« Feeling unwelcome in KC | Main | Thanks to hospice volunteers »

April 27, 2008

‘Expelled’ movie review

The Star’s reviewers showed their unwillingness to objectively cover the documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” Their articles are riddled with fallacies and misstatements, belittling the participants and all the while avoiding the evidence presented.

In one article (4/17, Preview, “Truth isn’t always the point”) The Star’s movie critic gives credence to an obscure Web site’s assumption that the position of “Expelled” can’t be valid because its production company made other films for “faith and family.”

A review (4/18, FYI, “Anti-evolution screed lacks intelligence”) lambastes Ben Stein, “a Nixon administration functionary who reinvented himself,” yet fails to mention that Stein is a Yale-trained lawyer, an economist and a university professor.

These movie critics’ clear siding with evolutionists is very unfortunate. Thinking people will view the documentary and be disturbed at the refusal of media and academics to forthrightly discuss all the evidence and information.

Janet Harmon
Overland Park

After viewing the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” I found Roger Moore’s movie review contains much that lacks intelligence itself, especially when the author states that the scientist interviewees were possibly chosen for their eccentric appearances.

He is apparently unaware that Richard Dawkins, for example, was surely selected by Ben Stein because Dawkins, regardless of his looks, is a prominent atheistic scientist who is virulently opposed to intelligent design. Stein’s documentary becomes hilarious when Dawkins is filmed admitting to Stein that life on Earth could be the result of intelligent design as long as the designer was a being from outer space who was himself the product of atheistic evolution.

Stein used his skills acquired as a Yale-trained trial lawyer to meticulously build the case — using the testimonies of highly credentialed scientists such as Richard Sternberg, formerly a Smithsonian magazine editor, and Guillermo Gonzales, an astronomy professor at Iowa State University — that a scientist, no matter his credentials, risks losing his job if he questions Darwinism.

Mr. Moore amusingly stamps these testimonies as from the “under-credentialed” when his own scientific credentials deserve a big question mark.

Eulea Tharp
Blue Springs

Editor’s note: Because the makers of “Expelled” declined to show the film in advance to newspaper reviewers, The Star ran the only review of the film available through its news services — a pan by Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel.

Comments

CRD

Dan might enjoy this article, on Darwin and botany.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/arts/design/25darw.html

CRD

Dan might enjoy this article, on Darwin and botany.

CRD

"What bothers me is that to believe in Darwinian macro evolution you have to have way too much faith that it can work outside the real world."

That's the thing, Dan, it's not about "believing" in evolution -- it's about accepting that the current theory is simply the most coherent explanation we presently have to explain the myriad of observed phenomena and clues that we humans have gathered over the centuries, from the fossil record to our knowledge of genetics, biochemistry and physics. Science isn't about "belief" -- it's about putting forth an explanatory theory.

CRD

This guy gives a pretty decent rebuttal to the anti-science types like Beyer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29prof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

renfro

Interaction or serious debate ordinarily allows participants an opportunity to question their adversaries and offer evidence or justification to prove a point. --- “Intelligent designers” bring only a vacuum to the table with an attempt to inflict doubt on a scientific endeavor still in progress! Evolution is already scientifically accepted as theory and subject to change. --- Injecting fantasy into the process serves no purpose!

Sammy

Don S,

I heard Stein on a couple radio programs plugging his movie. I can't speak for the movie, but on those shows he didn't deny evolution. He just asked how evolution supports the origin of life and new species generation.

ksskidude

Devin Well said!!


This movie is a flop! It has been refuted by nearly every repuditable scientist in the world.

Read this review of the movie and see what it is all about.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2400,Expelled-Overview,Josh-Timonen-RichardDawkinsnet

Jim

He got them from the same place your mythical "intelligent designer" did, Dan.

Dan Beyer

So again, how do you get intact, ready to go 40 sets of encyclopedias worth of information DNA from electric arcs and chemicals?

devin

Dan, that's precisely the point. Science is about finding explanations for what we don't yet understand. Countless principles and phenomenon that used to be chalked up to divine miracle have been explained as perfectly natural phenomenon. Just because the work of science isn't yet done (and probably never will be) doesn't mean that God must exist in order to fill in the gaps that science can't fully explain. People who cling to God in order to fill in the gaps that science can't explain must be truly miserable people because their God just keeps getting smaller all the time.

So you're confident in your knowledge that life exists because God created it. Great. Good for you. But what practical value does that offer the rest of the world? Yes, I'm sure it's comforting to you and others who can believe as you do, but other than that it offers the world nothing. Science, on the other hand, is constantly bringing tangible benefits to the world. In searching to understand the natural origins of life, science has brought us a wealth of knowledge about biology and chemistry that has undoubtedly found practical applications in countless ways. Even as you sit smugly in your knowledge that science will never unravel the mystery of the origins of life, science continues to solve life's mysteries in countless ways that you ultimately benefit from. So do you really want science to stop looking for answers?

Dan Beyer

Bill, you fancy yourself as a mind reader do you? Trust me you're not.
What bothers me is that to believe in Darwinian macro evolution you have to have way too much faith that it can work outside the real world.
Show me how you can recreate intact, ready to go DNA inside a laboratory setting using electric arcs and chemicals.

CRD

I wonder why Mr. Beyer is so threatened by the idea of evolution -- it's not like evolutionary theory is incompatible with Christian belief. (unless you're hung up on the whole "the earth must have sprung up in seven literal days 6,000 years ago" idea, which apparently some folks still are)

Dan Beyer

Kinda like how the Sacred lightning bolt hit the nonexistent primordial soup and poof! intact ready to go 40 sets of encyclopedias worth of information packed DNA pops into existence?

stone

that link didn't work. try this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunyip

stone

well Dan, down there seems to be the place where most people believe that some magical being (which, if true, could look something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bunyip_%281935%29.jpg) waved a magic wand and said "let there be light" and created this place, which sounds about as realistic as the chances the Chiefs have of winning the super bowl this year

Dan Beyer

Down yonder in the unedumacated farmland is not the only place that people are seeing through the fallacy of Darwin's macro evolution beliefs.

Chris40

"About 90% of the business for this movie came from rural theatres in farmland, the type of people who cling to religion for everything. The movie did virtually NO business in major cities, but a lot of business in the less educated farmland area."

Let me suggest a different scenario. Michael Moore does very well in large, "educated" cities, but in my opinion you have to be a very dishonest uber-moron to enjoy his films.

Rather than a smart/stupid division, it's more likely a liberal/conservative division.

Personally, I have no plans to see this movie. Ever. It sounds like almost nobody else has seen it either, so it's equally absurd to praise it as it is to pan it.

Until you've actually seen the movie, silence is probably the best policy.


GCYL

“Care to explain what was so hypocritical about Jack's statements?” - Jim

You acting stupid doesn’t help jack.

“Any one who disagrees with me, for whatever invalid reason, is WRONG, EVIL, MISLEAD or STUPID!That about covers all arguements here for the day, doesn't it?” Posted by: jack | Mar 30, 2007 12:29:37 AM

Jack has an extensive history of lip service expressing agitation towards disagreements expressed through condescending name calling.

“So sayeth God...er, I mean...Mark.” - Posted by: jack | Apr 28, 2008 11:57:15 AM

Hypocrisy much jack? Done acting Jim?

JUNGLEJACK

Don S. - there's a difference between evolution and natural selection. Your examples seem to fall under the latter - which has never been questioned.

"The movie did virtually NO business in major cities, but a lot of business in the less educated farmland area."

... I wonder what the dropout rates are for those "educated cities" in comparison with rural areas.

stone

yes Dan, pretty much the exact same crowd that Obama "alienated". Frankly, I dont know why they were offended. They weren't going to vote for him anyways BEFORE he said that, but that is for a different thread.
And I do have the box office figures in front of me to confirm where they movie did the most business, and in what theatres/areas it flopped, but, unfortunately, if I post them, I would be fired immediately, since I do not have permission to share these grosses

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright