Prohibited: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 American documentary film directed by Nathan Frankowski and starring Ben Stein. The film argues that the formation of primary science suppresses academics who believe they see intelligent design evidence (ID) in nature and who criticize the evidence supporting Darwinian evolution and the synthesis of modern evolution as part of a "scientific conspiracy to alienate God from the laboratory of the nation and space class. "The theory of scientific evolution is described by the film as a contribution to communism, fascism, atheism, eugenics and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust. This film illustrates a clever design that is motivated by science, not religion, although it does not provide a detailed definition of a phrase or attempt to explain it on a scientific level. In addition to briefly addressing the issue of irreducible complexity, Thrown checks it as a political issue.
Expelled opened in 1,052 theaters, more than any other previous documentary, and grossed $ 2,900,000 on its first weekend. This earned $ 7.7 million, making it the 30th best-selling documentary in the United States (statistics including 1982-present, and not adjusted for inflation).
The media's response to the film is mostly negative. Some of the reviews, including from USA Today and Scientific American , have portrayed the film as propaganda. The Chicago Tribune ' rating is "1 star (bad)," while The New York Times describes it as "harsh words of conspiracy theory masquerading as investigation investigation "and" an offensive propaganda piece that insults believers and non-believers alike. "It received a 9% meta-score (" foul ") at the end of May 2008 from the movie review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes (later upgraded to 11% overall) where the film is summarized as follows: "Full of disparaging and less structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political action under the guise of documentaries." Christianity Today gave a positive review movie, earning 3 out of 4 stars.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) describes the film as "dishonest" and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school classrooms. Paul Kurtz, founder and deceased head of the Center of Inquiry, called the film "anti-science propaganda" and "the worst of anti-intellectual exercises." The film has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Discovery Institute's intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills.
Video Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Overview
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a Christian propaganda film directed by Nathan Frankowski and starring Ben Stein. Stein provides narrative comments throughout the film. He is portrayed as visiting a series of universities to interview intelligent designers who claim to have been victimized, and evolutionary scientists who are featured as atheists. The film utilizes many vintage movie clips, including an opening scene showing the Berlin Wall being built as a metaphor for the barriers of scientific acceptance of intelligent design. The film targets several scientific hypotheses about the origin of life, and presents a short animation describing the inner workings of the cell to introduce the concept of intelligent design of irreducible complexity, a claim that such complexity can not arise from spontaneous mutations. Intelligent design advocates are featured including Richard Weikart, who claims that Darwinism is affecting the Nazis. The film also links Adolf Hitler's ambitions about the master race and The Holocaust with Darwin's idea of ​​survival of the fittest. He did so by using a movie clip of the Nazi concentration camp laboratory stock; as well as the statement of sociologist Uta George, director of Hadamar Memorial, where 15,000 people with disabilities were killed during World War II. The film directly addresses smart designs only superficially, focusing on how he is treated in the academic world rather than issues involving the concept itself. There is hardly any attempt to define intelligent designs or show scientific evidence supporting intelligent designs. Instead, the film deals with subjects almost entirely from a political, not a scientific, standpoint.
Smart design promotion as an alternative to evolution
The film portrays a clever design as an evolutionary alternative, and claims it deserves a place in the academic world. This "design theory" is defined in the film by Discovery Institute, Paul Nelson as "the study of patterns in nature best described as the result of intelligence." Stein said in the film that intelligent design is not taught or researched in the academic world because it is "systematically and cruelly suppressed." The National Science Education Center (NCSE), one of the groups discussed in the film, responded that "Intelligent design has not produced research to suppress," and "The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is the clever design claim can not be tested."
In the case of US federal court Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), smart design is rated as a repackaged creationist version and thus introducing intelligent design in public school classrooms is an unconstitutional religious offense. In the film, Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman denied that teaching intelligent design in science class is an attempt to smuggle religion into public schools. Stein, Discovery Institute, and publishers Expelled ', Motive Entertainment, have all used movies to build support for Academic Freedom bills in various states. This bill will allow educators in public schools to independently introduce criticism or alternatives to evolution, but many see the bill as the latest in a series of anti-evolutionary strategies designed to bring creationism into the classroom.
Claims that intelligent design supporters are persecuted
The film argues that there is widespread persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, and conspiracy to alienate God from the nation's laboratories and classrooms. The film contains interviews with educators and scientists in which they describe this persecution. In the film, Stein says, "It's not just the scientists involved in it, the media is in it, the court, the education system, everyone is after it." Stein further accused academics of dogmatic commitment to Darwinism, in proportion to the 'party line' of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education stated that filmmakers exploited the American sense of justice as a way of selling their religious views and that he feared the film would portray "the scientific community as intolerant, as closed-minded, and as persecuting people who disagreed with them, and this is wrong. "
The depiction of evolutionary science as atheistic
The film alleges that many scientists and scientific companies are dogmatically committed to atheism, and that a commitment to materialism in scientific formation is behind the claimed claim of intelligent design. William A. Dembski addresses the problem of design explanations in science, saying that "many fields of study involve intelligent design, including archeology, forensics, and Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).) An archaeologist, for example, examines evidence - to determine if that might be the result of human intelligence. "Stein argues that" There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it's impossible to touch a higher power, and that's impossible to touch God. " Scientific American criticizes film for failing to note that the scientific method deals only with empirically testable or empirically validated explanations, and can logically not use unreliable religious or "design-based" explanations.
The National Center for Science Education criticized the film for its compositional error: representing atheistic scientists as representatives of all scientists, without addressing many prominent religious scientists, and thus creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. The producer of this film, Mark Mathis, said that although he could not decide who and what interviews made him into the film, it was his opinion that including Roman Catholic biologist Kenneth R. Miller would "confuse unnecessary movies." Mathis also questioned his honesty evolutionary intellectuals accept Catholicism. Miller later noted that 40% of the members of the American Association for Advancement of Science embraced a belief in a personal God.
In his review, the Waco Tribune-Herald says "That's the real issue of Expelled - atheist scientists versus God - even though it completely violates the statement of the early intelligent designers in the movie that ID is not has something to do with religion. "This illustrates the failure to mask" how Christian evolutionists reconcile faith and science "as" perhaps the most striking and neglectful film, "and says that the film rather" quickly rejects [theistic supporters of such evolution] by chains quotes that their brands are liberal Christians and deceived by militant atheists in their attempts to expel religion from the class. "Defending film producer Walt Ruloff says that scientists such as the leading geneticist Francis Collins keep their religion and science separate because they are" follow the party line. " Collins, who was not asked to be interviewed for the film in his incarnation, called Ruloff's claim "just ridiculous."
Claims that the theory of evolution is needed for the development of Nazism
Richard Weikart, a historian and researcher from the Discovery Institute, appears in a film that states that the work of Charles Darwin in the 19th century affected Adolf Hitler. He argues that Darwin's perception of man is not qualitatively different from that of animals, with qualities like morality arising from natural processes, destroying what Weikart calls "the Judeo-Christian concept of the sanctity of human life." The Nazi gas chambers and concentration camps are very prominent in the film's narrative. In the film, the philosopher and researcher from the Discovery Institute, David Berlinski said that Darwinism was an "important though not enough" cause for The Holocaust, and Uta George, director of the Hadamar Memorial in Germany, said that "Nazis, they depend on Darwin. , and German scientists. "
The Scientific Editor of America John Rennie writes that this film repeatedly uses the term "Darwinism" instead of evolution to misinterpret science as if it were a dogmatic ideology like Marxism.
Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in MSNBC's column that the film is "a very immoral narrative," including "poisonous bullshit from the fantasy of persecution, broken and incorrect references to the fallen communist regime and their the leader and form of the disgusting Holocaust rejection of the great mouth of Monoton Ben Stein. "Caplan sharply criticized what he described as Stein's willingness" to subvert the key reason why the Holocaust happened - racism - to serve its own ideological end.
On April 7, 2008, an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr., on the Trinity Broadcasting Network about the film, Stein said that science has caused the killing of Nazi children, and declared that "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a place very noble.Science leads you to kill people. "
On April 29, 2008, the Anti-Pollution League issued the following statement condemning the use of Holocaust Films:
The Movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed abuses the Holocaust and its imagery as part of its political efforts to discredit the scientific community that rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise a cruel plan to wipe out the Jews and Darwin and the theory of evolution could not explain the madness of Hitler's genocide.
Using the Holocaust to desecrate those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and belittles the complex factors that led to the mass destruction of European Jews.
