Comments

Professor PZ Myers, who is also featured in Expelled, tried to attend the screening, too. The producers of the film had him removed from the line.

"Uninvited"? Not quite.

Shame on you. How do you sleep?

Here are some comments by people who were actually there:

"Nobody had a ticket. You reserved a seat online, and they checked your name off their list at the front of the line."

"[T]his was a private screening that threw itself at you via a link from a website begging 'please come and support this film, fill the theatres...'"

"I wasn't invited! I didn't have to have a ticket! I received an e-mail that stated, 'No ticket required.'"

Dr. Dawkins was the guest of PZ Myers, a local uninversity biology professor who, like Dawkins, had been interviewed - under false pretenses, mind you - for the film. Dr. Myers had reserved a number of seats under his own name online, and while he was waiting to check in, he was thrown out by security who were acting on the orders of the film's producer Mark Mathis, who had misrepresented the film to Dawkins and Myers in the first place.

You have been badly misinformed, and yet you went to press without checking your facts. Does this level of incompetence and dishonesty really represent the state of modern American Christian journalism?

Well, actually, it was noted biologist and blogger, Pz Meyers who broke this story.

Dr. Meyers registered on-line to see the film under his own name but was literally expelled at the last minute by the film's producers at the rented theater. The producers, however, failed to recognize Myers registered guest, the even more famous Richard Dawkins, whom they admitted in. Like Dawkins, Meyers is a featured interview subject in the film but was denied admittance anyways.

Meyers blogged about the experience from a nearby store as the movie screened without him and first broke the story.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

You should read what happened to the guy who was expelled from the Expelled movie. Very interesting.

As for being surprised at Dawkins appearance - I don't see why. Dawkins was invited - his name on the guest list. Don't they read these things?

Lastly, before announcing Dawkins as a "party crasher" perhaps some investigative reporting would be appropriate.

Blessman reported that Dawkins asked several questions, and complained that "any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed . . . for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy."

The only problem is, there is now solid evidence that the producers of the movie had already decided to call their movie "Expelled" at least a month before they had even sent out letter requesting interviews. On Feb 16th 2007 they registered the domain name "expelledthemovie.com" (anyone can confirm this easily enough). And what about "crossroadsthemovie.com"? It's still available for purchase. (There may be another domain name they reserved for that title, and it should be easy enough for the producers to prove that they had done so, if asked.)

So, even if the producers had not made the final decision on the name of the movie, they were at the very least seriously considering a much more slanted and incendiary title for their movie. That was their prerogative, no doubt, but it pretty much confirms that they at the very least deliberately allowed Richard Dawkins to be misled as to the nature of the movie he was being asked to interview for.

That is reprehensible behavior.

The screening was open to anyone who RSVP'd on on a page like this. To say that Dawkins "Crashed" it is disingenuous at best. He was the guest of a person who signed up to attend.

Even neglecting that, the fact of the matter is that common decency would suggest that anyone appearing in the movie would be entitled to see a screening. Sadly, the producers of expelled seem to be lacking such decency.

I think you'll find that Richard Dawkins did not 'crash' this showing of Stein and Mathis' silly screed. The producers invited the whole internet, for goodness sake! Tickets were not needed, as was repeatedly stated in emails from the producers to people who responded to their adverts for this showing. Dawkins was the 'and guest' in PZ's automatically generated web-invite. The producers then ensured that PZ was uninvited when he arrived (which they are legally, but not ethically or morally, entitled to do) but didn't know that Dawkins was there as well. Of course, Richard would have known that he would be unwelcome but he did not actually crash because he was never disinvited.

On a related note, isn't it interesting that the producers of a film that's supposedly about censorship and stifling debate are hiring guards to keep people from seeing their point of view? Is the film so bad that any chance of informed criticism must be avoided at all costs?

What a tired, predictable crock. Dawkins and Myers used their own names and received "tickets" via a web site, as did other audience members.

To be a active creationist is to be a morally bankrupt, lie-swilling embarrassment to humanity, as Stuart Blessman shows yet again. Stuart could be under-press secretary to VP Cheney with the lack of respect for facts and his opposition he shows.

So, a movie about how intelligent design has been 'expelled' from science can only make it's point by 'expelling' people it actually features in the movie? And makes the critical mistake of expelling a blogger, but letting in Richard DAWKINS?

Having failed in the scientific arena, it is apparent intelligent design can't even be consistent in their political idiocy.

You forgot to mention that this was a screening at an atheist convention. Are we really surprised atheists showed up? And why would you turn away one of the people you thanked in the credits anyway?

Since he (apparently) appears in it it seems only fair that he gets a pre-screening, even if he disagrees with the movie. Have they invited him to any of the screenings? Seems polite to do so.

I'm curious as to how putting your name down to reserve a seat counts as "crashing".

It seems odd that people who claim to want to enter a debate about biology are being so secretive. Why not invite critical biologists in? What exactly are they afraid of? Do they want a discussion or don't they? How can you complain about being "expelled" while you yourself are expelling the other side of the argument?

Too bad for the creationists that Leni Riefenstahl is no longer around. She would have made a great ally churning out these propaganda movies for 'believers'.

Is this supposed to be a news story? If so, why are there no quotes from the Expelled producers? Seems pretty one-sided to me.

Hilarious! But I'm curious why you describe Dawkins as "crashing" the movie screening. According to Dawkins and PZ Mysers neither of them pretended to be anyone other than themselves, they did not attempt to miselad anyone, they simply showed up (as did many others) to see this advance screening. Is showing up to an advance screening of a movie you appear in constitute "crashing"?

Very odd of you to describe it that way.

It doesn't bother you to lie? Myers & Dawkins followed all the preregistration rules, & your director threatened to arrest Myers?

Blessman frankly lied to Overstreet about the circumstances of Myers' removal from the theater. Blessman claims Myers was being disruptive and tried to attend without permission, which makes no sense since the Myers' wife and daughter did attend, along with Dawkins and Dawkins' staff. Surely if Myers were trying to sneak in dishonestly, he wouldn't have bothered getting permission for everyone else to attend, and if everyone else was cleared to attend why would he not have done the same for himself?

It's nonsensical.

Clearly the Expelled people wanted to exclude a viewer they knew was unsympathetic, whether or not he actually engaged in any objectionable behaviors. I don't know why they let Dawkins in; maybe they thought the preregistration in his name was somebody playing a joke.

I see you've updated this piece with a little more fact and a little more balance. Well done, Mr. Moring.

Speaking of Stuart Blessman, he's been backpedaling from his original lies about the incident. Here's a relevant excerpt of what he's since posted on the Looking Closer blog:

"In fact, Dawkins himself acted as a perfect gentleman during the Q&A. He was respectful of everyone present, even though he was a little upset about Myers and his own role in the film."

Also, regarding the expulsion of Dr. Myers, Mr. Blessman changes his story a bit, though not quite enough:

This is false: "It was obvious he was being kicked out by theatre management because he was not invited nor was he on the pre-submitted list."

This is mostly true: "He [Myers] didn't cause a disruption per se."

I don't know why he felt the need to add the qualifier. If there was any disruption, it was the result of police escorting a mild-mannered professor off the grounds for no apparent reason.

The claim that Myers was "kicked out because he was not invited" isn't true; the screening was open to anyone who pre-registered online, and plenty of people who were "not invited" - like Myers' wife and daughter, among others - were admitted without a fuss. (I sincerely doubt that Blessman was explicitly invited by Mark Mathis; he probably just pre-registered online, just like Myers et al.)

The truth is that Myers was explicitly UN-invited, but nobody responsible for that decision had the courtesty to inform him, so he had no way of knowing until he was approached by security. Apparently, both he and Dr. Dawkins were on a "do not admit" list, but probably due to the Minnesota location the staff was on the lookout for Myers (rather than Dawkins) and were too ruffled by the presence of such a dangerous atheist (LOL) that they completely failed to even recognize Dawkins.

I don't expect you to allow this as a comment, and that's fine. I'm thinking of it as more of a private message to you, anyway. :-)

Cheers, have a Good Friday, and Happy Easter.

