Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
It was a pretty good movie. not a great movie but a pretty good one. a good review of it can be found at the supercandid podcast. In this brief review I'll be echoing similar thoughts that that ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
dj_jonny_flash and callmesteam have expressed.
1) I think one of the biggest pro's is that the film has to offer is that it is aesthetically appealing! i found the cinematography to way above par. the director of photography knew what he was doing and it made the film very pleasing to watch.
2) i just like ben stein. i think he's just one cool cat. but seriously i think he was a good interviewer. supercandid pointed out that they tried really hard to make him look like your average joe who gets lossed in dowtown Seattle and that's true. he does in fact have to ask the stupid questions and play a little bit dumb in order to get the full answers. this can't really discredit him though because he's the ben stein. he's a really intelligent man and an entertainer to boot.
3) the animations i thought were kinda fun. the one that makes fun of Richard Dawkins was a little sophomoric in it's criticism. and the this-is-how-complex-the-cell-is animation was a little long but also aesthetically appealing. i don't really even remember most of it because it's such a fanciful rush of colors. it reminded me of a demonstration that i've seen on fractals.
4) it was fun to see Biola. i pointed with glee as i exclaimed to my friend sitting next to me, 'i used to live there!'
things that i thought detracted from the film's potential.
1) "preaching to the choir". as supercandid pointed out, anyone who comes to see this film has probably already got their mind made up. there's very little "new" information in this film about intelligent design/evolution. so all of us christians who find jokes about evolution funny laughed in unison.
2) for a documentary it was overly bias. it wasn't merely about showing injustices within academia, but it was more about propogating it's own agenda. and while the bias on the opposing side is a reality there was virtually no defence of evolution. in fact, it made it look like people who believe in evolution are ignorant mystics. they criticized evolution for having no answers for the orgins of the universe and then offered none. in fact, intelligent designe does nothing to account for the origin of the universe except to say that there is some grand architect(s). in the film they'd ask questions like "well, where did that come from, mr. evolutionist? . . . uh huh . . . . well, where did that come from? . . . .uh huh." but no body saw fit to ask "well, where did the intelligent designer come from?". The evolutionists were honest when they said that nobody knows how the universe got started and that evolution can only describe what happens to life after it's already begun. not unlike general/special relativity. Einstein's theories can't a account for the spontaneous origins of a universe it can only describe a universe that's already started.
3) supercandid said that the film was a little boring. and if this debate isn't interesting to you then it will surely be a bore-fest.
4) supercandid also mentioned that the film started to lose track of itself and i agree. 3/4 of the way through the movie i was starting to wonder what nazis had to do with intelligent design/evolution debates. as it turns out, nothing. Nazis used evolutionary justifications for there crimes but Crusadors used religious justifications as well. maybe if the film had brought of up both examples it would have done justice to the implications of both theories, but as far as the film is concerned evolution correctly devalues human existence and therefore it's a good excuse for Nazism. like i said . . . nothing to do with the academic debate over which theory fits the evidence better.
I'm not sure i'll see the movie again but i'm glad i did see it. the end of the movie gave a powerful and persuasive call to academic freedom which I (even as a christian who does not like the intelligent design arguments) can raise my fist to in a che-guevara-revolutionary-style
dj_jonny_flash and callmesteam have expressed.1) I think one of the biggest pro's is that the film has to offer is that it is aesthetically appealing! i found the cinematography to way above par. the director of photography knew what he was doing and it made the film very pleasing to watch.
2) i just like ben stein. i think he's just one cool cat. but seriously i think he was a good interviewer. supercandid pointed out that they tried really hard to make him look like your average joe who gets lossed in dowtown Seattle and that's true. he does in fact have to ask the stupid questions and play a little bit dumb in order to get the full answers. this can't really discredit him though because he's the ben stein. he's a really intelligent man and an entertainer to boot.
3) the animations i thought were kinda fun. the one that makes fun of Richard Dawkins was a little sophomoric in it's criticism. and the this-is-how-complex-the-cell-is animation was a little long but also aesthetically appealing. i don't really even remember most of it because it's such a fanciful rush of colors. it reminded me of a demonstration that i've seen on fractals.
4) it was fun to see Biola. i pointed with glee as i exclaimed to my friend sitting next to me, 'i used to live there!'
things that i thought detracted from the film's potential.
1) "preaching to the choir". as supercandid pointed out, anyone who comes to see this film has probably already got their mind made up. there's very little "new" information in this film about intelligent design/evolution. so all of us christians who find jokes about evolution funny laughed in unison.
2) for a documentary it was overly bias. it wasn't merely about showing injustices within academia, but it was more about propogating it's own agenda. and while the bias on the opposing side is a reality there was virtually no defence of evolution. in fact, it made it look like people who believe in evolution are ignorant mystics. they criticized evolution for having no answers for the orgins of the universe and then offered none. in fact, intelligent designe does nothing to account for the origin of the universe except to say that there is some grand architect(s). in the film they'd ask questions like "well, where did that come from, mr. evolutionist? . . . uh huh . . . . well, where did that come from? . . . .uh huh." but no body saw fit to ask "well, where did the intelligent designer come from?". The evolutionists were honest when they said that nobody knows how the universe got started and that evolution can only describe what happens to life after it's already begun. not unlike general/special relativity. Einstein's theories can't a account for the spontaneous origins of a universe it can only describe a universe that's already started.
3) supercandid said that the film was a little boring. and if this debate isn't interesting to you then it will surely be a bore-fest.
4) supercandid also mentioned that the film started to lose track of itself and i agree. 3/4 of the way through the movie i was starting to wonder what nazis had to do with intelligent design/evolution debates. as it turns out, nothing. Nazis used evolutionary justifications for there crimes but Crusadors used religious justifications as well. maybe if the film had brought of up both examples it would have done justice to the implications of both theories, but as far as the film is concerned evolution correctly devalues human existence and therefore it's a good excuse for Nazism. like i said . . . nothing to do with the academic debate over which theory fits the evidence better.
I'm not sure i'll see the movie again but i'm glad i did see it. the end of the movie gave a powerful and persuasive call to academic freedom which I (even as a christian who does not like the intelligent design arguments) can raise my fist to in a che-guevara-revolutionary-style