When Vancouver Sun writer Peter McKnight asked Stein to comment on the Anti-Defamation League statement, Stein replied, "It's none of their business."
Maps Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
The person presented in the movie
The film depicts several people including Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker as victims of persecution by major scientific organizations and academics for the promotion of their intelligent designs and for questioning Darwinism. Other intelligent designers like William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Pamela Winnick, and Gerald Schroeder, along with contender David Berlinski, appear in the film as well. Exorcised also briefly featured many anonymous people, their faces darkened to make them unrecognizable, who said that their work in science would be threatened if their belief in intelligent design was publicized, one of which stated that he believes most scientists equate intelligent design with creationism, religious rights, and theocracy.
In addition, the film includes interviews with scientists and others who advocate the teaching of evolution and criticize clever designs in an attempt to bring religion into the science classroom. Those interviewed included PZ Myers, William B. Provine, Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse, Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens, and Eugenie Scott.
The "Expelled"
Richard Sternberg
Expelled quote feature from Stein interview was conducted with Richard Sternberg, described as an evolutionary biologist (he has two Ph.D: biology (molecular evolution) and systems science (biological theory)) and former editor for scientific journals associated with the Smithsonian Institution. The film said his life was almost destroyed after he published an article by intelligent designer Stephen C. Meyer in 2004, allegedly causing him to lose his office, pressured to resign, and became the subject of investigation of his book. political and religious views. Sternberg defended his decision, stating that intelligent design is not the overall subject of the paper (mentioned only at the end) and that he is only trying to present the questions that supporter IDs propose as topics for discussion. He presents himself and Meyer as targets of religious and political persecution, claiming the department's chairman calls him an "intellectual terrorist." Stein claimed that the paper "triggered a storm of controversy simply because it suggested smart designs might explain how life began," and went beyond the findings of the US Special Advisory Office to claim that Sternberg was "terrorized." Stein further alleges that US Representative Mark Souder revealed the campaign by the Smithsonian and the NCSE to destroy Sternberg's credibility, although he did not provide details.
Sternberg, a staff scientist for the National Center for Biotechnology Information and also a co-worker of the Intelligent Design, Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID) International Design Advocacy Group (ISCID) group, has resigned his position in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society Washington six months before the publication of Meyers paper. The Council of the Biological Society of Washington has declared that "Contrary to typical editorial practice, the paper was published without comment by associate editors; Sternberg handled the entire review process." Although in the film Stein says the paper "suggesting clever designs might explain how life began," it discusses the development of many phyla later during the Cambrian explosion and deviated from the topic of systematic journals to introduce previously discredited claims about bioinformatics. The community then stated that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of Proceedings" and will never be published if typical editorial practices have been followed. Sternberg, contrary to the impression given by the film, not an employee, but an unpaid Associate Research at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, a post running for a limited period. Also contrary to the way his career was portrayed in the film, Sternberg still maintained this position until 2007, when he was offered to continue as a Collaborative Researcher. He continued to have full access to research facilities at the museum in April 2008.
Caroline Crocker
Expelled profile of Caroline Crocker, formerly a part-time biology lecturer at George Mason University who became the center of controversy over intelligent design. In the film, Stein states, "After he mentioned Intelligent Design in his cell biology class at... [u] niversity, Caroline Crocker's academic career came to an abrupt end," and he was blacklisted. Crocker told Stein that before the incident he routinely offered work on the spot after the interview, but after that he could not find a position in the academic world.
According to the university and National Science Education Center, Crocker is not fired; its position is a non-tenure track and its work is course-based. He taught until the end of his contract, which was not renewed. A spokesman for George Mason University said that this was for reasons unrelated to his view of intelligent design, and that although they wholeheartedly support academic freedom, "the teacher also has a responsibility to stick to the subject hired to teach,... and design intellect belongs to the class of religion, not biology.Whether academic freedom 'literally gives you the right to speak about anything, does it have to do with the subject matter or not? The answer is no.' "
The NCSE also stated that he did more than mention intelligent designs, but in reality many of the arguments were rejected. Crocker also found a position at Northern Virginia Community College, where he was later profiled by The Washington Post . The Post ' article states that he claims "that the scientific institutions are fraudulent, hunt down evolutionary critics to destroy them and disguise the atheist view of living in the clothing of science." His lecture, which he says is the same as he taught at George Mason, taught students creationist claims about evolution and promoted intelligent designs in biology classes, informing them that Nazi atrocities were based on Darwin's ideas and on science.
