Friday, April 18, 2008
Movie review: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Ben Stein makes for an unlikely messiah figure. (Go figure.)
Email
|
Print
|
Tell us your story
|
Comments (147)
|
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed," starring Ben Stein, follows his journey around the globe where he discovers that scientists, educators and philosophers are being persecuted in a modern day witch hunt because they dare to go against the theory of evolution. These pillars of education are being fired, ridiculed and ostracized for merely challenging Darwin's theory; proposing that life on this planet could be a part of some intelligent design and not random chance. This thought-provoking documentary not only forces us to question what we have been taught but challenges us to ask, "What else is being kept from us?"
Source: Cinema Source
How does one go about commenting objectively on a film like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? It's a pretty dang polarizing piece, thematically. If you come down on one side of the fence (or, to use the metaphor employed in the film, the wall) it's easy to find yourself making fun of its bald-faced myopia; while if you hang out across the conceptual boundary, you'll find yourselves giving the slickly-produced 90-minute polemic a "standing o" while star Ben Stein receives likewise accolades from an audience full of eager young students who've been listening to him describe why the scientific establishment is out to put the nails in God's coffin.
Like other documentaries which embrace one side of an argument without any pretense at objectivity, Expelled bites down hard on its thesis - which states that proponents of Darwinian evolution are mindless, elitist drones unwilling to own up to the folly of their flawed beliefs - and refuses to let it go. There's nothing unusual about a filmmaker choosing to present only the evidence that supports his chosen approach to a topic - it's what we'd all do if we were making a movie about something we felt strongly enough about to... well... make a movie.
At its world premiere (at Dallas' Angelika Film Center on Wednesday, April 16), producer Logan Craft introduced the film by telling the (invitation only) audience that "the film became something of a lightning rod," referring to the fact that it commenced being attacked by detractors before the film even opened. Star and co-scripter Ben Stein, standing in front of the theater audience in his signature tennis shoes, admitted: "I thought it was something that was only gonna be shown in church basements." Thanks to distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures, however, the film opens nationwide on Friday, April 18, on over a thousand screens.
Expelled trailer
The film raises freedom of speech issues in addition to scientific and spiritual ones, and goes so far as to argue that Darwinism contributed in no small part to the Holocaust. (Ouch. Makes it tough to advocate for evolutionary science when you've established that Hitler was just attempting to benefit mankind by driving evolution forward.) Furthermore, evolutionary theory is painted as the ultimate God-killer: a slayer of spirituality leading directly to the devaluing of human life. (Enter the myopia which allows the filmmakers to overlook the fact that religion-based movements and conflicts have led to wholesale slaughter on a global scale since the dawn of humanity.)
These are the hot button topics which don't emerge until later in the film. What leads up to this heavier stuff is the premise that the scientific establishment is "run" by Darwinian evolutionists who have some sort of sinister stake in beating back the tide of alternative explanations for biological history, such as intelligent design. The film makes considerable hay over the Smithsonian's firing of Richard Sternberg, who allowed an article (by Stephen C. Meyer) to be published in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, of which he was the editor at the time. Other embattled ID proponents are profiled, including a tenured professor at Baylor University who had a research project pulled out from under him by the academic leadership. It would have been interesting to hear what his research dealt with, but that detail was deemed less relevant than the fact that he had been censured for pursuing it.
Dallas Philosopher's Forum Panel Discussion on 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'
- When: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 7:15 p.m.
- Where: Angelika Film Center & Cafe (Dallas), 5321 East Mockingbird Lane, Dallas
- Cost: Free - $5
- Age limit: All ages
The filmmakers deserve credit for their clever use of classic film clips and vintage newsreels as counterpoints to the numerous interviews and expositions - which might have proven tedious if strung together in uninterrupted sequence. And I've got to admit, Ben Stein has an knack for putting academics off their guard and on the defensive: his tete-a-tete with the flat-footed Richard Dawkins is worth the price of admission on its own. But can that really make up for the fact that the entire premise of the piece is built upon a basic misunderstanding (whether intentional or inadvertent) of the empirical nature of science?
I'm afraid this movie isn't going to hoist any craven evolutionists over the wall and onto the side of the enlightened, but it's sure to play like the sweetest of siren songs to those already tramping that ground.
MOST POTENT IMAGE: Ben Stein attempting to stare down the life-size marble statue of Charles Darwin at Down House. (Ben, baby, the stone guy's always gonna win that contest.)
NOT THIS MEDIA, PAL: "The tendency of the media is to side with the establishment."
Related stories
- Expelled forum provides intellectual discourse on controversial film (April 30, 2008)
- Pegasus News Week-in-View: Spring Cleaning Edition (April 24, 2008)
Comments
chrisdanger Anonymous
As much as I like Ben Stein and his style of dry wit, I'll probably be staying away from this piece of right leaning propaganda.
