A rousing preview last week of the new Ben Stein documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, brought a Kansas City audience to its feet.
And with good cause. Steins often funny, always engaging frontal assault on the oppressive neo-Darwinist establishment is arguably the smartest and most sophisticated documentary ever produced on the right side of the cultural divide, on any subject, ever.
As such, Expelled represents still another blow to the progressive orthodoxy of government-issued science in its winter of discontent.
The winter started early when in November two separate labs, one in Wisconsin, one in Japan, announced the breakthrough discovery that adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to mimic embryonic stem cells.
Just two years earlier, the elfin journalist Chris Mooney had likened adult stem cell research to creationism and assured the readers of his best seller, The Republican War on Science, that this dogma had been “resoundingly rejected by researchers actually working in the field.”
As the winter rolled on, and as all four major global temperature tracking outlets showed a precipitous drop in annual global temperature, and as snow fell in Baghdad for the first time in recorded history, only Al Gore remained in meltdown.
Meanwhile, on a seemingly daily basis, the neo-Luddites from the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front have been putting a distinctly left wing face on the war on science, in this case a real war on real scientists.
And into this breach, armed with his trademark tennies and bemused grin, marches Ben Stein, Americas only economist/ presidential speechwriter turned comic actor. The producers at Premise Media could not have recruited a better on-screen presence.
Although the role Stein plays has been compared to the one Michael Moore plays in his film, the Stein persona is conspicuously brighter and more benign.
Nor do Stein and his producers resort to the kind of editing that make Moore movies something other than documentaries.
In Bowling For Columbine , for instance, Moore cobbles together five different parts of NRA honcho Charlton Hestons Denver speech a week after Columbine.
Moore then inserts into the mix a cold, dead hands remark from a speech Heston gave a year later. In the process Moore turn Hestons conciliatory Denver address into a provocative call to arms.
This isnt film making. This is fraud.
Stein resorts to no such tricks. He gives certain interview subjects all the time and all the rope they need to hang themselves, unedited.
One highlight among many is Steins one-on-one interview with Richard Dawkins, the dashing Brit who has made a small fortune as the worlds most visible neo-Darwinist.
To his credit, and to the utter discomfort of the public education establishment, Dawkins does not shy from discussing the atheistic implications of Darwinism.
Indeed, Dawkins anti-deity call to arms, The God Delusion, has sold more than a million copies worldwide. Where Dawkins wanders into a black hole of his own making is in his discussion of the origins of life on earth.
To Steins astonishment, Dawkins concedes that life might indeed have a designer but that designer almost assuredly was a more highly evolved being from another planet, not God.
Stein does not respond. He does not need to. For the past hour of the film, the audience has met one scientist after another whose academic careers have been derailed for daring to suggest the possibility of intelligent design.
If only they had thought to put the designer on another planet!
The choice of Stein as narrator is inspired for another reason. That reason becomes most apparent when he and two creationist allies, mathematician David Berlinski and nuclear physicist Gerald Schroeder, visit a remnant of the Berlin Wall, the central metaphor of the film.
At the wall, the three discuss the value of freedom, the central idea of the film, and the need for the same in science. The audience has already met Berlinski, an amusingly sophisticated American living in Paris.
The audience has seen less of Schroeder, but he is wearing a yarmulke. All three are Jewish.
Indeed, it would be hard to imagine any three individuals on the planet who less resemble the Inherit the Wind stereotype that Darwinists have been scaring soccer moms with for the last half century.
Expelled opens nationwide on April 18 th. The neo-Darwinists and their allies in the major media will do their best to kill it.
Co-producer Mark Mathis tells me that two network news producers have already chosen not to cover the film because it was biased, unlike, say, the much-covered Fahrenheit 911.
The producers have contracted with the same firm that marketed Mel Gibsons The Passion to get the word out. They will use much the same strategy.
Central to this strategy is the creation of a powerful buzz and a strong enough opening weekend to catch Hollywoods attention and hold it.
Put April 18 on your calendars. Bring the kids. You wont be disappointed.
See the trailer for Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed
Jack Cashill is an independent writer and producer and, on a contractual basis, the Executive Editor of Ingrams Magazine, Kansas Citys premier business magazine. Read more Jack Cashill at cashill.com
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Dustball said,
God help us.
March 11, 2008 at 11:32 am
panic said,
“1. A Darwin-subscribing researcher made a mistake.
2. Therefore everything Darwin said was wrong.
3. Therefore anything else (viz. non-Darwin, anti-Darwin, contra-Darwin theory) is confirmed.”
March 11, 2008 at 4:21 pm
amfortas said,
And who designed the alien?
Why, another alien, even more eons before.
And that alien?
Its Turtles all the way down.
When you think of all that hard work on the first Thursday afternoon that God put in on the far side of the Andromeda Galaxy (something to see, I can tell you. Just you wait) and He get’s no credit ! Its enough to make a Saint spit.
March 11, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Paul Burnett said,
Perhaps the reason the movie is only shown in churches has something to do with the easily observed fact that intelligent design creationism is religion - not science at all but religious pseudoscience. And they’re playing to their base, the True Believers, those already proven to be gullible.
Read http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/business/media/10stein.html?_r=1&oref=slogin for a hysterical report from the New York Times’ film critic who was invited and then disinvited to a screening of Expelled.
Or better yet, here’s Answers In Genesis’s March 11 report on the New York Times’ review of Expelled: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/03/11/movie-critic-blasts-expelled/ .
Ken (”Dinosaurs Were On Noah’s Ark In 2348 BC!”) Ham loves Expelled, and for anybody who knows Ken, that says an awful lot about the movie.
March 11, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Mike LaSalle said,
March 11, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Paul Burnett said,
An interesting lie. PZ Myers writes “They built their movie around interviews obtained from me, Eugenie Scott, and Richard Dawkins, and others under entirely false pretenses.” As has been documented elsewhere, the movie folks lied to the scientists and philosophers they interviewed about the movie’s subject and focus.
As Jack Cashill wrote: “This isn’t film making. This is fraud.”
True fact.
See this and more comments from the same media company that did the PR for Mel Gibson’s Jesus Chainsaw Massacre movie at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/media_alert.php
March 12, 2008 at 5:04 am
Paul Burnett said,
Sure sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
(See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/12/17/expelled-the-movie for the complete review.)
March 12, 2008 at 8:35 am
conservativation said,
Panic’s synopsis I could not discern if it was anti-the film or not.
Paul Burnett is clearly quite exercised by the notion. The first attempt to discredit the film I would liken to how some people will tangentially discredit things based on preconceived notions of the origin or its adherents. The fact that Christians, or churches have been the primary audience is most importantly utterly irrelevant in commentary about the substance of the film, unless he is saying something childishly ridiculous like “If Christians like it it cannot be good”. Further, consider marketing and distribution and which demographic may be the most receptive. Would Mr. Burnett be critical of a film that was completely germane to the African American experience if it were test marketed in primarily areas where there would be largely black attendance? How shallow and narrow.
Of course they want good responses and turnout. Of course they don’t want some moronic self important nag from the New York times coming in and commenting. Indeed I could probably write the Times reporters piece for him and I’ve never even seen the film…he’d be so predictable…which seemingly Mr Burnett finds that to be insightful.
Mr Burnett goes on to point out that the pretense under which Dawkins was baited into the interview was false, but then makes the absurd leap of logic that THEREFORE whatever Dawkins said is not valid. So Mr Burnett, If you were invited to an interview, ostensibly to discuss one thing and another topic came up, you’d be somehow duped into answering questions less than forthrightly?
Finally, it is always hilarious see the references to whether or not such conclusions are based on agnostic reason or draw from source books like the Bible. No matter what discipline you track back, biology, astronomy, astrophysics, etc., there comes a time where as he calls agnostic reason fails to fill the theory and a “leap of faith” must be made. Amfortas touchesd it with his questions. But the fundamental question asked by any schoole aged child “but where did the primordial soup come from, and continue to reverse time with that line of primary school inquiry and you reach the leap of faith.
Dawkins sidesteps by pointing to an alien. Yes sir we have all that evidence about those space aliens and their butt probes.
I credit Dawkins at least for answering because most ignore the question.
Follow the development of various cosmological theories…M LaSalle is well versed…and you’ll see that as the math is developed, there comes a time that to balance the equations the “scientist” must create from whole cloth either the existence of some new tangible thing (dark matter anyone), or a new constant, or change theories mid stream…string theory anyone….and the derivation then becomes the proof because invariably it ends with some circular relationship where “stuff” repeats or exists parallel, or something, yet again….asks the 1st grade girl….”where’d the stuff come from?”
I want to add that the mere obvious fact that some get so worked up by this is somehow evidence in and of itself. Evidence of what? Well theories abound. But it boils down to the perception that we are our own god and need not ponder anything more.My reaction Mr Burnett is simple……good luck with that.
March 12, 2008 at 10:20 am
Paul Burnett said,
Evidence that the barbarians are at the gates with their pitchforks and torches?
Some Florida county school boards pass “Voluntary Ignorance Resolutions;” Texas fires its science curriculum advisor for mentioning “evolution;” South Carolina drags a creationist “professor” into its biology textbook hearings; Oklahoma’s legislature debates a bill to let the answer to “What is 2+2?” or “What year did Columbus discover America?” be “Jesus!” with no consequences for a wrong answer; surveys show about the same percentage of Americans think the Sun revolves around the earth as still approve of President Bush (about 23%). That’s evidence.
March 12, 2008 at 11:11 am
emarel said,
March 12, 2008 at 11:46 am
Lurk said,
Did you mean to intimate that the answers to the questions would have been different if you had known who the questioners were? Is there really any relavance to science who asks the question as to what answer will be delivered?
I’ll assume that you would give the same answer no matter who asks about thorigin of life. anything less would be an attempt to obscure the truth.
On the actual question, “Did life originate on theis planet?” It appears that the concensus is “No”. Dawkins attempted to prove that abiogenesis (see dictionary.com - the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation)is real and has failed. From above, we see that he has joined Hoyle in pushing the question out of reach. However, with life originating elsewhere and being delivered to this planet, some questions are still worth asking.
“Did life spring up by itself (abiogenesys again)?” Nothing in science yet indicates more types of raw material types than was previously known. Yet, it must be by itself or something else created life.
So, if something else created life, where did it come from? What is the origin of its life? Everybody sing “I’m my own Grandpa…”
Or is it eternal? Apparently the universe is not. It’s only about 47billion years old, so an eternal entity or race must not be of this universe.
Scientifically, the questions still lead down the same path, but scientists resist the path. So much for the thirst for knowledge and understanding.
Either abogenesis defies the odds (well beyond the level of statistical anomalies) or something created life. Since the something would have to either be a product of abiogenesis (discredited) to be of this universe and cannot, that something must predate the universe and therefore be capable of existing outside the universe as well as within it in some manner.
By pushing the origin of life off planet, science is voting for creation. Further, the ability to create life and deliver it to the planet indicates intent or design and also intelligence.
The search for the truth does not begin with a desired answer.
March 12, 2008 at 11:52 am
Mike LaSalle said,
Did you mean to intimate that the answers to the questions would have been different if you had known who the questioners were? Is there really any relavance to science who asks the question as to what answer will be delivered?
That’s an excellent point!
Actually, Paul, you do seem to be guilty of exactly the kind PR-driven reasoning that you accuse of others of.
For example, this comment is a golden example of the Association Fallacy:
Now, I know it’s easy to make fun of people like Ken Ham (who apparently thinks Barney was a resident on Noah’s Ark). But shadow-boxing with young earth creationists does NOT count in the real debate posed by the genuine defenders of Intelligent Design.
I would also like to point out that my own article, “Darwin Ist Tot: Intelligent Design is Not Creationism”, published at IntellectualConservative.com, though challenged, stood the test of debate, with my primary adversary admitting finally ( in comment 63), that “I cant refute your arguments directly. Since so, you win.”
Halla-friggin-luja: an honest atheist has been discovered!
March 12, 2008 at 12:54 pm
conservativation said,
Instead of the smokescreen, why not tell us exactly what you fear?
March 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm
conservativation said,
Anecdotally, homeschoolers are demonstrably better educated than those subjected to public school, and there is a correlation between the drive to rightly educate by home school, and being a Christian.
March 12, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Paul Burnett said,
I fear the Dark Ages of anti-science ignorance being forced on this country by the producers of Expelled and the creationists in Oklahoma, Florida, Texas and South Carolina.
And just in case you think I’m exaggerating:
Oklahoma: http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/
Florida: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/01/ignorance-by-de.html
Texas: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/TX/270_barbara_forrest_on_chris_comer_12_5_2007.asp
South Carolina: http://www.sc-scied.org/EE/index.php/scied/comments/creationists_corrupt_textbook_selection_in_south_carolina/
March 12, 2008 at 7:43 pm
conservativation said,
People claiming the “fear” Christianity, or are made “uncomfortable” by the presence of religious symbols are weak, pathetically weak people.
March 13, 2008 at 8:13 am
Paul Burnett said,
People who rejoice in their ignorance - and rejoice in their refusal to read the links which might inform them and reduce their ignorance - are pathetic…and weak…and fearful of learning, by definition. Enjoy the Dark Ages.
March 13, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Paul Burnett said,
I just found a book about you, conservativation. Titled The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby. “Americans are not only increasingly knowledge-challenged, she argues: they’re also proud of it. “America is now ill,” she writes, “with a powerful mutant strain of intertwined ignorance, anti-rationalism, and anti-intellectualism.” This new, insidious strain–at odds with reason, objective facts, and modern science–has grown over the past twenty years, she writes, and is incredibly dangerous for American culture and politics.”
Describes your intellectual cowardice to a T. See “A Nation of Dolts, Under God?” at http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080313/cm_rcp/the_age_of_american_unreason
March 14, 2008 at 10:41 am
Paul Burnett said,
March 20, 2008 at 9:05 pm