| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
None.
Editorial Reviews
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.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
907 of 1,287 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
Now that the DVD is out, how does it differ from the film version? Even though Vivendi/ Premise won the lawsuit that Yoko Ono filed against the film for using ten seconds of John Lennon's "Imagine", the reference has been cut out of the video. I greatly respected Yoko as a performance artist and had the original records of Two Virgins and Plastic Ono Band. How very sad if a great modern artist's only interest now is gathering greenbacks. More on this in Steve Turner's excellent and revealing The Gospel According to the Beatles, which is full of absolutely unknown Beatlemania.
If anyone actually watched Expelled, they'd see that it's not "thinly disguised creationism" but rather about the freedom to challenge entrenched views. Certain sectors are always taking the church to task for supposedly limiting Galileo's freedom of inquiry and speech (in a vastly distorted account of what actually happened). Hello! Exactly the same thing is happening now, although they seem rather more silent when the shoe is on the other foot. Ben Stein is merely trying to restore the freedoms of speech and inquiry guaranteed in the US constitution to the realm of academia and the hugely controlled "Big Science" of public science foundations and those funded by philanthropic grants, including the Smithsonian Institute, National academy of Science, and the National Science Foundation.
After seeing Expelled in a theater, I wrote a long review of it elsewhere on the web. Now I see it's sparked a rather lively debate among reviewers. Actually, among those who, by their own admission, haven't seen it. One reviewer asks why people are voting against his review (which is against the film). Probably for the same reason people are voting against my review of Dawkins' book: not because the review is "not helpful" but as a way of voting for or against the book or film, as it were.
Having said that, it's probably as impossible to be neutral about this film as about Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 or an Oliver Stone fictionmentary. In my view, however, it's a fine piece of film making. Witty, irreverent, inventive, thoughtful, and Ben Stein is at his likeable, deadpan best. A friend I watched it with said just the opening titles were better than most films he'd seen recently, and I'm inclined to agree. If this film had had the opposite message, I think it would be getting an Academy Award and the New York Times wouldn't stop raving about it (instead of at it).
That's all well and good, one may be saying, but you haven't said anything about the subject. No, and I'd really rather not. If you hold a view generally called these days "Neo-Darwinism" you probably still will after seeing the film. If you incline to an idea called "Intelligent Design", you'll still incline so. If you're interested in battles between factions of the Academy in universities, however, or in free speech and press versus censorship (and this would likely be the topic of many reviews if this film had a different viewpoint), here's an engaging look at the salvos flying back and forth in a social and intellectual debate that much of the media have to date declined to cover.
One interesting thing came out of this film, and that was a test case for "fair use" in relation to copyright laws, an idea everybody knows about, but which seems generally undefined. It concerned Yoko's suing Ben Stein and the producers for using a snippet of John Lennon's song "Imagine". Hasn't everyone and their dog used that song? Yes, but here it wasn't used to sell tennis shoes, but to be considered critically. Again, if the film had the opposite viewpoint, I don't think there would have been a suit, but the outcome was to define "fair use" in its original intent, so that common Joes and Janes don't have to fear cadres of corporate lawyers merely for referring to copyrighted songs, books, films and other materials.
As the film shows, the use of Darwin's ideas to support Nazi ideology and eugenics was almost universal during and following the Victorian era, and was generally known as "social Darwinism". One may argue that these were actually Huxley's ideas, or that Darwin borrowed heavily from Alfred Wallace, but whatever their pedigree, they were pressed into service nearly at once. G.K. Chesterton wrote tirelessly against the Nazis as they were beginning to come to power, attempting to expose their plan of eugenics. In reference to another reviewer, I have read Mein Kampf (sp.) also, and Hitler's plan was entirely based on "social Darwinism". So were the ideas of Margaret Sanger and numerous other crusaders for what was known as "scientific planning". Numerous authors have pointed out the racist motivations behind the Royal Society in Britain and the ages of Victorian and Edwardian exploration, in which races were contrasted in elaborate displays during the world expositions and fairs.
