Expelled the movie Review

Expelled the movie Review

by royaldiadem | Published on April 19th, 2008, 10:28 am | Arts

A brief review of Expelled by Pastor Dustin S. Segers

http://www.graceinthetriad.blogspot.com
http://www.graceinthetriad.com
"My family and I just went to our local theater and viewed Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. This documentary has already created no small stir on the internet as the pre-release controversy generated by it held the number one spot in the blogosphere all day on March 24 per Nielson's BlogPulse, and also received over 800 Technorati results. With it's release in 1,000 theaters today (4-18-08), it will no doubt upset many people.

So why all the fuss over such a small-scale documentary that will probably be out of theaters in 2-3 weeks anyway?

The answer: Ben Stein and his crew have shown how several highly credentialed scientists and academicians have been forced out of prestigious academic positions because they have called into question certain aspects of traditional Darwinian evolutionary theory or have given some type of credence to Intelligent Design (ID) as a viable alternative to Darwinism.

Stein demonstrates through a series of interviews with those both sympathetic and hostile to ID theory that the current American scientific establishment has no room for entertaining a debate that will question the prevailing and assumed paradigm of Darwinism. Stein also convincingly shows that the reigning scientific establishment has actively suppressed the ID movement in an effort to prevent the undermining of Neodarwinian theory, something that runs contrary to the basic principles of American and academic freedom.

Many Darwinists, skeptics, and naysayers have been upset about the release of "Expelled" for months while it was being screened across the U.S., but one particular Darwinist sums up the complaints quite well. Dr. Michael Shermer, who was one of the first people interviewed in this documentary, complained after a pre-release screening that his comments about his agnosticism regarding professors being fired from their academic posts because they hold to ID theory were conveniently misused in order to support the documentary's "conspiracy theory". It's no secret that Darwinists often love to hate the idea that any type of intelligent agency was involved in the origin of life. Richard Dawkins has no problem admitting this outright, with the exception of the panspermia theory, which just causes him to push his ignorance back one step further. "PZ" Myers, an adherent to Darwinism and a biology professor at the University of Minnesota and owner of the popular atheist blog Pharyngula, was also interviewed in "Expelled". His written comments below taken from The Panda's Thumb blog are also reflective of his attitude about ID theory in his live interview:

The only appropriate responses [to Intelligent Design proponents] should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians." ~ Comment #35130, PZ Myers, June 14, 2005

With comments like Dr. Myer's, "Expelled" shows through live interviews that the scientific establishment absolutely has no room for ID theory and they will muzzle whomever they can to prevent academic freedom, research, and publishing in this area. However, there is more to this documentary than the mere suppression of academic freedom.

"Expelled" shows that Darwinism is the foundation for philosophical naturalism/atheism, the eugenics movement of the first half of the 20th century, and the modern abortion problem. The documentary demonstrates a direct correlation between Darwinism and Adolf Hitler's plan to eradicate the Jews and while eradicating them, use them as experimental tools for the purpose of developing the perfect Utopian human through biological experimentation. "Expelled" goes on to note that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood developed her ideas about eugenics and sterilization through the influence of Darwinism.

But of course, since modern Darwinism is a theory that excludes any divine involvement in the world, then by default, only material processes are responsible for the design and propagation of all life forms. In other words, no Intelligent Designer is allowed. Of course, when the Creator is cast out, so are objective, transcendent morals, and what normally follows is cultural relativism; a type of relativism that can eventually lead to things like eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, and holocausts. The history of the 20th century demonstrates this to be the case.

In conclusion, I expect "Expelled" to be another useful tool in expelling the last leg that upholds the Darwinian establishment's power in suppressing the evidence that contradicts and undermines their theory. It would be pretty hard for the Darwinists to legally prevent scientific information that contradicts evolutionary theory from entering the movie theaters, especially when our nation allows for the sale and distribution of pornographic material. And, with Stein screening the documentary for Florida legislators last month and his doing the same for Missouri lawmakers last week, both states are making swift moves toward passing academic freedom laws; laws that may at least allow for students and teachers to discuss the scientific and philosophical viability of lack thereof of these two competing theories about how man got here and what his purpose is in this world."

