"Truth Tickets" to "Expelled"

Alonzo Fyfe, the Atheist Ethicist, has come up with an interesting suggestion--rather than purchase a ticket to go see "Expelled," purchase a "truth ticket" by sending a contribution equal in value to a movie ticket ($10 is the suggested number) to the National Center for Science Education. (Click that link, and select "donation only.") Alonzo's sending 10 "truth tickets" worth of payment to the NCSE to promote good science.

I'll match him, and raise him 5 "truth tickets." Anyone else care to buy a few? Pass it on...

UPDATE (April 8, 2008): P.Z. Myers compares this idea to carbon offsets.

The Panda's Thumb has also reported on the idea.

UPDATE: BTW, if you must see the film in the theater (my wife and I rarely go to the movies anymore, since Netflix is so much more convenient, and I don't really have any interest in seeing this movie in any case), wait until after opening weekend. The "stupidity offset" for contributing to the opening weekend box office gross should probably be a much, much larger donation to the NCSE--better to make a smaller donation and see it the following week, if you must.

Evasion and ad hominem from Kevin Miller

Wesley Elsberry has been in an extended exchange with Kevin Miller, co-writer of "Expelled," in which Miller makes it clear that he's unwilling to look at or attempt to address any actual evidence. Instead, he falls back on supporting postmodernist claims that everything is subject to interpretation. But he doesn't give any reasons to support his purported interpretation, and ultimately descends into namecalling.

Grade "Expelled"

Movies.go.com is another site that now lists "Expelled" with an April 18 release date, and includes a poll on how good you think the movie is likely to be. With 474 votes, the ratings are:

A - Sizzlin': 11%
B - Cool: 1%
C - Decent: 1%
D - DVD-only: 2%
F - Vile: 85%

More reviews of "Expelled"

Felix Salmon at Portfolio.com offers an interesting review of "Expelled" from a non-scientist.

Robert McHenry at the Encyclopedia Brittanica looks at some of the arguments of "Expelled."

And you can find more information at the NCSE's "Expelled Exposed" web page.

More "Expelled" dishonesty

Science Blogger (and 2007 Arizona Professor of the Year) John Lynch signed up for the Tempe screening of "Expelled" which was supposed to occur at 7 p.m. last night. He received an email on April 2 telling him that it had been cancelled.

But it wasn't cancelled--it was just moved to 6 p.m. (as Lynch had been informed in an earlier email), and went on at Arizona Mills Mall as planned. Apparently the producers just decided to screen out some of the prospective attendees by lying to them, and professors who win awards for the excellence of their teaching are considered undesirables. Lynch noted that others were cc'd on both of the notices he received, and that while those with email addresses containing names like "boughtbythecross," "homeschoolma," and "covenant-dad" apparently didn't receive the bogus cancellation notice.

Lynch's post has links to some comments containing reports of the event from those who still managed to attend.

UPDATE: In Louisville, Kentucky, they also claimed that a screening was cancelled, but a screening for students and staff at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary did take place on the appointed date, and the schedule of events shows the screening as having taken place. Again, "undesirables" were screened out and not informed of the change in venue.

More cases of suppression missed by "Expelled"

I previously noted that none of the cases of alleged persecution of intelligent design advocates in the film "Expelled" come close to the case of political persecution of an advocate of evolution, Chris Comer, who lost her job at the Texas Education Association for sending an email announcing an academic talk by a critic of intelligent design.

Troy Britain now lists some additional cases where intelligent design advocates are the persecutors:

• Nancey Murphy of the Fuller Theological Seminary, who

  said she faced a campaign to get her fired because she expressed the view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but “so stupid, I don’t want to give them my time.”

  Murphy, who believes in evolution, said she had to fight to keep her job after one of the founding members of the intelligent design movement, legal theorist Phillip Johnson, called a trustee at the seminary and tried to get her fired.

