Did Richard Dawkins just crash the party at a screening of “Expelled”?
March 20, 2008 by Jeffrey Overstreet
UPDATE 4/22:
I’m so pleased with Greg Wright’s balanced, non-hysterical review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, that I’ve asked permission to repost it here at Looking Closer. Greg consented. Here’s his review!
UPDATE: 4/16:
Comments for this post are closed now, due to misbehaving participants. But further discussion is getting started at Mark Shea’s blog and at Arts and Faith.
- - - - - - - - - - -
ORIGINAL POST:
Did Richard Dawkins just crash the party
at a screening of Expelled?
To one fellow standing in line for the movie, it certainly looked that way as things played out on the evening he caught a sneak preview of the film.
On Thursday night, I received this email report from Looking Closer reader and college student Stuart Blessman.
Please note: It was an email. It was not an essay, not a researched dissertation. Just a “Hey, I just came from a movie screening, and something unexpected happened! Here’s my impression of what happened!”
Stuart thought I’d find it interesting, and as someone interested in filmmaking and the dialogue surrounding it, I certainly do find it interesting. I haven’t seen Expelled, the documentary in question, and I have no opinion of it… “for” or “against.” Not yet. But Stuart’s account, as best he could relate it in a spur-of-the-moment email, was intriguing.
I asked him if I could share it with you. So he framed it as a sort of “letter to the editor.”
In the next few hours, this blog post was visited by more than 10,000 new visitors. And many of them wrote to me, either via Comments on this blog, or by email. Almost all of them demonstrated clearly that they’ve already made up their minds about Expelled even before it is ready for theaters. And almost all of them seem to think that Stuart is launching some kind of nuclear attack on them and their evolutionist theories. They have risen up en masse and published character assassinations of Stuart, calling him “a shameful liar” and “a disgrce to his university,” when in fact he was just a college student and a moviegoer who sent me an off-the-cuff email telling me about his memorable moviegoing experience.
Sounds like these reactions come from a community that feels threatened. If the film was easily brushed aside, why would they bother? It’s not like objections to evolutionists’ monopolies on higher-education classrooms are anything new. But with the exception of a few more civil and thoughtful defenders (whose posts I went ahead and included among the comments), this looked like a rather desperate, hysterical response. I’ve been buried in hate mail from evolutionists and athiests in the last 24 hours, much of it laced with obscenities and spectacular recommendations about sex acts that Christians should go and do with themselves. Ah, what fine representatives for their worldview. If they’re hoping to strike a pose of sophistication and mature dialogue, well, they blew it. I’ve closed the comments now because I’m not going to weed through more of that trash in hopes of finding a few more civil responses.
It’s rather surprising to see this kind of thing coming from folks who will, at the same time, write off Christians as judgmental and hateful. It’s rather surprising to see such “moral outrage” coming from this audience especially. It’s enough to suggest that maybe they *do* believe in moral absolutes, in a spiritual conflict of good versus evil. Otherwise, what foundation would they have to stand on for their objections? This is fine evidence of “eternity written in their hearts.”
But first, here’s the email that Stuart sent me within minutes of arriving back home from the screening.*
My name is Stuart Blessman and I’m a student at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities involved with a campus outreach ministry. Our head pastor was recently offered two pairs of tickets to go see an advanced screening of Ben Stein’s “Expelled”, but had to instead pass the tickets to an associate pastor, who then offered one of them to me. So at 7:00 pm on Thursday my friend Grant and I got to go see the movie. Right away, let me just say that this is the Best Documentary of 2008…if it will get played. The basic premise of the movie is that Intelligent Design should be allowed equal footing as a teachable theory within academia. This movie is not an apology for Creation; pains are taken to distinguish Creation from Intelligent Design. This is also not a movie that bashes Evolutional Theory, although many rational arguments are brought up as to the validity of Evolutionary thought as well as the long-term consequences of an Evolutionary Worldview.The Associate Producer of the film, Mark Mathis, introduced the film as well as moderated for the quick Q&A following the film. The movie we saw was a rough Director’s Cut; at several moments things appeared to be out of sync, and occasionally archival historical footage appeared to “jump” on the screen. Mathis also mentioned that several music cues might change before the final cut, which is understandable since several high profile songs and artists are used in the film.
The film can best be described as subtly clever and occasionally funny. Emotions are stirred up especially built around the movies overall theme*, and many scenes especially later in the movie might be difficult to watch based on one’s ethnic and religious background.
But enough about the film – the real highlight of the evening occurred after the showing, during the Q&A. Mathis led this discussion, and the second question was asked by a surprise member of the audience: Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” and arguably the biggest name in the movie other than Mr. Ben Stein himself. As this screening was by invitation only, Dawkins appearance was quite a surprise to both the audience and Mathis.
Dawkins asked a simple question: Why was one of his colleagues interviewed in the movie denied a chance to come see this movie and protest it and in fact was escorted out by security prior to admittance to the theatre? The irony apparently escaped Mr. Dawkins that he himself was a gatecrasher to the movie and was uninvited; nevertheless, he wanted to know why his colleague was turned away even though he himself was admitted as were his colleague’s family.
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.
So ultimately Dawkins’ first complaint was irrelevant. His second complaint was that any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed by Ben Stein (and by Mark Mathis) for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy. Unfortunately, the entire audience, minus Dawkins’ posse, agreed that that the film’s main point was that Intelligent Design should be taught in conjunction with Evolution.
The Q&A then proceeded pretty uneventfully, with several of the questions addressed to Dawkins himself. Mathis and Dawkins also clearly had spoken on numerous occasions and appeared to continue an argument that they had started previously. The evening however was cut short by theatre management and an imminent showing of another movie in the same room.
Ben Stein’s “Expelled” is one of the more evenhanded, clever, and well-produced documentaries currently on the market. While the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate can spark much emotion, anyone walking away from this film will be convinced that the merits of Intelligent Design should be on the same level playing field as Evolutionary Theory. This film is about the freedom of speech, the freedom of ideas and ability to express those ideas…not about whether God created the heavens and the earth.
*SPOILER!! Proceed and highlight text below only if you want to know more about the film’s specific content.
Many scenes are centered around the Berlin Wall, and Ben Stein being Jewish actually visits many death camps and death showers. In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.
Now, a few things:
1.
Stuart isn’t some covert agent from Ben Stein’s camp. He’s not some player in a big game. He’s not connected to this movie in any official capacity. He was the invited guest of a moviegoer who had received an official invitation to the screening. At the movie, he was surprised by what happened before and after, and he went home and shared his impressions in an off-the-cuff email. I asked him if I could share it. I’m not claiming his account is 100% accurate — I’m sharing it like a letter to the editor because, well… that’s pretty much what it is.
2.
I wasn’t there. This is one person’s account of the events as he perceived them.
3.
For those rising up in a fury to defend PZ Myers against any notion of wrongdoing, well… let’s let Mr. Myers speak for himself:
PZ Myers wrote:
… I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That’s going to be fun.
Jeez. Don’t you think filmmakers might be a little reluctant to let this fellow into a screening of their film if he is publicly announcing that he’s going to “cheer loudly” whenever he appears onscreen? And that he’s already determined, before seeing the movie, that he will immediately run out and “disembowel” it? Is that the “scientific method” he embraces? I certainly wouldn’t invite him, if it was my movie.
4.
I left the Comments section open for a while. All accounts were welcome, so long as they followed my Comments policy.
But alas, I had to delete *many* of the comments that came in response to Stuart’s account, simply because they were little more that blasts of obscenities and hatred.
As you can see from sites like this one, some folks prefer smug, juvenile rants and mockery to intelligent discussion. Is this the kind of community that such a worldview encourages, I wonder? It certaily makes me want to seek a more civil, compassionate neighborhood.
5.
More discussion of this film is getting started at ArtsandFaith.com. You’re invited. Come see what a civil, thoughtful discussion looks like.
6.
For those interested in the movie (and not in performing character assassinations on Stuart), here are some links that people might find interesting. These are “ID The Future” podcast interviews that the Discovery Institute did with the producers of Expelled.
7.
Does this seem like honorable behavior befitting a distinguished professor? Stuart, a student, sends an email about something he observed, and Professor PZ Myers does not respond by saying, “Unfortunately, Stuart misunderstood,” or “Let me give you my opinion,” or “Let’s agree to disagree.” No, he goes public and declares, (comment #573 here)
“Stuart Blessman, the student at UM who made that claim at the lookingcloser blog, is a liar. A shameful liar and a disgrace to the university.”
Wow.
Doesn’t that seem a bit extreme? I mean, I’ve been known to disagree with people, even passionately. But to call someone “a disgrace to their university” simply because you disagree with their perception of a public hubbub, well… that teaches me a lot more about the Professor than it does about the subject in question.
It’s almost enough to inspire someone to make a documentary.
Okay, here are the Comments that seemed civil enough to post.
And Stuart… hey, I (for one) understood you were just offering your perception of what happened, not presenting a research paper. And thank you for responding to so much hostility with humility, patience, and grace. Whatever the ideologies represented here, the Looking Closer Sportsmanship Award goes to you.
47 Responses to “Did Richard Dawkins just crash the party at a screening of “Expelled”?”
The movie they’re screening is still only in rough-cut form? It opens in four weeks. When will a final cut be screened for the press?
Your reader is confused. People could apply for the screening online at the expelled website, as this RSVP section.
The instructions on the page when you sign up (which only ask for your name) say “Please fill out one entry form per attendee. Once confirmed, your name will be on a list at the door of the theater. IDs will be checked.” No mention of tickets being necessary. In fact, the confirmation email even says “Tickets not required.”
So doesn’t that call into question your reader’s characterization of events, including his story about Myers causing a disruption or supposedly not having a ticket? According to Myers, the management told him that “a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend.” Who was making the disruption again?
How about the fact that the rest of Myers’ family and Dawkins got in? Did they or did they not have tickets? If they must have had to get in, how did they get them? If not, then why is your reader claiming that everyone needed tickets?
I’m also not quite sure how it’s possible to take seriously someone who claims that a film is “evenhanded” when it’s core thesis is “Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.”
Best documentary of the year? Clearly, Stuart doesn’t get to the movies very often…
I have a sense that I should quickly remind folks of the Comments Policy here:
- Please speak up! This blog exists to encourage conversation. I’ve learned a lot here, even (and especially) from those who know how to respectfully disagree.
- I reserve the right to approve or delete any comments, so I can keep the “dialogue” on-topic and civil. This is not an “anything goes” site.
- Please keep comments fairly brief. No manifestos. No essays. Feel free to include links to your own sites, where you can ramble on as much as you like.
- If a back-and-forth debate gets on my nerves, I’ll delete it. My nerves get enough trouble as it is. Take the heated debates into email, please.
Stewart says, “So ultimately Dawkins’ first complaint was irrelevant. His second complaint was that any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed by Ben Stein (and by Mark Mathis) for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy. Unfortunately, the entire audience, minus Dawkins’ posse, agreed that that the film’s main point was that Intelligent Design should be taught in conjunction with Evolution.”
When Dawkins was asked to interview, he was told that the film was an even-handed look at evolution. Same with P.Z. Meyers.
Yes, you registered online, but the initial invitation was by invite only. You registered who was coming in your invited group, not just “first come, first serve.”
And since I was literally 3 feet away from Myers when he was “expelled,” I heard every word. It was obvious he was being kicked out by theatre management because he was not invited nor was he on the pre-submitted list. He didn’t cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out.
In fact, Dawkins himself acted as a perfect gentleman during the Q&A. He was respectful of everyone present, even though he was a little upset about Myers and his own role in the film.
And, Peter, Mathis didn’t mention any details about a press release or finished cut.
One final comment or reflection - Having Dawkins show up in the theatre felt like the equivalent of having President Bush show up after a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11. It was that odd and yet exciting.
djmullen, Mathis and Dawkins argued this, with Mathis saying that he had many emails stating explicitly what the interviews were about, and in fact, it was Mathis who originally interviewed Dawkins prior to publication of The God Delusion, and that Ben Stein personally wanted to do the follow-up interview after reading his book.
It appeared that Mathis and Dawkins had been over this ground before, so his argument was old news to the producer.
And it’s “Stuart”, btw. Proper English spelling.
Stuart,
I’m curious how you can say
“anyone walking away from this film will be convinced that the merits of Intelligent Design should be on the same level playing field as Evolutionary Theory”
when, as far as I know, the movie doesn’t even explain what ID is, let alone discuss its “merits.”
Care to enlighten me?
And a hello to Mr. Chattaway - I remember your work back from your days at UBC.
Stuart, another question:
It seems from what you’ve posted above that you were not directly invited either - you had 3rd-hand “tickets.” Why were you allowed in?
Stuart: “His second complaint was that any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed by Ben Stein (and by Mark Mathis) for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy. Unfortunately, the entire audience, minus Dawkins’ posse, agreed that that the film’s main point was that Intelligent Design should be taught in conjunction with Evolution.”
Even if that was the main point of the movie as Stuart says (I can not say as I have not seen it), it would be reasonable to say that popular consensus of an audience in a movie theater confirming that that is indeed the main point does not mean that Dawkins was not deceived as to the content of the movie. Nor does it mean that the movie was even-handed. i.e Just because many people believe some thing, that does not make it true.
Also, in reference to the spoilers that Stuart gave, I would say that if that is indeed the chain of causation in the movie arguing for teaching Intelligent Design, it is far from even-handed. It is basically saying that believing in the theory of evolution will lead to genocide. It sounds to me as if the movie were trying to scare me into supporting Intelligent Design. Am I wrong?
Mr Blessman,
It has been shown that the producers of “Expelled” bought the domain name for the movie before they began interviewing anybody. It has also been shown that the domain name for “Cross Roads”, which was the movie that PZ Myers, Dawkins, et al, all thought that they were appearing in, was never bought.
This can be confirmed, here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=47e35a511c8b4fab;act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=600
Those who are in the movie were mislead about the premise of the movie. This email confirms it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
Also, there is email confirmation that clearly states that PZ Myers, as well as the others that showed up, were known about, and were told that they didn’t need a ticket.
Thank you
First, I wonder how it is Blessman knows Myers was not on the pre-approved list? Second, I wonder how he knew it was Myers who was booted in front of him? Third, I wonder why you and Blessman think it’s okay for Blessman to use pirated tickets, and not for anyone else?
And finally, I wonder if you think there is any journalistic integrity in lying to interview subjects about what the interview is about, as the producers did, and THEN denying the subjects any chance to respond? Isn’t it highly ironic at a minimum to be stifling discussion of a movie whose premise is that discussion of any fool idea is a good thing?
Tsk, tsk, Stuart.
I had an invitation. I had applied through the channels Expelled set up. I applied under my own name, and was approved. I have the first email that confirmed it, and the second email reminder, all from Motive Entertainment. Wanna see them?
You were not near me when the security guard told me I was being kicked out. No one was. He first asked me to step aside, away from the line, and he told me directly that the producer had requested that I be evicted. Theater management had nothing to do with it.
I returned to my family to explain what was happening. That’s when a theater manager came along and told me I’d have to leave right away. You might have been in a position to hear something then, but it certainly wasn’t that I was not on their pre-submitted list. I was.
If you were right there, you would have noticed my wife, daughter, and her boyfriend in line too. They got reservations in exactly the same way I did. They were not kicked out. How did that happen? Did they have invitations and they just didn’t tell me?
Mathis did not send emails outlining the questions or even giving the general topic for our interviews. In fact, he did quite the opposite: he told me he’d rather not tell me what questions he’d ask, because he wanted my candid responses.
It’s simply amazing how many fabrications there are in your version of the story. You should be ashamed.
I hope no one takes Stuart’s words too seriously, PZ Myers certainly doesn’t. see comment # 573
So who is telling the truth?
Stewart, please help me with the process for invitation and expulsion.
First this man was “apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in.”
Then “He didn’t cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out.” The reason for the escort - “It was obvious he was being kicked out by theatre management because he was not invited nor was he on the pre-submitted list.”
How did management know who was invited and who was on the pre-submitted list? Was there a difference between being invited and being on the pre-submitted list? Were people who filled out the online RSVP not actually invited? How did they know they were not invited if they filled out the online RSVP?
You say, “Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket…” So one guy was asked about a ticket, but not his family or Dawkins? Or anyone else? But the RSVP site says IDs will be checked, not have your ticket ready…
So this guy’s family and Dawkins were invited and/or on the pre-submitted list? If not, why were they not kindly escorted out? How did management know that he was crashing, but not know his family and Dawkins were crashing?
Do the producers warn people the RSVP is not the presubmitted list or an invitation? Can we expect more people to be kindly escorted out of future showings?
You would have been better off sticking with the “apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in” story.
Stuart - would you claim that Myers and Dawkins used pseudonyms to gain entry when they registered? Myers and his family were clearly registered, otherwise his wife and daughter would not have been let in. Dawkins showed his ID and was checked against the list.
Also, your description of Myers’ behavior is suspect. I know him personally and it is a laughable characterization. Now that this description has been published you should either retract or apologize for the way you characterized him.
“The basic premise of the movie is that Intelligent Design should be allowed equal footing as a teachable theory within academia.”
With that premise, it can not be one of the best documentaries of the year, unless you with “documentaries” mean “fiction billed as documentary”, a genre that Michaal Moore has made popular lately.
Intelligent design is not science, and can not be allowed equal footing as a teachable theory för that reason. Intelligent design just sais “Look, there is a god behind this”. Well, there may be, but ot’s unprovable, and unscientific. You can’t prove God, and I don’t understand why some christians continually put down such immense efforts in trying.
Isn’t christianity supposed to be about *faith*?
In response to the spoiler, the most eloquent response to the supposition that science (in the form of evolution) leads to the Holocaust was given by Jacob Bronowski in the 1973 BBC documentary: The Ascent of Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA
Bronowskit holds that it is absolutism which led to the death camps and that absolutism is the absolute antithesis of scientific thought.
Science is human, fallible and prone to change. Nazi Eigennic theory was dogma and inherently un-scientific.
It is a fair question of how if the film thesis is “Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany” how that translates to “even handed.” IF a documentary on the pro-choice and prolife struggles painted the pro-life movement as nothing but clinic bombing women haters…would we call that even handed?
Sounds like the film screeners trusted that Dawkins wouldn’t act out like a foul-mouthed jerk and they understandably didn’t put the same trust in Myers.
Or maybe they didn’t recognize Myers but rather made it a matter of course to deny entrance anyone seen wearing steel toed boots and brass knuckles… LOL
DaveScot
http://www.uncommondescent.com
Hi Stuart, if you’re interested in reading more about the interview for the film, you can read PZ Myers’ account (from last August) at the link below. You’ll see that the premise of the film was clearly misrepresented to Mr. Myers. He was never told that the movie would be a pro-creationist film, and was in fact led to believe that the movie would be about ‘the conflict between evolution and creationism’.
The producers withheld crucial information about the nature of the film in order to get interviews. I can think of no reason they would do that other than to deceive the interviewee. As far as I’m concerned, that’s enough in itself for me to question the integrity and honesty of the movie, as well as the producers behind it.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
In case anyone doesn’t get the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles reference then go to Myers website at the link below and it will become clear:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/
“Yes, you registered online, but the initial invitation was by invite only.”
Nonsense. the website was not made private. There was no password. It was, instead, promoted.
Again, your account simply doesn’t make any sense. If Myers wasn’t on the list, how did his family, Dawkins, and all the rest get on the list and get in, given that they all signed up the same way? They all had to show ID, and they were all there under their own names: a strange way to “sneak in.” How could Myers have not been on “the list” for that and they were?
“It was obvious he was being kicked out by theatre management because he was not invited nor was he on the pre-submitted list”
If you had actually “heard every word” you would have heard them say that Mark Mathis had spotted Myers and decided that he didn’t want him there.
“He didn’t cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out.”
Then why did you both claim and imply that he caused a disruption prior to, or even after, the guards singled him out? Hustling, you said. Bothering other moviegoers, you said.
“This movie is not an apology for Creation; pains are taken to distinguish Creation from Intelligent Design.”
Then you have supported the claim that EXPELLED is a propaganda film. Creationism evolved into Intelligent Design after the 1987 ruling of Edwards v. Aguillard. Please google ‘cdesign proponentsists.’
Im sorry your reader was taken for a ride, but Im glad EXPELLED gives everyone a reason to talk about the dishonest tactics of professional Creationists. While Average Joe Creationists are certainly well meaning, professional Creationists are taking everyone for a ride.
While my first reply awaits moderation, I am also curious as to how seriously we should take Stuart’s comment in his letter:
If the event was by invite only, and in light of the fact that the invitees are intended to be people who are disposed to favorably review the film, how can this be seen as any sort of “victory” for the producers. Restrict viewing to people of a sycophantic mind and they had better be positively swayed.
The producers trumpet that PZ is dissing a film he hasn’t yet seen, and try to conceal the fact that they haven’t dared to show it to him. He has been able to dis it based on the releases that they have made which are supposed to be in support of the movie. We can see from the trailers, which are generally reserved for the “Best” parts of movies, that they are carrying on a fallacious premise that non-science should be given equal footing with science. They have all ready hung themselves by their own collective petards, through their promotion of the film, and when PZ went to see for himself if the movie as depicted by the promoters was truly as awful as the promotion, they denied him the opportunity.
Is this the idea of freedom they seek to promote through their online petition to support Academic Freedom Legislation? Let’s hope not.
i think Mr. Dawkins should be very offended, as any sane person should be. For crying out loud, the documentary ties atheism with the Nazis, not very even-handed, is it!!!!!!
Nobody has answered yet exactly why PZ was singled out and expelled. Clearly there were many other people who were able to register beforehand, enter and see the film without a “ticket” or “invitation”. Why did you specifically NOT want PZ Meyers to see your film?
So then you’re saying in comment 6 that your initial characterization of P Z Myers behavior “a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in.” was dishonest? In fact despite your claim that it was invite only, all evidence points to this being an open event subject to prior RSVP and approval both of which Dr. Myers had. And if this screening was invite only, why wouldn’t someone in the film, who is thanked in the credits, be invited?
Furthermore, you completely dismiss the fact that Mr. Matthis deliberately misled several of the people interviewed as to what the movie was about because he knew that was the only way to get the interviews. I seem to remember a commandment about lying or bearing false witness or something from my Christian upbringing.
Stuart earlier: “…hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in.”
Stuart later: “He didn’t cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out.”
In other words, he didn’t cause a disruption.
Stuart: “Yes, you registered online, but the initial invitation was by invite only. You registered who was coming in your invited group…”
You mean like Myers did:
PZ Myers: “Everyone in my family reserved seats under our own names, myself included.”
The above also discredits your statement that producers weren’t aware of Myers’ arrival.
I also must about the irony of someone being thrown out of, or barred from reviewing, a movie that is supposed to be about free speech and expression and the suppression thereof.
must laugh that is
Stuart,
You claimed the following in your email to Jeffrey:
“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.”
Yet in your comments you state:
“And since I was literally 3 feet away from Myers when he was “expelled,” I heard every word. It was obvious he was being kicked out by theatre management because he was not invited nor was he on the pre-submitted list. He didn’t cause a disruption per se; he was kindly escorted out.”
So Myers wasn’t being asked to leave for causing a disruption or “hustling and bothering several invited attendees” as you initially claimed?
Because the event was a private screening, I have no problem with Myers being asked to leave (this is the prerogative of the hosts of the event), but lets call a spade a spade here. Myers was asked to leave because of who he is, not because of his alleged actions (which you admit did not occur) or a lack of a ticket or invitation. If it were the latter, then I don’t see how his guests (including Dawkins) were able to attend.
DaveScot was kicked out, too? Who would have guessed?
Stuart,
You compare Dawkins showing up to Expelled with Bush showing up to Farenheit 9/11. This does not characterize Expelled as “evenhanded.” Instead, it betrays the truth of the film’s bias.
The problem with teaching ID on equal footing with Evolution is that you can’t; the former bases its suppositions on the idea that life and the universe are too ‘complicated’ to have developed by ‘random chance,’ generally, which Evolution never really presupposes.
Was it Clarke or Heinlein who said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic? I’d argue that evolution is the most sufficiently advanced scientific concept there is, which is why so few people are actually able to understand it, and thus need to attribute it to magic (i.e., ‘God’ or ‘ID’).
The strength of the faith of those posting here in inspiring.
If evolution is irrefutable fact, well, it would indeed be such a brilliant system that I would find all the more reason to suspect a Designer behind all this design. Otherwise, how would anyone have the ability to admire it, and on what basis would we be able to call it “beautiful”?
Okay, I’m not interested in having the comments thread become a forum for the ID/Evolution debate.
It was a “letter to the editor” post, and enough people who were not actually at the event have shared *their* opinions of what actually happened. (And well, to do that requires quite a bit of faith.
) If I hear from any other perspectives, I’ll include them for the sake of diversity. But I think we’ve heard from the Dawkins side of the table for now.
And I must thank the many who have commented here for speaking so forcefully, and in such numbers! You’d think that Stuart had made a controversial documentary himself, instead of just attending one and sharing a few impressions!
If he’s getting comments like those coming in today (especially those I’m *not* posting for their obscenity), I can’t imagine what the filmmakers themselves are enjoying. How can anyone hope to “dialogue” in the middle of so much noise and spite?
Looking Closer just set a new single-day record for new visitors to this site (more then 5,000 to this one post in the last twelve hours!) I’m sure the Expelled team is very happy with the publicity that all of the comments here have brought to Ben Stein’s film. I’ll have to remember to mention Ben Stein, ID, and Expelled whenever I want to draw attention to an upcoming post.
I must say that I was at the screening and thought that the film was quite well done. A bit refreshing as well. I also find Stuart’s comments refreshing, even though we are all still sorting through the facts of ‘expulsions.’
I was very pleased to see Dawkins there…it shows to me an open-mindedness from the film’s sponsors to allow this. As far as I am concerned, since it was a special engagement with security and all that jazz, they get the final say in who attends. I personally received an email invite and so did Stuart. In fact, I am the one who requested for his name to be on the list, which it was.
I think we must digest Stuart’s comments as one person’s account of what he saw. Sure, I agree he went a bit far in his characterization of the Meyers incident, but he was there and that is what he saw. I am sure that Myers is right when he says he signed up online because I saw this feature available the day of the event. Registration was closed at the time of that inquiry, although.
There is no reason do deny that Myers signed up online and was ‘on the list’ but I am sure that the sponsors still reserve the right to allow admittance to those whom they wish. Mark Mathis said it best…paraphrase…”I actually want Professor Myers to put his ten dollars down after the release and see it then.” Sounds fine to me. It is their film and it hasn’t been released to the public yet, so they call the shots. He also explained the change of name and interview correspondence with Dawkins and others. There were no objection by Dawkins or others to the answers of Mathis in this regard. Please, people, go see this for yourselves on April 18th and then make conclusions.
Maybe, as Dawkins eludes to, we’ll all come to the understanding that possibly aliens designed us and started the process of evolution along as we know it today. He was bending over backwards in this regard, and I appreciate that from him, but we still have the right to critique these presuppositions.
One final thing…Dawkins made it sound like Myers was being expelled from the discussion. On the movie’s own website there are links to Myers’ blog and his arguments on this issue. They are encouraging discussion, not editing it. I read Professor Myers’ comments for myself and found them to be wanting.
Stop being so close-minded, my macro-evolution-yet no idea on origins friends. Thank you Stuart, keep fighting the good fight.
Wow. Thanks for all the responses…both these and the spams on my blog. And thank you Dr. Myers for posting your email; I’m gonna keep that one.
Obviously you can tell that I was going off of Mathis’ comments toward Dawkins regarding you. If you had a legitimate ticket and was just booted by the film’s producers, you have my sympathies, although they were under no obligation to let you in to see the movie. I apologize if I in any way slandered you, but I am not in any way ashamed. I wrote my account of the events as quickly as possible in order to circumvent any attempt to spin the events by other parties. These are obviously my impressions of the events as I witnessed them.
A question though, if I may. Dr. Myers…where were you standing when the policeman told you that the film’s producers had asked him to escort you out? Why did you have to walk back to your family (and me by default)? Were you not already in line with them? Oh, and did you happen to catch the police officer’s name?
Moving on…Did I have tickets? No. Did I have pirated tickets? No. I was the guest of an invited person. I was RSVPed by someone who was invited. He will write up his own view of events later in the day and post them online. Perhaps something he say will contradict what I say; will that in any way alter my perceptions or what I knew at the time? I doubt it.
Was I aware that this screening was open to the general public? No, and I don’t think it was. Mathis never once alluded to this and implied that it was a very selective, invited audience…”grassroots”…which is ok, since he and the film’s producers can do whatever they want with the film. No one can force them to invite anyone they don’t want to.
Obviously I was unaware of Dr. Myers first conversation. I merely reported on what I myself had observed. I apologize if someone was misled.
The term “Intelligent Design” is self explanatory. Yes, one audience member asked what ID was, since she thought the film did not give a good definition. Mathis nodded at this and reinforced it was a rough cut. Obviously, I am of the opinion that one would be able to figure out what the ID is by the very words themselves.
Define “disruption.” Did he get violent, start shouting, bothering everyone in the line? No. It appeared he was bothering a few people, trying to worm his way in to the movie. Security was already tight: no bags, cell phones, cameras, etc, allowed. The possibility exists that he might have begun to get violent and start shouting once he snuck in to the movie. That was my perceived basis for why managment was taking no chances and escorting him out. To his credit, Dr. Myers went peacefully.
And I regret not recognizing Dawkins in line in front of me. I haven’t read any of his books, although my friend Grant had, but he was busy getting popcorn up til we signed in. But well played, Dr. Myers…that was an entertaining blog post. I’m glad you are also a Mac fan! I’m writing this from a Macbook Pro on campus overlooking the downed 35W bridge.
As for the rest of the comments…I’m gonna simply choose to ignore them. I’m not here to debate ID or Evolution. I lack “credentials” to do so. But that’s the point of “Expelled”…those with the credentials to argue against Evolution are not even allowed a voice. The movie is hardly pro-Creation; it simply states that any side in this debate should be allowed a fair voice. It’s really a battle of faith vs faith; why else would evolutionists so vehemently defend evolution and even resort to attacking an undergraduate writing about his first impressions of a movie and an event?
To those of you who are sending me obscene, expletive-laced, restroom-stall comments as some sort of show of support for Dawkins, I’m not sure Dawkins would thank you for it. And I’m certainly not going to post them here. I’ll just file them away in case anyone ever asks what kind of mail I received from Dawkins-supporters. Is it your enlightened worldview that compels you to respond with such immature hate-mail?
Stuart wrote:
Stuart, you’re showing remarkable grace under a whole lot of pressure. (And I’ve been posting the kinder responses that have come in!) Thanks for responding again.
Okay, I think that about wraps it up for comments on this post.
The discussion about Expelled is just getting started (actually, we’ll see if it actually becomes a discussion, or if it’ll just be two camps throwing rocks at each other and sending hate-mail).
I haven’t seen the movie, so I make no claim about it. But I am interested in the film itself, its structure, its craftsmanship, the questions it raises, and whether or not the artists and thinkers behind it will be allowed to have their say in a culture that supposedly celebrates diversity of opinion and freedom to explore.
Personally, I believe in God. I also believe he works in mysterious ways… and that one of the ways we discover his workmanship is through science. The more I read about the complexity and wonder of the universe, the more I’m convinced of a benevolent influence… and more, an evil aggression trying to tear it apart. And what is more, I don’t feel any eagerness to arrive at some absolute explanation about how the universe came to be. I’m more interested in finding ways to perpetuate the mysteries of grace that I find in the natural world… mysteries that would be meaningless and uninteresting if the cosmos were meaningless and arbitrary.
And if there isn’t an absolute truth holding everything together, what use is it to argue for any particular point of view at all? Why bother trying to persuade another person of your own particular delusion?
I am curious about this:
Could somebody confirm this? I am trying to figure out if the atheists in town for the atheist convention over resurrection weekend somehow “hacked” a system they knew was by invite only.
noapathyplz writes:
Thank you so much for pointing this out.
If you’d like to pursue discussion of this film, I encourage you to check in at the Arts and Faith conversation, which is just warming up on the subject.
I’m a religious person myself (Baha’i), so I believe that God created the universe and all life, but the best evidence of which I’m aware is that the life God created evolves through the evolutionary process, always did and presumably always will. I suppose that means the whole process is “intelligently designed” in some way, but I don’t think ID belongs in science classes without further evidence. I haven’t seen “Expelled” and don’t know if it will appear in my neck of the woods, so I’m commenting from what I know to date.
Victor Kulkosky
http://outofmymindblog.wordpress.com
This might explain better why PZ was not allowed to see the private screening:
Cheering loudly at the screen is certainly disruptive.
Dawkins is a more staid individual, which is probably why he was allowed to attend.
There… let’s let Myers have the last word regarding how he would have behaved had they let him into the screening. That seems fair.
And with that, the Comments are officially closed. I’ve got other things demanding my time and attention. (Of course, that will translate to some as “You’re discouraging discussion, slanting the debate, and proving yourself in favor of censorship!”
But I’d be happy to see a real discussion develop, so I’ll look for all of you over at artsandfaith.com.