By Vic Holtreman
Short version: Your opinion of the film will with almost complete certainty be predicted by your opinions on Darwinism vs Intelligent Design.
Yes, I know everyone is looking for reviews of Morgan Spurlock’s Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? Here’s a spoiler: He doesn’t find Osama. His movie is funny and entertaining, but I think this film will generate far more debate and discussion and is as relevant to what’s happening today as Spurlock’s movie.
Having said that, I believe that writing this review is almost a pointless exercise, but I’ll write it anyway. Why? Because your opinion of the film will with almost complete certainty be predicted by your opinions on Darwinism vs Intelligent Design.
I’ve been scouring a few sites looking to see what people thought of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and it is expectedly getting skewered. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 9% at the time of this writing and over at IMDB.com it’s sitting at 3.3/10. The interesting thing about the rating over at IMDB is that 88% of the votes are either a “1″ or a “10,” with very few in between. I’m guessing that most of the votes on the “1″ side are from people who haven’t even seen the film.
Much like the reviews and viewer opinions of Michael Moore’s psuedo-documentaries or Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” are influenced by whether the person in question agrees with the views espoused in those films, that will be the situation here in even more stark relief. Considering the fact that most reviewers over at RT loved those films, it’s no surprise to me that Ben Stein’s film was skewered.
I don’t blame anyone – it’s just about impossible to judge a documentary on a hot-button subject without bringing personal bias into it.
A couple of the eventual items that will be highlighted in the movie are hinted at with the opening credits, which are made up of what looks like old archival footage from World War II. The movie credits are blended in to look like they are part of the original footage, which I thought was kind of cool. Ben Stein walks onto the stage of a crowded auditorium to talk about the fact that no matter the era, freedom is the one constant that has defined America throughout its history.
From there he goes on to expand on his main point: No, it’s not that Intelligent Design theory is superior to Darwinism… but that the mere mention of I.D. by someone in an academic position can lead to not only denial of tenure, but to outright censure and loss of their position. You read that right: not the teaching of the theory – just the mention of it as a possible valid theory.
He interviews a number of academicians and scientists who have met the fates described above and cites what led to their firings, etc.. Stein also interviews those in institutes of higher learning that came pretty close to visibly spitting whenever they were questioned about the topic.
One of the things that has people up in arms about this film is that Ben Stein draws a connection between Darwinism and Nazi Germany. He says quite clearly that he is NOT implying that Darwinists are Nazis – only that Hitler was influenced by the theory and sought to “accelerate” human evolution by eliminating the weak, infirm and supposedly inferior races.
I understand Stein’s reason for including this in the film – more than one athiest in the film emphasized the belief in no ultimate moral standards. The logical conclusion from that is that due to the idea of moral relativism (“well, maybe that was considered bad 50 years ago but times have changed”) is that eventually we could go beyond abortion and voluntary euthanasia to selecting people to be euthanized “for the good of mankind/the human race/our country” with no guilt of sense of wrongdoing.
The problem here is that the idea of a “designed” universe is rejected out of hand, there IS no room for discussion (similar to the global warming debate). If someone disagrees they are shouted down with “idiot/ignorant/stupid” and of course, “creationist.” End of conversation.
As far as I’m concerned, the unadulterated hubris of those in academia in their 100% certainty that there is no God in a universe where so much is still unknown is for lack of another word, galling.
You’re either going to think that Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a huge disinformation campaign of a film and hate it, or you’re going to think that it’s a big eye opener when it comes to the current dangers to our freedom and the discussion of important issues.
On a final note, I’ll be monitoring the comments below carefully. I’ve said before that I have NO problem with people with opposing opinions as long as those opinions are stated in an intelligent and civil manner with no personal attacks. In any case, especially online, I’ve found these discussions pointless as no one is going to change anyone’s opinion on either side.
Our Rating:
4.5 out of 5
‘Anchorman 2′ Trailers Tease the Return of Ron Burgundy’s News Team [Updated] 
Hugh Jackman Reveals Summer Start Date for ‘Wolverine 2′ 
Chris Hemsworth Talks ‘Thor 2′; Mads Mikkelsen Circling Villain Role [Updated] 
‘Walking Dead’ Season 3 Preview Reveals The Prison & Michonne [Updated] 
Loading ...
