Roger Ebert on Expelled

"Someone should probably swing by Disco with a mop and clean up all the exploded head debris."

If only, Mike. Nah, the Disco crew will wave this away as they wave away all criticism of their Holy Cause. Still, it's a very nice, surgical takedown that may help some folks start questioning Creationist tactics and dogma.

"Someone should probably swing by Disco with a mop and clean up all the exploded head debris."

Oh, c'mon. They'll just claim Mr. Ebert is part of the wide-spread conspiracy to discredit ID. Like, maybe some scientist paid him to write a negative review in order to discourage people from going to see the movie, thus keeping the public from learning about how evil we evolution believers are.

I'm probably using the term a little differently than you're used to. I meant that they're going to be so pissed off that it's going to make their heads explode, not that it would somehow force them to change any of their beliefs.

I'd predict that an indignant reply is going to be forthcoming from someone (probably Luskin or Crowther) within the next few days.

But did he like it?

I'm thrilled Roger Ebert is healthy enough to weigh in finally on Ben Stein and his inane involvement with that risible piece of cinematic mendacious intellectual pornography known as "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It's a pity however that no other film critic of Ebert's stature has opted to tear that loathsome piece of dreck into metaphorical shreds.

In regard to the claims made in expelled regarding eugenics, it was Governor James Frank Hanley of Indiana, who, in 1907, signed the first eugenical sterilization law in the world, paving the way for similar laws in more than thirty other states and nearly a dozen countries around the world. He was a Republican, and a Christian.

John Kwok said: I'm thrilled Roger Ebert is healthy enough to weigh in finally on Ben Stein and his inane involvement with that risible piece of cinematic mendacious intellectual pornography known as "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It's a pity however that no other film critic of Ebert's stature has opted to tear that loathsome piece of dreck into metaphorical shreds.

A mop? More like a shovel.

At the Movies with Ebert and Roeper co-host Richard Roeper wrote today (Thursday) that he has been accused of "liberal bias" for not reviewing the "intelligent design" documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed on the TV show. In his column in the Chicago Sun-Times Roeper insisted that no liberal conspiracy was involved in the omission. "Expelled wasn't screened for us," he wrote, but given the attention the film has received he finally managed to see it. "Wow," he concluded, "What a piece of garbage."

John Kwok said: I'm thrilled Roger Ebert is healthy enough to weigh in finally on Ben Stein and his inane involvement with that risible piece of cinematic mendacious intellectual pornography known as "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It's a pity however that no other film critic of Ebert's stature has opted to tear that loathsome piece of dreck into metaphorical shreds.

It’s a pity however that no other film critic of Ebert’s stature has opted to tear that loathsome piece of dreck into metaphorical shreds.

— John Kwok

Why should they bother? Doing so would be unlikely to convince anyone either way. Moreover the film hasn’t been that successful so it isn’t clear why any prominent movie reviewer should bother.

— Joshua Zelinsky

John Kwok said: It's a pity however that no other film critic of Ebert's stature has opted to tear that loathsome piece of dreck into metaphorical shreds.

Frank J said:

It’s a pity however that no other film critic of Ebert’s stature has opted to tear that loathsome piece of dreck into metaphorical shreds.

— John Kwok

Sorry to break it to you, but Gene Siskel just wrote a very favorable review. And it's up to you "Darwinists" to prove to me that he didn't. ;-)

I doubt that most professional movie reviewers have a greater than average knowledge base in science. What I like about the Ebert review is that it demonstrates pretty well that any reasonably intelligent non-scientist with critical thinking skills can easily see right through the deceptive nature of Expelled. So though the religionist base that the movie caters to will lap it up no matter how bad it is, it is not likely to draw many other people into the creationist/ID camp. It may even repel some people that have been here-to-fore fence-sitters on the issue.

"Someone should probably swing by Disco with a mop and clean up all the exploded head debris.” It occurs to me that a broom and dustpan might be more appropriate, as the debris is likely to consist predominantly of thick skull fragments, and not much actual brain tissue. Sorry, I know it's mean, but I couldn't resist.

Frank J said:

It’s a pity however that no other film critic of Ebert’s stature has opted to tear that loathsome piece of dreck into metaphorical shreds.

— John Kwok

Sorry to break it to you, but Gene Siskel just wrote a very favorable review. And it's up to you "Darwinists" to prove to me that he didn't. ;-)

Why should they bother? Doing so would be unlikely to convince anyone either way. Moreover the film hasn’t been that successful so it isn’t clear why any prominent movie reviewer should bother.

— Joshua Zelinsky

I'm not so sure about that. Here's why: From various sources I estimate that ~25% of the public is so hopeless that nothing could make them concede evolution. But ~45% answer those poll questions with not just doubt of evolution, but apparently favoring a "young life" model that even most DI fellows reject. And another ~20% accept evolution (or what they think is evolution) yet still think it's fair to teach the DI's propaganda in science class. Many people, myself included, changed their mind when carefully considering the evidence - both that for evolution and that for how anti-evolutionists use every trick in the book to mislead.

marilyn said: It may even repel some people that have been here-to-fore fence-sitters on the issue.

iml8 said: Hmm, I might want to put together a TEAM DARWIN logo. Any suggestions on what it might look like? Don't have good ideas for the moment.

Considering that Gene Siskel died in 1999, his review of Expelled must be being beamed in with zero frequency photons. Can you provide a link to where you read the review, Frank?

— David vun Kannon

Off topic, and for PvM, since I know it's a topic he likes: did you know that Dembski has said he's given up on the explanatory filter? Turns out that actually chance, law, and design aren't mutually exclusive. Who could have guessed?

eric said:

John Kwok said: It's a pity however that no other film critic of Ebert's stature has opted to tear that loathsome piece of dreck into metaphorical shreds.

John, Here's a link to 13 major newspaper and magazine reviews of Expelled. None of the reviews are positive. http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/expellednointelligenceallowed?q=expelled

Venus Mousetrap said: Off topic, and for PvM, since I know it's a topic he likes: did you know that Dembski has said he's given up on the explanatory filter? Turns out that actually chance, law, and design aren't mutually exclusive. Who could have guessed?

I don't know when he decided this, but he mentioned it yesterday in a comment at UD:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/some-thanks-for-professor-olofsson/#comment-299021

Venus Mousetrap said: I don't know when he decided this, but he mentioned it yesterday in a comment at UD: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/some-thanks-for-professor-olofsson/#comment-299021

W. Dembski said: (1) I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.

eric said: Prof. Olofsson’s refutation of Behe’s reliance on probability would apply to (and invalidate) Dembski’s remaining reliance on ‘straight CSI.”

The puzzling thing is that Dembski is making an effort to clarify his argument, when his direction in the past seems to have been consistently to make it as obscure as possible.

Frank J said:

Considering that Gene Siskel died in 1999, his review of Expelled must be being beamed in with zero frequency photons. Can you provide a link to where you read the review, Frank?

— David vun Kannon

I can't of course, but since ID can accommodate all the results of dead people writing reviews, maybe the DI can help. ;-)

Flint said:

The puzzling thing is that Dembski is making an effort to clarify his argument, when his direction in the past seems to have been consistently to make it as obscure as possible.

I'm not that puzzled. What I don't think most of us fully take into account is, guys like Dembski actually believe goddidit POOF. So the goal isn't, and never can be, to determine what happened or how it happened, these are both known beforehand. The goal is to clarify and demonstrate this Truth. To show that it's plausible to those who otherwise can't see the Truth Dembski's god crams into our faces every day of our lives. Similarly with Philip Johnson, who sincerely believed that scientists who started with the answer already in hand, wouldn't have the slightest difficulty using the methods of science to discover what Johnson already knows is the case. I think Johnson still believes this -- creationist scientists are frustratingly not even bothering to go through the motions because when they know the answer before they start, why bother "looking"? Even Behe testified under oath that design is an immediately self-evident property of an organism. What possible scientific experiment could one perform to show "scientifically" that green is actually green? Much like design, all you can do is point to it and say "LOOK, dammit! Design! Right there! LOOK!"

If I’m not mistaken, didn’t the crew of a Klingon battlecruiser travel back in time to 1996 with a copy of “Expelled”, forced him to view it and then write a review of it?

— Kohn Kwok

something tells me that GOD “ordered” him to forget the EF ASAP.

@Flint: if you wanted to prove "scientifically" that green is green you could bring out the methods of spectral analysis, charts of human eye response to different frequencies etc. That makes it even more embarrassing for Dembski; lots of really obvious things are also demonstrable, but his "design" is more like an aesthetic judgement.

Instead, I prefer to think Dembski saw what Behe testified - that you must necessarily start with design, not as a conclusion but as an axiom.

— Flint

Flint said: I don't mean just the details of his math, but that he actually understood the basic problem, namely that Design is simply not a conclusion; it cannot be reached by following any rules of inference or logical argument,

Flint: if you wanted to prove “scientifically” that green is green you could bring out the methods of spectral analysis, charts of human eye response to different frequencies etc.

unfortunately its contradicted by the second part of Dembski’s statement, where he says he thinks ‘straight CSI’ is a stronger proof of design.

Disgustingly enough, Ben Stein has revived his career and is now seen as a talking head on all matter of things, like economics.

Meanwhile Falwell's school of "Law" is running a symposium on the law of teaching ID in February:
http://www.liberty.edu/academics/law/index.cfm?PID=17905

I watched an interview with this nut and he kept going on about darwinism I think he meant evolution.
I know evolution must be truer than creationism and that humans share a common ancestor with the great apes because I'm now over 50 and just like a great ape I have a hairy back and hairy ears see conclusive proof now buddy show me yours.

Disgustingly enough, Ben Stein has revived his career and is now seen as a talking head on all matter of things, like economics.

— Veritas36

Frank J said: Hearing him foam at the mouth about "Darwinism" was like listening to a completely different person.

Flint said:

unfortunately its contradicted by the second part of Dembski’s statement, where he says he thinks ‘straight CSI’ is a stronger proof of design.

You may be right, but I see signs of Dembski struggling with this. He seems to be coming to the realization that "straight CSI" can only be specified post facto - that is, AFTER the determination of design has already been made. That you simply can't use the EF to determine design, only to ratify a foregone determination. I think Dembski's long-time refusal to actually apply his filter to any real-world unknown implies that he realizes this.