• In the mid-1990s, Christian biochemist Terry M. Gray also ran into problems associated with Phillip Johnson. When he wrote a negative review of the book in which he stated that humans have primate ancestors, he was charged with heresy by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and forced to write a recantation in order to maintain his membership in the church.
• Christian physicist Howard Van Till, a critic of creationism and intelligent design, was criticized by the board of trustees at Calvin College for his views. Although his career was not ended, he ultimately abandoned his faith after the repeated insistence by his critics that his views were not compatible with it. I've heard that Duane Gish, former vice president of the Institute for Creation Research, was an individual who contributed to attacks on Van Till to try to get him removed from his position.
• Troy doesn't (yet) mention this case, but Panda's Thumb has written about Richard D. Colling, a biologist at Olivet Nazarene University, who has been forbidden to teach intro-level biology classes and his book, Random Designer, has been banned from use at his school. Although trustees attempted to have Colling fired, he has maintained his tenured position with the support of the university president--but apparently that support is not sufficient to allow him to teach introductory biology classes to undergraduates or teach from his own book.
  

It seems there is quite a different movie still to be made here, about religious persecution of scientists who dare to argue for evolution.

UPDATE (April 20, 2008): Blake Stacey has put together a more extensive list.

Thinking Christian blog blocks my comment

Tom Gilson closed the comments at his Thinking Christian blog post about P.Z. Myers calling in to the presenter line on an "Expelled" event conference bridge, preventing me from posting this comment:

The claims of "Expelled" about individuals who have allegedly been persecuted are bogus--Gonzales was denied tenure because he wasn't publishing research, Sternberg wasn't persecuted at all, and Crocker simply didn't have her contract renewed (and deservedly so--she was both a bad teacher and was making horrible creationist arguments, as has been documented with her PowerPoint slides online).

On the other hand, Chris Comer really was removed from her position as Director of Science at the Texas Education Agency for simply sending out an email announcing that Barbara Forrest was giving a talk about "Creationism's Trojan Horse." The ID advocates have no case of persecution that approaches that in severity.

He also deleted a link that Norman Doering included in a comment, and banned Norman from his blog. Norman's comment was this:

Tom Gilson wrote:

The connection between Darwinism and the Holocaust is not a lie when it is understood the way thoughtful people have presented it.

Feel free to present that “thoughtful way” here:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-darwinist.html

But Tom deleted the link because clicking on the link first gives a content warning from Blogger. Norman's post is well worth reading, as I pointed out in a comment on Tom's blog that made it under the wire before he closed comments:

Tom: It’s too bad you deleted Norman Doering’s link to his blog post. It’s actually a quite interesting post about how the Nazis actually banned writings promoting Darwinism, and how it was creationist Edward Blyth’s ideas that led to eugenics. Norman also points out multiple passages from Hitler’s _Mein Kampf_ which look more like something written by a creationist than an evolutionist.

By the way, Gilson claims that P.Z. Myers "crashed" the conference call. In fact, he was invited to attend, as was the entire Panda's Thumb blogging crew--just not to be a presenter on the call.

Is "Expelled" going to show up in any theaters on April 18?

[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.]

[UPDATE (April 18, 2008): Further updates on "Expelled" theater counts, box office take, and ratings are here.]

"Expelled" was originally claimed to be opening in February 2008, and I recall seeing claims that it would be on 4,000 screens. Its website has subsequently been claiming an April 18 opening date ("in theatres nationwide"), and somewhere I've seen an estimate of about 1,000 screens. (UPDATE: This was said by John Sullivan, an "Expelled" producer, on the Expelled blog in December 2007, as the estimated screen count for a February 2008 release.) But for some reason, the film is not listed on April 2008 distribution schedules:

• IMDB April 18 releases
• Rottentomatoes.com upcoming releases
  
• Launchingfilms.com April 2008 releases
• Film-releases.com upcoming 2008 releases
• Popculturemadness.com April 2008 releases
  

I only found it listed with an April 18 date at AOL's MovieFone, with no photo or trailer. Movieweb.com lists it with "To Be Announced 2008" as the release date. (UPDATE: It's also at movies.go.com with an April 18 release date, and a poll to grade the movie. It's polling at 85% "F," 11% "A," 2% "D," and 1% each for "B" and "C," with 474 votes.)

