Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Expelled opens in theaters today … post your review here
“Mocked and belittled” in reviews by the secular press from coast to coast, Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed finally opened in theaters today (here’s a theater locator). If you go see it this weekend (and beyond), let us know what you think. (Please note: This thread has been set up so that those who have actually seen the movie can comment, not to rehash past debates, arguments, etc. If I have to, I’ll borrow Lynn’s scepter!)
Here are links to WORLD’s recent coverage on this documentary:
- Megan Basham’s interview with Ben Stein.
- Marvin Olasky’s review of the film.
- Hope Hodge’s interview with Associate Producer Mark Mathis.
And if you missed it, here’s an excellent video interview of Ben Stein by R.C. Sproul.
Topic: Entertainment, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top62 Comments to “Expelled opens in theaters today … post your review here”
My husband and I just returned from the film.
The audience applauded spontaneously at the conclusion.
It was a documentary, but a nice break from fluff.
You’re left wondering what to do.
He makes a great parallel to the Berlin Wall.
I won’t spoil it, but I do recommend it.
My husband especially enjoyed it, and he’s like Mikey, he doesn’t really like anything. (He’s a good critic, in other words.)
Report comment to moderator
To be fair, I’ve deleted all the comments up to EYG’s. So let’s start over and try to stick to discussing firsthand impressions of the film. OK? Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
I saw it tonight. I enjoyed it, though a lot of what it did was merely define ID as opposed to Young Earth Creationism and Darwinian Evolution. It also went off on somewhat of a tangient and drew connections between “social Darwinism” and Adolf Hitler.
Of course, I missed the first few minutes of it because the person who took our tickets told us that it had been moved to another theater… So everyone in the theater stormed out and went looking for the correct one as soon as “Superhero Movie” flashed across the screen. It was somewhat annoying, though I’m not sure how they ended up making that mistake.
Report comment to moderator
TJ was given free tickets, so we went to see it tonight. We had planned on paying for it, and it is worth the price of admission if you still know someone who is interested.
Yoshiyahu,
The first few minutes involved Stein giving an overview of those who have been “expelled” from the scientific community–the same folks he interviews throughout the film.
I thought Stein did a good job of mixing interviews from both sides, and I liked the sobering motif of the Berlin Wall in comparison to the academic wall separating ID’ers from evolutionists.
I thought there was a good attempt at defining some of the terms tossed around. Is evolution change over time or is it the idea of common descent, or is it something else altogether?
I was surprised to hear two evolutionists say with a straight face that the idea that some sort of evolved higher species (read: aliens) seeded the earth with organic components for life was more rational than Intelligent Design.
Report comment to moderator
And, of course, based on the opening statement, the above is mine.
Report comment to moderator
I thought the line of connection he drew between Darwinism and Nazism was fair and accurate.
Hitler’s rhetoric supports it.
Also, the line he drew between Darwinism and Planned Parenthood seemed right to me as well. How else would you explain it from a darwinitic view point?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Cameron.
The images and scenes regarding those “unfit for life” were particularly moving for me. My father and younger brother (and youngest sister, before she passed away) both suffer from a rare form of muscular dystrophy and would have been executed in a Nazi regime, much like those persons in the documentary.
I find the idea that Darwinism is (and must be) applied to science, while simultaneously barred from ethical or social application an interesting (albeit, necessary) disconnect in the minds of many Darwinists.
Obviously, humanism and utilitarianism are far more popular foundations for a nonreligious ethics.
Report comment to moderator
Just got back from watching it. Expelled covers what intelligent design is and the connection between Darwinism and Nazism in Germany and eugenics, abortion, and euthanasia in the US. However, the primary focus of the documentary is the purging from academia of anyone who dares to question the scientific dogma of Darwinism. Darwinists will not like this documentary, because it pokes fun of renowned blind guides of the blind. Ben Stein reveals the absurdity of Darwinian arguments as mere foolishness by letting the top minds speak for themselves. It was sad to hear some of the top ’scientists’ of our day deceive themselves with speculation and circular arguments, only to follow their premises to the logical conclusion: no hope in life; no life beyond the grave.
Report comment to moderator
I saw it as well. (Only the second time I’ve ever seen a film on opening day–Lion King opened on my birthday and I “made” a friend take me.)
I went with a friend, and both of us found it very good, but slow in getting going. The first half or so intersperses old black-and-white movie footage for humor; the second half gets more serious. Being a documentary, it’s not really a “big screen” movie, and I’d have been content to wait till the video. But it’s well done, and I thought the interviews were quite telling, the connection between Darwinism and Nazism very well made (from both sides–Darwin’s words as well as Nazism), and the “wall” metaphor very effective. (Being that there’s a wall of division through science, those who accept the possibility of God and those who don’t–and comparing the scientific refusal to allow any mention of God to the Berlin Wall that keeps people on the correct side of the wall.) The point that science doesn’t dare allow any trace of religion, and thus morality, was very provocatively made, and so were the implications of a determinedly atheistic science.
I couldn’t help but be curious how those who disagree will respond to the film (if they dare see it). The case was made well, even chillingly at times. The implications for freedom, for morality, for life itself were not overdrawn, but were drawn plainly, and the Darwinistic scientists really did look closed-minded and ultimately unscientific. I hope this really does shake up the university culture a bit and reopen the door to academic freedom and scientific inquiry.
Report comment to moderator
My wife and I went to see it tonight and a couple things stood out to us.
1-It was on one of the smallest, albeit new, screens in our theater and we were the youngest ones (29 and30) in a small crowd. Heard a joke about it being the Free Methodist showing and everyone making comments were supportive
2-The Berlin Wall analogy was surprisingly powerful and consistently well done in relationship to the message of the movie: there is a divide and the Darwinists don’t want you to know it is there.
3-I appreciated that Hitler and the Nazi’s were identified as sane. It went a long way towards building credibility that those men, Dawkins and others were spoken about respectfully and not called names despite their obvious inablility to return the favor.
4-The most memorable, powerful comment was something to the effect of Darwinisim as insufficient to be a cause of the Holocaust but necessary to create the environment to allow it to take place.
5-I was struck that the arguments made attacking ID and Expelled were of the same attitude and essence as the ones used against the Da Vinci Code. It seems to me that when something special is attacked it is the most extreme voices in opposition that are heard.
6-Opponents of ID are going to have a field day taking the movie apart. Especially, Stein’s equating Stalinist Germany with ID, the claim that modern Darwinists are as dangerous as the eugenic proponents, and that ID is not Creationism.
7-Ben Stein is an incredibly brave man and will not work in popular Hollywood ever again thereby substantiating the thesis of his film.
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s a fascinating movie. From an artistic standpoint, it was nearly the perfect documentary. It keeps people engaged it what’s on its face a dry subject and explains why it matters.
It will be labeled propoganda and perhaps in one sense it fits it, but most of the people who will pan it thought Michael Moore was only speaking truth to power.
Report comment to moderator
I took the whole family to see it here in Minneapolis last night. I’m sure It was the first time I’ve ever seen a movie on opening night, but I thought it was important to support it. Very exciting and encouraging to see such a refreshing and politically incorrect approach make it to the ‘big screen’. The theater was almost full and there was also spontaneous applause at and near the conclusion.
Report comment to moderator
Two opposable thumbs way up!
Report comment to moderator
I’ve just seen the movie and was very impressed. It does not make for a fun evening but is well worth seeing. The trend is very frightening; so I pray that this movie will awaken the American public to what is going on and the implications of it.
We may very well be on a road not unlike that of Adolph Hitler and we are certainly seeing our educators try to eliminate God from our schools more than ever.
I was glad to see Planned Parenthood exposed for its involvement.
Report comment to moderator
My husband and I took our 3 kids (ages 11, 9 and
to see “Expelled” last night. We live near the capital of a large state, and there was only one theater/one screen showing it.
When we arrived, the theater was packed. We had to sit in the second row. I saw plenty of older couples, families and youth groups. (Unfortunately, a youth group with 4 or 5 unruly members sat directly behind us, and after several “please be quiet” stares, I had to confront them directly.)
The movie seemed to jump around a bit in the beginning, but the scary reality of lack of academic freedom in America became evident immediately.
It would have been nice to have some sort of “summary” describing the basic tenets of evolution, ID and creationism for theatergoers unaware of the controversy or exactly what each theory proposes as an explanation for origin of life.
Loved the Berlin wall theme. I loved the overall feel of the movie. I’ve always enjoyed listening to Ben Stein so having him as the star of the film was a plus for me.
I was particularly struck by how much Hitler and Margaret Sanger were influenced by Darwinism. You can’t say evolution always leads to eugenics; you can certainly say it sets the stage for people to go down that road.
My kids were mostly struck by the scientists who declared God doesn’t exist; how studying evolution made them repudiate their faith; how God is simply a delusion or a hobby, like knitting…etc. Rather than have their faith shaken, the kids thought those people were just plain nuts! It was heartening to know that my kids still think God is truth.
The interview with Richard Dawkins at the end was positively stupefying. I know he’s squirming his way out of it now but I just don’t see how he looks anything BUT ridiculous.
The biggest takeaway of this movie is recognition of the lack of academic freedom in America and open persecution of believers in science and academia.
Unfortunately, almost any Christian that’s been through high school, college or graduate school probably already knows about it. Hopefully Ben Stein’s movie reached a few folks who DON’T know academic freedom is nearly non-existent on our liberal and PC campuses.
Report comment to moderator
I really enjoyed the film. Very enlightening for me as I did not realize that the Intelligent Design theory was backed not just by Christians, but by Jews, Muslims and others. The hard nosed Darwin/Evolution teachers gave me a chill because they are preaching this to our kids from 1st grade on up. As one of the professors said in the film, “Life is meaningless. You’re born, you live and you die. After that, it’s all over and there is nothing else.” That’s what I got out of the film. If one truly believes there is no creator then there truly is no purpose to life. I was very disturbed by the reality of that message. I hope the movie encourages open-minded people to stand up for what they believe in with an intelligent designer living within them! Let’s change the hearts and minds of our children and young adults!
Report comment to moderator
It’s a great movie. I think it stated a lot of things about evolution in an exactly perfect way. For example, one of the scientists they interviewed said that Darwin had a good idea, but he tried to apply it in every part of life, and that was “a bridge too far”. That is exactly right. Darwin’s natural selection/microevolution idea has been seen in science and is as far as we can tell, truth. However, as soon as he tried to apply it to the origin of life, or macroevolution, he went a little too far. That is seen in our studies today- we don’t see macroevolution at all. I really hope this movie does well- it’s something a lot of people need to see.
It was all I could do to keep from laughing when Ben Stein interviewed Richard Dawkins at the very end. Stein did a really good job of questioning him, and Dawkins said a lot of crazy stuff (Imagine that)! Dawkins, as anti-Intelligent Design as he is, actually admitted that we don’t know how the world began. His theory is that space aliens (who evolved on another planet) “seeded” life on earth. And he tries to pass that off as science!
This movie did a really good job of showing the loss of freedom of speech in the scientific community. My question is, “What are they so scared of?”
(By the way, our local newspaper gave it a horrible rating- half a star. Just proves his point!)
Report comment to moderator
I went to a Sunday matinee in Southern California that had a small audience. I thought that the film was very good, although I’m not in a position to evaluate the scientific claims. It’s a great visual experience, and apparently no expense was spared. I wish that they had identified the interviewees more than once. (I could watch an hour with the scientist who was interviewed in Paris.) I would have liked different camera work with fewer extreme close-ups. Also, the film just seemed to cover too much ground, from academic freedom to ID versus Darwinism to eugenics/Nazi Germany … and unlike some other commenters, I didn’t like the Berlin wall analogy. But those are actually minor complaints. The early weekend box office reports look good, and I hope that this has a wide audience.
Report comment to moderator
Saw it tonight. Amazing. My buddies and I kept working the lines “crystals. It’s all crystals man…” into every conversation.
But on a more serious note, I’ve always thought that if IDers focused on exposing the suppression of their ideas (rather than try to teach ID to a crowd that won’t even respect your right to teach), they’d make better headway. That is what this movie did. Stein’s message is that like Berlin, there is a wall. Awareness of that wall is what we must deal with in the first place. What’s on the other side? Well, let’s cross that bridge when we get there. I’m not worried about how well ID theory will fare in a fair playing field. Especially watching Dawkins himself finally seem to arrive at the ID conclusion (revealing that his atheism is nothing short of an ideological hatred at God. Not a scientific approach of any kind).
I also loved at the end when Stein goes “anyone? anyone? anyone?…” (Watch Ferris Buehler).
Report comment to moderator
The most important movie I have ever seen!
As an MD of 20 years, I have been aware of the antipathy toward anti-evolutionary thought, and the animosity toward any consideration of ID, yet alone creationism, but I had not realized the extent nor the fervor of the godless evolutionary scientific community until I saw Ben Stein’s fantastic movie “Expelled” yesterday. Frankly, I was blown away with the scary reality that science in America truly has lost the freedom of ideas.
Stein’s documentary laid out an excellent expose demonstrating that dissent from evolutionary theory is absolutely not allowed in the scientific community. With case after case, he depicts how merely the suggestion that there might be other options other than evolution to explore is simply not tolerated – rational, competent scientists are shown losing their jobs and credibility because of academic science’s fanatical, closed-minded devotion to the god of evolution.
Stein symbolizes this lack of openness to even considering any other viewpoints as a wall the scientific community has erected to keep freedom of ideas tightly contained, representing this with an analogy to the Berlin wall. Beyond describing the problem, however, he goes on to explore the frightening implications of the end results of the godless evolutionary worldview. He demonstrates how this worldview led to the eugenics programs of involuntary sterilization in the first half of 20th century America.
Even more disturbing was Stein’s very convincing case that this worldview was a necessary underpinning for Hitler’s mass murders in the name of eugenics, and how this worldview leads to the devaluation of human life even now in such areas as euthanasia and abortion.
He then goes on to demonstrate how this lack of freedom of dissent in academic science leads to the muzzling of any overt expression of non-conforming worldviews, most especially (gasp!) religious ones. The evolutionists’ vehement animosity to religion and denigration of those who are religious is brought out clearly in interviews with leading evolutionists.
These interviews with both evolutionists and ID supporters (or even just ID considerers) formed the core of this documentary, and were very enjoyable to watch. Hearing those on both sides of the issue discuss the topic in their own words was at times hilarious, other times sobering, but always fascinating. Contrary to what I have read elsewhere, Stein did not lampoon the evolutionists; they used their own words to make themselves seem laughable, especially Dawkins.
Artistically, the movie made excellent use of numerous brief clips of footage to underscore its points and set the mood. Many clips were hilarious, yet underneath it all, the seriousness of the subject matter (and its frightening implications for our freedom of thought as Americans)shone through.
The super-closeups of faces got a little annoying, and the jerkiness of the video in a few spots when Stein was walking as he spoke (obviously filmed by a walking videographer) was distracting, but these were minor drawbacks to an otherwise well-crafted, innovative, and fascinating documentary.
Altogether, an excellent movie I will be seeing again this week, and am encouraging everyone I know to see as well.
Report comment to moderator
The backlash has started. Here is one site to counter the movie:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Report comment to moderator
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious.
Report comment to moderator
Oops. That was C. Hitchens’ quoted response to Fahrenheit 9/11, not his review of the agitprop flick at hand.
Oh well. By design, some of this stuff is interchangeable {:~)
Report comment to moderator
So, Serious George, I assume you have seen the movie, and didn’t like it? Could you give us YOUR review, your reasons for finding it unconvincing?
Report comment to moderator
I assume you have seen the movie
Nope. I’ll see it when doing so provides as little support for its producers as possible, if at all. The same approach I take to docu-ganda from the likes of M. Moore, A. Gore, R. Greenwald, etc.
I find it incredible that the same folks who are rightly doubtful of a video media culture’s ability to deal honestly with topics of importance suspend their suspicion of the medium when used in support of stuff they want to hear to begin with. The medium itself, by the nature of selective editing, is exclusive, dishonest and manipulative.
There has been plenty of written record of the issues and cases discussed in this film. But few people have time or interest enough to slog through the facts, or are simply bored by the process. Voila! Along comes a movie to fill that vacuum that doesn’t even pretend to approach the subject objectively.
It’s a riot that a film about bias and exclusion in science explicitly begins with conclusions then “documents” supportive data. It’s a shame to see otherwise sharp folks come away thinking they can learn something reliable from such an inherently biased method.
So from the get-go, I find this and any movie like it unconvincing.
Here’s a very important question to ask:
How come Stein didn’t write a book? Why a movie?
Report comment to moderator
Epelled: Science, Freedom and Ideology
A critique
Yesterday I went to see the movie Expelled that just opened in theatres. It raised some disturbing facts that are happening, and also gave a few insightful perspectives.
Is there censorship in modern day academic science, going to the highest level? If you state there is intelligent design to the universe, does that have moral ramifications? Conversely, if you state there is not a designer, does that also have moral ramifications? Finally, if here in America, our freedoms have always made us great, is this censorship to the ideas of intelligent design a threat to those freedoms?
The movie opens with Ben Stein interviewing a number of highly qualified scientists whose institutions and universities have taken strong action against them, simply for suggesting that Darwin’s theory of the origin of life my not be able to answer all the questions regarding the origin of life.
The follow up question is why?
And when attacked, the attack isn’t on the scientific work, it is rather on the person, and the belief in Creationism and God. In a number of cases, the people attacked didn’t even believe in the Creationist’s account of Genesis. Rather, they were pointing out that with all the design and complexity in the universe, the evidence begs the answer where did it all come from?
So Ben Stein went to a number of highly qualified scientists that explained Darwin’s natural selection and survival of the fittest principles. His point is that nobody can explain where life began. A number of hypotheses were discussed: the primordial goo, life by crystalline development, and even that aliens may have seeding life here.
Accordingly, Stein was confused. If nobody knows, why the discrimination against the notion to a designer. When Darwin published the Origin of Species, 150 years ago, the cell was thought of as a very simple. Today we know it to be tiny “galaxy” unto itself. It has engines, motors, replicators, etc.
Furthermore, it would take at least 250 proteins in the same place, in the right sequences to create life. Simply based on a mathematic probability (one in a trillion, trillion, trillion) evolution as we know it requires a belief that some would call faith.
So Darwin’s theory may not have had all the answers. But within the scientific community, if you suggest that, you can become blacklisted.
Again, the question is why?
Stein concludes this bias comes not from science, but from a difference in worldviews. The scientific community doesn’t want to allow the teaching of ‘religion’, because of all that the ideology stands for and is connected to. Rather, it wants to and claims neutrality and objectivity.
However, if one discusses a belief in a designer, that validates some presuppositions and establish a basis of morality that some people are greatly opposed to.
Conversely, if you don’t allow for God, that also validates some presuppositions that are even more disturbing, the absence of morality.
Stein then went on to interview several scientists at prominent universities that stated that they lost their faith when they studied Darwin’s theories. Certainly, not every person who believes in Darwin loses his or her faith in God, but Darwin does give validity to atheism.
Hitler used Darwin’s theories of natural selection to fuel his ‘purification campaigns’. As Stein sat in Dachau, it was a sobering reminder to Hitler’s fury. Stein stated that certainly not everyone who holds to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ agrees with Hitler’s actions, but it quite directly gives validity to Hitler’s actions.
Finally, the eugenics movement was highlighted in America. During the 1920s, 50,000 people were unwilling sterilized by the medical community because they were deemed ‘unfit to breed’.
Those principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest live on today in Planned Parenthood and euthanasia, both of which are an extension of the eugenics movement. Again, if a person holds to Darwin’s beliefs they don’t necessarily agree with abortion and euthanasia, but it does give validity to that point of view.
So why are the scientists so adamant against intelligent design? If it is because of the dangerous philosophies that it validates, Darwin’s beliefs also carry with them some dangerous philosophies.
So if America is made great by our freedoms, then why the censorship? What would happen if America let science be science? Throughout the centuries, most of the time science has been studied in conjunction with a belief in a designer, allowing for a more holistic understanding of the universe. What could we understand if science were viewed again with that possibility?
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a very important question to ask:
How come Stein didn’t write a book? Why a movie?
Because more of the public would rather go to a movie than read a book.
Movies are for entertainment. Reading is work.
If Ben Stein wrote a book, though, I would read it. I very rarely go to movies, but did see this and I enjoyed it, especially Dawkins at the end. Incredible.
I have found that hatred and disbelief in God are founded on a moral objection. It would be interesting to know what was going on morally in these guys’ lives when they lost faith.
Report comment to moderator
I am respecting the moderator’s request to not comment in this thread, as I haven’t seen the movie yet. I do hope those of you praising it will read some of the other threads on related topics … maybe there’s hope that some will figure out how badly Ben Stein is conning you.
But, maybe not.
Report comment to moderator
I am respecting the moderator’s request to not comment in this thread, as I haven’t seen the movie yet. … Maybe there’s hope that some will figure out how badly Ben Stein is conning you.
Steve, you say you’re not going to comment and then you comment! If I may make a suggestion, instead of simply reading what others are saying about the movie, go see it yourself. Perhaps some of those reviewers are the ones who are conning you.
Consider, for instance, the rant of Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel. His review of the movie does not even factually resemble what was presented in the movie. He makes comments that actually contradict what was said in the movie, which show that either a) he did not even listen to what was said when he saw the movie; b) he went into the movie with his mind already made up; or most likely, c) both of the above.
http://tinyurl.com/5rfsnu
Go see the movie yourself and then see if that review compares to what was actually presented on the screen. Then give us your own review of the movie on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
Samuel: Fair enough, in that I don’t know precisely what is in the film. I do, however, know what the ID movement is all about, and I know something of how the science establishment works, and based on the words of the movie makers (not second-hand hearsay, their own stated purposes and beliefs) I feel reasonably confident in guessing there’s not a lot of accurate information in it.
I will see it, when I can, and meanwhile, that’s why I expressed my hope that the discussion going on in other threads — where having seen it isn’t a requested pre=-requisite — may offer a broader perspective.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, it’s actually TJ (similar Gravitars, though). Apparently, given Moore’s review, actually going to the movie isn’t a guarantee of an accurate review. Reading that review, I know there’s not a lot of accurate information in it.
This thread was set aside for reviews. I find it quite ironic that many of the negative reviews I’ve read do not accurately reflect what was presented in the film. There are even comments made in the film that discuss what ID opponents (in the press, for instance) state, and these are actually repeated by the reviewers, as if nothing at all were mentioned in the film. This is a major reason why, I suppose, we were all encouraged by MM to comment on this thread if we’ve actually seen it. Relying upon what others have said is not exactly helpful.
One of the most enlightening things about the entire movie is to hear, from the source, exactly what folks like Dawkins and Myers actually think, in their own words. That alone is worth the price of admission, imho.
Report comment to moderator
Apologies, TJ. Yes, you and Samuel “look” like brothers, based on Gravatar choice.
I’ll see the film and comment here when I have. Meanwhile, other threads are discussing the broader topics raised therein.
Report comment to moderator
No apology necessary, as no offense was taken. One difference, though, Steve. I’m in color, Samuel is not.
This is not off topic, as some scenes in Expelled are in color and others are in black and white. I only submit this as proof that I have actually seen the movie.
Most of the “other threads” that I have read, though, are also posted by folks who also have not seen the movie. They are merely posting what others have said (and these “reviews” are often merely rants and hissy fits; the repeated references to ape and bat feces, along with references to “these people”, speak volumes as to the quality of those citations), and while that may be pleasing to some, it is not necessarily helpful to this particular thread.
I will dispense this sober advice, though, Steve: if you’re already going in with your mind made up, it’s probably not worth spending your money. If you already know about the ID-related cases referenced in the movie, then this is probably not going to be new information. If you already know that Dawkins and Myers are deliberately hostile fellows, then you are not going to profit much from those interviews. If you’ve already seen how depressingly dark and irrational and William Provine is, then this will be nothing new.
If those are new revelations to you, though, then maybe it is worth your time and money. If not, then I just save you $10!
Report comment to moderator
Thank you all for adhering (for the most part) to the ground rules for this particular post. It’s been great to see some new names commenting here.
Keep those first-person reviews coming …
And I encourage those who disagree with the film’s premise to go see it and then comment here on what they saw.
Report comment to moderator
No doubt someone with important insights about topics like academic freedom, philosophy of science, and the rise of genocidal tyrants will want to communicate them in a comprehensive way to folks who study history, science and philosophy, and in the form they use most often for their subjects.
I’ll see the movie once I’ve read the book {:~)
Report comment to moderator
Serious George,
It’s worth noting that many of the people profiled in the film have written books (serious books), and that’s why they’re in trouble…in trouble with people who hadn’t read their books, for the most part. Maybe Stein figured that it’s the people who disagree with ID who aren’t reading books, but they might watch a film! (Have you read any of the ID books? If not, your inttellectual response to this has a great big hole in it.) For the record, I’ve read some of the books by those interviewed, and own one or two more I haven’t read yet.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I’m OK with the reading end of things. I’ll leave it at that, having already stepped out of bounds more than once.
Regards,
SG
Report comment to moderator
JonFarra, nice review but your comments might be spoilers. My wife and I really enjoyed the movie ourselves.
Serious George, having not seen the movie what are your thoughts on scientific inquiry and freedom? (I will share mine shortly below.)
To all others, Stein called for action at the conclusion of the movie. What should we do?
I have posted to a few forums and challenged some biased movie reviewers, such as at the New York Times, but is that all there is?
