Review of Ben Stein’s New Movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”

Last week I was able to go to a test screening of the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” which opens in theaters Friday April 18th.

expelled-movieposter-784783.jpg

All I can say is that Ben Stein has put together a masterful documentary mixing a bit of satire with a serious topic. Ben’s dry humor was perfect for this type of undertaking.

The movie isn’t so much about ID (Intelligent Design) as it is about just how bad atheistic bigotry is in the academic institutions of this country.

The atheistic community will stop at no ends to stop any scientific inquiry if it questions current darwinian dogma. It shows how these folks will slander, lie, or destroy anyone who doesn’t tow the “purely naturalistic” line. As Ben points out, when it comes to what they deem as “science” – free speech, free expression, and free inquiry in is out of the the question. For them there is no debate.

I personally found the movie thoroughly enjoyable. However, if I were an atheist, I would have a hard time sitting through this movie as Ben continually pokes fun at their blatant bigotry, idiotic arguments, and showing just how silly they really are. Ben also unapologetically shows how darwinian “natural selection” dogma – if it is taken to its logical extreme, produces ideologies like eugenics and Nazi Aryanism (look under “The Holocaust”) (also see “Action T4” here and “Racial hygine” here)

So for a good night of seriousness and fun, I suggest you bring your atheist friends along and watch them squirm and get all flustered, just like the leading proponent of atheism, Richard Dawkins did when Ben questioned him in the movie.

Also as an aside, atheists have been gearing up for this movie for a long time now, trying to discourage and discredit the movie before it even comes out. (There has been atheists trolling blogs with the movie title in it for months – I had one here, see my other posts on the subject under “Answering Atheism and Evolution“)

Currently these folks are trying to stir up a bit of controversy with the movie already (which never hurts a movie now days) see here and here.

Lar

(If you would like to see a trailer of the movie go here)

BTW: I say to all you atheists, as I said to my atheist friend “onein6billion”on this blog: “Do you remember when the Catholic Church defended Aristotle’s geocentric world-view? How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot – defending the old stinky outdated fairy-tale “origin stories” of biological evolution?”

Advertisements

12 Responses

  1. I posted several items covering this particular documentary and got comments about “They didn’t even present any evidence for ID…” and I just had to laugh. The evo’s still think that’s all they are trying to do with this movie is prove a scientific theory when it has always been about free speech and academic inquiry, which we have a right to the last time I checked.

    I posted a link to a fabulous interview in my blog a couple of days ago – but here it is for your readers as well:

    R.C. Sproul interviews Ben Stein:

    http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/03/rc-sproul-interviews-ben-stein.html

    And here is the super trailer – much longer than the teaser trailer…

    Enjoy!

    Reformed Faith Admin

  2. “it has always been about free speech and academic inquiry, which we have a right to the last time I checked.”

    Quite true. And any claim that “views are being suppressed” is an obvious lie. There are books, articles, blogs, etc. So just how are ideas being suppressed?

    “And here is the super trailer”

    And here is “Darwin leads to Hitler” – quite despicable.

  3. onein6,

    You are in denial.

    Period.

  4. Yes. Like the judge that ruled at Dover, I deny that creationism should be taught in a high school science class. But I don’t deny that Martin Luther’s anti-semitism influenced Hitler.

  5. “But I don’t deny that Martin Luther’s anti-semitism influenced Hitler”

    See you really are in denial…

    I don’t deny that Hitler used Luther’s anti-semitism as an excuse and justification for his own and an excuse to the German people.

    Anti-semitism was around a long time before Luther. How do you explain the deaths of so many others (some 11 million in all) like Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, and people with physical or mental disabilities? Were all those others a result of antisemitism? No, it was Hitlers desire to purify humanity of the non “Aryan” race – to create the Nietzschian “Übermensch” via controlled scientific natural selection.

    I don’t have a problem admitting to the truth, but you do – you’re just going to have to face the fact that Adolf Hitler believed in natural selection and was trying to help the process along by murdering millions. Hitler was an avid believer in eugenics. By your continual denial of the obvious truth, you just prove to me that if onein6 doesn’t like the truth, onein6 can just deny it so it won’t be the truth anymore.

    You are not intellectually honest.

    Period

    “Like the judge that ruled at Dover”

    So I see, if a judge says something is true – it must therefore be true? Is that what you believe? You believe in judicial infallibility?

    BTW “I do deny” – “don’t deny” is playground polemics

  6. I thought it interesting in the RC Sproul interview of Ben Stein how they mentioned that judges also once ruled that slavery was okay, segregation, etc.

    kazoo

  7. Ben Stein’s goal in making Expelled (i gather) is to promote free thought, especially more thinking about motivations that drive American academia and a lot of other behind-the-scenes worldview that we tend to take for granted.

  8. “Adolf Hitler believed in natural selection”

    There is no mention of it in Mein Kampf. “God is with us” was placed on the German soldiers’ belt buckles. Why should evolution accept much blame for a megalomaniac? There have not been very many repetitions of this craziness in the last 60 years, have there?

    “Hitler was an avid believer in eugenics.”

    So what? Eugenics is not science. Eugenics is a misapplication of an idea for political purposes. The Theory of Evolution is true or false regardless of how someone tries to use or misuse it.

    Why not “Einstein led to Hiroshima”? If Einstein had not discovered E=mc^2, someone else would have. If Darwin had not published his theory of evolution (after 20 years), someone else was about to. It’s really hard to stop scientific progress.

    “You believe in judicial infallibility?”

    I believe that a judge that holds a trial that lasts six weeks is trying to do the right thing. Have you read the 139 page decision that he handed down? In what way do you think he made the wrong decision? Fundamentally, he ruled that creationism is not science. If you think it is science, you need to tell why. Because no one else has in the last 20+ years.

  9. This movie is not about proving intelligent design but allowing the argument to be made…Darwinist don’t want to argue at all because the truth is macro-evolution is crap…
    Richard Dawkins…who happens to be the TOP evolutionary scientist of our time, defaults to saying that life on earth came as a possible oversite from an alien species…hello!!!
    YOU WANT EVIDENCE? HERE YA GO:

    The DNA compounds of all life never change…i.e. a dog can either be a Great Dane or a mini pincher…but it is still a dog! Not a mouse nor a fish…but a dog !
    -genetic change, which is the arguement used in the movie…which this might explain how you get similar species. Through genetic change in breeds!
    Example1… Asian Elephants compared to African Elephants
    Example 2…the finch that charles darwin used to base his theory off- 3 diffrent feather patterns from three diffrent finches, from three diffrent islands….small breeding diffrences…make sence??

    Not many people know that Charles Darwin was mad at God because he had a 10 year old daughter die from a weird illness… he even kept an “i hate god” journal of sorts.

  10. Stein is under heavy attack for ‘exaggerating’ the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the ‘Politics-is-applied-biology’ Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I.

    It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous Haeckel with his still recycled fraud embryo drawings in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871.

    Darwin did not apply his revolutionary theory to the human beings until his Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex in 1871. This was after the ambitious Haeckel had firmly stepped in the print, and the old Darwin paid hommage in his introduction:
    “The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species… is not in any degree new… maintained by several eminent naturalists and philosophers… and especially by Häckel. This last naturalist, besides his great work
    ‘Generelle Morphologie’ (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edit. in 1870), published his ‘Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte,’ in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay
    had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.”

    I quote from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline them a bit):
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf

    Race biological reason was not only rhetoric, it was scientific. There is evidence, that In Ukraine and Baltic countries, the people wellcomed the German troops as redeemers. These illusions evaporated soon, when the SS (Schutzstaffel) and civilian administration followed the field-army. Hitler did not even try to separate the Russian people from the Soviet government. The Eastern Europeans Slavic people were born “slaves”, indeed. For Hitler, they were “Untermenschen” (Bullock 1958 pp- 423-5). The ethymology for the Greek “barbaros” was in their uncomprehensible tongue, the word was onomatopoetic.

    BUT marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between “white” and “colored races” was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).

    The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould’s scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87).

    So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular Finnish media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the ‘Up’ of the ancient city from Plinius’ Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17).

    Hitler’s formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the “Nordics”, a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel’s position on the Jewish question was assimilation, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

    In 1917 the immigration of “defective” groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
    Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the “nordic” balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

    Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
    and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the “yellow” group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.

    Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century, and in 1933 the German people had not lived normal life for twenty years. And so Adolf Hitler did not need his revolution. He did not have to break the laws in Haeckel’s country, in principle, but to constitute them.
    Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

    I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee, that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

    pauli.ojala@gmail.com
    Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

    PS. Here’s the final chapter scanned from an evolutionist scholar D. Gasman from his The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (chapter 7, Gasman 1971)
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
    I emphasize that Daniel Gasman is NOT an IDist or Idealist of any kind.

  11. “but it is still a dog”

    Wow. I’m soooo impressed by such an intelligent comment from a creationist. Not.

    “But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism …”

    This person has posted the same nonsense on quite a few blogs.

  12. emm. nice ))

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: