Review: Ben Stein's 'Expelled'
Wednesday April 16, 2008
Categories: Movies
There's a wonderful moment toward the end of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," Ben Stein's new documentary on the intelligent design controversy, where Oxford zoologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins speculates on how life came to be. Beings from somewhere else...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Idol Chatter
Subscribe
Most Popular Posts
- Is Jon Gosselin Now Jewish?:
- Horror Movies Not Halal?:
- 'Sell the Vatican, Feed the World':
- Suri Cruise Attends Catholic School?:
- The 10 Commandments in 'Star Trek':
- Why I Won't See 'Where the Wild Things Are':
- Madonna: Judaism's New Ambassador?:
- R. Crumb's 'Book of Genesis Illustrated' Is Rated R:
- 'Sesame Street' Anniversary: Beliefnet Staff Share Lessons Learned:
- Director Paul Haggis Leaves Scientology:
Tag Cloud
American Idol, Barack Obama, books, Britney Spears, celebrities, celebrity, Christian, Christian music, Christianity, DVD, giveaway, Islam, Judaism, movie, movie clip, movies, music, politics, religion, Scientology, spirituality, Stephenie Meyer, Tom Cruise, top list, tv, TV, Twilight, Twilight Series, vampires, video
Actually, you were conned by what Dawkins has stated clearly was a doctored and edited quote in an interview about a whole different subject.
What was missing was the actual question.
Which was..
[QUOTE]Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could...
Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.
I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity...
Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." I can't remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure – that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience).
Another gem from Dawkins' post: Stein's team went around telling scientists they wanted to interview that their film was tentatively called Crossroads, only later to change the title to Expelled, which is apparently a giveaway that the movie was going to be pro-creationism. They claimed to have decided on the title only after interviews were complete. Turns out? They had registered the domain name ExpelledTheMovie.com well before talking to the scientists.[/QUOTE]
It was NOT what Dawkins thought actually happened. The sheer 'far fetched' nature of it was intended to demonstrate how far you have to go to even get to the 'any circumstance possible' that would result in life on this planet being designed.
And a rather sleazy ploy by the movie makers.
Stein admits that Michael Moore is his inspiration and that Michael Moore "revolutionized" documentaries.
Yes, Moore did, in fact, start a revolution. A revolution of twisting facts to fit into one man's perception of the world and present it as a "documentary." It's well-known that Moore files the edges of the jigsaw puzzle pieces to make them fit into his big picture and make them entertaining, and Stein admitting to taking a cue from Moore is a confession of folding up falsities in a shiny wrapper for people to swallow.
The sad part is, there is some truth in Moore's movies, but they're so mixed up with his gut-reaction bits that no one can tell the difference. The same is probably happening with Expelled.
Now both sides have their crazy "documentarians." Talk about fair and balanced.
Skittles and M&M's in the same bowl....if you KNOW what YOU want out of it, you'll find it. If you don't, you'll have an indescribable aftertaste until the next bowl is brought fourth with the same intention.
It's Media folks...USE it or lose it.
Should I have to say that I don't beleive in 'isms' either?
...peace and good vibes to you and yours. JTS
I really enjoyed the movie last night.
It exposed the liberal educational mind how they will not even
let students exam the I.D. for themselves.
Ben has done a great service for "exposing" them for what are are
and how they cannot tolerant any oyhrt point of view.
Again, thank you Ben
People always claim that Michael Moore's documentaries contain lies and inaccuracies.
From his most famous film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," name one.
Just one.
Can't do it?
Of course you can't. There is absolutely nothing inaccurate in "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"If Darwin's theory of evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life, why not give them room to seek other explanations?"
1) This is a preposterous straw man. First, Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. It has to do with the mechanisms by which living things evolve. Second, we know that Darwin's theory doesn't even fully explain the mechanisms of evolution. That's why we real scientists know about completely non-Darwinian mechanisms, such as drift. That's why it's both stupid and dishonest to describe real, working biologists as "Darwinists."
2) They've had plenty of room to seek, and they are afraid to test their own hypotheses (not theories) and seek new evidence. The entire movement has not produced a single datum. That's what seeking is in science, and they don't seek. They only blather and falsely present rhetoric as science, and this dishonest movie is a fine example.
Dishonest? Maybe you should check out http://creationworldview.org/ or http://www.answersingenesis.org/. Why hide all the facts? Now, everyone will be movtivated to research things on their own instead of being force fed lies in our schools and colleges.
I loved the reference in the article to "Reefer Madness". That's exactly what this movie should be compared to.
Even though I.D. has been exposed in the courts of Pennsylvania as a religious attempted coup, Stein does an end-round with the science and feeds on the paranoia of the "persecuted" Creationists.
Kudos to the reviewer here for nailing this movie for what it is.
blessed be,
Cernowain
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.