(Yahoo Post)
Perhaps Stein distorts the perspective somewhat in his documentary, but is that not true of most communicators? I seek an honest appraisal and communication in education, science, and indeed all areas where we realistically state and demonstrate
—what we can prove unequivocally,
—what we can derive from indirect observation and calculation,
—what requires more speculation and is thus for which there is no direct proof and, therefore, has uncertainty beyond measurement uncertainty,
—honest acknowledgement of the uncertainty and accuracy of the tools, processes, hypotheses, and working theories that we use to analyze scientific and indeed any subjects, and
—desist from rhetoric in science and politics in place of adequate explanation of the assertion that something is true, i.e. theory is fact, because everyone knows it and if you do not then you are ignorant.
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not the scientific method an interative process of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, validation or disproving the hypothesis, and theory formulation that consistantly demonstrates, reproduces, or explains the observed phenomena? Experimentation presupposes one has the ability to alter the environment or conditions of the experiment. Certain fields of study do not permit this.
–Should history be examined with the tools of science?
–Should law be examined with the tools of science?
–Are witnesses a necessity to accurately or inaccurately account for what has occurred?
–Is the scientific method the same tool used to examine questions of law or of history?
-Can we alter the environment for our test subjects of our observation in astronomy, geology, or biology sufficiently to reproduce the entire chain of events to reproduce the end result that current evolutionary theories hypothesize? (I believe the honest answer is no at this time, and I think that until we start experimenting with stars and genetically engineered humans directly derived from amoeba then we have a long way to go.)
Whereas the theory of gravity as explained in the Newtonian range is easily reproducible and observable by the average American, the scopes mentioned above border on unproven theories or hypotheses, and it is unfortunate that many try to teach them as fact.
I will be the first to admit that history, religion, and the supernatural are impossible to prove using the scientific method, and even the examination of eye witnesses becomes difficult as one is removed via time and space from the event, which in many cases why it is called faith: the acceptance of the unseen because one cannot satisfactorily resolve all the uncertainties but one must still make decisions to function.
I am often irritated when Christians, like Lee Strobel (The Case for a Creator) who is not even mentioned in the movie, cite all these various scientists who argue for the existence of God through how Nature is created perfectly balanced with all its various physical constants and the earth’s unique place in the universe. They cannot adjust the constants and so on what basis can they make their claim? None.
I saw a dissenting post by another Christian who claimed the compatibility of her Christian belief and belief in evolutionary theory as the means through which “God created the heavens and the earth.” I ask her and anyone else who holds this view:
—How do you define Christianity?
—What is your opinion of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture and your criteria for judging what you should keep from the Bible?
—Is the creation account and timelines compatible with the current version of evolutionry theory or theories?
(By the way, I have read extensively in both evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design arguments. While I have much to learn, we are not ignorant as some dissenters claim our point of view to be.)
(Some excerpts from NYT review challenge)
“Religion, the combination of philosophy and myth handed down to us, is blind to science. Science ought to return the favor.”
“Religion is normative, all about that “should.” It does belong behind that wall, separated from the search for fact.”
Does your logic apply across the board to all areas of inquiry and discussion? [see expansion in comments above that are deleted here for brevity]
–Is your definition of religion accurate or does it presuppose an anti-religious world view or bias?
–How can you evaluate it if you, too, are not behind the wall separated from a search for fact in another specialty of inquiry?
–If you are trained as a movie reviewer, why do you not only report about the cinematic aspects of the movie?
“Though individuals can say what they want, no university is obliged to employ people with absurd views. We wouldn’t want our professors teaching that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Is ID such a fringe theory?”
Perhaps true [about employing people teaching absurd views], but there is the rub. I can exercise my First Amendment freedom of speech just as you can exercise your first amendment freedom of the press. I tell you and I can tell your paper what I think of your review, but I do not control your paper [or the university]. My words will not gain the same circulation as yours. The people in authority over you and those who own the paper control what your paper prints. If they, like certain individuals in the Smithsonian and the academic examples that may or may not be accurate in Stein’s movie, dislike what is written, they can change the situation by various means up to dismissal.
What a concept? Is that not Darwinian? Ideas win based upon who has power but not by honest inquiry and evaluation of the facts and uncertainties? Is that not unscientific?
Perhaps as Stein mentioned in the movie that freedom is our greatest strength in America, but what is your definition of freedom?
Some see it as a virtue of ultimate value, but in truth, our “freedom” is much more limited than the “dream of freedom” that people idolize.
I must admit that most of what I read on the internet and online newspapers and what I was taught at university I deem absurd [, i.e. Plato’s Republic, public policy studies, etc.]. Who am I to judge? Am I absurd because I judge other views absurd, but is that not a logical fallacy or contradiction?
Report comment to moderator
Joe_T: Please repost this in the “Irreducible Complexity” thread or another thread in which having seen the movie isn’t a requested condition for posting. You raise some questions that are open to everyone, but I don’t want to (again) ignore the moderator’s request.
Report comment to moderator
Can anyone who saw the movie tell me if any of these instances of people being Expelled were included in the movie? It’s quite a list. I was amazed to find that there are so many examples of peoples academic freedom being stomped upon.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s make a new movie: “Excommunicated”
(ok I’m sorry – bong me – I couldn’t resist – I did see the 10 minute trailer – does that count?)
Report comment to moderator
p.s. Mickey this would be easier to resist if we had a thread to discuss the factuality of this movie – e.g., compare discovery institute claims about the film with http://www.expelledexposed.com , for example.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: Other threads on WMB have given you ample opportunity to trash the film many times over. Go see it if you want to do it on this one, too.
Report comment to moderator
What did you think of the film itself, Mr. McLean? Was it fair?
Report comment to moderator
Haven’t had a chance to see it yet.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
I read through that list, and many of the colleges in question were Christian colleges with statements of faith a professor had to sign to teach there. If he then started teaching other things, he was in clear violation of his contract. Presumably he could keep his mouth shut in issues where he disagreed with the school’s understanding of Scripture, but no, a professor does not have the right to violate his contract.
That’s quite a different thing from pretending to teach science and being open to any option except the possibility of a Creator. That isn’t a scientific position but is, like the Christian colleges’, a worldview position. If these colleges said, “Based on our beliefs, we have decided there is no God, and that even if the evidence points to a designer or a deity, all professors in this institution must teach that there is no God, or refrain from mentioning God i any way. Professors in the sciences are thus forbidden from discussing, or studying, any evidence that there might be a God or even a ‘designer’ who is other than God,” then the colleges would have a case.
But to limit scientific exploration on worldview grounds doesn’t really work, and to pretend freedom when there isn’t any, doesn’t really work. (Again, Christian colleges don’t pretend to hire anyone of any belief system. They teach the Bible, and it’s completely fair to expect their faculty to teach according to the school’s statement of faith.)
Report comment to moderator
#46
Cheryl I think you have missed the point. no one is limiting scientific exploration on worldview grounds like Expelled is claiming. The cast of characters in the movie were disciplined for illegal or unethical behavior, or rebuffed for making claims which are unsupportable with evidence.
The list I posted is the opposite. The academic folks on the list (not people beaten or murdered by creationists) were sanctioned by their institutions for making claims that are supported by evidence.
The ID creationists have steadfastly refused to do science. They have not published their own journal in years. They do not make claims that are supported by evidence, they make claims then retreat to some supposed academic freedom or use the cover of the bible for their academic dishonesty.
I am afraid that this erroneous notion of ‘worldviews’ has poisoned the well for this discussion. this is notorious postmodern intellectual relativism, and I think you know better.
Report comment to moderator
I watched the movie tonight. Here’s my review and comments.
I partly agree from what I can tell with Joe Carter’s review, linked by Serious George above. Joe says Dawkins isn’t a strong lead to argue his case, but I would say he and Dennett are two very high profile spokesmen, so they should have to defend themselves. If Dawkins thinks it’s easier to believe aliens seeded life on Earth than God designed it here, then he should be harassed a bit for it. I say that b/c Stein seems to be harassing him a bit after that ridiculous suggestion. I’d also say that Stein claims to have talked to many more professors and scientists who did not want to be filmed, so I wouldn’t doubt more desirable proponents of Darwinian Evolution did not want to be interviewed.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll go ahead a put in this. I can see why some liberals will hate it. Not only does it argue that Darwinian Evolution has flaws, it criticizes abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, atheism, and closes with images of Ronald Reagan. That’ll boil the blood.
“The ID creationists have steadfastly refused to do science.” No, as I understand it, they have done some of the science, but their science isn’t any different than that of Darwinians, except in certain explanations. This is a metaphysical argument, a philosophy of science argument, not a disagreement over methods or figures in an experiment.
Report comment to moderator
Phil they desperately need you to think that way and believe it to be true. But there is no philosophy of science or knowledge that yields a justification for the design inference. there are several philosophies of sophistry that do though.
They haven’t done any of the science. IDers haven’t even published their own journal since 2005. They don’t care about science. Not even the ‘certain explanations’ you claim.
They offer no evidence for their theories, only public relations campaigns and incestual relationships with talking heads like Marvin Olasky. I’d love to take this up in another thread if you are willing, Mickey don’t want us clogging up the gushing reviews with pesky facts.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
Did you see the movie? Nothing was said in it about illegal or unethical behavior! ID proponents do in fact do science (saying “it can’t be science if they believe in God” is very poor logic), and have published many well-reasoned books. You do need to see the movie.
If you think science has proven there is no God, you show you know little about the evidence or about science. But again, see the movie.
Report comment to moderator
I saw the movie on Wednesday and was impressed with Stein’s work.
One of the most important points brought out was the basic scientific hypocrisy of the evolutionary establishment. The scientific method calls for an examination of all the data from any valid perspective. Some of the greatest scientists in history have viewed the data from the perspective of design and special creation. Yet today’s evolutionary community habitually labels anyone with a design or creationist perspective as a non-scientist and therefore disqualified from the debate and even from employment. They would fire Sir Isaac Newton if he were teaching today. They are not legitimate proponents of the scientific method as they shut it down without a comprehensive examination of the data. So, today’s dogmatic evolutionists are scientific hypocrites.
Stein points out that they are also tyrannical dictators who seek to deny the basic freedoms of speech, thought and academic inquiry. They make a lot of noise about the suppression of intellectual freedom in the middle ages, but they have established their own modern inquisition. Crossing these 21st Century Torquemadas can cost an honest scientist dearly.
Stein’s use of the Berlin Wall analogy was particularly apt. Just like the Communists, evolutionists don’t want their power threatened by any form of genuine academic freedom. They will do just about anything to keep that wall from coming down. Fearful that their Darwinist views cannot stand up under scrutiny, their weapon of choice is almost always suppression. If evolotionary theory was as well proven and as solid as they claim they should have no reservations about an honest examination of other viewpoints. Yet we do not find this to be the case. Instead, as Stein clearly shows. dictatorial suppression is the norm.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t seen the movie but I did just see Ben Stein on the Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson (on my DVR from midweek.)
He said the thesis of the movie is (and I am quoting this verbatim): “Darwinism doesn’t explain gravity, Darwinism doesn’t explain the Laws of Thermodynamics, Darwinism doesn’t explain why some joints are better than so many other joints … we don’t want people to be fired if they say the planets stay in their orbits maybe by something other than Darwinism. We don’t think Darwin explained how the planets stay in their orbits.”
OK then.
He also said the movie is “probably best watched while high.” I think I will agree with him there.
Report comment to moderator
He went to explain that Darwin had modest claims for his theory, “but his followers think it can explain everything, including astronomy.”
Riiiiiight.
I think Stein made the movie while high.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah Steve, you haven’t seen the movie so what you think about it is largely irrelevant. Come back when you know a little more of what you are talking about.
Much of what Stein says, that you are critical of, is tongue-in-cheek humor. But you would have no way of understanding that since you haven’t bothered to go see the movie.
Report comment to moderator
Michael … To clarify, I didn’t think what Stein was saying was an accurate description of the movie’s real thesis. I’m well aware from all the discussion what its real thesis is.
I did, however, wonder why he was being so irreverent and dismissive toward his film if he really believes the actual theme. Why would you say your movie “is best viewed while high” if you are really serious about the message?
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
One can be serious about the message and still make a joke about it. Here’s a rather lame comparison: My first book has a gorgeous cover. When I’d give the book to friends, invariably they’d spend a lot of time admiring the cover. So I’d say something like, “Yep, I didn’t have anything to do with the cover, so I can’t take credit for it, but it is probably the best part of the whole book. Probably some people will buy it for the cover, cut it off, throw the book away, and frame the cover.” Did I really think the book was worthless (or did Stein really believe the movie should be watched when one is high)? No. It’s just a bit of self-deprecating humor.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl do you have any examples of this ID ’science’? I have been looking at their journal and it has been published in three years. Clearly, science is not a strong suit for IDers, or they have nothing to say outside of the media/court room realm. They just want you to think they do.
#51? nothing was said that darwinism leads to nazis and using unethical tactics to shut down supporters of intelligent design creationism? are you serious? Who said that science proved there was no god? what are you on about anyway.
Mike, you are almost there. you need to think long and hard about this ‘valid perspective’ issue, perhaps you will understand why whining about persecution when 1) it is not true and 2) you have not done anything worthwhile anyway (see my link above) is not a valid perspective. The rest of what you say is as much nonsense as the movie. No one has been Expelled.
Michael Martin drooled: et today’s evolutionary community habitually labels anyone with a design or creationist perspective as a non-scientist and therefore disqualified from the debate and even from employment.
Provide some evidence. I think you are lying.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus,
The evidence you seek in the last paragraph of 58 can be found in your first paragraph of 58.
You put science in quotes, said science is “not a strong suit for IDers”, etc.
Didn’t you pretty much just label IDers as non-scientists and disqualify them from the debate?
Report comment to moderator
Cameron, actually no I was referencing the scientific output of the IDers. It is next to nil. Please do take a look at their own journal that they cannot even publish themselves in 2.5 years, they simply do not do any type of scientific investigation and they can’t blame that on the evil darwinist conspiracy.
take Gonzalez, poster child for Expelled. After he started drinking the ID kool-aid, his scientific output plummeted to next to nothing. it’s a matter of record, the correlation between his involvement in DI and the staggering decline in his scientific work is 1:1. if Gonzalez had continued to do science, graduate students, publish papers, contribute to his field, he would have made tenure. As it is, he just started hanging around with a bad crowd and that sort of thing rubs off on you.
Report comment to moderator
First, WATCH THE MOVIE before ranting. It’s courtesy, since the author of thread made it a condition.
Second, if you had, you would have seen evolutionists classifying IDers as non-scientists.
Third, check out this link: http://lamp.iowastatedaily.com/ID_EMail.PDF
Fourth,
I’m not commenting further to anyone who hasn’t followed the request of seeing the movie. I apologize to Mickey for having done so.
Report comment to moderator
Who is ranting? I point out that IDers don’t publish science papers, even in their own now-defunct journal, and that makes me a ranter? I’m just correcting the misinformation of anyone who runs around claiming that these hucksters actually practice science.
Dembski is not a scientist. Never has been. calls himself a theologian and a mathematician, although we have caught him calling himself a scientists to some church groups, he generally does not refer to himself in this way.
Behe hasn’t published in years. WAS a scientist.
Gonzalez, same. couldn’t graduate a student the whole time he was at ISU. that makes those emails irrelevant, doesn’t it?
4th, you shouldn’t comment if you don’t know what you are talking about. i’ve been following the movie, I know what it says.
send me a free ticket, and I’ll go watch this dog. otherwise, maybe they’ll be showing it to my youth group in the church basement some wednesday night. rofl.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!