Star Tribune: Movie review: Propaganda piece "Expelled" flunks giving it 1/2 out of four stars

Rottentomatoes has Expelled at 9% and going down!

Next stop: Battlefield Earth at 3%

(Given the small critic sample-size for Expelled so far, Expelled has a very good chance of beating out Battlefield Earth for the "Turkey of the Universe" award.)

Expelled would have been ahead of Battlefield Earth in the race to the cellar if it weren't for some sorry-assed clown by the name of Edward Douglass (who fancies himself as some sort of movie critic).

According to “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” the source of all evil in the modern world is Darwinism, a philosophy that, the film posits, is responsible for everything from atheism to abortion, euthanasia to the Holocaust.

there is active debate over euthanasia and abortion, and to call atheism evil is simply bigoted.

Flint:

there is active debate over euthanasia and abortion, and to call atheism evil is simply bigoted.

I don't read it the same way. These are "evil" from the fundamentalist perspective, within which no such "active debate" exists at all.

Stanton:

Yes, this sort of polarized thinking is very profoundly religious. There is no neutral, and every fact however dry must be examined to decide if it's a good fact or an evil fact. Every fact, every opinion, every logical inference must be categorized as to whether it for or against the gods. Sometimes I'm reminded of languages that must assign a gender to every noun, and as technology generates innovations, some committee somewhere must give a gender to every one!

A number of theaters in the Twin Cities are showing "Expelled": Arbor Lakes, Brooklyn Center, Carmike (Apple Valley), Coon Rapids, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Elk River, Inver Grove, Lakeville, Mall of America (Bloomington), Oakdale (2), Rogers, Shakopee, Southdale (Edina), White Bear, Willow Creek, Wynnsong.

(Minneapolis Star-Tribune listing, 4/q8/08, page F17) The review is 1/3 column on page F14.

Interestingly, the previous Expelled story in the SLT is the top rated story in the last five days.

to call atheism evil is simply bigoted.

Great film. i think we need to look at these documentaries for what they are. A little one sided. See any Micheal Moore stuff lately? He gets praised and Al wins the NOBEL? Come on! Expelled was well done and interviews were not slashed and edited as much as some want to believe. Now we look at it with a little critical thinking, not just being critical and see that there was plenty of valid science without religion noted and case made.Expelled makes the grade wether you believe in God or not.

And please give up on the bigoted comments.

Allow me to put you Darwinists on notice. Millions of people, including many Jr. High, High School, and College age kids will be seeing "Expelled." Many of these same kids will be reading creationist/ID books and watching creationist/ID DVDs. We don't need your public schools to get creationism/ID materials and teaching into the hands and minds of Jr. High, High School, and College students. We will circumvent the public education system and go to them directly, just as Ben Stein has done.

Darwinists, your monopoly on origins science education is coming to an end!

Why do people like Professor T make me think of pedophiles? "We will get your kids!!!!!"

Creepy.

Professor T: Darwinists, your monopoly on origins science education is coming to an end!

Does "origins science" refer to anything at all, beyond encoding generalized opposition to any inconvenient aspects of reality?

Number 52:

Professor T: Darwinists, your monopoly on origins science education is coming to an end!

Ignoring the obvious mischaracterisation of "evolution must explain abiogenesis", does this mean creationists are *finally* going to present some research and give some evidence?

Flint: Stanton: Yes, this sort of polarized thinking is very profoundly religious. There is no neutral, and every fact however dry must be examined to decide if it's a good fact or an evil fact. Every fact, every opinion, every logical inference must be categorized as to whether it for or against the gods. Sometimes I'm reminded of languages that must assign a gender to every noun, and as technology generates innovations, some committee somewhere must give a gender to every one!

Flint:

there is active debate over euthanasia and abortion, and to call atheism evil is simply bigoted.

I don't read it the same way. These are "evil" from the fundamentalist perspective, within which no such "active debate" exists at all. What they've done is taken everything that offends their superstitions, and blames it all on something ELSE they find offensive. Granted, it would have been clearer to say "the source of everything fundamentalist Christians find evil in the modern world."

Marek14:

Thanks, that's interesting if beside the point. The point was that gender is a perverse notion to project onto nouns, whatever protocol is used. It is NOT "quite natural" in any way, though I suppose that if you HAD to decide if a toaster was male or female (godly or godless, drunk or sober, east or west, etc.) using the last letter of the noun is as arbitrary a method as any. Let's see, if the word "toaster" ends in R, it's masculine, godless, sober, and west!

The point was that gender is a perverse notion to project onto nouns, whatever protocol is used.

Flint: Marek14: Thanks, that's interesting if beside the point. The point was that gender is a perverse notion to project onto nouns, whatever protocol is used. It is NOT "quite natural" in any way, though I suppose that if you HAD to decide if a toaster was male or female (godly or godless, drunk or sober, east or west, etc.) using the last letter of the noun is as arbitrary a method as any. Let's see, if the word "toaster" ends in R, it's masculine, godless, sober, and west!

with their extraordinarily complex Slavic grammatical system…

If you were hoping to become enlightened as to the "debate" between intelligent design and evolution, this is not the move to see. It explains neither. Almost frantic at times to point at gaps in the theory of evolution, the movie never takes ten seconds to explain how intelligent design can fill those gaps. Indeed,the movie unknowingly turns on itself. At one point Dr. Richard Dawkins, a leading evolution scientist is quoted as saying that the design in life may have begun with an alien intelligence. This clip is suppose to make Dawkins and by extension, evolution look ridiculous. Apparently the producers overlooked the irony that in essence, that is what the intelligent design argument is all about. God did it, Aleins did it, whatever. The fact that the producers missed their own point should tell you all you need to know.

Besides...it truly is a boring movie

Stanton said: I really doubt it. If creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis continue to spend millions of dollars for decades, and still be wholly unable to, or even be wholly unmotivated to produce a single peer-reviewed paper, one pathetically boring movie starring Ben Stein will not motivate them to do any research. In fact, Professor T's statement is practically a signed confession admitting that creationists never had an intention of doing any research what so ever in the first place.

Lisa said: I haven't seen the movie yet, so I feel somewhat disengeuinous piping up here, but I couldn't let this bit of ignorance go unanswered: Creation scientists HAVE been doing serious research and producing peer-reviewed papers for decades. While much of what they produce does counter the evolutionary model, that isn't their primary motivation. They are reinterpreting the data from a non-uniformitarian, interventionist viewpoint. That you haven't heard of it is the POINT OF THE MOVIE!! Ironic.

Creation scientists HAVE been doing serious research and producing peer-reviewed papers for decades. While much of what they produce does counter the evolutionary model, that isn’t their primary motivation. They are reinterpreting the data from a non-uniformitarian, interventionist viewpoint. That you haven’t heard of it is the POINT OF THE MOVIE!! Ironic.

From the Answers Reserach Journal:

VIII. Paper Review Process

The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?

Remark: The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.

This is exactly why it's not scientific research. Science starts with observations, leading to hypothesis, experiments, results, and conclusions, which will ultimately influence models and possibly theories. Scientific journals ask for reproducible methods and evidence. "Creation science" starts with the YEC model and anything that does not fit it is rejected.

Lisa said: Creation scientists HAVE been doing serious research and producing peer-reviewed papers for decades. While much of what they produce does counter the evolutionary model, that isn't their primary motivation. They are reinterpreting the data from a non-uniformitarian, interventionist viewpoint. That you haven't heard of it is the POINT OF THE MOVIE!! Ironic.

Lisa said: They are reinterpreting the data from a non-uniformitarian, interventionist viewpoint.

stevaroni said: I call shenanigans on anyone who claims creationists have published any research that has held up to peer review, but if you disagree, and you actually have some demonstrable creationist facts, now would be the time to put them on the table. As usual, I suspect I'll be waiting a while.

Facts can be proved or disproved, but they can’t be ignored.

Lisa said: Creation scientists HAVE been doing serious research and producing peer-reviewed papers for decades. While much of what they produce does counter the evolutionary model, that isn't their primary motivation. They are reinterpreting the data from a non-uniformitarian, interventionist viewpoint.

My initial response was to Stanton's original comment which said that creationist organizations were "wholly unable" or "unmotivated to produce a single peer-reviewed paper" and then said that they weren't motivated to "do any research" and "never had any intention of doing any research what so ever [sic] in the first place." I responded that that just wasn't true. Creation scientists have been producing papers and having them published in non-secular peer-reviewed journals. They are peer-reviewed in the sense that other creation scientists are reviewing them in these journals. Unfortunately these papers aren't usually accepted in the secular journals due to their creationist content. That doesn’t mean they lack scientific significance, it just means that if research doesn’t fit into the uniformitarian evolutionary paradigm then it’s rejected. From a logical standpoint that is just fallacious. Let’s see: “We don’t agree with the findings of your research so we won’t publish them. Your research isn’t published therefore it doesn’t exist.” OK, I know most of you guys are jumping up and down with your brains exploding right now, but just stop and think about it. Richard is the only person who actually attempted to find the research to which I alluded. Everyone else commented in such an intelligently informed fashion on views that they had admittedly never read (because they don’t exist).

Here are a few sites that contain the research: The Origins Journal at the Geoscience Research Institute http://www.grisda.org/origins/ndx-yr.htm and
The Occasional Papers of the BSG http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36813

Lisa, the reasons why creationist research papers are rejected by mainstream scientists are actually rather simple: Creationist papers are poorly written, they can not explain why creationist research is scientifically significant, and they can not explain why a biblical viewpoint is scientifically significant.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the only reason why mainstream scientists keep out those very few creationists who do actually do research is because of quality control.

Unfortunately these papers aren’t usually accepted in the secular journals due to their creationist content. That doesn’t mean they lack scientific significance, it just means that if research doesn’t fit into the uniformitarian evolutionary paradigm then it’s rejected. From a logical standpoint that is just fallacious.