Eh. I've seen these types of arguments before, and the sheer stupidity and redefining/misunderstanding of terms makes me far too pissed off and depressed. I don't think I could sit through a whole movie of it without either having an aneurysm or hanging myself.

I agree that people should see this idiocy so they know it's out there and can recognize it. But I'd encourage people to just download the damn thing off BitTorrent. Don't give these jackasses any money or encouragement, please.

I gotta ask, but is this 'documentary' serious or meant to be some sort of elaborite sarcastic joke? Ben Stein never struck me as someone who would fall for ID at all...

Flying straight over to America to see it.

Yeah right. Glad I live outside of the fruit bowl. Good luck with that anyway. I'll be keeping a close watch from the safety of Ireland.

P.S. If the ID crowd did push this crap into government, you do realise you'd be the only developed country in the world teaching it. Please, I implore you, don't let the ignorant bully their way in. Don't become a laughing stock.

"Ben Stein is making a documentary about how the Nazis utilized the controversial theory of gravity to make bombs that fall from the sky to the earth, and so the theory of gravity must be wrong."

That's hilarious !!!!

Great review!

We're trying our best, Thomas Byrne, but the idiots in this country are many and powerful.

*headdesk*

while i agree that creationists and IDers are wrong headed, crazy and should not be allowed to influence or have control over education in any way, i take issue with thomas byrne's comment:

"Yeah right. Glad I live outside of the fruit bowl. Good luck with that anyway. I'll be keeping a close watch from the safety of Ireland."

i seem to recall, thomas byrne, that the educational curriculum of primary schools in Ireland is heavily influenced and controlled by the Catholic Church -- another brand of fruit and nuts that bears watching.

What a lovely film review! As I always ask on comment pages like this one: If the believers have God on their side, then why must they lie?

I had to double check, I thought maybe there was another Ben Stein. I thought the Ben Stein of "Win Ben Stein's Money" and "The World's Most Smartest Supermodel" was supposed to be... smart. I couldn't watch this movie I would probably give myself a stroke yelling at the screen.

You recall do you. Recall from 1989 perhaps. A once a week 40 minute religion class hardly constitutes as heavy influence especially with no one else to enforce it. Young people these days don't give a shit about the church.

"You recall do you. Recall from 1989 perhaps. A once a week 40 minute religion class hardly constitutes as heavy influence especially with no one else to enforce it. Young people these days don't give a shit about the church."

i said "recall"... so has Roman Catholicism been abolished as the *official* state religion of the Irish Republic? our creationists and ultra religious may be attempting to make some sort of official religion but at least we've had 200 years of precedent which emphasizes the separation of church and state. i do not deny we have our religious nuts, but i'd be pretty careful about throwing stones from across the water.

It's only official religion in name. There's a major push to get them out of school altogether because Ireland is multi national. Ireland is an increasingly secular country. I know only 3 creationists. A film like expelled wouldn't even be shown here. The only thing keeping the church afoat is the high prices for services weddings, communions etc... and the Polish. See Ireland only has a small population so when the nuts get together their fruity little club never numbers much and they disband quite quickly, especially when they see their friends out having a drink and a laugh. I'm not mocking America, I'm well aware most people are cool, it's just that because of the larger population the fruity little clubs can grow quite large and then start gaining money and power.

Oh Ben Stein, how could you? I knew that obsessing over the stock market for too long did strange things to people, but really this is too much. I'm going to keep believing this movie is just a cynical cash-in from an opportunistic, greedy elitest. What else can explain how a former Yale Law School valedictorian could present his side of an argument in such a ridiculous way?

*Not for the unintentionally ironic spectacle of the film’s faux-retro-hip-snark of using clips from Planet of the Apes -- “a planet where apes evolved from men?”! -- to comment on what it perceives as the stifling of intellectual freedom.*

You're kidding.

Holy shit, you're not kidding.

That's a bigger case of missing the point than the Nazi thing. My God. I think you're right, I DO have to see this.

"scientist Richard Dawkins, the honor and professionalism of whom Stein feels to believe he has impeached when he gets Dawkins to admit that he’s a steadfast atheist "

Aha! I *knew* it.

Uhhh The argument here is not intelligent design....its scientists masquerading philosophy as science. Thats a problem. Evolution does not disprove the existence of an intelligent creator but Richard Dawkins, CHAIR of Evolutionary Biology at the world's olds university seems to think so. That is an intellectual crime and this is what the film is exposing. Also, Mary Ann, FILM CRITIC, if you want to weigh in on the finer points of science and politics, please see Dr. David Berlinski, and explain to me how he appears to be some low intelligence fundamentalist fanatic that you so surgically try to label wide swaths of people with your clumsy housepainters brush. Why are soo many critics paid to contribute to the VAST cliche of the politics of film reviewers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-UjnHy7QAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrs3FDiyot4&feature=related
time: 30 - 6:00.

"Evolution does not disprove the existence of an intelligent creator but Richard Dawkins, CHAIR of Evolutionary Biology at the world's olds university seems to think so."

