Great to see that Ben came in to support our fine legislator Rep. Jane Cunningham and her legislation.

Jane we support you… Great work yet again!

Mark W.

I am a teacher, and wish every one of my students could see EXPELLED. Isn’t science (and education) about being open to new ideas? The arrogance of Dawkins and Myers continues to astound me. What is the “choir” that Williams is referring to? Academic freedom is important to everyone - liberals, conservatives, atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. Has Mr. Williams seen the film?

Granted, Ben Stein’s movie is the new evangelical rallying point. Churches groups are flocking to theaters much like they did for Mel Gibson’s “The Passion,” Christian publications and websites are singing its praises, and of course columnists like Mark Barna see the film as an innocuous effort to broaden the debate over the origins of life on Earth.

But “Intelligent Design” as SCIENCE? Puh-LEEZE. If anything “Intelligent Design” is the complete ANTITHESIS of science. It begins with a supposition, that some intelligent being (i.e. probably the Judeo-Christian “GOD”) is responsible for all of creation and life on Earth, and then works BACKWARD from there. Anything that does not support that original supposition is to be discredited and discarded. Scientific research is pointless because the existence of this “GOD” is neither provable nor disprovable. So we might as well throw up our hands and open our Bibles!

So what, exactly, does Ben Stein believe? He has made it clear in interviews that his allegiance is with the Judeo-Christian concept of “GOD” as the Creator of all things. So I wonder, is it conceivable to Stein that God simply used evolution, as scientists understand it, as the means to the end? Well, apparently Stein doesn’t want to go THAT far. That would be “theistic evolution,” which is anathema to the “Intelligent Design” people. So is Stein a “Young Earth” or an “Old Earth” creationist? Apparently he isn’t saying. But one thing I know for sure: If all the church groups in America have anything to say about, he’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.

ummm…not sure why these men are so upset about the movie
they I am sure signed waivers to be interviewed
and they are published their own articles and books explaining their views
so all Ben did is let them express their views on a public medium
and their in letting others express their views about ID

Let the public choose for themselves what they should believe
our government needs to let the FREEDOM of the people reign

Let us learn all sides and choose with an open mind what is true

I guess you would say that is a theory—–Science!

to call Ben Stine 2nd rate is ridiculous given his history in society–they need to do their research

also Hitler–lets look at the history and read some books about why he did what he did…ummmmm

I saw this movie, and it is nothing more than a puff piece filled with mind-blowing propaganda. Ben Stein IS a smart man, and he knows exactly what he is doing– catering to old white people with his nostalgic education clips from the 50’s, glorious clips of the American monuments and the flag, and by claiming that the supporters of ID are the ones being persecuted. Anyone that doesn’t see through his tricks must be blind. How can he possibly equate theories of evolution directly with social Darwinism and the Holocaust? Stein must be feeling pouty because he’s no longer in the limelight.

Ironically, the people that will watch this movie and say that evolution is bunk are also the same people who actually still prescribe social Darwinism as the reason that people who are poorer than them should either work their way up and survive, or die because they are not ‘as fit’ as them. You can’t have it both ways!

This ‘documentary’ also sheds no light whatsoever on what ID actually is. You can save your money and just know that the movie basically says, “Evolution is stupid! Intelligent Design is good! ID researchers are SOOOO persecuted! Wah! ” Cue the reel of the American flag and blasting symphony. Blech.

Intelligent Design was cooked up by creationists that couldn’t ignore the scientific evidence of evolution any longer. It is just a tool to rationalize their outdated belief system much like a drug addict rationalizes their need for a drug. Why can’t we all just admit that we don’t know how it all began and work together to figure it out in an organized fashion (read science)?

As far as the angry interviewee scientists are concerned:
Anyone who has ever seen a mock interview on The Daily Show can tell you that the story is sometimes all in the editing. Once they consented to the interview, their words can be arranged in the “documentary” (used very loosely in this case) however the editor wants.