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
gibbkathy Anonymous
Darwinism and it's " little sister", Eugenics, were some of the factors directly responsible for the Holocaust. Hitler was trying to build a pure, master race and relied heavily on the advice of his peers in the Eugenics movement, especially Margaret Sanger ..do some history research,you might be surprised to find many of the great men of that time embraced Darwinism because it went hand in hand with Eugenics..Men like Henry Ford, William Kellogg. HG Wells, Carnegie, Rockefeller.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_h...
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Andrew Laska Verified
The Dallas Philosopher's Forum is having a panel discussion on this film. I'm sure the eugenics and Hitler claim will come up.
Lookie here -> Dallas Philosophers Forum panel discussion
Can one invoke Godwin's Law at this point?
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Mike Orren Staff
Thanks for posting, Andrew. I was just going to note that we're a media sponsor of the Dallas Philosopher's Forum's upcoming screening and panel discussion. I've added the info to the story.
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
DC Anonymous
World premier here? I guess they did some market analysis Gooooooooo forward DAAALLLLAAAASSS!
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
xdavidwattsx Anonymous
Good review. I was planning on avoiding this film to begin with and this confirms my initial intention.
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Billusa99 Anonymous
Agent 99 was at the opening party at Palomar this past Wednesday evening. Since Stein was there, and she chatted with him, I asked her later if she had asked him this: how is it a Jewish person is making a movie about intelligent design, the poster boy talking points of the evangelical Christian set? Alas, she had not....
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
EdWeirdness Anonymous
I thought it more a swipe at the pompous arrogance and elitism of university "know-it-alls". Are you sure you saw the same movie?
I liked the premise that "As long as the questions go unanswered, somebody will continue asking".
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
jasonleonwright Anonymous
I love a good polemic, and this seems like a great one. What a great point, that Darwinism, aka Social Darwinism, spawned Eugenics, which were some of the ideas behind the Holocaust. I’m glad that religious ideas have never been convoluted into anything evil. It’s also exciting to hear that it’s only difficult if you’re a teacher trying to teach I.D. Glad to know that teachers and education agencies in Texas and Kansas have no problems teaching evolution. It’s all eye-opening. Gotta see this movie and quick.
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Pavel Lishin Verified
gibbkathy: I suppose we should abandon biology because terrorists can use it to attack us with anthrax. Or maybe we should stop teaching physics because a few nukes were tossed about carelessly during a world war? You know what, sometimes doctors who study medicine perform abortions. Down with med schools!
I'll get my pitchfork; meet me outside the nearest college campus with a torch.
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
What movie did you watch?
Quote: "Like other documentaries which embrace one side of an argument without any pretense at objectivity, Expelled bites down hard on its thesis - which states that proponents of Darwinian evolution are mindless, elitist drones unwilling to own up to the folly of their flawed beliefs - and refuses to let it go."
You call yourself a journalist? If anything, Expelled gave equal time to both sides of the argument and the truth of what is taking place in the academia world became abundantly clear? The Darwinists were free to make their own beds and so they did. Are you at all capable of doing your job without filtering everything you see or hear through YOUR WORLD VIEWS AND BIASES? Apparently not... which is why Ben's next movie needs to be about the suppression, deception and left wing, liberal propaganda agenda spewed from modern day American journalism. Funny how the media's reporting is nothing like anything the movie goers are saying. Your reporting reflects nothing of the majorities views, not to mention the rousing applause and standing ovations the movie received in theaters all across the country last night. You might want to consider a new career because frankly... you really SUCK at this one.
5 months, 4 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Erin Rice Staff
Yeah, John. I can't believe you let people pay you to watch sneak previews of movies and write a synopsis and your opinion about them. For shame!
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
Exit polls indicate a 96% approval rating for EXPELLED... Much disconnect from this journalists review, or what?
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
xdavidwattsx Anonymous
Uh, it has a 9 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes which is about the worst rating I've ever seen on that site. Sounds like there isn't much disconnect.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expel...
PS. Rotten Tomatoes > Exit Polls
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
uh... Da... Rotten Tomatoes is far from an exit poll. They're all media reviews as well moron! The media are 92% liberal and that is an actual statistic based on their own polls. There's barely a paper in the country giving Expelled a good review and yet 96% of the actual movie goers who were polled across the country exiting the theaters on opening night, loved the movie. Only way you can't see the disconnect is if your smoking one of those rotten tomatoes...
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Mike Orren Staff
Wow javascript. You seem to have access to lots of statistics. Can you cite your sources?
Also, did you happen to notice that we're cosponsoring a showing of and discussion on the film? Hardly the action of a hostile liberal medium.
My guess is you'd not visited us before a google search on the film brought you here, so you're unaware of our staunch position as equal opportunity offenders.
If you're local, you should come to the screening. I think you'll be surprised to find people of many povs.