Crocker then conducted a one-year postdoctoral study at Uniformed Services University in 2006, and from early 2008 to summer 2008 was the first Executive Director of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA), which promoted smart design clubs in high schools and universities. In 2009, Crocker became founder and president of the American Institute for Technology and Science Education (AITSE), a non-profit organization based in California 501 (c) (3) that ceased operations in October 2013, leaving the website almost dead, after Crocker left to pursue other interests and the AITSE board decides that AITSE has achieved its objectives. He is the author of the 2010 Free Preparation for Thinking Book, which includes a preface by Ben Stein, published by micropublisher Leafcutter Press.
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon professor at Stony Brook University, presented in the film as a subject of persecution after writing a letter to high school students stating that doctors do not need to learn evolution to practice their trade. Egnor, who is a signatory to the Discovery Institute of Scientific Dissent of Darwinism and Doctors and Surgeons of Darwinism, presented himself as a victim of online smear and a campaign to ask his university to force him to retire, following his letter. When a group of citizens in Virginia sponsored an essay contest for high school students the topic "Why would I want my doctor to study evolution," Egnor responded by posting the letter on a clever design website that claims that evolution is irrelevant to drugs. His letter was filled with sufficient criticism by medical professionals, professors, and researchers.
In the film, Stein describes this as "Darwinists are quickly trying and destroying this new threat," and Egnor says he is surprised by the "abominations" and "modesty" of the critical response he receives. As soon as Egnor made this statement in the film, the camera enlarged a photo of herself stamped with "EXPELLED," implying that, in "extermination efforts," Egnor experienced more of the common Internet vitriol when he was involved in an online controversy.
Robert J. Marks II
Robert J. Marks II is a professor at Baylor University whose research web site was closed down by the University and was forced to refund grant money when it was discovered that his work was related to intelligent design. The film, through recording, compares Marks with the protagonist in the 1968 film Planet of the Apes.
The research in question is for the Evolutionary Informatics Lab which Marks was formed with Discovery Engineer William A. Dembski, and who utilized the University server to host the website. The University removed the website after receiving a complaint that appears to be supported by the university. Baylor officials then allow the website back on their servers but necessary changes are made to the website so that it appears to be unsupported by the University. The website was re-established independently of Baylor University.
Guillermo Gonzalez
Guillermo Gonzalez, an astrophysicist who had been an assistant professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University until May 2008, was interviewed by Stein, who claims that despite the "star" research record that led to the discovery of a new planet, Gonzalez was denied ownership in April 2007 because his book The Privileged Planet (2004), co-authored with analytic philosophy and intelligent design advocate Jay W. Richards, argues that the universe is intelligently designed. Gonzalez claims that before reviewing his tenure, he is the subject of a campus campaign to "poison the atmosphere" against him, and that he will almost certainly be granted proprietary rights if he does not support intelligent design. The film interviewed a member of the Iowa State University faculty who claimed that Gonzalez was denied his post because the university was afraid that if they gave Gonzalez the university title would become associated with the intelligent design movement.
Before the release of the film Iowa State University discussed the controversy over Gonzalez's tenure by saying that after a normal review of his qualifications, such as his scientific publication record (which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty), he was denied the right of ownership and promotion on the ground that he " does not show the trajectory of excellence we expect in candidates seeking mastery in physics and astronomy. " Eli Rosenberg, chair of the department of Astronomy, also notes that during Gonzalez's time at Iowa State, Gonzalez failed to secure substantial external funding forms. In the previous decade, four of the 12 candidates who came to be examined in the department were not granted tenure rights.
Opponent smart design
Michael Shermer
Michael Shermer is a writer, science historian, founder of The Skeptics Society, and editor of his Skeptic magazine, largely devoted to investigating and dismantling pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. She was interviewed for the film by Stein and Mark Mathis to get her views on intelligent design and evolution. Shermer described the intelligent design as "three-quarters of the way to nonsense," and voiced skepticism over the claim that many academics were fired for advocacy.
Shermer, in the online column to coincide with the Expelled release, describes an awkward feeling about their motives as soon as the interview begins:
For my part, as I sat with Stein (with Mathis there) and he asked that question about firing people for expressing different views, I realized that I was being manipulated to give the particular answer they were looking for me to give. I asked them both, several times, if they had anything else to ask me about the theory of evolution or Intelligent Design. In frustration I finally say something like, "Do you have any other questions to ask me or do you keep asking this question in the hope that I will give you a different answer?"
