" The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him,...."
'Nuff said. Plug pulled.
"Vorlon" <vorlon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:MPG.227d720acf5f353898a732@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> John Duncan Yoyo <john-duncan-yoyo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:58:43 GMT, Brian Henderson
>> <BrianL.Henderson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >Steve Hix wrote:
>> >> Somebody has seriously missed the point.
>> >
>> >Yes, but don't worry, you might figure it out yet.
>> >
>> >> It's not science that nazism, it's an attitude of shutting down
>> >> anything
>> >> outside the main line of current understanding. It's acting as if
it's
>> >> just too dangerous to deal with arguments on their own merits; and
it
>> >> makes outlier's viewpoint look stronger than it might otherwise be.
>> >
>> >Sure, you could tell all the people who are having images of Nazi
>> >atrocities interspersed with their words. Besides, there isn't a
single
>> >case of a scientist losing their jobs because they advocate
creationism,
>> >in every case it's another cause. Gonzales and his ridiculous whine
"I
>> >didn't get tenure" nonsense was just pathetic.
>>
>> Yep they pulled a godwin on themselves. If they needed to resort to
>> the Nazi's they had no argument that could stand.
>>
> Lying for Jesus?
> by Richard Dawkins
> The blogs are ringing with ridicule. Mark Mathis, duplicitous producer
of
> the
> much hyped film Expelled, shot himself in the foot so spectacularly that
> the
> phrase might have been invented for him. Goals don't come more own than
> this.
> How is it possible that a man who makes his living from partisan
> propaganda
> could hand so stunning a propaganda coup to his opponents? Hand it to
them
> on
> a plate, so ignominiously and so UNNECESSARILY.
>
> In writing this for RichardDawkins.net, I have assumed that our readers
> will
> already be familiar with the facts of the case, from Pharyngula and the
> more
> than 40 other blogs that have picked up the story and are listed at
>
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/pz_myers_expelled_gains_sainth.php
> For the same reason, I shall not discuss the main message of the film --
> that
> American creationist scientists are being victimized for their views --
> except to say that it was very much NOT its main message when the film
was
> called Crossroads, and when I, together with PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and
> others, were conned into taking part.
>
> Now, to the Good Friday Fiasco itself, Mathis' extraordinary and costly
> lapse
> of judgment. Just think about it. His entire film is devoted to the
notion
> that American scientists are being hounded and expelled from their jobs
> because of opinions that they hold. The film works hard at pressing (no,
> belabouring with a sledgehammer) all the favourite hot buttons of free
> speech, freedom of thought, the right of dissent, the right to be heard,
> the
> right to discuss issues rather than suppress argument. These are the
> topics
> that the film sets out to raise, with particular reference to evolution
> and
> 'intelligent design' (wittily described by someone as creationism in a
> cheap
> tuxedo). In the course of this film, Mathis tricked a number of
> scientists,
> including PZ Myers and me, into taking prominent parts in the film, and
> both
> of us are handsomely thanked in the closing credits.
>
> Seemingly oblivious to the irony, Mathis instructed some uniformed goon
to
> evict Myers while he was standing in line with his family to enter the
> theatre, and threaten him with arrest if he didn't immediately leave the
> premises. Did it not occur to Mathis -- what would occur any normally
> polite
> and reasonable person -- that Myers, having played a leading role in the
> film, might have been welcomed as an honoured guest to watch it? Or,
more
> cynically, did he not know that PZ is one of the country's most popular
> bloggers, with a notoriously caustic wit, perfectly placed to set the
> whole
> internet roaring with delighted and mocking laughter? I long ago
realised
> that Mathis was deceitful. I didn't know he was a bungling incompetent.
>
> Not just incompetent at public relations, incompetent in his chosen
> profession of film-making, for the film itself, as I discovered when I
saw
> it
> on Friday (and this genuinely surprised me) is dull, artless,
amateurish,
> too
> long, poorly constructed and utterly devoid of any style, wit or
subtlety.
> It
> bears all the hallmarks of a film-maker who knows nothing about the
craft
> of
> making films. I'll come to that in a moment.
