Friday, March 21, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

I suppose it's due ('Expelled' review)

by Skatje

Reposted from:
http://skatje.com/?p=381

A list of all blogs writing about this:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/03/pz_myers_expelled_gains_sainth.php

I'm expected to say something about the events that occurred last night at Expelled, but you all know the shenanigans involving my dad being expelled, but Dawkins getting in. Here's my impression of the movie:

I'm trying very hard to be unbiased, but that's pretty difficult in this situation. Regardless of content, the movie was surprisingly unpolished and cheap-looking. It might be due in part to being unfinished, but how far off can they be when it's released in less than a month? The camera-work was shakey, obnoxious, and they seemed to like to zoom into ultra-close-ups. Ever wonder what's up Dawkins' nose? Here's your chance to find out.

The entire movie was interspliced with stock footage and older movies. A comment from an interview about "Big Science" picking on the little guys would be followed by a 1940's-looking clip of two guys slapping each other. A comment from someone who supposedly lost their job over ID would be followed by a clip from Planet of the Apes, with an ape water-hosing Heston and calling him a freak. While they were obviously trying to be funny, it just got so tiring and distracting.

It started out going one-by-one through the people who've had their jobs affected by their talking about ID. This was also pretty boring. You hear one, you basically hear them all. They asked Michael Shermer what he would say about people losing their jobs because of ID, and he said that as far as he knew, that's never happened, and if it did, it probably involved other factors than just ID. This was basically ignored, and Stein continued to assert that ID was the only reason they were fired.

There was also a part where Stein wandered around Seattle saying "Where is it? Oh, I'll just keep walking. Where is it?" He reaches a building and says "The Discovery Institute must be this entire building." Soon after: "Oh, but it has to be at least one of these floors." But no, it turns out it's only half a floor out of a 20-story building. They also point out the half-dozen people at the office, clearly making the point that IDists are the underdogs when it comes to money. You have to be kidding.

They never actually explained what the evidence for ID is, they just tried to make the actual scientists look as silly as possible. One guy talked about abiogenesis, something about molecules on the back on crystals. Stein repeated this multiple times, and said, paraphrasing, "If they can accept life arising on the backs of crystals, what's so improbable about God?" They also asked Dawkins about the possibility of ID, and he was talking about that the designer must have evolved themselves, so if we did find evidence for ID, then it would have to be something like an alien seeding life here rather than a god. Of course, Stein took this and ran with it. Dawkins himself believes ID to be possible, but only if it's aliens! Why not God? Isn't that more plausible?

Stein then asked Dawkins to put a number on how sure he is that ID didn't happen. After saying he didn't think it was appropriate to put a number on such a thing, he said 99%. Then conversation following went as such: "99, huh? Why not 97?" "Uh, well, you asked me to put a number on it…" "Why not 47, then?" "Well, I think it's definitely in the higher range…" Dawkins looked more confused than anything in this part, and understandably so. The audience was laughing their asses off, but I can't understand why. Dawkins was kind of stuttering, but it was because he was asked to quantify something that can't be quantified.

Towards the end of the movie, it started gearing towards Darwinism causing Nazism, so the interspliced footage was of tanks rolling through Germany and piles of corpses and incinerators in concentration camps. Eventually, Ben Stein himself visited a camp in Germany and some sort of building where people were gassed and dissected. It was very slow-moving, with lots of shots of Ben Stein covering his face and trying his best to look melancholy (but does he ever not?) and emotionally disturbed. There was also a recurring theme of the Berlin wall, too. Big Science has put up this wall to destroy freedom and keep out ideas, y'know?

Before I'd seen this movie, I was of the opinion that it would be worthwhile to see, but I'd pay money for something else and walk into the "wrong" auditorium. Now I realise that it really wasn't worth the hour-and-a-half of my time. I cannot emphasise how utterly boring this film was. Half of it was annoying clips of people knitting, people making toys, people laying bricks, tanks, Hitler, and people chipping at the Berlin wall. Half of the other half was different people saying the same things.

I love a good piece of stupid to laugh at, but I was even disappointed in that aspect. It was too boring to be amusing. Don't bother. If you really must, just wait a while and find it on the internet where you can hit the stop button.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, March 21, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 38 of 38 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #147921 by jsonasarav on March 21, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Sounds more half-witted than I originally thought.

Other Comments by jsonasarav

2. Comment #147925 by Quezcatol on March 21, 2008 at 3:36 pm

"Darwinism causing Nazism" I can understand this conclusion and how it can work in a society that only care about its own "race" and genes,but what does that have to do with existence of a God?

Okay,Religion can create crusades and jihads,whats the point really?
Wait until these muslim extremist get their hands of nuclear weapons and you gonna see who can wipe out millions of people in a second or not.

With that said,im a Swedish atheist I guess but I dont see the whole reason to create debates on why God exist or not,whats the point?! you think you gonna get some answeres through a Dawkins debate,or some creationist film?

Are people really that dumb?

Other Comments by Quezcatol

3. Comment #147927 by Double Bass Atheist on March 21, 2008 at 3:41 pm

I really think there should be some kind of official response to the movie. There is nice thread in the forums here under the "Debunking Creationism" heading for this same topic. Worth checking out.

Personally, I think RD should make his own movie and call it "Repelled!" ;-D
Interview Ben Stein and ask him to assign a number to just how bad an actor he is... and then throw other random numbers at him.
Let's all have a good laugh, too!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

4. Comment #147928 by phasmagigas on March 21, 2008 at 3:44 pm

hopefully they wont 'review' this film on 'the view' ive never seen the view, just heard about it, and thats enough.

they could call that segment 'stoopid meets stoopid'

Other Comments by phasmagigas

5. Comment #147933 by Pattern Seeker on March 21, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Double Bass-

Actually, shouldn't it be called P.Z. Meyers Day Off...

Meyers... Meyers... Meyers...

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

6. Comment #147935 by SilentMike on March 21, 2008 at 4:07 pm

OK. The movie is stupid and we've all had a good laugh, but one question remains. Will it be effective?

Other Comments by SilentMike

7. Comment #147943 by Styrer- on March 21, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Thank you, Skatje, for taking what must be rushed time to keep us all posted.

The audience was laughing their asses off, but I can't understand why. Dawkins was kind of stuttering, but it was because he was asked to quantify something that can't be quantified.

The bastards. They made our main guy stutter? Right. This is fucking war.

Duplicitous cunts. How I really hope that this pathetic excuse of a 'docufilm' makes headlines everywhere. The ensuing slaughter of creationist/ID bullshit is going to be an absolute joy to be a part of.

Get those bums on seats.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

8. Comment #147946 by Double Bass Atheist on March 21, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Pattern Seeker-
Now that's seriously funny!

SilentMike-
I sure hope not, but personally, I am concerned. It certainly will serve as ammunition for the creationist IDiots (at least in their mind), and probably may sway many who don't really know too much about these matters (which is quite a lot of people here in the US).

There are a hellava lot of people who really feel evolution is a "controversy" and that we should just teach "both sides." After all, that is the target point and focus of this movie.

We have our work cut out for us.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

9. Comment #147955 by NormanDoering on March 21, 2008 at 4:38 pm

SilentMike wrote:

OK. The movie is stupid and we've all had a good laugh, but one question remains. Will it be effective?

It will probably be effective in a limited way. It will increase the divisiveness of the theist/atheist debate and push a certain group of theists deeper into a delusional interpretation of science, history and the nature of the current culture war. Atheists will be provoked into becoming more insulting and dismissive of all theists.

This works to the advantage of the Republican think tanks that want to prevent the political compromises some evangelicals might want to make with the Democratic side.

It looks Rovian.

If anyone wants to answer the charges about Darwinism lead ting to Hitler, here is some information you might use:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-darwinist.html

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-atheist.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering

10. Comment #147957 by Gymnopedie on March 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm

With all the crazy money these guys have, I expected the movie to be top-notch quality in terms of editing and camera work. Oh well...

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

11. Comment #147959 by bluebird on March 21, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Lawrence Krauss did a BookTV segment recently called 'Scientific Literacy & Public Policy'~~
The subject of Evolution & ID is interlaced throughout this 1 1/2 hour program:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=204010-1

Other Comments by bluebird

12. Comment #147965 by zoomlines on March 21, 2008 at 4:51 pm

I guess if it's as boring as Skatje makes out, that's a sign that it won't be very affective. Although I wonder if it's as boring to a creationist. It sounds like they found plenty to laugh at.

