"!idnet.com.au
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
As an interesting addition to this debate, Will Provine and I were interviewed by Mark Mathis and his crew last year. Like PZ myers, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott and others, we were lied to about both the title of the film (they said it was "Crossroads", not "Expelled", for which a website domain listing was acquired several months before our interview) and the purpose of the film, which they said was to present an even-handed look at both sides of the debate. However, unlike PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, the interviews with Will and I were not included in the film. Why not? Because (as many posters at this site are well aware), we regularly invite ID proponents (such as Michael Behe, John Sanford, Hannah Maxson, and Phillip Johnson, among many others) to make presentations in our evolution courses at Cornell. But this fact would clash in an unfortunate way with the premise of the film, which is that "Darwinists" unfairly discriminate against ID supporters and creationists. In other words, "Expelled" is a propaganda piece, pure and simple, as are virtually all of the public pronouncements of the Discovery Institute and their supporters. Scientists don't make propaganda movies (although we are sometimes invited to participate in them under fraudulent pretenses). No, we go out into the field and the laboratory and investigate nature. This fascination with the way the universe works is the heart and soul of science, not a desire to undermine religion. If that were the case, why were many of the founders of the science of evolutionary biology (including Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Sewall Wright, Theodosius Dobzhansky) and so many current evolutionary biologists (including Ken Miller and myself, among others) members of various religious traditions? Treating people with whom you disagree as "enemies" is the antithesis of the intellectual tradition. Just because you happen to agree with one "enemies" list and therefore eagerly participate in demonizing those with whom you disagree doesn't absolve you of committing a heinous sin against the ancient and honorable traditions of the academy. Just the opposite, in fact. And using ad hominem arguments (not to mention resorting to agumentum ad hitleram, as did the producers of "Expelled") are the tactics of propagandists, not scholars. Shame on Ben Stein, Mark Mathis, and their supporters, and shame on anyone who resorts to character assassination, mendacity, and subterfuge in the pursuit of what should be an argument based on reason and evidence.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
And if something’s so fragile that it can’t bear a few unsolicited jibes from the opposition, well, it’s a bit too fragile, don’t you think? But, they allowed Dawkins and a whole group of other ID bashers in. That certainly doesn't seem to justify the thought that they "can't bear a few unsolicited jibes from their opposition".FtK
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
What the producers ought to do is invite all those who are featured in the movie to a special private screening before the flick hits the big screen. They can all sit together in a theatre and enjoy each other's company. LOL. Now, *that* would be an interesting way to get more publicity. Maybe Dembski, Scott, Myers, Dawkins, Sternberg, and Behe could all pile together in a big group hug while the cameras flash...tee hee.FtK
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Hmmm...I guess after listening to the rants and foul rambling of PZ Myers for so many years, I believe it is *completely* justified to keep him out of the private screenings. True, Joe Public has no clue who Myers is, but my hope is that episodes like this will raise their curiousity enough to check out Pharyngula. Going through that man's archives will certainly be a wake up call for those who have no clue about the dogma that is presented by the scientific community as "fact". It will also open their eyes to the goal that many of those in the scientific community have...to eradicate religion.FtK
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Nochange says, "If you make a movie about censorship and expulsion, and then turn around and do the same thing (whether it is to someone who is sophomoric, or whatever), Americans will hate that... It doesn’t matter if the other side behaves poorly. WE HAVE TO BEHAVE BETTER." Nochange has a point here. If there's no evident moral difference between the sides, then there's no real difference. And if something's so fragile that it can't bear a few unsolicited jibes from the opposition, well, it's a bit too fragile, don't you think? The little piggy in the brick house doesn't care how much the wolf huffs and puffs.Gerry Rzeppa
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
FtK, This is still going to ring badly in the public's eye. Americans hate hypocrites. If you make a movie about censorship and expulsion, and then turn around and do the same thing (whether it is to someone who is sophomoric, or whatever), Americans will hate that. And then to defend those actions because they were on our side? I think we should all denounce what the makers of Expelled did (and those of you with influence should try to get them to apologize). It doesn't matter if the other side behaves poorly. WE HAVE TO BEHAVE BETTER. Otherwise to Joe Public, we look like poorly behaving hypocrites. And there's nothing Americans hate worse than hypocrites.Nochange
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
dnmlthr: "Panspermia does not solve the origin of life problem and pretending that it does is incorrect and dishonest IMHO." It solves the problem of the origin of observed life. Since ID is science, it can only infer based on what is observed. But I'm curious now. What sort of science do you support that can figure out the origins of what it cannot observe? Or is this something you only require of ID? Incidently, which incorrect solution to the origin of life problem do you ascribe to?Phinehas
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
I would like to apologize if I've ever been rude or offensive to anyone on this blog. Sometimes I can be a bit. Yea Expelled!PannenbergOmega
