Posted on 04/21/2008 4:00:27 PM PDT by Between the Lines
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” the pro-intelligent design documentary featuring actor Ben Stein, made history this weekend as it propelled full speed into the top 10 box office. It opened as the widest and one of the most commercially successful releases for any documentary film.
In an impressive opening weekend, the film debuted at No. 9 at the box office, earning a respectable $3.2 million while only appearing on 1,052 screens.
“Leatherheads,” the story of a struggling football team based in Duluth, Minnesota, and written and directed by George Clooney, trailed the new documentary film, placing at only No. 10 its third week at the box office, despite showing at over twice as many screens.
Although the new pro-intelligent design documentary had struggled with a reported marketing and production budget that ranged only in the single digit millions – a miniscule figure compared to the standard $117 million regularly burned by Hollywood productions – the film proved to defy expectations and panning by critics.
From the beginning of its conception, the film had been heavily criticized by scientists who dismissed the film as inaccurate, misleading, and dishonest in its portrayal of the shortcomings of evolution.
Reviewers were also among the film’s vocal critics, and in an article written for the Orlando Sentinel, Roger Moore was among those who believed the film would fail commercially, describing the film as a “mockery.”
“'Expelled’ is a full-on, amply budgeted Michael Moore-styled mockery of evolution, a film that dresses creationist crackpottery in an ‘intelligent design’ leisure suit and tries to make the fact that it's not given credence in schools a matter of ‘academic freedom,’” Moore wrote in his description of the film.
Producers of the film, however, had hoped that while disadvantaged and outmanned in the realm of Hollywood, active marketing and outreach with Christian groups and homeschoolers could help propel the movie, in the manner of David versus Goliath, into a box office hit – a strategy that appears to have worked.
In one such campaign, the producers of the film offered to award as much as $1,000 in a contest among church groups to bring the largest crowds to see the film.
Christian groups in general proved to be receptive to the film’s message.
Anthony Horvath, executive director of the Athanatos Christian Ministry, an online apologetics academy dedicated to the defense of the Christian faith, praised the film.
"The outrage expressed by the atheistic community at Ben Stein's movie, ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ has been so palpable you could bottle it up and sell it as an energy drink. They are practically foaming at the mouth," he said in a statement.
"The blogosphere reveals the utter disdain that the hard core atheists have for anyone who merely suggests that it might be possible to scientifically detect design. If all Stein's movie accomplishes is revealing more publicly what many in the scientific community have been saying quietly all along, that is a major accomplishment,” he added.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, gave the film a thumbs up, commenting, "I think it should be required viewing for anyone who wants to understand what is going on and what is at stake in the debate over worldviews in this society,” according to Baptist Press. "This is one of these times when you can vote with your pocketbook. You can vote with your economic franchise, and Hollywood will listen when they see the dollar signs.”
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is a feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Makers of the documentary said the movie doesn't seek to champion intelligent design as the sole truth but calls for more academic freedom, where challenges to any scientific theory including Darwinism would be fairly considered.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/
According to this, if you take into account the number of theaters it opened in, it did almost as well, per theater, as the #4 film.
Free Republic readers. SEE THIS MOVIE!! Tell your friends (and even your enemies) to see this. It should be mandatory viewing for any college freshman.
Thanks for the info!
The beauty of this is that it is doing so well despite a lack of media buildup as Michael Moore got with his “documentary.” If Ben Stein is able to at least have people legitimately question the “theory,” then he has done a great thing!
If Intelligent Design is such good science, why is it being pushed almost entirely by religious groups and opposed by the vast majority of scientists?
The ID side is welcome at the science table if they are willing to do science.
It isn’t exactly evident that they are willing to do this.
>If Intelligent Design is such good science, why is it being pushed almost entirely by religious groups and opposed by the vast majority of scientists?
If creationism is so faulty why has the vast majority of scientists in history held to it?
Both answers are that the culture drives whether religion is popular or not, not science. Currently culture is hugely post modern and secular, thus the majority of scientists are headed in that direction.
However you might agree that truth is found not in popularity but in inquiry. Shutting out discussion of intelligent design does nothing for the quest of finding truth, but rather direct it away from a possibility that most simply ignore due to their presuppositions.
Have you seen the movie?
Do you believe colleges and other academic organizations should shun anyone who dares to ask questions and follow the evidence, where ever it takes them?
What evidence is there for ID?
Saw it on Sunday - we were a group of 8. I thought it was very well done. There really wasn’t anything new for me in the movie (since my addiction to FR keeps me up to date on all the controversy!) but it was very eye opening for some of my friends and family.
I highly recommend going to see it, especially if you can take someone who may not realize the hatred many atheist darwinian evolutionists have for any person of faith.
Have you seen the movie?
Your post does not deal with the issues raised by it.
Your post is a red herring.
What evidence do you have that you have seen the movie?
Do you believe that inquiry is no longer allowed in science?
What would the assumption of intelligent design add to the process of scientific inquiry? How would you test it, and what will the results tell you?
[If Intelligent Design is such good science, why is it being pushed almost entirely by religious groups and opposed by the vast majority of scientists?]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Almost entirely by religious groups - to your knowledge, what other groups are pushing it?
By the vast majority of scientists - are you saying that you are aware of some scientists that are not opposed to it?
If they are not opposed to it, do you consider them to be “real” scientists?
One would think that since ID wants to be recognized as a valid scientific field that those that support it would be able to answer such a simple question.
Yet they refuse to do so.
Kind of gives the appearance that there isn’t any evidence to support ID.
So scientific inquiry begins with apriori assumptions that if “science” doesn’t confirm the prevailing views (evolution)? Sort of makes inquiry useless. When you decide up front what pigeon holes your “science” has to fit in, you have dogma, not science.
Evolution is a cult dogma, and evolutionists who fear Stein’s movie are evolutionary ayatollahs.
You can worship the creature or you can worship the Creator.
Make your choice. Or, as Joshua once said, “Choose this day whom you will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
You might want to sit down an talk with a scientist who is not part of the “vast majority” and who does believe in a Designer. After all, as a scientist, you surely support a rigorous inquiry in search of truth, don't you?
Excellent answer!
It really wasn't that good. (My review here.)
ML/NJ
You have not seen the movie.
Your statements have nothing to do with what was presented.
Your bias is palpable. It is apparent that you wish to silence any discussion, any inquiry into what you consider ‘settled science.’
But science is ALL about inquiry.
Why does this line of questioning threaten you? What are you afraid of? And why aren’t you MORE afraid of what the environuts have done to science? Gobul warming is killing people and our economy. And you’re worried about a few people asking questions?
That is the scary part. You’re more afraid of some people believing in God, than you are of the thousands and millions who will die from Gobul warming nonsense. Sick.
It isn’t exactly evident that they are willing to do this.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coyoteman, in post #6 seems to say (haven't seen his response yet) that he is aware of at least “some” scientists that are not opposed to ID.
If they are indeed “real” scientists, are they welcome to the “science table”?
Are you the arbitrator they will have to ask permission of before they are “allowed” to sit at the “science table”?
LOL, is the “science table” like the “cool and/or rich kids table in high school?
Just a suggestion: I have read enough of your posts now, and you have slowly but surely revealed yourself as “anti-religious” vs just being an atheist. Don't work so hard in the future to hide you true negative feelings toward Christians and their religion. It isn't working anyway.
Neither the TOE or the ID is proven as fact. That's why. The only reason the TOE has survived this long is because it science's religion.
If TOE is such good science, why is it the vast majority of people on this planet oppose TOE? Because they know it's just theory, and isn't, as well as never will be proven.
It was an excellent movie. My daughter, 14, really enjoyed it. And so did my husband.
It was well done, and Ben Stein was marvelous. I don’t know how he managed to listen with a straight face to some of the most outrageous statements I have heard for a long time.
It is an amazing movie. Go see it.
Thank you for providing an additional data point that will help me prove my point.
Your assistance has been appreciated.
I have said nothing negative about Christians. If you feel this is a mistake please provide supporting documentation to backup your claim.
Do you think that if I was ‘anti-religious’ that I would have Jewish and Christian friends?
Boy, aren’t you snarky.
Then, I surmise:
You have not seen the movie.
You have no intention of admitting that science should be open to inquiry.
You are not a scientist, you just play one.
In science there are no theories competing with the theory of evolution.
What you are mistaking for a theory is simply religion dishonestly masquerading as a theory. But calling a religious belief a theory does not make it so.
How do you know if I have or haven’t seen the movie?
And yes science should be open to inquiry but inquiry requires evidence.
Have you seen the movie?
NO, you have not.
You really don’t have anything to contribute to the review, do you?
Horrible joke coming up.
If Captain Picard supported ID would that “make it so”?
End horrible joke.
I guess you didn't read my review.
But thanks for playing.
ML/NJ
How many posts does it take to get a straight answer from someone with an agenda? So far I have asked you three times.
And you still haven’t really answered the question, have you seen the movie?
HMMMMmmmm? Do you have a hard time being honest, perhaps?
But inquiry requires evidence? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!
No it doesn’t. Telsa didn’t have evidence, Einstein didn’t have evidence, ...need evidence to do inquiry. LOLOLOLOL!!
NO, I didn’t read your review.
I thought that it would be nice to give my review.
Have a good day!
I asked a question earlier, and never got a reply. I'll try again, phrased a little differently. How would scientific inquiry proceed under an assumption of "intelligent design"? How would they test it, and what would the results tell them? Given any particular phenomonon, once the theory that "God did it" is submitted, that line of inquiry has to stop there, unless you think scientists are qualified to test the existence of God.
Incorrect.
You asked me one then you proceeded to tell me twice that I had not seen it.
Perhaps you should review your holy books stance on speaking untruths.
What you are mistaking for science is simply religion dishonestly masquerading as science. But calling a scientific belief a theory does not make it so.
Do you believe that science should entertain, on an equal basis, "theories" for which there is no evidence, and against which there is a tremendous amount of evidence?
These types of ideas come up all of the time, and science has a way to deal with them -- produce evidence. A few theories have come up through the ranks this way, including plate tectonics and the actual cause of the channeled scablands of eastern Washington. But they did it by providing evidence and convincing scientists.
ID is being pushed by political and religious organizations; its main "evidence" is presented in blogs by the Discovery Institute and it is now being supported by a silly propaganda-laced movie. That is not the way science is done.
I think the problem is that there is no evidence because ID is strictly based on religious belief, so the political route is the only one available.
There are apparently a very few who support ID who are not religious, and I think a couple of folks here have claimed to be such. They are a tiny majority.
By the vast majority of scientists - are you saying that you are aware of some scientists that are not opposed to it?
There are some with scientific credentials who support ID.
If they are not opposed to it, do you consider them to be “real” scientists?
It depends on their methods. If they are following the scientific method they can be considered scientists. If they are acting first from religious belief and secondly from scientific training, I would not consider them to be doing science. Science is defined by the method, not the training.
You have yet to answer the question.
I made an assumption based on your non answer.
And you still haven’t answered it.
So, how is it an untruth? You could now say you saw it, and be telling the truth. Or you could lie and say you saw it, when you haven’t. I wouldn’t know which is what, would I?
But you choose not to answer. That has left you open to the idea that you probably didn’t see it at all.
That was your choice.
Truth? Or TRVTH? Here is a definition from a CalTech website which addresses that:
So, as a scientist I support research, and I support following the evidence in whatever direction it leads.Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
I do not support what creation "science" and now ID are doing, which is starting with their preferred answers and twisting evidence until it fits, whether it will or not -- all in an effort to get their religious beliefs accepted into the science classes once again.
The film is more about repression of free speech than religion, from what I understand. Oh, and your Christian and Jewish friends...maybe they’re just tokens? Welcome to Free Republic.
You only proved my point.
The ID people are free to speak all they want but to be considered science they will need evidence. Perhaps you have some evidence that supports ID that you would be willing to share?
Will you concede that the academic circles have prevented inquiry?
That this tactic has prevented evidence to come forward and be investigated?
It is always this way in science. One ‘theory’ seems to hold sway, while others languish, until someone has the courage to challenge the status quo.
Do you think that only equality decides which theories get funding?
Do you deny that western science got here because Christians believed that God’s laws could be discovered and known? When did science decide it did not need God anymore, when without God we would not have had western science?
From your comments, I doubt that you saw the movie either.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. ID is religion trying to masquerading as a scientific theory without coming anywhere close to meeting the criteria of such a theory.
As for "facts" and "proven" you really should look at the definitions I have posted on my FR home page. You are using the terms incorrectly.
And science does not "have a religion." Science is based on evidence, which is the opposite of religion.
If TOE is such good science, why is it the vast majority of people on this planet oppose TOE? Because they know it's just theory, and isn't, as well as never will be proven.
Well of course the theory of evolution is a theory! What else would it be? And of course it will never be proved. Any scientists knows this.
You really need to study those definitions on my FR home page, because you keep using them incorrectly.
Did Einstein have evidence?
Did Tesla have evidence?
Did the Wright brothers have evidence?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.