| Line 20: |
Line 20: |
| | Stein links Darwinism to the Holocaust, which was perpetrated in part by eugenicists inspired by Darwin's [[theory of evolution]]. "[[Charles Darwin]]'s evolutionary theory was quickly applied to human beings and social structure. The term 'survival of the fittest' was coined and seen to be applicable to humans."<ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1484488</ref> | | Stein links Darwinism to the Holocaust, which was perpetrated in part by eugenicists inspired by Darwin's [[theory of evolution]]. "[[Charles Darwin]]'s evolutionary theory was quickly applied to human beings and social structure. The term 'survival of the fittest' was coined and seen to be applicable to humans."<ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1484488</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | {{bias}}
| + | Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. [[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 were similarly "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> |
| − | Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. [[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 were similarly "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> | |
| | | | |
| − | One reviewer complained about a sequence where Stein visits World War II death camps and traces the Nazi philosophy back to the godless Darwinian world in which fitness must prevail and everything is permitted, calling the linkage "despicable".
| + | Predictably, the stridently pro-[[evolution]] [[Scientific America]] criticized the film, but could not even correctly state the name of the central figure in it: [[Richard Sternberg]], making one wonder if the reviewer was even paying much attention.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie&page=1</ref> |
| − | | |
| − | Robert Moore, a film critic from The Orlando Sentinel pretending to be a minister, snuck into a private screening, did not sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and criticized the film the next day in his article. Moore compared Stein, who is Jewish, to Holocaust Deniers and charge [sic] that Stein's linking of Darwinism to the Holocaust was "despicable." Stein states, "The only thing I find despicable is when reporters sneak into screenings by pretending to be ministers. This is a new low even for liberal reporters."{{fact}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Well respected science journal [[Scientific America]] has also panned the film calling it "intellectually dishonest".<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie&page=1</ref>
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Favorable response== | | ==Favorable response== |