This was also the motivation in the Soviet Union, which forced a famine in order to coerce farmers onto state cooperatives. When Malcolm Muggeridge exposed this plan in the 'thirties, in Chronicles of Wasted Time he was widely denounced by Soviet supporters in the media who wanted this experiment in social planning to succeed. Among these were the Fabian Socialists, Sydney and Beatrice Webb. But Beatrice Webb wrote in her diary in 1933: "(There was) another account of the famine in Russia in the Manchester Guardian (a British newspaper), which certainly bears out Malcolm's reports....Fortunately for the USSR, the attention of the capitalist countries is today concentrated on the Mad Dog of Europe-- Hitler's Germany."
This film may induce a sense of vertigo, being chocabloc full of information and history barely referenced in the media. The effect may be akin to sailing in a calm sea, only to find one has unaccountably hit an iceberg. Or rather the tip of an iceberg, and the film may spark curious viewers to explore the vast reaches submerged below.
Extras on the DVD include: a trailer for Fossil Hunter, a novel by John Olson with a "female Indiana Jones"; An Important Message from Ben Stein (in favor of free speech and inquiry); an advance notice for Expelled: The Book by David Berlinski, not yet released as of this writing; "Practical Applications", called on the DVD cover: "Using Intelligent Design for Medical Research" noting breakthroughs resulting from assuming an engineered, rather than a random process; Theatrical Trailer (Called: "Theatrical Super Trailer" on the cover); Bonus music tracks by Andy Hunter: "Stars", "Technicolour", "Out of Control". Related links include: Expelledthemovie.com and AcademicFreedomDay.com.
Expelled is written for a popular audience, and those with more interest or background may wish for more discussion of science. That comes in an interview with David Berlinski, author of A Tour of the Calculus and many other books, on a DVD called "The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski". It's from Coldwater Media, the creators of Icons of Evolution, and may later have a general release. For now, it's available from intelligentdesign.org.
If anyone actually watched Expelled, they'd see that it's not "thinly disguised creationism" but rather about the freedom to challenge entrenched views. Certain sectors are always taking the church to task for supposedly limiting Galileo's freedom of inquiry and speech (in a vastly distorted account of what actually happened). Hello! Exactly the same thing is happening now, although they seem rather more silent when the shoe is on the other foot. Ben Stein is merely trying to restore the freedoms of speech and inquiry guaranteed in the US constitution to the realm of academia and the hugely controlled "Big Science" of public science foundations and those funded by philanthropic grants, including the Smithsonian Institute, National academy of Science, and the National Science Foundation.
After seeing Expelled in a theater, I wrote a long review of it elsewhere on the web. Now I see it's sparked a rather lively debate among reviewers. Actually, among those who, by their own admission, haven't seen it. One reviewer asks why people are voting against his review (which is against the film). Probably for the same reason people are voting against my review of Dawkins' book: not because the review is "not helpful" but as a way of voting for or against the book or film, as it were.
Having said that, it's probably as impossible to be neutral about this film as about Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 or an Oliver Stone fictionmentary. In my view, however, it's a fine piece of film making. Witty, irreverent, inventive, thoughtful, and Ben Stein is at his likeable, deadpan best. A friend I watched it with said just the opening titles were better than most films he'd seen recently, and I'm inclined to agree. If this film had had the opposite message, I think it would be getting an Academy Award and the New York Times wouldn't stop raving about it (instead of at it).
That's all well and good, one may be saying, but you haven't said anything about the subject. No, and I'd really rather not. If you hold a view generally called these days "Neo-Darwinism" you probably still will after seeing the film. If you incline to an idea called "Intelligent Design", you'll still incline so. If you're interested in battles between factions of the Academy in universities, however, or in free speech and press versus censorship (and this would likely be the topic of many reviews if this film had a different viewpoint), here's an engaging look at the salvos flying back and forth in a social and intellectual debate that much of the media have to date declined to cover.
One interesting thing came out of this film, and that was a test case for "fair use" in relation to copyright laws, an idea everybody knows about, but which seems generally undefined. It concerned Yoko's suing Ben Stein and the producers for using a snippet of John Lennon's song "Imagine". Hasn't everyone and their dog used that song? Yes, but here it wasn't used to sell tennis shoes, but to be considered critically. Again, if the film had the opposite viewpoint, I don't think there would have been a suit, but the outcome was to define "fair use" in its original intent, so that common Joes and Janes don't have to fear cadres of corporate lawyers merely for referring to copyrighted songs, books, films and other materials.
As the film shows, the use of Darwin's ideas to support Nazi ideology and eugenics was almost universal during and following the Victorian era, and was generally known as "social Darwinism". One may argue that these were actually Huxley's ideas, or that Darwin borrowed heavily from Alfred Wallace, but whatever their pedigree, they were pressed into service nearly at once. G.K. Chesterton wrote tirelessly against the Nazis as they were beginning to come to power, attempting to expose their plan of eugenics. In reference to another reviewer, I have read Mein Kampf (sp.) also, and Hitler's plan was entirely based on "social Darwinism". So were the ideas of Margaret Sanger and numerous other crusaders for what was known as "scientific planning". Numerous authors have pointed out the racist motivations behind the Royal Society in Britain and the ages of Victorian and Edwardian exploration, in which races were contrasted in elaborate displays during the world expositions and fairs.
This was also the motivation in the Soviet Union, which forced a famine in order to coerce farmers onto state cooperatives. When Malcolm Muggeridge exposed this plan in the 'thirties, in Chronicles of Wasted Time he was widely denounced by Soviet supporters in the media who wanted this experiment in social planning to succeed. Among these were the Fabian Socialists, Sydney and Beatrice Webb. But Beatrice Webb wrote in her diary in 1933: "(There was) another account of the famine in Russia in the Manchester Guardian (a British newspaper), which certainly bears out Malcolm's reports....Fortunately for the USSR, the attention of the capitalist countries is today concentrated on the Mad Dog of Europe-- Hitler's Germany."
This film may induce a sense of vertigo, being chocabloc full of information and history barely referenced in the media. The effect may be akin to sailing in a calm sea, only to find one has unaccountably hit an iceberg. Or rather the tip of an iceberg, and the film may spark curious viewers to explore the vast reaches submerged below.
Extras on the DVD include: a trailer for Fossil Hunter, a novel by John Olson with a "female Indiana Jones"; An Important Message from Ben Stein (in favor of free speech and inquiry); an advance notice for Expelled: The Book by David Berlinski, not yet released as of this writing; "Practical Applications", called on the DVD cover: "Using Intelligent Design for Medical Research" noting breakthroughs resulting from assuming an engineered, rather than a random process; Theatrical Trailer (Called: "Theatrical Super Trailer" on the cover); Bonus music tracks by Andy Hunter: "Stars", "Technicolour", "Out of Control". Related links include: Expelledthemovie.com and AcademicFreedomDay.com.
Expelled is written for a popular audience, and those with more interest or background may wish for more discussion of science. That comes in an interview with David Berlinski, author of A Tour of the Calculus and many other books, on a DVD called "The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski". It's from Coldwater Media, the creators of Icons of Evolution, and may later have a general release. For now, it's available from intelligentdesign.org.
1,959 of 2,932 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars
A complete sham, I can't believe I paid money to see this in the theater
July 14, 2008
Format:DVD
**UPDATE: 9/24/08 - After numerous requests I have ultimately decided to rewrite this review, almost in its entirety. The first review was posted on 7/14/2008. My rating has not changed nor have my opinions on this documentary. However, people have made suggestions in format changes as well as making the content more concise and I think they are good suggestions. It doesn't matter whether you support ID or Evolution, the review should help people make an educated decision about this product. Thank you to those who helped with their suggestions and didn't simply write this off because I gave it one star. This applies to people on both sides of the ID and Evolution argument, you people are truly taking the high road and I appreciate that.
I believe I should clarify something before I delve into the full breadth of my review. When I first saw this I was ready to give it three stars. I didn't see any point in questioning Ben Stein's report about people losing their jobs because of their beliefs. Humanity can be cruel no matter where you are and prejudice can rear its head no matter what the belief. That being said, I walked out thinking there was a problem starting to sweep the academic community and the only issue I had with the film was its association of Darwin and the Nazis (I'll go more in depth on this later). I've been quite a fan of Ben Stein's commentary on the economy and many other things. He seems to be very fair and balanced, thus, based on that perception I didn't have any reason to question his work here. Until I started doing some research on it, that is. I went to expelledexposed.com to read the scientific communities response. I was shocked. I didn't stop there; I went to freegonzalez.com one of the scientists featured in the documentary. I may not have looked at every scientist interviewed in detail, but I've seen enough.
Ben Stein shows us a world where Academia's freedom of inquiry might not be so free. This should be a concern for anyone and everyone. This undermines the concept that we will be teaching facts and truth in our universities. However, if you watch how this documentary is formatted you will find that this documentary is overly biased, delving into spectrums of propaganda! Let me explain. Stein sets about proving his premise by interviewing scientists that have been rejected by the establishment. Scientists who have allegedly had their lives ruined because of their belief in something called "Intelligent Design." Science isn't here to persecute people's beliefs and this concept would probably outrage anyone... that is until you realize the lengths he goes to paint science as the root of this evil.
So, we have Stein interviewing scientists that have had their qualifications ruined by the establishment, wouldn't you think Stein should interview people working in the scientific community at the time about this issue? If this persecution of dissidents was happening I would think he'd go and talk to people still working in the field and cite his examples for scrutiny. This never happens. Either Stein is a just a terrible host for a documentary and should stick to the game shows, or he has an agenda. Stein does interview PZ Myers, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, and the mighty Richard Dawkins for his grand finale, but he never once asks them about the people that were fired or denied tenure. He only sticks to questions concerning how life began. He doesn't even really talk to them about why Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community versus why evolution is taught. He never asks these questions. Michael Ruse, who isn't even credited during his interview (more sloppy documentary work), proposes a possible life beginning scenario involving crystals. This results in Stein asking him again how it's possible... after Ruse just told him and results in what can be interpreted as a rude response from Ruse. This style of filming to show scientists as unwilling to entertain the idea of Intelligent Design pushes the viewer to see science as intolerable. In our overly politically correct society this seems "mean" or whatever to people. Science isn't a democracy; it's based on factual observations. Intelligent Design cannot provide something observable that can be repeated in a laboratory, that's a fact, not a belief. So why should science also be politically correct and show "tolerance" for things that are blatantly unscientific. (I know some people will cry conspiracy about evolution, but that's not the point of this documentary.)
Stein also interviewed Berlinski and played favoritism to him in this film, I think, because he was giving the kind of answers Stein could agree with. That shouldn't be the point of something you're making to generate awareness. He goes into his grand finale with Dawkins. I'm not going to try and defend Dawkins' embarrassing answer for him; I agree with others that he's a better writer (though I do admire him for trying to speak out for the side of science). Long story short, Stein pushed Dawkins to come up with an answer of how life began and Dawkins naturally replied that he didn't know. He actually replied with "I don't know" multiple times until we come to a cut scene where it shows Dawkins proposing that aliens could have possibly seeded life on the planet. If you notice Dawkins' tone of voice and mannerisms it's pretty clear he didn't even believe his comment. So why say it? I have no idea; I also have no idea how long this paltry debate between Dawkins and Stein went on until Stein finally got some ammunition to help his point along.
As further proof of this rather slanted take on the subject, I submit the whole Nazi/Holocaust association with science. I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with freedom of inquiry in the present day academic community? For me Stein is simply reaching at straws and he's really out to demonize science. As someone told me, he was quoted as saying "Science leads to killing." After seeing this relation in the midst of his documentary I can see why he believes it, but that doesn't mean he's right. Not to mention Hitler was influenced by a lot more than just Darwinian Theory, just read "Mein Kampf" and you'll see him quote another document called "The Protcol's of the Elders Zion." Hitler basically repeated the anti-Semitic theories from that document almost verbatim concerning his prejudice. Not to mention the Nazi practice of "survival of the fittest" doesn't even correlate with Darwin, because mankind is meddling at that specific point. Nature isn't in control over who is the "fittest" the Nazi party and other humans were. Just because the Nazis don't understand what it means or want to skew it doesn't mean it was all Darwin's fault. Either way, apparently he forgets why we understand the cause of Small Pox and can create a vaccine or how penicillin works and is just focusing on those who made things like the atomic bomb. I'm well aware that Darwin influenced the Nazi scientists, but this has nothing to do with the scientists supposedly being fired today.
In the end I was left realizing the immense piece of propaganda I had viewed. After I sat down and analyzed what I saw and did some research this swiftly dropped to a one star rating. There is simply no excuse for this and whether you support Intelligent Design or Evolution, it doesn't matter; you should not want Stein representing you on this case. You should not want this documentary to be used as your "proof" against the establishment. "Expelled" is propaganda and you can even tell that from the way it's filmed. If you must see it, then do the research to back it up on both sides. Regardless if you believe his points or think that Gonzalez should be freed, you have to ask yourself "why didn't he ask Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers or any of the other scientists about the firings and losing of tenure?" If you don't have an answer for this then you know this film isn't on the level.
P.S. This is an abridged review from the original. I think this stands as my full review for just the film. Hopefully this improved/rewritten review will come across as being more useful for those reading.
I believe I should clarify something before I delve into the full breadth of my review. When I first saw this I was ready to give it three stars. I didn't see any point in questioning Ben Stein's report about people losing their jobs because of their beliefs. Humanity can be cruel no matter where you are and prejudice can rear its head no matter what the belief. That being said, I walked out thinking there was a problem starting to sweep the academic community and the only issue I had with the film was its association of Darwin and the Nazis (I'll go more in depth on this later). I've been quite a fan of Ben Stein's commentary on the economy and many other things. He seems to be very fair and balanced, thus, based on that perception I didn't have any reason to question his work here. Until I started doing some research on it, that is. I went to expelledexposed.com to read the scientific communities response. I was shocked. I didn't stop there; I went to freegonzalez.com one of the scientists featured in the documentary. I may not have looked at every scientist interviewed in detail, but I've seen enough.
Ben Stein shows us a world where Academia's freedom of inquiry might not be so free. This should be a concern for anyone and everyone. This undermines the concept that we will be teaching facts and truth in our universities. However, if you watch how this documentary is formatted you will find that this documentary is overly biased, delving into spectrums of propaganda! Let me explain. Stein sets about proving his premise by interviewing scientists that have been rejected by the establishment. Scientists who have allegedly had their lives ruined because of their belief in something called "Intelligent Design." Science isn't here to persecute people's beliefs and this concept would probably outrage anyone... that is until you realize the lengths he goes to paint science as the root of this evil.
So, we have Stein interviewing scientists that have had their qualifications ruined by the establishment, wouldn't you think Stein should interview people working in the scientific community at the time about this issue? If this persecution of dissidents was happening I would think he'd go and talk to people still working in the field and cite his examples for scrutiny. This never happens. Either Stein is a just a terrible host for a documentary and should stick to the game shows, or he has an agenda. Stein does interview PZ Myers, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, and the mighty Richard Dawkins for his grand finale, but he never once asks them about the people that were fired or denied tenure. He only sticks to questions concerning how life began. He doesn't even really talk to them about why Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community versus why evolution is taught. He never asks these questions. Michael Ruse, who isn't even credited during his interview (more sloppy documentary work), proposes a possible life beginning scenario involving crystals. This results in Stein asking him again how it's possible... after Ruse just told him and results in what can be interpreted as a rude response from Ruse. This style of filming to show scientists as unwilling to entertain the idea of Intelligent Design pushes the viewer to see science as intolerable. In our overly politically correct society this seems "mean" or whatever to people. Science isn't a democracy; it's based on factual observations. Intelligent Design cannot provide something observable that can be repeated in a laboratory, that's a fact, not a belief. So why should science also be politically correct and show "tolerance" for things that are blatantly unscientific. (I know some people will cry conspiracy about evolution, but that's not the point of this documentary.)
Stein also interviewed Berlinski and played favoritism to him in this film, I think, because he was giving the kind of answers Stein could agree with. That shouldn't be the point of something you're making to generate awareness. He goes into his grand finale with Dawkins. I'm not going to try and defend Dawkins' embarrassing answer for him; I agree with others that he's a better writer (though I do admire him for trying to speak out for the side of science). Long story short, Stein pushed Dawkins to come up with an answer of how life began and Dawkins naturally replied that he didn't know. He actually replied with "I don't know" multiple times until we come to a cut scene where it shows Dawkins proposing that aliens could have possibly seeded life on the planet. If you notice Dawkins' tone of voice and mannerisms it's pretty clear he didn't even believe his comment. So why say it? I have no idea; I also have no idea how long this paltry debate between Dawkins and Stein went on until Stein finally got some ammunition to help his point along.
As further proof of this rather slanted take on the subject, I submit the whole Nazi/Holocaust association with science. I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with freedom of inquiry in the present day academic community? For me Stein is simply reaching at straws and he's really out to demonize science. As someone told me, he was quoted as saying "Science leads to killing." After seeing this relation in the midst of his documentary I can see why he believes it, but that doesn't mean he's right. Not to mention Hitler was influenced by a lot more than just Darwinian Theory, just read "Mein Kampf" and you'll see him quote another document called "The Protcol's of the Elders Zion." Hitler basically repeated the anti-Semitic theories from that document almost verbatim concerning his prejudice. Not to mention the Nazi practice of "survival of the fittest" doesn't even correlate with Darwin, because mankind is meddling at that specific point. Nature isn't in control over who is the "fittest" the Nazi party and other humans were. Just because the Nazis don't understand what it means or want to skew it doesn't mean it was all Darwin's fault. Either way, apparently he forgets why we understand the cause of Small Pox and can create a vaccine or how penicillin works and is just focusing on those who made things like the atomic bomb. I'm well aware that Darwin influenced the Nazi scientists, but this has nothing to do with the scientists supposedly being fired today.
In the end I was left realizing the immense piece of propaganda I had viewed. After I sat down and analyzed what I saw and did some research this swiftly dropped to a one star rating. There is simply no excuse for this and whether you support Intelligent Design or Evolution, it doesn't matter; you should not want Stein representing you on this case. You should not want this documentary to be used as your "proof" against the establishment. "Expelled" is propaganda and you can even tell that from the way it's filmed. If you must see it, then do the research to back it up on both sides. Regardless if you believe his points or think that Gonzalez should be freed, you have to ask yourself "why didn't he ask Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers or any of the other scientists about the firings and losing of tenure?" If you don't have an answer for this then you know this film isn't on the level.
P.S. This is an abridged review from the original. I think this stands as my full review for just the film. Hopefully this improved/rewritten review will come across as being more useful for those reading.
29 of 43 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
If there was one person to make a case for Intelligent Design, Ben Stein would be the one to do it. Starting out with the premise that "Freedom is the essence of America," Stein's documentary `Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' proposes that proponents of Intelligent Design have been ostracized, demonized, and left out of the scientific discussion about the origins in life. Citing professors and scientists, Stein narrates his debate, making no doubt he sides with freedom of expression and at least sympathizes with the believers of Intelligent Design.