After the break and small talk, the interview continued, but the question kept following the same tone:
Stein finally asked me my opinion about the people who were fired for supporting Smart Design. I replied that I knew there were no instances where such shootings occurred. This seemingly innocent observation turned into a recognition of filmic ignorance when my camera interview suddenly ended there, because when I saw Thrown in preview screening... I found that the central thesis of the film was a conspiracy theory about systematic efforts to keep Intelligent Design creationism from American classrooms and cultures.
Shermer has stated that he believes that the film is effective in conveying his message to his target audience.
Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and a popular science writer. Dawkins is described as one of the leading members of the scientific establishment. Dawkins's admission that his study of evolution helped his movement toward atheism be used by films to attract positive relationships between them. In his review of the film for New Scientist, Amanda Gefter commented on Dawkins interview presentation presentation, including showing it "on the dressing chair, a movement that counts for degrading because surely others, including Stein, are off-the- camera, "and describes" music hunches "and" dimly lit "movies filmed with" cynical camera angles "used as part of an appeal to" raw emotions "during the interview.
In Dawkins's interview, the director focused on Stein's question to Dawkins about a hypothetical scenario in which clever designs could occur. Dawkins replied that in the case of "the highly unlikely event that some 'Panspermia Terarah' are responsible for designing life on this planet, aliens will THEY HAVE evolved, if not by Darwin's selection, by some equivalent 'cranes' (to quote And Dennett). "He then described this as similar to" spring tongue-in-cheek "from Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel.
Editing an interview with Dawkins leads viewers to believe that Richard Dawkins says that some clever designer (God) can be found when cellular and molecular biological evidence is examined. Dawkins is in the midst of a hypothetical statement, making larger points that the designer must design (and this is highly unlikely), when the voice-over interrupts Stein, asking, "Wait a minute, Richard Dawkins thinks intelligent design might be a legitimate search? "Dawkins concludes," But higher intelligence itself must take place through several explanatory processes, or finally be explained. "It is not possible to simply jump into existence spontaneously.
Stein states afterwards with more voice-over, "So Professor Dawkins does not oppose the design of intelligence, just a certain kind of designer, like God."
Claims that the film producer misleads the interviewee
The film has been criticized by interviewees criticizing clever designs (PZ Myers, Dawkins, Shermer, and Eugenie Scott), who said they were misled to participate by being asked to be interviewed for a film called Intersection of The Intersection of Science and Religion , and is directed to a description that implies an approach to documentary that credits Darwin with "answers" to how humans develop:
It has been a major question of humanity throughout the ages: How do we get here? In 1859, Charles Darwin gave his answer in his monumental book, "The Origin of Species." For a century and a half since then, geologists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers have contributed a great deal of research and data to support Darwin's ideas. However, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other believers believe in the literal interpretation that man is made by the hand of God. The conflict between science and religion has aroused passion in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across America and beyond.
But before the interviewee was approached, the film had been paired to Stein as an anti-Darwinist picture:
I was approached several years ago by the producers, and they explained to me the main problem of Expelled , which is about Darwinism and why it has such a key in academic stance when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost in many colleges to the point where you can not question a single bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will reject you, you will lose your job, and you will be publicly humiliated. When they sent me a book and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic to participate. Moreover, I have never been a fan of Darwinism for playing a huge part in the Nazi Final Solution for what they call the "Jewish problem" and very clearly play a role in rationalizing the Holocaust. So I was concerned about doing a project about how Darwinism deals with fascism and outlines the general weaknesses of Darwinism.
While studying the true pro-smart film design stance, Myers says, "not telling one party the debates about what the subject is and then bringing it to various topics at random, with the intent of editing later on to the part that only makes the points you "Dawkins said," I've never been given the slightest hint that these guys are creationist fronts, "and Scott said," I just hope the honest people are " € <â € Mathis called Myers, Dawkins and Scott "a group of hypocrites," and said that he "discussed all the questions with these people before the interview and I e-mailed inquiries to many of them a few days earlier." Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association wrote to the editor of The New York Times, writes: "If someone needs to believe in god to be moral, why do we see again the dishonesty committed by obedient people? leading scientists deceived like the intention of a religious group of filmmakers? "
Charles Darwin quote problem
To support his claim that the theory of evolution inspired Nazism, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles Darwin's book of 1871 The Descent of Man :
With the savage, the weak in the body or mind is immediately eliminated. We civilized people, on the other hand, do our best to check the process of elimination; we built a mental hospital for fools, disabled people, and sick people. So weak members of the civilized society spread their species. No one who has attended pet breeding will doubt that this should be very harmful to the human race. Almost nothing is so stupid to let the worst animals breed.