Is it really going to show in theaters at all on April 18? Or are they just going to continue with these "private screenings" and then go direct to DVD, suitable for church and homeschool distribution?

The distributor for the film is Rocky Mountain Pictures (formerly R.S. Entertainment) of Salt Lake City, UT, distributor for the following films:

• Akira (1988, lots of distributors)
• Carman: The Champion (made 2001, released 2 March 2001, grossed $1,743,863, $769,080 opening weekend)
• Race to Space (2001, released 15 March 2001)
• Megiddo: The Omega Code 2 (made 2001, released 21 September 2001, grossed $5,974,653, $1,573,454 opening weekend)
• Manna from Heaven (made 2002, grossed $505,675, shown in 5 cities, made $5,340 opening weekend on 4 screens)
• Elvira's Haunted Hills (made 2001, released 31 October 2002)
• Luther (made 2003, released 30 October 2003, grossed $5,791,328, $908,446 opening weekend)
• Unspeakable (made 2002, released 27 February 2004)
• End of the Spear (2005, released 20 January 2006, grossed $11,703,287, $4,281,388 opening weekend)

These guys are clearly not a blockbuster powerhouse of distributors--their biggest film ever was back in 1988 when they were one of many distributors, they specialize in small independent films, mostly "family films" and often with an explicitly Christian theme, and they have rarely seen their films have an opening weekend of over $1,000,000. The two partners in Rocky Mountain Pictures are Ronald C. Rodgers and Randy Slaughter. Rodgers got his start in film with Sunn Classic Pictures in 1968, which made and distributed movies in the seventies and eighties like bad documentaries about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, The Bermuda Triangle, psychics, space aliens, conspiracy theories, and Noah's Ark, several of which were written by David W. Balsiger. Balsiger was the ghost author of several fabricated autobiographies, such as those of alleged Ark-finder Fernand Navarra, phony ex-Satanist Mike Warnke, and phony faith healer Morris Cerullo. (See my 1993 Skeptic magazine article on George Jammal's Noah's Ark hoax, which Balsiger helped foist upon the American public along with a whole slew of bogus claims.) Slaughter has had a more mainstream career with bigger studios and distributors and working for a Texas theater chain.

"End of the Spear" was financed by Philip Anschutz, founder and former head of Qwest Communications who also funded "The Chronicles of Narnia" (and has also been a contributor to the Discovery Institute). "End of the Spear" received some extra publicity because lead actor Chad Allen, who plays the lead in the film, came out as gay. (He told the producers before his contract was signed in 2003, when he came out publicly, and they did the right thing and continued with him in the project anyway). I suspect "Expelled" will have trouble doing anywhere near as well as "End of the Spear," which appears to be the best Rocky Mountain Pictures has done to date.

I'll offer five predictions for "Expelled"--if it opens in theaters at all on April 18, it will (1) be on fewer than 500 800 screens, (2) will have an initial weekend box office of less than $2 million, with (3) a per-screen take of less than $2,500, (4) won't break the top ten despite it being a slow opening week, and (5) will make less than $10 million in box office take by the end of 2008 (though it may make more than that through DVD sales).

Note that Philip Anschutz owns the Regal Entertainment Group, which Wikipedia says is "the largest theater chain in North America" with "6,423 screens in 529 locations in 41 U.S. states." He may well push the film, but there's no way he's going to allow it to get in the way of making profit, but I'll adjust my prediction (1) to be fewer than 800 screens on the assumption that Anschutz might put the film into each of his theaters. (UPDATE: Chez Jake has found and commented below that Anschutz is only showing "Expelled" in 141 of his 529 locations, which he suggests indicates a 27% level of confidence in the film by Anschutz.)

(For my previous comments about a film's opening weekend, see my blog post on the film "Untraceable." In the comments there, I offered this bet to the film's insiders who showed up at my blog to defend the film: "How about a deal--if it gets a 'cream of the crop' freshness percentage above 70% at rottentomatoes.com (say, by a week after release, when there are at least a dozen or so reviews), I'll agree to watch it, if you'll agree on a percentage of below 30% to post here that you were wrong, and it really does suck. Anywhere in between, we can agree to disagree." Needless to say, I didn't have to see that movie, as it ended up with a "freshness" rating of 15%.)

