[Campion]

Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil.

That's fine, but the people who were and are in favor of eugenics and the Holocaust definitely pointed back to Darwinism as part of the justification of their ideas.

To the extent that Darwin himself disagreed with them, they'd simply say that he was being inconsistent, and they weren't.

[the_daug]

But the reality is that showing Miller would have invalidated the film's major premise that evolutionary biologists all reject God.

I thought the major premise was those who believe in Intelligence design being discriminated against.

[Paradox]

Sounds like Michael Moore type tactics. However, I don’t think that expelled bills itself as a documentary, or not completely. Either way, I won’t see it. I’ll be one of those non-creationist conservatives who will be cringing at home.

[weegee]

We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment.

He should really check in on the pro-death industry that is with us today.

It is all about a "quality of life" now whether you are terminal, bored, unable to care for yourself, or an inconvenient pregnancy.

[EveningStar]

bump for later

[TruthConquers]

I dumped Scientific American in the 80’s for being liberally biased.

So, have they done a point by point dissection on Al Bore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth?”

Inquiring minds want to know.

[TalonDJ]

1) So? That does not break the connection. He could have read from the papers written by Nazis to make the point. Just because Darwin shied away from the logical conclusion does not mean those that carried out atrocities did not make the connections.

2) Duh, it is a movie.

3) Duh, would they have even agreed to be interviewed?

4) Yeah, there are as many sides to every story as there are people involved.

5) Some in science do reject it for that reason. "This looks like it was designed, so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this looks designed." Right, because that makes so much less sense than, "It is statistically impossible so therefor it must take millions of years of random chance."

6) So? Of course they did not focus on that in the movie. Why would they have?

Scientific American would have had more credibility of discredit the film if they had not taken the time to print this weak attempt to discredit it.

[stuartcr]

It’s just a movie...

[MeanWestTexan]

Curious if they make similiar complaints about the staging of basically every Michael Moore and Al Gore movie.

[Apercu]

Why can't Evolution & Intelligent Design be compatible?If Science teaches us anything, it is that we know 1/10 of 1%
about our own world much less the Universe. In addition, when evolution shows me the missing link between man & ape -then they will have something.

[50sDad]

5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.

Boy, I had to laugh out loud at this one. It's like Hillary saying Bill was the perfect husband.

[tumblindice]

I’ve been burned too many times by Hollywood. I’ll wait for the DVD, rather than pay more for popcorn and a drink than another (possibly) bad movie/`documentary’.
Anyway, from your post it looks like `Wild Ben’ Stein—like Mikey Moore—is preaching to the choir, and he’s one of the reasons I cancelled my Weekly Standard.

[Antoninus]

Thanks to SciAm for the additional publicity for this film.

Even though I believe in God and also find Evolution to be the most compelling theory for speciation, I think Stein is right that certain elements of our educational (and especially our media) elite are acting in an unscientific manner when dealing with the question of intelligent design.

[Hacksaw]

I think the Darwinists could save some time and cut and paste their rants against Ann Coulter. Same shit, different day.

[ozzymandus]

None of these six “points” has any validity in criticizing the movie. The leftist “scientists” are really reaching to trash Stein.

[JHBowden]

O’Doyle Rules!

[Recovering_Democrat]

IMO, these objections don't seem very sturdy. To wit:

1. The "selective" quoting of Darwin still illustrates the effect of Darwinian thinking on modern man. Perhaps Darwin tried to dress up his untestable theory of macro-evolution by insisting the elimination of the weak would be "evil". But that doesn't mean his analysis of sympathy as a mere "instinct" is subject to re-interpretation by his subsquent followers.

It is absurd to think that the work of Darwin did anything but encourage those who wanted to eliminate the "weaker races" of humankind.

2. A scene of a crowd in the film was cast? What a shock--filmmakers engage in creating a scene in an auditorium and put a crowd in the building. This is a far, far cry from Hitlery putting planted questions in her town meetings. Pretty weak.

3. Were Dawkins, etc. presenting their views in the film? If so, who cares what the name of the film was going to be? Perhaps the producers of the film can throw some light on how the name/subject of the film changed. But unless the guys being interviewed weren't speaking their minds, I hardly think this matters very much. By the way, how often are liberal interviewers taken to task when they sabotage their subjects--in a much more blatant way than Ben Stein supposedly did.

4. Wow, SA is being pretty lazy here. In 2005, the Wall Street Journal carried a piece about this--and Mr. Sternberg's status at the Smithsonian is clear. What is ALSO clear in the WSJ is that Sternberg was being punished for his views--

"I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Mr. Coddington [chairman of the Zoology Department]..."Yes, you are being singled out."

The fact that legit scientists are being attacked for daring to question evolution is, as I understand it, the theme of the film. Can anyone deny that?

5. This "revelation" really isn't a revelation--it merely is an apologetic for the scientific establishment.

I'd like to see disprovable, experimental examples of macro-evolution by random chance. Faith in that kind of explanation for the diversity of life is supposed to be tenable than those of us who think ID is reasonable? Ha.

6. The last argument is perhaps the most specious. "Thousands believe in it, so it must be so." Really? What an interesting, scientific take. ;-)

These thoughts are all pretty much off the top of my head, but I did read the article with interest. SA has failed to persuade me the producers of Expelled are being dishonest.

I look forward to seeing the movie, and I look forward to an honest vigourous debate between the best educated people who hold opinions on both sides. :)

A very interesting couple of related works I've seen, just in case anyone is interested:

Unlocking The Mystery of Life, Illustra Media

The Privileged Planet, Illustra Media

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

I love how liberals are trying to push Stein as a Christian Theocrat. Isn’t Ben Stein Jewish?

[maine-iac7]

Methinks the writer doth protest to much. Now I KNOW I must see it...

These rabid protesters are going to give the movie millions of dollars worth of publicity - now EVERYone will have to see it...

[Stultis]

I don't have time to read the whole thread.

Just out of curiosity... Has NAY creationist, ID'er or evolution "skeptic" here in this thread, or any other Expelled thread, objected to the apparent multiple and egregious dishonesties in and associated with this film? Has any even expressed slight or momentary pause that the alligations in this article and other critiques might be true, or seemed to even give a damn if they were?

There has to be a first time for everything.