When will those of you on the Evolution-denial side of this issue *stop* calling people like Profs Myers and Dawkins (or myself) "Darwinists"? There is no academic discipline called "Darwinism". The understanding of Evolution is absolute bedrock for modern Biology and you should refer to anyone you consider a "darwinist" as what they rightly are - a "Biologist".

Also, the account that this "Blessman" fellow relates is unsupported, unlike the accounts that PZ has posted on Pharyngula.

Seems like Dawkins signed up and went in the same as everyone else - were all the attendees "crashers" that night?
I would think good reporting would investigate the reasons for Myers being turned away - is this common practice, to deny ticket holders admission due to their beliefs? Had he been causing a disturbance? Is turning people away from events something that we (Christianity Today) ignore, advocate?

I attended the screening last night, and Dr. Dawkins was seated almost directly behind me. He remained anonymous right up until the Q & A session that followed the moment. At that point he stood up, introduced himself, and ask Mr. Mathis why he was not invited to this pre-screening. He also went on and said he was duped into appearing in this documentary under false pretenses. He continued to say that Mr. Stein was twisting his words by editting his thoughts alongside the dialogue. One last point Dr. Dawkins made was that he felt he had 'bent-over backwards' toward I.D. his final interview for the film. At this point, I turned around and addressed Dr. Dawkins. "Does science in general bend over backwards for I.D.?" Does science appear to be grafting in this new theory, or does it 'prune' those who stand behind it? This movie answers this question directly, and also gives you evidence for why this is happening.

I appreciate that this article is predominantly a reporting of the facts of the matter and does not weigh in one way or the other as to which of the sides - the pro-science side or the pro-ID creationism side - was the proper one. Given that this blog is a vehicle of Christianity Today, the reluctance is understandable.

PZ Myers has been described (see the City Pages profile on him, for an example) as being a firebrand on his blog but a mild-mannered guy in real life. To exclude him from the theater on the basis that he would be disruptive is transparently disingenuous to those familiar with his style.

My personal take on things is that intelligent design is absolutely the worst of Christianity. Leaving aside the fact that it pits science versus religion and trains believers to fear discoveries the way cockroaches fear light, its supporters are reduced to defending their views using means, like excluding its critics from a screening of the very movie in which they appear, that I consider unbecoming.

I can't imagine Mr. Mathis thinks his methods to be a particularly good witness for Jesus.

BCH

Kinda funny to expel a atheist from a movie that tries to get people to open their minds to ID or Creationism.
So everybody is welcome, if they aren't atheists?

Doesn't this expelling of PZ Myers confirm the stereotypical view people have of religion? This is bad publicity as I ever saw it.

Why is it such a surprise or noteworthy that people who had been interviewed for and appeared in a film were there for a screening?

Guys, it's kind of hard to crash an event that you have to register for ahead of time -- which Dawkins, Myers, and the rest of their friends did.

there was no "crashing" here. Everything was on the up and up.

Please read
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_late_night_quick_one.php

PS. Even Blessman admits to a little overexaggeration in blog comments. PZ also puts him on notice in comments at Overstreets blog.

The movie Expelled makes a big deal about ID-proponents being expelled from scientific discourse. Real or imanined gripes seems irrelevant in the face of the astounding hypocricy revealed by the producers of the movie.

They gripe about being expelled from the scientific arena because they are critics of Evolutionary Theories, while at the same time having no problem expelling people who are critics of ID.
The irony is practically knocking me off my chair.

This kind of hypocricy only shows that the producers and promoters of the movie Expelled is intellectually bankrupt.

The Golden Rule, treat others as you'd like them to treat you, has been forgotten by the Expelled crew. Maybe it wasn't even on the map. I would have expected more from people batting for Christians.

regards,
Dr. Mabuse

Um, Blessman's lying: Dawkins didn't crash. PZ Myers has the story:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_late_night_quick_one.php

It looks like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers actually signed up for the invitation only showing. Don't the theater or the producers have the list of people whe signed up for the invitation?

Would they care to publish the list?

Woudl they care to show the list to you to see if Richard Dawkins' or PZ Myers names appear?

How do you crash a party you are invited to?

FWIW, Judge Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover already rendered an impartial verdict on the veracity of intelligent design, and found it to be creationism in disguise.

Hey guys... Exodus 20:16. Looks like there's some false witnessing going on...

Of course with usual fundamentalist apologia I expect to hear something like, "no, that only applies to my 'neighbors' I have no idea where PZ lives..."

Films like this do nothing to forward the cause of Christ. They little more than the vanity of self-serving individuals seeking secular political power through the pulpit.

You can fool some of the folks and try to shout down the rest of us, but God knows what time it is...

mojo sends

So Stuart Blessman thought that Dawkins' appearance "was quite a surprise" to both the audience and associate producer Mark Mathis.

Maybe they thought that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins wouldn't bother to attend the heavily-advertised national atheist convention in the same city at the same time. How much intelligence is allowed to schedule a creationist movie right on top of an atheism conference?

Why do you say Professor Dawkins "crashed" the filming? Didn't everyone attending get an invitation via email and then RSVP'd?

Expelled producers engaged in some incredibly dubious tactics. The biologists who were duped into setting aside their time to help these people who claimed to be making "Crossroads". "Crossroads"was to be a movie which featured a discussion about evolution and creationism. It wasn't that at all. It was an ID propaganda movie. And the domain name expelledthemovie.com had been purchased a month before the interview with the biologists, so they kept their true intentions secret. For people who claim to be siding with judeo-christianity, I'm not quite sure Christ would approve. I'm so glad the news outlets are mentioning this conundrum so that the public can understand how evil these creationists really are.

It should be noted that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are in Minnesota for an American Atheist conference. To add insult to injury, this is convention is being held the same weekend Christians celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

I'm disappointed that this blog entry gives so much credence to PZ Myers' perspective.

The PT-mafia (an ideological clique comprising of members and fans of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE, a pro-evolution activist organization), Talk Origins, and Panda's Thumb, have long been complaining about being duped for this film. It should be noted, however, that they had to read and sign releases, and were paid for their interviews.

Why are you lying? It is quite obvious that Dawkins did not crash the showing. He was not recognised until after the screening when he was called upon to ask a question. This is a deliberate and unfounded lie, based on everything that I have read. Do Christians do this regularly, as a matter of habit -- lying I mean -- or do they do it on an opportunistic, occasional basis?

If Ben Stein would read the work of the most predominate scientists writing from the Christian point of view (i.e. Language of God by Francis Collins) he would understand that these attacks on the theory of evolution will do nothing but amplify a stereotype of complete stupidity tarred upon people of faith. It is like attacking mathematicians for not allowing alternate views on the theory that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Evolution did happen (is still happening); after Darwin we have a theory of how it happened. The longer Christians and other people of faith keep digging this hole, the farther it will set back the education of our children, and the more they will have to work to dig out.

I'm curious: How does the term "crashed" comport with the fact that Myers (and the others in his party) registered for the film's showing in their own names? Recall that tickets were not required; pre-registration appropriate web site and presentation of ID at the showing were the only requirements to attend. "Crashed" (along with the other falsehoods and inconsistencies in Blessman's report) appears to be just another instance in spinning the facts for deceptive rhetorical effect.

How can you crash a screening if you got the internet invitation?

Interesting Mark. Mad props to you for mentioning all the actual controversies and details.

have you read any of of the blogs of meyers and his family? He and Dawkins were both signed up on an internet list (anyone could do so) and shwoed their id as required to get in. They didn't crash anything. Mathis (the producer) not only lied to them about the nature fo the film (the registration and lack of registration of alternative titles as web domain names is quite clear evidence on that point as has been extensively docrumented in a number of blogs) and then lied ot Dawkins face about meyer being thrown out. Evidently it was only his tupidity in not being able to recognize Dawkins or his name on th elsit that kept him from being thrown out too. Why don't you try to get your facts strait.

Why is CT's blog giving so much microphone time to PZ Myers? Do you read his blog? PZ Myers is the same guy who says that we should fire teachers who challenge Darwin. He is the same guy who has a desire to slander Christians and make them look bad whether they deserve it or not. By ONLY broadcasting these atheist-Darwinist attacks on Christians, and not broadcasting the defenses from the other side (in fact the explanations from the pro-ID people involved make it seem that their actions have been quite reasonable), CT's treatment of this issue seems neither fair nor balanced. Most importantly, it's allowing someone to maliciously slander Christians. The real issue here is their desire to squelch the views of ID proponents. Don't help them in that cause.