Intelligent design is not a theory, it is a make believe idea religious loonies have tried to pass off as science. Any legislator that tries to break the separation of church and state should be immediately expelled from Congress. Our founding fathers wanted religion out of the government, lets keep it that way.

By the way, evolution is not a theory, it is a law. It has been proven time and time again in multiple situations and has yet to be refuted in any way. Religious kooks who refuse to believe the truth need to get out of fairy-tale land and come back to reality. There is no God!!! Accept it and move on to more important things.

Legislators love to talk about these hot button issues (abortion, gay marriage), but when it comes to important issues like lowering taxes, getting out of the war, spending real money on education, or fixing health care they all run for cover. It would be nice to have an intelligent person in Congress unlike this moron Cunningham. How can these people vote for someone who is sooo stupid?????

Anyone here for intelligent tests before a person can vote?????

I really don’t mind the fact that we and the apes are descended from a long-gone ancestor, but I have a problem accepting the fact that Ben Stein is a member of the humans species.

Ben and the Texas polygamy sect are on the same page when it comes to this topic.

As a scientist and educator, is terribly disappointing to see politicians playing the game with little or no knowledge. Science is NOT a democratic process. Voices, people and opinions matter not. The only thing that matters is experimentation and data. So lets count. How many experiments have the intelligent design community published in the last decade, ZERO. How many experiments confirming, refining, expanding various aspects of evolutionary biology were published just last year? Around 7,000 according to Science Citation Index. But of course, according to Ben Stein, the “vast left wing conspiracy” (remember Hillary) is keeping all those poor scientists from doing the research, publishing, making an honest living.

Lump Ben Stein and all the Discovery Institute people with the “vaccines cause autism”, global warming denialism, “HIV does not causes AIDS”, flat earth society, “we never landed on the moon”, holistic Deepak Chopra quackery, etc., pile.

Finally, as a Catholic, teaching and researching at a Catholic institution, the idea that atheism is at the core of scientific endeavor is insulting. Science is amoral because it deals with questions of patterns and processes of matter. How people justify atrocities for themselves or others has nothing to do with science. God only knows how many people have been killed on His name.

Nice review Joe. I had to go back and look at your review of the film “Sicko” to see where your true ideology lies. And speaking of lies, that is what Sicko is full of including the rest of Michael Moore’s propaganda. Just read the tone of both reviews and try to tell me there’s no bias here. You mention the wackos on the left in this review, but fail to name the biggest perpetrator of all. And the comment “scrupulously fair minded British television”, c’mon man, what are you trying to shovel here?

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the premist of Ben’s movie, just pointing out the overwhelming liberal bias manifested in this paper. You are a prime example of why I turned down having the Post delivered to my house for $2 a month. I hope the Post finally goes out of business so that we can have a more fair and balanced newspaper in this town.

Excuse me, those of you who teach, but there is no experiment one can use to prove evolution occurred. If there were we’d all be aware of it. Universities cannot duplicate the evolution experiment and there is no one on campus who observed evolution taking place. By evolution I mean molecules to man, i.e., the self organization of matter into living cells - this has not been duplicated in the lab. What a disappointment it must be for you true believers in evolution. Your faith is great indeed, just don’t expect those of us who doubt evolution (and the stupendous lack of evidence) to be believers too. Unfortunately you can force your students to regurgitate your personal beliefs because you hold the power over their course grades. And when you get into power in administration you can keep tenure away from those who don’t believe as you do. Sad indeed what has become of the notion of academic freedom.

How good can a movie be when you have to lie to entice people to be interviewed for it? Answer, not very good. You can put all the lipstick on the pig that is intelligent design, but at the end of the day, it’s still a pig.

I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world. So what? It’s not science and neither is ID.

Note to Nick (comment #10): Nothing I wrote above is a “review” of “Expelled.” As I said, the distirbutor chose not to show it to critics. (When I said it was preaching to the choir, I meant that it was literally marketed to churches–i.e., choirs.)

Because I have not seen the movie, I expressed none of my beliefs about the film, about intelligent design or about Ben Stein. But for the record, I like Ben Stein and think he’s a provocative character. I read a movie-biz memoir that he wrote, and when I spotted him in the lobby of a Hollywood hotel, I made a point of telling him how much I enjoyed it.

As for “scrupulously fair minded British television,” that was a joke, friend. Click on the link. It’s a satire of cluelessness. But maybe you didn’t get it.

Joe W.

“…and were shocked at how explicitly it equates Darwinists with Nazis.”

This movie does not equate Darwinists with Nazis. Apparently, someone didn’t watch the movie. The film shows how natural selection is complimentary to eugenics and, hence, the Nazis implementation of eugenic madness.

Note to Drew (#14), above: In the film, Stein visits concentration camps for the purpose of making a connection between biological Darwinism and social Darwinism, and between social Darwinism and Nazism. Correct? The movie cross-cuts interviews with evolutionary biologists and images of Nazis. Correct? In the first video above, Stein makes a connection between Darwinism and Nazism. Correct?

As I openly acknowledged, I did not see the film, because it was not screened for reviewers. But I have watched at least 20 minutes of clips from it, as well as Stein’s interviews about it. And in those clips, Stein does not say that Darwinism is “complimentary” to Nazism. (By the way, I think the word you want is “complementary,” unless you mean that evolutionary biologists are saying nice things about Nazism.) Stein links them. If that doesn’t mean “equates” to you, I’m willing to amend that to “connects.” But it’s a fact that some of the scientists interviewed in the film have objected to the way the filmmakers asserted that connection.

Because I have not yet seen the whole film, I pass no judgment.

Joe W.

“Darwin and Hitler: A Trumped-Up Connection? 04/16/2008
April 16, 2008 — If there is anything critics of Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled are griping about, it is the association of Hitler with Darwin. What is the movie claiming and not claiming, and how solid is the historical connection?

Scientific American, in particular, loathed the implication that Darwinism has anything to do with the Holocaust (but see rebuttal on Evolution News). The American Thinker was a little sympathetic, but still asked whether the imagery of Dachau and Hademar “begs [the] question of the ontological connection between Darwinism and Nazism”

In response, historian Richard Weikart, PhD at UC Stanislaus, wrote an article for the The American Spectator to clarify the relationship between “Darwin and the Nazis.” He acknowledges that today’s Darwinists are not Nazis—far from it. Nevertheless, he listed six principles embedded in Darwin’s world view that cheapen the value of human life:

Humans are animals.
There is no soul.
Morality is relative.
Humans are unequal.
Nature is a struggle for existence.
Death is an engine of progress.

These principles were imbibed wholeheartedly by German scientists and philosophers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They, in turn, strongly influenced Hitler. In addition, Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, showed how today’s staunch Darwinists believe the same principles. “Today’s Darwinists are not Nazis and not all Darwinists agree with Dawkins, Wilson, Ruse, Singer, or Watson,” he ended. “However, some of the ideas being promoted today by prominent Darwinists in the name of Darwinism have an eerily similar ring to the ideologies that eroded respect for human life in the pre-Nazi era.”

Dennis Prager interviewed Ben Stein on his radio program Tuesday. In the interview, which can be heard on DennisPrager.com (34 minutes), Prager made a similar point. He stated emphatically that neither he, Ben Stein, nor the film are claiming that Darwinists are Nazi sympathizers or that Darwinism produced the Holocaust. The point made by Expelled was that the Darwinian world view facilitated the devaluation of human life – and that Nazis pointed to Darwinism as a scientific justification for their views. That, Prager said, is a fact of history acknowledged by all historians.”

