Changes

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view source)

Revision as of 18:12, November 3, 2026

5 bytes removed , 18:12

improved Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Line 17: Line 17:

==Summary==

−

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms and scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as ~~a causation for~~ all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is the most prominent motive to suppress ID and raises awareness to those who do not understand or were deceived by the underlying philosophical culture war.

+

The film exposes the ulterior motives of [[intelligent design]] opponents who have taken the lead in suppressing mention of ID in classrooms and scientific journals, based on the theory's ideological implications. The implication being that if ID is true, naturalistic evolution as the cause of all life on the planet is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. The film documents why advocacy for atheism is the most prominent motive to suppress ID and raises awareness among those who do not understand or were deceived by the underlying philosophical culture war.

−

The film describes how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of militant Marxist atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

+

The film describes how the current status quo of the educational system is a ''de facto'' endorsement of militant Marxist atheism as a state religion. As a result of this state-sponsored perspective, those teachers, professors and academics who speak publicly to oppose atheistic dogma are denied access to funding, tenure and other benefits of participation in academia. The film does not argue to replace the state religion of atheism with any religion or belief in God.

Rather, the film argues that all viewpoints should be included in discussion because of the intrinsic benefits of freedom. To describe the current situation, the film uses the metaphor of a wall erected between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the film claims the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

Line 29: Line 29:

==Darwinism==

−

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as an interesting theory by 19th century standards, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. One example the ~~films~~ mentions is that modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. The film claims that armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself completely defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

+

The movie describes [[Darwinism]] as an interesting theory by 19th century standards, but hints at some of the many holes in Darwin's work. One example the film mentions is that modern science has uncovered some aspects of the staggering complexity of the cellular and subcellular mechanisms. The film claims that armed with even a limited knowledge of the inner workings at the cellular level, the idea that this life randomly designed itself completely defies credulity. This is a material fact of which [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] was wholly unaware.

The film's criticism, however, is not merely with Darwin, but also with the militant Marxist atheistic dogma that has become attached to Darwinism. The film points out that others have used Darwin's ideas as a panacea to neatly resolve the question of the origins of life. Through brief examples, the film illustrates why the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life requires a leap of faith in atheism that is far more problematic than the leap required to believe the reverse. This sets up the main thrust of the film. Darwin's theory of Evolution by means of natural selection does not address the issue of the origins of life.

Line 37: Line 37:

Another point the film makes is that science is never served by a strict adherence to dogma. No question in science should be off the table. Therefore, a scientific mind must allow for the possibility that anything not falsifiable is possible. Contrary to this thought, forces in our culture today are fully invested in an atheistic concept of the universe and thus their interpretation of the theory of evolution and the ''Origin of Species'' is above reproach. These forces are fully entrenched in academia and it is policy at many institutions of learning to brook no dissent when it comes to the idea of intelligent design.

−

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether ~~the~~ life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

+

The open mind begs the question: if we cannot establish with certainty whether life was created or whether it appeared from sheer luck, then why are we forcing one of these two choices upon our academia?

Just as [[Einstein]]'s [[Theory of Relativity]] obliterated and at the same time upheld [[Isaac Newton]]'s work in Physics, the film implies that there is perhaps a great deal to learn by asking questions about the origins of life. The film shows why Darwin's work is important and in many respects valid. That said, Darwin's works should not be used as philosophical works to describe the nature of God or the origins of life.

Line 47: Line 47:

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php Film trailer]</ref>

−

While makers of the documentary say the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth, they say it calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered.<ref>[http://wingclips.com/cart.php?target=main&page=newsworthy_articles28&pageID=0 'Expelled' Approaches DVD Release Date]</ref>

+

While makers of the documentary say the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth, they say it calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory, including Darwinism, would be fairly considered.<ref>[http://wingclips.com/cart.php?target=main&page=newsworthy_articles28&pageID=0 'Expelled' Approaches DVD Release Date]</ref>

== Eugenics ==

Line 71: Line 71:

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:

−

:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy.<ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

+

: The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy.<ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:

Line 100: Line 100:

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise.

−

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed ~~their~~ hatred of the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

+

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed its hatred of the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester as is common practice when a teacher is no longer needed on the faculty; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]].<ref>http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker</ref>

Line 113: Line 113:

The film's star Ben Stein was perhaps a bit more caustic in his response, "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ' ''imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one.' ''" <ref>[http://motiveentertainment.createsend.com/viewEmail.aspx?cID=EEA85C4C1D1CCF47&sID=99BDE890D78CA9CD8A54066AFB113747&dID=5CB9CB5A1CE688CE ] Premise Media Press Release</ref> On June 2, 2008, U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein (no relation to Ben Stein) ruled in favor of the filmmakers under the "fair use" provision.<ref>https://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0231537020080602</ref>

−

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but ~~was~~ prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in by using his rarely used real first name, "Clinton."<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref> Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views.

+

[[Atheism|Atheist]] [[professor]] [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] attempted to attend a pre-release screening of the film, but were prevented from entering by security officials. However, [[Richard Dawkins]], who had accompanied Myers, was able to get in by using his rarely used real first name, "Clinton."<ref>Dean, Cornelia, [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist (sic) Film], ''The New York Times'', 21st March, 2008</ref> Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views.

[[Theory of evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who similarly claimed to have been deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

Line 150: Line 150:

[[Category:English-language films]]

[[Category:Greatest Conservative Movies]]

−

.

RoadtoEmmaus2

apieditor, Automoderated users, edit, ratelimit-exempt

790

edits