There is- or was, a little brouhaha raging over at the ScienceBlogs. It started this way(in PZ Myers own words):
“There is a rich, deep kind of irony that must be shared. I’m blogging this from the Apple store in the Mall of America, because I’m too amused to want to wait until I get back to my hotel room.
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn’t even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn’t going to cause any trouble.”
For anyone who may have missed it, Expelled is a pisspoor attempt to paint proponents of so-called “Intelligent Design” as latter day Galileos pitted against the Holy Roman Church that, supposedly, is university-level science. Ignoring the fact that these noble truth seekers have no science backing them up- hell, no theories or even working hypotheses, for that matter, we are to admire their grit and moxie in attempting to wedge their hollow, Goddidit Horse inside the gates of academia. It is as yet unreleased and currently being previewed to canned audiences by invitation only.
So then, PZ Myers, unapologetic atheist, is denied entry to the festivities and has to leave the rest of his party and vacate the premises. But just who, exactly, was in his party?
“They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn’t notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn’t recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He’s in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?”
Why, yes, yes, I am. Anyway, the issue here is not, actually, the behavior of the christofascist thought police behind this insipid movie but, rather, in the keening and pulling of the hair by those amongst the science community who wish to engage and court the religious instead of confront them. To wit, Matthew Nisbet:
“The simplistic and unscientific claim that more knowledge leads to less religion might be the particular delusion of Dawkins, Myers, and many others, but it is by no means the official position of science, though they often implicitly claim to speak for science. Nor does it stand up to mounds of empirical evidence about the complex relationship between science literacy and public perceptions.
Unfortunately, you couldn’t focus group a better message for the pro-creationist crowd. And this message is already reaching well beyond the theaters, on display most recently with the PZ Myers Affair chronicled at the NY Times.
As long as Dawkins and PZ continue to be the representative voices from the pro-science side in this debate, it is really bad for those of us who care about promoting public trust in science and science education. Dawkins and PZ need to lay low as Expelled hits theaters. Let others play the role of communicator, most importantly the National Center for Science Education, AAAS, the National Academies or scientists such as Francis Ayala or Ken Miller. When called up by reporters or asked to comment, Dawkins and PZ should refer journalists to these organizations and individuals.
If Dawkins and PZ really care about countering the message of The Expelled camp, they need to play the role of Samantha Power, Geraldine Ferraro and so many other political operatives who through misstatements and polarizing rhetoric have ended up being liabilities to the causes and campaigns that they support. Lay low and let others do the talking.
So Richard and PZ, when it comes to Expelled, it’s time to let other people be the messengers for science. This is not about censoring your ideas and positions, but rather being smart, strategic, tactical, and ultimately effective in promoting science rather than your own personal ideology, books, or blog. I will have more to say on Expelled strategy in a talk I am giving Thursday night at UWisc-Eau Claire* and then next week Monday in a lunch time talk* given with Chris Mooney at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School.”
What a maroon. I won’t go so far as to cry “appeaser” or “Chamberlain” because that’s, like, Godwin’s Law in reverse but Nisbet is a sniveling, whiny, little weasel who, in the guise of criticizing others for illegitimately assuming the role of “spokesperson for science”, manages to do so himself. Beyond the occasional personable Nobel Laureate, there really is no spokesperson for science. Who knows, maybe there ought to be. Meanwhile, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and E. O. Wilson- to name just a few, are out there writing, publishing, and speaking in a kinder, gentler, more theist-friendly tone right alongside Dawkins and Dennett. Hell, as far as I know, PZ hasn’t shown up on the Times bestseller list yet with his atheist manifesto.
What gives him the right to call for anyone to shut up? Who died and left him dictator? Anyone who’s position on the subject is actually swayed by Ben Stein his pathetic piece of crap is far beyond polite, rational discourse anyway. I mean, you can lead a sheep to Darwin, but you can’t make it think- or teach it to read for that matter.
I think folks like Nisbet, with all their talk of framing and spin and message, are actually still scared of that unwritten but undeniable taboo against criticizing religion and/or the religious. Deep down, they probably still imagine lightning bolts striking them down for such effrontery. Maybe we should see if we could actually get them into the same room with PZ or Dawkins without them wetting their pants? If you’ll excuse the expression, ladies, Nisbet needs to grow a pair.
*- links publicizing Nisbet’s own events removed to spare him further hypocrisy.
Lol, yeah, those two have a track record of “polarizing rhetoric”. I nominate Christopher Hitchens to argue the pro-science side instead. Oh, the hypocrisy is getting deep…
I doubt that this movie will get much traction at all. Sounds to me like PZ had more fun than he would have watching some some dull ben stein flick. This is not to take away from the breach on his freedoms by the theatre and the waste of public resources guarding a movie from viewers, but I think that type of crap isnt worthy of watching.
I have no doubt that this movie will be a footnote before/if it hits the theaters. Actions such as this (canned audiences) will lead even those with marginally scrutiny to wonder what Stein and his movies’ producers have to fear. If it presents such a rock-solid case, why screen the audience?
This movie, I predict, will lose money.
Funny about Dawkins getting in–I shot milk out of my nose when I read that.
Oh, yeah; Nesbit is an asshat.
that’s supposed to read “marginal scrutiny.” So much for proof-reading.
The movie has already been scathingly reviewed by many, including PZ’s daughter, Skatje. It is(crap) what it is(crap). Their whole case is akin to me approaching my kids’ math teacher, announcing that there is mounting evidence- beyond simply my humble belief, that 2 + 2 = 5, not 4, refusing to supply any evidence for my claim that actually involves, gasp, numbers and/or equations, and then getting all indignant and walking off in a huff to begin legal proceedings. Nothing more.
The problem here is Nisbet- and his ilk, first disputing that a greater understanding of science does tend to decrease one’s reliance on fairy tale ideologies and, then, chastising those of us who, having cleared our minds of such Bronze Age claptrap, refuse to bow to the traditional king- who’s been revealed to be no more than a fat, greasy, toad of a man, cowering behind a curtain and pulling the switches.
It’s like people who are so obsessed with the positioning of certain pieces of silverware in a table setting, they miss the fact that the meat on the table has long since passed it’s sell by date. I think they call them “nitpickers”- which is not to say that PZ, or Richard Dawkins, or any of us is teeming with lice…
If you read Steins introductory blog on the Expelled website, you will notice the thousands of comments just asshatting him, it’s great!
This movie is going to be like Passion of the Christ where it will only be shown in fundie churches and unfortuately for the kids, in private fundie schools.
Travdawg, I was just over there reading some of the comments.
Nisbet and his sycophant clone Mooney are always far more concerned about who expresses their opinion and how then what the opinion is. Rarely do we see them actually discussing an issue. They rant and rave about framing the issue and how they would have done it a different way and their way is better. How ironic that Stardust posted an article on narcissism just after RDZ posted this little ditty on these two narcissists. How arrogant do they need to be? The only message these clowns are capable of expressing is that they would always do it better. They would frame it better. They wouldn’t piss people off. ETC. ETC. ETC. In reality they think that they are the only ones that can properly handle the situation.
Thanks, Raindog! I’ve been following the continuing saga of Expelled vs. PZ over at Pharyngula; it’s been freakin’ hilarious.
Witnesses report that the expression on the movie producer’s face when he announced the Q&A after the film and none other than Dawkins stood up to ask him a question was indescribable; he most definitely hadn’t known that he’d expelled the fox while letting in the wolf!
And I’ll bet not even one of the faithfucked ever questioned the legitimacy of the genetically engineered popcorn they were munching on.
“Beyond the occasional personable Nobel Laureate, there really is no spokesperson for science. Who knows, maybe there ought to be.”
Just one sentence too many. To borrow from Abbie Hoffman, we don’t need leaders. We need cheerleaders. While I don’t claim to speak FOR science myself, I do occasionally speak UP for science.
[…] Framing is dead By The Uncredible Hallq Those of you here who are fans of Pharyngula(or read this post and GifS) will know about the “framing” controversy that has played out in a number of places, mainly ScienceBlogs.com, over the past year. “Framing” is an idea that has been promoted by communications prof Matt Nisbet, with journalist (and The Republican War on Science author) Chris Mooney providing significant support. What the idea actually entails remains unclear to this day–it’s proponents have vacillated from “keep in mind who your audience is when dealing with science controversies” to “don’t bother talking about reason and evidence” and “critics of religion really need to shut up.” […]