UPDATE (March 28, 2008): Using Reed Esau's excellent suggestion of using the theater locator on the Expelled website, here's the current number of theaters where it's planned to be showing per state:

AK: 1
AL: 15
AR: 10
AZ: 5
CA: 52
CO: 10
CT: 3
DC: 0
DE: 0
FL: 51
GA: 11
HI: 3
IA: 6
ID: 6
IN: 19
IL: 21
KS: 4
KY: 6
LA: 2
MA: 0
MD: 0
ME: 0
MI: 11
MN: 7
MO: 6
MS: 3
MT: 5
NC: 4
ND: 1
NE: 1
NH: 1
NJ: 0
NM: 2
NV: 6
NY: 2
OH: 9
OK: 5
OR: 6
PA: 11
RI: 0
SC: 5
SD: 1
TN: 17
TX: 62
UT: 3
VA: 3
VT: 0
WA: 16
WI: 17
WV: 5
WY: 1

Total U.S. theaters: 435

UPDATE (March 28, 2008, 6:00 p.m.): The numbers have changed a bit:

AK: 2 (up from 1)
AL: 17 (up from 15)
AR: 9 (down from 10)
AZ: 7 (up from 5)
CT: 2 (down from 3)
DC: 1 (up from 0)
FL: 50 (down from 51)
GA: 17 (up from 11)
IA: 7 (up from 6)
IL: 18 (down from 21)
KS: 7 (up from 4)
KY: 7 (up from 6)
LA: 6 (up from 2)
MD: 7 (up from 0)
MI: 10 (down from 11)
MN: 10 (up from 7)
MO: 16 (up from 6)
MS: 4 (up from 3)
MT: 3 (down from 5)
NC: 17 (up from 4)
NH: 0 (down from 1)
NM: 1 (down from 2)
NY: 1 (down from 2)
OH: 13 (up from 9)
OK: 8 (up from 5)
OR: 7 (up from 6)
PA: 6 (down from 11)
SC: 10 (up from 5)
TN: 16 (down from 17)
TX: 61 (down from 62)
VA: 16 (up from 3)
WI: 14 (down from 17)
WV: 1 (down from 5)

All the others have remained the same. That's a net increase of 55 theaters to a new total of 490.

UPDATE (March 31, 2008, 2:45 p.m. PDT):

AK: 1
AL: 20
AR: 12
AZ: 8
CA: 60
CO: 11
CT: 3
DC: 1
DE: 3
FL: 58
GA: 19
HI: 3
IA: 9
ID: 6
IN: 20
IL: 23
KS: 10
KY: 7
LA: 6
MA: 0
MD: 8
ME: 0
MI: 20
MN: 13
MO: 18
MS: 6
MT: 5
NC: 35
ND: 2
NE: 1
NH: 1
NJ: 3
NM: 5
NV: 6
NY: 12
OH: 19
OK: 9
OR: 7
PA: 27
RI: 0
SC: 16
SD: 1
TN: 23
TX: 63
UT: 3
VA: 24
VT: 0
WA: 19
WI: 19
WV: 5
WY: 1

New total: 651 theaters.

UPDATE (April 4, 2008, 7:13 a.m. PDT):

AK: 1
AL: 20
AR: 12
AZ: 17 (up from 8)
CA: 65 (up from 60)
CO: 11
CT: 5 (up from 3)
DC: 1
DE: 3
FL: 60 (up from 58)
GA: 29 (up from 19)
HI: 3
IA: 9
ID: 7 (up from 6)
IN: 22 (up from 20)
IL: 29 (up from 23)
KS: 11 (up from 10)
KY: 10 (up from 7)
LA: 12 (up from 6)
MA: 2 (up from 0)
MD: 11 (up from 8)
ME: 1 (up from 0)
MI: 27 (up from 20)
MN: 23 (up from 13)
MO: 20 (up from 18)
MS: 8 (up from 6)
MT: 5
NC: 38 (up from 35)
ND: 2
NE: 4 (up from 1)
NH: 2 (up from 1)
NJ: 8 (up from 3)
NM: 8 (up from 5)
NV: 6
NY: 18 (up from 12)
OH: 24 (up from 19)
OK: 13 (up from 9)
OR: 11 (up from 7)
PA: 31 (up from 27)
RI: 0
SC: 18 (up from 16)
SD: 1
TN: 28 (up from 23)
TX: 75 (up from 63)
UT: 3
VA: 31 (up from 24)
VT: 0
WA: 23 (up from 19)
WI: 20 (up from 19)
WV: 6 (up from 5)
WY: 1