Entertainment seems to be the key to this movie. Not reasoned debate.

Other Comments by zoomlines

13. Comment #147966 by Quine on March 21, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Pattern Seeker, that was great. If only we could get a YouTube up of Stein saying it.

I was also thinking about "Dawkins & Myers' Excellent Adventure."

Other Comments by Quine

14. Comment #147969 by decius on March 21, 2008 at 5:04 pm

"If they can accept life arising on the backs of crystals, what's so improbable about God?"

Brilliant!
One ought to recognise it: creationist non-sequiturs are the best on the crap market.

Other Comments by decius

15. Comment #147973 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 21, 2008 at 5:11 pm

creationists already find all supporters of evolution to be riddiculous, and atheists more so, so even the slightest insult thereof is funny to them. -_-

anyhow...

Big Science has put up this wall to destroy freedom and keep out ideas, y'know?

not entirely untrue, science has peer review which is a big wall to keep out BAD SCIENCE. and PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC BS like intelegent design.

so yes, in that way science has a pretty big wall you gotta jump, and whether you make it or not depends on your evidence, this is science, not philosophy. and just because your bible doesnt magick you over that wall doesnt mean you can sit and cry and call foul and suddenly we will let you in, every other scientist has to do it, so do you. occupational hazzard.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

16. Comment #147981 by Jestyr on March 21, 2008 at 5:50 pm

I've been looking around at other reviews for this travesty of a documentary. Unsurprisingly the majority of them are very positive. It's unsurprising of course because the film makers only let people that agreed with the subject matter into the film. Neat trick that. They did miss one guy before Richard though, have a look at this review.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html

In particular check out the comment by Thomas Fagan. It's laugh out loud funny.

Other Comments by Jestyr

17. Comment #147985 by Szymanowski on March 21, 2008 at 5:55 pm

A comment from someone who supposedly lost their job over ID would be followed by a clip from Planet of the Apes, with an ape water-hosing Heston and calling him a freak.

Ironic considering that the [non-human] apes in Planet of the Apes are basically a caricature of religious idiocy. But, I suppose, if you see everything through some kind of fundie filter, the world must look very different...

Other Comments by Szymanowski

18. Comment #147987 by Zaphod on March 21, 2008 at 5:57 pm

What these ignorant bastards don't seem to get is that no matter what Dawkins gets conned into saying with duplicitous interviewers or dishonest video editing, the rest of us who understand what science is, can read and examine evidence for ourselves. Although I enjoy Richard's books they never convinced me that the theory of evolution is the best theory for how the variety of life on this planet came to be and that evolution happened. Anyone not devoid of the capability to critically think understands it that it did once the see the evidence.

Other Comments by Zaphod

19. Comment #147988 by phasmagigas on March 21, 2008 at 6:03 pm

zaphod

Although I enjoy Richard's books they never convinced me that the theory of evolution is the best theory for how the variety of life on this planet came to be and that evolution happened.

the 'best' theory? you know of another???

Other Comments by phasmagigas

20. Comment #147996 by dlitt on March 21, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Comment #147987 by Zaphod on March 21, 2008 at 5:57 pm

[edit] Anyone not devoid of the capability to critically think understands it that it did once the see the evidence.

Could you put the commas in their rightful place and/or correct the grammar so I understand the sentence?

Other Comments by dlitt

21. Comment #147998 by flistr8 on March 21, 2008 at 6:32 pm

I'm looking forward to posting a review of this drivel when it comes to the big screen in my little berg. My local paper knows me as 6of66 and they think Planet of the Apes was a documentary.

Other Comments by flistr8

22. Comment #148050 by PsyHye on March 21, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Wow, it sounds even worse than I had imagined =/

Other Comments by PsyHye

23. Comment #148058 by Mitchell Gilks on March 21, 2008 at 11:23 pm

This was linked from the first post about Expelled. I doubt I will bother watching it given this review. I don't have an hour and a half to watch on such dribble.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

24. Comment #148060 by Mitchell Gilks on March 21, 2008 at 11:30 pm

For someone that makes tons of such mistakes, I will clear up both Dlitt's question, and phasmagigas'.

Zaphod didn't suggest that there was another theory, he was saying that Dawkins' book didn't convince him of anything, the evidence did long ago.

The sentence "Anyone not devoid of the capability to critically think understands it that it did once the see the evidence" becomes legible if you drop an "it" and add a "y" and a "," like this "Anyone not devoid of the capability to critically think understands that it did, once they see the evidence" which makes sense in context of what is stated previously by Zaphod.

I made tons of such mistakes, so I am used to noticing them. That is if I'm right at all.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

25. Comment #148073 by Animavore on March 22, 2008 at 12:59 am

Why were no religious evolutionists interviewed? So much for the unbiased account it is being advertised as and even purported to be on the IMDB reviews. Put together religious evolutionists make up more than the atheists, many believe evolution is gods creation so they already are intellignet designers but they have the cop-on to know that their beliefs can't be measured and so keep it out of science.

Other Comments by Animavore

26. Comment #148089 by Stafford Gordon on March 22, 2008 at 2:36 am

One response to the question about aliens might have been to point out that science can't address or comment on the supernatural; why not ask for a figure on the temperature in hell.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

27. Comment #148175 by Christopher Davis on March 22, 2008 at 8:41 am

I posted a comment here earlier this morning and it didn't show up. The gist of it was that while we all can get a laugh out of Ben Stein's "documentary", we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss its effectiveness. Most people are looking for a reason to believe.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

28. Comment #148295 by timknut on March 22, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Thanks to the author!

This really made my day. So funny to read:)

Other Comments by timknut

29. Comment #148381 by Bigorra on March 22, 2008 at 8:23 pm

The effectiveness of the movie will be inversely proportional to the number of people who, after seeing the movie, will take the time to check out the facts. A movie that has the premise Darwinism=Nazism=Genocide is as fact free as anything could be. This movie is ripe to get that critical Coulter/O'Reilly/Vox Day endorsement. No Intelligence allowed indeed.

Other Comments by Bigorra

30. Comment #148386 by beauroland on March 22, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Sounds like a cheap knockoff of the style that Michael Moore has spent 20 years developing, with the old movies and film clips spliced in to lighten the seriousness of the subject matter (the Heston bit, etc.) It's tough to pull off, I'm not surprised they botched it. But it also seems like they employ the same technique to make it more grave, with the death camp footage. That's just bad filmmaking, and obnoxious and offensive to boot. I'm not surprised they're misrepresenting RD, that's about all they can do.

Other Comments by beauroland

31. Comment #148387 by Richard Morgan on March 22, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Excuse me for interrupting this thread.

MUSIC UPDATE

For PZMyers : "EXPELLED â€" another hole in the sock."

The Myspace dedicated player :

1. We saw the comet.
In "Climbing Mount Improbable", Richard Dawkins mentioned taking his baby daughter out one night to see a comet. He explained that she was probably too young to know what was going on, but since she would live to see it again (and he would not) he wanted her to be able to say, later in her life, that she'd seen it twice. I was very touched by this idea, and so composed this piece of music for Richard and his daughter.

2. Paula Kirby : TNT Truth, not Tales.
Well, it all started with Paula KIRBY, didn't it, this "Fleabytes" business!
3. MPhil : Emfill Rox!
An amazing young philosophical mind. (I asked my son Anthony to compose this piece, being a little unwell myself at the time.)
4. Past Fleas.
RD asked this question :

What would music inspired by the fleas sound like?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2303,Add-another-flea-to-the-list,RichardDawkinsnet

Something to make them seem ridiculous, pathetic, desperate?

This composition is my answer.

5. Cartomancer : Gunshots and a Wobbly.

I'm chronically tone-deaf to the point where I didn't know what all the fuss was about when Jemini were the UK entry to the Eurovision Song Contest. My beloved teases me mercilessly about it. I tried to come up with some praise beyond "That sounds nice", or "I liked the wobbly bit with all those notes in it" but my abilities fail me utterly when it comes to describing my appreciation of music..

But Cartomancer is one of our most remarkable contributors, and deserved an, er, shall we say, appropriate musical portrait, with recognisable sounds.

6. Steve Zara : Simply SteveZ.
Enough said. Steve has a fine mind, and is totally lovable.

Standalone player (right column)
1. EXPELLED, another hole in the sock.
For PZ Myers
2. Sock on the Stair Reel â€" Bullshit!
3. Past Fleas.
4. Fleabytes â€" a thredley.
This is a medley of themes which expresses my impression of this everlasting thread.
5. Fingerprints, past time. (from The Lava Lizard's Tale.) (Voice : Richard Dawkins)
6. Broken Rings (from The Salamander's Tale) (Voice : Lalla Ward)
7. DIACANU.
(Mike told me himself that he felt that this portrait was pretty accurate. If you don't believe, read his comments!)
8. Bryan English : Bryan of OZ.
One of Australia's finest rock musicians.
9. Hitchindebate.
I composed a spontaneous impression of Christopher Hitches in debate with, well, just about anybody really.
10. The Quote Miner's lament.
11. Weeflea's always right.
Guess who this is?
12. Call me "Richard".
And guess who this is?

Standalone player (left column)
Sound track â€" Fingerprints, past time. (without the voice)

http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

32. Comment #148601 by The Soilworker on March 23, 2008 at 11:41 am

Ben Stein is a conservative, fundamentalist, narrow-minded Jew who feigns intelligence. So he knows some trivial facts and speaks in a droll monotone - that doesn't give him a shred of veracity. His pathetic attempt at film shows this. I can't even call it a documentary since it hardly documents anything that isn't spliced, misrepresented, duped, or stolen (infringed).

The proposed (imagined) notion that creationists are being discriminated against and are being UNDERfunded is simply asinine. Entire MUSEUMS are constructed to house nothing but lies. Tax breaks and subsidies are handed out to religious organizations like candy, all the while short-changing actual science during which time people like Stein create such schlock.

Other Comments by The Soilworker

33. Comment #148604 by The Soilworker on March 23, 2008 at 11:46 am

Please don't misinterpret my original post as anti-semitic, simply that I hate that the showing of random Hitler/Panzer/death camp clips invoke rage and guilt and people completely miss the boat in the fact that genocide and rational thought/reason are complete opposites. When the nutjobs say that science and progress created the technology for such genocide, why not say that the creation of swords, catapults, arbalests, etc. was responsible for crusades and jihads? It is at best a completely fallacious claim and at worst, a dangerous and malicious attempt to dismantle any attempts at true scientific advancement.

Other Comments by The Soilworker

34. Comment #149120 by Big Dave on March 25, 2008 at 6:29 am

It pains me. With anything like this, I have to make my own opinion, even though I know I'm going to end up angry at the stupidity and then rant for days at my (thankfully loving and understanding) girlfriend.

Other Comments by Big Dave

35. Comment #149225 by STLstrike3 on March 25, 2008 at 9:27 am

This movie will do only one thing. Give the IDers "evidence" to point to when making their baseless claims. They will ignore the fact that the film itself makes no useful points, and if backed into a corner on the issue, will probably fall back on the "oh we're such the persecuted minority" argument.

Absolute rubbish.

Other Comments by STLstrike3

36. Comment #151316 by Richard Morgan on March 28, 2008 at 1:23 pm

MUSIC (well, sort of) UPDATE

"A Major Modern Atheist1.1 : an MP3"
Words : Cartomancer;
Music : some other guy...

"EXPELLED : another hole in their socks."

(scroll down to the Standalone Player)

http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

37. Comment #152118 by skybri on March 30, 2008 at 7:11 am

...just a Sunday morning funny about "Expelled"...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZFkH8iXMnM

"...if you don't provide evidence, expect mockery and ridicule." Pat Condell

Other Comments by skybri

38. Comment #152137 by black wolf on March 30, 2008 at 8:39 am

...just a Sunday morning funny about "Expelled"...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZFkH8iXMnM

That video is great. Probably no amount of satire can open their eyes, because they are so happy feeling offended, but at least reasonable people can have some fun.

Other Comments by black wolf

Reload Comments | Back to Top