But if you bring a bunch of stats to tell us who we are, do us the favor of sourcing them.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
How about we not take this spin-detour your throwing at me and instead you answer my original questions to you... tell me why your review and the reviews of your media cohorts on "Rotten Tomatoes" fail to even remotely represent the huge success the movie has been in the theaters so far. The audiences are applauding and giving standing ovations in even the most liberal cities in the country. The viewers are going home and jumping on blogs to talk and rave about it... Why doesn't your review represent that?
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
John Meyer Staff
I call 'em like I see 'em. End of explanation.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Teresa Gubbins Staff
Regarding the statement that the media is liberal: In 2000, 179 major media outlets (daily newspapers, mostly) endorsed George Bush, versus 120 for Gore -- or, 60% for Bush vs. 40% for Gore.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Alex Bentley Staff
Not to pile on with staff comments, but honestly javascript, please tell us where you're getting your information. So far, you've told us that Expelled is getting a 96% approval rating and "The viewers are going home and jumping on blogs to talk and rave about it" -- can you point us to an example of either one of those claims?
People are more apt to buy into your arguments when you back them up with actual evidence rather than just conjecture. They'd also be more open if you stopped saying things like "you really SUCK at this one" and "They're all media reviews as well moron!" Arguments don't become better when you start insulting the people you're trying to convince.
Of course, ironically, since you're a proponent of the film, you may not be much of a believer in even pseudo-scientific studies like Rotten Tomatoes -- it's easier to just say 96% than to cite a study where that statistic came from. By the way, you're correct about Rotten Tomatoes in a way: the user reviews give the film a 54% rating -- higher than the 9% cited by xdavidwattsx, but still nowhere near the 96% you cite.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
You know what Alex... You're right. I have apparently read far too many reviews from the media trashing what I believe to be an incredibly important film that sheds light on a very, very real issue and I have all but lost my cool completely. In John's review above, he has taken every single point the movie worked hard to make and twisted it to belittle the importance of what the film makers are trying desperately to report... I have read about and known about these issues for years. I was elated to learn of this movie and have been following the process closely over the past year and the media has NEVER even given it a remote chance at being heard unbiasedly.
As for the figures on the exit polls and where they came from, you wouldn't believe me if I told you any more then you believe the scientists in the movie who tried to tell you something very important. As for the blogs... you're all savy web people... Get outside the media mags and leftists groups and hear what real America is saying about the film. Make it easy on your self and start with the Expelled blog its self... Or go to a showing and watch and listen to the audience with an open mind. I'm on email blogs with with a couple dozen friends who've seen the movie in different theaters all up and down the West coast and we've all experienced the same thing... Roaring laughter, rousing applause and standing ovations. I honestly don't recall a movie I've been to where the audience applauded at the end. I would greatly admire a journalist brave enough to report what is really happening in the theaters playing Expelled. Of course... beware of the backlash you surely will receive from your own peers if you do.
My apologies to you all for the moron and suck comments. Thanks to Alex I'll do my best to bite my tongue in the future.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
wlennon Anonymous
Back when I took Journalism, we were still taught the Five Laws of Journalism, Who, What, When, Why, and How. To get an article published, a reporter must have no less than two dependable and provable. resources. For years now, the polls such as Pew, Zogby, Harris, NY Times/ABC, and so on, all have concluded most all newspapers, and the main stream TV news shows from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN, combined 96 to 97% all claimed to have voted for a Democrat.
When you add Fox News into the mix, the media claims they are biased toward Republicans, when in reality, it is the only news forum (on Television) which invites both sides to every debate and/or story.
The N.Y. Times for the past eight years have lost 55% of their circulation, the Chicago Sun is nearing bankruptcy...
CBS and (CNN/HNN) are doing so badly, they are looking to merge resources, MSNBC is in jeopardy of being pulled from Cable/Satellite, ABC, CBS, and NBC have all lost severely in ratings. What is really sad is, most main stream media is now getting much of their news from the Daily KOS, MediaMatters, and The Huffington Post from the Internet, all of which are vile and hate filled sites.
The Democrats in D.C. are still trying to push what they call 'The Fairness Doctrine', this would cut off Free Speech of more than 75% of talk radio. There are only three groups which can be legally biased, White People, Christians, and Smokers (not so bad on that one).
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
xdavidwattsx Anonymous
"I'm on email blogs with with a couple dozen friends who've seen the movie in different theaters all up and down the West coast and we've all experienced the same thing... Roaring laughter, rousing applause and standing ovations. I honestly don't recall a movie I've been to where the audience applauded at the end."
Well, if your email blogs say it's good then it MUST be good. Sounds like the same "science" being sold in the film.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Mike Orren Staff
Google blog search on the movie:
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsear...
Neither universal praise nor condemnation.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
xdavidwattsx writes: "Well, if your email blogs say it's good then it MUST be good. Sounds like the same "science" being sold in the film."
Yea, that's right... must have been a fluke in the dozens of theaters on the coast. All the other theaters in the country had no applause, no laughter and no standing ovations I'm sure. It just so happens the ONLY theaters that happened in were the ones I heard about. Sounds like the same unlikely odds Darwinian Evolutionist sell their theories on...
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
I took your advice Mike... I did the google you suggested and found this review... I'd like to submit this to your readers as a fair and balanced rebuttal to John's perspective on the film.
http://twilightslastgleaming.com/word...
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Mike Orren Staff
For those interested in a (hopefully more substantive) discussion of the film and the issues it raised, we're giving away tickets to the panel discussion event:
http://www.pegasusnews.com/blogs/pega...
javascript, while I have no problem with your ideology, your method of argument, although finally less combative, does nothing to bolster your credibility or that of the film. The link you cite here isn't even in the first 100 results on the search I linked, and when the tag at he top is "Liberal Hypocrisy," even if I agree, I'm not going to call it fair and balanced.
John gave his honest review of the film, one that was frankly much kinder than most I've seen. But, because unlike most of the craven media, we provide a forum for discussion and rebuttal -- which you've been walking on the line of abusing since your first post.
We're a local news and info site (and in our definition, that always includes opinion rather than disingenuous objectivity) -- and while this film was local news because of its premiere, failing a miracle, we're not going to solve the evolution vs. intelligent design debate here.
So this may soon be one for the equine graveyard. This is certainly the last notice I'll take of this discussion until it becomes more substantive.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Andrew Laska Verified
Javascript,
Almost nothing can be more balanced than a free and open discussion where various sides are represented.
...and that is why the Forum is having a panel discussion on Expelled. Discussing these things in a living and face to face way is a valuable thing for a community to have.
That is precisely why the Dallas Philosopher's Forum does what it does. There is a lot more here than simply issues with fair reviews. There are issues about the nature of science, and the boundaries of science and religion, and on and on. There is, of course, a whole host of other issues that I can't dream up and since there will be a Q&A you can bring them up.
The three panelists are professionals in their chosen field: an ID proponent, a practicing biologist, and a film professor/theorist.
Pegasus is even giving away free tickets! Lookie Here!! What more could one ask!
I have to admit I am biased. I am the moderator for the event so I am biased toward getting you to show up and participate. :)
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
Andrew, I appreciate the invitation but am not qualified to debate the subject matter specifically. My field of study does not prepare me to do so but those that are involved in I.D. are willing and have been trying to be heard for years... This much I am aware of and this is the argument I have with the way the media, including John, have so casually and carelessly, reviewed this crucially important film in a way that jeopardizes any truly fair debate. As you were, I think suggesting your self... the issues are MUCH bigger than reviews. What's at stake is monumentally important. There are truly and honestly excellent points raised in Expelled that reviews such as John's don't even mention. All I hear is a mind already made up and a review intended to persuade, influence and impress. No matter what side of the argument, "wall" you may be on... to walk away from that film without hearing at least one worthing thing to write about, you clearly have to have a personal agenda and closed mind. THAT is what angers me... That is what I see as poor journalism. This IS too important of a matter to be treated with flippant disregard. You really want your debate to have meaning... Take another look at the movie and re-write your review with an unbiased opinion for either side. Set the stage for a truly meaningful open forum that might actually ignite further discussion and produce something genuinely beneficial for the world. There's a challenge for you. Regards.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
John Meyer Staff
Java - if there are excellent points raised in the film that I failed to mention, here's your chance to go ahead and mention them - rather than continuing to tell us how crucially important the film is.
And if I'm as lousy a writer and as poor a journalist as you say, why waste your breath on the drivel I've scribbled? Clearly there must be more gifted targets amongst the cabal of liberal media at whom you can direct your enthusiasm
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
DC Anonymous
Well, MOARenn, since the subject material is basically stupid, I don't think you'll see any reasonable discourse.
Instead, I suggest a debate regarding the merits, if any, of this film:
http://www.mst3ktemple.com/images/man...
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
Ok John... What did you think about the suggestion made by many and in many different ways, that it's possible that world views are directing science rather than science directing world views? That question comes up a number of times in the film. I could never quote the movie accurately enough so I won't try yet for fear of my own inadequacies. But I'll promise you that I'll go back to see the film again and make some notes and get back to you.
On another subject, what did you think about Steve Myers who talked about the fact that there are two possibilities for explaining the origin of life... One being unguided and organic evolution, the other being design. All admit no one knows the truth but currently science will only allow discussion about the unguided organic possibilities. The skies the limit for discussion on that side of the argument. Even mutating crystals or highly evolved aliens are acceptable. But the wall expels the only other option completely without a shred of credible evidence for ruling it out? You have to ask your self, why? Why would any scientist want to do that? When did science become so narrow minded as to rule out the only other probability to a problem they still haven't solved? That's not science. That sounds more like a religion... a faith based belief one is unwilling to budge from.
There was the point in the film made that I.D. is simply creationism in costume but one professor defined I.D. as a "minimum commitment to the probability of detecting design in nature." That is the best attempt I can make of that quote... I'll double check that when I go again.