For a somewhat more even-handed look at this situation, see:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/richard_dawkins_worlds_most_fa.html

Richard Dawkins states unequivocially he was duped, there is no but.
Dr. PZ Myers also states unequivocially he was mislead.

While Stuart Blessman is free to say what he thinks of Dr. Myers, his family and Dr. Dawkins at someones blog, while he is free to state his account and opinion , I thought the standard at CT requires ethics, research and fairness.

You are incorrect in stating the screening was crashed, I am disappointed in your account.
They did not crash, the screening was not crashed.

Several critics have worked their way in?

Mr. Moring, I couldn't care less what you think of creationism, evolution, Expelled or any of the players or what camp you believe you are supposedly in, I respectfully ask you correct your error.

Dr. Myers is correct, we Christians are developing a reputation for dishonesty.
We'd be less likely to if we correct our errors and assumptions when they are pointed out. Thank you for your time.

Seems to me like PZ has made a big to-do about nothing and it's funny how typically the sheep are quick to follow...

Re-Cap:
- PZ spends the better part of a year claiming the producers are sneaky/dishonest
- Producers arrange private viewing of the movie as ALL producers do with a new product
- PZ along with sidekick Dawkins arrive at the screening uninvited hoping to "sneak" in
- PZ gets noticed and is asked to leave.
- PZ makes a big deal out of it as if the producers are contradicting the premise of their own movie and again being dishonest about their own freedom of speech motives... As if one topic has anything to do with the other.
- Meanwhile Dawkins avoids being noticed and succeeds at "sneaking" in without an invitation, without announcing his presence and without doing the mature thing by asking if he might join the screening. No, he dishonestly snuck in.
- PZ gets praise and adulation for a job well done, supposedly.

I don't get what all the fuss is about. PZ and Dawkins sound like a couple of adolescent school kids in old men's bodies, still hell bent on bucking the establishment then running off to the playground to brag about how one got caught and the other got away!

Who cares man? Sounds to me like PZ and Dawkins need to grow up.

I'm still amazed that in the christian year of 2008 people still can not break free of their superstitions in order to 'evolve' as compassionate open minded humans. I'm not sure why evolutionary theory is such a threat.
The irony for me is that unlike genetically passed traits such as eye color or nose shape, religious ideas have to be sold to each and every generation. This process itselfs involves 'evolution', as an idea is continuously built inside one's mind as new info is sought and arguments are made.
Or one could argue that 'intelligent creationists', by denying scientific ideas (i.e. close their minds to contemporary thought as when muslim and other fundamentalists treat their women like property), are on their way to an evolved extinction.
Thank 'god'!
We certainly have a long way to go in understanding our place in the universe. Luckily, this 'I.D.' argument is only a tiny boat in a vast see of common sense

Figures. Christians have a growing reputation for their appreciation of dishonesty."

I thought that needed repeating.

From the accounts I've read, it appears that Myers and Dawkins able to get on the entry list just like everyone else by simply signing up on Expelled's website - which casts some doubt on the invitation-only thing. And they were also reportedly thanked in the credits, so go figure.

It's a bit ironic that a big name like Myers was expelled from a movie (called Expelled) that is supposedly about advocating exchange of ideas from both sides, and critical about being shut out from this exchange. Doing the exact same thing to the people one accuses of something isn't going to help one's case at all.

Heck, what's the harm in letting a guy - that's IN your movie - see your movie?

I was taught that Christians should walk and talk Christ's message. It is people like you--with lies like your's that have made me ashamed to say I'm a Christian. I will live my faith in Truth and I would advise you to investigate the facts before you propogate any more lies.

May God's richest blessings be yours as you reflect on the extent of His love demonstrated through the death His Son on the cross and the awesomeness of His power exhibited through the resurrection.

To God be the glory!

-bill
a spiritual oasis

Wow, I really dislike the way "documentaries" are turning out now a days.

The hypocrisy and arguments from Expelled are ridiculous.

What is the world coming to when people can badly lie and deceive others then call it "journalism" or a "documentary"?

So, how was that a 'crashing'?

Even by the standards of creationism apologists, the commenter "javascript" above takes their "repeat until true" tactics to unusual heights. Javascript, do you really think anyone is just going to skip straight down to your comment without reading all the others before and after it that contradict your lies?

How can someone crash an event that is open to the public? Looks like the folks at Expelled aren't the only ones using deceptive propaganda in their media.

FYI- the screening in question was not in fact an invitation-only event. It was held at a cinema in Minneapolis and sign-up for viewing was freely available on the internet.

Those of you who are saying Meyers and Dawkins tried to sneak in: Wake Up!

You're allowing yourself to be programmed and told what to think. This was NOT an invitation only movie. There is no crashing something like this, all you needed to do to get your name on the list was sign up online. If you wanted in, you were in. Meyers did this, his name was on the list, and that's how they knew he was there so they could look for him and kick him out. Dawkins was signed up as a guest of Meyers and the form didn`t request names of guests, so Dawkins' name wasn't on the list, that's why he got in and Meyers didn't.

Consider what this movie REALLY tells us about censorship in the ID vs evolution debate:

Prominent biologists were interviewed under false pretenses, told the movie was an unbiased examination. They had long interviews where they were asked about intelligent design and out of respect for the hypothetical viewers of a movie that doesn't really exist they did their best to cast ID in a positive light. The producers then edited and clipped their interviews to put words in their mouths.

And when the movie screened, they banned the interviewees from attending. They didn't want them to have a chance to show their side of the argument. They deliberately suppressed any questioning in a movie supposedly about the evils of suppressing questions.

The ID lobby has shown you their true colors. They have no interest in rational debate or a fair argument. If you continue to unquestioningly swallow their lies after this there is no hope for you, you have no thoughts of your own in this matter, you have consented for others to do your thinking for you, no matter where that might lead.

Come on CT! From whence cometh all this subliminal hostility to advocates of design in creation? The disconnect between you and your readers--and reality--is staggering.

How interesting that the athiests are here on this website in droves, commenting on how terrible CT is, how abusive the producers of Expelled are, and how stupid ID believers are. Most likely there is one militant athiest commenting over and over. The lack of civility in most athiests discloses their true nature, which is precisely the point of Expelled. Thanks for making and supporting the point so well all you athiests!

It seems that some folks are determined to prove the truth of the joke, "How do you know a creationist is lying? His lips are moving."

I created everything...man screwed up and fell...mutations kicked in and what you see now is what you get.

"Figures. Christians have a growing reputation for their appreciation of dishonesty."

I thought that needed repeating."

True, Christians are not perfect and have problems like everyone else. But, I'm blown away by the absolute viciousness of the atheists. By the way, it's interesting how many atheists read a Christian publication. Me thinks they doth protest too much.

Kathy:

True, Christians are not perfect and have problems like everyone else.

"absolute viciousness"? Is that how you characterize a refusal to back down from the facts of the matter?

So there are about 50 atheists all responding to the same point (obviously the one they were told to respond to by someone, so much for free thought).

Myers criticisms (of the film he didn't see) are particularly laughable. Has he seen his buddy Dawkins' Root of All Evil BBC special? Time after time Dawkins talks about Islamic suicide bombers and then cuts over to pictures of Christian churches. Over and over again.

Over the years, I've pretty much at least thumbed through most every issue of CT...and I don't expect basic journalistic standards and fairness. But then, I'm not a journalist, so what do I know what they are, really?

CT has usually been, I think, about legitimizing reactionary, states' rights, silk-tie patriarchal politics as God's inerrant will, by middle brow conservative intellectuals (including the founder of the pro-slavery, anti-democratic Christian Reconstruction movement). To be fair, CT also did a good expose' on Christian Reconstruction by Rodney Clapp, if memory serves. Every once in a great while, maybe once or twice a decade, CT does something right.

CT was founded by Rev. Billy Graham with money from J. Howard Pew who also co-founded the John Birch Society, and who was one of the more infamous ultra-reactionaries of his day.

I've never seen what people see in Rev. Graham, and his premillennial dispensationalism eschatology was simply immoral and racist-like at it's core, in my opinion. But then, I was raised in rural, very staid Methodist- Norwegian Great Plains family...maybe that has something to do with my long standing antipathy towards Graham. Many Methodists do seem to adhere to premillennial dispensationalism, but that's not the official U. Methodist position, if memory serves..and it should not ever be so.

Rev. Graham has made much of his friendship to Martin Luther King Jr., but as CT's chairman of the board, he didn't seen to be interested in CT's infamously petulant hostility towards King during King's lifetime, nor did he stop CT's ungracious epitaph on King. And, just try to find a mention of King's Nobel Prize in CT without a comprehensive index. It was very briefly mentioned, but talk about buried.

As near as I can tell, King and Graham did know each other, and when neither would join the other's movements, they communicated though middle men when the need came up. Graham did have a great team for organization, and everyone can learn from that. Of course, King's organizational genius, Bayard Rustin, a gay man, made the cover of Life magazine, so one can learn from King's organization as well. Graham is seldom even mentioned in King biographies, that I remember anyway.

CT was officially anti-racist from the start to it's credit...but not to such an extent that you would notice. It did, however, gave "equal time" to race segregationists in an early issue, so I guess it does have it's stabs at "fairness." It took the Birmingham bombing, I think, to get CT to actually endorse a civil rights bill, with obvious reluctance...and I can't remember any follow up, but then, it's been a long time since I've researched CT. I think it was for a letter to the editor in a New York Amsterdam News issue, if memory serves, and published as an op-ed piece.

Graham's great and close friend MLK, Jr, after all, was an editor at large at Christian Century, I think, the very magazine that CT was founded with a notorious bigot's money to counter, after all.

If you like conspiracies, search Pew and Gen. Smedley Butler.

Looks like CT has been fooled by the commenters here and is spreading misinformation in its Update.

A press release from the makers of the film says this:

EXPELLED was screened for a select Minneapolis grass roots audience on Thursday night. Dr. Myers and noted atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins were not sent invitations to the screening from the producers. Nevertheless, they acquired access to a proprietary online RSVP site, along with a group of other atheists. The producers were notified that Myers and others who were not invited had signed up for the screening. They were also aware that Dawkins, who oddly used his formal surname "Clinton" instead of Richard to sign up, was in attendance.

Therefore the statement ("the screening was not an "invitation-only" event, but that attendees had simply signed up on a website--that it was open to anyone who signed up in advance") appears to be false, or at least contested by the makers of the film.

Please update your update, or do some further fact checking. It appears Myers and Dawkins tricked the web RSVP site to get access. The RSVP site was apparently intended only for those who received an invitation to the "private screening."

BBC recently reported that Dawkins liked to sing Christmas carols and enjoyed everything about Christmas. He commented he was a "cultural" Christian and had no desire to do away with the cultural trappings of Christianity. Interesting isn't it?

As a Bible-believing Christian I don't know any believers who view science or truth as a threat. Truth is truth. Evolutionary theory however, is constantly changing like a poorly construed hypothesis must be when proven wrong time and again by good science and new discoveries.

Evolution remains a hypothesis, but it is taught as fact by educrats worldwide, and no other hypotheses are welcome by the "open-minded." Don't believe me? Then why does "Expelled" anger you so?

It is the duty of someone with convictions to exert the best evidence both for and against. Otherwise you're not really being honest with yourself or your "creator" This Expelledfilm is not a positive step toward an open and civil discussion.

