[quoteI don't want the links of other sources. I want YOU to tell me...using
your own brain why you don't like this movie. So far, you've said
nothing but vague stuff like[/quote]
I am, and like I said:
Producers of the film have also run into legal trouble over their unlicensed use of John Lennon
's song "Imagine
", having failed to seek the permission of the copyright holder, John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono
Premise Media responded by saying that they had only used 25 seconds of Imagine
and this constituted fair use
under American copyright law. The Killers
had licensed their song, but said they had been misled, with the
request having said it would be used in a "satirical documentary" about
"academic freedom in schools".
The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including Myers and Dawkins,
and National Center for Science Education
head Eugenie Scott
, who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named Crossroads
on the "intersection of science and religion", with a blurb
which described the strong support that had been accumulated for
evolution, and contrasted this with the religious who rejected it, and
the controversy this caused
||It has been the central
question of humanity through the ages: How in the world did we get
here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book,
“The Origin of Species.” In the century and a half since, geologists,
biologists, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers have contributed
a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin’s idea. And
yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other people of faith
believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the
hand of God. The conflict between science and religion has unleashed
passions in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across
America and beyond.
However, the movie was actually pitched to Stein as an anti-Darwin picture:
||I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of Expelled,
which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic
establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of
speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can’t
question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will
spurn you, you’ll lose your job, and you’ll be publicly humiliated. As
they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more
enthusiastic about participating.
Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a
large part in the Nazis’ Final Solution to their so-called “Jewish
problem” and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the
Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism
relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally.
On learning of the pro-intelligent design stance of the real film,
Myers said, "not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the
subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various
topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just
make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest." Dawkins said, "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these
people were a creationist front", and Scott said, "I just expect people
to be honest with me, and they weren't."
Mathis called Myers, Dawkins and Scott a "bunch of hypocrites", and
said that he "went over all of the questions with these folks before
the interviews and I e-mailed the questions to many of them days in
advance". The film's proponents point out that Dawkins participated in the BBC Horizon documentary A War on Science,
whose producers, they allege, presented themselves to the Discovery
Institute as objective filmmakers and then portrayed the organization
as religiously-motivated and anti-scientific.
Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times,
complaining about the deception. Speckhardt wrote, "If one needs to
believe in a god to be moral, why are we seeing yet another case of
dishonesty by the devout? Why were leading scientists deceived as to
the intentions of a religious group of filmmakers?"
Also, if it was to do as it says, it failed to be balanced, and include Theistic evolution. See:
Expelled has been criticized for not interviewing people who
accept both theism and the theory of evolution. When the editorial
staff of Scientific American asked Mathis why they did not include anybody like devout Catholic and prominent biologist Kenneth R. Miller in the movie, Mathis stated that his inclusion "would have confused the
film unnecessarily" and went on to question Miller's intellectual
honesty and orthodoxy as a Catholic because he accepts evolution. Expelled is often criticized for setting up a false dichotomy between evolution and religion.
In a review of the film, the Waco Tribune-Herald described its "failure to cover how Christian evolutionists reconcile
faith and science" as "perhaps the film’s most glaring and telling
omission", and that the film rather "quickly dismissed [them] by a
chain of quotes that brand them as liberal Christians and duped by
militant atheists in their efforts to get religion out of the
Defending the movie, the producer, Walt Ruloff, said that scientists like prominent geneticist Francis Collins keep their religion and science separate only because they are "toeing
the party line". Collins, who was not asked to be interviewed for the
film in any of its incarnations, said that Ruloff's claims were
The lie (concerning Dawin/Nazism)
n support of his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism
, Ben Stein quotes Charles Darwin
's book The Descent of Man
as the following:
||With savages, the weak in
body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand,
do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for
the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of
civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to
the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly
injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow
his worst animals to breed.
He stops there, then names Darwin as the author in a way that
suggests that Darwin provided a rationale for the activities of the
Nazis. This selective quotation is an example of quote mining. The original paragraph (page 168) is different (words that Stein omitted shown in italics) and the very next sentences in the book falsify Stein's argument:
||With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.
We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process
of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the
sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their
utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is
reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a
weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus
the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one
who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that
this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising
how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man
himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in
the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused.
Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason,
without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon
may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he
is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally
to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent
benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
The same misleading selective quotation from this passage was used by anti-evolutionist William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 Scopes Trial but the full passage makes it clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics.
The eugenics movement relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about
heredity, and by the 1920s evolutionary biologists were criticizing
eugenics. Clarence Darrow who defended the teaching of human evolution in the Scopes trial wrote a scathing repudiation of eugenics.
I will admit, that there is a concern over academic freedom. However, there's a difference in something being taught as philosphy, religion, and science.
I'm not saying that to point out what they did was wrong, but how they did it, i.e. their "evidence," was nothing more than bull hokey.
As an aspiring fimmaker/documentary maker, I'm sickened by this. This isn't a documentary, it's propaganda.
Were they subjective?
your sources? So far you're telling me you're believing people who have
not seen the movie by providing me with this vague links by people who
are basically boycotting this movie....what are they afraid of? What
are you afraid of?
My bad, meant objective, not subjective. And my sources are stating what is truth, and others are verifying it.
I'm not afraid of anything, I want the truth, honesty, integrity, and they (the people of Expelled) have failed on it.
Also, some dishonesty with cancellation notices (which if you google it, it isn't just something from a single site).