"expelling the last leg that upholds the Darwinian establishment's power in suppressing the evidence that contradicts and undermines their theory."

Well Said Pastor Dustin!

Sterling

For a coherent response to the lies in this propagandamentary go here

For some reviews not written by (expletive) crazy fundamentalists try here
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelle ... e_allowed/

The prospect of a pro-Intelligent Design documentary sounded so batsh** crazy,it had to be awesome, watching intellectuals spin a story about how they're persecuted for their beliefs.Not to say I didn't give it a fair chance,but they made it really easy.

The movie itself is an example of design by faith and emotion rather than intelligence, defined as rationality grounded in proof.One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.

Stein claims to denounce the tyranny of dogma, then browbeats us with his own.

Surely the film's greatest offense is the utter shamelessness with which it exploits the Holocaust.

Stein spends the first half of the movie setting himself a trap, and the second half squirming in it.

This is propaganda, a political rant disguised as a serious commentary on stifled freedom of inquiry.

No intelligence allowed, indeed, as Ben Stein misguidedly crusades against what he perceives as the science community’s slavish devotion to natural selection.

A cynical attempt to sucker Christian conservatives into thinking they're losing the 'intelligent design' debate because of academic 'prejudice.'

Stein's schlumpy presence is disarming, though his know-it-all nature is at odds with his free-speech posing.

For a film about American freedom of expression and the necessity for open dialogue, it's hard to imagine Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed being more one-sided, narrow-minded, and intellectually dishonest.

A Person wrote:For a coherent response to the lies in this propagandamentary go here

For some reviews not written by [deleted profanity] crazy fundamentalists try here

Substance: Ad Hominem and threats.

Threat? Where was there a threat?

Ad-hominen? Yeah maybe. Despite the whine that Intelligent Design Creationism is not about God, no sirree, nothing to do with religion at all , why the Intelligent Designer Creator could be a space alien -(excuse us while we poke fun at Dawkins for agreeing) - the only positive reviews have come from fundamentalist Christian sources - and even they say that the movie was too long.

No I'm not going to go through the 'review' and carefully point out where the reviewer and the movie get it wrong, because there is little they get right and it's done quite well at the Expelled Exposed site. The handful of discrimination cases they build their movie on are misrepresented,

Sternberg suffered the indignityof not getting fired from the unpaid editorship that he had quit months before the paper actually appeared. His punishment further included the cruel and unusual steps of not dismissing him from his unpaid position as a Smithsonian Research Associate, not declining to renew the unpaid position when the term expired, and not firing him from his paid job at NIH. The draconian nature of the consequences that he ultimately suffered - some of his colleagues said bad things about him - obviously makes him the ideal example of an open-thinking scientist railroaded by the Darwinian Inquisition

their claim that Darwin was 'neccessary' for the Holocaust is demonstrably false

Far from 'removing the last leg" from 'Darwinism' this movie is just a tedious and sustained whine "The rotton scientists won't let us present our God as science. They keep asking for evidence -that's so unfair. Oops did we say God, we meant Intelligent-Designer-who-isn't-a-space-alien"

A Person wrote:Threat? Where was there a threat?

I sometimes wonder if "Ad Hominem and threats" is just a character string that is hard coded into the fundy mind, and is not consciously chosen for output...

A Person wrote:Far from 'removing the last leg" from 'Darwinism' this movie is just a tedious and sustained whine "The rotton scientists won't let us present our God as science. They keep asking for evidence -that's so unfair. Oops did we say God, we meant Intelligent-Designer-who-isn't-a-space-alien"

This whole business is another in the long line of Cretinist ploys to put a stop to the work of science. Making fun of their silliness is sort of entertaining, in a way, but I think that any real attempts to respond to it is severely counterproductive. Taking time away from real science to answer these ploys only brings a measure of success to their efforts to stop science, thereby encouraging them to do more.

