PZ Myers to Become Movie Star

[viscousmemories]

In chat today, Nullifidian pointed out that it's just not a good week for pz. According to this blog entry (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php#more) he has been conned into giving an interview for Ben Stein's new pro-ID movie, Expelled. Apparently one of the producers of Stein's new movie, Mark Mathis, used this possibly bogus "Rampant Films" website (http://www.rampantfilms.com/) to lead pz to believe he was going to be contributing to a documentary about the evolution debates called Crossroads.

[Julie]

Wow Poor PZ. I wonder if they can even do that, interview you under false pretenses.

And Wow I didn't know Ben Stien was an IDiot.

[fragment]

Didn't the same thing happen to Dawkins?

[Ari]

Now these type of people I'm surprised aren't sued, or aren't sued more often.

[D. Scarlatti]

Typical ID dishonesty. What else is new. I bet Stein and Co. got the idea from Borat.

[Ensign Steve]

Ben Stein is pro-ID? yuck!

[viscousmemories]

Didn't the same thing happen to Dawkins?
Apparently, but I can't find anything on Dawkins' site about it yet.

Anyway I can't help but find it a little bit funny that they could've avoided this predicament by being a little more skeptical.

[Nullifidian]

There's an article about the Dawkins interview here:

Creationist Deception Exposed (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm)

On the lighter side, with an Erdös number of 4 and a Bacon number of 2, PZ now has an Erdös-Bacon number of 6.

[viscousmemories]

That article seems to be about the last time Dawkins got duped. I think PZ mentioned that Dawkins was suckered again for inclusion in Stein's movie.

[viscousmemories]

Yeah, here it is:

Unlike some other documentary films, Expelled doesn't just talk to
people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists
such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist
and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center
for Science Education.

...

"The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don't resort to
manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the 'shock
effect,' something that has become common in documentary film these days,"
said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-Executive Producer.
"People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists
proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who
believe in a fairy tale. Premise Media took on this difficult mission
because we believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore
and discover truth."

What Happened to Freedom of Speech? (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-22-2007/0004649742&EDATE=)

[D. Scarlatti]

"[W]e don't resort to manipulating our interviews ..."

I guess we'll see about that.

[viscousmemories]

Maybe manipulating their interviewees was sufficient.

[seebs]

pz's an excellent choice for them, given their goal. His anti-religion rants are choice material, without any real need for quote-mining.

[D. Scarlatti]

But like PZ said, if what they wanted was an anti-religion rant, they should have more fully disclosed their project and he would have been more than pleased to oblige.

[viscousmemories]

pz's an excellent choice for them, given their goal. His anti-religion rants are choice material, without any real need for quote-mining.
Yeah, someone should've told him years ago that publicly indulging in unbridled disdain for all believers, whether or not they support evolution theory, might come back to bite him in the ass. I mean someone other than me.

[seebs]

He's an ID'ers wet dream; someone whose actually cogent and very sound arguments against ID and other similar nonsense can be "shown" to really just be his anti-religion bigotry.

The problem is that, while it's true that his bigotry would be a sufficient explanation for the kind of response he gives to ID, it turns out that the ludicrous nonsense he's writing about is also sufficient. But, I think, most people won't have the motivation to go find that out.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

Well, who'd have thunk that it would turn out to actually MEAN something?

[Ari]

As someone mentioned in the blog it would appear IDists have dropped the "We are a repressed secular science" line going for the "we are repressed christian scientists with a religious theory" instead.

[Clutch Munny]

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

Isn't it "love", rather than "charity"? Agape, meaning, I thought, devotional or familial love. Which I admit PZ has not shown to Christians, but which also might not exactly have been expected of him -- as opposed to the KJV's idiosyncratic "charity", which at most puns on the notion of charity in discourse. I too reserve love of the agape sort for, well, family and those to whom I am specially devoted.

Also, just a few verses before that one, is this:

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Maybe we should revisit that discussion of cherry-picked scripture sometime... :wink:

[Shake]

Wow Poor PZ. I wonder if they can even do that, interview you under false pretenses.

And Wow I didn't know Ben Stien was an IDiot.

Maybe he should sue them. :P

[seebs]

Isn't it "love", rather than "charity"? Agape, meaning, I thought, devotional or familial love. Which I admit PZ has not shown to Christians, but which also might not exactly have been expected of him -- as opposed to the KJV's idiosyncratic "charity", which at most puns on the notion of charity in discourse. I too reserve love of the agape sort for, well, family and those to whom I am specially devoted.

I think it actually meshes very well with the notion of charity in discourse; the idea that generally applies is that, if you aren't kind to people, it works out badly.

Also, just a few verses before that one, is this:

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Maybe we should revisit that discussion of cherry-picked scripture sometime... :wink:

I have my own views on how best to understand that diatribe, but in any event, I think 1 Cor 13 stands reasonably well on its own as practical advice; being a jerk to people is not advisable.

[Clutch Munny]

if you aren't kind to people, it works out badly.

That consequential element is nowhere in the passage. But, sure, what you've said is a fair enough comment on PZ's behaviour.

[viscousmemories]

Looks like the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=64a33fc3cb9a54ea&ex=1348545600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) got wind of this story.

Another scientist who was [asked to participate in the film], P. Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, said the film’s producers had misrepresented its purpose, but said he would have agreed to an interview anyway. But, he said in a posting on The Panda’s Thumb Web site, he would have made a “more aggressive” attack on the claims of the movie.

[D. Scarlatti]

Read William Dembski's heartfelt tribute to Angels (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/little_imaginary_beings.php).

Also, follow the link from here (http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2007/10/patrick-mcilheran-gets-pwnt.html) and check out "Canuck" handing a Milwaukee columnist his ass.

[viscousmemories]

:laugh:

It's unfortunate that he'll probably never know what hit him.

[Nullifidian]

Performing a little thread necromancy here. It seems they're serious about releasing this film, as I found out today that Expelled already had a poster designed.

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/gallery/files/9/1/6/expelled_poster_original.jpg

[Uthgar the Brazen]

"Is that a monkey?"

"He's got a gun!"

[D. Scarlatti]

Uncle PZ is famous in Milwaukee today, for his graphic take on the problem of evil:

PZ: Teh Hate!!!1 (http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/15588867.html?blog=y)

This is the same local radio talk show host, Charlie Sykes, that strenuously defended replacing a Star of David with a Swastika in a "parody" of that "Coexist" bumper sticker you see around and about. He's not much of a hypocrite at all. Really.

PZ's original post is here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/the_height_of_antiabortion_log.php).

[Ohm]

I see bad things ahead after this MOVIE......

But at least god won't be such a taboo to talk about.

what do you guys think?

[The Lone Ranger]

Did I miss something? Since when is it taboo to talk about god(s)? I know an awful lot of people who seem to talk about little else.

Cheers,

Michael

[Smilin]

Yep...and they usually show up at my door wantin' to talk about Gog and Jeebus!

I've got to learn to start being rude to all these dammn Mormon's and Jehovah's Witnesses that are constantly wanting to do nothing BUT talk about God or Jesus...

:smack:

[lpetrich]

PZ has commented several times on that movie in his blog Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula). This includes how its makers have had a recent "press conference" where they have tried to get reporters to sign non-disclosure agreements about it, a "press conference" where they did not answer any serious questions about that film: Hypocrisy? From the Expelled guys? Say it ain’t so! (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/hypocrisy_from_the_expelled_gu.php)

So all their whining about how persecuted they are is crying in their beer.

[Doctor X]

They are probably teetotalers.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

. . . or pederasts.

I always get the two mixed up. . . .

--J.D.

[Nullifidian]

PZ is in Minnesota for the National Conference of American Atheists, and there was a free preview screening of the Expelled film happening this evening. PZ went to the theatre, was singled out by the organizers for expulsion and threatened with arrest if he didn't leave the premises.

So he left, but his companion got in to see the film. His companion's name?

Richard Dawkins. :facepalm:

PZ has all the hilarious details here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php).

[Doctor X]

Who is more insulted?

PZ or Dawkins?

--J.D.

[viscousmemories]

I would've thrown his ass out too. Have you seen the man's squid porn collection?

[LadyShea]

I am with one of the commentors. My first thought was how can they justify tax-paid police removing someone from a public place without any sort of cause. He wasn't throwing things or inciting a riot or anything. I can see not letting him in, since it appears to have been a private function, but forcing him off the premises of a movie theater...seems like some kind of violation of rights to me.

[viscousmemories]

Read on. PZ mentions in a later comment that he isn't sure if it was an actual police officer or a private security guard.

[LadyShea]

Yabut still...kinda over the top. I would be like in the "free speech zone" or whatever making a scene afterwards, if I was removed by thugs like that.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

I find it more creepy and disheartening than funny. :shrug:

[Javaman]

IIRC, one of the comments mentioned that there may not be any restrictions on public showings (to specifically include movies) based on lots of stuff to include religion. I'd track it down but there's like a bazillion comments. At least there were at about 5:00 am this morning when I last looked at the post.

[Nullifidian]

IIRC, one of the comments mentioned that there may not be any restrictions on public showings (to specifically include movies) based on lots of stuff to include religion. I'd track it down but there's like a bazillion comments. At least there were at about 5:00 am this morning when I last looked at the post.

Unfortunately, this was a private, preview screening. The producers may be as petty as they wish to when it's they're renting out that one theatre. However, in a place like the Mall of America, it's has to be a multiplex, so there was no call for PZ to be told that he had to leave the theatre entirely (which would be at the discretion of the theatre franchise owners), let alone being ordered off the public right-of-way in front of the theatre (which is a decision to be made by the owners of the mall itself).

Still, there's no legal case to be made out of the fact that he was barred from the screening. Being told to leave the theatre and get away from the walkway, however, could be grounds for a suit if he cared enough to initiate one. However, I think the organizers' manifest incompetence is its own reward in this case.

[D. Scarlatti]

Soccer fan Dawkins says the movie is "a spectacular 'own goal.'"

[Crumb]

Here is Dawkins' take on the movie and the events of his viewing it.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

[Uthgar the Brazen]

I would have flown there to catch the screening if I'd known the "producer" was going to do a live shit-in-my-pants routine afterwards. :lol:

[Goliath]

Inside Higher Ed released an article (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/24/expelled) today about the movie and the PZ/Dawkins fiasco.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

...and they wield a powerful new weapon: Ben Stein.

:roflcopt:

Relent, Big Science! Relent before we unleash the Flaccid Penis Of Doom on you again! Will you bow before us now? Who amongst you is brave enough to admit you were wrong?

Anyone? Anyone?

[Crumb]

Dawkins & Shermer on Expelled (http://www.skeptic.com/skepticality_download/074_skepticality.mp3)

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Prediction: After completely and hilariously misinterpreting this news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080410/sc_livescience/shockfirstanimalonearthwassurprisinglycomplex;_ylt=AoAPkh0U7BcU48Bvxx1gjJSs0NUE), Ben Stein will start agitating for a role in the sequel.

[BrotherMan]

Well I'll be an ocean drifting comb jelly fish's uncle.

[Crumb]

Scientific American interviews Expelled associate producer (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis)

[D. Scarlatti]

Mathis charged that some 92 percent of the judge’s decision in the Dover intelligent design trial was copied directly from papers filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Gee that's devastating. And original. And false. And "spurious," as SCIAM puts it.

[Doctor X]

Scientific American interviews Expelled associate producer (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis)

They really destroy him over the Dover decision. I did not read the comments before listening.

Finding this proved most hilarious afterwards:

One point requires response here. Mathis charged that some 92 percent of the judge’s decision in the Dover intelligent design trial was copied directly from papers filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). We said we would follow up and find out the truth. We did. In fact, Mathis was wrong in three ways. One, even the Discovery Institute’s own charge is that the judge copied 90.9 percent of ACLU material for one specific section in the judge’s decision. Second, a correct statistical workup finds that the number is as low as 35 percent, depending on whether you include material filed that is not included in the decision and the length of word strings. But the most important point is one that I guessed at in the conversation. We spoke to actual legal experts who told us that when the sides in a trial file their facts, it is with the hope that they make the case strongly enough for the judge to incorporate their texts into the finding of fact section of the decision.

So much for the "facts" Mathis stood behind.

--J.D.