Not true. Dawkins does not contend that evolutionary biology disproves the existence of God or any other intelligent designer - that is something that can be neither proven nor disproven (in the same way that the existence of Russell's teapot or the Invisible Purple Unicorn or the fairies at the bottom of my garden that I believe intelligently designed and created all life on this planet cannot be proven or disproven). But just because something is undisprovable does not mean that it is likely to exist: anybody can create a deity which cannot be disproven by saying that it is not part of the physical world which is open to scientific inquiry; but the likelihood of that deity actually existing is probably minute.

What Dawkins says is that such speculation about intelligent designers is unnecessary, and fundamentally unscientific. Evolution is something for which there is an abundance of evidence, and is a theory which has stood the test of 150 years of intellectual scrutiny; ID, on the other hand, is nothing more than a recourse to the 'god of the gaps': basically saying "we can't understand how life came to be as it is now, so rather than investigating the matter further, we'll just suppose that God did it and not ask any more questions." Intelligent design adherents are essentially making up their own stories to explain what they do not understand, and peddling these stories as "science". Please tell me how it is "an intellectual crime" to discourage such a shoddy academic approach?

"The argument here is not intelligent design....its scientists masquerading philosophy as science."

Are you sure you're not actually talking about intelligent design advocates? Because that's what intelligent design is -- a philosophical response to scientific evidence. Not the same as science. Science answers how, philosophy answers why. Easy to remember, memorize it and use this tenet for the rest of your life. Science doesn't, and isn't ever going to, find the meaning of life. That's a personal perception.

The best argument against intelligent design I ever heard is that the natural world is so complicated yet ordered that it couldn't be an accident. But our concept of order is based on natural law -- if the world worked completely differently, we'd call the new rules ordered. Circular logic.

Where'd the natural laws come from, MBI?

Wait...so ... nature CREATED natural laws?

And, by the way, MaryAnn, I'd like to humbly point out that the implications of there being a force that holds us to the earth is nothing compared to the implications of us being nothing more than animals, having no souls, or absolute worth. No metaphysical implications with gravity. But with evolution mixed with atheism? Sorry, but the belief has effectively taken away objective worth in human beings. Thus the danger that is seen in it. Funny analogy though, however faulty.

"Where'd the natural laws come from, MBI?"

Good question. Maybe from God. Maybe from nothing at all. Doesn't necessarily follow that they come from somewhere. Maybe they just are.

Does the absence of God erase the objective value of humanity? Also a good question. If I could venture a guess at how an atheist deals with that question (I wouldn't know firsthand, being a Scientologist and everything), I'd say that either they 1) enjoy the subjective value of humanity, or 2) believe that the objective value of humanity doesn't need a God to affirm it. I'd say that believing in the objective value of humanity is nearly as big a leap of faith as believing in God, but you know, whatever. These are all big cosmic questions that, when it comes down to it, don't really affect how good my steak is. I'm gonna go play some Metroid Prime 2.

Also, I'd note that I'd agree that the idea of humanity having no objective value is incredibly destructive for society. But that doesn't necessarily make it true.

"Good question. Maybe from God. Maybe from nothing at all. Doesn't necessarily follow that they come from somewhere. Maybe they just are."

Sounds scientific to me.

"i said "recall"... so has Roman Catholicism been abolished as the *official* state religion of the Irish Republic?"

It never was the official state religion. We've never had an official state religion at all.

As for the educational curriculum of primary schools in Ireland; the science curriculum is not affected by the concerns of any church.

"Sounds scientific to me."

Again, we're getting into matters that are beyond the realm of science. Which is why they shouldn't be taught in science classes.

I can't help but think that the assumption behind ID is the Christian God. What a dis-service to the argument.

I'm intrigued by this idea that we can investigate life further through a scientific approach. What exactly is being studied? What approach is being taken to study? It links to the comments regarding natural and law and how that counter argument makes ID circular. The very idea of knowing implies the concept of order. It demands a connection of isolated concepts\events to define some-thing. In turn, simply because we might exist in a world that is completely different does negate ID. It negates the process of understanding, i.e. natural law, but what is constant is the idea that there is order.

What is happening per the above is that the Primary Idea is being lost in by how we come to understand it. The Primary Idea is that there is order. ID attempts to define that by Some-Thing independent of the "known world". The abuse is the canonization of that idea. Dawkins may be correct in that such questions should not be asked because they cannot be answered by scientific means. And yet Dawkins assume the process, the scientific method(olog), is sound in understanding. Evolution is sound because of science. That assumes a great deal of certitude not only in the process but the subject using it.

I am not defending any dogmatic mysticism and if this movie is using a Christian Biblical definition of creation then that is disappointing. It is one thing to believe a question shouldn't be or can't be asked. But if experience tells me things are ordered, and can be known, but then experience tells me all things come to an end (I've yet to experience infinity) then we truly have a contradiction and as such how can I trust the subject that can't reconcile such a contradiction? Either there is a constant to all things which exists beyond the thing or when the thing dies nothing remains. I'm not defining anything and I'm not making an argument for a soul. What I'm asking is, what is constant that can be known and if it exists what is its origin.

When I see the movie I can comment on the movie. At this point I can neither agree nor disagree with the review. If you haven't seen the movie all you can do is question the methodology behind how the movie was reviewed.

Which is more fun to do with a glass of wine or gin. :)

Regardless of one's stance on ID it's common knowledge that cliques form in universities (and frankly, in all walks of life) that shut down anyone with a belief system outside the power base's own.

This reviewer is as parochial as any small town evangelist with her "these people" and "their trickery" nonsense.

The crucial point is, though, that as much as we all love to root for the underdog, that doesn't make the people in power wrong, and it doesn't make the people who have been rejected right.

bwfull noted:
Either there is a constant to all things which exists beyond the thing or when the thing dies nothing remains. I'm not defining anything and I'm not making an argument for a soul. What I'm asking is, what is constant that can be known and if it exists what is its origin.

I have good reason to believe that what you're looking for is right in front of everyone's noses, and the constant is evolution. You don't need an origin if there is a perpetually inherent thermodynamic function that enables the universe to periodically "leap"/bang to higher orders of the same basic configuration, because this preserves causality, the arrow of time and the second law of thermodynamics, indefinitely... ... ...

Course, nobody on either side of the debate will ever be able see that reality through the distortions of their respective ideologically warped worldviews, so the truth may as well not even exist.

The universe is Darwinian... but neodarwinians/physicists/anticentrists will never be able to accept purpose in nature, and creationists... well, that's already a given.

You don't really want to know...

Wait...why is it not acceptable for Ben Stein, Valedictorian of his class at Yale, to posit that a legitimate scientific theory - proffered by scholars around the world (see contributers to the ISCID Academic Journal and current staff at the Discovery Institute - is being suppressed?

Rather, why IS it acceptable for some e-journalist to condemn Stein's arguments based on no scientific evidence, but rather pure scoffery? How was the movie, silly? And which enlightened soul here can remember that it was developmental evolution - expressed in my biology classes as Darwinism - that came under fire with similar vague scoffery?

Regardless of one's stance on ID it's common knowledge that cliques form in universities (and frankly, in all walks of life) that shut down anyone with a belief system outside the power base's own.

I can hardly think of two words more useless and dishonest than the phrase "common knowledge." What knowledge is that, exactly? The sort that you just made up on the spot I'd wager.

A dose of reality: There is no 'power base' in science. Ben Stein's "Big Science" doesn't exist. The scientific method is not a popularity contest, and any 'cliques' at an individual university are meaningless in the context of the untold thousands (millions?) of scientists and researchers worldwide. There is no conspiracy to suppress ID as a scientific theory. If the proponents of ID could come up with any empirical, falsifiable data then the scientific community would judge it on its merits. Until then they are just a source of laughter and/or frustration.

This reviewer is as parochial as any small town evangelist with her "these people" and "their trickery" nonsense.

If you read her review of this film then I'm sure you noticed that bit equating the theory of evolution with Nazism. How you can witness such elemental logical fallacy and cynical emotional pandering and not call it trickery is beyond me.

Jordan Lewis wrote:
"Wait...why is it not acceptable for Ben Stein, Valedictorian of his class at Yale, to posit that a legitimate scientific theory "

Jordan, that's one of the biggest lies of all. "Theory" means "hypothesis that has a long track record of successful predictions." There's no such thing as an "ID theory."

"- proffered by scholars around the world (see contributers to the ISCID Academic Journal..."

Yes! Go to the link to the journal at iscid.org, then answer two simple questions:
1) Why is there no new evidence published in any of the issues of that journal?
2) Even funnier, why hasn't their very own journal published an issue IN OVER TWO YEARS, Jordan? Are they supressing themselves?

"... and current staff at the Discovery Institute - is being suppressed?"

Because they aren't. No one was fired. They are perfectly free to bring up ID, but then we real scientists ask them, "Where are your data from testing an ID hypothesis?" and they run to ignorant nincompoops like you with nothing but rhetoric. Then we laugh at them, because ID is a joke.

Oh, whatever. These arguments are all just pointless nonsense, because we know that life was really created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you been touched by His Noodly Appendage?

Anyone arguing that ID should be accepted or that you need to disprove it misses the point. There is a reason "scientific" people such as myself brush it off as just another one of those things religious people do. ID is NOT a scientific idea, it is purely a religious idea, which is why it has no place in the scientific community. People say ID has nothing to do with God, but like God, it is based in nothing. There is only one question you have to ask yourself. Is there any logical reason for you to think this? I'm so tired of hearing, "take a look around, the earth is beautiful. If one of the physical forces were slightly different, we wouldn't exist."

Yes, the universe is beautiful, and again yes, if one of the forces, say gravity were different by a seemingly minute fraction, we wouldn't exist. The entire universe would be completely different, and there would be other absolutely amazing things that don't exist in our universe. Some of these things may even be sentient beings, and they may have the chance to tell themselves how amazing they are so they must have been created by an all powerful being.

I know this is becoming a huge general rant on a belief system as opposed to just ID, but I've been exposed to so much of it lately and its making me go nuts. If people wish to believe in those things, thats fine, but don't go around pretending it is scientific by any means. If your only real defense of a theory is "we can't prove it, but you can't disprove it" then you have to accept that it is absolutely useless as a scientific concept. Even outlandish theories in astrophysics have some plausible basis in what we currently know, and are at some point, given that we can possibly measure the phenomena they predict, will either be proven or refuted.

Simply because science doesn't know the absolute answer to a question doesn't mean that you can make ridiculously claims and expect them to be accepted just because they can't be factually refuted.

As much as i would like to chime in on the whole debate between ID and Evolution... i won't, because there are massive amounts of forums, blogs and websties for that kind of thing.

I do think it is funny that as much as she utterly despises the movie, she encourages us to go see it, nay demands that we go see it.

What is your agenda?

If i'm a Darwinist, i should know the kind of clap-trap they are pushing against me? Wouldn't i already experienced it and have had to deal with it? But I need yet another thing to make me hate some people that much more because of something they believe? Trust me, the LAST thing anyone needs is another reason to fight about something. I would even say the movies exsistance goes too far in that regard anyway.

If i'm an ID'er or "on the fence" you really want me to sell-out heart and soul to something like this after seeing it? If the ID'ers are as some sort of naive, dumb and incapable of an independent thought, wouldn't they just eat this up and promptly man their picket signs and immediately start protesting universities for their lack of "scientific openness"? Because we all know that a small, but very annoyingly vocal minority of that side of the debate LOVE to picket and cry about these type of things.

Or maybe you want to push as many as you can to waste their time in the theater at this movie as you apparently did (misery loves company)? I think next time stick to telling us that it sucked or it was awesome and why, then let us decide how we will waste our own time and money, because as a critic, i doubt you had to pay to see this film.

(JBH) Hey, everybody, spread the word:

HITLER WAS A CREATIONIST

Reading the quotations from Mein Kampf, (see below), it is clear that Hitler saw race in religious, Creationist terms, not from any Darwinian perspective. (Nor from any admiration of pagan prehistory.) The Nordic peoples were the original pure descendants of Adam, formed in the true image of God, and their health and racial purity meant the continuing reproduction of true images of God.

(Begin quotations. Parenthetical comments are from the original webpage at http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm )

[quotes from Hitler deleted by MAJ -- this isn't the place to post other people's writings]

"Our eyes must be opened to their trickery."

Indeed. Though one doesn't have to fund their mendacity to do so. The NCSE has a great resource responding to the nonsensical claims of Expelled. Save yourself $10 and 2 hours.

HITLER WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN. HE PROCLAIMED THAT HE WAS IN ORDER TO GET PEOPLE ON HIS SIDE, WHEN IN REALITY HE DESTROYED ANY CHURCH/CHRSTIAN PERSON THAT SPOKE OUT AGAINST WHAT HE WAS DOING. PUBLICALLY, HE WAS CATHOLIC, BUT PRIVATELY? PLEASE CONTINUE READING.

The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

[quotes from Hitler deleted by MAJ -- what part of "stay on topic" was misunderstood?]

These posts have everything to do with the claims of the movie, by the way. What were Hitler's true positions on Christianity/God, and what pushed him into believing what he actually did? It definitely wasn't the Christian conception of God. The entire POINT of Christianity is to love God with all of your heart and your neighbor as yourself.

To think that Hitler actually believed that Christianity was true is ridiculous. If he did he had a funny way of showing it(destroying every Church but the one he supported).

Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:

"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id2.html

Excellent review, one comment however:

You use the term: "Judeo-Christian." I suppose this term has meaning (tortured thought it may be), but if you are referring to 'people of the book', shouldn't it be Islamo-Judeo-Christian? Same writings, same connection.

Oh for the love of...
Argumentum ad Hitlerum : "Hitler supported X, therefore X must be bad."
This is realy, truely a pointless tactic in any debate that is not specifically about Hitler. Which is why it is so abhorent that Stein would resort to it. Whatever Hitler did or did not belive, his opinions are irrelevant to the value of those things. Hitler can't poison the entire well of anything. I mean, being an Austrian/German, its likely Hitler at some point in his life Hitler enjoyed beer and sausages. I enjoy beer and sausages. OMG I'M LIKE HITLER!!!! No, no I'm not. So, Hitler may have been a supporter and student of Darwin's evelutionary theories. So what? He was also a supporter of the burgening theories of rocketry, Should we scrap the entire space program, as many post-WWII wanted?
MAJ, maybe you want to just exercise executive editorial privelidge (i.e. hit the "delete post" button) on thoise last posts by Hodges and Kelly, saving them from the sad trap that Stein fell into.

Ah, I see you did. Good on you, MAJ!

Why should they? That's the kind of presumption that science, by its very nature, tries to avoid.

Actually, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, but scientists are a different story. Albert Einstein was probably the most famous physicist to recognize pupose in nature, but John Wheeler was the most recent to die, which sadly, just happened. Now, Paul Davies carries John's torch, but it is on record that scientists are typically ideologically predispositioned in a non-scientific manner that automatically projects a form of mediocrity that isn't observed, as Brandon Carter Pointed out in Kracow Poland in 1973, what he called exagerated subserviance to the Copernican Principle, which leads to absurdities by ideologically predispositioned scientists.

He was talking about counter-reactionism among scientists against old historical beliefs about creationism and geocentrism that causes them to automatically dismiss any relevance to features of the universe that also permit our existence, and this leads to equally absurd Copernican-(like) cosmological extensions, which do not agree with observation.

