'Expelled' Filmmakers Sued Over Lennon Song
ByChristian Post Correspondent
Mon, Apr. 28 2008 08:20 AM ET
As Ben Stein’s pro-intelligent design documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” soars into history as one of the most successful documentary films of all time, the producers of the film have found themselves threatened with a lawsuit – part of what they claim is the latest in a series of attacks against the film and the message it represents.
Last Wednesday, John Lennon’ sons and widow, Yoko Ono, filed suit against the producers of Expelled, claiming that they had illegally appropriated and made use of John Lennon’s hit song “Imagine.”
In the lawsuit, Yoko Ono, Lennon’s sons, and EMI Blackwood Music Inc are seeking both unspecified damages and a halt on all current screenings of the film using “Imagine.”
The producers of the film, however, have claimed legal protection under the fair use doctrine and said that the lawsuit was unfairly attacking and singling out the film because of its message challenging Darwinism.
“Based on the fair use doctrine, news commentators and film documentarians regularly use material in the same way we do in EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed,” the producers said in a statement.
“Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the ‘Imagine’ clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech. The brief clip – consisting of a mere 10 words – was used to contrast the messages in the documentary and was not used as an endorsement of EXPELLED,” the producers added.
Walt Ruloff, executive producer and CEO of the film’s production company, explained the symbolism behind the use of the song.
"If you really listen to the lyrics of Imagine then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want. 'Imagine there's no Heaven...No hell below us...Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too...' That's exactly what the Darwinist establishment wants to do: get rid of religion. And that's what we point out when we play less than 15 seconds of the song and show some of the lyrics on screen,"
Ben Stein, the star of the film, said the lawsuit was humorous given the greater implication and meaning behind the song.
"So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, 'imagine all the people sharing all the world...You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the World can live as one,” he said, citing lyrics from the song.
“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.
Since its release on April 18, the film has generated over $5.2 million, placing it among the most successful documentary films of all time.
Comments 
Most recent comments
star2- Sat May 03, 2008 12:57 am
: 0
: 0- Flag
agentorange
RE:I define myself as an Agnostic, though if I had to define how I view God, I mostly see the work of god as being a deistic or pantheistic first cause or initial mover whom the work we see before us is all the end result of their initial work, regardless of how it all started.
If there are diestic/pantheistic god(s) that got everything going in the beginning what would he/they look like to you? Are they eternal? Are they moral? Are you accountable to them? Are they all knowing? All powerful? Everywhere present? How would you define them?
RE:I define myself as an Agnostic, though if I had to define how I view God, I mostly see the work of god as being a deistic or pantheistic first cause or initial mover whom the work we see before us is all the end result of their initial work, regardless of how it all started.
If there are diestic/pantheistic god(s) that got everything going in the beginning what would he/they look like to you? Are they eternal? Are they moral? Are you accountable to them? Are they all knowing? All powerful? Everywhere present? How would you define them?
seedplanter- Fri May 02, 2008 5:30 pm
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
I doubt God is or ever was worried about evolution.
"certainly not scripturally based religious gods. It makes no sense to have a supposed ‘revealed word’ which is taken as authoritative dogma, only to have evidence which contradicts the accounts within in."
Agent, let me just say that God doesn't get worried or upset over evolution whether he utilized it at length or not. God doesn't have an ego complex that makes Him stay up all not wondering whether people will believe in evolution and materialism. God is God regardless of what people think. If people prefer to go on in a sensless understanding of reality, it is really their choice. The wonders of God are wrapped up in creation at large, regardless of the method that he used. His laws are written in the human consciousness so that we all stand without excuse. When a man stands before the One who gave his very life for him and he says that God just didn't give him enough evidence to believe...and Oh yeah, what about evolution? God will not be in an apologetic mood. Without a free choice, love is not love at all.
"certainly not scripturally based religious gods. It makes no sense to have a supposed ‘revealed word’ which is taken as authoritative dogma, only to have evidence which contradicts the accounts within in."
Agent, let me just say that God doesn't get worried or upset over evolution whether he utilized it at length or not. God doesn't have an ego complex that makes Him stay up all not wondering whether people will believe in evolution and materialism. God is God regardless of what people think. If people prefer to go on in a sensless understanding of reality, it is really their choice. The wonders of God are wrapped up in creation at large, regardless of the method that he used. His laws are written in the human consciousness so that we all stand without excuse. When a man stands before the One who gave his very life for him and he says that God just didn't give him enough evidence to believe...and Oh yeah, what about evolution? God will not be in an apologetic mood. Without a free choice, love is not love at all.
seedplanter- Fri May 02, 2008 5:27 pm
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
Flagged as inappropriate.
agentorangex- Fri May 02, 2008 1:31 pm
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
“You want species to arrive by a natural process without the aid of the creator, I say that he designed and created life and the process by which it continues and differentiates”
I don’t need to want it; it’s there backed by evidence in the labs and in the wild with one species diversifying into a new species. Does this negate god? Absolutely not, in fact when viewed from the angle of god setting the laws into motion from thee get go one finds the evolutionary process as a credit to the work of god just as gravity is. No one thinks god actively pulls on objects so they work according to how gravity works, rather gravity is something the laws he defined from the get go and is the end result of our universe, and the same can be said of evolution. Evolution is a natural process just like gravity, which in the end indirectly stems from his initial actions.
“Does your process have room for God and where. I am not being flippant now. Are you a Christian”
I define myself as an Agnostic, though if I had to define how I view God, I mostly see the work of god as being a deistic or pantheistic first cause or initial mover whom the work we see before us is all the end result of their initial work, regardless of how it all started. So in this manner, one could say god is indirectly responsible for how/why species become more diverse, but not that he is actively pulling string to have it occur, that much we do know. What is more divine: A) a god who can from the get go set things into motion so the universe built by the laws which he seeded brings forth life OR B) having a god actively monitoring his creation and poofing things into existence as needed? Wouldn’t a god have everything all planned out in advance and not need to look over his creation like a janitor? I tend to think so. To me, it’s more symbolic of divine action when a thing can cause something to build itself as opposed to having the builder self causes all the little things in an add hoc fashion.
“Where does God fit into your natural process that fuses chromosomes?”
Not directly as in the moment that is for sure, but more so indirectly. We don’t refer to God to explain how natural effects of gravity works. If he makes the laws which govern how matter works, ultimately his work is the end stemming cause, and so one could say he is indirectly responsible for it. Is there actual, testable, evidence which can back up this hypothesis? No, not yet and not likely ever as the process of genetic fusions and mutations are entirely natural and need not the interjection of 'god did it' to explain how or why they exist as they do.
I don’t need to want it; it’s there backed by evidence in the labs and in the wild with one species diversifying into a new species. Does this negate god? Absolutely not, in fact when viewed from the angle of god setting the laws into motion from thee get go one finds the evolutionary process as a credit to the work of god just as gravity is. No one thinks god actively pulls on objects so they work according to how gravity works, rather gravity is something the laws he defined from the get go and is the end result of our universe, and the same can be said of evolution. Evolution is a natural process just like gravity, which in the end indirectly stems from his initial actions.
“Does your process have room for God and where. I am not being flippant now. Are you a Christian”
I define myself as an Agnostic, though if I had to define how I view God, I mostly see the work of god as being a deistic or pantheistic first cause or initial mover whom the work we see before us is all the end result of their initial work, regardless of how it all started. So in this manner, one could say god is indirectly responsible for how/why species become more diverse, but not that he is actively pulling string to have it occur, that much we do know. What is more divine: A) a god who can from the get go set things into motion so the universe built by the laws which he seeded brings forth life OR B) having a god actively monitoring his creation and poofing things into existence as needed? Wouldn’t a god have everything all planned out in advance and not need to look over his creation like a janitor? I tend to think so. To me, it’s more symbolic of divine action when a thing can cause something to build itself as opposed to having the builder self causes all the little things in an add hoc fashion.
“Where does God fit into your natural process that fuses chromosomes?”