>
> But first, I should deal with some questions that have arisen over the
> Good
> Friday Massacre of Mark Mathis' reputation (some commentators are
publicly
> wondering whether the film will ever be released, speculating that its
> financial backers will pull out for fear of being tarnished with some of
> the
> ridicule?)
>
> In a desperate effort to scrape some of the egg off their faces, the
> creationist wingnuts are spinning the story to make it look as though PZ
> and
> I were 'gatecrashers'. The ill-named 'Discovery' Institute heads its web
> article, "Richard Dawkins, World Famous Darwinist, Stoops to
Gate-cra****ng
> Expelled." The article says that I "apparently acknowledged that I was
not
> invited". Mark Mathis himself said something similar about PZ in the Q &
A
> after the showing, when I publicly challenged him to explain why he had
> expelled him, claiming that this performance was by invitation only, and
> PZ
> had not been invited. But, as many commentators have pointed out, this
was
> most certainly not an invitation-only affair. The way to get into this
> showing of the film was simply to go on the Internet and apply. This was
> exactly what PZ did. He went on the Web and put his name down for a
place
> at
> the showing, just like everybody else, including several others from the
> American Atheists annual conference in Minneapolis. Not a man to hide
> behind
> a false name or false beard, PZ openly s****ted his own. Like many other
> people, including his daughter and Kristine Harley (see her Amused Muse
> website), PZ took advantage of the generous offer to let him book guests
> in
> as well, and then kindly invited me to be one of them. There was no
> request
> to give the names of guests, and no machinery to do so, which was why my
> name
> did not appear on the list.
>
> Many people have wondered why, if PZ was expelled, I managed to get in.
> This
> has been adduced as further evidence of Mathis' bungling incompetence,
but
> I
> think that is unfair. It was easy for Mathis to spot PZ Myers' name on
the
> list of those registering in advance. Like all guests, my name was not
on
> any
> list, and therefore Mathis didn't spot me. So I think he can be absolved
> of
> stupidity in not spotting me. But convicted of extreme stupidity in
> expelling
> PZ when he spotted him. What was he afraid of? What did he think PZ
would
> do,
> open fire with a Kalashnikov? Now that I think about it, that would have
> been
> all-of-a-piece with the overblown paranoia displayed throughout the film
> itself.
>
> The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid -- pathetic really. The
> narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but
> apparently
> he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would
> have
> been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for
his
> knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box
> office
> appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal
> drawl,
> innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good
voice
> for
> conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was
> qualification enough.
>
> Now, to the film itself. What a shoddy, second-rate piece of work. A
> favourite joke among the film-making community is the 'Lord Privy Seal'.
> Amateurs and novices in the making of do***entaries can't resist
> illustrating
> every significant word in the commentary by cutting to a picture of it.
> The
> Lord Privy Seal is an antiquated title in Britain's heraldic tradition.
> The
> joke imagines a low-grade film director who illustrates it by cutting to
a
> picture of a Lord, then a privy, and then a seal. Mathis' film is
> positively
> barking with Lord Privy Seals. We get an otherwise pointless cut to
Nikita
> Krushchev hammering the table (to illustrate something like 'emotional
> outburst'). There are similarly clunking and artless cuts to a
guillotine,
> fist fights, and above all to the Berlin wall and Nazi gas chambers and
> concentration camps.
>
> The alleged association between Darwinism and Nazism is harped on for
what
> seems like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to
> believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin. Hitler was ignorant and
> bonkers
> enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled
> misunderstanding of Darwin (along with his very ungarbled understanding
of
> the anti-semitism of Martin Luther, and of his own never-renounced Roman
> Catholic religion) but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did. My own
view,
> frequently expressed (for example in the The Selfish Gene and especially
> in
> the title chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) is that there are two reasons
why
> we
> need to take Darwinian natural selection seriously. Firstly, it is the
> most
> im****tant element in the explanation for our own existence and that of
all
> life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to
> organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a
> passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to
> construct
> a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of
> looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal
medical
> care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical
fallacies
> to
> derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for
> him)
> is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to
Darwinism.
> If
> we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find
to
> Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret
> Thatcher,
> George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these
> people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D
> Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their
unpleasant
> social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has
any
> bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of
evolution
> is
> either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning
fools.
> I
> will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark
> Mathis.
>
> Stein has no talent for comedy, as he demonstrates in a weird joke about
> scratching his back, which falls completely flat. But his attempt to do
> tragedy is even worse. He visits Dachau and, when informed by the guide
> that
> lots of Jews had been killed there, he buries his face in his hands as
> though
> this is the first time he has heard of it. Obviously it was not his
> intention, but I thought his rotten acting was an insult to the memory
of
> the
> victims.
>
> More sinister than the artless Lord Privy Seals, and the self-indulgent
> and
> wholly illicit playing of the Nazi trump card, the film goes shamelessly
> for
> cheap laughs at the expense of scientists and scholars who are making
> honest
> attempts to explain difficult points. Cheap laughs that could only be
> raised
> in an audience of scientific ignoramuses (and here Mathis' propaganda
> instincts cannot be faulted: he certainly knows his target audience).
One
> example is the treatment of the philosopher Michael Ruse: a decent man,
> bluff, bearded, articulate, and with a genuine and sincere desire to
> explain
> difficult ideas clearly. Stein asked Ruse how life originated. Ruse's
> immediate impulse (as mine would have been) was to launch into an honest
> effort to explain a difficult scientific idea. He began by saying that
he
> doesn't know how life originated, and nor does anybody else. At this
point
> in
> his interview, Ruse probably had no notion that his interlocuter had a
> completely different agenda to promote, with no hint of sincerity to
> balance
> his own. Ruse patiently explained that the origin of life (nothing to do
> with
> the Darwinian theory itself but the necessary precursor of Darwinian
> evolution) is an interesting and unsolved mystery, one that scientists
are
> actively working on. By way of example, Ruse could have chosen any of a
> number of current theories. He chose just one (it would have taken too
> long
> to explain them all) purely as an illustration of the kind of properties
> such
> a theory must have. He happened to choose the theory proposed by the
> Scottish
> chemist Graham Cairns-Smith, that organic life was preceded by a strange
> and
> intriguing world of replicating patterns on the surfaces of crystals in
> inorganic clays. At no time did Ruse say he believed the Cairns-Smith
> theory,
> only that it was the KIND of theory that scientists are actively
> examining,
> as a CANDIDATE for the origin of evolution. Stein just loved it. Mud!
MUD!
> The sarcasm in his grating, nasal voice was palpable. Maybe this was
when
> Ruse realised that he had been had. Certainly it was at this point that
he
> started to show signs of exasperation, although he may still have
thought
> that Stein was merely stupid, rather than pursuing a malevolent and
> clandestine agenda. Stein kept returning, throughout the film, to the
> phrase
> "on the backs of crystals", and the sycophantic audience in the
> Minneapolis
> cinema dutifully tittered every time.
>
> Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked
> whether
> I could think of any cir***stances whatsoever under which intelligent
> design
> might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set
myself
> the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to
> give
> ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been
> feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading
> advocates
> of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not
> talking
> about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified
> intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed,
> this
> is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist
> creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel
> their
> way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to
> accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about
God,
> this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I
could
> for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like
> Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was
> charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely
> seeking
> enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life
> could
> conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from
> another
> planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar --
semi
> tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in
> the
> highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was
responsible
> for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES
have
> to
> have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane'
> (to
> quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an
ULTIMATE
> explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded
by
> intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form
> was
> itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be
> terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because
of
> the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just
> spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists'
whole
> point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by
> natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity
> can
> ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes
> everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE
into
> the
> universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again
and
> again in my writings.
>
> This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or
> may
> not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that
my
> science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was
designed
> to
> illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I
was
> most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment.
Quite
> the
> contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed
it
> either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for
a
> form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best
> case I
> could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was
using
> the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to
all
> theories of intelligent design.
>
> Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get
the
> exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on
pain
> of
> a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before
the
> film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins
> BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS
FROM
> OUTER SPACE." I can't remember whether this was the moment in the film
> where
> we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science
fiction
> movie with some kind of android figure - that may have been used in the
> service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from
> the
> partisan audience).
>
> Enough on the film itself. Quite apart from anything else, it is
drearily
> boring, the tedium exacerbated by the grating monotony of Stein's voice.
> At
> the end, Mathis came on the stage to answer questions. He had of course
> taken
> the precaution of removing the one individual whom he apparently saw as
a
> likely source of knowledgeable questions, Professor Myers. He must have
> been
> surprised when I stood up and asked him to explain why he had expelled
PZ,
> given that the film was an attack on such expulsions, and given that the
> film's acknowledgments had thanked PZ for his role in the film. Mathis
> trotted out the lie that Myers had been excluded because he was not
> invited.
> This seemed to satisfy the loyal audience, even though they presumably
> knew
> perfectly well that they hadn't been invited either, and that they, like
> PZ,
> had simply booked their seats on the Internet. I pursued the matter
until
> the
> audience's hostile demeanour persuaded me that there was no point in
> continuing. The point was made to all whose minds were not completely
> blinded
> by religious zeal.
>
> The New York Times picked up the story, and caught Mathis in the act of
> perpetrating yet another piece of dubious spin-doctoring.
>
> Mark Mathis, a producer of the film who attended the screening, said
> that
> "of course" he had recognized Dr. Dawkins, but allowed him to attend
> because
> "he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country
and
> I
> had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film."
>
>
>
> As I said before, Mathis almost certainly detected Myers' name on the
list
> of
> those who signed up on the Internet. Since my name was not on that list,
> it
> is highly likely that Mathis didn't spot me until the moment I stood up
in
> the Question session, when it was too late to expel me. So all that
stuff
> about allowing me to attend because I have handled myself fairly
> honourably
> is almost certainly dishonourable spinning. As for the implication that
I
> might have flown all the way from England to see his disreputable film,
> the
> very idea is as ludicrous as the film itself. Like PZ Myers, I was in
> Minneapolis for the conference of the American Atheists.
>
> Josh Timonen and Kristine Harley took up the cudgels. Josh drew
attention
> to
> the digraceful victimization of scientists espousing the Stork Theory of
> reproduction, by hardline members of the '*** Theory' establishment. And
> Kristine asked Mathis to explain what had become of a film called
> Crossroads
> which had mysteriously morphed itself into Expelled. The im****t of her
> question was the widely known fact, which I have already mentioned, that
> PZ
> and I had been tricked into participating in Crossroads without ever
being
> told that the true purpose of the film was the one conveyed by the later
> title Expelled -- the alleged expulsion of creationists from
universities.
> Mathis said that it was common practice for films under production to
have
> working titles, which later change in the final version. That is indeed
> true.
> However, yet again, Mathis shows himself up as a wilfull deceiver. As
> Kristine herself said on her blog (http://amused-muse.blogspot.com/):
>
> It would appear that Expelled's producer Mark Mathis was not being
> truthful when he told me tonight that Crossroads was a 'working title'
for
> the film Expelled. As Wesley Elsberry points out, the domain for
Expelled
> was
> purchased before most, if not all, of the interviews were conducted --
and
> yet Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers, and others were told they
> were
> being interviewed for a film called Crossroads.
>
> Mr. Mark Mathis, do you want to come here and explain yourself?
>
>
>
> Could Mathis have been sincere when he originally told PZ and me the
film
> was
> an honest attempt to examine evolution and intelligent design? The
> evidence
> that they had already purchased the Expelled domain name argues against
> this.
> Certainly Mathis' friendly demeanour disarmed me into cooperating with
> him --
> indeed, I went out of my way to HELP him on his visit to Britain -- in a
> way
> that I never would have if I had had the slightest suspicion that his
> outfit
> was in fact a creationist front. I may have misremembered the details of
> our
> exchanges, by eMail and by telephone, but I vividly remember his
> reassuring
> me, over the telephone, that he was on the side of science, and he made
no
> attempt to distance himself from my sarcastic jokes about 'Intelligent
> Design'. I am reluctantly driven to wonder whether he is an inveterate
> liar,
> as well as a dreadful film-maker. Yet another example of Lying for
Jesus?
|
