“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” the pro-intelligent design documentary featuring actor Ben Stein, made history this weekend as it skyrocketed into place as the 13th highest grossing documentary film of all time. Since its release on April 18, the film has earned an astounding $6.6 million while only in its 3rd week in the box office.
Despite opposition from critics such as Jeannette Catsoulis of the New York Times, who called the film a “conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry,” producers of the movie said that reaction to the film and its ideas questioning the tenets of Darwinism had generated an "over the top" reaction among moviegoers.
"We did exit polling on the first weekend and the exit polling done in six states with 1,100 people showed that 97 percent of the people who were polled said they liked the film," said associate producer Mark Mathis, according to Baptist Press.
Even as the film continues to rake in record profits and defies expectations, however, producers of the film argue that those opposed to the film and its message continue to paint the film as a flop, unfairly comparing its performance to that of the high grossing documentaries by liberal filmmaker Michael Moore.
Michael Moore’s much hyped “Fahrenheit 9/11,” for example, enjoyed both millions of dollars of paid advertising and promotions in a market that was largely receptive to the film’s message of criticizing the Bush administration.
"Michael Moore comes out with a film and Michael Moore gets large amounts of time on morning shows – NBC, ABC, CBS, cable networks. He gets tens of millions of dollars of free publicity because Big Media see the world in general the way he does. Same thing with Al Gore's film (An Inconvenient Truth),” Mathis noted.
“Expelled doesn't get that, and not only does it not get that, but it gets the opposite – a massive panning,” he added.
Mathis also noted that the traditionally liberal and biased nature of Hollywood meant that comparing “Expelled” with a Michael Moore documentary was like comparing apples to oranges.
While liberal documentaries like “Sicko,” a documentary investigating the health care system, are ranked highly by critics, movies like “Expelled” are judged harshly, he noted.
"[Moore] has the tables set for him in a way that it's not set for anybody else who comes at this stuff from a conservative side. Documentary film has been traditionally a liberal arena,” Mathis pointed out.
Ultimately, however, the biggest difference between a movie like “Expelled” and many of the liberal documentaries by Michael Moore, Mathis claimed, was that “Expelled” is primarily concerned with getting the facts to audiences without bias or prejudice.
"There is not anything in the film that you can point to and say, 'This is dishonest. This is manipulation.' You can disagree and say, 'I think that drawing a connection between Darwinian ideas and Nazi ideas is not justified.' ... People can disagree. But it's not like some other documentaries. ... We didn't just go out there and interview these people and say, 'They say they were mistreated and that's it.' We were on campuses all over the place, interviewing different people and talking to different people.... Without exception, on every single campus it was acknowledged that the level of hostility toward Intelligent Design is palpable, that everybody knows about it,” he said.
“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 April 18 release, the film has attracted both praise and controversy in its challenge against Darwinism.
Comments
Agent this is exactly what you do on a regular basis. You continuously point to NAS and others to give credence to natural evolution. You point out statistics of the number of atheists that are in the hard sciences versus the number of Christians as though this should make theologians cringe. Obviously those who have experienced God are adamant about sharing that with others. We of course understand that Christianity wasn’t born in a vacuum, but it was birthed in the face of uncontrived evidence of the resurrection of a man who assumed our own personal guilt. No matter how psychologists have tried to eradicate guilt in the human conscience, it is Jesus alone who can turn guilt into freedom and shame into glory. Psychologists may take years trying to help someone without certainty when one single moment in the presence of God can completely make the person brand new.
You have to understand that most of the people here on Christians Post were not “born” into Christianity as say Roman Catholics are. Many Christians were brought up in church, including myself which I am thankful for. While Christians do take on their own sort of culture, evangelical Christians are not so out of de facto as Hindus. I had my rebellious time of searching for satisfaction, conferring with Mick Jagger. At the peak of my own existential experience in which I considered giving up on normal societal function (although I was doing fine in almost every conceivable way) I had a powerful experience in which God revealed Himself to me in a powerful life-changing way. This new found reality transcended my prior appeal to my parents’ knowledge and authority. It even seemed to accelerate past the experiences of my fellow Christian peers. In short God rescued me from self-destruction and instantly gave me a desire to preach the Gospel and gave me the boldness to do it. Now I don’t expect you to believe the Gospel because of my experiences, but I would hope that you would at least consider the possibility of its reliability and power to change your life as well. Often times atheists’ make the error of thinking that Christians are driven by heaven or hell. This has little to do with most of our motivations. I am not insinuating that they are not real and do not have their place in Christian theology or that they are somehow altogether irrelevant. What I can say is that I would serve God even if I was going to hell, simply because He is worthy. Chew on that one!