Carter's example was as follows:

Unfortunately, there has been a strong and not always subconscious tendency to extend this to a most questionable dogma to the effect that our situation cannot be privileged in any sense. This dogma (which in its most extreme form led to the "perfect cosmological principle" on which the steady state theory was based) is clearly untenable, as was pointed out by Dicke (Nature 192, 440, 1961).
-Brandon Carter

How Carter's point applies, including the strength of the statement, depends on the cosmological model that is being assumed. If anything, Carter's point is even more true and applicable today, than it was then, thanks mainly to the never ending detriment to science that is cause by both distorted sides of the CrEvo debate.

"[quotes from Hitler deleted by MAJ -- what part of "stay on topic" was misunderstood?]"

But the quotes from Mein Kampf are very much on topic. They show that the movie's attempt to link Darwin to Hitler is a lie.

Hitler explicitly rejected common descent in Mein Kampf. That puts him in agreement with the filmmakers and in disagreement with Darwin and us real biologists!

Kelly wrote, "These posts have everything to do with the claims of the movie, by the way. What were Hitler's true positions on Christianity/God, and what pushed him into believing what he actually did?"

It doesn't matter. We know that Hitler denied common descent just like today's creationists do. Don't forget that creationists and ID proponents don't dispute that change can occur within a species (they call it "microevolution"), which was Hitler's goal.

I'm a little surprised that you got into a critical prescreening, MaryAnn, since the producers have been restricting their marketing to fellow fundies. Do you think this was just a New York thing, or did you have to pretend to be a preacher to get in? A quick ordination in the Reformed Universal First National Church of David Tennant?

John, quotes from Hitler are off-topic because it doesn't matter what Hitler thought of evolution, creation, rocket science, berr and sausages, or anything else. And Ben Stein should know that. To invoke Hilter at all is shooting himself in the foot, particualrly if his thesis is one about academic freedom. The possiblility that he might be wrong just leads toa fruitless and pointless debate.

As I have gathered, non-fundamentalists have been asked to review the film "Expelled" in the day or two before openning to avoid the arguemnt that "only fundamentalists were allowed to see previews."

This is after months of selective previews given to fundamentalists.

Thank God...oops, sorry. Thank goodness you exposed Stein as a one-sided, disingenuous phony. Heaven knows...oops, sorry again. We all know that a propagandistic "documentary" by a known moralistic crackpot should not be seen by anyone. I'm so grateful there are well-balanced, truth-telling, documentary film makers out there like Michael Moore to show us how to make an even-handed film that thoughtfully shows both sides of an issue and doesn't preach to the already converted. Thank you, Michael. If only Stein had learned from you how to show both sides of an issue we wouldn't have to be put through this unseemly controversy.

I thought this was a movie review site not Hilary clinton convention. no one has said if the movie entertains.That is why people see movies whether they agree with what they are saying or not.

ah wait did someone say that michael moore is a well balanced film maker? no doubt his films entertian but even the most liberal among us will concede that his films are filled with propoganda. That is why the dem party stays away from him (thank god) anyway this film is the same as mm films just from the other point of view and whether you agree or not whats wrong with talking about it. I thought it was an entertaing movie thats my 2 cents go barack!

I thought this was a movie review site not Hilary clinton convention.

Oh, zing! bcos only dem commie libruls dont like intellyjunt dizzyne

Actually, I know plenty of conservatives who think the premise of this movie is arse twiffle. It's not about right or left, it's about right and wrong.

no one has said if the movie entertains.That is why people see movies whether they agree with what they are saying or not.

Do you think that's why people see documentaries? I thought that people mainly saw documentaries to be informed, and that it was actually quite a serious issue if a documentary was found to be full of lies.

But maybe I'm wrong, maybe people only see documentaries for the entertainment value. If I told you, mike, that Fahrenheit 9/11 was brilliantly paced, often very moving, funny and fast-moving, would you go and see it? Or would there be other considerations?

Although this review is well written about the movie (in terms of being intriguing), some of the statements regarding science and ID are not exactly full in terms of the current dialogue.

Case in Point: Antony Flew's book entitled, "There is a God: How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind."

Flew is arguably the most influential atheist of the second half of the twentieth century. In his book, he has stated that his method has all along been the Socratic mantra of "following the evidence where it leads..."—to which he now reasons the evidence leads to intelligent design.

Keep in mind, he is not a Christian (or as the author of this review cheaply called anyone who holds such a view..."fundamentalist"). He is now a theist, and holds that modern science, yes, modern science, not a religion, is God's biggest proponent.

The book traces the philosophical arguments back 60 years and references all the big names and their arguments.

So, though it may be easy to cheap shot Christians (after all everyone needs an enemy as it seems), you may want to turn your energy towards trying to explain some of the philosophical questions about the universe and life, etc., that atheistic philosophy has been unable to for over a century (in spite of its promises). At least then you will engage people different than you with more civility in your disagreements.

He is now a theist, and holds that modern science, yes, modern science, not a religion, is God's biggest proponent.

