 | |
List Price: $26.99 | | Label: Premise
Salesrank: 923
Released: October 21, 2008 |
| Our Price: $12.96 |
| Used Price: $3.45 |
|
MPAA Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom ... What they forgot is that every generation has its Rebel! That rebel, Ben Stein (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off) travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth … that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the crime of merely believing that there might be evidence of design in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance. To which Ben Says: Enough! And then gets busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Reviews:
INTELLECTUAL TERRORISM AT ITS FINEST 
2009-12-28 - Ben Stein may not initially strike the eye as the ideal presenter for this exposé of the establishment treatment of "intellectual terrorist" Richard Sternberg and his fellow conspirators, the infamous Stephen C. Meyer, Caroline Crocker, Dr Michael Egnor, Guillermo Gonzalez, David Berlinski, Prof. Steve Fuller (an interloper!), William Dembski, Doug Axe, Prof. Robert J. Marks II, Paul Nelson, Jonathon Wells, Walter Bradley, Doug Axe, Gerard Schroeder, John Lennox, John Polkinghorne, Marciej Giertych, Pamela R. Winnick, Dr Jeffry Schwartz, and Alistair McGrath to name only a few of the arch-villains. However, to return to Ben Stein, he is fact absolutely ideal for his role. The good and wise establishment figures do not take him seriously, he is a comedian, an actor, obviously not that bright, rather old, and only tangentially famous for being a presidential script writer. So, in short, they all underestimate him and feel no threat, making him unbeatably good at what he does here, almost by design as one might say.
The heroic defenders of the neo-Darwinian orthodox faith are Michael Shermer (an intellectual heavyweight), Prof Richard Dawkins (several appearences), PZ Meyers, Daniel Dennett, Michael Ruse, Peter Atkins, William Provine, Eugenie Scott, Hector Avalos, and Charles Darwin himself by quotation. Many others appeared to justify the establishment humbug, but I choose to neglect them as the above names give a fully representative range. This so far would be interesting enough on its own, but some of the political excursions into the history of eugenics in the USA and Hitler's own masterplan version of it make for a memorable but chilling interlude with a visit to Hadamar, where the Darwinian Nazi doctors and nurses eliminated the cripples, mentally ill, and otherwise non-productive `useless eaters' of the glorious Third Reich, so sadly defeated by the Allies.
Some of the comedy cuts from old films commenting on the neo-Darwinians' contributions are very funny indeed, but it must be said that the whole thing is quite fast-paced and you will need to watch it a few times to get even all the jokes. One of the best sequences is the superb animation of the internal workings at the molecular level of the production of protein molecules from DNA to final folding. There is so much in the overall film that the Intelligent Design debate, which often necessarily takes place on a fairly demanding intellectual level is not intrusive. The issue of academic free speech is the key theme and is kept fairly in focus, with a lot of flashback to earlier contributors to keep a sense of the whole.
The final interview between Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein in London is worth the price of the whole. Richard Dawkins comes out of the whole DVD with some credit to his honesty and straight talking, but manages to emit one interesting counter-statement against his erstwhile fellows in that he flatly (and correctly) admits that no-one has any idea how the first cell was created. Meanwhile, Michael Ruse rather comically tries to foist the `on the backs of crystals hypothesis' (hypothesis, oh blessed fig leaf!) on Ben Stein, who wisely evinces blank incomprehension. But, back to the final DawkStein interview, where he admits that there might be a "signature in the cell" if aliens designed life on earth and then left us to it. BUT, they would have to evolved by some process of natural selection acting on random variation first! Incredible but true. An admission of the first step of an infinite regress - anything to avoid admitting the horrible truth here on earth. (Stephen C. Meyer promptly went on to title his best-selling DNA-ID book 'Signature in the Cell' in honour of this exchange.) Superb, entertaining and intellectually stimulating, I have my order in for the UK version already, I only hope it is identical to the US version.
How could he be lying? He doesn't make a single claim in this movie.
2009-12-28 - First, let me start by saying that this is a documentary, and because it's a documentary, it's a film about science, given life and fame by one of the greatest intellectuals on Earth; Ben Stein. I've always respected the man for his intelligence and his work, and now, I respect him even more.
Over the course of this movie, Ben Stein travels all over the world, meeting other academia and speaking to them.
He makes no claims and no assumptions in these dialogues. In fact, he frequently asks his questions in a way that seems to favor the established approach to science, and you can hardly blame him. It's easy to accept what you've been told, without looking for alternate explanations, and that's basically what this movie is all about.
Although Ben Stein asks the questions, the words we hear on screen aren't his, but rather, the words of other scientists. They're the ones who make the claims. They explain the things that have happened to them in their lives. We hear about people who've lost jobs, tenure, and credibility because they preferred to take a fresh approach to scientific study; intelligent design.
We also hear the words of other scientists; evolutionists and critics of intelligent design, and their own words tell us the story of their lives and their viewpoints.
It seems that Ben Stein is convinced that the best way to understand someone is to look at them and talk to them. I agree with that, and fortunately, this film makes nothing up. None of the facts or quotes brought forth in this movie are fictional, or made up to encourage a reaction. Nothing said in this film is false. Hard to listen to, maybe, but not false.
The spirit of science, as it was originally-envisioned, was the spirit of understanding the world rationally, by a careful and objective study of evidence, so as to come to an understanding based on facts, rather than based on what someone else tells you. Originally, that "someone else" was generally a priest, rabbi, or other religious person, and I can't deny that lots of religious people have made mistakes in the past; even abused their authority. However, as this film illustrates, it can be dangerous to closed-mindedly side with anything or anyone; even other scientists.
What's really dangerous, however, is fear. Ben seems to see a conspiracy here, though he never says it, or anything, directly. I don't. What I see is a lot of scientists who are terrified and desperate to protect themselves from reprisals. They're scared they won't be taken seriously by the public if they give credence to intelligent design, so they don't, and they criticize and discredit anyone who does. At the point when people give in to fear, an unspoken surrender occurs, and the real search for knowledge ends.
This is what Stein is really making an effort to prevent, whether he knows it or not; not the victory of one side over another in a scientific debate, but the freedom of people to search for knowledge using the methods they think will produce results, without being harrassed and insulted for it, and without being afraid.
In my own life, I've had many debates with many kinds of people, and I've learned not to say anything in a debate unless (A.) you can back it up, and (B.) you think it's important. Stein seems to follow both of these rules, but there's something else I've learned in my debates. Generally, if a debater doesn't have a well-considered view of their own position, there are signs that can be noticed and taken advantage of. Nervousness, a dry mouth, rapid motions of the eyes and changes in posture, and in advanced stages, insults and an attempt to discredit the other person's argument instead of backing up their own.
Maybe not every Darwinist uses these tactics to defend themselves, but most of the ones that I've debated with do. They assume their argument is well-supported, so they make no effort to support it, and instead, focus on tearing the arguments of others down.
The honest truth is, no one can prove how the universe came into being, or how the first living thing was created, and because no one can prove it, most people seem content to leave it at that, as if the origin of life wasn't important at all to us, or to our understanding of existence. Thanks to this, popular scientists have yet to even propose theories of any sort that would explain the origins of life, or the start of existence, regardless of how essential that information is. Because they have no theories about it, their only means of defending themselves on this issue are either to ignore it, like most people, or to try to force everyone who disagrees with them to abandon their theories as well, which is something like fixing a leaky tire by putting holes in all the others. Sure, you may get a less lopsided ride than before, but it doesn't solve your problem.
This movie is considered contraversial as well, because it mentions nazism as being linked to eugenics, and also mentions that eugenics was linked to Charles Darwin and Planned Parenthood. It doesn't use this to attempt to incriminate Darwin, or to incriminate America, which is a suitably subtle tack to take in a movie about facts, and I appreciated that. Let those who want to learn the truth learn it on their own, now that they've been given a few facts to guide them.
Eugenics is a faulty concept, and it's particularly faulty when it becomes policy for governing people. Any policy that involves the killing of inconvenient people is faulty, because the acceptance of people who are weak and inconvenient is, if I'm not mistaken, still engraved into the Statue of Liberty, even if you don't consider the preservation of innocent life to be important. Murder is still murder. That's not natural, or a part of life. It's an action that one person decides to perpetrate on another.
Still, many have reacted as if Stein was calling Darwin a nazi, and he certainly was not. There's rather a vast difference between believing that weak animals will wind up dying under stress, and actively killing people based on that philosophy. Darwin never tried to force people to follow his way of thinking, or kill people who were too weak to support themselves. He never oppressed anyone, in fact, which is a mistake that many Darwinists seem to be making now. In fact, he once said that if the suffering of the poor is due, not to nature, but to our own institutions, then great is our sin.
The reason why nazism is brought up is not to denounce Darwin, but rather, to prove that any intelligent idea can become monstrous if people get carried away with it, and start to interpret it falsely, as the Nazis did, and it's a point worth making. Questioning brilliant ideas is important, but questioning our own approach to them is even more essential. We all need to look within ourselves a little more often, and evaluate whether our approach is really the best one.
At the end of it all, if you're the kind of person who, like myself, is eager for facts, and generally wants to learn, you might very well get something out of this documentary. If you feel you've been oppressed by others in the past, and that the refusal to listen to evidence has impacted your life, you may find this documentary encouraging, because it will remind you that you're not alone.
However, if you've made the decision to hold one specific viewpoint, regardless of what evidence is brought before you, and if you'd rather shout Mister Stein down as a liar, rather than as an impartial observer, then I'm afraid it would be a waste of your time to watch this film. You won't get anything out of it.
Science is about having a mind open to the true facts, studying those facts, and drawing conclusions based on them, or at least, it used to be. I think that's as far into the subject of this movie as I need to go. Personally, I thought that it was one of the best documentaries I've seen in recent years because of its willingness to be openminded and discuss the issues that scientists face.
Aside from all this, I found the film mostly well-designed, with one exception. I'm afraid that some of the cinematography a bit questionable. The film regularly zips back and forth into clips from old videos and films, which I found a bit distracting. Still, I can't give it whole point down just for that. Ben Stein is smart enough, fast enough, and he's got the guts. Guts like those deserve that fifth star, regardless of what else is involved.
Ben Stein Scares Godless Liberals to Death
2009-12-28 - This very good film exposes a lot more than just the Darwinian Gestapo in charge of the education system. It hits liberals to their very core. Liberals hate facts and can produce none to prop up their beliefs. This film does not take sides in the Darwin vs Intelligent Design debate, it simply searches for answers at many large colleges and finds closed minds at every turn. No debate or discussion is wanted. In fact the very free thought that Darwin is just one theory and might be fully wrong enraged the college teachers who are interviewed. This is all just a microcosm of todays global warming/cooling ""believers"". Men like Al Gore flying around the world crazily on a jumbo jet spreading fear of the impending doom man made polution has and will cause. Gore is easily brought to anger or flees whenever he is confronted with facts. Lets face it nobody knows for sure if there is a God or where the Earth or humans came from. But having a ridgidly closed mind seems to be the current environment in todays scientific and especially in academia and this is very sad. How can you hope to make discoveries, explore and learn if you must only follow one path and not be free to truly think for yourself of all the possibilities.
Too Desperate To Be Called a "Documentary" 
2009-12-28 - It actually gets off to a good start, with some interesting questions and some very smart and interesting people; then it devolves into bashing science and evolution to serve Ben Stein's intolerance for godlessness. By the time he got to showing how scientific study can cause atheism, and darwinism fits right in with eugenics and Nazis, I found it difficult to actually finish watching it.
This shouldn't be in a "documentary" category. It should under "religion," with a synopsis describing it as a story of faith about a godly man named Ben. In Ben's story, he attacks ungodly people, apparently because rebranding "creationism" as "intelligent design" didn't fool enough of us to think it might be something different.
A documentary worth watching on this topic is Flock Of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus. It's interesting, entertaining, and can certainly help to put Ben Stein's show in perspective for what it really is: Part of the circus.
Well made documentary!
2009-12-26 - This movie was very entertaining as well as convincing. Great to share with friends that are hard core evolutionists. You'll walk away realizing the theory of evolution really can't explain everything nor is it a perfect science.