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
I think everyone with a brain should see Expelled.PannenbergOmega
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Personally, I don't believe Dembski, Wells, Behe or any of the IDists would do what PZ did. It's sophomoric. Obviously, these are private screenings, and it's also obvious that Myers went in just to be a shyster. Think about it. If Myers thought what he was doing was on the up and up, he would have blogged about it before hand just like he blogs about everything he's involved in. Internet Darwinsts have been joking about getting into the movie by signing up as preachers, etc. They understand that the screenings aren't meant for the general public at this point. Myers knows that as well. Obviously, Myers wanted to create commotion by slipping into the flick, and he did. Actually, he created even more than he planned to. Personally, I see nothing wrong with turning a guy like him away, and like I said...this *will* bring more people to the theatres.FtK
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
FtK, You're right, this isn't the same as ruining careers. But it's still petty. And it shows a disturbing quality of character, that is similar in tone if not in magnitude as the Darwinists. Are we trying to be like them? Or are we trying to be better than them? And the claim that he was 'crashing' the movie. Please. Go to the website. It's *easy* to get tickets. Why are we rallying around this behavior? Is it because they're on our side? Wouldn't we be mad if it were Dawkins doing this to Dr. Dembski? Wrong is wrong. Petty is petty. No matter who's side it's on.Nochange
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
IMHO, none of this matters. It was a private screening, and the producers can turn away *anyone* they like. No one is keeping Myers from seeing the documentary, so this is nothing even remotely close to being "expelled". Myers can go see the movie as many times as he likes. It opens in theatres across the country in about 27 days. To compare this to Darwinists suppressing academic freedom in regard to ID is nonsense. Myers just needs to show a little patience. I think it's great publicity and sure to bring more peole to the theatres April 18.FtK
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
... small men who above all are afraid of a fair contest.
As opposed to the DI fellows who testified at Dover. Please.p.noyola
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Not to be contrary, but I think this shows poorly on our side. First, how do you gate crash a movie that has a website offering free tickets? http://rsvp.getexpelled.com/events/special/expelled I mean, anyone can sign up and bring up to 3 guests. They don't have a list of people that can't come. I'm planning to go see it when it comes to my city, will that make me a gate crasher if my wife reserves 3 guest tickets, and I'm not on the list? Second, when doing a movie about how we're not allowed to discuss intelligent design in universities, and then we don't allow Darwinists in to the movie... That's irony, and not in a good way. We're better than that. We don't need to stoop to their methods. We should rise above it. The producers should have been brave enough to show the movie, even to as awful a man as that Prof. Meyers. Today, I'm embarrassed by how our side behaved.Nochange
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
"Furthermore, who RSVPs to events that you are not invited to?" William Wallace, I suppose you could argue that only people who have invites should use the signup website, but the open nature of the site means many people will be signing up without an invite. I did, and did not have an invite, and attended a showing in Raleigh. But then I am a nobody who was not expected to be disrupting the proceedings. I think this is very much sound and fury about very little, and simply demonstrates your oversensitivity and that of the producer. Freedom should be freedom for all not just for ID supporters. Isn't that our point about the Darwinists in reverse? sincerely, d. greydennis grey
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Borne, "They have to be among the world’s most insecure atheists." In my view, the insecurity comes from the producers of Expelled, who are trying to game the reception of their little project.larrynormanfan
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
leo "Why hold up Dawkins for derision for making a statement that is wholly compatible with the current state of ID research?" If you read "The God Delusion" you will see that for Prof Dawkins, there is no chance of a more developed space alien unless they first evolved in a Darwinian manner. The fact that Prof Dawkins admitted that detecting ID (space alien designers) was a scientific possibility, yet he excluded the possibility that God could be involved is not evidence based.idnet.com.au
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Frost122585: And the fact that he actually is in the movie cannot have anything to do with it? William Dembski: Panspermia does not solve the origin of life problem and pretending that it does is incorrect and dishonest IMHO.dnmlthr
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
Leo Stotch: The derision is not over his coming over to the ID side; the derision is over his saying the origin-of-life problem admits a solution by hyper-intelligent aliens bringing about life on earth (yes, this is an ID option) and then turning around and saying God is a completely whacked out solution to the same problem.William Dembski
March 22, 2008
March
03
Mar
22
22
2008
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
Well said, Frost122585.William Wallace
March 21, 2008
March
03
Mar
21
21
2008
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
Meyers just wanted to see the movie cause hes a left wing atheist ego-trip. He wanted to find out as much as he could so he could go to work trashing the movie. For people like him its all about thier absurd poltical idiology. We ID advocates never ask that evolution not be taught- but his side does everything in their power to squash free speach- and that's sad.Frost122585
March 21, 2008
March
03
Mar
21
21
2008
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply