Expelled May Be Expelled From Theaters

Comment on “Expelled May Be Expelled From Theaters”

Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.

1. Shash nahalin Says:
   April 25th, 2008 at 15:37

   Stuart Wood said: "Now I may not have seen the movie, but .."
   
   You have a lot of vitriolic opinions about a movie you have never seen, but only heard about.
   
   That, of course, is the logical premise of the movie. Darwinism is the best "scientific theory" available to explain the origin of life, but no one has directly observed the theory at work. The theory is not something that can be replicated by experiment. It is a good theory, it requires a leap of faith to call it a fact.

1. Kenneth Clifton Says:
   April 25th, 2008 at 15:38

   Aside from totally misrepresenting the film, you left out some important revelations in the film. One such example is when Ben got Richard Dawkins to suggest (though the manipulation of simply putting a camera in his face and shutting up...letting Dawkins speak uninterrupted) that life began on this planet as a Designed cell from an Intelligent alien race from another planet (acknowledging that life couldn't have just happened here on its own). One must wonder when we will see Mr. Dawkins fired from his school for giving this Intelligent Design theory in public. Certainly, he must have his work questioned...otherwise, you admit pure discrimination against Judeo-Christian Intelligent Design theories.

1. RD Says:
   April 25th, 2008 at 15:40

   Ah, so because Ben Stein got Richard Dawkins to say something silly, that excuses him to steal copyrighted material from other people?
   
   Dawkins meanwhile, says that it wasn't uninterrupted. That the interviews were edited to make it look like he was saying things he was not.

1. Brian Hines Says:
   April 25th, 2008 at 15:41

   LOL, wow, Ben Stein's movie USES propaganda tactics and Michael Moore's movie's use BORDERLINE propaganda tactics. Really, all you need to know about your coverage of this movie is said right in that little bit.
   
   This movie is no different than any of Moore's propaganda and I'm glad Stein made it, though I won't see it and completely disagree with the implied argument that Darwinists are Nazi's just because Nazi's were Darwinists. But I'm glad he made it because it shows me how much I dissed Fahrenheit 9/11 because of its propaganda and this movie shows me that I actually am fairly balanced as I don't like this movie because of its propaganda. It also gives me the benefit of watching hypocrites like the moron(s?) who write for this site and other various reviewers across the spectrum of print and internet, complaining about this movie because of its propaganda tactics but championing F9/11 when it did the same thing. And it's about time conservatives started fighting fire with fire instead of taking the high road. It's obviously not working as half a dozen anti-war films bombed (pun intended) this year and only one came out that was pro-war on terror (and did successful, by the way). That's why I'm glad this was made, not necessarily for the message of the movie, but for the fact that liberals no longer are going to have the only hands on the media spectrum of political movies. Good on ya. Maybe this bad movie will point out the hypocrisy of so many people on the left and they'll stop being so blind in their following of their religion of liberalism. Maybe they'll recognize that what this movie is doing is wrong and is the same thing they've been doing for years. Then again, I can never count on a liberal ever realizing their own hypocrisy. NOT WHEN THE RIGHT WING NEO CON FASCISTS ARE STILL AROUND!!!! And so, this will probably do nothing but get Cinema Bleed's (and other liberally biased movie blogs (side note: is there any other kind?)) panties in a bunch. And then they'll move back to talking about how genius War, Inc is or how moving and mobilizing Sicko is. And we'll be no farther along then where we started. Oh well, couldn't expect much from liberals.

1. RD Says:
   April 25th, 2008 at 15:44

   Ah... so if Michael Moore does something wrong that excuses everyone else in the world to do the same wrong is that your logic?
   
   So the Catholic Church molests little boys, so that means it's ok for the Baptist Church to start molesting them as well?
   
   Brilliant logic the Brian Hines.
   
   Why are you glad that Ben Stein made a movie which you admit is little more than propaganda? Why would anyone be glad of that? It's garbage.

1. ERV Says:
   April 25th, 2008 at 16:02

   Thanks for spreading the word, Mr. Wood!
   
   --ERV
   Evil Nazi Atheist graduate student
   HIV and Cancer researcher
   EXPELLED for having the audacity to criticize Michael Behe

1. Richard Simons Says:
   April 25th, 2008 at 18:36

   Shash nahalin says "Darwinism is the best "scientific theory" available to explain the origin of life, but no one has directly observed the theory at work."
   
   The theory says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life (that is abiogenesis). The theory has been observed at work many times, as even a cursory search on the internet would tell you.
   
   "You have a lot of vitriolic opinions about a movie you have never seen, but only heard about."
   
   But making wild claims about a theory you know nothing about is OK?

1. SW Says:
   April 25th, 2008 at 18:43

   The wonderful thing about supporters of ID is like readers of the Bible, it's easy to justify playing fast and loose with the rules when it suits your own ends.
   
   If it doesn't agree with what you need to think, then ignore it or reinterpret it.
   
   The idea that evolution cannot be and has not been observed in science is a ridiculous myth as anyone with the wherewithal to look would know. But then it's not in those people's interests to find evidence that their beliefs have been proved wrong. Better to just ignore it and shout about something sweeping instead.
   
   Easier to shout nonsenses like "well then a horse should evolve in to a dog" than conceed that science has in FACT observed species of bird evolving to adapt to their environment over the last few hundred years.
   
   The whole ID counter-arguement is absurd.

1. Joe Usseglio Says:
   April 26th, 2008 at 15:46

   To all of you interested interested enough in this topic to write this site:
   
   1. Spend an hour researching 'fair use' as it has been treated by the courts.
   2. Spend a few weeks reading the latest books and articles that have been published by reputable scientists on both sides of the ID issue.
   3. Ignore attempts to attach Biblical Creationism to ID. The former is pure religious dogma, and its Young Earth elements, in particular, are dismissed by both Darwinist and ID scientists. Indeed, the Old Testament itself offers almost no support for the claims of modern Young Earth Creationists.
   
   Having done those three things, you will be in a much better position than any movie reviewer to offer an informed opinion of this film.

1. Pauli Ojala Says:
   April 26th, 2008 at 15:46

   I wish an analogous documentary film was made concerning the DINOGLYFS or dinolits:
   http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/dinosaur.htm
   It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say).
   
   Bruce Alberts first accepted from his post as the president of the National Academy of Sciences USA that the biological machinery can be called as such, machinery, without asserting to metaphora. He gave the students that license in 1998. Other animations on the tiny cellular machineries apart from the Expelled movie can be seen in here:
   http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Videos_animations_flagella_evidence_existence_creation_contra_evolution.htm
   

1. John Galt Says:
   April 26th, 2008 at 21:47

   It seems to me that those who get upset about this movie coming out are doing just as Stein accused them of doing. Instead of replying to the movie with such accusations as "Propaganda!" and doing such petty things as suing for using songs in it, they should be replying on a fact based basis. They should be replying using arguments against facts that he brought up, not the way the movie was made, the actors, the footage, or other petty things like that. The fact that I can not find any reviews talking about anything more substantial than the National Center for Science Education saying that the people in the movie were fired for other reasons than saying something about ID. (What? You actually thought they would admit to it?) And, instead of really explaining why something the documentary said was wrong, they argue with semantics of wording and such.
   
   One look at Stonehenge and we conclude that some intelligent designer created it, and yet we are unable to admit that there may possibly be a creator for something that is infinitely more complex than Stonehenge could ever be; a simple cell. Are we really adhering to science, or just perverting it?

1. JimD Says:
   April 26th, 2008 at 21:55

   JG SAYS: Instead of replying to the movie with such accusations as "Propaganda!" and doing such petty things as suing for using songs in it, they should be replying on a fact based basis.
   -----------------------------------------------------
   
   Ah so if someone walks up to you and says "Why are you a Nazi?" how can you reply on a fact based basis? The film doesn't present any facts to answer, just a bunch of lies, and the only way to answer that is to expose them as lies.
   
   What a wonderful world for Ben Stein, he can make up any lie he wants, steal anything he wants, and if anyone tries to defend themselves from his slander he can simply say "See, I told you they would do that!"
   
   --------------------------
   JG SAYS: One look at Stonehenge and we conclude that some intelligent designer created it, and yet we are unable to admit that there may possibly be a creator for something that is infinitely more complex than Stonehenge could ever be; a simple cell. Are we really adhering to science, or just perverting it?
   --------------------------
   
   So you're saying that if something is really complex, then it must be made by an intelligent designer? Alright, by that logic then this "God" you're talking about must be the most complex thing in the universe. Who made him?
   

1. John Galt Says:
   April 27th, 2008 at 16:00

   If someone walks up to you and asks "are you a Nazi?" Instead of getting defensive you should ask them why they think you are a Nazi. When they reply with the reasons they think you are a Nazi, you should reply with explanations on why having the characteristics they described does not make you a Nazi (I like my mustache like this. Red is my favorite color, ect...)
   Wouldn't that be a more reasonable response from those purported to use reason.
   
   I never said I believed in a God, I just do not understand why it has to be left off the table of debate. There are some complexities that need to be answered and I am sure that evolution can do them. However, I am increasingly frustrated at how, instead of addressing the issues that ID proponents bring up, we ignore them. This does not help the case and it certainly does nothing to advance evolution. We are the most advanced country on the planet. Discussion and throwing out crazy ideas is what has advanced us above the masses. We are sharpened by debate, and our lives are enhanced not by things that have driven science for years, but the new ideas that are given a chance. One useful thing ID does accomplish is pointing out the flaws in the theory of evolution. We should let them point out the flaws, for that is how we grow. ID may come into the discussion and fail miserably. However, if we continue to exclude them from the discussion, we become no better than the early Catholic Church refusing to even let in to the discussion the possibility that the world was round. Is that who we want to become?
   

1. Ralph Says:
   April 27th, 2008 at 16:06

   The point you're missing John Galt is that Expelled doesn't raise any issues to be answered. It raises a bunch of wild accusations based on lies. You're whining that people aren't discussing issues which don't exist.
   
   Why is it reasonable to expect people to allow slander and lies to be put on the table for discussion? It isn't.
   
   Instead, if you'd like a discussion, try putting reasonable issues on the table. Then let's talk about them.
   
   However Science put the notion of ID on the table and disproved it decades ago. Get with the times. How long do we have to go round and round on the same issue? Just because someone slaps a new name on the same idea doesn't make it new.
   
   Perhaps we should also allow the idea that the Earth is flat to be put back on the table. Hm? Or maybe gravity. I'm just not sure about this gravity stuff. I know science has proven it, but I believe in my heart that it is Angels pushing down on our shoulders that keep us on the Earth. So why can't Science discuss that again? What? You say it's already been proven? That's unfair! Wouldn't it be more reasonable simply to discuss it?

1. Whales Had Legs (Evolution Proven) Says:
   April 27th, 2008 at 18:20

   Go Yoko! I hope she gets the whole thing shut down. As a Teacher I can't begin to tell you how dumb this premise is. Have any of these morons actually looked at the the fossil record? Yoko Ono just became even more of a hero in my eyes.

1. Ravan Says:
   April 28th, 2008 at 07:17

   There's nothing that makes ID folks more nervous than the idea that life can be explained in terms of energy and matter. That there is no premeditated direction or purpose or reason that can ever be proven. That life. Just. Is. It makes everyone uncomfortable, because without it, all dogma falls apart.
   
   Because without something, some omnipotent, unprovable something out there to have made and guided us all, life must stand on it's own instead of being left in the hands of faith.
   
   So instead the ID supporters rely on deliberately muddying the waters of science. To set out to use smoke and mirror tactics on the unwashed masses with little grip or knowledge of the workings of science and skew their understandings. Try to clumsily discredit logically gained facts and extrapolated data to detract from the one thing they can never do...
   
   Begin to attempt to prove their own arguement or it's validity.
   
   ID is nothing but double-talk and nonsensicle attacks on the other side in lieu of a proper arguement in favor of itself. Those who support ID are more interested in not finding out more explainations for the existance of life than offering a viable alternative. Just attribute it to an unattributable force and shut up and read your Bible.
   
   If there is some one, or some thing that is responsible for creation of the world, then continued scientific analysis will uncover it if it's out there. Or we'll die out first. Or we'll never be able to uncover it because it was done so far and so long ago that in the big picture of existance it itself becomes irrelevant.
   
   The idea that science is something that would detract from uncovering whatever it may be which is responsible for life is ludicrous scaremongering unless you start attibuting this "ID" with supernatural traits in absence of your proper explaination. The only place supernatural traits belong is in fiction because they have no basis in fact. And then you're just back to the issue of faith and religion. Faith in the unbelievable and unprovable.
   
   And the problem with faith is that it is more about emotion than facts. And with Science and ID, if you want to bring a serious debate to the table only facts matter.
   
   Hypothesis. Research. Experiment. Facts. Extrapolation.
   
   Ben Stein interviewing Richard Dawkins didn't prove ID, he just reiterated a long-standind and stagnant hypothesis. Nobody in ID is seriously interested in moving on to the next stage.
   
   Where's the ID research? Where's the ID experimentation? Where's the ID facts? Where's the ID extrapolation of those facts?
   
   Nowhere, because there's nowhere to go with the hypothesis to even begin to prove it. Not because there is some conspiracy against it. Keep faith to religion where it belongs, where people can gain comfort in welcomed ignorance. There is no case to answer for ID anywhere but a church.

1. John Galt Says:
   April 28th, 2008 at 15:34

   There are many things that need to be answered, both by IDist and evolutionist. I am a math person, and evolution is statistically very impossible. However, you are confusing science with the philosophy of science. The argument that IDist make is that they should be allowed in to the debate. After they are allowed in, then we can start debating their facts.
   Say I were to go to the market, but not allowed to sell my product. I would not have any reason or incentive to make my product better. However, if I were allowed to sell my product, I would want to make it good so it would sell. I would research and do other things. If someone had a better product than me then they would win. However, what we are doing is basically banning ID from the marketplace of ideas.
   There is one rule of the marketplace of ideas:
   Facts cannot be discarded. You have to deal with all of the facts and come up with the most plausible explanation for them. It is that one law of scientific inquiry that keeps science moving forward. Scientists aren't afforded the luxury of simply accumulating facts that support their theories and ignoring the ones that do not. It is only the naives who have a democratic view of science thinking that if 51% of the facts are favorable to a theory and 49% of the facts are against it, then the theory wins by majority rule. The history of science shows that all discredited theories had the majority of facts in their favor. However, it was the few contrary facts that motivated newer scientists to come up with explanations that could adequately handle all of the facts. The development of newer and better theories only occurs when scientist troubles by a few key facts that don't seem to fit call the prevailing theories into question.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)