The Expelled Movie: Laying bare the agenda of materialism

Over at Uncommon Descent, idnet.au references a most interesting post by Matthew C. Nisbet on Framing Science, "Why the PZ Myers Affair Is Really, Really Bad for Science."

Well, "Really, Really Bad" is pretty bad. So let's have a look at this.

If you've just joined us, PZ Myers, who teaches biology at a liberal arts university in Morris, Minnesota (a part of the Minnesota University system, I believe) and is otherwise known for rants against intelligent design on the Internet, got booted from a screening of Expelled.

Is PZ Myers a wronged man?

Some claim he has only himself to blame for creating a needless uproar and others insist that he is an honest man unjustly ejected.

I wasn't there.

On the one hand, those who think PZ created an uproar have some history on their side. I have myself referred to PZ as the Prophet of the Pharyngula (or otherwise, the Pharyngulite) - and with reason - on more than one occasion.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the Expelled people in charge of ticketing may not have been diligent. If they had some reason to prevent Myers (or anyone) from attending for free, they might have taken more precautions.

But I wasn't, after all, there.

For now, I want to focus on the views presented by Matthew Nisbet at the Framing Science blog.

Framing science

His comments are a more interesting and far more significant illustration of what is wrong with science today than the uproar over Myers's ejection from the Expelled screening.

In his post, Nisbet pleads with Dawkins and Myers to just pipe down.

"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. "

Why? Well, Nisbet is concerned that Dawkins's and Myers's message ("Learning about science makes you an atheist, it "kills off" religious faith") fuels creationism.

Actually, Darwinism's utter failures fuel creationism, as The Design of Life handily details. But that's a point for a less frenzied moment than the present one.

And, of course, it isn't science that kills off religious faith. It is the promotion of materialism in science that does so. But, again, we will go there another day.

For now, why would either Dawkins or Myers pipe down?

When have they ever done so before?

(I am not counting Dawkins's famous speechless moment. I don't think he had actually intended to shut up at that point, so it doesn't really count.)

In general, it is hardly in the interests of either of these gentlemen to pipe down.

Dawkins has books to promote. He plans to retire soon (September 2008, I understand).

Retirement will not mean big change for Dawkins, actually. Dawkins retired from science many years ago, and spends his time, as is fairly well known, ranting against religion, in the company of many other devout atheists, only some of whom are scientists (or can politely be called so, at any rate).

I hope that, for its next Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford will consider choosing an actual man of science.

Meanwhile, from whatever soapbox he finds, Dawkins will likely continue his ancient rants.

And PZ Myers? Will this uproar harm him?

Oh, I really doubt it! It will likely help him a lot. I am told he is coming up for tenure.

I am NOT saying he planned any of this - I say only that if I were The Job Fairy, I would have whispered this very idea into his ear in his dreams.

No, in reality, the situation seems to me far more like a confluence of events that happens to favour his tenure. In a world in which many earnest Darwinists covet such events, such confluences are to be expected.

So what is Nisbet's problem with Dawkins and Myers?

However - and this is the interesting part - it is not at all clear that Nisbet deplores the views of Dawkins and Myers because he thinks them wrong. Indeed, he writes,
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.

He has, he thinks, a better strategy against Expelled:

"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."

Well, we must see what Nisbet's (and Mooney's) strategy is.

But here is the really interesting part: Nisbet - like all materialists - avoids the primary issue raised by the film.

And, chillingly, he writes,

"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."

I think there is a typo in the paragraph quoted above and that he in fact means "they need to NOT play the role". But most readers will infer that, of course, so no matter.

The really interesting thing, to me at least, is that Nisbet's approach is entirely political. Darwinism will be defended by politics, presumably. Not by facts.

But that isn't the biggest problem either. No, the Darwinists' biggest problem is way bigger than any of this.

What happens when your research does not confirm materialism?

At no time does Nisbet acknowledge the fact that scientists whose research could not confirm Darwinist materialism were hounded because they were not prepared to suppress that fact or dissemble their work.

THAT is what Expelled is about! Watch for Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Robert Marks, for example.

And there will no doubt be others. Worthless theories like Darwinism, do not die without taking victims down with them, unfortunately.

Note: I have myself attempted to resolve Myers's expulsion problem by paying for his ticket, if he will agree to watch the whole film, and not run out to trash it halfway through or something similar. I have e-mailed producer Mark Mathis with my offer. It will likely cost me US$8.00 or so, and my freelance writing business can easily spring for it.

It is much easier to solve Myers's problem than to solve the more serious, science-related problems detailed in the documentary - the problems of people whose careers were destroyed by Darwinists simply because they know reasons why Darwinism isn't true.