Original sources indicate that Stein's reading selectively against Darwin significantly altered the meaning of the paragraph by leaving the sentence intact and partial without showing that it had done so. The original paragraph (words Stein omitted are displayed in bold ) and the next paragraph in the book status:
With the savage, the weak body or mind is immediately removed; and those who survive in general show a strong health condition . We civilized people, on the other hand, do our best to check the process of elimination; we built mental hospitals for the fools, the disabled, and the sick; we institutionalize bad laws; and our medical people exert their utmost skills to save everyone's life until the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands of people, who from the previous weak constitution will succumb to smallpox . So weak members of the civilized society spread their species. No one who has attended pet breeding will doubt that this should be very harmful to the human race. Shocking how quickly care, or wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of the domestic race; but except in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so foolish to let his worst animals breed.
The help we feel to be given to the helpless is the result of incidental sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of social instinct, but was then given, in a manner previously demonstrated, more soft and widespread. Nor can we check our sympathy, if so driven by a strong reason, without deteriorating in the most glorious part of our nature. The surgeon can harden himself during surgery, because he knows that he is acting for the good of his patients; but if we deliberately ignore the weak and helpless, it can only be a contingent benefit, with a certain and big crime now. Therefore we must bear without complaining of the unquestionable bad effects of the living weak and spreading their kind; but there appears to be at least one examination in steady action, the weaker and inferior members of the unmarried society so free as the voice; and this examination may rise indefinitely, although this is more expected than expected, by the weakness of the body or mind that refrains from marriage.
According to John Moore writes for National Post :
Stein's quote from a passage in Darwin's writings that seems to support the idea that for species to flourish must be destroyed. He ignores the part where Darwin insists that this will be "evil" and that the care of the weak is "the most glorious part of our nature". When I asked Stein about this on my radio show, he thought, "If there are Darwin fans listening and we have misquoted it, we're sorry we did not mean to go against Darwin."
The Expelled Exposure Exposed Exposed Exposed: Expelled Flunks also pointed out that this same misleading selective quote from this passage is used by William Jennings Bryan's anti-evolutionist in 1925 Scopes Trial, but it is full This passage explains that Darwin does not recommend eugenics. The eugenic movement depends on simple and false assumptions about offspring, and by evolutionary biologists of 1920 criticizing eugenics. Clarence Darrow, who advocates the teaching of human evolution in the Scopes Trial, writes spicy egenetic rejection.
In a supplement to the Expelled review, the curator of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Kirk J. Fitzhugh cites two whole Darwinian paragraphs, and says that in the context indicated by the second paragraph "What we found was that the position Darwin is diametrically opposed to what Stein conceived. "
Pre-release playback
As part of the pre-release marketing for the film, a web-based RSVP system page is published, offering free private movie playback. The person who fills out the online registration form has sent a booking confirmation by email stating that no tickets are required and that the ID will be checked against the roster. The producers also held special invite screenings for religious organizations and government officials, including screenings for legislators to promote the anti-evolution of academic freedom bill.
Conservative Christian Group
Prior to its release, the film was screened on a private screen to various conservative Christian leaders, including American evangelical Christian writers and psychologist James Dobson. On March 11, 2008, a preview screening was held in Nashville, Tennessee, for attendees at the annual convention of the National Religious Broadcasting Institute. The Young Earth creationist Answers in Genesis organization reported that its leader, Ken Ham, met Ben Stein earlier to discuss promoting the film. They asked supporters to ask local cinema managers to show movies, and to encourage their church leadership to buy a local theater to show the movie to as many people as possible from the church.