I think that the reason that this film touches a nerve with the the liberal left is that it exposes the PC thought process. Brent Bozell, in an earlier article today wrote “Liberalism is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension”. It will be interesting how the left wing media treat this movie compared to any of the Michael Moore films.
Hey, I want to reiterate that I’m really enjoying reading the comments from you folks, even if I disagree on a fundamental level with your conclusions. I don’t often delve into controversial subjects here on Screen Rant, but if you’re movie fans I hope you pop back in from time to time to read and/or talk about less technical topics.
Regarding Dawkins, probably my biggest problem with him is his attitude toward those that don’t agree with him. It reminds of me of the “elite” global warming crowd.
Regarding “deceptive film editing techniques,” lol, have you ever SEEN a Michael Moore movie?
The immediate example that comes to mind was his clever editing of Charlton Heston making two speeches on different occasions into what seemed to be one speech promoting gun ownership right after the Columbine incident.
And say what you will, I don’t believe that if something is not testable it automatically means that it cannot exist.
Vic
Earlier, instead of saying “Evolution breaks down..” I should have said “there continues to be no scientific accounting as to how the first life on earth began..” In the minds of some ordinary folks, I suspect that evolution (the theory of how life’s diversity came to be) is confused with the question of life’s origins, which continue to be as mysterious, even more mysterious, than ever. An intelligent design is not even close to being dismissable through the accomplishments of science, as Dawkins might like us to believe. While God need not be invoked when teaching the theory of evolution (which merely purports to account for life’s diversity) still we do not know from whence we came, which is every bit as true now as it was in the dark ages or at any time in human history. It is and was the human condition.
Alien. Dictionary says a creature from outer space. What is God or angels if not from outer space. So life on earth was started from alien beings. Did they communicate with us? Are they intelligant? Of course. We have a choice to accept or not their communication.
“While God need not be invoked when teaching the theory of evolution (which merely purports to account for life’s diversity) still we do not know from whence we came, which is every bit as true now as it was in the dark ages or at any time in human history. It is and was the human condition.”
Come now! Surely you jest! Since the dark ages we’ve learned soooooo much more about where we come from and where we sit in this universe. We understand how the very atoms that make up our bodies were forged in the big bang and in the hearts of massive dying stars! To say we’re still “in the dark ages” with respect to knowing where we come from is to throw away a good portion of the science that we unraveled since humans were able to ask the question “where do we come from?”.
I can see us having a working theory of abiogenesis in my lifetime. It will be fought against as hard as those who fight against evolution today, and those who fought against heliocentrism in Galileo’s time. But eventually reason and science will win out of faith and superstition. And only then will humanity be united in a way that will allow science to focus on the most important task that will ever face as a species: Making a better beer!
Cheers!
What is God or angels if not from outer space.
Good question. Can someone please define for me exactly where God and angels reside? I’m guessing god is technically IN this universe because he allegedly performs miracles and such. Is he just in a different dimension? Does he just peek into the universe, do some tweaking, then jump out before he’s seen? Does he reside in outerspace as Clint said? How would a theologian answer the question?
C.S. Lewis supposed that God was like the architect of a house. As the architect of the universe God is not part of the universe but may do whatever he chooses to it.
In any event, this whole thing is not really a battle between science and the uneducated, but between atheism and church folks. Science is inside and part of the Architects “house” and therefore is incapable of apprehending Him.
WOW Vic what have you created?!
Havnt seen this film but I thought I would dumb down this post a little. (Cause I’m really good at that!).
And the last time I commented I was ‘under the influence”.
=•/
Fact:
Scientists can’t explain “Dark_matter” or even Solar activity.
Why would I or (anyone) look to them for answers on proof of God’s exisistance? (IMO) They havnt invented the terminology yet to discribe it…
I think Dave on the Lake, made a good point about Pollitical Correctness. This film seems to be another PC discussion on god vs science… Blahhh humbug. Bttd. Yawn/fart sound.
I tend to look away from both camps on this one. There’s a lot of non-mainstream print material on aliens and near death experience’s that lead me to conclude its not just black and white. There’s also a huge grey area.
Scientists hate grey areas.
(No alien pun intended?).
Now thanks to all these posts and Ben Steins voracous ad campaign I need to get some “Clear Eye’ drops.
“we do not know from whence we came”
This seems to me to be the heart of the issue. A lot of people don’t seem to be willing/able to accept “I don’t know” as an answer. As such, they fall back on religious explanations to fill in those gaps. While I have no problem with people doing that, I do have a problem with the attitude that everyone else should do so that seems to be inherent in this movement to teach ID in science classes.
