As happens with all shitty movies, the distributor for Expelled declined to screen the movie in advance for critics. Indeed, we know they kept their advance screenings a tightly controlled series of fundie lovefests, expelling any knowledgeable, scientifically literate viewer if they were able. After all, in a movie that beats the "free speech" and "academic freedom" drums long and loud, it's certainly very important to keep opposing views silent, eh?
But now real movie reviewers are getting a chance to eyeball the film, and the results aren't pretty. It will be interesting to hear how Stein and Mathis and their usual gang of idiots try to spin this as the expected reaction from a liberal Darwinist cabal hostile to competing ideas, considering that these are just movie reviewers who are going to see the film as part of their weekly roster along with everything else. They really can't be said to have a horse in the creation-vs-evolution race. Which is also true about most people who don't make the atheist/science/Christian/creationist blogosphere part of their daily routine. And the movie's emotional caterwauling is unlikely to sway or even interest them. There's such a thing as overkill, and even unsophisticated audiences will recoil if they think they're being beaten over the head.
Expelled is currently tracking at 9% on Rotten Tomatoes. By comparison, here is the critical scorecard for the works of self-proclaimed genius auteur Uwe Boll: House of the Dead: 4%. Alone in the Dark: 1%. Bloodrayne: 4%. In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale: 5%.
Thus I'd like to offer Nathan Frankowski my congratulations on being able to boast that he is a more critically acclaimed director than Uwe Boll.
I've posted some choice reviewers' quotations in the sidebar. Now it will be entertaining to see how the opening weekend pans out. Since Premise Media actually managed to get the thing on over 1000 screens, the heat is on far more crucially than if they'd opened in limited release and then done a regional release pattern throughout the rest of the summer. If they don't score huge numbers this weekend, they're losing their shirts in a way they would not have if they'd just hit smaller markets in 50-100 screen rollouts in succession. Executive producer Walt Roloff perhaps got overly excited at the prospect of being able to boast the widest release ever for a "documentary." But I think he's just a teensy bit optimistic when he goes on to cheer that he thinks Expelled's numbers could exceed the $23.9 million opening weekend of Fahrenheit 9/11. After all, that movie had colossal pre-release hype going for it. Plus Michael Moore was feeding off a zeitgeist. And despite Roloff's apparent beliefs to the contrary, there isn't this groundswell of public outrage over some conspiracy theory about "Big Science" and its suppression of ID as there was in 2004 over the depredations of the Bush administration.
I must say, it will be interesting to sift through the rubble on Monday.
Amusingly, RT has logged a second positive review for the movie (against 20 pans), and this one is from Christianity Today, which you'd expect to be receptive. Yet even they admit the movie is scientifically empty: "...if you're looking for ammo to argue your Darwinist friends under the table, look elsewhere."
I'm still not going to see it. I'll be riding my bike on 360. If you're walking along 360 and pass someone on a bike, that'll be me, slow down and say hi.
ReplyDeleteI just saw "Expelled" and I must say how happy I am for Ben and his endeavors. The film was very well made and Ben was top notch. I laughed and was saddened by the well thought out message. Richard Dawkins believes in ID!, that cracks me up! God bless you Ben for making this extremely important subject the conversation of so many people. BTW it would be the perfect time to witness/open air preach to everyone right after the film ends. Way to go brother Ben, I will shake your hand and hug you in heaven. I will look for you sneakers!)
ReplyDeleteDan, it's certainly interesting to see your review, as it is basically a total 180 from reality. Im interested to see the first weekend totals for this piece of garbage.
ReplyDeleteQuick question. By what line of reasoning do you conclude that Dawkins believes in ID?
Dont feed the troll, seriously.
ReplyDeleteb-rad: By what line of reasoning do you conclude that Dawkins believes in ID?
ReplyDeleteThis is just one of the ways the movie distorts. Here's the relevant passage from Dawkins' editorial yesterday in the LA Times.
This technique of arguing against a theory by setting up its most plausible version and dismissing it is commonly used in science and philosophy. The late, great evolutionist John Maynard Smith used it in his 1964 attack on the then-popular theory of "group selection." He set himself the task of devising the best possible argument for group selection. The details don't matter; he called it the Haystack Model. He then proceeded to show that the assumptions that the Haystack Model needed to make were highly unrealistic.
Everybody understood that this was an argument against group selection. Nobody twisted it to trumpet to the world, "See? Maynard Smith believes in Group Selection after all, and he thinks it happens in Haystacks, ho ho ho!" Creationists, by contrast, never miss a trick. When I have raised the science-fiction olive branch to try to argue against them, they have twisted it -- most recently in a movie scheduled to open this week -- in order to proclaim loudly, "Dawkins believes in intelligent design after all." Or "Dawkins believes in little green men in flying saucers." Or "Dawkins is a Raelian." It's called "lying for Jesus," and they are completely shameless.
Anyway, are you just now discovering Dan lives in a world 180° in opposition to reality? Most of that have known that for a year now. Of course Dan liked the movie. He's exactly the breed of uneducated fool it panders to. Smart people aren't duped by this for a second.
NYTimes review.
ReplyDeleteWay to go brother Ben, I will shake your hand and hug you in heaven.
ReplyDeleteDan, you know that Stein is Jewish, right?
That means you won't see him in heaven.
I, too, compared Expelled to some of its neighbors at Rotten Tomatoes.
ReplyDeleteAs you recall, they originally told the interviewees that the movie was going to be called "Crossroads". So I was amused to see that Britney Spears's movie "Crossroads" scored higher than "Expelled".
For that matter, even "Left Behind" scored higher.
Maybe he'll cop a plea.
ReplyDelete"But...I stuck up for you...in a whole movie!... Oh...you mean none of those things were true?...Uh oh..."
The late Great evolutionist John Maynard Smith has not only become a creationist, but a Christian as well. Praise God all eyes will be open to the truth!
ReplyDeleteI just saw "Expelled" and I must say how happy I am for Ben and his endeavors. The film was very well made and Ben was top notch.
ReplyDeleteThen again, I am sure that there are a handful of people who think that Mannequin and Weekend At Bernies 2 are good movies too.
The late Great evolutionist John Maynard Smith has not only become a creationist, but a Christian as well. Praise God all eyes will be open to the truth!
ReplyDeleteUh, actually, stupid, Maynard Smith died in 2004, and he was doing evolution research right up to his death. I guess the Invisible Sky Fairy didn't open your eyes to that truth.
Egghead (martin), do you not understand irony. All atheist including John Maynard Smith, DICK Dawkins, and you will become creationist a moment after they die. Now let me explain this in terms you might be able to undertand J.M. Smith is dead; therefor, is a creationist. You and DICK Dawkins will die hence, the 2 of you will become creationist.
ReplyDelete>>Egghead (martin), do you not understand irony.
ReplyDeleteYeeeah... and people with more than a 6th grade education just don't "get" Larry the Cable Guy and Carrot Top.
["sics" all over]All atheist including John Maynard Smith, DICK Dawkins, and you will become creationist a moment after they die. Now let me explain this in terms you might be able to undertand J.M. Smith is dead; therefor, is a creationist. You and DICK Dawkins will die hence, the 2 of you will become creationist.
Allow me to spell out this in a manner you may be able to grasp: YOU WEREN'T FUNNY, YOU WEREN'T CLEVER. Worst of all, you WERE a jackass. A simple "I was just kidding" would have sufficed, but the, shal we say, "unnecessary dickishness" of your response leads me to believe that you actually mean it.
I could be wrong, though. You might very well just be a rude, unfunny atheist.
J.M. Smith is dead; therefor, is a creationist.
ReplyDeleteUh, not quite. Try "J.M. Smith is dead, therefore, he is dead."
Thanks, however, for your willingness to display in public the intellectual and moral fiber, not to mention the maturity level, of a creationist. You do a better job of making our case than we do.
Now get lost, kid. The adults are talking.
As Expelled show your side is afraid of a fair debate with a creationist. I understand, your arguements are weak and your tatics can only involve straw man put downs calling us stupid. You go on believing as DICK Dawkins does. Aliens dropped us off millions of years ago (I think that one came out of Mother Goose goes SiFi). Was it Spock or Mork from Ork? I know you like SiFi, but do you do is not real? Have you ever kissed a girl Maritn?
ReplyDeleteI hope you have a sense of humor. Honestly, I did enjoy yours. The one "go play with the blocks the adults are talking" made me laugh out loud, but try not to repeat yourself next time. I will be praying for you. God Bless you!
P.S. If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?
djr:
ReplyDeleteI will be praying for you.
Out of curiosity, what do you expect will happen as a result of your prayer?
P.S. If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?
ReplyDeleteDid you really just say this?
Seriously?
Like, I'm not suffering a continual hallucination?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
You, sir, are a fucking numbnuts. Thanks for coming. Please drive through.
"Expelled" has managed to crawl up to 10% on the tomatometer. At this rate, I calculate that it'll be up to 100% in late March 2010.
ReplyDeleteakusai, let me guess you got your posting name is based off a minor character in a vedio game you play 6 hours a day on mom & dads computer. I must thank you for proving my point yet again. Just like Marty-mart, who is shaking like a frightened chicken after our last exchange, you too can only answer arguements by calling the other side dumb. I understand the question that I possed was silly, but no more silly than Darwin's entire theory. Even if you got every evolutionary egghead together to try and figure it out, they could not answer this silly monkey question. As Soon as creationism and evolution are put on a fair playing field evloution will begin to die. Just like all the ideas coming out of Satan's work shop throughout history attacks have come and gone trying to deney God's word. One after another they have gone down in flames. The Bible has took the attacks for thousands of years and remains the best selling book in the world because it is Truth! Don't be upset that you wasted much of your life believing the lie of Darwinism, many of us have. Believing a lighting bolt struck some mudd millions of years ago and life sprung into existence is even more silly than the monkey question. Once you put the two schools of thought side by side you will see Creationism is right.
ReplyDeleteWhere some of us took the Biology and Philosophy classes needed for grauduation, found them to be an interesting intellectual exercise, then got real degrees and real jobs. The people on your side took it to be religion, got degrees in Bio/Phil, so they could get jobs at Starbucks and annoy the shit out of everyone you came into contact with. "I am atheist, there is no God, Christians are all dumbies" is all you people think when your mind is not engaged in the new episode of Star trek. It does not matter when you find the Truth, just as long as you find it before you die. We as Christians only seek to save you from eternal separation from God by introducing you to the only One who can save you Jesus Christ. Heaven and Hell are real and you and I will spend eternity in one of them. I know I am coming form a Christian bias, but creationism is not religion it is science which backs up the Bible.
My questions for the day is this:
There are those on your side who say they believe Whales evolved from horses. Again I must ask why are there still horses? a)How long did this evolution take? b)Why don't we find those billions of horse/whale (transitional) fossils?
My last questionis this -How does a man die on a cross witnessed by huge crowds and rise from the dead? That one is easy He is the Son of God our creator. Jesus is the most important person to have ever walked the earth; no one is even a close 2ed. It is not only because of His influence on history, but because where every human being will live forever is based on their relationship to Him. God Bless You.
Preach it brother, DJR
ReplyDeletey'all need to listen
Dan, you know that Stein is Jewish, right?
For the record I am Jewish also and in the same breath soundly saved.
I believe actually Ben Stein is a Christian. The link is an eye witness to that
Just like Marty-mart, who is shaking like a frightened chicken after our last exchange, you too can only answer arguements by calling the other side dumb.
ReplyDeleteHuh? o_O This moron is still around? Good gravy. I knew these fools lived in a fantasy world, but this is hilarious.
Listen, junior, the reason we call you dumb is because, well — you're dumb!
Case in point:
There are those on your side who say they believe Whales evolved from horses. Again I must ask why are there still horses?
See? Dumb and completely uneducated. And completely typical.
Come on back after you've finished with that puberty thing.
DJR,
ReplyDeletePeople like Martin are very frightened, I just watched an interview of Ben Stein and what really cracked me up is on 16:44 of the interview Ben said that people go into academic life because they are frightened people. Plus at 25:45 RC makes a great point, listen to his argument against laws of inertia against the big bang
RC Sproul interviews Ben Stein
Educated people must be frightened, that's why they get educations! I gotta admit, Dan, listening to you always puts me in mind of that line from King of the Hill: "Every time I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin!"
ReplyDeleteAgain, I agree, science is a wonderful part of discovering the universe and the dynamics of life. But there is a vast difference between operational science and historical science as you have heard me say in the past.
ReplyDeleteOperational science can be tested and proven, historical science on the other hand is just a guess based on assumptions because they weren't there and it cannot be validated. It isn't science it is story telling, you watch discovery channel too much.
Let me ask about that link of "Ancient serpent shows its leg",you can't plainly see the wide sweeping assumptions of what that lady was claiming?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLui: it's just plain dumb to suppose that so many scientists could get their sums so very, very wrong for so very long when they have access to such multivariate and plentiful data,
ReplyDeleteMaybe, if you put on different glasses and see life with a different world view, things would be vastly different for you. I must ask you then, how can so many scientist that believe in creation get it so wrong?
It begins with your presupposition and world view to get the "big picture" For example, Scripture reveals that there was a global flood and that death and disease entered the world after Adam sinned. This enables us to have a "big picture" of understanding geology. So when we look at fossil layers like those in the Grand Canyon, we know they couldn't have been laid down before sin because they contain millions of fossils of dead creatures. Because of what the Bible says, we can consider the possibility that Noah's flood may have been the mechanism to lay down the layers. We can then use observational/repeatable science to test the geology, Chemistry, etc, to see if the evidence is properly interpreted based upon the revelation of Scripture or the belief in millions of years. Creation scientists have written many books and papers showing that observational science does confirm the biblical "big picture" understanding built from the origins account in Genesis. Please read some books on this subject. Here is some information on the subject, look at the bottom for related references.
My question to you then is do you suppose that so many scientists could get their sums so very, very wrong for so very long when they have access to such multivariate and plentiful data? Start with this book
Once again it comes down to your presuppositions, I take an exegesis approach to interpret the Bible and you take a eisegesis or a more extreme approach of a total non-belief. Either way it has helped form your capricious attitude and world view and it will be difficult to come to the same conclusion of the Bible with such polar mindsets.
lui:
ReplyDeleteif a population is small, then genetic drift can bring alleles (even deleterious ones) to "fixation" (total representation) in the gene pool by chance alone.
For what it's worth, a while back I wondered how big this effect was, so I ran a series of simulations of how the frequency of two alleles could vary in a population by chance alone.
I found that in a population of 10,000 individuals, after 1000 generations, sometimes one allele clearly dominates the population, even though neither allele gives the slightest advantage or disadvantage over the other. In smaller populations (down to 100 individuals), one or the other allele goes extinct almost immediately (within about 100 generations).
This test seems to prove, or at the very least is consistent, with the story of Babel in the Bible. Each group separated and formed “common traits” for Chinese or African or Indian or any other. We see this happening in dogs, for example, where breeders breed common traits of dogs together to push out dominate traits. Unfortunately these extreme methods used by breeders like breeding siblings bad traits come out also as dominate.
ReplyDeleteLui,
ReplyDeleteFirst I want to thank you for taking time to discuss these things, you appear to be smart enough to grasp things and it's comforting that you actually engage and respond to what is being said with thought and conviction.
I want to point out some things though. While many scientists may be anti-God, science itself is not. All true science is creation science. Many books and articles and history shows that the majority of science's founding fathers were Christians and Creationists. One would be hard-pressed to find a single scientific breakthrough that required evolution.
Take Robert Boyle (1627-1691) as an example, he is called the Father of modern Chemistry. He was a major contributor in the fields of physics and chemistry by being the first to transform the study of science into an experimental discipline, he also championed the concept that all discoveries should be published, not withheld for personal profit and power (a common practice at the time). He diligently studied the Bible. He learned Greek as a child he also learned Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldee so that he could read the text firsthand.
"When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature's curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! in wisdom hast Thou made them all!" (Robert Boyle 1660. Seraphic Love.)
Another is the Antibiotics Pioneer Ernst Chain (1906-1979) He was awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. This preeminent biochemist openly opposed Darwinism on the basis of his scientific research. Evolution: a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts." Evolution "willfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks."
Evaluating evidence is a key component in the search for truth, not only in science but in other areas of life. The ability to identify supporting facts and data is vital for proving or disproving a hypothesis, whether it relates to a scientific theory, a legal claim, or some other matter. There are times, however, when the absence of corroborative data counts just as strongly as evidence in its own right.
I must give credit to the ICR for most of this fascinating information.
BTW Lui, you should attend the conference on Young-Earth Science on August 3-7 in Pittsburgh. It will feature academic scholars from around the world presenting technical, peer-reviewed papers in areas such as foundations of Science, life Science, stellar and planetary Science, Earth Science, and Social Sciences. For more details go HERE