EXPELLED: Loved by viewers, hated by critics

I was looking at Yahoo user reviews of the movie Expelled One wrote:

As an observer, I have never seen so many extremes in reviews. Virtually either an “A” or an “F”. No middle ground. This makes me really want to see this movie. Especially the F reactions are so extreme and closed minded that Stein must really punch their button. I gotta see this baby !!!

It’s amazing that so many reviews here run in one or two directions. The ability to make a certain segment either hate or love a film is a sign of a good film. It just reveals the worldview that you are coming from — if you hate it, it is because it exposes your worldview in a negative light, not because it’s a bad film.

Below is a clip from one of the most powerful and controversial parts of the film.

Now here is atheist Richard Dawkins responding to the one of the film’s premises that social Darwinism was at the heart of Nazi eugenics and the Holocaust.

… natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’ — Richard Dawkins

Note that Dawkins doesn’t deny that Hitler’s attempt to breed a “master race” isn’t logically derived from Darwinism. He simply says that we must not be Darwinists in this one instance. He doesn’t explain how his rejection of Darwinism based on ethics is any different from the criticism of Darwinism by Christians who reject the idea of evolution as a random process without a Designer. At least the Christians are logically consistent.


Even for a creationist you are exceedingly dense. Evolution is a scientific description of a physical process of change; it is not a statement of one's personal philosophy of how to live. Even if one grants, for the sake of argument, all the horrible consequences of Darwin's theory that you point to, that is not one ounce of proof that the theory is not true. A theory can be true and still have terrible consequences. You creationists should take comfort in this: All the harm that has been caused by the misapplication of ideas in the Bible does not prove it to be untrue. Are you willing to take ownership for all the bloodshed that has resulted from various groups twisting Biblical ideas? Why then is Darwin's theory to be blamed for people misapplying it? Dawkins's point is completely consistent. Evolution is true because the evidence supports it; it appears to be the way nature works. That doesn't mean we have to endorse natural selection as our life philosophy. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
By the way, your definition of a good movie as one that creates extreme polar reactions--you might want to re-think that. By your definition, Farenheit 911 would be a great movie.
I am not willing to take "ownership of all the atrocities" committed in Christ's name because even you are willing to admit that it is twisting the Christian law of "love your neighbor."

When Christians break God's commandments, they are behaving in a manner antithetical to scripture.

When Darwinists use the idea of social Darwinism to kill or eugenicize "inferior" races, they are behaving in a manner completely consistent with the ideas of its founder.

Darwin himself though that black people were a lower form of human somewhere between man and ape.

The Bible teaches that all men are created in the image o God and therefore deserve the right to life and dignity.

If you want to be more consistent with Christianity than Darwin in your social sphere, then I applaud you for it.

Just remember to treat me with the same dignity as I have shown in conversing with you.
Do you think Fahrenheit 911 is a good movie?
Comments like those of Ken's illustrate that there all sorts of manner of people who freely toss ideas about, but refuse to take responsibility for the endgame that results.

However, what I wanted to write about was that this movie, I believe, is being marketed at the wrong people and in the wrong way.

Every so often, a movie comes out that is basically by Christians for Christians. Or by fundamentalists for fundamentalists. What have you. And the targeted group, driven into hysteria, rushes the theaters to see the movie, often under the delusion that if enough people see it (or perhaps see it multiple times) that it will create such a groundswell that all 300 million Americas, or perhaps the world, will be persuaded to see it just out of sheer peer pressure.

The height of this insanity was the Passion of the Christ where you had some folks watching the movie ten or more times (or just buying the tickets, but not watching) to boost sales. Disingenuous at best, deceptive at worst.

Now, this movie purports two things: First, that Darwinism is an idea that is at best, out-dated, but at worst is harmful to those who fully embrace what is subtly being taught by such a worldview. That idea, which I believe to be true, is however nearly wasted on those who already believe it.

This movie is way too highbrow, way too intellectual, to make it into the hands of those of whom it could best benefit. And that's where you come in Jay. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make a 10-minute (YouTube's max time limit) or less hip rage-filled clip with smashing cars or BMX bikes, of cool celebs smashing Darwin, and set it to grunge Seattle rock music (or emo!). Grab all the salient points from Stein's documentary, reword them (NIV-style: dumb down) so that the thugs can understand it, use a lot of slang words (like "crib", "homie", "smackdown"), and get it out on YouTube. That might do some good. Otherwise, this expelled movie will just cost Christians money.

The second thing this movie purports is to tell the story of how teachers, specifically at higher institutions, are being persecuted for their attempts to introduce ideas ("intelligent design") that are contrary to school policy, or even the National Academy of Science. In some way, we are supposed to feel outraged that the free and open exchange of ideas is threatened at these institutions. Thus, if they can teach courses on lesbianism, they should at least allow professors with alternate views to be allowed to express them, particularly when the mainstream science community (read: Darwinists) don't have solid answers to some of the many questions out there.

To me, there's some hilarity in all of this. The world of academia is, as many know, highly exclusive and highly isolated from much of reality. Millions of regular workers go to work every day unable to express their beliefs for fear of their jobs. Millions of people are forced to support "company agendas" that are both dumb and unproductive. No movie is made for them.

Besides, few are under the delusion that college campuses are a free-for-all of ideas. Even when Harvard and Princeton where Christian institutions, there most certainly would have been a similar crackdown on any professor trying to teach, for instance, Wicaa.

Private schools can teach what they want - and Christians should begin considering where they send their children. They should support those schools (financially) that are raising up the next generation. And they should encourage their children to attend schools that, while maybe not as prestigious as an Ivy League school, provide them the best opportunity to learn from the best minds available, not lunkhead ideologues who follow after Charles Darwin.

For instance, in law, otherwise good Christian men and women will allow (even promote) the idea that it would be a great victory to be accepted to Harvard Law. Except that it most certainly would not, when one's soul is taken into account. Several fantastic Christian law schools exist that would do much better for such a student.

We have to stop trying to rescue dead institutions. It isn't ever going to happen. Even the founders of Harvard and Yale knew that - which is why they started NEW schools in a NEW land away from those who wanted to put a stranglehold on Christian progress.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the same goes for public schools at the elementary and high school levels. Continually, we see Christian parents involved with these dying establishments trying to turn the Titanic around, so to speak, rather than make the tough decision to get their child out and into an environment where excellence and truth are esteemed - not just on paper - but in action every day.

This also goes for teachers who continue to take the government paycheck (stolen from property owners against their will) to keep their comfortable job at a public school, rather than take a position teaching in a worthy institution such as a private or Catholic school, even though it may cost them a paycut. As long as the public school can "buy" Christians to keep the myth alive, it will lengthen their dying breaths and drag millions more children down its sewers. If Christians would stand strong and leave, the schools would immediately and quickly plunge into debauchery of the highest order, but like all dying things, this last chaos is needed (see Fall of Rome).
So Lawrence, does this mean, like a good Christian, you haven't supported the movie?

For shame.
Hello Jay,

I found your blog via Digg and PZ Myers blog.

I totally agree with your assessment that Expelled is "loved by viewers and hated by the critics." The liberal left Darwinists have whipped themselves up into a frenzy over this movie!

I hope you will consider visiting my blog and reading my post:

"Expelled" Movie Exposes Mini-gods of Liberal Fascism.

I added a link to your blog so that people can see that video clip.

God bless you for standing up against the "PZ Myers" and "Richard Dawkins" types of our world. This movie truly exposes them for what they are!

In Christ,
I wish an analogous documentary film was made concerning the DINOGLYFS or dinolits:
It seems that the ancient man not only saw but also documented the last megafauna (gigafauna, I should say).

Bruce Alberts it was who first accepted from his post as the president of the National Academy of Sciences USA that the biological machinery can be called as such, machinery, without asserting to metaphora. He gave the students that license in 1998. Other animations on the tiny cellular machineries apart from the Expelled movie can be seen in here:

It is thrilling that it is the People of the Book who once more are the initiative spectators who have the balls to question the ambient amen and go against the loudy majority. Not the first time. Here's some statistics and charts regarding the success of the Jews in science and technological innovations when the others were too stubborn to change their minds:

This conference poster of mine shows how profoundly the continental, Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drived not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover but also the nationalistic collapse of the World War I. It was Charles Darwin himself, who raised the monstrous Haeckel in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871:

Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
Ben Stein? After the Watergate scandal I certainly would not take an X Richard Nixon speech writer seriously. How can one be certain he doesn't have some kind of political agenda like he did when he was speech writer for the Nixon administration by throwing out a "red herring" issue like this? Due to his prior dealings I would certainly be a lot more skeptical of him than mere blind faith or devotion without exploring all the aspects of science, including evolution theory...(which they propose we should just toss out.) If the biblical account given in the book of Genesis is a completely accurate account of both creation and history, it would not only have to explain why dinosaurs became extinct but, also why geographical isolated species such as the polar bear did not die in the flood. For that to happen, the Polar Bears would have to be strong enough to swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3000 miles from the North Pole to the Mesopotamian Basin to reach Noah's ark. To assume they could swim such great distances much less stay afloat during a 40 day flood goes against all logical sensibility, especially when we know polar bears die from drowning deaths because the arctic ice upon which they habitat is currently melting due to global warming. Polar Bears would have died during the "Great Flood" just as surely as the dinosaurs would have yet, there are no fossils records which support a massive polar bear die off which scientists could then use to carbon date. If the Polar Bears really were indeed direct descendants of the bears which came from Noah's Ark, their change in fur color makes one point glaringly obvious, it changed because of evolutionary processes. However, these observations make me skeptical that a literal account of "Great Flood" really happened. If the account of Noah's ark given in the bible is inconsistent with scientific observation, common sense, or reality, what's to say the account of creation given in the same book of the Old Testament isn't also inaccurate, inconsistent, or contradictory? ID theorists treat their assumptions as if they were completely infallible yet, if we are to have a balanced unbiased discussion of all creation theories involved (including evolution theory), why are ID theorists unwilling to discuss weaknesses in their hypothesis? No Intelligence Allowed lives up to it's moniker. ID theorists are allowed to discuss Intelligent Design Theory yet, they refuse to concede any weaknesses in their theory. When I visited the official "Expelled" website to elaborate my scientific skepticism based on this discussion, my blog was conveniently moderated and quickly deleted. Talk about "No Intelligence Allowed" an honest, unbiased discussion of competing theories were not allowed at their website. What will Ben Stein think of next? The effort to quell any educated discussion on behalf of "Expelled" promoters seems more like one sided, right wing, fundamentalist propaganda promoted by close minded individuals who are unwilling to openly discuss all the associated issues. Now Avian Transport Theory? How much more fanatical, magical thinking like this can people base their assumptions on without shred of evidence to back it up? Fundamentalist theories that claim "The Stork" is responsible for conception under the name of "Avian Transport Theory?" Come on, this getting ridiculous already.

Your comments are welcome

Use Textile help to style your comments

Suggested products



The Model of Christian Liberty. This DVD includes “Dawn’s Early Light: A Brief History of America’s Christian Foundations” and bonus features.

Read more