Not directly as in the moment that is for sure, but more so indirectly. We don’t refer to God to explain how natural effects of gravity works. If he makes the laws which govern how matter works, ultimately his work is the end stemming cause, and so one could say he is indirectly responsible for it. Is there actual, testable, evidence which can back up this hypothesis? No, not yet and not likely ever as the process of genetic fusions and mutations are entirely natural and need not the interjection of 'god did it' to explain how or why they exist as they do.
runningdoc- Fri May 02, 2008 1:22 pm
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
Hello Agent Orange,
So you’re saying god essentially created the process of evolution to occur naturally, just as it could be said he too setup the laws for gravity to work in such a manner. Well, I have no argument with that. Again, there is a distinction between saying he’s actively pulling strings and if he set up natural laws which dictate matter. This is essentially the manner in which a Deistic god is described, an initial mover and nothing more, but a god nonetheless.
Nope, I did not mean to say that I am a deist. The Bible describes God as both creating processes and pulling strings. That requires Him to be active in the affairs of men. The Bible says that Evil will slay the wicked. You live badly and your badness will kill you. That would be a process. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit acted in Mary and the Son of God Jesus was conceived. I would say that is pulling strings. Jesus healed blind men, men afflicted with leprosy, raised Lazarus from the dead. That is pulling strings too.
Do you believe that God Pulls strings?
Do you believe that God creates Processes?
:-) Runningdoc. Tommorrow I will be running the Indpls Mini Marathon. 13.1 miles of pure why am I doing this?
So you’re saying god essentially created the process of evolution to occur naturally, just as it could be said he too setup the laws for gravity to work in such a manner. Well, I have no argument with that. Again, there is a distinction between saying he’s actively pulling strings and if he set up natural laws which dictate matter. This is essentially the manner in which a Deistic god is described, an initial mover and nothing more, but a god nonetheless.
Nope, I did not mean to say that I am a deist. The Bible describes God as both creating processes and pulling strings. That requires Him to be active in the affairs of men. The Bible says that Evil will slay the wicked. You live badly and your badness will kill you. That would be a process. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit acted in Mary and the Son of God Jesus was conceived. I would say that is pulling strings. Jesus healed blind men, men afflicted with leprosy, raised Lazarus from the dead. That is pulling strings too.
Do you believe that God Pulls strings?
Do you believe that God creates Processes?
:-) Runningdoc. Tommorrow I will be running the Indpls Mini Marathon. 13.1 miles of pure why am I doing this?
agentorangex- Fri May 02, 2008 1:13 pm
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
Runningdoc,
“you dont have to turn to being negative here do you?”
I am not being, nor am I trying to be negative, I am simply stating a fact. Saying ‘god made it that way’ in regards to anything, but for our discussion as it related to human chromosome 2 fusion is entirely unfalsifiable and as such isn’t scientific.
“There, again. I am not saying that anyone is falsifying anything. ( although the guy that made up that ontology recapitulates philogeny did fudge his drawings)”
No, heckles embryos have NOTHING to do with the evidence on human chromosome 2 fusion. We are not talking about ‘deliberately falsifying something’ (or attempting to lie or make something appear as it genuinely isn’t) that is NOT the same thing as saying a proposition is ‘falsifiable’. For something to be ‘falsifiable’ loosely means it has the opportunity, based on evidence and testing, to be shown either false or true, it has nothing to do with a person fabricating drawings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
“I would just say that If the chromosomes fused according to a natural law or process, is was a natural law or process designed and governed by God.’
As would I, but this is a stark contrast to saying ‘god by his divine action pulled strings in the moment and actively to bring about such fusions, there lies the distinction.
“You want species to arrive by a natural process without the aid of the creator, I say that he designed and created life and the process by which it continues and differentiates”
So you’re saying god essentially created the process of evolution to occur naturally, just as it could be said he too setup the laws for gravity to work in such a manner. Well, I have no argument with that. Again, there is a distinction between saying he’s actively pulling strings and if he set up natural laws which dictate matter. This is essentially the manner in which a Deistic god is described, an initial mover and nothing more, but a god nonetheless.
“you dont have to turn to being negative here do you?”
I am not being, nor am I trying to be negative, I am simply stating a fact. Saying ‘god made it that way’ in regards to anything, but for our discussion as it related to human chromosome 2 fusion is entirely unfalsifiable and as such isn’t scientific.
“There, again. I am not saying that anyone is falsifying anything. ( although the guy that made up that ontology recapitulates philogeny did fudge his drawings)”
No, heckles embryos have NOTHING to do with the evidence on human chromosome 2 fusion. We are not talking about ‘deliberately falsifying something’ (or attempting to lie or make something appear as it genuinely isn’t) that is NOT the same thing as saying a proposition is ‘falsifiable’. For something to be ‘falsifiable’ loosely means it has the opportunity, based on evidence and testing, to be shown either false or true, it has nothing to do with a person fabricating drawings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
“I would just say that If the chromosomes fused according to a natural law or process, is was a natural law or process designed and governed by God.’
As would I, but this is a stark contrast to saying ‘god by his divine action pulled strings in the moment and actively to bring about such fusions, there lies the distinction.
“You want species to arrive by a natural process without the aid of the creator, I say that he designed and created life and the process by which it continues and differentiates”
So you’re saying god essentially created the process of evolution to occur naturally, just as it could be said he too setup the laws for gravity to work in such a manner. Well, I have no argument with that. Again, there is a distinction between saying he’s actively pulling strings and if he set up natural laws which dictate matter. This is essentially the manner in which a Deistic god is described, an initial mover and nothing more, but a god nonetheless.
runningdoc- Fri May 02, 2008 12:55 pm
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
Hey AgentOrange, Now, you dont have to turn to being negative here do you? :-)
I am capable of comprehending lots of things. Graduate school has a way of improving a fellows reading skills.
You don’t get it do you? You can’t falsify a statement like ‘god fused the chromosomes just so it would appear to make evolution make sense’
Does it make sense to inject a god/super natural agent into something which can be explained by natural laws and processes?
There, again. I am not saying that anyone is falsifying anything. ( although the guy that made up that ontology recapitulates philogeny did fudge his drawings) I am not contesting the idea that those chromosomes are fused.
I would just say that If the chromosomes fused according to a natural law or process, is was a natural law or process designed and governed by God.
We keep circling around the same kind of idea. You want species to arrive by a natural process without the aid of the creator, I say that he designed and created life and the process by which it continues and differentiates.
Does your process have room for God and where. I am not being flippant now. Are you a Christian. I dont ask that because you believe in evolution. I am fully convinced that the only thing required to go to heaven is a firm understanding of John 3:16 and the desire to repent of sin and accept Christ as Lord and Savior. So in asking my question, I am not assuming that you are or are not a Christian.
So back to the question. Where does God fit into your natural process that fuses chromosomes?
I am enjoying this conversation by the way. runningdoc
I am capable of comprehending lots of things. Graduate school has a way of improving a fellows reading skills.
You don’t get it do you? You can’t falsify a statement like ‘god fused the chromosomes just so it would appear to make evolution make sense’
Does it make sense to inject a god/super natural agent into something which can be explained by natural laws and processes?
There, again. I am not saying that anyone is falsifying anything. ( although the guy that made up that ontology recapitulates philogeny did fudge his drawings) I am not contesting the idea that those chromosomes are fused.
I would just say that If the chromosomes fused according to a natural law or process, is was a natural law or process designed and governed by God.
We keep circling around the same kind of idea. You want species to arrive by a natural process without the aid of the creator, I say that he designed and created life and the process by which it continues and differentiates.
Does your process have room for God and where. I am not being flippant now. Are you a Christian. I dont ask that because you believe in evolution. I am fully convinced that the only thing required to go to heaven is a firm understanding of John 3:16 and the desire to repent of sin and accept Christ as Lord and Savior. So in asking my question, I am not assuming that you are or are not a Christian.
So back to the question. Where does God fit into your natural process that fuses chromosomes?
I am enjoying this conversation by the way. runningdoc
agentorangex- Fri May 02, 2008 10:20 am
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
‘So the choice is between a God who can choose to fuse chromosomes or not, or choose to make us stand upright or not, and a random process.”
You don’t get it do you? You can’t falsify a statement like ‘god fused the chromosomes just so it would appear to make evolution make sense’. There is no way to falsify any way the supernatural agent could have fused them, whether they were just 2 chromosomes, 4 chromosomes, or any possible combination, in the end it can’t be falsified and as such isn’t science. Does it make sense to inject a god/super natural agent into something which can be explained by natural laws and processes? No, it most certainly doesn’t, it only adds more that must be explained. IE, if one assumes the ‘designer did it’ and it wasn’t the result of a natural fusion then one must also explain HOW the designer did it, and how he overcame many issues which stem from the fusing of the chromosomes.
You don’t get it do you? You can’t falsify a statement like ‘god fused the chromosomes just so it would appear to make evolution make sense’. There is no way to falsify any way the supernatural agent could have fused them, whether they were just 2 chromosomes, 4 chromosomes, or any possible combination, in the end it can’t be falsified and as such isn’t science. Does it make sense to inject a god/super natural agent into something which can be explained by natural laws and processes? No, it most certainly doesn’t, it only adds more that must be explained. IE, if one assumes the ‘designer did it’ and it wasn’t the result of a natural fusion then one must also explain HOW the designer did it, and how he overcame many issues which stem from the fusing of the chromosomes.
agentorangex- Fri May 02, 2008 10:16 am
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
Runningdoc,
“Why fuse them if he didn’t have to?”
Yes, exactly! But more to the point, why would he intentionally make more evidence, which reaffirms evolution and common ancestry when he doesn’t have to, especially when such acts contradict his very own supposed ‘revealed words’? It’s not logical to assume A) he inspired such holly books and B) at the same time left evidence which contradicts it. To assume he did such a thing is counter intuitive and not logical from his or our point of view. What’s more is such genetic mutations are totally NATURAL, they occur and are observed in animals all the time, so it again it makes no sense to inject a supernatural deity into a natural occurrence or phenomenon to explain its origins. It would be like injecting god in how to explain how/why hurricanes form when they are the end result of natural causes.
Put yourself in gods shoes, does it make sense to make MORE evidence FOR evolution and common ancestry, especially when the very acts contradict his supposed revealed words via scriptures? No, it makes no logical sense at all and yet you’re advocating this as an explanation? Regardless, using a supernatural agent to explain the origins of the evidence for Human Chromosome 2 fusion is utterly wrong and not scientific as its not falsifiable. There is no way to falsify how a supernatural agent could have fused them and as such it’s a bogus answer and why it’s not Science.
Seedplanter,
“I doubt God is or ever was worried about evolution.”
In the abstract meaning of a Deistic god, sure, but certainly not scripturally based religious gods. It makes no sense to have a supposed ‘revealed word’ which is taken as authoritative dogma, only to have evidence which contradicts the accounts within in. Of course this too depends on ones interpretation of certain
“Why fuse them if he didn’t have to?”
Yes, exactly! But more to the point, why would he intentionally make more evidence, which reaffirms evolution and common ancestry when he doesn’t have to, especially when such acts contradict his very own supposed ‘revealed words’? It’s not logical to assume A) he inspired such holly books and B) at the same time left evidence which contradicts it. To assume he did such a thing is counter intuitive and not logical from his or our point of view. What’s more is such genetic mutations are totally NATURAL, they occur and are observed in animals all the time, so it again it makes no sense to inject a supernatural deity into a natural occurrence or phenomenon to explain its origins. It would be like injecting god in how to explain how/why hurricanes form when they are the end result of natural causes.
Put yourself in gods shoes, does it make sense to make MORE evidence FOR evolution and common ancestry, especially when the very acts contradict his supposed revealed words via scriptures? No, it makes no logical sense at all and yet you’re advocating this as an explanation? Regardless, using a supernatural agent to explain the origins of the evidence for Human Chromosome 2 fusion is utterly wrong and not scientific as its not falsifiable. There is no way to falsify how a supernatural agent could have fused them and as such it’s a bogus answer and why it’s not Science.
Seedplanter,
“I doubt God is or ever was worried about evolution.”
In the abstract meaning of a Deistic god, sure, but certainly not scripturally based religious gods. It makes no sense to have a supposed ‘revealed word’ which is taken as authoritative dogma, only to have evidence which contradicts the accounts within in. Of course this too depends on ones interpretation of certain
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.
Most Commented Articles
- Planned Parenthood Promotes Mother's Day Abortions, Draws Protests
- University Employee Suspended Over 'Anti-Gay' Column
- New York Court Recognizes Foreign Gay 'Marriages'
- 'Lost' Christians Greatest Crisis in American Church, says Author
- 'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States
- Evangelical Writers Challenged to Avoid Alienating the Unchurched
- Pastors Encouraged to Challenge IRS Ban on Political Preaching
- 'Expelled' Filmmakers Claim 'Over the Top' Success
- Gay Penguin Tale Tops List of 'Challenged' Books
- Film on Billy Graham’s Life in Production
Most Popular
The CP Daily e-Newsletter
Enter your e-mail address to get the latest in Christian news delivered to your inbox every day!
- Mother's Day Celebration Reaches 100th Anniversary
- Christians Worldwide Mark 4th Global Day of Prayer
- Planned Parenthood Promotes Mother's Day Abortions, Draws Protests
- 'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States
- Franklin Graham Visits China Ahead of Olympics
- Pastors Encouraged to Challenge IRS Ban on Political Preaching
- Michigan Court Rules in Favor of Marriage
- 'Lost' Christians Greatest Crisis in American Church, says Author
Today's Headlines
- Film on Billy Graham’s Life in Production
- Gay Penguin Tale Tops List of 'Challenged' Books
- 'Expelled' Filmmakers Claim 'Over the Top' Success
- Stanford Legal Group Defends 'Expelled' Against Lawsuit
- 'Expelled' Correct on Darwin, Hitler Link, Says Christian Group
Other entertainment News
Featured Advertiser Links
- 1031 Exchange Attorney
- Digital Praise - Completely Redesigned Dance Game with All Christian Music!
- Online Degrees from Accredited Colleges and Seminaries.
- Life Changes.. So Should your Life Insurance
- Christian Car-Boat-House Donations
- Deographics:Best Website Design
Custom Web Development, Get Your Free Quote Now.
- Christian Internet Broadcasting Network - Sermons, Ministry Resources,Movie,Worship,UCC video.
- Apostolos Campus Ministry
- Financial Freedom Change Your Financial State in 2008 100% Automated
- Christian Tshirt Printing
- Partners:
-
Not 'they' he/she/it, singular. Depends how they are viewed (matter/energy, then yes), their actions certainly are, but their temporal timely existence no.
“Are they moral?”
Non-factor. Deists and pantheists consider god to be indifferent to the affairs of the going ons in the universe. To be ‘moral’, said god would have to exert this by action actively, or indirectly and favoring certain outcomes and our view of this of course would be viewed according to what we find 'moral'. And since deists don’t accept such notions god can’t be said to be acting morally or not morally with regards to the state of the universes. It just ‘is’.
“Are you accountable to them?”
Like is there some moral debt? No. There is no emotional guilt trip laid on by the notion of deist god, he/she/it simply is the initial mover, I guess you could feel thankful to some extent, but no unwarranted guilt as religions tend to do.
“Are they all knowing? All powerful?”
Knowing, no, at least not in the abstract. Deist consider god to be essentially an initially mover and not much more than that. He’s not some super duper magical proofing thing which acts actively giving preferential treatment to certain people or parties, he is largely (or completely) indifferent of the affairs of what goes on in the universe caused from his action.
“Everywhere present?”
No, essentially initial mover and little else.
“How would you define them?”
‘ natures god’ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism