Advanced Search

'Expelled' Explodes into Top 10 Box Office

By
Christian Post Correspondent
Mon, Apr. 21 2008 03:36 PM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

“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.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
tarzan
  • Fri May 09, 2008 2:33 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
agentorangex... i know the difference between micro and macro, sorry if i worded incorrectly... i did read up on theropod dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx... saw 2 opposing viewpoints

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html

... do you know if the Archaeopteryx was able to breed with others within it's species?

... shoot me that info on lobe finned fish and tetrapods, would be interesting reading... thanks for the kind replies
agentorangex
  • Wed May 07, 2008 10:43 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Tarzan,

Re-read what the differences are between macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution is the allelic genetic variance from generation to generation, like how your parents might have blue eyes, while you have brown, or how the offspring of a black and white person will have such a variance from its parents in many respects.

Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level boundary, so anytime a species diversifies into a new species, you have macro evolution. This is when genetically speaking, a species becomes isolated and can’t breed with its former ancestor, at this point each species goes on it’s own genetic trajectory.

“but i didnt see any pigs with wings... elephants with giraffe necks”

These are examples and not realistic ones, however a better example is reviewing extinct species, and other extinct species, which lived more recently, and then extant (living) species and showing their common ancestry. For this I suggest looking at major animal groups, like theropod dinosaurs and birds, and then such examples of species like Archaeopteryx, which exhibited transitional features between both groups.

Another example would be reviewing the transitionals between lobe finned fish and early amphibian tetrapods. If you’d like the examples for these, please ask, I’ll cite them.

Another example would some interesting apes from Africa who began walking upright and showed a progressive use of tools and growing of the cranium and development of culture.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
tarzan
  • Wed May 07, 2008 12:30 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
agentorangex, i read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and all i saw was micro evolution.... plants mutating into different kind of plants.. flies mutating into differing flies... but i didnt see any pigs with wings... elephants with giraffe necks... etc
agentorangex
  • Fri May 02, 2008 4:25 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
“I don't know that it is not falsifiable, I mean I.D. is not "one" theory in the same way that evolution is.”

ID folk say it’s a theory and as such it should have many avenues from which it can pull its evidence from and be falsifiable and falsified from, just like how evolution pulls from many different avenues of knowledge and based on them and their falsifiability they and it can be falsified. How is ID falsifiable?

“is highly unlikely that some random process would lead to a concious and reasoning being like us (yes yes, it is not really random because of Natural selection, but honestly, there is no reason why organisms should have desired to form into a highly innefficient "animal" like a human being”

Firstly, you’re wrong animals don’t ‘desire to change’ in accordance with evolution, their change is the result of external forces, conditions and environmental pressures, most of which they absolutely no direct control over and due to their lacking control the only course of action they have to continue to exist is to change.

“it seems evolution is getting worse and worse in terms of efficiency and living capability”

How do you mean, elaborate please. Evolution for a given animal makes a certain animal(s) more apt of survive in a given environment, but environments aren’t static and as such animals continually have to adapt. Perhaps bacteria are the best ‘all suited’ of all animals to survive all habitats, virtually all animals are local their niche, biome and this is where they thrive, outside of it, food and resource competition makes a living harder.

“Also, origins is a problem for evolution”

How? Evolution would still be a viable concept regardless if aliens engineered it, god poofed it, or if it arose naturally, in the end evolution as a process still holds water. Evolution only seems to be a problem for those that expect evolution to explain origins, but alas it does not.


“I reject natural selection on a common sense basis, rather I can accept a form of evolution which is based and determined in "God's Will".’

Reject NS you might, but the problem is as it pertains to ‘Science’ and how ‘god’s will’ is totally unfalsifiable and as such can’t be explained in a scientific manner and this is the problem ID faces and it can’t explain the designer for fear of being called religion. So what ‘common sense’ basis reveals to you NS isn’t tenable as an explanation for evolution?

For instance, how does ID explain ERV’s and human chromosome 2 fusion in a scientific manner? Surely ‘the designer made it that way’ isn’t a scientific explanation as its not falsifiable.
agentorangex
  • Fri May 02, 2008 3:42 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
“From the brief viewing of various I.D. proponents websites that I have visited, I can honestly say that they do not argue from lack of evidence,”

They don’t? The notion of IC is based squarely on personal incredulity and ignorance. ‘ I don’t know how it could have evolved, so a designer MUSTA dun it’. That sums of the arguments for IC pretty much. The instances of IC Behe refers to have been addressed and shown to have evolutionary pathways, and yet still I hear time and again how I am supposed to be in awe of the complexity of the flagella or the immune system.

‘take it up with them.’

Or just watch Ken Miller address Behe’s argument for IC here…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A


“it seems that the anti-I.D. side spends a lot of time on this idea that I.D. is a "god-of-the-gaps" theory and what not, I have rarely see them rely on such ideas,”

How is arguing for IC not an argument from god of the gaps again? Look at how all the examples Behe has given have been shown to have evolutionary explanations and in the end Behe is the one looking not too wise in defining them as IC and he did so chiefly b/c ‘he couldn’t see how evolution could make sense of it’.

