>The producers of the movie “Expelled” owe PZ Meyersa lifetime pass to the movie. And they really need to attend and pass a logic class.
Dr. Myers, a scientist who researches cephalopods, and one of the men interviewed for the movie, was escorted by security from a free event that included a preview of the movie. However, the producers allowed Myer’s wife, daughter, and her fiance to enter and view the movie, accompanied by Richard Dawkins.
The producers should be ashamed of themselves. They advertised the event, inviting people to register to see the movie. They did not send out notices that “everyone except x, y, and pz, may see the movie.”
And to skip over Red-A Atheist-wanna-be Myers for the original, Dawkins, is just plain dumb. Dawkins has posted his review of the movie, here. (I haven’t read it yet.)
Here’s the real-time “Pharyngula” blog post about the incident – from PZ Myer’s blog (he ran over to the Apple computer store to post on his blog) and there’s a follow up post, here.
The entire conversation about the movie has left the original topic of academic prejudice against believers or even doubters, the near topic of the truth about Creation and evolution. The little boys are throwing mud pies and calling each other “dummie.” I can’t help but believe that the move to expel Myers from the showing was just a power play on the part of some would-be producer intern.
The Producers had a chance to frame the publicity from a PJ Myers appearance (along with that other guy) at their movie. (“Look who’s coming to see the movie” will now become “Expelled from Expelled” and “Evidence that “Expelled” is not too bright.” and “Myers is a saint.”)
Here’s the LifeEthics blog conversation that’s been going on since October, and which also has a notice about the incident with Myers, Dawkins and the Producers and bouncers. Here’s the Christianity Today review, and here’s the New York Times. I guess that if all the Producers wanted was publicity, their strategy worked.
>No, I'm right, it was a private screening for film critics and others. If he wants to see the movie, he'll have to pay a ticket for it just like everyone else. I read PZ Meyers blog who also did a review of the movie even though he was "expelled" from the screening. He didn't mentioned he was invited in the first place to view the movie nor did he argue it was his right to be there because it was open to everyone. He just said, he wouldn't cause any trouble. They didn't believe him and expelled him. PZ said he laughed afterwards like it was no big deal. So one wonders if he was blogging before hand on he would challenge the movie during the screening. But it appears now, he can do that if he buys a ticket.
>Semi-private – anyone who wanted to could apply for an invite. PZ did, and got it. All above-board.From what him and Dawkins have said, the film is very dependant on the classic Ad Hitlarium. A lot of talk of how evolution is the cause of racism and genocide, shots of the nazi marches and concentration camps shown with the implication that this is what evolution means. Highly effective public campaigning technique – comparing your opponent to Hitler can really be a powerful political move – but intellectually, its completly empty – its a complete falsehood, and even if it were true, it has no bearing on either the accuracy of the theory or on academic freedom today.I think Expelled is going to be an effective movie for preeching to the choir. ID proponents will love it, and so will plain creationists who will eagerly believe its arguments about the evilness of evolution (Never underestimate confirmation bias!). But anyone who doesn't agree with its position will see so many problems with its arguments, so many obvious lies and mistakes, they wont be able to take anything said seriously.
>"Atheist-wanna-be Myers"? I'm pretty sure he's the real thing.And yes, PZ followed a link that was openly available on the web to sign up. If I remember correctly, the wording was that the community was invited to attend.
>It's "Red-A-Atheist . . . " I dropped a hyphen.
>Ah, I see. Though I confess, I'm not entirely clear what that means either. The red "A" is mostly just the blogging-atheists' equivalent of being out and proud. It's not an indicator of a particular high status, like being on an "A-list" or something.I don't use one myself, but only because I think it's a mistake to make that campaign so closely associated with Dawkins instead of standing on its own.
>It seems silly to need a symbol for no-religion. Or more anti-religion than a-theist.Reminds me of a teen-ager I saw on the subway once: Super-pink,scrubbed and clean as a whistle. But his strawberry blond hair was spiked and the tips were dyed green, he had on a spiked dog collar, and a pre-printed T-shirt declaring that he was an anarchist and unique.
>The t-shirt is hilarious.I think there are a few main reasons people would sport an "atheist pride" symbol. One is that they are entirely anti-religion. These atheists tend to be very vocal, and they are certainly getting all the press right now. There is another segment, though, who are not opposed to religion in general but are opposed to what they see as the destructive aspects of religion. Finally, many atheists want to stand up and proclaim that they are proud to be nonbelievers because nonbelievers are seen as suspect in our society. (Some, prominent) religious people promote the notion that there is no morality without religion. A majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist even if s/he shared their political views, or want their child to marry one. Given that, it's not surprising that you get a reaction of "atheist pride".I have a secular humanism symbol on my blog because I want to show that there are secular humanist pro-lifers and pro-life secular humanists. Also, I do want to stand up to the religious bigots and say, "I don't believe in your God, but I'm a worthwhile person anyway and I'm proud of what I believe."
>Hmm, I should probably clarify a bit. Given that, it's not surprising that you get a reaction of "atheist pride".I don't mean you personally. Substitute "we see" or similar.
>Jen,Just so you know…Atheism is a religion…legally. The Supreme Court officially made it one it the 60s. So, the anti-religious people are now actually religious. and why did they want it that way? They get tax cuts!Foy
>Foy,You wouldn't mind citing your evidence for that, would you?
>It was Torcaso Vs. Watkins in 1961.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._WatkinsSorry for the time delay. Took me a day or two to check back here. : )Foy
>I thought it might be Torcaso v. Watkins. Hugo Black's reference to secular humanism as a "religion" was in an obiter dictum, which basically means it's his personal observation and is not legally binding.Additionally, Torcaso v. Watkins wasn't about taxes at all; it was about whether nonbelievers could legally be barred from public office.