Of course 'Expelled...' is destined to be controversial. What is so concretely admirable is how Stein gives time to both sides to state their cases so eloquently, so viewers can understand both sides. Cogent talk from Robert J. Mark II, a professor who had his web site taken down to Richard Dawkins, best-selling author of 'The God Delusion,' Stein keeps it fascinating even if it's tilted in a certain direction.
The other laudable facet of the film is how Stein is able to define "Intelligent Design" and make it clear and understandable. Using a plethora of experts, the DVD is informative for at least conveying what Intelligent Design actually is and what it states. Noting that Darwin's theory of evolution is merely that, he is able to use fascinating scientific evidence that demonstrate holes in some of his conclusions. One of the most prevalent defenses of Intelligent Design is that nature is so "intricate" and has so many remarkable patterns, it can't be duplicated and couldn't have come from nowhere on its own. The origin of life has yet to be explained, and the whole idea of life springing from a "primordial soup" is yet to be proven.
But the main lamentation is regarding freedom or inquiry or thought. Ben Stein primarily demonstrates how Intelligent Design scientists are left out for being "religion dressed up as science". Stein makes the case that a whole sector of the scientific community is being left out of the scientific process. It's the whole God/ and or religion vs. science debate, and for many people it's either or. His second case is showing how, in certain ways, evolution has been devastatingly influential since `Origin of the Species' inception. Eugenics is cited as a horrible hybrid of evolution. After all, if man is just considered another animal, what follows can be pretty inhumane.
The multi-talented Ben Stein gives the right touch to his topic. Using "Love Is in the Air" during narration in one scene, he adds nice touches to lighten things up. As an established figure on Comedy Central, Stein uses all the wit and intelligence in his arsenal to make a cogent case for freedom of thought and expression.
Personal reflection: I thought it would be helpful to 'fess up and state my own personal biases. I happen to believe in both intelligent design and evolution. One thing the movie doesn't address is that the Bible was written well before man entered a scientific-centered culture. Genesis, which is frequently the center-piece of the debate, I believe is 100% true, but not meant to be viewed as a science journal. It's a book of truth about the meaning of creation. Yet, it's meaning to me is infinitely more useful than all the scientific journals put together. Awe of creation are indicators to the nature of the Almighty as seen by the awe by the state of innocence of pre-fallen man. The seven day construct is perhaps man's consciousness and his relationship to God for whom he has been made in His image. Many scientists see an either or relationship because they take a literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis and reject it as "unscientific". Evolution, on the other hand, tells us about the how of creation. To paraphrase movie critic, Roger Ebert, there's too much evidence on earth of evolution and the eons which brought us its splendor. Whether you agree with one side or both, 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' is worth a look.
A J.P.'s Pick 4*'s =Very Good
Of course 'Expelled...' is destined to be controversial. What is so concretely admirable is how Stein gives time to both sides to state their cases so eloquently, so viewers can understand both sides. Cogent talk from Robert J. Mark II, a professor who had his web site taken down to Richard Dawkins, best-selling author of 'The God Delusion,' Stein keeps it fascinating even if it's tilted in a certain direction.
The other laudable facet of the film is how Stein is able to define "Intelligent Design" and make it clear and understandable. Using a plethora of experts, the DVD is informative for at least conveying what Intelligent Design actually is and what it states. Noting that Darwin's theory of evolution is merely that, he is able to use fascinating scientific evidence that demonstrate holes in some of his conclusions. One of the most prevalent defenses of Intelligent Design is that nature is so "intricate" and has so many remarkable patterns, it can't be duplicated and couldn't have come from nowhere on its own. The origin of life has yet to be explained, and the whole idea of life springing from a "primordial soup" is yet to be proven.
But the main lamentation is regarding freedom or inquiry or thought. Ben Stein primarily demonstrates how Intelligent Design scientists are left out for being "religion dressed up as science". Stein makes the case that a whole sector of the scientific community is being left out of the scientific process. It's the whole God/ and or religion vs. science debate, and for many people it's either or. His second case is showing how, in certain ways, evolution has been devastatingly influential since `Origin of the Species' inception. Eugenics is cited as a horrible hybrid of evolution. After all, if man is just considered another animal, what follows can be pretty inhumane.
The multi-talented Ben Stein gives the right touch to his topic. Using "Love Is in the Air" during narration in one scene, he adds nice touches to lighten things up. As an established figure on Comedy Central, Stein uses all the wit and intelligence in his arsenal to make a cogent case for freedom of thought and expression.
Personal reflection: I thought it would be helpful to 'fess up and state my own personal biases. I happen to believe in both intelligent design and evolution. One thing the movie doesn't address is that the Bible was written well before man entered a scientific-centered culture. Genesis, which is frequently the center-piece of the debate, I believe is 100% true, but not meant to be viewed as a science journal. It's a book of truth about the meaning of creation. Yet, it's meaning to me is infinitely more useful than all the scientific journals put together. Awe of creation are indicators to the nature of the Almighty as seen by the awe by the state of innocence of pre-fallen man. The seven day construct is perhaps man's consciousness and his relationship to God for whom he has been made in His image. Many scientists see an either or relationship because they take a literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis and reject it as "unscientific". Evolution, on the other hand, tells us about the how of creation. To paraphrase movie critic, Roger Ebert, there's too much evidence on earth of evolution and the eons which brought us its splendor. Whether you agree with one side or both, 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' is worth a look.
A J.P.'s Pick 4*'s =Very Good
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Liberating Science
I am a physicist specializing in quantum mechanics who is facing the same dilemma described by Stein in the film. Read more
Published 4 days ago by Lawrence D. Dawson
5.0 out of 5 stars
Why would we expect and atheist to give this a good review?
Bravo Ben Stein, Bravo. Finally someone has taken the initiative to ask the unpopular questions and has decided to think for himself. Read more
Published 11 days ago by Natja Kristy
1.0 out of 5 stars
A factual disaster.
The 'facts' in this movie seem to be created out of thin air, none of them are correct. Hitler was a devout Catholic, he even stated it several times in speeches and his personal... Read more
Published 17 days ago by Derek Colanduno
5.0 out of 5 stars
expose on politics of scientific research grant monies and censored...
Very well done and engaging content presented in a provocative yet entertaining style. Ben Stein has an aptitude for cutting through the B/S and getting to the point of the... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Consumer
5.0 out of 5 stars
If you are into debates about evolution, this is for you
The real story behind the story is about Richard Dawkins, who I believe is the true leader of the "Darwinians."
Published 1 month ago by Jeffrey G. Maine
1.0 out of 5 stars
Fool's Gold
Stein spends 90 minutes proving he doesn't understand the Scientific Method or the process of academic vetting. He also doesn't understand Darwinism or the theory of evolution. Read more
Published 1 month ago by NoOneYouKnow
5.0 out of 5 stars
Should be
Should be required watching in the scientific community! Just shows that scientific thinking is not applied on emotional issues. There.
Published 1 month ago by Donna Gallaher
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant investigative report on the history of Ethics, Science, and...
Anyone interested in Scientific Ethics will be fascinated by this documentary. It exposes how once intellectual liberty is quashed, unethical individuals quickly take... Read more
Published 1 month ago by WhoLovesFlopster
5.0 out of 5 stars
Enlightening, thought provoking, and entertaining
Ben Stein uses humor and honesty to research and show that modern science is not as unbiased as they purport to be. Enjoyed it.
Published 1 month ago by B
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great video!
Ben Stein is his usual hysterical self. This is a well researched documentary and he explains everything wonderfully. I would highly recommend it.
Published 2 months ago by Lorraine Danaher
Look for Similar Items by Category
|