I have not seen the film. Heard about it through an email so I did some research to learn more about it. Found this site so I decided to read the info and the blog entries. I find it interesting that 75% of the blog entries are from critics of the movie, the review or athiest or non-believers, all of whom criticize either the movie/review or Christian beliefs. What I have not seen is Christians criticizing athiest beliefs, yet I bet just as many Christians have visited this site as Athiests. Fascinating how the Christians take the high road and avoid responding to the Athiest troubled and demoralizing criticizm. I honestly expect this to be the exact balance in a blog such as this. ITS GREAT TO BE A CHRISTIAN!!! We do not need to justify ourselves. We have our Lord Jesus Christ next to us at each moment helping us with our daily lives; is there anything more awesome than that? I have an incredible passtion for the LORD and for the work he has done and continues to do in my life. If an athiest wants to criticize something, let them criticize this; its a true life story. The setting is my backyard. We back up to woods and lining the woods are smooth sumac trees. From my home, my wife runs a daycare. One day while all the daycare kids were playing on the play equipment (which by the way lines the edges of the woods) a swarm of bees were seen circling this smooth sumac tree. Hundreds of them, I have no idea if the other smooth Sumacs were surrounded by bees, but this one in particular, the closest one to the play equipments just had a swarm of bees around it. Literally hundreds of them. Two of the daycare kids got stung within a minute of each other so my wife had to bring the kids in and not let them out side during the day for the next couple of days because of the bees. I think it was about 3 days after this happened, I was on the backdeck grilling and decided to look over at the problem tree to see if the bees were there or not....I was shocked at what I saw, there were no bees around, but what shocked me was that all of the berries that the Sumac holds, all of the berry clumps were gone; they looked like they were stipped off of the ends of the branches where they typically grow. All that remained at the end of each branch was about 12 to 15 inches of striped tree branch. Three days before, they were definately there because we thought it was the berries that the bees were after. Well, the berries were now gone which meant the bees were now gone, which meant the daycare kids could now go outside and not fear getting stung by a bee. When I saw them gone, I thought wow, thats wierd, very cool then. The Sumac must of lost their berries........but no, they did not. I looked at the other dozen or so Smooth Sumac Trees that lined the woods, and all of them had their berries...every single one of them. I went down to investigate because I thought, well, they must have dropped off after the bees were done with them, but guess what...I could not find a single berry on the ground. OK, so we have daycare kids getting stung by bees that were after the berries on the sumac tree and three days later, on the exact tree the berries and bees are gone; but all of the berries on the other dozen trees were still on their tree....???? This makes no sense I thought, how can this happen. Well, then the obvious came to me. Jesus removed the berries so the daycare kids and my kids would not be surrounded by bees and getting stung. HOW COOL IS THAT?!!! I have a tree that was touch by our LORD JESUS CHRIST!!! Let me makes this clear...this tree was the closest to the play equipment and the daycare kids were getting stung by the bees that had surrounded this tree and its berries...but JESUS CHRIST removed the berries so the bees would not sting the children. You know why don't you? Because Jesus Christ loved the children. He loved their innocence and protected them when he walked this earth. He simply saw something unpleasant and decided to fix it so his children would not get stung. Do I believe this very story that I am typing......? YOU BET!!!

Tell you what, if anyone out there reading this story doubts me, which will probably be an athiest, then give me some kind of evidence explaining how and why this could have happened? How can 1 Smooth Sumac tree out of 13 of them loose all the berries overnight and not show any sign of them on the ground or anywhere on the property? Can anyone disprove me? I dare you to try and I hope through your efforts, you question your beliefs a little bit and perhaps question them alot. YOu can email me if you are interested or you can post on this blog but it will probably be difficult to read. My email is hackettm@hotmail.com
God Bless you brothers, sisters and friends.

M H

Athiests, are u awake? Try to disprove my belief. Here's a story.
My backyard is lined with 13 Smooth Sumac Trees. Last summer, one tree with its berries hovering over the swing set was infested with hundres of bees. We believe they were after the berries. Kids were getting stung. We stopped bringing the kids out to play. 2 days later, the berries on this tree were gone, all the other sumac trees had their berries. The closest sumac tree happened to be closest to the play equipment had its berries striped away and the bees were gone. What happened? Do you know? Is there a logical explanation? My theory - Jesus Christ striped those berries off the tree so the bees would move on somewhere else, thus making it safe for the children...Prove me wrong atheist. I will be open minded to everyones explanation. Until someone brings me a logical explanation, Then until I die, I will believe my tree was touched by the Lord Jesus Christ. Contact me and explain. hackettm@hotmail.com