| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
| | ==Summary== | | ==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 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 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. |
| Line 109: |
Line 109: |
| | | | |
| | == Issues surrounding the film == | | == Issues surrounding the film == |
| − | Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, "Imagine", has sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years." | + | Allegations have been made that the producers of the film [[Premise Media|used copyrighted material without permission]] at multiple points in the film. Yoko Ono, owner of the rights to John Lennon's songs including the one sampled in the film, ''Imagine'', sued Premise Media for copyright violation. The Executive Producer and Chairman of Premise Media Logan Craft replied, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so - just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years." |
| | | | |
| | 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> | | 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 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. | + | [[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. |
| | | | |
| | [[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> | | [[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> |