I saw it, so you don't have to: Ben Stein's 'Expelled'

wade Fri, May 30, 2008 at 05:51 PM EST

Nobody ever said that ID can't be introduced as science fact or even scientific theory. If you want to take it there you better have some pretty good data to support it. So far the ID'ists haven't been able to step up to the plate with anything viable. When they try, they are quickly shot to pieces. This will not have much effect on this issue because the ID'ists have faith that they really might be onto something.

Thu, May 22, 2008 at 07:58 AM EST

I found the movie quite humorous... if you can follow the logic in it, there are quite a few witty remarks.

JH Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:23 AM EST

I liked the part at the end where Stein asked Richard Dawkins how life originated and after admitting that neither he nor any scientists knows (hmmmm), Dawkins seriously proposed the idea of intelligent life forms from other planets "seeding" our planet with the cells that originally would lead to life as we know it. (Aliens?) Very clever. And scientific. No redeeming value to this film. None at all. (Sarcasm much?)

Erik Bertel Sun, May 18, 2008 at 06:33 AM EST

As I said in my blog, Why There Are No Expelled and Ben Stein Bootlegs at
http://millenniumwriting.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/why-there-are-no-expelled-and-ben-stein-bootlegs/, you can measure the quality and success of a movie by the number of bootlegs copies there are on the street. There aren't none for Expelled.

Erik John Bertel
Author of Flores Girl The Children God Forgt and the Millenniumwriting BLog

Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:50 AM EST

Hey, Well all you guys think that this movie was crap but seriously, think about what you believe. There are so many holes in evolution, why teach something false to our kids? Just to let you know, Evolution is just a theory and you can never prove its true and don't just go along with what other people say, find out the truth yourself.

JC Wed, May 14, 2008 at 01:31 PM EST

Jesus here. Everybody keeps asking what I would do if I were around today. For one, I would accept modern science and the FACT of evolution. Yeah, you know that book those MEN wrote a long ass time ago? It's not a science book and it certainly isn't flawless. Another thing, I would ask all these bigots and flat-earth people to start acting like reasonably intelligent and compassionate people. As it turns out, they were wrong about the sun going around the earth like they're wrong about this. I was on my cross and I made a sacrifice for what? So you could oppress people wiser than the likes of you with your ignorant crap? I'd rather have a world filled with intelligent skeptics, than oppressive sheep following the wrong herder. My Father gave you the gift of a brain. Now try using it.

David Junker Mon, May 5, 2008 at 04:07 AM EST

On Ben Stein’s Expelled….: “If the fittest ARE to be the ones who survive, why are we so very zealous in ‘saving the planet?’ Maybe there exists not only the Creator, but the Savior in whose ‘image’ we ARE intricately designed.”

David Junker Mon, May 5, 2008 at 04:07 AM EST

On Ben Stein’s Expelled….: “If the fittest ARE to be the ones who survive, why are we so very zealous in ‘saving the planet?’ Maybe there exists not only the Creator, but the Savior in whose ‘image’ we ARE intricately designed.”

Dub Sat, May 3, 2008 at 08:30 PM EST

When one proposes that the first cell formed on a rock, well I think they may be indeed assuming that something came from nothing. Without that certain something there is no evolution, because there is nothing to evolve. Something does not come from nothing.

Steve Kirkpatrick Thu, May 1, 2008 at 01:30 AM EST

I have seen the film and read the review. Now I will review the review.
In his writing Simon displays little ability to take his job seriously. Firstly by reading other reviews prior to his own watching of the film, he obviously went into the film with a secondary bias. He plainly states that it is about loony fringe politics and sheer stupidity making apparent a bias against the subject matter of the film. But by admitting to going into the theater to see a D grade rotten tomato based on reviews he holds as esteemed and erudite, he lets us know that he was expecting a bad film. Then by comparing the host of the documentary to a character the same man had played in another movie 22 years ago, he proves only that he couldn't be bothered to separate this film from an old fantasy.
As for his own admitted misconduct during the screening and contempt for fellow viewers, he shows that he holds no regard for his position as a movie critic.
I would not recommend anyone taking Simon seriously.

jesdww84 Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:48 AM EST

I LOVED the movie! But I can see why some wouldn't. It is a documentary, meant to make one think. If people only go to movies to be entertained, they'll be disappointed. If your mind is closed & you've already decided anyone open to "intelligent design" (ID) is a nut case, then you'll find reason to slam it. But if you like thinking & having your biases challenged, then it's a good movie. But the movie ISN'T really about the ID vs. spontaneous life controversy. That topic is merely a case study in freedom of thought in American academia. The symbol of the Berlin wall was perfect. The wall was put up to keep all competing ideas out. Free thought & questioning was "dangerous." Laugh if you want to at scientists who consider ID possible, but we should be angry at authoritarian academic intelligentsia who tightly restrict free speech, free thought and discourage questions. You don't have to be religious to be pro-free speech and free thought. This is America, not cold-war Berlin!

jesdww84 Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM EST

I LOVED the movie. I can see why some would not like it, though. It is a documentary. It's intended to make one think. If people go to movies to be merely entertained, they will be disappointed. If your mind is closed and you have already decided that anyone who considers "intelligent design" (ID) is a nut case, then you'll find reason to slam it. But if you enjoy thinking and having your biases challenged, then it's a good movie. But the movie is not really about science and religion. The ID vs. spontaneous life controversy is merely a case study in freedom of thought in American academia. The metaphor of the Berlin was a perfect one. The wall was put up to keep all competing ideas out. Thinking and questioning is considered dangerous. Laugh if you want to at scientists who consider ID a possibility, but we should be angry at the authoritarian academic intelligentsia who tightly restrict free speech, free thought and discourage questions. This is America, not cold-war East Berlin!

Sam.e Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 03:04 PM EST

Let it go, guys. The film is dying a quick death after only two weeks in the theaters. $5.2M in two weeks' box office. Hmmm, let's see, at about $10 a ticket, that means that about a half million people bothered to go. That's funny, because for all the hype Ben and co. tried to generate, all of 1.6% of the U.S. population has seen this propaganda? This isn't even getting traction with the Christian community. Best data I saw and could extrapolate says there are probably about 165M Christians in this country. I think we're better off arguing over proposed Florida legistlation than this weak attempt to discredit evolution.

chad Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM EST

lrein,
Ok, that's why Ken Miller utterly guts the notion of biological IC here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30_u9W6_UWA

"The first cell that had to have been created by accident had to have all the information in it that has ALL the information in it to create the whole earth, i.e.. plants, animals, humans, or any living creature"

most certainly not, a cell and its DNA is built to produce the proteins for the specific organism which is built each generation, it's not like I can take a rats DNA and build a human, the DNA code is altered. besides, most scientists suggest the first replicating molecules or cells werent' not DNA, but more akin to RNA or even less complex still. A lesser complex cell would over time use evolutionary ratcheting and become more complex so there is no reason to assume *poof* out came DNA. but lets talk about ID for a sec, how is it falsifiable and thus Science?

Derus Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:50 AM EST

It was bad. Really bad. But not because of the content. It was just a reckless poorly thought out movie.

monkey Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 04:01 PM EST

There's only one marginally credible ID scientist: Michael Behe. And he believes in common decent.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&watch_response

vw Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 02:47 PM EST

perception is indeed everything. tolerance goes both ways. 'science' is always changing and too knock someone for their faith is the height of intolerance. there is indeed room for everyone to be heard and respected. unfortunately ppl want their way or no way especially in the academic world.

Bill Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 01:04 PM EST

If ID is true, then god is a psycho hose monster: she made the human retina backwards, created a slew of unbelievably cruel beasts (eg. parasites that cause their hosts to commit suicide by alerting predators to their availability as food), and created the excruciating pain of human child-birth.

Even so, a human commenting on a god and her activities is even funnier (and more pointless) than my cat commenting on mine.

NOT A MORON Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:55 PM EST

Who here is not a moron?
Good. Then you can understand this fact that IS AVOIDED IN THE MOVIE:
BELIEF IN GOD AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!! Even Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II said so! Why is this avoided in the movie? Because Ben Stein is a media whore who wants viewers. This "supposed" conflict makes for a good story. (OOOHHH someone is ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING) Problem is, there is no conflict. They can both be easily accepted. Read up on it. If you're too stupid to do your research, I can't help you.
p.s. This movie sucked.

NOT A MORON Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:55 PM EST

Who here is not a moron?
Good. Then you can understand this fact that IS AVOIDED IN THE MOVIE:
BELIEF IN GOD AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!! Even Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II said so! Why is this avoided in the movie? Because Ben Stein is a media whore who wants viewers. This "supposed" conflict makes for a good story. (OOOHHH someone is ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING) Problem is, there is no conflict. They can both be easily accepted. Read up on it. If you're too stupid to do your research, I can't help you.
p.s. This movie sucked.

Eric Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:59 AM EST

Just read through these comments. Both sides argue points based upon a personal world view. Science is based on tests that are repeatable then established as laws of science. Neither creation nor evolution are repeatable therefore fall under an interpretation of the evidence. If the subject is based on interpretation then discussion should be open and free.

Randy Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM EST

DNA is a complex program. Programs require programmers.
The Periodic Table cannot spontaneously Create life.
Use Scientific Method to prove this.

There IS a creator.
Who do you think HE is?
How is it possible to create life?
“With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

Ashok Shah Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 02:33 AM EST

Hey Ginger Cat... Ditto to you ... I am tired of the Darwinists calling their religion Science and shoving it down my throat. They have hijacked science and call it theirs. I am absolutely fed up with that. They are exposed in the Movie for what they are. They have absolutely no clue what science is and are just trying to shove their religion "Darwinism" down everyone's throats and the author of this review is one of the persons that has been totally blinded by these Idiots... I have regarded Dawkings as as idiot for several years now, and I was thrilled to see him making a total fool of himself in this movie. He was presented with what he said.. No one put the words in his mouth. Ben Stein is brilliant and all power to Ben. Well done Ben Stein, you have all the media bias and all the liberal media showing their total Bias and hypocricy in this dabate and a lot more of them are crawling out of their holes. They have been fooling too many people for too long.

Ashok Shah Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 02:33 AM EST

Hey Ginger Cat... Ditto to you ... I am tired of the Darwinists calling their religion Science and shoving it down my throat. They have hijacked science and call it theirs. I am absolutely fed up with that. They are exposed in the Movie for what they are. They have absolutely no clue what science is and are just trying to shove their religion "Darwinism" down everyone's throats and the author of this review is one of the persons that has been totally blinded by these Idiots... I have regarded Dawkings as as idiot for several years now, and I was thrilled to see him making a total fool of himself in this movie. He was presented with what he said.. No one put the words in his mouth. Ben Stein is brilliant and all power to Ben. Well done Ben Stein, you have all the media bias and all the liberal media showing their total Bias and hypocricy in this dabate and a lot more of them are crawling out of their holes. They have been fooling too many people for too long.

GingerCat Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 09:38 PM EST

I am so TIRED of religious folk trying to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throat . . . and that's what "intelligent design" is--a RELIGIOUS belief. It's got nothing to do with science and has no place in public schools. Look, believe what you want, but don't try to force it on anyone else. The more you try to force your beliefs on me, the more I'll think your faith is actually weak and you're trying to shore it up by getting everyone else to believe it too.
And yes, I believe in God. But I also think believing in God doesn't mean you have to be a close-minded simpleton. Ben Stein needs to stick to Visine commercials.

lrein Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 07:17 PM EST

chad, I wonder if you understand the biological makeup of a cell. Lookup the molecular structure of a single cell and how it cannot explain by Darwinism. If you know the concept of how it is built, it shows an opposite direction of evolution. It in fact shows that it had all the DNA structure prior to change. What Darwinism tries to explain that it slowly makes changes and adds cell structure and information, which is completly WRONG! so it is a much much more mathmatical equation that we exist from ID. The first cell that had to have been created by accident had to have all the information in it that has ALL the information in it to create the whole earth, i.e.. plants, animals, humans, or any living creature. If that was by accident, I would rather side on a much more probable cause - ID!!!!!

::yawn:: Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 06:38 PM EST

Politics and Religion are so BORING, but I must add that not only are you cute but also I thought you were black! In fact, I thought you were a half black/half Jewish female who pronounced your name Simone but spelled it like Simon... clearly I was off, but love your hip hop perspective... who did you piss off to get this story?

David Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 06:14 PM EST

I believe the point of the movie was; if you believe anything other than the theory of evolution you're automatically the town idiot. You seem to prove that point well.

dirkbag Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 04:14 PM EST

How surprising that a left leaning entertainment magazine blogger wouldn't like a film that believes in God. I'm stunned. Not.

chad Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:49 PM EST

jwoodatty, the BB doesn't explain the origins of the universe, it explains the evidence regarding the expanding of our universe. also, the universe didn't come from 'nothing', it originated as a singularity which expanded in 4 dimensions. The singularity is mattter and therefore is constant according to the 1st law and as such as a state can only exist, it can't not exist.

chad Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:12 PM EST

Ben, "their philosophy (naturalism) with their Scientific theory." Do you know WHY Naturalism is only permisiable in Science? Here's a hint, it has to do with falsifiability and how one can't keep constant or control the acts of supernatural (god) during experiments.

jwoodatty Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:11 PM EST

The universe began with a Big Bang out of nothing.

So the universe had a beginning.

In his book God and the Astronomers, after explaining evidence of the Big Bang, Astronomer Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies writes, "The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

The Big Bang was the beginning point for the entire physical universe. Time, space, and matter came into existence at that point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. Therefore, there must be something outside of nature to do the job.

chad Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:09 PM EST

Mike, you can't be serious? Expelled uses quite a few strawmen arguements by arguing that evolution/darwinism doesn't explain the origins of life, or origins of the universe, or origins of gravity. Well NO DUH BEN STEIN, theories in science are only applicable to certain arenas of knowledge. Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of biology, not the origins of life nor the origins of the cosmos. Cell and Germ theory don't explain cosmic origins either, so by Stein's logic they are also wrong?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678

Mike Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:46 AM EST

Chris the "Biologist" said, "Would you like it if a scientist tried to teach your kids religion or philosophy? I don't think so."

No, no I don't like it when this happens and it happens all the time. You, apparently haven't seen the movie. Dawkins himself admits the Atheism that undergirds Darwinism. This is the problem. The Darwinists talk of the danger of religion mixing with science, when it is so very obvious that they mix their religion (Atheism) and their philosophy (naturalism) with their Scientific theory. They are inseparable.

Mike Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:36 AM EST

Did anyone actually watch this movie and listen to the answers? It is not as though Stein or Expelled created Straw Men and struck down Darwinism. It was a fair assessment and fairly presented. After all, what you saw and heard were the Darwinists, in their own words, sounding like idiots. There was no mischaracterization, there was no misquoting, simply, the leading voices of Atheistic Darwinism admitting that Evolution tells us nothing of origins and then ridiculous assertions of Aliens and Crystals that honestly sounded like they hadn't even thought things through. Let's be honest, folks. There aren't very many rooms into which Ben Stein walks and he is not the smartest guy present. I have no idea what movie the poster of this review saw, but it obviously wasn't the same well-done documentary I saw. As far as not being comparable to anything Michael Moore has done.....Moore's work is as shoddy and inept as anything out there today, so I agree. Expelled is much better.