New total: 795 theaters (up 144 since March 31).

UPDATE (April 6, 2008, 12:45 p.m. PDT):

I checked again after seeing Kevin Miller claiming that the film is now set to open on 1,000 screens. There must be several theaters planning to show it on multiple screens, then.

AK: 2 (up from 1)
AL: 20
AR: 12
AZ: 17
CA: 64 (down from 65)
CO: 11
CT: 5
DC: 1
DE: 3
FL: 60
GA: 29
HI: 3
IA: 9
ID: 7
IN: 22
IL: 29
KS: 11
KY: 10
LA: 12
MA: 2
MD: 11
ME: 1
MI: 27
MN: 23
MO: 20
MS: 8
MT: 5
NC: 38
ND: 2
NE: 4
NH: 2
NJ: 8
NM: 8
NV: 6
NY: 18
OH: 24
OK: 14 (up from 13)
OR: 12 (up from 11)
PA: 31
RI: 0
SC: 18
SD: 1
TN: 28
TX: 74 (down from 75)
UT: 3
VA: 31
VT: 0
WA: 23
WI: 20
WV: 6
WY: 1

New total: 796 theaters (up by one theater since Friday).

UPDATE (April 12, 2008, 8:16 a.m. MST):

AK: 3 (up from 2)
AL: 23 (up from 20)
AR: 12
AZ: 18 (up from 17)
CA: 105 (up from 64)
CO: 19 (up from 11)
CT: 7 (up from 5)
DC: 1
DE: 3
FL: 79 (up from 60)
GA: 38 (up from 29)
HI: 4 (up from 3)
IA: 12 (up from 9)
ID: 7
IN: 28 (up from 22)
IL: 46 (up from 29)
KS: 12 (up from 11)
KY: 13 (up from 10)
LA: 14 (up from 12)
MA: 12 (up from 2)
MD: 14 (up from 11)
ME: 1
MI: 36 (up from 27)
MN: 25 (up from 23)
MO: 20
MS: 8
MT: 5
NC: 45 (up from 38)
ND: 2
NE: 4
NH: 3 (up from 2)
NJ: 24 (up from 8)
NM: 8
NV: 9 (up from 6)
NY: 26 (up from 18)
OH: 35 (up from 24)
OK: 14
OR: 17 (up from 12)
PA: 32 (up from 31)
RI: 1 (up from 0)
SC: 20 (up from 18)
SD: 2 (up from 1)
TN: 28
TX: 80 (up from 74)
UT: 14 (up from 3)
VA: 33 (up from 31)
VT: 1 (up from 0)
WA: 30 (up from 23)
WI: 20
WV: 8 (up from 6)
WY: 1

New total: 1022. They now have theaters in every state, and clearly have more than 1,000 screens, falsifying my prediction (1). At this point, I think my prediction (4) may also be falsified, but prediction (3) has probably become more likely since their audience will be diluted across a larger number of theaters and screens.

UPDATE (April 14, 2008): "Expelled" has finally shown up in the "opening" category at Rotten Tomatoes (and was never listed as "upcoming"), with a 0% fresh (i.e., 100% rotten) rating. The only review counted at the moment is Variety's review.