Playback to support Academic Freedom bill
Expelled were given pre-release screenings for Florida and Missouri legislators to support the Academy's Freedom bill in those states. Such bills, often regarded as attacks on evolutionary teaching, have been introduced in state legislatures in the United States since 2004, based on claims by the Discovery Institute that college teachers, students, and professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticism. evolution, and therefore need protection. The Florida investigation, held at IMAX theaters from the Challenger Learning Center of Tallahassee, Florida, on March 12, 2008, is limited to legislators, their spouses, and their legislative assistants, with the press and the public excluded. Under Florida sunshine laws they should watch the movie without discussing the issue or arranging the vote in the future. Commenting on this, and the controversy over Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel who watched the film despite an attempt by the promoter to withdraw the invitation they had given him, the Democratic House Leader Dan Gelber from Miami Beach, Florida stated, It's sort of an irony: The public is expelled from a movie called Expelled . " The screening was attended by about 100 people, but few became legislators, and the majority of legislators did not participate.
Shortly before the general release of the film, Walt Ruloff held a press conference at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, on April 15, and announced his plan to use the film as part of a campaign to pass the Academy of Freedom Bill in various states of America. At least one press conference Discovery Institute about bills already includes Expelled playback. The issue was revived in 2009 when Florida Senator Stephen R. Wise cited the film as one of the reasons that he sponsored a plan to introduce a draft law that requires biology teachers to present intelligent design ideas.
PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins at Minnesota pre-release screening
Thrown The interviewee PZ Myers turned away from a pre-launch screening of a movie by a security guard hired as Myers, a colleague of interviews Richard Dawkins, and a member of the Myers family waiting together to enter the theater. Myers said that he submitted tickets for himself and his guests on the website where the film producer offers free tickets for the screening of the film to the general public. Dawkins and the Myers family were allowed to attend, but Myers and Dawkins both concluded that Dawkins would be rejected if those who promoted the film had recognized who he was.
This rejection of one of the evolutionary advocates clearly featured in the film created a furore when critics and supporters conducted volleyball-related incidents. Myers wrote, "I went to a creationist film propaganda film, kicked out a few minutes ago, well, I tried... but I was thrown out. Prior to this screening, Myers and Dawkins were both very open in their criticism of the upcoming movie, which led them to conclude this was the reason why Myers was banned from screening. Dawkins accuses "P.Z. is in the movie widely, if anyone has the right to see the movie, that's it."
Walt Ruloff denied that they were using playback to stimulate lucrative publicity for the film, and Mark Mathis confirmed that he ordered Myers to turn. He wrote, "Given the bad news from Myers about" Thrown "I decided that it would be better if he waited until April 18 and paid to watch the movie.Other, other famous people, allowed to watch movies.. On personal screening it was my call." But he went on to say, "Unlike Darwinist stance, we do not drive anybody away."
Critics of the film openly ridiculed Myers' taunts as a public relations mistake. Eugenie Scott, who also appeared in the film, was quoted as saying he and other evolutionary supporters enjoyed "horselaugh" during the episode. Myers said, "I can not imagine a better result for this They have shown themselves to be completely dishonest and that they are trying to hide the truth about their movie, which benefits me and they have shown themselves to be such a flaming idiot. "Dawkins described the show as a" gift "and said" we can not ask for anything better. "
Promotions
The Promotion Expelled is mainly managed by Motive Entertainment, an agency promoting the blockbuster movie The Passion of the Christ , with three other public relations firms also employed. Producers spend about $ 8.5 million to market their film, with an additional $ 3.5 million spent on production, generating a total budget of $ 12 million. Promoters target mainly religious audiences, giving lotteries and prizes to churches selling the most tickets, and offering up to $ 10,000 to schools that send their students to watch movies. Prior to the release of the film, producers Walt Ruloff, Mark Mathis, and Logan Craft gave interviews to various Christian media promoting the film and emphasized its potential to influence the evolutionary debate. Motive Entertainment also sent representatives to meet with religious leaders and emphasized the message of creating smart film designs, inspiring many people to actively promote films in their own religious communities. Some Christian media outlets promote this movie as well.
The organization affiliated with the Discovery Institute helps publish the film. It uses Evolution News & amp; Display websites and blogs to publish more than twenty articles binding promotions Thrown to attempts to pass the "Evolution Academic Freedom Act" (SB2692) in Florida.