Boesse Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 02:21 AM EST

RE: Freedom in science. There is freedom. But freedom of speech can't always apply. Science has to work inside certain boundaries (which Ben Stein, ID folks, and creationists usually confuse).

Scientific ideas have to be testable and falsifiable - creation 'theories' and intelligent design creationism are not testable nor are they falsifiable.

NOR has anyone actually ever proposed any physical evidence of ID. Even Michael Behe. Instead, ID theories state "this feature could not have evolved. therefore it must have been designed (=created)". That is not testable, and it cannot be falsified.

There is no data to support ID, and there has never been any actual data proposed by anyone.

Additionally, there have been recent surveys conducted which indicate that there isn't actually anyone currently researching ID 'biology'. Anywhere.

Boesse Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 02:15 AM EST

1). The movie does say that the Nazi movement 'evolved' from darwinism. Watch it, and actually be informed.

2). There is no 'conspiracy' among academia to get rid of these people. Go to expelledexposed.com - the real story is that most of these alleged 'expelled' academics were only loosely affiliated with said organizations, and their voluntary or forced exits were entirely unrelated to their religious views.

Whether or not the nazi movement is social darwinism or not, it doesn't make a difference! All Darwin intended was to explain patterns in nature (as is modern scientists).

There is no resistance to questioning evolutionary science. Problem is, no one has ever produced a single competing hypothesis that has not been falisified or is falsifiable. Since evolution best fits the data, parsimony indicates it is more correct than anything else.

Erika Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 01:37 AM EST

Wow...if the movie was so much to your dislike, I don't understand why in the world you stuck around. I for one see through your complete lack of regard for a man who had the guts to create a movie about that is so against the mainstream. Too bad so many people are stuck in a box, living off of what they were fed in school. It's time to think for ourselves, that is what Stein is trying to say. He doesn't say that we have to believe in a Creator...we just need freedom in science once again.

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:13 PM EST

This film is NOT about whether evolution or intelligent design is correct. Instead it asks the question, "Why is there an attempt to silence these ideas without open debate?" Just because many people disagree with ID does not mean that people who do agree with it should be prohibited from speaking about it. If that were the case, then evolution would never have been able to become the prominient viewpoint, as mentioned in the film.

This film does NOT equate Darwinism with Naziism. One of the interviewees in the film suggested that ID should not be allowed because people who believe in it are potentially dangerous. I assume he was referring to religous extremists who have done horrible things in the name of religion. So the film responds by showing that Darwinism is not without its extremists, i.e. Naziism; therefore citing religious extremists is not a valid argument for excluding all debate about ID.

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:00 PM EST

well this was a lot of fun and a good distraction from working today. Thank you everyone, have a good night.

aaa Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:51 PM EST

If this movie is supposed to be so serious, how come the poster shows a grown man dressed in a young boy's school uniform? Doesn't exactly scream 'highbrow entertainment' to me.

izzie Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:51 PM EST

On the Scientific American website they have an hour long interview with the associate producer of the film -- I think his name is Mathis. It's excruciating to listen to. Here's a group of scientists debating science with a guy who sounds like a third rate talk show host -- they just took him apart, and most of the time he couldn't even follow what they were talking about. I applaud the Scientific American staff who treated him as politely as they did, but I really would have liked to have heard what happened after Mathis left the room -- there must have been gales of laughter.

Jim Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:35 PM EST

I feel your pain. I also feel the pain of Karron, too -- only in a much different way.

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:32 PM EST

oh c'mon this is so much fun. Incredible how a little popwatch item has generated so much philosophical arguments. I don't think Simon could have expected this.

Karron Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:31 PM EST

What rock did you crawl out from under Simon? Did you not read what this movie was about before you went? It was not a comedy or mindless drivel that was filmed for 'entertainment' purposes. Mr. Stein was not trying to be funny, he was asking a very serious question, and he is still waiting for the moron scientists to give him an answer. The movie may have been torture for you, but anyone with a brain that thinks beyond the next beer was completely involved in what Mr. Stein was saying. Not all movies need to be politically correct, non starter nonsense. Nor do the all have to be Junior High sex and bathroom humor, or bloody slasher gore. Some of them can actually create an atmosphere of learning. But then, you wouldn't know, because you have a brain no bigger than a peanut. I am amazed it works well enough for your body to keep breathing.

fab Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:10 PM EST

I'm starting to think that with very few exceptions nobody who's posting here has ever read a Popwatch entry before. The guy went to a movie and told us what happened at the theater and what he thought. This entry was hardly intended to be a treatise on ID vs Evolution, nor was it even intended to be a formal movie review. I really don't get why every difference of opinion in this country gets turned into a 'You suck, no YOU suck' exchange. Must be Bush's fault. (That last sentence was intended sarcastically).

BrettinHalifax Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:06 PM EST

I wish all of those below that blame Darwin for the holocaust were right. Maybe we could go back to the happy time before Darwin when there were no mass killings.

chad Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 03:27 PM EST

CO,

that's about par for the course. 1st, you don't understand what evolution is and isn't and take it to be an all ecompassing theory, when no theory in science works this way. theories in science collectively answer many different arenas of knowledge, no single theory is applicable to all knowledge based questions. then you confuse origins of life with diveristy of life and in sake of acknowledging and attempting to address the evidences I gave from vids, you instead resort to the only avenue left - citing biblical verses. FYI, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Jon Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 03:17 PM EST

"Wow! I'll obviously never take seriously any review written by Vozick-Levinson again! Do your history; Hitler used Darwinian theory as support for his cause. Any half-brained middle school student knows as much. If you're determined to be ignorant, at least don't be misguiding!"

I certainly agree with the last bit. Only a half-brained middle school student would believe such tripe. Hitler believed in Eugenics, not Darwinism. In fact, Hitler went right against Darwinism in trying to act as the selector of what traits he thought were best instead of letting nature do the work it's done for millions of years.

As for his hatred of Jews, he got it directly from his Roman Catholic upbringing, and the Pope wasn't too fussed about his extermination of the Jews either, what with them being Christ-killers and all.

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 03:03 PM EST

again CO
I am not arguing about the existence of God. Even if there were a god (or gods) s/he may have set things in motion and let evolution do its work. This theory is called Deism, it accepts the existence of god, but rejects any supernatural events. God as the watchmaker is how we were taught in high school.

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:57 PM EST

to CO
I never said anything about random chance to create life, please do not put your own misunderstandings in my mouth.
Please try to understand that evolution is not about the origin of life but about the differentiation of species over time from one another. I have tried to explain this earlier as has Chad, but some of you do not seem to able to grasp that vital difference.

CO Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:55 PM EST

Don't be a fool.

The fool says in his heart there is no God. (PS 14:1)

Psalm 19: 1-4: The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. . . .

Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom

Have a nice day!

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:53 PM EST

Hitler may have used Darwinism to justify his actions, but he twisted and perverted many things to suit his needs. The rise of Nazism was due to many complex factors including rising Germanic nationalism after Germany's defeat in WWI and antisemitism dating back to at least the Middle Ages. To take one little fact out of context and twist it to trivialize something as horrible as the holocaust is unconscionable.

CO Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:41 PM EST

So Kal is arguing that scientists are using random chance to try and create life. Interesting...

Further - I don't believe they will be successful. Even in all their intelligence. I certainly don't believe that life was created randomly.

The evidence argues to stronly against this antiquated and arcane view (of random chance creating life).

You should join this group:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:39 PM EST

Wow! I'll obviously never take seriously any review written by Vozick-Levinson again! Do your history; Hitler used Darwinian theory as support for his cause. Any half-brained middle school student knows as much. If you're determined to be ignorant, at least don't be misguiding!

chad Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:35 PM EST

CO, evolution, darwinism, neo-darwinism or however you want to frame it doesn't seek the explain the origins of life, origins of the cosmos, gravity or anything that Stein attempts to infer in his crock of a film 'Expelled'. The laymans don't know this which is why they so readily lap it up, they are the same ones who think 'theory' in science means a guess. Doh! Evolution explains the origins of biodiversity and how life is all related via common descent with modification, it has nothing to say on how the universe came to be, or how life came or be, or what causes a ball to drop according to gravity. Try to explain just these 2 pieces of evidence using the intellegent designer as a hypothesis, good luck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:31 PM EST

To CO
You are using your own arguments against yourself, you are admitting it is possible to create life in a lab. Humans creating life is not Intelligent Design, we are not some mysterious omnipotent beings. Come on look at your own arguments and try to be sensible.

CO Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:24 PM EST

Synthetic dna structures are not alive. The only way they can get their creation to live is to take a living organism and replace the dna.

So, no. Life was never created by this team of scientists. But if they do somehow manage to "create" life - I suppose your next argument is to suggest that this team is not intelligent to keep with your theory of random chance and No Intelligence to create life (ie Darwinism).

Chris the Biologist Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:11 PM EST

CO, the aliens would NOT be God because I do not think we were created by Aliens. I think we were created by natural processes. If there is a God, he would probably use natural processes anyway, since I don't see miracles happening everyday. As for "Who created the Aliens?" I would say natural processes, how do you answer "Who created God". As a previous person said, when you end the inquiry at "insert magic here", you have left the realm of scientific theory. ID calls for a "creator" that is beyond anything in nature, so it is a supernatural explanation.
On another note, life is not nearly as perfect a creation as you think, any good biologists can point out elements of "bad design" in nature. The Panda's "thumb" is one of many examples.

P.S. Scientists are closer to creating life than you think. They will soon finish work on a bacterium that has a completely synthetic chromosome.

PPS Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" has been thoroughly discredited.

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:10 PM EST

to Pete
That was very well said, and I think we all support people who have faith. That, however, does not make this movie any more palatable. It's claims of people being fired for their beliefs is just plain false, again i beg you all to go to www.expelledexposed.com and see this movie for what it really is; an unscientific piece of propoganda filled with lies!

chad Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:06 PM EST

CO, does creating synthetic viruses (2001) and bacteria (nearly complete, phase 3 of 3 underway) by Craig Venters team not qualify as 'creating life' for you?

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/

chad Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:02 PM EST

Phil Walker, Dawkins doesn't believe in ID, get clue, he was quoted out of context. If ID isn't supernatural, define the 'intelligent designer' then so its falsifiable so it can be critiqued and thus be Scientific. Dawkins asserts that he finds aliens (notice they are natural and not supernatuarl) as intelligently designing life (RNA/DNA) more probable than some supernatural god doing it.

Pete Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:57 PM EST

Life provides hope for many. For others life does not offer hope. For those that suffer in life I give you hope. A hope that there is a Creator and that you will find peace with faith in that Creator. It is so easy to explain how people loose that hope and take there own life.Hope in a Creator gives us all that we need for encouragement for our lives.If you have come to a logical conclusion that there is no God that is unfortunate but please have respect for us that do fully put our faith in God through our suffering. Undisputable evidence may never be provided for all of mankind so hold fast to what you believe and be respectful of all views. What should be taken from this movie is that even brilliant Scientists do not have an explaniation for everything however us believers use our faith in God for the rest which gives us great peace and hope. All we ask is just forgive us for having that belief but also grant us the freedom to belief and dont fire us from our jobs.

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:56 PM EST

sorry to Phil Walker "MD"

“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).

Darwin or evolutionists have never claimed to know the secrets of ife, just how one species develops into another.

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:55 PM EST

you know what guys, even evangelical christians have rejected this movie, saying: Our main concern about EXPELLED is that it paints a distorted picture. It certainly doesn't match our experience. Sadly, it may do more to alienate than to engage the scientific community, and that can only harm our mission. from http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/expelled.shtml
so come on give it up already!!

secondbreakfast Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:53 PM EST

Thanks for the review. It was so insightful and detailed (minus the insight and details). It didnt seem like you had an axe to grind or anything.

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:52 PM EST

to Paul Walker:
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).

Darwin or evolutionists have never claimed to know the secrets of ife, just how one species develops into another.

CO Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:49 PM EST

Chris the Biologist says
PS There is no evidence for aliens creating life on earth but believe it or not, it is less far-fetched than an all powerful God doing so.

In Chris' world then I guess the aliens would be God. He fails to think beyond the first question of Aliens creating life on this planet to ask "Who created the Aliens?"

That goes for the rest of the "scientific" community who in all their wisdom cannot create life in the best labs our tax dollars can buy.

Phil Walker, MD Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:41 PM EST

CO,
The idea that people used to think that the earth was flat is a myth.

Phil Walker, MD Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:39 PM EST

Chris,
There's nothing supernatural about ID. Even Dawkins himself believes in it. Haven't you seen the movie?

CO Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:32 PM EST

It is rather humorous to see the (metaphorical) Flat Earth crowd's comments over this movie.

For years the scientific community held that the earth was flat until it took some very daring detractors to question the very core of the Flat Earth belief system.

So too the modern equivalent of the Flat Earth folks will be melting down as they see their very religion and faith in Darwinism questioned by modern advances in Science and technology. But cling to the Dogma of Darwinism they must until the new generation of more intelligent scientists evolve - (Such as molecular biologist Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box author).

After a long and drawn out battle of Evidence vs Dogma has come to a close and the vestiges of Darwinism are thrown on the junk science heap of the Flat Earth science - then mankind can once again advance their knowledge base and make great strides in Science.

Until then we will have to endure the name calling and irrational arguments of the Darwinists.

Chris the Biologist Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:11 PM EST

Why isn't there more intelligent discussion? Because it's not a scientific theory. It is a philisophical/religious idea. By definition, supernatural causes cannot be invoked in scientific theories. Would you like it if a scientist tried to teach your kids religion or philosophy? I don't think so.

"Expelled" twisted the facts and misquoted a lot of scientists to support its pro-religion (although not pro-Christian) point of view.

No, I'm not at all a liberal. Michael Moore disgusts me more than Ben Stein because he has spread even more lies and half truths.

PS There is no evidence for aliens creating life on earth but believe it or not, it is less far-fetched than an all powerful God doing so. We at least know there are planets capable of supporting life out there, probably millions of them, so it is very likely life has evolved elsewhere.

chad Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM EST

Phil Walker, if its all about freedome of speech as you claim, then why are people like Chris Comer and others who've been fired or lost tenure for teaching evolution? Stein doesn't mention all those who've lost tenure or their jobs for teaching it, why not? What's HE hiding?

Phil Walker, MD Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:50 PM EST

Brian. I thought it was the darwinists who believed in Santa Claus, fairies and that the moon is made of green cheese

Phil Walker, MD Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:45 PM EST

Kal. It's obvious to me that I know more about darwinism than you do. The core of Darwinism is the evolution of species from a single common ancestor. This has never been proven scientifically or otherwise.
You are wrong about the free speech issue. It will not go away, no matter how shrill your protestations.

chad Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:41 PM EST

thethyme, Since you're an ID fan, please explain how it's falsifaible. After all, if it's not falsifiable it certainly isn't Scientific. If you want some geniune evidence regarding evolution, here ya go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

tyler Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:37 PM EST

come on people can you not tell that intelligent design is the CORRECT answer to life and EVERYTHING GOD is out there and you athiest people are not going to be with him in heaven

kal Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:01 PM EST

Phil Walker, MD Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:47 AM EST

The issue is "Free Speech" without fear of academic reprisal, folks. You'll get nowhere debating ID vs. darwinism with philosophical materialists. It is interesting to read ridiculous reviews like the one Simon Vozick-Levinson has written here.

Dr. Walker you are wrong, the issue is not free speech, no one is denying the ID people anything, if they can provide scientific proof of their claim. Darwinism is not about the origin of life but "Origin of the Species." You must have learned that somewhere in your studies. Please go to www.expelledexposed.com, if you are interested in an intelligent discussion. And leave the reviewer alone, he is only commenting on the movie, not ID itself.

Phil Walker, MD Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:47 AM EST

The issue is "Free Speech" without fear of academic reprisal, folks. You'll get nowhere debating ID vs. darwinism with philosophical materialists. It is interesting to read ridiculous reviews like the one Simon Vozick-Levinson has written here.

Amy Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:43 AM EST

Geez. I thought it was kind of interesting. Does that make me a crazy religious fanatic? I'm worried now.

thethyme Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:31 AM EST

Ashok Shah Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 07:21 AM EST

It just irritates me that you evolutionists do not have the capacity to think. You quote others stating that ID does not have any answers!!!!! Have you even found out what ID is about? Do you know what the claim of ID is? Do you understand the scientific methods. Also, this whole debate is mischaracterised as being ID proponents against science. This is not the case. It is ID proponents against the Darwinian religious fanatics who are NOT working for science. They are working for their religion. They have hijacked science and are not holding hostages as the movie clearly points out.

FYI.. ID is the SCIENCE of detection of intelligence and it is an emerging field with the new age of information. So, if you want to get on board, study it, find out what it is about, and LOGICALLY make your own conclusions, instead of quoting the hijackers of science. THINK a little... it is healthy.

PLEASE PROVIDE ANY SCIENCE or evidence FOR ID...

Rob Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM EST

This movie is disgusting. Creationism (which is all ID is) is one of the things that makes me embarrassed to be an American. I cant stand the religious fanatics (certainly a minority of those that are religious) that only believe what they are told to believe and dont have enough brains to think for themselves. There is no evidence for creationism only for evolution. Maybe there is something beyond evolution but we havent found it yet. Scientists arent so narrow minded that they dont question everything. Some people need to wake up and realize that evolution (and science) has NOTHING to do with disproving God. On of the most conservative and religious men in the world believes in evolution--the Pope! For those that must believe in God, just realize that evolution is his elegant plan. It will make your belief in him stronger. To all those Creationists: for the love of your God, PLEASE DONT PROCREATE! There are more important things going on in the world to worry about!

JoeC Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:27 AM EST

I plan to see this movie. It intrigues me. Sorry you didn't like it, Simon. Man, you didn't like it! Sounds like my reaction to 'Pirates of the Carribean' Part 3

thethyme Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:23 AM EST

Also check out www.expelledexposed.com for the low down on how dishonest this film is

thethyme Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:23 AM EST

Also check out www.expelledexposed.com for the low down on how dishonest this film is

Dan S Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:29 AM EST

Stef Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:35 AM EST

I love how people get all self-righteous by saying that the film blames Darwin for the Holocaust but when Michael Moore blames the NRA for the KKK with a cute little cartoon, you hand him an Oscar and call him a hero.

Het Stef, You conveniently got it wrong. Moore points out that the KKK was labeled an illegal terrorist organization by the Federal Government the year before the NRA was formed. Moore also pointed out that the NRA very first lobbying effort was to ban blacks from owning guns. He didn't blame the KKK on the NRA, he pointed out that the KKK had influence in the NRA however. He actually tied the two events together, which is something that Stein felt no obligation to do.

I guess the point was lost on you though.

Dan S Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:18 AM EST

Stef Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:35 AM EST

I love how people get all self-righteous by saying that the film blames Darwin for the Holocaust but when Michael Moore blames the NRA for the KKK with a cute little cartoon, you hand him an Oscar and call him a hero.

Het Stef, You conveniently got it wrong. Moore points out that the KKK was labeled an illegal terrorist organization by the Federal Government the year before the NRA was formed. Moore also pointed out that the NRA very first lobbying effort was to ban blacks from owning guns. He didn't blame the KKK on the NRA, he pointed out that the KKK had influence in the NRA however. He actually tied the two events together, which is something that Stein felt no obligation to do.

I guess the point was lost on you though.

Dalton Spears Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:54 AM EST

I know, will. It's crazy, right?! haha

Will Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:52 AM EST

Dawin is blamed for the rise of Nazi's? Wow, thanks Ben Stein! I guess it wasn't World War I and the German economy at the time.

Stef Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:49 AM EST

Also I don't get why people are getting so angry at the review. He never even mentions which side he agrees with, and "I saw it so you don't have to" is a running column on popwatch. Someone sees a movie that got horrible reviews and makes jokes about it. Big deal. All this namecalling is weird.

Brian Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:46 AM EST

I'm still stunned that so many people can blindly accept Creationism as a valid explanation for life on Earth. I suppose the same people still belive in Santa Claus, fairies and that the moon is made of green cheese. It's the 21st Century people. Wake up!

Dalton Spears Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:44 AM EST

I am a Christian, and I believe that science offers answers. I don't believe in Evolution (although many Christians do). There are too many holes in the THEORY of Evolution. Just because something is accepted in the scientific community does not mean it is so. I don't agree with everything that Ben Stein is claiming. Hitler was responsible for his own madness, not Darwin. But the respect for human life (see abortion and lethal injection) has been trashed by the theory of evolution because we, now as the human race, feel like we are nothing but mere chances.

We are not.

Christ died for us because we are God's precious creations, not because we are a cosmic mistake. Take a look at the stars and think of how perfectly our world is placed so that life can survive on the planet. Life is amazing, and not made by chance.
As for the big boom, I'm sure when this amazing universe was created, a large bang occurred. God is not a magic fairy waving a wand. He's an amazing creator.

Stef Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:35 AM EST

I love how people get all self-righteous by saying that the film blames Darwin for the Holocaust but when Michael Moore blames the NRA for the KKK with a cute little cartoon, you hand him an Oscar and call him a hero.

To Kevin Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:18 AM EST

Small point the Catholic church supports evolution. Has done so for a very long time. In fact one of Darwins earlist supports was a Catholic priest.

Kevin Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:05 AM EST

Implying that Darwin is somehow responsible for the Holocaust is like saying that The Beatles are responsible for Charles Manson or that the Bible is responsible for the looneys that justify killing abortion doctors. Also, the concept of ID attempts to completely disavow Evolution which is exactly what is wrong with ID. To say that there was a "Creator" is one thing, but to say that this creator created the world as it is is just madness. If ID merely said that a Creator set the universe in motion, creating a single pocket of matter from which, after the Big Bang, allowed for the complex evolution of the universe and the lives within it, then no one would have a problem. But no--Evolution doesn't exist in the ID model. In the ID model, humanity was plopped onto the Earth fully formed, a concept SO ridiculous it doesn't deserve a moment's thought. If these "scientists" really do believe this, they need to find a new profession...I hear the Catholic church needs priests...

Relax, people! Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:50 AM EST

Yikes! I don't think some of these posters realize that "I've Seen It So You Don't Have To" is just a category for blog articles, not an attempt to make oneself seem more intelligent or important! So much vitriol on this page... I'd just like to ignore the ongoing debate and add my vote to the "Simon, you're kinda cute" campaign!

DrO Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:40 AM EST

Is there a scientist in the house?... or even a thinker? The whole business of science is to test hypotheses... to try and prove ideas correct or incorrect. Scientists have spent the last 150 years trying to prove or disprove the theory of evolution. So far, it has stood up to the test. ID (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) has not. But, remember... this is a movie review... and this review seems to correlate well with the broader base of reviews... the movie stinks. I am all for debate and academic freedom. Let the ID people present their ideas in an open forum... let their papers be subject to peer review... just like every one else... there is no cabal among the scientists... just an expectation that ideas are defensible.... those promoted by this movie are not.

Morse Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:12 AM EST

"Could Hitler have come to the conclusion that one race was superior to others without an Evolution foundation? Without Darwin, it is doubtful the Holocaust would ever have occurred."

Because the deep seeded antisemitism and history of pogroms had absolutely nothing to do with it. Antisemitism supported by the Catholic church, I might add.

Should I also include that the Nazis had "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles? Or that Hitler made many statements that he was doing what he was doing because it was the Lord's work?

Lloyd Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:07 AM EST

Wow! You must be a really important movie reviewer. You've seen it; hence, we should not think for ourselves. Are you arrogant, or simply lacking in commong sense?

dana Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 08:05 AM EST

the creator and head of the human genome project supports ID theory. so do many high-level astrophysicists, most of whom didn't support it prior to extensive study in their field. so it's pretty knee-jerk for us armchair-scientists to go saying that ID's a crock and not science, don't you think? and the academic freedom issue is a real, serious one. i've had professors say much dumber things, like being told that divorce isn't a social problem and the only reason i would think so is because my parents divorced, despite the overwhelming statistics that say it is...and she didn't lose tenure, or even get disciplined for saying something so inappropriate (and factually incorrect) in a class...so no one can call themselves liberal or pro-freedom and not fight for the man and women losing their jobs for supporting ID.
BTW, why is popwatch covering 'expelled'? there's already an EW review of it, and plenty in the blogosphere to add comments to.