I agree with the folks who say that these people should be ignored. They have no valid points to make -- otherwise they would have made them already. Their arguments have long ago been shot down with valid reasoning and all the evidence you could hope for, and they only repeat them in order to waste time and encourage the rise of ignorance. That is all they really have to offer. For those who prefer ignorance, there can only be a small measure of pity, if any. Hopefully, no understanding; choosing ignorance OUGHT to be an alien concept to people. One could hope so, at least.

There is no doubt that Expelled will reach many people who choose not to look further. Few of its audience will pay attention to Proverbs 18:17 The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.

But it clearly puts the lie to the ID creationist pretense that it's all about science not religion. The movie has zero science and Ben explicitly rejected the only other non religious contender by ridiculing Dawkins when he talked about it.

The whole movie pushes the 'science is atheistic and anti-god' to the extent that they can't pretend IDC is not religion as they tried at Dover. It seems that the new approach is "Screw the constitution, we're putting religion in science classes" It will be interesting to see if the Supreme court is prepared to ignore (or radically reinterpret) the 1st amendment and overturn its many previous decisions. Judge Jones showed us that even Bush apppointed conservative judges can have intelligence and integrity, despite the death threats he received.

People like Rush Limbaugh

Be very careful. Ben Stein has a movie coming out that I have screened at my house, it's called Expelled, and it is about people, scientists who are being fired and shunned for their belief in intelligent design. These are Darwinists. Just for questioning Darwinism and just for being open to the possibility of intelligent design. These people fear God. These scientists, they fear God because God has the answers, God's smarter than they are. God's judgmental. That's one of the things that liberals and atheists hate about religion anyway is that it's judgmental. But regardless, I think you'll find some scientists, physicists particularly. I can't remember his name, there was one old coot who is close to death, and this goes back a year or two ago, but he'd been a lifelong opponent of the whole notion that anything here was created, that it was just random and miraculous but there was nothing intelligent behind any of this, and he's finally concluded, near his deathbed that an accident can't explain this. He wouldn't go so far as to say that there's a God. In fact, one of these guys in Ben Stein's movie, guy named Hawkins who's over at Oxford I think, Oxford or Cambridge, Ben Stein goes over and interviews him in this movie, Expelled. The movie hits April 12th or the 16th. And he said, "Can you explain the origins of life with Darwinism?" "No, we can't. Well, actually we can, but we don't."

Stein then asks him, "Where did all this come from? The guy actually says, "Perhaps an intelligent race from outer space landed on our planet gazillions of years ago and got all this rolling. But there's no way," says Hawkins, "it could be God, there's just no way. But it might be some people from outer space." And this guy is an elitist theorist and professor at Oxford and Cambridge. It's a fascinating movie. Eighty-two percent of the people in this country believe in God. Forty-one percent are Darwinists. Darwinists are more than just believing in evolution. Darwinists are now a very closed society, they do not allow anybody to disagree with what they think. They shun and fire anybody in their midst that is open to anything other than Darwinism. Darwinism is natural selection, survival of the fittest, actually eugenics. Darwinism seeks to get rid of people who are not up to par. Darwinists are not big tent people. They are not big tent people.

Yup he got the message and isn't going to question it.

A Person wrote:People like Rush Limbaugh
Be very careful. Ben Stein has a movie coming out that I have screened at my house, it's called Expelled, and it is about people, scientists who are being fired and shunned for their belief in intelligent design.

That's the key right there, isn't it? Science -- the scientific method -- isn't about "beliefs" at all. It's about evidence and figuring out the best, most reasonable way to view it. This leads to acceptance of those views, at least provisionally, until a better view comes out.

The theory of evolution has changed over the past century, to accommodate new evidence, but there has never been a reason to shift the basic paradigm of "natural selection."

These people in the ID movement seek a radical shift from that paradigm, but they present no evidence to justify that shift. They also seem to be wanting to shift it in a direction that will destroy the scientific method. And what on earth could possibly justify such a shift? Success in the labs? They have none. They have no ID-related breakthroughs there and they won't until they can actually produce a designer that will perform for all scientists as advertised. In other words, will reliably break known natural laws upon request.

Good luck on that.

A Person wrote:Threat? Where was there a threat? Ad-hominen? Yeah maybe. Despite the whine

Maybe? well thats close to acknowledging of reality...

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion.

This is also clearly seen in the perceived 'force' (facial expressions, raising of voice etc) of the obvious emotional explosion of two of the atheists in the movie (they behave like some, not all of the PFA presidents I have had direct interaction with). I suspect that all the comments here from the atheists will continue to do the same. And they will refuse to enter into dialog with anyone who holds the Creationist worldview or the ID worldview that is used to produce the movie.

So,.. when you find a willing atheist who would like to enter a face to face dialog,.. (and at least TRY to keep to a reasonable tone and method of interpersonal communication without appeals to force) I'll invest some time, otherwise practice your logical fallacies and get a bigger stick so you wont have to substantiate or be consistent with your scientific naturalist religion approach and intimidate, intimidate,.. intimidate.

In the meantime:
Acts 26:
1 Agrippa said to Paul, "You are permitted to speak for yourself." Then Paul stretched out his hand and {proceeded} to make his defense: 2 "In regard to all the things of which I am accused by the Jews, I consider myself fortunate, King Agrippa, that I am about to make my defense before you today; 3 especially because you are an expert in all customs and questions among {the} Jews; therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently.4 "So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my {own} nation and at Jerusalem; 5 since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived {as} a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion. 6 "And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers;7 {the promise} to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve {God} night and day. And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews.8 "Why is it considered incredible among you {people} if God does raise the dead? 9 "So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 10 "And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them. 11 "And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities. 12 "While so engaged as I was journeying to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 13 at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me and those who were journeying with me. 14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' 15 "And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; 17 rescuing you from the {Jewish} people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you,18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.' 19 "So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but {kept} declaring both to those of Damascus first, and {also} at Jerusalem and {then} throughout all the region of Judea, and {even} to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance. 21 "For this reason {some} Jews seized me in the temple and tried to put me to death. 22 "So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; 23 that the Christ was to suffer, {and} that by reason of {His} resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the {Jewish} people and to the Gentiles." 24 While {Paul} was saying this in his defense, Festus *said in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind! {Your} great learning is driving you mad." 25 But Paul *said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. 26 "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner. 27 "King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do." 28 Agrippa {replied} to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."

So, for meaningful interaction on this subject visit: http://www.graceinthetriad.blogspot.com

Thank you for the explanation of logical fallacy of Argumentum ad baculum. However you failed to show where I or any of the reviews I listed used it.

Don't confuse exasperation or anger with Argumentum ad baculum. If using a stupid, insulting and provocative argument angers your opponent it's not an appeal to force on their part. If I accuse you of being a Nazi and immoral bigot you would undoubtedly be angry, raise your voice and exhibit some facial expressions.

If you are going to accuse 'two of the atheists' of appealing to force then have the decency to name them. I didn't see any appeal to force in the movie.

I did see several other logical fallacies used in the movie including argumentum ad Hitler, ad odium, post ergo propter hoc, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, non sequitur, non causa pro causa, secundum quid et simpliciter, ad verecundiam, ad misericordiam, ad absurdum, ad populum, ignoratio elenchi, ad antiquitatem, false dichotomy, and lastly ad nauseum.

"So,.. when you find a willing atheist who would like to enter a face to face dialog,.." Sorry no face to face - argumentum ad geography.

"So, if you want meaningful interaction on this subject" what's wrong with here? I'll invest some time, otherwise practice your argumentum ad scripture elsewhere.

A Person wrote: Don't confuse exasperation or anger with Argumentum ad baculum. If using a stupid, insulting and provocative argument angers your opponent it's not an appeal to force on their part.

ibid

A Person wrote:"So, if you want meaningful interaction on this subject" what's wrong with here? I'll invest some time, otherwise practice your argumentum ad scripture elsewhere.

"Meaningful interaction" is a goal that means different things to different people, AP. To you it appears to mean discussing matters using reason -- a dialog between peers. Which would be meaningful to most people, I think. I seriously doubt this is RD's goal.

Royal Diadem wrote:ibid

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:.... I think. I seriously doubt this is RD's goal.

I'll once again dispell your doubt, in english:

1 Peter 3:13-16.

Now for another review:
http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/04/break-down-wall-review-of-expelled.html

Well done Prof Groothius

A Person wrote:
Royal Diadem wrote:ibid
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

Sir Henry Wotton met his maker.

Repent!

'meaningful interaction' clearly means posting links to friendly reviews. Since they are outnumbered about 20:1 by reviews pointing out the appalling dishonesty, stupidity and immorality there isn't much to be gained here. Anyone really interested can Google Expelled and read for themselves

So to cut to the chase. Expelled, No intelligence allowed is a propaganda movie that dilutes it's primary message (that science discriminates against appeals to the supernatural) with good old fashioned demonizing by association with Hitler. As such the movie will appeal to those already convinced of this, it will persuade some people who choose to inquire no further and it will antagonize those who inquire and uncover the lies. There is another group that will be persuaded initially and then disgusted when they find out they have been lied to. (Proverbs 18:17)

It is however refreshingly honest in one area: it has firmly identified Intelligent Design Creationism as religion, something the movement was vehemently denying at the Dover trial. So when the next 1st amendment trial comes to court the major argument for teaching it as science has been removed.

A Person wrote: Since they are outnumbered about 20:1

argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad populum is rather more effective than argumentum ad nil populum.

A Person wrote:Argumentum ad populum is rather more effective than argumentum ad nil populum.

skirt the issue, you are making logical errors in your arguments.

A Person wrote:Argumentum ad populum is rather more effective than argumentum ad nil populum.

Only when one is voting. Which is an interesting point to make, considering voting is a vital side issue that propaganda (sadly) affects. The propagandists are trying to find a tool that will persuade those who can be swayed by their lies. They want to get the votes needed to override real science and order the teaching of ideologically-approved, religion-filtered junk.

I think for them, the movie is a waste of money because it only will affirm those who are keen on lying about science, or who have no clue what critical thinking is. Those are about the only ones who will be interested in watching this thing. And really, I doubt that there is anything in the film other than the same old lies that they had at Dover. From what I've read about the film, I see no indication of anything new.

If they had some actual discoveries to mention, some evidence that could be repeated by researchers doing their best to document their efforts, it would be worth taking a look. But so long as the "evidence" presented is Latin phrases and Bible references, there's no reason to look any further.

royaldiadem wrote:
A Person wrote:Argumentum ad populum is rather more effective than argumentum ad nil populum.

skirt the issue, you are making logical errors in your arguments.

Actually you'll note that I said

... there isn't much to be gained here. Anyone really interested can Google Expelled and read for themselves

which is not an appeal to popularity. As an exercise: what fallacy do you commit when you select positive reviews for consideration?

Argumentum ad populum is only a logical fallacy when establishing the truth of a proposition. Since Expelled is a propaganda movie made to influence politicians and public opinion its popularity is very much a valid argument.

Thus the truth value of "Sternberg was expelled from the Smithsonian" is independent of how many people believe it to be true. The facts can be checked. How successful the film is in making people believe the lie "Sternberg was expelled from the Smithsonian" is measured by how many people believe it to be true.

The people who even believed in evolutionism and darwinism were going in circles contradicting themselves. I thought it was hilarious because they couldn't answer simple questions with leaning towards an intelligen designer.