“I don’t believe that if something is not testable it automatically means that it cannot exist”
I agree with you there, Vic. I can’t, however, believe in something that hasn’t been tested and supported by verifiable evidence.
I enjoyed the documentary and it is clear that there really are two distinct world views and that Stein is correct – the “scientific” point of view has totally bought into the atheist, evolutionist position.
The theory of evolution is not an “atheist” position. It is fundamentally dishonest to equate acceptance of the theory of evolution with atheism. Additionally, in suggesting that there are two “distinct world views”, you have failed to explain the scope of the “world view”. If you are suggesting worldviews regarding a scientific explanation of the origin of biodiversity, then you are incorrect as there is only one worldview. If you are referencing worldviews regarding the cause of biodiversity regardless of whether or not they are scientific, then yau are incorrect as there exist far more than two claims on that particular subject.
I think that the reason that this film touches a nerve with the the liberal left is that it exposes the PC thought process.
I believe that the important source of discontent is not the “liberal left”, but rather the scientific community who have exposed a number of demonstrably false claims made within the movie.
T Edward “While God need not be invoked when teaching the theory of evolution (which merely purports to account for life’s diversity) still we do not know from whence we came, which is every bit as true now as it was in the dark ages or at any time in human history. It is and was the human condition.”
clint “Come now! Surely you jest! Since the dark ages we’ve learned soooooo much more about where we come from and where we sit in this universe. We understand how the very atoms that make up our bodies were forged in the big bang and in the hearts of massive dying stars! To say we’re still “in the dark ages” with respect to knowing where we come from is to throw away a good portion of the science that we unraveled since humans were able to ask the question “where do we come from?”.”
Since the dark ages, with regard to living things, humans have gained information on mechanisms of variation and structure. We have also elucidated much about the physical universe, in the area of classical and modern physics. It is an impressive array of knowledge, without any doubt. But..the mysteries regarding the origin of life itself and the origin of matter/energy itself are completely intact. We conscious living beings are without (ultimate) understanding, by any reckoning, of how we happen to find ourselves here. This is what leaves an ocean of space, philosphically, for the supposition of an Intelligence higher than us.
Darwin excited the thought in many that everything we observe could ultimately be explained as having naturalistic causes, that is, no higher power needed. But it is apparent, so far, that cells alone (contrary to what Darwin supposed) are too complex to be explained close to this simply. Science has no answer for this and there’s nothing really on the horizon.
The Bible tells us that God has a spirit body, that humans cannot physically see him because it would kill us. (Try looking at the sun for any length of time with no protection.)
The Bible also tells us that he is not omnipresent but he can be any where he chooses to be. God and the angels do not need food, air, or other things to sustain their life.
To understand this better, think of electricity, radio waves, or gravity. Humans cannot see these things without aids. But they do exist. God and the angels not only exist but have intelligence.
Do the research on Darwin and you will find that he made up alot of his findings so that he could gain notority.
Yeah clint, there’s theorists and some scientists that believe in a source of energy that is everywhere.
Its called Zero Point energy.
They just don’t know how too tap into it. Yet?
I saw the movie today and it was very good. I urge everyone to take the time to see it and draw your own conclusions. The think that jumped out at me was how the evolutionists theories of the beginning are so “fantastic”. They have NO IDEA how it all got started.
It would be like someone looking at a 2006 Honda Accord and then finding junk yards all over the world with bits and pieces of automobiles going back 70 years or so and concluding that the car somehow evolved and pointing to the junk yards as evidence.
My son is in 7th grade and being exposed to bits and pieces of Darwin’s theories, being taught as rock solid science, and when they kids ask the hard question: How did it all start? They get wild speculation.
And this is science?
Go Ben!!! Great movie.
Mr. Max: Your seem to be very skeptical of science. I’m GLAD to see that trait in you. Please apply that same level of skepticism to all areas of your life evenly and see what happens! Cheers!
Can’t prove ID? Correct.
But can you prove evolution? Wrong.
Did we evolve? Maybe. But the “theory” of evolution is just that – a theory. Believe it if you will, but the fossil record is still lacking much proof.
Both evolution and ID requires a certain amount of faith since neither can be proven. When the evolutionists react so strongly to a film showing an opposing view it only shows the weakness of their arguments and supports Stein’s argument.
I suppose ultimately one theory or the other will be proven in the end. If upon your death you simpy black out for ever – then the evolutionists were right. If upon your death you come face to face with God – then I supposed ID will look pretty strong to you.
I for one truly hope for the latter. If for no other reason than to watch the stunned faces of those who don’t believe in ID. It should prove to be a rather entertaining encounter…
“They have NO IDEA how it all got started.”
Thing is, science admits it doesn’t have all the answers. This is one question that simply remains unanswered. Maybe scientists will find the answer one day, but just because they haven’t yet doesn’t mean the science behind evolution theory is wrong. After all, evolution only explains how humans and other present day animals came to be what they are, not how life got started.
Are there gaps? Yes, and there always will be in any area of science. After all, we only know for certain what we can see directly. No one alive has directly witnessed all of Earth’s history, therefore no one alive can say with 100% certainty how everything occurred. The best that can be done is to take the evidence available and extrapolate from that the most likely explanation. Think of science as being like a court case: The jury (scientists) doesn’t always know for certain what happened, but they look at the evidence and take their best guess.
Anyone who expects to ever have all the answers is, and rightly should be, extremely disappointed.
“It would be like someone looking at a 2006 Honda Accord and then finding junk yards all over the world with bits and pieces of automobiles going back 70 years or so and concluding that the car somehow evolved and pointing to the junk yards as evidence.”
Well, technically, they have evolved. They’ve become more fuel efficient, faster, more aerodynamic, etc…. The fact that human knowledge is the driving force behind that evolution doesn’t change the fact that cars, or rather automotive technology, have evolved. The mechanism of that evolution is the only difference. We evolved by natural selection, and cars evolved by way of our improved understanding how to make things work better.
Listen guys, after reading all the previous posts, I have come to several conclusions that are quite interesting. First of all, the debate about Intellegent Design should leave “God” out of the picture. We are not debating whether God was involved or not. The Ultimate question asks: Is there evidence of a designer whomever he may be.
The ID community constantly claims that Evolution has holes in its theory. And rightfully they should. Darwin came up with his idea in the 18th century. His theory is nearly 200 years old and needs revision. The most common problem that I hear about is the Fossil Dating Method. Fossils get dated by what rock layers they are found in; and Rock layers are dated according to the type of fossils in the layers. This uses circular reasoning. The ID community is correct in their claim that a revision is needed.
Now they Evolutionists constantly batter the ID community on their lack of “evidence”. And they are just in their actions. But don’t be so quick just yet to shout in victory. I want to bring about something that is constantly ignored by the Evo. community.
The Evolution guys laugh at the ID guys’ version/idea of origin. Lets evaluate the Evo. Guys’ version(A very basic summary): The Big Bang Theory states that at one point there was nothing. Now this ‘nothing’ decided to get together and pulled itself together (without gravity) into a tiny space. Then there was so much of this emptiness/nothingness that it exploded; creating hydrogen and energy. Guys, I know there is more to this theory but this IS the bare bones of it. It is a practical summary of the Big Bang Theory. The theory relies on the idea of Creation by chance.
So here we have it. The ID group doesn’t have hardcore evidence for their theory while the Evo. group requires ‘just as much’ FAITH as the ID group does in thier observations and interpretations of our origin in this remarkable universe.
People, please learn to accept the flaws and complications within your theories when you discuss them. Thats what Science is all about, unbais analasys. Take care.
I know the answer to life, the universe and everything: 42.
)
The age-old argument and done in a civil manner. Great job!
I am a Christian and I truly believe God created the universe. I also believe that evolution is possible and that God created the universe to sustain itself. Can I prove this? Of course not. The only way to prove God is for God to physically prove himself; no one can give any evidence to prove a metaphysical being unless that being wants to be proven.
Did Ghengis Kahn exist? How about Napoleon Bonapart? Can you prove beyond a doubt they existed? No you can’t, but we all believe they did. There was a time recently when scientists did not believe the biblical Hitites existed until some archeological digs revealed they did exist.
My Christian brethren, just give it to God for Himself to be proven. There is nothing you can say to a person who doesn’t believe in God to make them believe.
Hey John did you see the Original HGTTG? Its real good.
One thing is for sure atheists and Christains all find out the truth when they die.
The Atheists just take longer to get a grip on the afterlife and are more prone to hang around as a ghost. (IMO)
So I say , “why sweat the small stuff”…..
But when atheists and christians die they may each see something different.
the christians may see god because they expect to .
the atheist may see nothing or a dark blackness
bacuse they dont believe in god or heaven .
Either way,
We will never know.
Well Gary
(First off this is all my opinion and your prob gonna think I’m nuts but)….
from what I’ve read on the subject everyone see’s the light but its your choice to go into it.
Some atheists don’t go into the light because they fear Gods wrath (for not believing, etc) others still don’t believe there dead (because your spirit is just as alive on the other side). Since there’s no “Time” over there they could linger earth bound for decades.
Usually enough friends die off and come down to bring the atheist spirit home.
Also…..
There is no Hell and we end up judging ourselves in the end. For God cannot judge only love.
Have we ever seen a house built by itself? So who constructed all things? Hebrews 3:4 has the answer.
In the movie I noticed how complicated that strand was. I don’t think it happened by itself.
Zero point energy sounds like the source could easily be from God.
I’ll say there is much more intelligent discussion on this comments post than some others I’ve read this past weekend, so thanks all.
I’d like to respond to a couple short things and quote myself from another site.
First as to Galileo being persecuted,etc., by the Catholic church: You should realize that he was probably heavily persecuted by the then scientific community. Kudos to him for speaking his mind, though. But all any of that proves is that humans on any leve (the church or the science community) can draw wrong conclusions from the data.
Second, someone mentioned ‘ID should leave God out of the picture’. This is likely impossible as any discussion of origins (where IS the starting point of this) logically will lead to the necessity of a self-existent, all-powerful, creative being–in a word, God. See “The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
Even the idea of aliens planting seeds leads to that same problem: where did THEY come from (as Dawkins points out in the above quote).
Lastly, quoting myself from elsewhere:
There are generally considered to be two forms of evolution: Macro and micro, speciation being the dividing line. There are VERY few Christians who would deny microevolution––subtle adaptive changes within a species. It’s the idea of species developing from others and specifically and ORIGINALLY from nothing which we think is nonsense. That thought itself would involve breaking several much more established LAWS of logic and science (for instance, the law of non-contradiction: something can’t be and NOT be at the same time in the same relationship; law of inertia: something can’t change of it’s own accord without being acted on by an outside force).
This brings me to a second point. I think it would also be helpful to point out that science is not merely empirical. There is a second and maybe more important factor in scientific inquiry: reason. You can gather all the physical facts you want until your face is a dark shade of indigo and still not be able to come to any reliable conclusions without a reasoned epistomology: How do you know what you know? The rules of logic and reasoning are also needed, and for ID folks or more specifically for those like me who believe in a Creation by God (a subset of the Intelligent Design community), that origin is the total failure of the argument from the point of view of macro-evolution and the success of the theist argument.”
Thanks again for intelligent discussion and simply falling into party lines!
OOPS! Two typos in my above post:
First, at the very end, that was supposed to say “and NOT falling into party lines!”!!!! (sorry)
And re Galileo, the scientific community of his day did in fact persecute him. I meant to say “MORE heavily”.
Again, apologies.
kmad,
Yes, I have no issue at ALL with micro-evolution, it’s the macro variety that I personally choke on. Yes, I will admit that I’ve never actually read ‘Origin of the Species’ but based on every single documentary/Discovery Channel/National Geographic thing I’ve seen or read, it seems to be that everything Darwin discovered in the Galapagos pointed strongly and without doubt at MICRO-evolution. How in the heck the leap was made from changes within a species to changes from one species to another is beyond me.
Vic
Hey Vic,
What would you accept as proof of macro-evolution? I can spout on all day long about genetic similarities to our closest mammal relatives, with more genetic differences found in more distant relatives. I could point to the fossil record, but that seems to be easily dismissed.
However, there’s one area that I’ve found which makes all my religious friends very uncomfortable when I bring it up as proof of macro-evolution: The Human Tail. We (humans) actually have the same gene (Wnt-3a) that many of our other mammal cousins do (mice/dogs/etc). It’s just in a dormant state in our genome. But every so often a human is born with that gene flipped on, and they grow a fully-functional tail, with voluntary muscle, blood vessels, specialized nerves and sensing organs. They can wag just like any other mammal’s tail. So how different are we really from our cousins? Thoughts?
Oh, and here’s a link if you want to read up on human tails:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2
Cheers!