UPDATE (April 16, 2008, 7:00 p.m. MST):

AK: 2 (down from 3)
AL: 23
AR: 12
AZ: 19 (up from 18)
CA: 110 (up from 105)
CO: 19
CT: 9 (up from 7)
DC: 1
DE: 3
FL: 81 (up from 79)
GA: 42 (up from 38)
HI: 5 (up from 4)
IA: 12
ID: 7
IN: 29 (up from 28)
IL: 47 (up from 46)
KS: 12
KY: 13
LA: 14
MA: 16 (up from 12)
MD: 13 (down from 12)
ME: 1
MI: 37 (up from 36)
MN: 24 (down from 25)
MO: 22 (up from 20)
MS: 8
MT: 5
NC: 43 (down from 45)
ND: 3 (up from 2)
NE: 4
NH: 4 (up from 3)
NJ: 26 (up from 24)
NM: 8
NV: 9
NY: 27 (up from 26)
OH: 36 (up from 35)
OK: 14
OR: 16 (down from 17)
PA: 34 (up from 32)
RI: 1
SC: 20
SD: 2
TN: 28
TX: 81 (up from 80)
UT: 14
VA: 33
VT: 1
WA: 31 (up from 30)
WI: 19 (down from 20)
WV: 8
WY: 1

New total: 1,049 theaters, up from 1,022 despite a few states losing a theater here and there. (The big drop will come next week.) Reviews are starting to show up at Rotten Tomatoes; it's currently scoring one positive review and six negative, for a 14% freshness rating and an average rating of 2.8/10.

UPDATE (April 18, 2008, 8:10 a.m. MST): It's opening day, and further updates on theater counts, ratings, and box office will be posted here (and won't include state-by-state breakdowns). The-Numbers.com reports that "Expelled"'s opening theater count is three more theaters than Wednesday's total, 1,052.

More "Expelled" coverage worth highlighting

* Scott Hatfield looks at the backgrounds of "Expelled"'s producers.
* Troy Britain and Jon Voisey recount the ever-changing stories of why P.Z. Myers was expelled from "Expelled."
* Ed Brayton shows that "Expelled" co-writer and funder, software multimillionaire Walt Ruloff, lied about Myers' expulsion.
* P.Z. Myers responds to today's press release from "Expelled"'s producers.

And I've been continually updating my original post about P.Z. Myers being refused admittance to the screening of the film; you can find the above links there and many, many more.

"Expelled" producers plant softball questions in screening Q&As?

Amanda Gefter, opinion editor at New Scientist Blogs, attended a screening of "Expelled" and has reported on the Q&A session with producer Mike Mathis that followed. She notes:

He began calling on others in the crowd, who asked friendlier questions. But Maggie and I quickly realised that we'd seen some of these people before - earlier that evening, in fact, working at the movie's registration table. These friendly audience members worked for the film? Had Mathis planted questioners?

Another amusing bit:

Another man in the front row wondered about the film's premise that supporters of ID are being silenced. He pointed out that a recent trial about the teaching of intelligent design held in Dover, Pennsylvania, gave supporters of intelligent design all the time in the world to make their case, but most of the 'leading lights' of ID didn't even show up.

When Mathis was responding, the guy asked another question, and the producer shot back, "How about you let me finish talking?" Then, a security guard for the film approached the calmly seated man and told him, "I may have to ask you to leave."

"Does anyone else see how ironic this is?" the guy asked.

"Shut up!" someone shouted from the back.

And she ends with:

I asked how ID explains the complexity, but he said, "I don't have time for this," and walked away.

Throughout the entire experience, Maggie and I couldn't help feeling that the polarised audience in the theater was a sort of microcosm of America, and let me tell you - it's a scary place. I also couldn't help thinking that the intelligent design folks aren't being silenced, so much as they're being silent. Because when it comes to actually explaining anything, they've got nothing to say.

Read the whole thing.

Expelled screening coming to Phoenix

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.

Other scientists expelled from Expelled

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.

Expelled from Expelled

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:

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?

UPDATE: Pharyngula commenter Sastra offers this hypothesis as to what "Expelled" producer Mathis might have been thinking:

Richard Dawkins writes:
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 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?

You know, as I read this, something occurred to me regarding the reasoning behind Mathis' "bungling incompetence," as Dawkins calls it. I wonder if Mathis made a serious blunder in his assumptions on what PZ's reaction to being thrown out of the theater would be.