Stein appeared on the cable television program The O'Reilly Factor and Glenn Beck Program to talk about the film. In his interview with political commentator, Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly characterized the clever design as the idea that "gods created life," and Stein replied that "There is no doubt about it, we have a lot of evidence in it. The Discovery Institute quickly issued a statement that when Bill O'Reilly united intelligent design with creationism, he mistakenly defined it as an attempt to find the divine designer, and complained that "Ben refers to the 'gap' in Darwin's theory, the only problem discussed by intelligent design theory. "
Stein and the producers held a press conference that was facilitated by Motive Entertainment's Paul Lauer. Participating journalists were asked to ask their questions first for screening and only two questions raised by members of the press were answered. One of the participating journalists, Dan Whipple of Colorado Confidential, compared the carefully stressed and tightly pressed press conferences with Ruloff's statement that "What we really want is freedom of speech, and enable science knowledge, and students, people in applied or theoretical research to have the freedom to go where they need to go and ask questions ". He called it "hypocritical in his defense of 'freedom of expression'."
Reception
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was not filtered before for film critics, and when the movie was released, it received negative reviews. The film received an 11% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Metacritic reported the film had an average score of 20 out of 100, based on 13 reviews.
The response to films from conservative Christian groups is generally positive, praising the film for its humor and for focusing on what they consider to be a serious problem. Tom Bethell, a senior editor of The American Spectator, said that "the only complaint about Expelled , scheduled for April release, is that the ending is coming too fast." Screen Rant gave Expelled 4.5 of 5 stars, saying that "your opinion about this film will be with certainty almost certainly predicted by your opinion of Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design."
Responses from other critics are negative, especially from those in the media of science. The widespread use of Michael Moore-style tools is widely commented upon, but the film is characteristically boring, overdone, and unconvincing. Others consider him insulting and offensive to religion. The Globe and Mail movie review ' calls it "an example of unscrupulous hacking propaganda." Vue Weekly calls it "anti-science propaganda masquerading as Michael Moore-ish's stupid journey, full of dishonest tricks, cheap tricks, and blatant hatred." While noting that the film was well-made technically (with good photography and editing), Roger Ebert railed against the movie:
The film is a cheerful, manipulative, oblique, cheerful quote, drawing unwarranted conclusions, making outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing ID opponents), pussy-feet around religion (no one is identified among ID people), Segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, telling a bald lie, and making a completely unfounded association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement to say "deeply disappointed to learn that the producer of intelligent design propaganda films called 'Issued' inappropriately complained against religion." It goes on to say the organization "further denounces profound dishonesty and lack of civilization demonstrated by this effort," and said the film "seeks to impose religious views into the science class - despite a court decision that has hit efforts to bring creationism and intelligent design into school. "
Stein received the Freedom of Expression Award for his work in Out of Home Entertainment Awards at the Home Trade Expo Entertainment Entertainment Association 2008 held at the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Box office and home video sales
In January 2018, Expelled has earned $ 7.7 million and is the 30th best-selling documentary in the United States since 1982, and is the 9th best-selling political documentary since 1982. Expelled i> opened in 1,052 theaters, earning $ 2,970,848 for its opening weekend with $ 2,824 an average theater. Prior to the opening of the film, producer Walt Ruloff said the film could reach an opening of $ 23.9 million for 2004 Michael Moore's polemic against President George W. Bush, Fahrenheit 9/11 , the best launch for the documentary to date. Outside ' s is very impressive for a movie in the low-income documentary genre, but it goes far beyond both Moore 2007 Sicko and Fahrenheit 9/11 .
Released ' s home video release distributed by Vivendi Entertainment earned more than $ 5,990,000 in total sales as of January 2016.
Bankruptcy and film rights
Premise Media Holdings, LP, the company that manufactures Expelled, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on December 29, 2009. On May 31, 2011, the company filed a motion, expressing its intention to sell all property and rights related to the film at auction based on bankruptcy proceedings. The rights to the film were sold at an online auction for $ 201,000 on June 28, 2011, to an unnamed bidder.
See also
- Creation-evolution controversy
- The Flock of Dodos
- Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Courts
- Root of All Evil?
- The Voyage that Shook the World
References
Bibliography
Further reading
External links
- Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in AllMovie
- Expelled: No Allowed Intelligence in Mojo Box Office
- Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed on IMDb
- Expelled: No Allowed Allowed in Metacritic
- Expelled: No Allowed Allowed at Rotten Tomatoes
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments