Worth A Look: 15%
Pretty Bad: 0%
Total Crap: 65%
1 review, 14 user ratings
|Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
As if it weren’t enough for the “Bible Belt” folk to have been soundly defeated over the years, with important rulings in the Supreme Court that have completely outlawed the teachings of Creationism simply because it isn’t an acceptable science nor any type of science for that matter, these hardcore nutcases have been spending their time (since they have nothing better to do) to try and devise any form of disingenuous strategy to put some legal and “scientific” background in their claims. This culminated with the emergence of the “Intelligent Design movement” (or ID for short), headed by their think-tank the Discovery Institute. These people came up with the idea that nature is too complex to have been product of the evolution and that an intelligent being was behind it all instead (Anyone care to guess who this intelligent being is)? In the 2005 ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Pennsylvania District Court ruled that ID was nothing more than elegantly dressed up “creationism”, which ultimately put an end to their efforts in trying to have ID taught in schools... or so we thought (Louisiana, are you HEARING ME?!). Because that hasn’t stopped these people from continuing to play their “freedom of speech” and “academic freedom” trump cards as well as their much-trashed “scientific claims”. In fact, they’ve decided to use the medium of film to try and spread their message across the US (namely US Government lawmakers) and the world, and then managed to get of all people Ben Stein, a prominent and respected man in the realm of US pop culture (Ferris Bueller, Win Ben Stein’s Money), to carry forward their claims. Never mind that Ben Stein, a former Nixon speech writer, doesn’t know jackshit about science even if it bit him in the ass (he’s a lawyer for Christ’s sake [pun intended]), the fact that he bought into Discovery Institute’s bullshit and appeared in this film promoting such crap is simply astounding. And this documentary (which Mr. Stein co-wrote [!]) serves as nothing more than a last-ditch effort for these loons to convince us about how “freedom of speech” and “academic freedom” is being obfuscated and that “alternate theories” are being shunned by “evil Darwinists”. Yet this very garbage which these people spit out and their constant beating around the bush, masquerading, and just plain malicious hypocrisy are the very reasons as to why “Intelligent Design” has not and will never be taken seriously.I am not going to get into much detail regarding ID’s scientific claims, mainly and obviously because I’m not a scientist. However, that doesn’t mean that I can’t touch this topic with a ten-foot pole. There’s plenty in this documentary that is deserving of critical wrath. But if you’re interested in reading the scientific debunking of this crass piece of crap “documentary”, you’re more than welcome to visit: http://www.expelledexposed.com. Suffice to say though, that most of the science that Ben Stein and crew touch on is so fucking out of date; we’re talking about 1950’s Evolution here, and one wonders whatever happened in regards to mentioning modern advancements in Evolutionary Biology or the like for that matter. But I digress.
"Win Ben Stein’s Bullshit, actually, don’t!"
Obviously, looking at the beginning credits of this film, Stein and director Nathan Frankowski are great admirers of Michael Moore, or should I say, great imitators. Beginning with old footage of the Berlin Wall tribulations during the Cold war and then going on an editing frenzy of punching points of comedy and irony via a mixture of stock footage of commercials and newsreels spliced with real-life interviews and shots of Stein’s trademark awkward look. All of this has been done before. But whereas Michael Moore’s filmmaking tricks served a purpose and more importantly, pointed towards a compelling theme that he was covering backed up with hard evidence at hand, Stein and Frankowski decided instead to immediately lay the foundations of their film premise by drawing a line on the ground, and slowly but surely cementing an “us vs. them” mentality on the viewer. And yet for all their trendy arty showmanship, they never so much as define concretely what ID is or even for that matter what Evolution or Darwinism is. For a film to call itself a documentary, this research flaw is incredibly glaring, but this is just the start of a film that is nothing more than a mishmash of lies, faux pas editing and editorializing, gross mishandling and manipulation of facts, and just simply flat out hypocritical and malicious bullshit. To finish off on the Michael Moore thing (and this will be the only time where you’ll see Ben Stein and Nathan Frankowski in the same paragraph as Michael Moore), true, Mr. Moore has done some spinning of his own but only in the purpose of enhancing his point and make the viewer think about what he’s watching; here, we’re forcibly spoon-fed and manipulated into with the purpose of bludgeoning our conscience into taking a side. That’s blatant propaganda… and partisan hackery, and is proof that Ben Stein and Nathan Frankowski are not even half the filmmakers that Michael Moore is.
So, Mr. Stein starts off with the usual conservative rap about freedom making this great country free, and then lays concerns about these freedoms being in danger, especially in the Scientific community because alternate theories have been shunned by what he perceives as a “Darwinism elite”, a supposed group of non-God believing hardliners determined to shun any alternate theory (such as “ID” of course) by the wayside if it doesn’t conform to what the already established Darwin’s theory dictates. There’s more to this story, but let’s begin here. He goes into the bulk of his premise by interviewing 5 “scientists” that had been “expelled” from their posts because they supposedly “strayed from the Party Line” and “dared to give genuine credibility to the “Intelligent Design” claims. This is all well and good until you do some digging on your own and you realize that it is all utter bullshit, for none of these scientists (or should I say “pseudo-scientists”) was ever expelled. In fact, two of them, Michael Egnor and Robert Marks are still working in their respective jobs. A third one, Richard Von Stenberg didn’t even work at the Smithsonian as it is claimed, and was a voluntary editor for an independent scientific journal. The fourth one, Caroline Crocker was a non-tenure track contract teacher whom was simply let go because her contract expired. And finally, Guillermo Gonzales, was denied tenure at Iowa State University simply because, compared to his peers, he was a lazy sod.
As you listen to these “expelled” people and their claims (as well as several clips of other people who supposedly didn’t want their faces to be revealed for fear of losing their jobs), Stein begins to establish a point about “academic freedom” being in danger due to this “Scientific Elite” that was supposedly shunning these people from their jobs (which clearly wasn’t the case), yet (and as stated before) at no point in time does the film make even a concerted effort into describing what Intelligent Design really is… or what Evolution is for that matter. Yet he goes and takes a statement from resident Skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer regarding that to his knowledge, nobody has ever been fired for offering alternate views regarding Evolution, and stomps it down, without even defining his objectives. He doesn’t even have the occurrence to define “academic freedom”, which is clearly not about “having the right to teach whatever you want” as Ms. Crocker so ignorantly implies. Hell, “academic freedom” doesn’t even have ANYTHING to do with teaching; Academic Freedom is about having the liberty of RESEARCHING the topics that you want with any and all resources available at your disposal. To teach ID on a Biology class is as foolish a to try to teach the Bible in a World History Class. You’re supposed to teach what you’ve been hired for, you dumb fucking bitch.
But that shouldn’t be so surprising, because Stein for all intents and purposes is not in this to find the truth about a subject he knows next to nothing about. He takes in every statement from the “expelled” people at face-value, not even bothering to fact check it at all, and buys into all these made-up statements about how these people were treated. Stenberg claims that he was singled out as an “intellectual terrorist”, yet there’s no evidence that supports that claim nor there was an investigation into his conduct although there should have been (publishing an essay in a journal without having it peer-reviewed is an ethical no-no, plus, he resigned to his position 6 months before said article was published). Crocker used valuable class time teaching students ID rather than the course that she was originally HIRED to teach, and despite student complaints, she finished off her contract. Egnor feels ousted by his community and the blogosphere for claiming that physicians don’t need to know evolution in order to be physicians (apparently, Egnor’s talents are God-gifted, and has never accessed the internet before in his life). Marks was never fired and his “physics lab” site was never shut down but rather moved to a 3rd party web host in order to avoid any conflict with the University guidelines. Gonzales… well like I said, he was just a lazy sod who went crying to the ID ilk because he was denied tenure over his 6-year work, which consisted of a measly $200,000 obtained in research funds (compared to the average $1.3 million his peers obtained in the same period) and only one graduate student dissertation (not to mention he wasn’t the only one that was denied tenure; 4 out of 12 incumbents were also denied tenure at ISU at that time).
There is something however that all 5 of Stein’s “Expelled” have in common however, and it’s that they have close ties with ID’s main proponent, the Discovery Institute, be it directly or indirectly. Stein of course is quick in addressing the issue, putting clips of several scientists which trash Discovery Institutes tactics of disseminating and spreading misinformation via their famous Wedge Strategy. But then Stein goes and tries to actually minimize Discovery’s involvement taking the easy way out: by stating that:
1) In no way shape or form are they nor ID claiming that the supposed Intelligent Being that they propose is God.
2) That there are several people out there in the scientific community that support this theory.
3) What they propose is an alternate theory, and that science should be about exploring various theories, in this case, various theories regarding the origin of the species, because after all, Evolution is just a theory, not solid fact.
To prove this, he goes and finds “prominent scientists” that are proponents or likeminded to the idea like Paul Nelson, William Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer (the same guy who wrote the essay which Stenberg published without no peer-review), Jonathan Wells, and David Berlinski.
Now if Stein were a serious documentary filmmaker, he’d be examining all the claims that these people state and then cross-examine with the scientists that counter those claims, and then formulate his own opinion based on the facts gathered from both sides. But Stein is not a serious documentary filmmaker; he only glances at the anti-ID folk with selected clips from several scientists, not even allowing time to flesh out their reasons for their rebuttal (and this actually hides something more sinister, but more about that later), so he’s clearly showing bias towards the subject. Ok, so with the line of dissent taken out (And this fucking movie is about PROMOTING dissent yet it’s doing the EXACT OPPOSITE!), what’s the point of listening to a bunch of pseudo-scientists hashing out all kinds of stupid horseshit regarding ID? Not to mention all these people are actually under the umbrella of Discovery Institute so any impartiality is null and void on all of them. And worst of all, they argue about Evolution being just a theory yet they never bother to explain their own theory they’re proposing, nor even want to hint at who the Designer is. But wait, that’s not the end of it, listening to these “scientists”, it seems that they don’t even know the proper definition of the word “theory”; they seem to think that theories are just a bunch of incredible coincidences that ended up explaining facts. What the fuck is this? The Ad Hominem Society of the Intellectually Inept?
These people go and ramble, whine, moan and bitch about the Evolution theory being “a mess” as Mr. Berlinski so eloquently states, that it’s full of holes, and has tons of discrepancies and all that faulty stuff and that they don’t hold up well to mathematical tests (yeah, like mathematics had anything to do with Biology). Well, Mr. Berlinski, guess what? ALL theories are full of holes, and that’s the point. Theories are just models designed to help explain phenomena based on the information that is at hand. Because of this, theories are subject to updates and even discarding because as time passes new information arises, and what was at first known to be one thing, it’s now wrong or wasn’t what we originally thought or planned and we adjust accordingly. All of this is subject to the knowledge that we have AT THAT MOMENT. So our knowledge is still bound to be wrong sooner or later, but at least we have learned, and just because a theory has holes on it doesn’t necessarily make it wrong (hell, the theory of Gravity has more holes than the Evolution theory), because it’s based on the knowledge that we have AT THAT MOMENT. It’s constant learning process; it’s always been like this. Consider this shot of common sense: if a theory knew all the answers of all the questions, then hell, it wouldn’t be a theory anymore, it would be a LAW. Furthermore, there wouldn’t be any point in researching anymore, and we’d be more perfect human beings because of it. But we aren’t, and we don’t know the answer to every question because we simply don’t know. But apparently ID proponents have the “be-all, end-all” theory to answer to all of our questions, right? RIGHT?! I mean hell, it’s easy for them let alone anybody to blame it all on God, right?
But wait, it gets weirder, and sinister. Stein decides to take us on a crash course regarding several probable theories regarding how Evolution went to set off the origin of the species (Never mind that Charles Darwin didn’t even know the answer to that question, he simply tried to explain how species would have evolved over time and that of course lead to a point zero which he left it for other people to research.) and systematically trashes each one of them. He first goes on to blabber about how life on Earth emerged from this primordial soup of bacteria and microbes and chemical events randomly, and in a stroke of getting the odds right, life suddenly appeared. When he laughs off that theory, he then proceeds to ridicule Dr. Michael Ruse regarding a very complicated “clay-crystal theory” that he was trying to explain to him in layman’s terms, and then also goes to dismiss a very probable theory called Panspermia (which states that life was seeded by alien microbes which fell on earth via meteorites or some other form of transport) as science fiction. To the untrained viewer, this may all sound very foolish, but it’s hard not to see how the viewers are being deceived, and no better piece of evidence is in store here when Stein interviews Dr. Ruse, as he tries to explain the clay-crystal theory to Stein in the most layman terms possible. Yet whenever Dr. Ruse gives out his explanation, several of his sentences have been edited down to the point that they make no sense at all, and hence why a theory about “backpacking crystals” sounds so absurd. This process is also seen in his several clips where scientists like PZ Myers, William Provine, Richard Dawkins and the head of the National Center for Science Education, Dr. Eugenie Scott are interviewed and their comments are simply cut down and editorialized. This is nothing more than blatant quote mining; an exercise in taking these people’s comments out of context in order to suit Stein’s and Frankowski’s agendas. They distort and ridicule accepted theories regarding the origin of life (whatever happened to evolution? Wasn’t that the original argument?), and even play the “probability argument” in order to enhance their claims, which is ridiculous because anybody with an IQ of an autistic 5 year old knows that arguing a topic with probabilities only highlights how fucking ignorant you are about the subject matter.
Not only that, Stein throughout the movie keeps referring to scientists and the Evolution theory itself as “Darwinists” and “The Darwinist Gospel”; at first I thought this was just Stein simply being a smart-ass, that is until suddenly, the film started mentioning Dr. Scott and her quote-mined comments regarding the not-so secret point regarding several of the Catholics and mainstream protestants and their stance regarding Evolutionism. Stein refutes this point by bringing out people like Congressman Mark Souder and journalist Larry Witham and their claims that there’s a systematic thumping down of any dissenting ideas regarding evolution err… Darwinism, and that the scientific community is actually atheist by nature since Evolutionary Scientists or Darwinists for that matter discard God, or should I say, an intelligent creator from being behind the origins of life. This claim is utter bullshit; if this is the case, then why is it that there are people like Dr. Ken Miller or Dr. Francisco Ayala amongst several others that are prominent evolutionary scientists and yet are devout practicing Christians? According to one of the film’s producers, Mark Mathis, interviewing people like Miller would’ve confused the film unnecessary (is that so?) and that Catholics like Miller and Ayala are intellectually dishonest. Good lord, why is it that Americans still having that centuries old grudge against the Catholics? Haven’t we evolved since then? And if that’s the case, then what about Dr. Francis Collins? He’s a practicing Evangelical Christian, or are we going to split hairs as to which part of Christianity is fundamentally honest?
But wait, the film implies that not only there is a stronghold against evolutionary dissent (Clearly Stein and co. have never gone to an Evolution seminar, and witness the amount of dissent there is against Evolution), but also that the News Media is also in bed with the Darwinists and broadcasting filtered and biased information to the general public, and the same shit as before, whichever journalist goes against the trend, is blacklisted. And whom do they show as a victim? None other than resident ID journalist Pamela Winnick, whom was supposedly attacked and blacklisted because of her “unbiased” views on ID and Darwinism; seriously, to say that Winnick (as well as Larry Witham) is an unbiased journalist is like saying that Dick Cheney is a fair and balanced politician. Hell, if you even think about it, these guys whine and moan about not being allowed to dissent, and when YOU question or dissent against them, you get immediately branded by them as a disinformation agent that is in bed with the Darwinists. Of course this is all a make-believe scam devised by the ID folk to make you believe that the Scientific Community does not allow dissent at all, in order to boost the legitimacy of their claims, but once you go realize that this is NOT how the scientific method works, you end up realizing that none of these people have anything to offer whatsoever other than what they’ve stated originally. And its with these very same already debunked arguments that they want to bypass not only public or scientific scrutiny, but also the US Courts, claiming that the issue goes deeper than what a judge and a 12 person jury panel would say. Sure, this is a bit rich coming from the same people that supported Judge John Jones at first because he was a Republican, a Christian and was appointed by George W. Bush, and when Jones ruled against them, they accused him of being a liberal partisan activist judge.
The worst is saved for last however, as Stein continues with his “us vs. them” approach, clearly now stating that all ID proponents are Christians and that all Darwinists are Atheists. And that the Darwinists won’t allow science and religion to mix. To prove this, he brings in people like Alistair McGrath to debunk Richard Dawkins’s views on why God and Religion don’t fit with science (clearly, this film is doing to Richard Dawkins to what Bowling for Columbine did to Charlton Heston), yet the arguments McGrath makes are nothing more than blatant generalizations regarding Science’s lack of answers and Religion’s supposed wealth of them (a claim that Dawkins knocked down with flair). But then these “generalization” arguments are all over the place, they claim that scientists are all so hell-bent with their scientific beliefs that they’re unable or unwilling to accept any dissenting ideas, especially those regarding the mixing of science and religion, as if they were all part of a scheme that is brainwashing these people’s minds, just like a sect or a religion. See where this is getting at? And of course, they bring in Dr. William Provine as proof as to how “Darwinism” can damage a human soul, and make him look like a miserable sod, a man who doesn’t have any happiness in him and doesn’t believe in heaven or in freewill and is hinted to us as potentially suicidal. They also bring in PZ Myers as proof of that, but more about Dr. Myers later.
And this of course leads to the grand conclusion that Stein was ultimately aiming at: that Science is a fanatical Atheist sect capable of dehumanizing a person and those around him. Case in point, the Communists, whom put a wall in Berlin to prevent any Capitalist influence from seeping over towards their totalitarian regime, but most importantly, THE NAZIS. That’s right. The Nazis were prominent “Darwinists” who believed in the supremacy of a dominating species, and wore the slogan of “survival of the fittest” in their hearts, by inventing Eugenics and eliminating via science the inferior species (i.e. the Jews). Stein brings in Berlinski and Dr. Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler to support the claim that Hitler and his cronies were all Darwin fanatics. Therefore imagine what would happen in a modern world today, where religion is suppressed and where science dominates at will, dehumanizing people all over and systematically killing people in mass.
This is such a disgusting and absurd claim that it just simply defies belief.
For anyone that knows their history, Germany has been in a love-hate relationship with the Jews for even before Hitler even existed. And we know very well how Protestant Pioneer Martin Luther held the Jews in such contempt back in the 14th century. Second of all, both Berlinski and Weikart completely ignore the fact that Hitler made several references to God in Mein Kampf, and ignore his own beliefs that by killing Jews and Gypsies and all the handicapped, he was doing God’s work (“We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people”. Reichstag, 1933). Furthermore their claims on Eugenics being the product of Darwinism highlight his (and Berlinski’s and Weikart’s) utter ignorance on both subjects. Darwin’s theories had nothing to do with Eugenics; hell, Darwin didn’t even have anything to do with what is discussed here. Darwin in his books repudiated any form of oppression; he rejected British Supremacy and the practice of slavery in several countries, both of which had caused the systematic torture and death of several natives around the globe (Read The Descent of Man for reference). Why then was Darwin going against his own idea of “survival of the fittest?”
Because it wasn’t even Darwin’s idea to begin with; and it certainly wasn’t what Darwin had in mind when he did his research.
Enter the term “Social Darwinism”, which was originated not by Darwin but by a contemporary philosopher called Herbert Spencer, who stated that species (or more specifically, mankind) competed with each other with the stronger overpowering the weaker. It was Spencer who coined the now infamous term “survival of the fittest.” Social Darwinism has more to do with Larmarckian theory of Evolution than Darwin’s own theory; Lamarck had a perfect predestined model of evolution, whereas Darwin’s model was more inclined towards nature itself providing the changes and the species adapting to it as much as they could. It was Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton, a sympathizer of Spencer’s Social Darwinism thinking, who created Eugenics, which was a model again closer to Lamarck than to Darwin. Eugenics tried to artificially enhance the stronger species by cutting off the bad traits that one species may have in order to suit the model of perfect evolution. US Eugenics differed greatly from German Eugenics, mainly because US Eugenics tried to correct certain defects in their society and keep it from corroding even further, whereas German Eugenics sought to create a supreme Aryan race bar none. But yet again, in an example of utter ignorance, Stein generalizes the eugenics projects in both countries as if it was the same thing, and doesn’t even bother to do even the smallest amount of research and figure out the key differences between Darwinian Evolution and Social Darwinism. Stein mixes them up as if they were one of the same and continues on with his point about how “EVIL” the Darwinist gospel is. His logical fallacies are so glaring they’re laughable. Consider this: If Hitler had been a true Darwinian (and not a Social Darwinist as he clearly was) here’s what he would have done regarding the Jews and the other undesirables: Nothing.
He would’ve just left it to Mother Nature to do the job because Jews would die out due to them being inferior and unable to adapt to nature as it was. But he didn’t do that, he did the complete opposite of Darwin; he took matters into his own hands and did the selection artificially. And Stein doesn’t stop there, he then tries to justify Hitler’s actions by quoting a select passage written by Charles Darwin himself from his book Descent of Man. Stein however doesn’t bother to tell you the viewer that he blatantly editorialized and quote mined this passage to suit his agenda, in order for you not to realize that Darwin’s passage was clearly contradictory to what Stein recites and implies towards on camera.
Finally, this whole garbage about Science being responsible for the death of 6 million Jews, let me remind Stein and all of the DI Christians about the several million people that have been killed in the name of God and Jesus due to the Crusades, religious wars, politically motivated massacres and the Inquisition as well as the Ku Klux Klan, and that combined number exceeds everyone that Communism and Nazism has killed. So much for a religion that originally stated in its commandments that they “shall not kill.”
But of course, since I mentioned before about Stein and Frankowski’s imitation of Bowling for Columbine, Stein would want to have of course his moment in the Sun as we see him, the defender of the Bill of Rights take down the evil atheist Richard Dawkins and expose him for the fraud that he really was, just like Charlton Heston was exposed as a cynical bastard and a corporate mouthpiece to the chagrin of several of his defenders and of the Hollywood establishment. Dawkins is shown as he’s being prepped (kind of a preconception of getting prepared for the slaughter), and when Stein arrives, he (according to the film) bludgeons him into “admitting” that Intelligent Design is possible, but not before condemning him for having such a despicable view of God (brutal, zealous, blood thirsty, malevolent, control freak, etc.) when in reality Americans believe in a compassionate and forgiving and wise God which will grant you to go to heaven if you’re in his rightful path. The interview is already pointless due to Dawkins’s statements being completely quote mined and taken out of context. Dawkins later claimed that he was simply responding to Stein’s request for an example regarding ID and giving ID some sort of credibility. Say that, yes, this world was intelligently designed; fair enough, so it is, but who was the designer? Where did he come from? Who designed the designer? It’s such a ridiculously redundant question that simply doesn’t go any further than that. But you’d never get that from this movie, because the moment Dawkins tries to answer, his response is cut towards Stein pressing into another question. Fucking cheapskates.
Hell, to top it off, Stein’s lecture at Pepperdine University which bookends the movie DID NOT HAPPEN AT ALL! That’s right, when they set the lecture conference up, only 3 students bothered to show up to it, forcing the producers to hire extras to fill in the remaining seats, furthermore confirming the fakery of this film altogether.
I was truly angered and appalled by this fucking piece of shit of a movie when it ended, and Ben Stein going through his patronizing shtick and placing himself as a Christ-like martyr just made me want to vomit right in my keyboard. But little did I know once I decided to do some research into this movie, that all of the shit that Stein and Frankowski and his co-writer Kevin Miller and producers Mark Mathis and Walt Ruloff and crew did, extended itself beyond the movie. See, the movie’s ongoing blatant acts of reckless dishonesty and contradictory bullshit are just the result of a huge campaign of lies and deceit performed by these people towards the interviewees of the Scientific Community themselves. Never mind that all of their statements were in the end bastardized and quote mined into the final product; that is the end result. According to several sources, mainly from Dr Richard Dawkins and Dr. PZ Myers, Stein and co. actually went to them and pitched the movie under a different title: Crossroads, the Intersection between Science and Religion. They even have the e-mails from Mathis himself to prove it. So what happened? Myers, Dawkins, Michael Shermer and Eugenie Scott were all lied to and deceived by the producers into agreeing to take part on a documentary that didn’t exist then and doesn’t exist now. They came under false pretenses and then they stripped their interviews of all coherence in order to suit their point. This act of self-serving dishonesty and breach of ethics is probably the lowest of the low that I’ve ever seen from these supposed journalists and documentary filmmakers (never mind tabloid journalists, those guys have no ethics by default). You can say what you want about filmmakers surprising their subjects with out-of-nowhere interviews, but to do it under false pretenses and lying to your subjects about what you’re interviewing about is wholly irresponsible and uncalled for. Just read PZ Myers’s reaction to all that horseshit on his blog so you can slam the idea home:
Of course, Mark Mathis tried to dismiss all these claims, stating that all of them were given advance warning regarding the questions asked. Problem with that statement is that the movie’s website, according to Network Solutions WHOIS database, was already registered on March 1st, 2007, well ahead of the interviews (April 2007). Not only that, Stein admitted on World Magazine that the movie was pitched to him as an Anti-Darwinist film as early as 2005!
But that’s not all. Taken from a purely analytical standpoint, this movie, like several of ID apologists, is so contradictory that it’s just pathetic. ID claims to be scientific in background yet there is hardly any science involved, and much of that science is botched up to begin with. In the movie, ID claims not to have anything to do with God, yet Stein and Frankowski go and imply how God can be, or should I say, IS the intelligent designer, and just because of that we’re supposed to give it credence? Several of the ID apologists here, namely William Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer have all stated that ID has nothing to do with God yet they regularly attend religious meetings and work at Christian Universities and have openly admitted that God is the designer. Seriously, what the fuck is it with these people? Either it is or it isn’t. Furthermore, they got a religious scientist called John Lennox repudiating the idea that all scientists are atheists, and the damn film ends up implying the complete opposite! Good Lord!
Hell, at least Stein was smart not to bring in Discovery Institute’s creator Phillip Johnson, who openly declared the institute’s religious and political intentions very clearly in his Wedge Strategy; or worse, interviewed Michael Behe, the ID scientist who got burned big time as his deposition in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial served as basis for Judge Jones to refute ID’s claims of legitimate science; or even mention ID’s main book, Of Pandas and People, which was revealed in the trial to have been originally in its first drafts a religious text. Nice work in avoiding these landmines Ben, including the one about dealing with the trial itself, which you only barely even dealt with, but unfortunately you chose a path that on the whole, is a complete fucking minefield itself, because it doesn’t take much digging to notice that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science, nor with freedom, which was actually your original point, but instead it has everything to do with forcing religion into the classrooms and shoving it down people’s throats as if it were the only undisputed truth, as if it were the only answer into nature’s gaps, and whomever doesn’t agree with it, is an atheist and a psychopath.
No Ben, this is pure blatant hypocrisy. Not to mention arrogance, as you so perfectly showed it yourself when you were accused by the Anti-Defamation League regarding your (and Berlinski’s and Weikart’s) shoddy attempts to connect Evolutionism with the Holocaust, to which you replied that it was “none of their FUCKING business.” Actually Ben, it IS their FUCKING BUSINESS because, and like the Scientific Community, these people are concerned that the lessons and the legacy of the Holocaust be all misrepresented, trivialized and distorted by you and your cronies’s loony ideas. Seriously Ben, you and all those morons from the Discovery Institute are nothing more than a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical zealots. According to you assholes, your theory, like Berlinski said in the movie, has been stamped by the mainstream as “Streng Verboten”, I’d say it’s more likely that it is actually stamped as “Vollig Scheiße”!
Don’t believe me? Ask yourself then why the distributors of this film didn’t even set up advance screenings for film critics (the first and most obvious sign that this film is a certified stinker), and why the distributors, along with the Discovery Institute gave priority for this movie to be pre-screened for Government legislators simply to push their agendas of trying and lobbying their anti-evolutionist “Academic Freedom Bills”. Ask yourself why was it that in these screenings only legislators were allowed to watch the film while the press and the public was completely shut out from seeing it. Ask yourself why when granting interviews and press conferences, the filmmakers only allowed submitted questions that were pre-screened and pre-approved by a selecting committee. Ask yourself why when requesting a screening of the movie, people had to fill out an entry form and then have your data checked against a list of names.
Sounds like something that came straight out of 1984 or an X-Files episode, right? I wish I could tell you it was. But it has happened. Just ask the several legislators in Missouri and Florida about it. Ask the producers why their film was also screened almost exclusively to Christian groups. Ask Arizona State University about the whole shenanigans regarding a supposed screening of the film there that was cancelled. And lastly and more importantly, ask the aforementioned Dr. PZ Myers as to how he was thrown out of the screening that HE REGISTERED TO BEFOREHAND to attend, alongside Richard Dawkins. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php . Curiously, and laughingly so, they didn’t turn Dawkins away simply because when he registered, he did so with his original birth name, and when he was asked for his ID, he pulled out his British passport which had his full legal name: Clinton Richard Dawkins. Classic!
In the end, this is truly an inexcusable, dishonest and all around festering pile of bollocks. In the movie, Richard Sternberg and Ben Stein challenged Dr. Eugenie Scott asking her with what authority does she and others like her presume to declare what is and what is not Science? Dr. Scott replied: “Who is Ben Stein to say what is and what is not Science (Exactly the same question I ask)? None of us speaks for science. Scientists vary all over the map in their religious and philosophical views, like Francis Collins for example, so no one can speak for science.” No truer words have ever been spoken, for science is subject to a ton of interpretations depending on various viewpoints. And scientists, at least the ones that ARE scientists and not those jack-offs who simply earned their PhDs so they can sit and warm a chair in an office somewhere (which is what the grand majority of these ID apologists do), research and try to interpret these findings with as much honesty and integrity as possible, so that they can provide us with new knowledge of ourselves and the world that surrounds us. That’s what science allows us to do, and that is the reason why science is also instrumental to our freedom (a fact that Ben Stein conveniently ignores in his opening statement).
If you are an intelligent person that knows how to tell the difference between what is the truth and what are lies, you’ll know very well about what to do with this movie, and that is to avoid it at all costs. But if you’re one of those fanatical Caucasian Jesus-loving dumb fucks who can’t distinguish his own ass from his elbow, you’re better off sitting in your corner and wait for Mother Nature to select you and your entire ilk for extinction. It’s just too bad that Mother Nature has all the patience in the world to do it, but in the meantime, I suggest we celebrate a form of Social Darwinism by burning every single fucking copy of this trash bag of a movie in a bonfire. In fact, lets! Trust me, you’ll be saving a ton of people from irreparable brain damage.But seriously, one of the Bible’s commandments actually reads “Thou shall not lie”, and here you have these supposed Christians, using lies and deceit to manipulate people's thoughts and exploit their political agendas. Ask yourself in all honesty; would you be proud to be a part of such people and such evil schemes? Aren’t those people the false prophets that the Bible warns about, the ones that come in sheep’s clothing but are nothing but wolves inside? Think about that. 0-5 (Credit to Shane Killian's Expelled: Correcting the Misinformation subtitle track for serving as source in the writing of this review).
link directly to this review at http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=17367&reviewer=235
originally posted: 07/26/09 17:25:33