He just made a film where all the academics are whining and looking pathetic about being rejected, humiliated, and tossed unceremoniously out of academia and the Halls of Science. He has been surrounding himself with people playing the poor-me victim card, claiming ignominous oppression and unfair suppression.

What then if Mathis assumed that PZ Myer's reaction would not be "delighted and mocking laughter," but what he was used to -- whimpering bellyaching. And then he could use that to make a point.

PZ was to have gone to Phayngula to lick his wounds. "People, I have sad news. I am so ashamed and humiliated. I was kicked out of the theater when I went to see Expelled. I have never heard of someone doing something like that to an academic like me. It felt awful."

And then Mathis and his publicists would go in for the kill:

Ah-ha! Now the scientist knows JUST HOW IT FEELS! What has been done to other academics was done to him! And he complains, too. How ironic is THAT??"

Instead, PZ reacts with amusement. Extreme amusement. And, worse, there is the Dawkins angle, which no, Mathis had not been expecting when he decided to play a game and toss PZ out. If PZ whines, he wins on tit for tat. If PZ creates a nasty, messy scene, he wins on 'look at the immoral fascist-like atheist temper.' But instead, PZ laughs and laughs, and with Dawkins in the theater Mathis just looks like a fool.

More I think about it, the more I think Mathis underestimated PZ's sense of humor about things, and how he would not be mortified by the incident, but jubilant. He's been around too many pretentious professorial sob-sisters. He thought they were all like that.

UPDATE: Several All of the pending screenings of "Expelled" have been removed from the registration website. That includes screenings scheduled for Santa Clara, CA, Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA. It also includes Tempe, AZ, as John Lynch points out.

UPDATE: Richard Dawkins has written a review of the film. Short version: "A shoddy, second-rate piece of work. ... Positively barking with Lord Privy Seals. ... clunking ... artless ... self-indulgent ... goes shamelessly for cheap laughs."

UPDATE: "Expelled" screenwriter Kevin Miller agrees with Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet that the controversy over P.Z. Myers' removal is actually beneficial for the film. I think that's highly unlikely.

UPDATE: At the "Expelled" show that P.Z. Myers was not permitted to attend, Kristine Harley asked Mark Mathis during the Q&A why he told Myers, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, and others that he was working on a film called "Crossroads" instead of "Expelled." He answered that this was just a working title for the film. But this is apparently not true--Wesley Elsberry has pointed out that they acquired the domain name "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007, while Eugenie Scott was interviewed in April 2007, Myers in April or later 2007, and Dawkins in Summer 2007. Mathis doesn't explain why "Crossroads" was being produced by "Rampant Films" (which had a fake website with innocuous-looking films on it) rather than Premise Media.

UPDATE (March 24, 2008): "Expelled" producer Mark Mathis admits that P.Z. Myers wasn't kicked out for being unruly, but just because he wants to make him pay to see the movie. Mathis claims in Inside Higher Ed that he doesn't like Myers' "untruthful blogging about Expelled," but with no details of what "untruthful blogging" he means.

UPDATE: Ed Brayton pulls no punches when he points out that Walt Ruloff of Premise Media lied about why P.Z. Myers wasn't allowed into the film.

UPDATE: Mooney and Nisbett, supposed experts on "framing" communications about science in such a way as to be persuasive to the general public, have created a firestorm at Science Blogs and gained them the approval of William Dembski and "Expelled" screenwriter Kevin Miller, but disagreements from just about everyone else at ScienceBlogs, bloggers and commenters alike. In hindsight, I think they should conclude that they are the ones who should have remained silent this time. (Some of my favorite posts on this topic are from Orac, Greg Laden, Mark Hoofnagle, Russell Blackford, and Mike/Tangled Up in Blue Guy. Greg Laden has thoughtfully collected a bunch of links on the topic.)

UPDATE (March 25, 2008): P.Z. Myers has posted a roundup of additional coverage. Particularly noteworthy is Scott Hatfield's look at the backgrounds of the people involved with making "Expelled." Troy Britain and Jon Voisey look at the IDers' mutually contradictory accounts of the Myers expulsion incident.

Mark Chu-Carroll at Good Math, Bad Math gives a good overview of the framing debate (arguing in favor of the idea that framing is important, but that Mooney and Nisbet have made poor choices regarding framing in this recent kerfuffle.)

Sean Carroll also provides a very good analysis of the framing issue in terms of politicians and critics--Mooney and Nisbet want politicians, but Dawkins and Myers are critics.

UPDATE: "Expelled"'s producers really are a bunch of liars who keep on lying. They've issued a press release claiming that their movie, rather than their stupid action, has been the top subject of discussion on the blogosphere, falsely claim that Richard Dawkins signed up with his "formal surname" Clinton (it's his first name, not his surname, and he didn't sign up at all but was one of Myers' RSVP'd guests), falsely allege that Dawkins and Myers have "slandered" them and their film (without giving a single example), and falsely claim that Myers has asked his readers to try to sneak in to screenings of the movie.

UPDATE (March 28, 2008): The "Expelled" producers had a telephone conference call with questions by email. P.Z. Myers dialed in early, and heard "Leslie and Paul" talking, and they gave out the telephone number to the conference bridge number for presenters (all other participants are muted). So Myers hung up and dialed back in on the presenter line. After listening to the producers dissemble and answer softball questions, he interrupted:

I said, in essence, hang on -- you guys are spinning out a lot of lies here, you should be called on it. I gave a quick gloss on it, and said that, for instance, anti-semitism has a long history in Germany that preceded Darwin, and that they ought to look up the word "pogrom". There was some mad rustling and flustering about on the other side of the phone some complaints, etc., and then one of them asked me to do the honorable thing and hang up…so I said yes, I would do the honorable thing and hang up while they continued the dishonorable thing and continued to lie.

Then I announced that if any reporters were listening in, they could contact me at pzmyers@gmail.com and I'd be happy to talk to them.

The "Expelled" producers will probably now spin this as Myers having "hacked" their conference bridge or something. Personally, as much as I think this is amusing, I think Myers' actions were unethical and possibly illegal--even if someone stupidly hands out an authentication credential (in this case, the presenter access code for a conferencing event bridge) when they don't realize they're being observed, that doesn't mean that they've authorized someone else to use it.

UPDATE (March 29, 2008): Troy Britain gets to the bottom of exactly how P.Z. Myers originally signed up for the screening he was expelled from.

Wesley Elsberry reports that the "Expelled" producers are now offering financial incentives to groups that go see the movie--the five largest groups will get $1,000 each.

UPDATE (April 10, 2008): "William Wallace" argues that Myers did "gate crash" a "private screening." I don't think anyone questions that these screenings were "private" in the sense that you couldn't just walk up and attend, you had to pre-register. But the pre-registration process was openly advertised on public web pages and there was no indication that it was limited to those who were explicitly invited due to membership in a church or similar organization. In the case of the conference call, Panda's Thumb bloggers were directly invited by email as a group (and some individually as well), though Myers did not receive one directly addressed to him.

Sheldrake vs. Dawkins

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.

Myers has not taken the trouble to read any of my experiments on telephone telepathy nor any of my other research on the subject and is obviously as bigoted as Dawkins himself. For example when he refers to my experiments as "exercises in gullibility, anecdote and sloppy statistics" the only thing he refers to is an attack by some sceptics on my staring research based on a fallacious argument which I’ve already refuted in the Skeptical Inquirer.

He has not taken the trouble to look at the telephone telepathy or email telepathy experiments, published in peer-reviewed journals, which are based not on anecdotes but on randomized controlled tests. Then he accuses me of not proposing any theory for telepathy, which in fact I have done. But there’s nothing one can do about ranters of this kind, who are beyond the reach of science and reason.

Some of the comments following his blog are equally sad and remind me of the low level of debate found on the Dawkins website where people vie with each other in their prejudice, sneering and nastiness.

I do believe he has a point.

Expelled Exposed

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.

Academic fraud petition

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.

Two early reviews of 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.

Texas Education Agency director of science curriculum fired for announcing Barbara Forrest talk

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.

Expensive intelligent design movie uses Borat tactics

[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.