‘I think the ID folks see mass media and PR as a last resort? Perhaps this is another baseless attack...”

how’s it an attack, it’s the truth. ID lost in peer reviewed science journals? Check. Lost in court to have it injected into classrooms? Check. Last resort is to mass media and PR

‘Ben Stein said that he would love for both sides to sit down and discuss and allow ID ideas to be put to the test,”

They’ve been put to the test and each time have fallen just like William Paley’s old watchmaker arguments. SSDD.

“say baseless because they are not based on the actual ID perspective”

Well, lets hear some actual SCIENTIFIC evidence with respect to ID that stands up to testing and critique. The way you talk it’s just overflowing, so lets hear some. I’ll wait….
agentorangex
  • Fri May 02, 2008 2:26 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
"Hate to burst your bubble, but I.D. is in fact just as falsifiable as Neo-Darwinian evolution."

Hate to burst your bubble, but simply stating it's falsifiable doesn't make it so. Show HOW it's falsifiable based on it's own evidence and testing.
Chris333
  • Fri May 02, 2008 1:35 am
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
Correction: There are many theories in Evolutionary thought, but they are not so wide in explanation (at least as far as I have seen) as ID theory.
Chris333
  • Fri May 02, 2008 1:34 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Agentorange (Part 1),

I will briefly respond here, thanks for your posts though!

"Firstly, ID isn’t even a valid theory, its not even falsifiable. Evolutionary theory can make testable, falsifiable predictions which ID can’t be used to explain. How does ID explain ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 in a falsifiable manner? ‘The designer made it that way’ isn’t falsifiable and as such isn’t Science. What is the intrinsic value in assuming something to be designed?"

I don't know that it is not falsifiable, I mean I.D. is not "one" theory in the same way that evolution is. I.D. ranges from Theistic Evolution to 6-Day Creationism. My position is closer to a "theistic" evolution, and yes there are "atheistic" and "theistic" branches of evolution. Personally, I have near zero training in science and therefore I am not qualified to debate any specifics. However common sense leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely that some random process would lead to a concious and reasoning being like us (yes yes, it is not really random because of Natural selection, but honestly, there is no reason why organisms should have desired to form into a highly innefficient "animal" like a human being, it seems evolution is getting worse and worse in terms of efficiency and living capability). Also, origins is a problem for evolution, whether or not evolution deals with it does not matter, because there was an origin and that origin will vastly effect the way we interpret data and look for answers regarding evolution. ERVs and Chromosomes aside.

That being said, perhaps there is in fact good evidence for evolution, big deal!? I reject natural selection on a common sense basis, rather I can accept a form of evolution which is based and determined in "God's Will". This is Intelligent Design. Perhaps you can substitute an alien for God, as Richard Dawkins apparently has done (still waiting for substantiation of that though) and Watson, from Watson and Crick most certainly assumed.
Chris333
  • Fri May 02, 2008 1:33 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Agentorange (Part 2)

"B/c ID argues from gaps of ignorance, it’s not based on actual evidence, but lacking evidence."

From the brief viewing of various I.D. proponents websites that I have visited, I can honestly say that they do not argue from lack of evidence, but what they believe is evidence supporting their position. You may disagree, but you should take it up with them. Anyways, it seems that the anti-I.D. side spends a lot of time on this idea that I.D. is a "god-of-the-gaps" theory and what not, I have rarely see them rely on such ideas, except when they are pointing out supposed holes in evolutionary theory. This is a baseless attack, and is not valid.

"We will adopt a new science theory (ID included) IF it’s supported by lots of evidence and tons of critique and has withstood the normal testing to be deemed scientific."

I have never heard an ID proponent call for adopting a new theory, only to discuss ideas.

"But ID folk don’t want to go that route, instead of actually supporting it in court or showing all the evidence and testing supporting it then try their only tactic – mass media and PR campaigns."

I think the ID folks see mass media and PR as a last resort? Perhaps this is another baseless attack... Anyways, Ben Stein said that he would love for both sides to sit down and discuss and allow ID ideas to be put to the test, and he said if they are really as fraudulent as Evolutionists claim then they can be blown away. Why would Stein say this if it was able to happen? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding between the two sides...

Anyways, I think this whole debate is laughable and a shame. If I were a brilliant scientist on either side I would say "Hey let us discuss and reason and come to a conclusion" So far, I haven't been hearing that from the Evolutionist side, I just hear a lot of baseless attacks. (I say baseless because they are not based on the actual ID perspective, they are based on ignorance thereof, and they really really are).
seedplanter
  • Thu May 01, 2008 1:07 pm
  • : 1
  • : 0
  • Flag
Hate to burst your bubble, but I.D. is in fact just as falsifiable as Neo-Darwinian evolution.
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here