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200804.htm

Interesting how Mr. Williams considers “Expelled” to be a one-sided arguement that should be balanced with a “respectful debate.” Like a Michael Moore movie, perhaps? Those are about as balanced as a see-saw with an wooly mammoth on one end. Yet they are heralded by liberals as some of the best investigative documentaries of all time.

Ben Stein did not use backhanded tactics or bait and switch to get the interviews for his film. He didn’t trick anyone into believing one thing when he intended another. The scientists he interviewed were aware of what he was doing, and the stock footage that he used was properly put into context.

I guess I should not be surprised, however, that these salient points were overlooked. Liberalism does not allow for intellectual honesty. If it did, there would be no liberals.

Though I’m on the side of Creationism I have often debated and discussed with people of opposing oppinions. In fact I enjoy the chance to engage in another perspective on subjects. Anyway, a good number of people that I have engaged in a discussion of Evolution vs ID have ultimately responded like many of the people interviewed in the movie - though for the sake of common manners they have refrained from explicitly saying I was a complete idiot for believing in a supreme creator. I also have ties to a variety of schools - collegeate and secondary - where teachers and professors have voiced the same frustrations about having to keep quiet about ID.

Ultimately the movie had two main purposes:
1. Yes, it was somewhat “preaching to the chior” but that “preaching” is an attempt to energize people to stand up for what they believe in. If you believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster don’t be afraid to stand up for it…. if you believe in ID, Evolution or Creationism don’t be afraid to stand up for what you belive.

2. Freedom of inquiry and speech is a fundamental principle of a free society. The only way that any sort of society advances in knowledge or anything is by asking questions, and if necessary challenging the status quo with their questions of beliefs.

If anyone is in doubt, I challenge you to investigate it yourself - and don’t just look at one side of the argument. Sometimes it is healthy to play “Devil’s Advocate” on your own beliefs.

This is in response to Matthew Peters Line 11:

What you are talking about it the creation of life, not evolution. If you don’t think evidence for evolution exists, you must be actively ignoring it. Ask any biologist, we can induce evolution in insects in a lab over the course of a few generations (several days to one month). Specific types of flies are bred for the purpose of studying genetics by gene mutation (evolution). How do you explain away the FACT that we share about 98% of our DNA with chimps and about 92% with mice? We have fossil evidence of of early hominids that are just as much monkey as they are early human…remember Lucy?

According to accepted Philosophy of Science: Nothing in life is really more than a theory. We gather evidence and when it all reliably points to a conclusion, we have a theory. Some theories are strong (earth is round, 2+2=4, electricity is made of electrons) and some are less strong (string theory, time travel). The one common thread is evidence. No evidence = no theory. Intelligent design is not a theory because there is no evidence. Until I see evidence I have no reason to believe. Besides, you didn’t believe in intelligent design until the eons old idea of creation began falling out of acceptance in mainstream American in the last decade. The real problem with Americans is that we believe just about anything we’re told. No one wants to take the time to develop their own theories…

Equating or connecting or drawing any comparisons between the theory of evolution and Nazism is a complete joke. The Holocaust was one of dozens, if not hundreds, of genocides in human history. To say that these genocides occurred as a result of an idea or philosophy is to completely misunderstand human psychology and the precursors that lead to genocide.

As long as we continue to believe hogwash like this we will continue to see genocide.

Dano,

Your definition of evolution above is what scientists refer to as genetic variation within a kind. You may be referring to changes in fruit flies as an example of evolution but though there have been millions and millions of generations bred in the lab never has anything but a fruit fly been the result. The same applies to bacteria experiments in the lab. Evolution would be if the fruit fly changed into another species or kind of fly or the bacteria changed into a virus or a lichen. This evolution does not take place however. Mutations actually decrease the information and are most always harmful.

I’m not as certain as you humans have 98% the same DNA as chimps but I would say if it is so then 2% sure makes a big difference! Have you ever dined with a chimp or taken one to class with you? Scientists surely all agree living things have a great many similarities, especially in the building blocks which materially compose them. There are only so many elements in the periodic chart after all and life here is carbon based. A creation scientist would say the great similarity exists because both humans and chimps share a common creator/designer.

Are you aware that many hominid models are based on only a few bones (or even just a tooth) and some are only one of a kind? This is not a very substantial base of evidence upon which to establish an entire class of creature, or is it? Unfortunately many early examples were later found to be not hominids at all but outright deceptions.

Why are scientists listening to the heavens with huge arrays of radio telescopes trying to discern a code or pattern which they hope to interpret as being created by an alien life form? Looks to me like they are actively seeking intelligent design in the space signals!

DNA is libraries full of information packed into a very small space. It is the determinate of what life form is produced and how it sustains itself. Information is not something that just happens - it requires an intelligence to produce it. Did this computer I’m using evolve or was it designed? You’ll probably say it evolved and of course I’ll say it was designed. So ere we stand looking at the very same evidence and seeing very different original causes.

#9: Good point, and spot on: “Science is NOT a democratic process. Voices, people and opinions matter not. The only thing that matters is experimentation and data. So lets count. How many experiments have the intelligent design community published in the last decade, ZERO. How many experiments confirming, refining, expanding various aspects of evolutionary biology were published just last year?”

Can I ask the same about global warming “models”? How many models, when fed historical data, predict current conditions? Assuming, of course, we can trust the historical surface measurements NASA and other agencies have reported, which have had “corrections” recently. I think that’s Stein’s point (arguments about the “scientific” nature of ID aside): scientific opinion has become an infallible religion for some. I agree that we should stick to the tenets of science - in particular, verifiable experiments. Some researchers seem to be think “evidence”, even if questionable but supportive of their hypotheses, means “truth”.

So I agree. Science is not about democracy - it’s about truth. Funny how many “scientists” appeal to consensus for their “truths”.

One thing that I find is a flaw in many trains of thought is that ID is not exclusively a religious standpoint. There are many people who reject the idea that a spiritual Creator made everything that we see. These people hold firm to the evolutional ideas that we came form single celled organisms, but recognize the complexity in say DNA and say to themselves, “Hey, these things are too organized and precise to simply have developed by chance. Could our planet have been seeded by a superiorly intelligent race of beings - *gasp* aliens.

There are many well respected scientists - albeit not molecular biologists, but scientists nonetheless - who are spending entire careers and investigating and proving that live was “seeded” by another race of beings. This idea is best, and quickly, described in the climatic scene in the movie Mission To Mars. Say what you will about that movie - acting, story, “simply hollywood - but the climax of the movie explains in just a few moments the idea of ID and evolution going hand in hand by having eath “seeded”.

Note to Matthew (#16) above: If the filmmakers were not trying to link or associate Darwinism with Nazism, why mention the latter at all? Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, but if I were making a film about the merits of meat-eating, I wouldn’t find it necessary to mention Hitler unless I wanted to casts aspersion on the other side of the debate. There are fairer ways to accuse biologists of enforcing political correctness than to associate them with mass murderers.

Note to David (#17), above: i did not call “Expelled” a one-sided argument. As I said repeatedly, I did not see it. What I said was that I’d like to see ALL arguments conducted respectfully. (And then I provided a video example–which some people failed to recognize was a spoof–from Britain’s “Da Ali G. Show.”)

I will apply that principal here, on my cyberspace home, when I decide which comments get posted. So far, visitors of varying ideologies are behaving admirably, and I appreciate it.

Joe W.

Might I pose a question to those people who argue the point of published papers - Evolution has X number of papers published while ID has Y numbers of papers published. In any region of scientific venturing things cost money. If ID scientists are to procure “reputable” scientific evidence to display to the other side of the argument they need research money in order to conduct their research and publish papers. However, if the poloticians who control the money - scientists though they may be they are still poloticians - are staunch Evolution supporters, in their OPINION the ID scientist asking for research money would be a “waste” of grant money. This greatly limits the ability of the ID investigators to conduct their research.

On the flip side, if the ID researchers went to say religious organizations to get the funding needed to conduct their research they would have another stigma attached. Before anyone would hear a word of the results they would hear that the fundung came from a “religious” source and almost immediately the research becomes “faulty science”.

Why can’t ID scientists be treated as any other scientist is treated? Why can’t the poloticians who control the grant money, publishing permissions and other venues of investigation and reporting give equal time to the concept, rather than come right out and say that all ID research is propoganda or the product of idiots?

ATTENTION COMMENTERS: If anybody wants to have a back-and-forth debate about “Expelled,” instead of just commenting on my blog entry, I’m suggesting you go over to the Reel Time forum (www.stltoday.com/reeltime) for more immediate feedback.

Joe Williams

Darwinian evolution postulates man evolved from monkeys (after whales and bacteria) and attributes the physical differences among us to different branches (i.e., races) on their tree of life. The Nazis and Margaret Sanger took the next logical step in the process of survival of the fittest and decided some races were superior while others were less fit to reproduce or even live. This is a very sad historical fact. Its one great merit is that it clearly shows what one believes determines what one does. I dare say the overarching point of the film is that ideas have consequences! A corollary might be, wrong ideas have wrong consequences. It is why we seek the truth from the beginning.

Now as to the matter of vegetarianism, I can think of no danger to segments of society from its practice other than an occasional pale or weak child here or there. Easily remedied.

Creation scientists believe humans are all one race as our name Homo sapiens implies. We are all one blood, from one blood. Actually from Adam and Eve then later from Noah’s family, post global flood. All the differences we easily observe between us are merely variations within the DNA which has the capability of great variability when manifested in a new being.

Jack Cashill’s latest analysis is titled “Expelled Understates Darwin Link To Nazis”, read it at http://www.cashill.com/

Mr. Williams - I am in 7th grade and have been assigned to write a review of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” for my Newspaper class. My friends and I really enjoy your reviews in the Post-Dispatch and are wondering why you have not yet seen and reviewed “Expelled.” With all the controversy, it seems like you would want to see it for yourself. I realize that the “Expelled” producers did not have a special advanced screening for critics - but do you ever buy a regular ticket and go to a movie after it has opened? My Newspaper class would gladly pay for your “Expelled” ticket …and even throw in popcorn, soda and candy!

I saw “Expelled” on Sunday, along with many friends from my General Science class. Most of us loved the movie - it was great to see the Evolution and Intelligent Design viewpoints from super- qualified scientists in BOTH camps. Isn’t science supposed to be about asking questions? (At least that’s what the teachers say!)

What do you think of scientist Richard Dawkins’ comments about “Expelled” on YouTube? My friends and I disagreed with his opinion about the poor quality of the filmaking and the “Lord, Privy, Seal” methods. We liked the symbols that were shown throughout the movie, and thought they were relevant to what was being said. They made the film more interesting and entertaining. I have a feeling Dr. Dawkins would say that’s because we’re immature 12 &13 year olds! It seemed to us that plenty of adults liked the symbols, too.

But - you’re the experienced film critic - not us and not Dr. Dawkins. We’re hoping you’ll see the movie and let us know what your opinion is, even though we might not agree with you. Thanks!

WOW!! It is so hard to believe there are people who actually thing life can create itself!! The more you learn about life, the more complex it becomes. I am a HS scoence teacher and I can not imagine how close minded you idiots can be. What do you have against God?? What has He done to you? (besides breath life into you) Can so many of us be so wrong?? I can admit that maybe life did make itself, I wasn’t there, I don’t know. But why can’t you let us have our ideas? What IF we are right? Evolution is NOT FACT. There are more holes in it than you can imagine. I have three degrees in science and love the study of new and contiversal ideology. Science and Faith can work together. Let’s not close each other off, we can learn more together.