No, with respect to ‘how life got here’ Dawkins prefers the concept of ID (not that he accepts ID, but if given the choice between natural bs supernatural) being the origin of a natural one (aliens), as does Collins, Flew I am not so sure of. I think he views it more from a Deistic angle, meaning ultimately entirely natural forces initially caused from a creator and not the active hand waving of some omniscient god. Notice the difference there? Flew doesn’t accept poofing magic god, or active agent god, but rather deistic first initial cause god, and so this isn't what you accept anyway, so why would you lend it as your basis for your arguement anyway?
“What is the naturalist explanation for creation of non-life to life?”
As of yet, Abiogenesis is the leading one. Though at one time there was no natural explanation for what kept the planets in motion, or how rainbows formed or why the animal kingdom is so diverse, or why electricity and magnetism seem as one, and on and on, then came the science renissance and now we do have such natural explanations and none of them involve the active string pulling of god. Only on the perimiter of ignorance do we humans invoke god, it's entirely theologically empty. Essentially you’re arguing for gaps of ignorance and by defacto you hammer god into it. I guess in time when we find the explanation you and others that like to do this will have put god into such a small gap that it will appear pointless, but hey I’ve been saying it’s not theologically satisfying to put god in gaps for a while now. Either way, evolution doesn’t deal with origins of life, how many times must this be said? Read up on for yourself in an actual biology book.
“"proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem. Which came first, proteins or DNA?'"
RNA, or something more primitive and quite similar to it.
“From ICR….The THEORY of EVOLUTION has numerous problems….. The biggest problem comes right at the beginning with the supposedly spontaneous generation of life from non-life”
Hmmm, that’s interesting; I don’t recall the theory of evolution ever describing how life formed at all? Ya, that’s right, it doesn’t. The theory of evolution describes the processes by which life becomes more diverse, NOT how it ORIGINATED. Hypothetically the origins can be anything, god, aliens, natural causes, in the end they don’t negate what occurs once you have replicating polynucleotide’s which NS can act on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
“No offense; but I have reason not to trust Dawkins.”
Whoaah, the logical fallicies just don’t end folks. No wonder you were so fond of copying and pasting. Hawk, if on one hand you cite Dawkins and his opinion from ‘Expelled’ and use it as evidence for you position in an argument (already a logical fallacy as noted) and then later usurp that by following it up by saying ‘he’s not one to be trusted at all’, well, you’ve essentially just shot yourself in the foot.
So you don’t trust him, but yet you’ll take his word, and above all others including evidence and use it as your basis for your argument? Surely you see the logic problem there.
“Is this your form of therapy?.... You are a man who is intense about being in control.”
What is this, physcoanalysis class? No, I just like to discuss some current issues like all people. Well, you’re a pink poodle who likes to drink lemonade, no really now, I like to engage in dialog with people, particularly those of the other end of the spectrum as to only look at things from the same view is well, not logical.
“I find you dodging or reworking other issues on the floor.”
I am the one dodging here? Look in the mirror pal, you’ve to explain how ID is falsifiable much less scientific. And don’t forget you’re dodging in explaining the evidence on human chromosome 2 fusion and ERV’s.
“but also yourself that there is no God”
I’ve told you, I am agnostic to a deistic god, and if the evidence is there it’s there and perhaps, just perhaps that’s why I bother to stick around here. Besides why else would I even bother asking Schumacr for the site on the issues unless indeed I was at least curious?
“Can you specifically counter Flew and Dawkins about their comments that I posted?”
Geeeez, did IQ’s just plumet or something…..what part of ‘appealing to authority is a logical fallacy’ didn’t you comprehend? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Just b/c person X claims Y about a proposition doesn’t give it credence; the facts are immutable evidence which stands alone regardless of who’s claiming them. This is why as I stated that just b/c Newton agreed with Alchemy doesn't make it so, just like just b/c Dawkins agrees with Evolution doesn't make it so.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to mention Dawkins, whilst his views are quite prominant at this time, the idea of a universe that is not designed existed long before him and will be around long after he has gone (and me!!). As I mentioned earlier, I can completely understand why to you the universe appears designed, I once thought that to myself but I have come to see it is a trick of the mind.
Regards
Steve