Rating:
4.5 out of 5
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.
Loading ...
202 Comments
My source was Box office guru ,
If anyone has more precise numbers or can explain how it stacked up against recent high profile documentaries like Farenheit9/11 or An Incovenient truth please chime in .
I am a strongly believing Christian MS geologist and yet accept macro-evolution. For that I am forced to give up a completely literal understanding of the book of Genesis. The gathered evidence that satisfies me as to the probable truth of Darwin’s basic premise is the appearance in the fossil record, at different points in time separated by breaks which can be on the order of millions of years, of the major phyla, families and species. There is a pattern of their appearance on earth when physical conditions in earth history became hospitable for a particular kind of life form (for example there was once little emergent land or plant life, and therefore terrestrial life forms did not emerge until conditions were right). Gaps in the fossil record are traditionally accounted for because of it being the exception, not the rule, for organisms to be preserved as fossils. Paleontologists point to examples in the fossil record of transitional fossils or links between species, and it’s my opinion that the insistence that there are no linking fossils at all is a difficult one to defend. If the variety of species present on earth are not explained by evolution, then as creationists we would have to believe that God created each species specially at unique points in earth history separated by up to millions of years, to mimic what would we would see in the record had they evolved. This strikes me as a little absurd, on a par with the notion that the earth was created with the deceiving appearance of great age. The notion that God created each species at a different time in earth’s history does not quite fit a literal understanding of Genesis either, and it is impossible to avoid the the conclusion that organisms become more complex and varied over the span of earth history. Accepting all of this as probable fact, I nonetheless am convinced as I can be that Christ arose from the dead, even from an evidentiary & historical point of view.
This is a question for everyone .
whats the craziest theory you have ever heard explaining the creation of both the earth and the universe ?
i am looking specifically for scientific theories that might not be widely publicized.
of course if have pagan theories ,mayan gods , greek gods etc , i will take that too .
I am just looking for theories outside of known creationism and darwinism.
Think outside of the box!
Gary,
From EW:
“Also of note, Ben Stein’s political/science documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (No. 9) earned $3.2 mil. That’s a very respectable total for a documentary, although non-fiction fare rarely opens in 1,052 theaters, as this right-leaning movie did. It’s also, as you’ll no doubt read elsewhere, substantially smaller than the $23.9 mil that the left-leaning Fahrenheit 9/11 debuted with in 2004 — but I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison given how Michael Moore’s film was about a much more resonant topic, had broad mainstream buzz, and opened during the summer.”
“Nevertheless, Expelled performed much better than the weekend’s other new current-affairs documentary, Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden? That movie, the second feature from Super Size Me’s Morgan Spurlock, banked a mere $143,299 in 102 locations, for a terrible $1,405 average.”
Vic
since I mentioned the films 3.2 million dollar take,I should point out that it opened on only one thousand screens.
I believe this little story comes from a lecture Betrand Russell gave about astronomy. It’s a stab at the idea of biblical creation (first cause arguement). Here’s the story:
———-
A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.”
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?”
“You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”
Darron,
Of course I know we have much in common with other species on the planet and that as a species we have adapted to our environments.
As T Edward states, regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that would not shake my belief in God. I just tend to wonder (among other examples) why we don’t have some species of apes/monkeys that are building their own primitive societies… mud huts and such. Why there are not species of monkeys who’ve developed speech albeit using a different language. Why have some species that are always being used as comparitive to humans seemingly stopped evolving so far behind us?
Why are we the only species that appreciates beauty (not just from an evolution-based mating perspective, but works of art, sunsets, etc.)? Why are we the only ones who even care about this issue?
And finally why is there life at all? Why do we not just have a universe devoid of life? Why is there something instead of nothing?
Oh, and regarding the argument that nothing that cannot be tested can exist, did black holes and other astronomical entities only pop into existence once we discovered a way to test/analyze them? I could use other examples, but you get my point.
Vic
Hey John did you see the Original HGTTG? Its real good
790
I only saw the movie that came out a couple of years ago. I just loved that little robot.
Scientific theory?? At what point will the walking fish get displayed at the museum?
One should visit the “Bodies” display making it’s way around the world. Look at the complexities of the human body, vascular, circulatory, waste. Think thru the actual process. To arrive at a conclusion that humans are a product of millineal development verifies what Vic says: your mind is made up and it won’t be changed.
So what about that scientific evidence? Are we scheduling a reality show with Geraldo and we’ll uncover and expose it along with Capones treasure?
The river card is up….play the hand.
I remember the X-Files did an episode on a guy with a tail.
^
Yeah if you get a chance John check out the original BBC “Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe”. Its like 3.5 hours long and includes a lot that the film left out.(And Marvin is much funnier).
Darron, kinda funny at the end of Hitchhikers Guide, Douglas Adams (writer) gives us his version of how life began on Earth.
It began long ago when the Earth had become habitable.
2 spacecraft came from a destroyed world looking for a new home. One of the spaceships carried the smart, rich, upperclass of this society. The other ship carried the less-intelligent, lower class etc.
Well the upper class ship told the lower class ship that they were going to go scout ahead and that they would be back later to pick them up.
The lower class ship eventually started to fall into dis-repair and the occupants were forced to land on Earth. Funny thing the other ship never came back.
Great movie. Btw
EVIDENCE for Intelligent Design!
The largest reason I don’t see Evolution as a plausable theory is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics aka Law of Entropy. This Law has been considered by such men as Albert Einstein to be the most enduring and solid of the Physical Laws.
The Law of Entropy renders totally unworkable the possibility of a Big Bang, stellar or planetary evolution, or the chance origin and evolution of life forms. In other words, it is physically Impossible for a chaotic scene(Big Bang) to evolve into the extremely organized and orderly structures we know today. For Example: When you leave a car in the desert, it will erode over time. It will not however, evolve into a tank.
No one can go against a Physical Law. Laws can neither be ignored, that would be straight up Scientific ignorance. With the lack of possiblity for evolution, the only possible conclusion I can arrive to is the possibility of Intelligent Design. I have accepted God as my saviour and that has in no way altered my ability to learn and contribute to society.
At what point will the walking fish get displayed at the museum?
I’m confused. You realize that there are many living species of amphibious “walking” fish that live most of their lives in the water, but can walk on land and spend sometimes spend DAYS at a time traversing land to get from one body of water to another. The mudskipper is the first that comes to mind as it is far and away the most wellknown walking fish. Here’s a link to an article for amphibious fish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_fish
Cheers!
Good post Eduard, but entropy is a general slide from order to chaos. Things like gravity and life can work against entropy by pulling things together, building things up and such. If you want to read a REALLY great short story on the subject of how entropy plays out at universal scales, and that even touches on the biblical, I recommend spending 20 minutes reading this short story by Isaac Asimov:
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
It’s a GREAT story about entropy! Cheers!
One more thing. Can anyone tell me what Positive aspects the Theory of evolution has contributed to society? Every major scientist that I can think of from Newton to Einstien all believed in Intelligent Design. I can only think of negative things that Evolution promotes:
Communism
Nazism
Youthinization
Abortion
Columbin High School Shooting
I’ll stop right here for now.
Can anyone tell me what Positive aspects the Theory of evolution has contributed to society?
Off the top of my head, Evolutionary Virology is used yearly by the CDC to generate a flu shot that has saved MILLIONS of lives in this country alone. In summary, the influenza virus mutates rapidly, so every year scientists have to come up with a new flu shot that’s tailored to handle the current strain of the virus. That’s a direct application of Evolutionary Theory. Cheers!
While I believe wholeheartedly in the scriptures, I don’t think it should be used to try to prove a point to someone who doesn’t believe in God. It is the same as saying that giant talking rabbits exist because it was in Alice in Wonderland (I mean no offence, I am not comparing the bible to a book of fiction).
I took Astronomy at the University of Louisville some years ago. One of the strongest memories I have is when the professor was explaining what was going on before the Big Bang. According to him, the farthest we can surmise is an electron and positron in the eternal void that one day clashed and started the Big Bang. What created the electron and positron, according to him, is anyone’s guess.
