Scott Hatfield asks about my interest in EXPELLED beyond the subject matter:
I’m pretty sure you are interested in the question of who is lying and who is telling the truth. Perhaps you, Vox, would care to address the question of why those interviewed are correct/incorrect in claiming that the filmmakers misrepresented their intent?
Based on admittedly incomplete evidence, I believe that Dawkins and PZ Myers are entirely correct in saying that the producers of EXPELLED misrepresented their intent to them. While this is a completely acceptable method of modern documentary-making, as evidenced by the award-winning documentaries of Michael Moore, I find it somewhat objectionable. However, since both Dawkins and Myers are too short-sighted and insecure about their beliefs to engage in open discourse with the majority of those who don’t agree with them – they’ve both publicly attempted to justify their refusals to engage with the opposition in the past – this sort of misrepresentation was almost inevitable for any critic attempting to get a straightforward answer out of them on the subject. In any event, whether you think this Moorean misrepresentation was justified or not, it doesn’t inherently invalidate anything about the film.
On the other hand, it’s clear that Dawkins is lying about various aspects of his contacts with the documentary’s producers. Dawkins is known to have lied before in similar circumstances, so this is not the first time that he has attempted to put a retroactive spin on his previous remarks and actions. He’s not just a known liar, but an admitted one now, as indicated by both his attempt to claim that the false details were minor as well as his subsequent apology. But then, Dawkins’s lying doesn’t inherently validate anything about the film either.
I haven’t read much about PZ’s part in this little slap-fight, so I don’t have an opinion there. But aside from his wildly inaccurate statements about me, which I tend to regard as personal opinion rather than serious statements of fact, I can’t recall any signs that PZ is prone to the sort of habitual dishonesty that Dawkins exhibits in certain situations. I’m not sure that PZ always realizes when he’s said something remarkably stupid, but it seems to me that when he does notice, he’s much more prone to stubbornly defend his words than to deny he said them or retroactively claim an implausible interpretation for them.