The media is reporting that the stories in the film about the "punished" scientists are all fabricated and yet in the movie we see one university admit they fired a professor because of his affiliation to I.D. studies, two were caught in lies via emails or letters and the other universities refused to comment.
Then there's the whole issue in the media about the movie claiming that Darwinism lead to the holocaust. The producers and Ben have been lambasted for that and yet in the movie, while they clearly show the obvious connections they also on more than one occasion clarify that they do not for a minute believe Darwinism is responsible for the atrocities but rather that Darwinism was one of the key components necessary to arrive at what history remembers as Nazi Germany. Ben clarified that alone in that tomb and Berlinsky clarifies it again in his office lounge chair. We never hear that part of the story in the media though.
I could go on but I'm taking up too much room in your blog. The point I'm trying to make is that your review could have been really awesome and unique and stand alone had you reported the very uniqueness of this film. But instead you sound like all the rest. Conforming and fitting in never gets you anywhere in a life. Dare to take an opposing side for a change. All your media cohorts are trashing the movie. That's an easy act to follow.
You ask your self why I choose to focus so much attention on your review with all the other media writers doing exactly what you're doing? Well... Because I met you once at a press conference John. Or I guess I should say I saw you and sat near you more like. We exchanged glances. You looked like a decent guy, laid back, non-conformist type... I'm disappointed you're taking the easy way out on this one. I really challenge you to go see the film again. Take another look at it. I'd be willing to bet second time around you'll hear some things you didn't hear the first time. The movie has a legitimate message. It needs at good and brave writer to promote it. Think about it. Ciao.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
P.S. I want to directly apologize for saying you suck as a writer... Because you clearly are talented with words. But that's all the more reason I'm disappointed in how you're using that gift.
Regards.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
David Gouldin Staff
A couple of tangentially related things I found interesting:
Apparently Dawkins and others felt they were tricked into appearing in the film.
The Creation Science Evangelism Ministries has been sending allegedly false DMCA takedown requests to YouTube.
Granted both sides have much to gain from coloring the truth, so it should all be taken with a liberal (or perhaps conservative) grain of salt.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
John Meyer Staff
Java - thanks for your elaboration. I think you've stated the case better than I ever could, even if I sat through the film again and took a second set of notes.
And even if I did, my take on it would be the same: it pins its underlying premise on a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.
I encourage you to consider me a lost cause... and move on.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Scott Doyle Verified
IJS, it's a movie about peeps being persecuted for their beliefs. Here we are - 36 comments in - over same.
I call 'em like I see 'em. - JM
That's all we can ask of you, sir.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
John says, "it pins its underlying premise on a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science."
Move on, end of subject eh? Ok John. Although what you just said is actually the fallacy Darwinian elite science have been hiding behind for years and is a completely inaccurate, misguided, smoke screen intended to manipulate science towards a particular world view... there is no misunderstanding of the nature of science at all... Elegant smoke John, Elegant smoke.
Your column. I'll move on.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Andrew Laska Verified
java,
For a guy who claims to not be able to "debate" you are doing a lot of debating.
That is precisely why you (or anyone who thinks they have stake in the general subject) ought to come out to the panel discussion.
Its not going to be a raucous free for all. It certainly won't be some "liberal" or "right wing" show. The phrase I like to use is "rabidly neutral." If you want a fair discussion for the local crowd this is as fair as we can make it.
I could quote you about 10 times or so where you make assertions that could be challenged or could stand up to scrutiny. Doesn't it make sense to want to see what experts think face to face and a calm and moderated environment?
I am not taking John Meyer's side or anyone's side. However, it seems to me that you could point some of your skepticism at your own claims.
To quote you only once, "I'm disappointed you're taking the easy way out on this one."
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
tipdawg20 Anonymous
Personally I feel that the movie was generated to cause people to really think about what they believe. A group that mindlessly follows one side or another will end up as Germany did under Hitler. Well written column.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Briaan Anonymous
Briann
I have found it interesting to read many comments abou the film. Most seem to miss the main point. Ben Stein is not making a case for evolution, or for creationism. His concern is this: Why can't another opinion be put forward by other scientists. In this case it happens to be Intelligent Design. It is the fact that when this very idea is put forward by scientists who have, are shunned by the established critics. All Mr. Stein wants to know is why is their view so treated? There are a host of hard questions for each side.
I found this from another blog quoting Charles Darwin, I had find it myself.
Chapter 15 Recapitulation And Conclusion,
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creatorinto a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according tothe fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are beig evolved." (No. 49 of Britannica Great Books, Origin of Spicies by Charles Darwin p243)
It seems the question that Mr. Stein asked is lost in the issue of evolution vs. creationism which is not the question he chose to raise.
Again why were these scientists not allowed to question what Darwin proposed? Or maybe what other scientists propose?
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
Andrew, I live in Seattle which is one obstacle for me and I run a business that won't allow me to get away too often. The second reason I wouldn't bother with a debate like that is because it will eventually turn to hard core scientific discussion that I am not qualified to discuss in enough detail. I have only enough understanding to hear both arguments and like a juror in a courtroom, I see enough evidence to vote guilty for the accused who from my perspective have highjacked science, not for science sake but for a world view. I can only hope someone will be there to stand up for that viewpoint. I started off nasty in this column because in just about every other blog I've read those opposing the movie are extremely nasty in the manner in which they criticize alternate views. I've developed an extremely defensive posture because I grew tired of being labeled an ignorant, narrow minded creationist. It took me a while and Alex's "spanking," to realize you folks in here are at least civil. I do applaud most of you for that. That's also why I've hung around longer than I probably should have. Cheers.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Andrew Laska Verified
java,
Its not a debate. Its a panel discussion. Undoubtedly things will be debated but it will not, by any measure, be set up as a debate.
You stated ,"I can only hope someone will be there to stand up for that viewpoint." As the moderator, I'll see what I can do. ;)
Andrew
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
xdavidwattsx Anonymous
Just for kicks:
"Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary which makes an argument for intelligent design over the theory of evolution, debuted at just number eight among the top ten grossing movies last week.
The film made $1.2 million on Friday in 1,052 theaters. By comparison, Michael Moore's 'Sicko' raked in $4.4 million its opening weekend from just 441 theaters, and Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9 million from only 868 slots."
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ben_Ste...
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Thinker2 Anonymous
My industry source for movie data, tells me that "Sicko" opened in 1 theatre for a total gross of $69k. Its big release was the next weekend, with 441 screens and a gross of $4.5 million after the publicity machine really got going.
It will be interesting to see where Expelled goes. It beat two other new releases so far in its gross for releases the first two weekends in April. April is notoriously bad in the movie biz, so it didn't have much competition but it did really good for an independent documentary type movie.
I will find it very interesting to track it's progress and to see how wide the initial distribution of 1064 prints becomes. Chronicles and Indiana Jones will hit soon and small theatre circuits (under 25 screens) won't want or get prints until mid June at the earliest because of print availability and restrictions. If the interest is still there from the consumers amongst the summer movies, the prints will circulate.
If the prints get over 2,000 or they start to move sooner, and it hits the smaller circuits, just like Juno, Bucket list, and Gibson's Passion, the numbers will move up. The production company won't spend $1000-$1500 for each print unless they know they will make it back. They may just wait to see how long the prints are kept before they start to produce more. If theatres are hanging onto them, they are making money.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
DC Anonymous
Since this still seems hard to understand, let's break this down a little bit.
Scenario 1: you work for a 'science place' or a 'science publication.' You decide to start spending your budget working on goblins and publishing papers about the booger man. Poor choice, look for another job.
Scenario 2: you work for 'churchy-church 1' or a 'gays are stupid' publication. Start doing work on embryonic stem cells and publish positive editorials in the church bulletin on abortion rights and acceptance of homosexuals as contributing members of society and guess what? Same situation as scenario 1.
There's no more good reason to have people with PhDs in cell biology doing research on hobgoblins than there is to have priests doing cell cultures and running clinical trials.
Now, then, back to Manos: The Hands of Fate, a much better premise for a movie. http://www.cadeland.com/miscpics/mano...
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Scott Doyle Verified
Gotta back DC on this one. Sounds like a lotta angst from peeps who could be much more useful working on things that actually matter.
I'll still go to the panel discussion if my stars align as such (omg if they don't I'll blame ID). Can't wait for Q&A if I do. =)
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Billusa99 Anonymous
Agent 99 is going to get a complete scream out of this javascript stuff.
I would note that Motive Entertainment, the marketing company that marketed 'The Passion of the Christ' and 'The Chronicles of Narnia' was hired to "spread the gospel" according to Stein, I.D., et al (ref: Variety). It was promoted heavily in conservative and Christian circles throughout the U.S.
Therefore, based on the constant industry osmosis I am subjected to from 99's cone of silence (Not!), I predict this film will be relegated to the same trash heap of history that contains Thomas Dolby's first attempt at new wave pop. That song was called "She Blinded Me Without Science."
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
DC Anonymous
Don't bother. Go for that workout you've been talking about instead. Eat some vegetable fed chicken. Call your family. Do anything productive, but don't go to that thing.
Otherwise you'll get to hear Frank Sherwin try to use biblical verse as evidence for something that cannot be tested with the scientific method.
Like most anything around here, if you want to find the answer, follow the money. These intellegent designers are all in a knot not because they're so worried about academic freedom, but because they feel cut out of federal research dollars.
They're feeling slighted because you cannot get a research grant of real merit to study something that cannot be investigated by the scientific method. That ICR group claims to be doing all kinds of genomic testing and blah blah blah without any real deliverable.
Their site is crammed with real "send money now" and implied "need significant financial resources" begging for money.
There's no way these jokers should be in any way compromising real scientific progress and funding. They've got their own donors and their own publications and they shouldn't expect their magical elves to get published in Nature or Cell any time soon.
Trust me, the last thing we need to do is to continue to validate this sort of thing with ongoing public acknowledgement and indirect funding.
Rather than spend money to see this movie or listen to these people wax not so poetic in some panel chat, donate that cash to your local animal shelter. Make the world better instead of feeding the trolls.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Scott Doyle Verified
Nice rant.
Believe me, I have no interest in the movie and I won't be going to the panel unless I'm picked for free tix. Hopefully Miko would have worked up a shirt before then so I can get a jab in during Q&A, incite a riot, spread the pegger word, and eventually stir up a nice pot of crazy here on the site for my own amusement.
If you thought I'd consider listening to ID fools read from their bibble, you're incredibly mistaken. Self > most.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
DC Anonymous
Since printing that shirt looks like a nightmare, maybe you should wear one of these instead:
http://www.hardkor-sports.com/Humor-I...
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Andrew Laska Verified
DC,
I'd like to comment on your string of uninformed diatribes.
Firstly, the Dallas Philosopher's Forum is a group that hosts philosophical lectures for a general audience for the Dallas area. It has been around for over 20 years and is, by and large, respected in secular as well as religious academia around here. In fact, when some universities get visiting professors, they have been advised by colleagues to seek us out to give a lecture. I take that as a great complement of our reputation.
We are -- as I like to say -- "rabidly neutral" on these matters. Most of our events are on typical philosophical subjects but we have occasional more "controversial" subjects such as this.
Our regular members and attendees are much more educated than the general populous with almost all having a degree and a great amount having more than one or graduate degrees. It is not uncommon that our lectures are attended by professional Ph.Ds in the relevant field of the lecture.
The claim that somehow this is set up so that "Frank Sherwin try to use biblical verse as evidence for something" is not only patently false but just plain stupid.
We are not associated with ICR other than inviting Mr Sherwin to the event to represent that viewpoint. (Who else should we invite for that viewpoint?) He was vetted and chosen specifically because he would met a minimum standard we expect for presentation. That he meets a minimum standard OF PRESENTATION does not -- for one nanosecond -- suggest that we approve or disapprove of his message. We exist solely to have a public, face to face and well run FORUM for all matters philosophical.
To suggest that we ought not do so is (to be blunt) anti-intellectual. You suggested in another comment that it was a "stupid not-so-intellegent[SIC] design talk." (and by the way the spelling is "intelligent.") If your claims about the intelligent design movement are true, it can be known only through intellectual dispensation of some kind and this events provides people a chance to participate in that without pretense and with all the fairness I can muster.
Your alternative in, that comment, was to suggest we sit around and watch MST3K instead. I love Joel and MST3K as much as the next guy but to suggest one ought to sit around and do that and not the other is to suggest we simply be "amused to death." We respectfully disagree and think the film, whether it be the greatest piece of cinema ever, a steaming pile of something or anything in between, gives us a chance to exercise our brains in real space with real people to whatever capacity that can be allowed about issues that are important to a great many people.
We do take chances and we do get speakers who aren't good from time to time. However that is the nature of the beast when month in and month out one tries to promote a consistent level of interesting philosophical discourse.
You stated, "the last thing we need to do is to continue to validate this sort of thing with ongoing public acknowledgement[SIC] and indirect funding."
This is further ignorance. Since we announced this event we have had numerous professionals in various fields ask to join the panel discussion. That includes professional scientists who I presume share your opinion of intelligent design. I can take it from your comments that you are likely not a practicing scientist so I would have to defer to their judgment when multiple practicing scientists think this is worthy of public discussion which is in direct contradiction of your opinion as to whether one ought to hold such an event.
By the way, it should be clear that we have invited a practicing scientist who is opposed to intelligent design and is willingly discuss the issues raised in the film.
Further, we do not directly or indirectly fund ICR or any of the panelists. They must volunteer their time freely and without promise of compensation. That is partially so for the reason that they must be willing to stand by their efforts and opinions because they believe in the value of them and their value in the participation of such a forum.
Lastly I would like to point out that the volunteers who run the Dallas Philosophers Forum, while not perfect, tirelessly spend their time trying to raise the intellectual bar of public discourse. I don;t see you doing that. I think Miko and Pegasus ought to be thanked for trying to help support a local group whose mission it is to create a venue for intellectual discourse. I say this to stand up for the unpaid people who have thanklessly kept this going for over 20 years because they do not need to be insulted for the efforts.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
DC Anonymous
I see you are clearly open to all points of view and areas of discussion. Do all attendees get such warm welcomes at your rabies meetings?
If Frank Sherwin is not going to be referencing scripture to advance his bogus scientific enterprise, what's the point in having him there? Isn't the point that he's all for deities and somehow that makes his institute totally worthwhile? Other people will disagree and discussion ensues, no?
I would really, really be shocked if somehow he managed to make it through an entire night without even once coming around to biblical writings.
Do you really think that none of the ticket sales profits from this movie are going to get back to the ID people? Truly?
I'll bet you had never really considered that the real agenda behind all of this was truly about the cash and not anything more existential.
I'm saying that just because someone says something or makes a movie about whatever does not mean that it's worth attention. This particular piece of propaganda is not worth more time than having a debate about the high points of Gigli. Did you have a similar discussion after "The Confederate States of America" came out to debate the merits of slavery?
Surely your high powered group of uber spell checking intellectuals could come up with something better than this.
Whatever, since I'm not a scientist and I don't have 4 fancy degrees from a bunch of forgein universities and I don't use semi colons for apostrophes I suppose my novel viewpoint on this matter wouldn't be welome at this discussion. Thanks for the heads up.
Prior to this I had really no opinion about your group other than it was unfortunate you chose to host this particular topic.
Another $5 to the SPCA.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
Andrew... see it's guys like DC that I ran into all over the place that put the "crook in my giblets" for days before coming to this site. It's guys like DC that created the need for a movie like Expelled, (In my opinion). Lucky for your group it sounds like DC will not be attending the Dallas Philosopher's Forum.
DC wrote: "I see you are clearly open to all points of view and areas of discussion."
If I'm not mistaken that was "sarcasm," right? Funny listening to a guy trashing a film he admittedly will never watch, implying someone else is not open to other points of view. :Interesting: (The bracketed semi colons are just for you DC.)
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Jeremy Dunck Staff
javascript, I think DC was suggesting that the forum should not be open to all points of view-- that some positions are so absurd as to not enjoy equal footing on the platform of discussion. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that statement-- just trying to clarify.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
javascript Anonymous
Jeremy, I suppose you could be correct and I'm mistaken... If so I would gladly stand corrected. But DC's second half of that same paragraph makes it really hard for me to believe that:
"Do all attendees get such warm welcomes at your rabies meetings?"
I don't know... sounds like it's dripping with sarcasm to me...
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
DC Anonymous
First of all, could you point out those semi colons to me? I guess since I'm not a practising scientist, an intellegent designer, nor a statistical fabricator I can't see them.
Additonaly, would you mind not starting sentences with conjunctions? It's almost as unreadable as poor spelloing.
Furthermore, I'm not the one who describes my meetings as rabid. You know, since I don't have a BSc, MSc, MD, nor PhD, and don't have millions of dollars in research funds, I had to look up rabid on wikipedia and found rabies. Because Andrew says I am anti-intellegent and ignorant, I thought I should look the word up. What do you know, there's rabies!
Surely a group of people who "are much more educated than the general populous with almost all having a degree and a great amount having more than one or graduate degrees" would agree that a rabid meeting implies rabies!!
Lastly...guy?
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
tipdawg20 Anonymous
Interesting comments. Just because one person believes one thing is fact and the opposite belief is garbage doesn't mean the "garbage" doesn't deserve a voice. I believe that was the purpose of the documentary - to show that "intelligent design" deserves some relevancy for discussion on the campuses of colleges and universities. Even if you disagree with "intelligent design" would you not at least want it presented in the classroom to "prove" its inadequacy in presenting the origin of the universe? I've heard that almost 80% of the American population is not opposed to the idea of "intelligent design." (That's only a percentage I've heard) Why would it not be allowed to be debated in the classroom? Why would its good and bad points not be allowed to be observed. Although this is almost an irrelevant argument because I'm not sure it goes on in other churches, but my church presents the good and bad points of evolution and doesn't criticize someone or kick them out of the church if they disagree with "intelligent design" and are staunch evolutionists. Why would colleges not present the same respect for "intelligent design" scientists and new ideas? Just a thought.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
xdavidwattsx Anonymous
Because when I pay tuition for a science class, I want to be taught sound science. If I wanted to be taught creationism I would go to church. Big difference.
Those classes have a lot of legitimate material to cover in a short time and wasting time on hocus pocus is unacceptable.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Brett Hoerner Staff
If we decide to present one unscientific belief, why do we not need to show them all?
Christianity is not the only religion (and not even the largest), so where do we draw the line? I'm all for people teaching their kids whatever they want at home, but there just isn't enough time (or taxpayer money) in the world to discuss everything everyone believes. If you want the school to focus on Jesus the solution is easy, put your kid in private school.
Anyways, this thread is now completely:
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Scott Doyle Verified
Concur with Dave (omg fictional character) and Brett. If you want to suck up to your deity, do it on your own time.
As for a panel discussion, gotta side with DC one more time (thought you were a guy too, tbh...still pretty sure you are, actually) - not exactly a productive use of $5 to watch a couple of intellectuals agree to disagree.
I'm proud to have been a part of yet another epic beating of the dead horse. Since I've never been quite clear where that came from, wiki to the rescue! Those crazy Brits...
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
xdavidwattsx Anonymous
This thread only has 60 comments, though. Some of those epic horsebeaters had well over 100.
5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment |