Expelled

Although the “Expelled” RSVP page mysteriously dropped all upcoming screenings after the media coverage of P.Z. Myers being barred from a screening in Minnesota, a few cities have appeared on the list again and Phoenix is one of them. This could be a chance to see the film without giving its dishonest producers any money–I’ve signed up. (Free is the only way I’ll bother to see this film.) The site now explains the cancelled screenings as follows: Due to unavoidable changes in the travel plans of the producers of “Expelled”, several of our screenings have been canceled or are being rescheduled to a new date or time.While that may be true, I wonder if it’s merely an excuse to drop all of the existing registrants and do more stringent screening of who is allowed to be admitted. ...

Allen MacNeill, who teaches introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University, reports that he and Will Provine were also interviewed by “Expelled” producer Mark Mathis under false pretenses last year. Unlike P.Z. Myers, Dawkins, and Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, however, his interview was not used in the film. (Corrected: Provine was used in the film. Provine argues that evolution is evidence in support of atheism, which is probably why he was used in the movie.) Why not? Because they invite ID proponents to give presentations in their classrooms. Yet Mathis claimed that he was setting out to present an even-handed presentation, not propaganda. Personally, I think it’s quite reasonable to talk about ID and creationism in college-level courses, provided that you actually evaluate their arguments. I occasionally included some creationist readings in critical thinking courses I taught at the University of Arizona, as exercises for spotting fallacies. ...

P.Z. Myers of Pharyngula, who is actually featured in the dishonest Ben Stein intelligent design propaganda movie “Expelled,” was denied admittance to a screening and asked to leave the premises. His guest, however, was permitted to attend, and was apparently, quite astonishingly, unrecognized–Richard Dawkins. (Myers provides a few more details here.) The New York Times contacted “Expelled” producer Mark Mathis about it, and he claimed that Dawkins was intentionally allowed in and insinuating that Myers would cause trouble at the screening. (Anyone who has met Myers in person knows this is ridiculous.) Here’s video of P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins describing their respective experiences. Jeffrey Overstreet gives what appears to be the spin that will be used to respond to this event, based on the clearly mistaken description of Myers’ removal from student Stuart Blessman: I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins’ academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn’t, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film’s producers to be found, and the man certainly didn’t identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it’s possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre’s management didn’t want to take any chances.Myers points out: ...

The March 2008 issue of Fortean Times has an interesting article by Rupert Sheldrake titled “Richard Dawkins calls.” In it, he describes his meeting with Dawkins for the filming of a segment originally planned to be part of Enemies of Reason, broadcast in August 2007. Apparently very little was filmed and nothing was used of the meeting. Sheldrake was to be interviewed as a defender of scientific evidence for telepathy, which Sheldrake has studied with empirical research, and written and published papers about. (Sheldrake is perhaps best known for his theory of morphogenetic fields, which he wrote about in his book A New Science of Life, which a reviewer for Nature called “the best candidate for burning there has been in years.” He believes that the more an idea is used, the easier it becomes for others to think of–along the lines of the “hundredth monkey” phenomenon which was a myth originated by Lyall Watson and promulgated by Ken Keyes, Jr., and debunked by philosopher Ron Amundson.) According to Sheldrake, he was promised that “this documentary, at Channel 4’s insistence, will be an entirely more balanced affair than The Root of All Evil? was” and that “We are very keen for it to be a discussion between two scientists, about scientific modes of enquiry." But when the meeting occurred, it quickly came to an end because, according to Sheldrake, Dawkins said “I don’t want to discuss evidence. … There isn’t time. … It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.” (A charitable and likely accurate reading of what “that” refers to is specifically evidence for telepathy, though Sheldrake seems to suggest Dawkins means evidence of any kind.) Sheldrake reports that Russell Barnes, the director, also “confirmed that he was not interested in evidence either.” (Again, probably referring specifically to evidence for telepathy, rather than evidence in general.) Sheldrake responded that “If you’re treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it’s not irrational to believe in it. I thought that’s what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn’t interested in taking part in another low-grade debunking exercise.” To which he reports that Dawkins responded, “It’s not a low-grade debunking exercise. It’s a high-grade debunking exercise.” I don’t see how anyone can reasonably disagree with Sheldrake’s statement. Sheldrake told them he had received assurances that this would be “a balanced scientific discussion about the evidence,” and when Barnes asked to see the emails in question, he showed them. Sheldrake writes, “He read them with obvious dismay, and said the assurances she had given me were wrong. The team packed up and left." UPDATE (April 25, 2008): Rupert Sheldrake has posted “Richard Dawkins comes to call” on his website, which looks to be more-or-less the same as the FT article. William Dembski has pointed to this article as evidence that Richard Dawkins has done the same kind of duping that he has complained about when the producers of “Expelled” did it to him, but I don’t think they’re quite the same in a number of respects. While Dawkins was (to his discredit) uninterested in the scientific evidence underlying telepathy that Sheldrake wanted to discuss, footage from Sheldrake wasn’t used in the final documentary. The case would have been parallel if Dawkins had pretended to be interested in the scientific evidence, completed the interview, and then used the footage in such a way as to criticize and ridicule Sheldrake. And it would have been parallel to how P.Z. Myers’ footage was used in “Expelled” only if Dawkins had conversed with Sheldrake about the scientific evidence for telepathy and then used excerpts from it in a film on another topic that hadn’t been mentioned. (Myers wasn’t asked questions about intelligent design, only about the relationship between religion and science.) UPDATE (June 8, 2008): P.Z. Myers has weighed in on this controversy at Pharyngula, arguing that Sheldrake’s evidence (which hasn’t been discussed, so far as I can see) doesn’t count as evidence because of a lack of a plausible mechanism. I disagree that lack of a mechanism means that anomalous data doesn’t count as evidence–it is reason to reject a proposed explanation, but it’s not a reason to deny that there is anomalous data. UPDATE (June 15, 2008): Sheldrake responds to Myers: [W]ith such a farrago of prejudice, ignorance and arrogance, it’s hard to know where to begin. It doesn’t really seem worth replying to people who aren’t interested in the facts but simply in venting their rage. ...

The National Center for Science Education has put up a website, ExpelledExposed.com, to respond to the dishonest intelligent design movie featuring Ben Stein, Expelled. The current content is links to news coverage and reviews of the movie, but I expect the site will become more interesting when the movie is actually released on April 18. geo (2008-03-09): It should be noted for the benefit of fair minded readers here that...every one of the allegations made on the "EXPOSED" site are...false. Not merely inaccurate, but intentionally so.Fortunately, the film EXPELLED will serve as its own refutation of these allegattions. The lies will in fact corroborate the main point of the film, which is a chronicle of the depths to which Big Science will sink, when it is questioned in the harsh light of day.geo ...

The Discovery Institute is behind an attempt to gather signatures and push state legislation to defend “the rights of teachers and students to study the full range of scientific views on Darwinian evolution.” “The full range of scientific views on Darwinian evolution” is apparently the new code phrase for creationist misinformation and nonsense. The proposed legislation prohibits termination, discipline, denial of tenure or other discrimination against K-12 teachers who lie to their students by teaching them creationist nonsense. The promotion is tied in with the dishonest film, Expelled. ...

And they both appear to be pretty accurate, informed about the dishonesty of the movie’s producers. One is by Dan Whipple in Colorado Confidential, the other by Roger Moore in the Orlando Sentinel. Historical Comments olvlzl (2008-02-03): Sounds sleazy, using Myers under false pretenses. Sort of like Francis Collins got used a while back, not that the neo-atheists were all that willing to be understanding when it happened to him. A better way to fight ID might be the one that some materialists had trouble thinking their way through when I proposed it last week, science can't deal with "a designer" since it is made to only deal with the material universe and can't address the supernatural. Of course,though they would gain a logically strong arguement for keeping religion out of science, they would lose the entire basis of popular neo-atheism. I guess that could indicate which one is more important for them to keep. Anthony McCarthy formerly styling himself as olvlzl ...

Chris Comer, the director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency, was forced to resign from her position. Her offense? Forwarding an email from the National Center for Science Education announcing a talk by philosopher and intelligent design critic Barbara Forrest, and adding the text “FYI." The call to fire Comer came from Lizzette Reynolds, formerly at the U.S. Department of Education and former deputy legislative director for Texas Gov. George W. Bush. She wrote in an email to Comer’s supervisors that “This is highly inappropriate. I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities." The movie “Expelled” makes a big deal about cases like the Sternberg affair, where nobody lost a job or responsibilities, and the denial of tenure to Guillermo Gonzales, whose publication record didn’t merit tenure. But here’s a case of someone who appears to have actually been removed from her position for sending out an announcement of a talk critical of intelligent design–a subject which the courts have already ruled is unconstitutional to teach in the science classroom. TEA officials claim that Comer was removed for “repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination,” which Comer describes as really meaning her concerns about teaching creationism in schools. The Texas Republican Party platform explicitly advocates teaching intelligent design in public schools. Wesley Elsberry has more about the Comer case at the Austringer blog, where he wonders whether the Discovery Institute will decry Comer’s firing, since they’ve been willing to stretch the facts to complain about cases with far less substance to them: Will the Discovery Institute come forward to say that the TEA is repressing Ms. Comer’s free speech rights? Will they urge her to become the star of the “Expelled” movie? After all, she did actually lose her job over her stance on evolution in education, as opposed to various people noted as being featured in the film who did not. But the DI is unlikely to do so because Ms. Comer is on the opposite side of the issue from them. They aren’t defending a principle, they are pushing a particular line of propaganda.I agree with Wesley. The Discovery Institute has a long record of misrepresenting facts (and not just about science) in order to promote its views. I suspect they will either remain silent or try to defend Comer’s removal. Pharyngula also comments on Comer’s removal, including the following explanation from Comer’s boss: the forwarding of this event announcement by Ms. Comer, as the Director of Science, from her TEA email account constitutes much more than just sharing information. Ms. Comer’s email implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral. Thus, sending this email compromises the agency’s role in the TEKS revision process by creating the perception that TEA has a biased position on a subject directly related to the science education TEKS.As P.Z. Myers comments: “Whoa. The Texas Education Agency is neutral on the subject of teaching good science? It’s bad if the TEA takes a position on the subject of science education? Apparently, TEA members are supposed to close their eyes and maximize ignorance before making decisions. I really feel sorry for Texas." UPDATE (December 2, 2007): And more, from Texas Citizens for Science (via Pharyngula). UPDATE (December 4, 2007): The New York Times editorializes on this subject. UPDATE (December 6, 2007): DI Fellow John Mark Reynolds agrees that TEA is in the wrong here. UPDATE (December 12, 2007): The Society for the Study of Evolution has sent an open letter to “Texas TEA." UPDATE (December 20, 2007): Glenn Branch has written a nice blog post about his email that cost Comer her job. UPDATE (July 3, 2008): Chris Comer has filed a lawsuit regarding her termination. ...

[UPDATE (April 15, 2008): See the NCSE’s “Expelled Exposed” website for a look at the deceptive tactics of the filmmakers and the real facts that they aren’t showing you.] In February, the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” starring Ben Stein, will be released. [UPDATE: The release was delayed until April 18, possibly due to copyright infringement worries.] The film apparently argues that intelligent design is being wrongly excluded from public school classrooms, despite the fact that intelligent design is rebranded creationism and is a religious view without scientific support. There is no scientific theory of intelligent design to be taught in schools–it doesn’t exist. The advertising for the film says that P.Z. Myers appears in the film–but he was not interviewed for a film called “Expelled,” but for an apparently fictional project called “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.” Mark Mathis, a producer for Rampant Films, contacted Myers, and he agreed to appear in that film. Now, as it turns out, Mathis is an associate producer on “Expelled." Myers writes: Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, “bring it on!” We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol’ wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us. I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education reports a similar experience–she also was interviewed for “Crossroads." The producers of this film are sleazeballs. This kind of technique is already at or beyond the ethical edge for a comedy film like Borat, but to do this for a film that purports to take on a serious issue–and pretends to be on the side of God–is well past any such boundary. If, as has been suggested, this film is going to argue that belief in God is necessary for moral behavior (a falsehood), the behavior of the producers proves that it is not sufficient. The lesson for the future: Do not sign an agreement to be interviewed for a film if the agreement contains language that says they can use “…footage and materials in and in connection with the development, production, distribution and/or exploitation of the feature length documentary tentatively entitled Crossroads…and/or any other production…” That “and/or any other production” is a big loophole that will be exploited. UPDATE (August 23, 2007): Ed Brayton observes that two of the alleged controversies that “Expelled” will cover are bogus claims of persecution–the denial of tenure for Guillermo Gonzalez and the alleged martyrdom of Richard Sternberg. Ed notes that he has an article coming out in Skeptic magazine in February 2008 which will debunk the Souder report about the travails of Sternberg at the Smithsonian (a subject he has already written extensively about on his blog–linked to from the articles at my blog under the “Richard Sternberg affair” category). UPDATE (December 18, 2007): Ed Brayton points out that a new argument from the Discovery Institute for why Gonzalez shouldn’t have been denied tenure actually undermines that claim. UPDATE (February 10, 2008): John Lynch has a nice visual diagram of Gonzalez’s publication record. ...