I see no problem with evolution being true. Why do we have fingernails (claws?)? Why do we have hair on our fingers and face (fur?)? When there is a supernova that seeds a nebula which then becomes another star system, is it nature (physical laws) or is it that God made the universe to create these things itself (the physical laws)? Of course, being God, He can manipulate anything He wants; take, for example, miracles. Are miracles actually miracles because it is something outside of nature or are they miracles because it was something that happened just at the right time? The parting of the Red (Rede) Sea was a miracle because it happened just when the Israelites needed it but the actual parting was just a wind blowing to uncover the sea bed (a natural event). When Moses saw the burning bush, was this something that could never happen naturally? No. Today, in the middle east, there are bushes with natural oils that ignite under the heat but do not burn.
My whole point is that all this talk about micro vs. macro evolution, humans having tails, abiogenesis (had to look that one up), isn’t it possible that God could have designed it that way?
Eduard,
While I happen to agree with you, please watch the tone. I realize you’re passionate about this but I want this thread to stay civil.
Best,
Vic
don’t be confused. Look outside the literal. One other writer makes claim to the fossil record having missing pieces and explains that away by years between earthly events.
If that is even plausible, there MUST be a point one can use as the beginning of the human race as we know it. Not as we want it, as we know it. And it doesn’t seem to exist. the evolution theory has a start, goes along for a period of time (you pick it…..millions, billions, whatever) then abrubtly stops. where does it pick up again??
In response to 790’s post “EVIDENCE for intelligent design” in which the writer states:
“The largest reason I don’t see Evolution as a plausable theory is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics aka Law of Entropy. This Law has been considered by such men as Albert Einstein to be the most enduring and solid of the Physical Laws. The Law of Entropy renders totally unworkable the possibility of a Big Bang, stellar or planetary evolution, or the chance origin and evolution of life forms. In other words, it is physically Impossible for a chaotic scene(Big Bang) to evolve into the extremely organized and orderly structures we know today. For Example: When you leave a car in the desert, it will erode over time. It will not however, evolve into a tank.
Again, we see the huge factual errors that ID pushers use to “prove” their theory. It is true that the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system (a system with no energy inputs), matter will erode into simpler structures.
The problem with applying this law to evolution is that the earth is NOT a closed system. We constantly receive massive energy inputs from the sun. So the Law of Entropy doesn’t really apply here.
“No one can go against a Physical Law. Laws can neither be ignored, that would be straight up Scientific ignorance. With the lack of possiblity for evolution, the only possible conclusion I can arrive to is the possibility of Intelligent Design. I have accepted God as my saviour and that has in no way altered my ability to learn and contribute to society.”
Again, the problem here is that you are equating accepting evolution with disbelief. I’m an atheist myself, but I am not among those atheists who thing that science, and especially evolution, are inconsistent with a belief in a god.
By the way, I don’t doubt that belief in god “has in no way altered” your ability to be a useful member of society. The problem that atheists, as the most discriminated-against group in America, face is the popular idea that you can’t be a productive member of society without believing in god.
I am a productive member of society. I work for a non-profit that works to protect the public from toxic chemicals and other public health issues. This is altruistic behavior. (At least, I like to think so.) And I do it without a belief in god.
I love how scientists came up for a reason we exist and the best the could do was call it the Big Bang Theory.
Oh how the aliens must laugh at us.
I love how scientists came up for a reason we exist and the best the could do was call it the Big Bang Theory.
The true irony with the name “big bang theory” is the man who coined the term was actually trying to make fun of it. He said something like, “I do not accept in any way this silly.. big bang theory”. The proponents of the theory liked it so much they used it for their model and gave us the name we have for it today! Funny stuff! Here’s a quote about it:
“In the 1940s Russian-American physicist George Gamow worked out a theory that fit with Friedmann’s solutions in which the universe expanded from a hot, dense state. In 1950 British astronomer Fred Hoyle, in support of his own opposing steady-state theory, referred to Gamow’s theory as a mere “big bang,” but the name stuck. Indeed, a contest in the 1990s by Sky & Telescope magazine to find a better (perhaps more dignified) name did not produce one.”
Sorry Blair A you have me confused with another writer.
I could never come up with that theory on a Monday morn.
If that is even plausible, there MUST be a point one can use as the beginning of the human race as we know it.
Check out the chart at the bottom of this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
It shows you when each homonid species lived. You read it from the bottom up. So, at the top we have homo sapiens and chimps. At the bottom are all the homonids who have come before us and died off. You’ll note familiar names like homo erectus and neanderthals! So, that’s about as close as you’re going to get current for a view into when our species began! It’s not 100% precise, but we’re finding more and more evidence all the time. Cheers!
I consider myself a reasonable man (my wife would beg to differ LOL) and would have to concede that in absense of physical evidence, it is possible that the universe was created on it’s own. But can any atheist say that in absense of physical evidence disproving ID, that it is possible that the universe was created by a vast intelligence?
If that’s the case Darron, it shows how little we’ve come in terms of finding out the truth.
Were still using models that were concieved many years ago.
I personally think modern science is way off on a lot of things concerning mankind.
Darron,
Enjoyed the B Russell story, though it’s not really a stab at biblical creation––I’ve read it a few times and there are no mentions of anything on the backs of turtles. It does sound like some old cultural fable: more a story for children than an actual attempt at explaining realitites, kind of like the stork bringing babies.
Actually, that illustrates to me beautifully the idea of the need for an Uncaused Cause or First Cause as it is known in philosophy (something Russell did not buy into). There are only two possibilities there whether we’re talking about turtles or genes and chromosomes. Either there is an infinite number of turtles (an infinite number of finite causal ‘effects’-or infinite regress of finite effects) which Russell and his hero J.S. Mill would have said is logically highly improbable if not impossible, or there is a First Cause (an Uncaused Cause) which ‘created’ all other things because it (or He/Himself) itself is self-existent. In biblical language, this is the concept in the book of Reveation of God referring to himself as “Alpha and Omega”, beginning and end.
Wow, that was a mouthful.
This is why for Christians like me, ID doesn’t go far enough, though we have much common ground.
Eduard,
While I happen to agree with you, please watch the tone. I realize you’re passionate about this but I want this thread to stay civil.
Best,
Vic
Posted by: Screen Rant at April 21, 2008 11:12 AM
Sorry, I did sound a bit harsh in my question. I’ll tone it down.
Reply to Darron S’s comment:
Off the top of my head, Evolutionary Virology is used yearly by the CDC to generate a flu shot that has saved MILLIONS of lives in this country alone. In summary, the influenza virus mutates rapidly, so every year scientists have to come up with a new flu shot that’s tailored to handle the current strain of the virus. That’s a direct application of Evolutionary Theory. Cheers!
Posted by: Darron S at April 21, 2008 11:10 AM
Correct me if I’m wrong but I always thought this was the opposite of evolution. When our immune system detects a threat(virus) it generates immunity by attacking that virus’s Protein signature. In order for the virus to Adapt to this immunity, it throws of proteins; creating a new signature that our immune system can’t recognize. I see this loss of proteins as simply a form of adaptation because no New proteins have been added, but rather lost.
To conclude, I disagree with your take on Evolutionary Virology. I see it as another meer case of MicroEvolution.
Were still using models that were concieved many years ago.
Standing the test of time actually means a scientific theory is GOOD! And don’t be fooled though, big bang theory has been updated a LOT in the last 50 years! Just a few months ago nasa released physical data from the WMAP survey precisely dating the universe based on the after-glow from the big bang! You can actually SEE the glow on your TV if you turn to a channel with no signal. Some of that static you see on your tv is actually radiation from the fireball of the big bang, spreading throughout space in all directions for billions of years, permeating everything in the universe! Based on the latest data the big bang happened 13,730,000,000 years ago! Cheers!
“I consider myself a reasonable man (my wife would beg to differ LOL) and would have to concede that in absense of physical evidence, it is possible that the universe was created on it’s own.”
Maybe there is no physical evidence, but there is certainly reasonable, i.e., logical evidence that exists against a self-created universe:
For something, anything to ‘create itself’, it would have to exist and NOT exist at the same time; which sound nonsensical because it is. It violates the law of non-contradiction: something cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. (Ex-A man CAN be a son and a father at the same time, but not to the same other person. He is a son to one and a father to another.)
Vic , has this topic set the record for most comments on your site for a single topic?