Just like so many others wrongly do, Anthony Flew thinks that evidence that can be interpreted to mean that we are not here by accident, constitutes evidence for god. But this leap of faith is unfounded, since it is much more probable that there is some simple physical need for us to be here, if we are not here by accident.

In other words, Flew has taken it upon himself to disregard the most plausible avenue of scientific investigation into evidence that can define non-accidental occurrence, in order to find god in the evidence, so he's wrong to claim that science has found god.

This is the same thing that IDists do without any less justification than Anthony Flew has.

Hmmm...just out of curiousity, I looked up your reviews for Michael Moore and Al Gore. Positively orgasmic. So one little teensy weensy question to all of you: how come the left gets to throw its propagandistic, left skewing "documentaries" into the movie theaters, but the right shouldn't just because you violently disagree with the content? Seems to me you just prove Stein's point by all your frothing at the mouth. So much for "tolerance" and "diversity" and being "inclusive". God bless you anyway (and I really mean that). :-)

violamom, can you point out where MaryAnn says that Expelled shouldn't be shown? She doesn't even say "don't see it". This (all-too-common) assumption that criticising something is the same as suppressing it really annoys me. Criticism is not stifling free speech. Criticism is using free speech.

I can only quote Arthur Schopenhauer as a rebuttal to all the naysayers concerning Expelled.

"All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

It will take time, but I.D. will gradually move from the second stage it presently occupies, to the third. This will occur when intelligent people question the "politically correct" verbal detractions, and spend time actually studying I.D., as I have for over three years. Then, this new paradigm for science will occur.

Stick to the flicks and leave the philosophy to those better qualified.

It will take time, but I.D. will gradually move from the second stage it presently occupies, to the third.

Yeah, when you can produce a very old alien space-ship that crashed on Venus with the blueprints for humans hanging from the drawing board.

Because matters of fact are not matters of "left" and "right.

Matters of fact have little to do with the ideologically motivated interpretations that go with them, and to assume that scientists don't *reactionarily* lean to the opposite extreme is about as arrogant/bogus/self-dishonest, as one can get.

Good review but disappointing to see the deeply flawed 'must see' rating. Any member of the 'reality-based community' will gain nothing from viewing the film, any more than going along for an evening with your local white supremacist chapter.

If anyone is tempted to follow MaryAnn's advice and waste 90 minutes of your life that you'll never get back, at least buy a ticket for another show and then go in to the Expelled screen. Don't give these vile people any of your money.

"...to see a dumbfounded Dawkins speaking to Stein as if Stein were a child..."

Dawkins was not interviewed by Stein. They edited Stein in later. More lies. More deception. I know, it's difficult to keep up because there are so many....

I'm sorry, but is Evolution not still considered a theory? And I theory is simple an idea that cannot be disproved, though it is not sound enough to be considered proven, or "fact". So then... how is ID not also a theory. Where you may think it silly for one who leans toward ID to call it a "scientific theory", it is still, in fact, a theory. And where they say "it may not be proven, but it can also not be disproved", then how is it any more or less idiotic to believe in Evolution vs. Intelligent Design?

In a way, can't Evolution itself be a sort of "religion" (defined as - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe). There are people that devote their entire lives to seeking it out and defining it further, just the same as those who believe in ID. Other than being on different side of an argument, how are either different? Since evolution is STILL nothing more than a "theory" BY DEFINITION, then we are all just throwing about our opinions. Are we not?

This is simply a debate over which religion is right, and which religion is wrong. I believe in one religion, you may believe in another. WE simply disagree. And to sit here and call each other names because of this disagreement really takes me back to the schoolyard days of recess where "my dad's bigger than your dad" is commonly shouted throughout.

Can anyone explain to me why you are better because you have a different belief than me? Or am I free to continue believing in my God as my creator without being called an idiot, nincompoop, or whatever other names you decide to come up with?

I have yet to see the movie, but plan to see it this Sunday evening. I want to see how Ben Stein approaches the subject, but will probably be just as skeptical of his documentary as the many evolutionists on this page are. Don't judge me because I have a different opinion, and I'll do the same for you - let's just leave the ridiculous name-calling and tantrum-throwing out of it, shall we?

Brilliant article girlfriend. Thank you, my darling, for it.

SP wrote:
"I'm sorry, but is Evolution not still considered a theory?"

No, evolution is a phenomenon that can be observed in real time in nature. Evolutionary theory is about the mechanisms underlying the phenomenon of evolution.

"And I theory is simple an idea that cannot be disproved, though it is not sound enough to be considered proven, or "fact"."

No, that's a hypothesis. A theory started as a hypothesis, but has a long track record of successfully predicting observations before they are made. ID has no track record of successful predictions, and a short track record of unsuccessful predictions.

Nothing in science is ever considered to be proven. All conclusions are provisional subject to new evidence. The ID movement produces no evidence, SP.

"So then... how is ID not also a theory."

No successful track record.

"Where you may think it silly for one who leans toward ID to call it a "scientific theory", it is still, in fact, a theory."

In fact, it is nothing of the sort.

"In a way, can't Evolution itself be a sort of "religion" (defined as - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe)."

No, evolution is only about how living things on earth change over time, not the purpose of the universe.

"There are people that devote their entire lives to seeking it out and defining it further, just the same as those who believe in ID."

Why don't those who believe in ID produce new evidence instead of books and movies aimed at fooling people like you, then?

"Other than being on different side of an argument, how are either different?"

One has mountains and gigabytes of evidence backing it, the other has nothing but rhetoric.

"Can anyone explain to me why you are better because you have a different belief than me?"

I am a better scientist than any ID proponent because I test my hypotheses rigorously.

"Or am I free to continue believing in my God as my creator without being called an idiot, nincompoop, or whatever other names you decide to come up with?"

So we agree that IDers are lying when they claim that this isn't about religion? What does the Bible say about lying?

davidov wrote:
"It will take time, but I.D. will gradually move from the second stage it presently occupies, to the third. This will occur when intelligent people question the "politically correct" verbal detractions, and spend time actually studying I.D., as I have for over three years. Then, this new paradigm for science will occur."

It's not happening. ID is stuck in the first stage and will remain there. In science, that progression requires new evidence, not rhetoric and frantic spinning of cherry-picked evidence from others. There are plenty of paradigm changes in science, and the changers are handsomely rewarded.

If you've been studying ID for over three years, what predictions of what hypotheses did you test and where are your data? That's the only thing that "actually studying" means in an actual scientific context.

John -

the simple definition of a thoery: contemplation or speculation; guess or conjecture.

And I cannot speak for all of those who believe in ID. I personally believe that the Intelligent Designer is God, but not all do. In fact, there are many who don't. And I also can't answer for everyone who does not support their belief or opinion. I can only speak for myself... so please do not put me in the same boat as those others. I do my research for myself and I still believe what I believe, contrary to common beliefs that i've been brain-washed by another's opinion.

*sigh*

SP-

theory: an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Source: American Heritage Dictionary of Science, 1986 ed.

Do you want ID put on an equal footing of a scientific discipline, not on a separate foundation of philosophy and belief? If so, we'll use the language of science, thank you very much.

Or, do you want to toss all "theories" into a common bin of mere conjecture and guesswork? If so, you show very little respect for your Designer.

I believe that my Designer is amazing, and I would never discredit or diminish his creation or power. But how can you see he everyday "mircales" and not take them as proof of Intelligent Design? or at LEAST acknowledge that there has GOT to be something more out there.

Also - from where are the original beings and what caused the beginning of their evolution to eventually becomming who and what we are today?

I really would be interested in having someone explain that to me through laymens terms - in all seriousness. Since not all of us were validictorians at Yale and some do need to be spoken to in such a way.

Wow, just wow.

I for one am very interested in hearing alternative theories, especially ones which have been so thoroughly vilified by the establishment.

Please allow me to guess, self-proclaimed goddess (ah the irony), you were very much anti-establishment in your younger years. But you're now very much comfortable with your establishment and the safety and security it promises you as it coddles you high above the stress and strife which so plagues us mere plebes below.

So now something comes to shake your house of cards and you're quite perturbed about the potential falling which may very well be occurring and soon.

Or you just can't stand the thought of some alternative thought far outside the lines of those espoused by preceding docu-dramas such as the laughable blatherings of Messrs Moore and Gore opening in such grandiose way, so far beyond the paltry showings of their respective crown jewels?

It is true, Gore's Borebasm opened on like 50 screens and maxed out at around 500, while Moore's blowhard-fests only made it to around 300, total, ever.

There won't likely be any conversion of mind or thought, but evolution will benefit from critical thought, from alternatives and perspectives heretofore kept in dark boxes and cells.

Gosh, all this debate over one little ol' movie. Sounds to me that this alone should be enough for me to want to watch what is said in the movie. Then I'll make up my own mind on this issue. Then Maryann can get back to reviewing the latest Benji movie. :)

Sorry folks, just trying to lighten up the mood.

I hope that everyone who is so passionate about their side of this issue can be open-minded enough to accept another perspective otherwise we have a much bigger problem.

Have a nice day!

I'm trying to make sense of the response statement: "That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with evolution or whether intelligent design is science or not." (in regards to the needs to put energy into the philosophical discussion of origins).

First, anytime the rhetoric is used "Absolutely" (like never and always in a relationship)—that is a clear sign that what follows is suspect.

Science and philosophy are joined at the hip. The current plausibility structure of what is science or not is built heavily on Enlightenment philosophy (Kant, Hume, etc.). Though evolution has undisputed facts, it also has many disputed claims that that are largely tackled by philosophers will all kinds of views. Take for example the theory that life generated from unliving matter at some point. Though many take this as fact (and has even reached dogmatic levels)—it most certainly is not fact—but one of competing theories. It has been argued that the theory is incoherent. The rhetoric then says, "No it's not, only by ID people." That's not a scientific response, but rather a dogmatic one. Similar to the response about Flew. When he was an atheist (for most of his life), he was claimed fully, and it IS argued that his paper, "Theology and Falsification" published in 1950 set the tone for atheists to come. Meaning, though he is now rhetorically written off since he left the club, his arguments are still used in full force—and still reckoned with.

The practical implications of both science and philosophy are dealt with hand-in-hand. For example, the scientific fields of physics and genetics are used to argue theories like evolution and design.

The sheer tone of responses may wind up proving how dogmatic a once free thinking field has become.

Keep in mind, Darwinism has been around for well over a century, and yet the scientific critique and dissent from much of its claims only gets stronger. To Correlate, traditional religion has dropped in America. If all the rhetorical claims are true then Darwinism would be less critiqued (meaning, the most critique would have happened when the most traditional religions were at its peek in America).

For example, over 600 doctoral scientists have signed a statement entitled: "A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The deflective argument would simply attempt to write these off as "Quacks", but these are PH.Ds at major universities around the world.

Like any documentary, Stein's overstates the case (I haven't seen a documentary that doesn't do this). The real test will be to see how secure the various views are. It is more scientific to "follow the evidence where it leads..."

I hope by this point you've found Expelled Exposed, the National Center for Science Education's website that discusses this film.

Anyone who's followed the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax for more than five minutes is probably aware of the majority of the film's prevarications, distortions, and inanities, but there's probably at least a few things there of which you weren't aware.

Oh, and that "Dissent from Darwism" list is a hoot.

Google "Project Steve" or check out The Panda's Thumb for some good info on that little piece of bath tissue.

See you After the Bar Closes.

;)

There is even a scientologist commenting on this? Scientology is even more hilarious than ID. Why do
humans having no soul mean we have no worth? Yes
people should stop worrying about something people
made up when the earth was flat and just live their
lives. Or for those of us who believe a failed
science FICTION writer got it right maybe you should
read some Dr. Suess. Maybe the Who's in Whoville are
actually the Intelligent Designers. Religion has
ruined humanity. Until ORGANIZED religion is banned
humanity will be worthless. Believe what you want but
don't avoid wearing a condom because the man in the
funny hat says it is wrong. Catching AIDS and dying
would be the wrong thing.

scott Wildey said:
Science and philosophy are joined at the hip. The current plausibility structure of what is science or not is built heavily on Enlightenment philosophy (Kant, Hume, etc.). Though evolution has undisputed facts, it also has many disputed claims that that are largely tackled by philosophers will all kinds of views. Take for example the theory that life generated from unliving matter at some point. Though many take this as fact (and has even reached dogmatic levels)—it most certainly is not fact—but one of competing theories.

Eh... no, you dropped your ball of "what is science or not" when you (intentionally?) avoided the fact that "one of the competing theories" is necessarily preferred by the scientific method, and guess what?... it's the natural explanation, for the simple good reason that we know that the cause for every effect that we know the cause for, is natural, so this continuity is most logically expected.

You did okay up to this dramatic distortion of the facts, so I have to wonder, ("intentional?").

"...Darwinism has been around for well over a century..."

There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' other than in the heads of dishonest Creationists. The scientific theory of evolution put forward by Charles Darwin has been with us 149 years.

"... and yet the scientific critique and dissent from much of its claims only gets stronger."

Bullshit. 149 years of accumulated, peer-reviewed research in multiple fields of study have all combined to confirm and strengthen the theory beyond what Darwin envisioned.

"...over 600 doctoral scientists have signed a statement entitled: "A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM: ..."

Bullshit again. You just make it up as you go along, don't you? There is a jumbled and desperate list of less than 100 names of mathemiticians, engineers, dentists(!), statisticians, project managers, psycholigists, assistant professor of urban forestry(!!), etc. published by the 'lying for Jesus' team at the DI. It's a pathetic attempt at argumentum ad populum. However, if you want to play the numbers game, there are 877 documented scientists called 'Steve' alone who state "there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred" (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp).

I think it's funny that a loser who calls herself a "geek goddess" has so much disdain for ID.

However, reading such a stupid article, I was ironically convinced she may be right: intelligent design seems impossible given such random stupidity present in the review that uses terms like "hard on" and the subsequent "go grrlfriend" responses.

May God or Darwin have mercy on you all.

Thanks for the write up MaryAnn. I agree with you that people need to know how whacked the "christianists" are, but I don't think they should go out and see this movie. It's important for it to tank financially.

To understand just how deceitful these folks are, here is what Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries has to say:

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2008/04/get-expelled.html#comments

"Reviewer MaryAnn Johanson of FlickFilosopher wails in her Expelled review (profanity alert), "You need to see this movie because these people are not going away." Excellent advice (and even better prognosticating). Go catch Expelled at a theater near you this weekend, and whether you're one of "these people" or a skeptic, share your thoughts with us in the comment section. We'd like to hear what you think.

If all goes according to plan today, we'll have more on the film and its star later this evening."

The author of this post, Gina Dalfonzo edits the blog and she also writes for Focus on the Family magazines. She doesn't care if friend or foe goes to see the movie. If it makes any money, she's going to claim it was popular and declare victory.

...she's a bit too old and unattractive to be calling herself a "Geek Goddess" under any circumstances. Close but no Tina Fey dear. And when I say "close" I mean the way that apes are close to being human.

Mary, you'll probably want to delete this one, so let me make it easier for you by just saying: HITLER HITLER HITLER!

I think you're making the case against 'intelligent' design for her, splatticusfinch.

All you people go and read Bill Bryson´s excellent science book "A short history of nearly everyt