I've been accused of refusing to review Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled," a defense of Creationism, because of my belief in the theory of evolution. Here is my response.
Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away two of the wrong answers. Now you are faced with two choices: (A) Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or (B) Intelligent Design.
Because this is a special edition of the program, you can use a Hotline to telephone every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer (A). A million bucks hangs in the balance. The clock is ticking. You could use the money. Which do you choose? You, a firm believer in the Constitution, are not intimidated and exercise your freedom of speech. You choose (B).
Squaaawk!!! The klaxon horn sounds. You have lost. Outraged, you file suit against the program, charging it is biased and has denied a hearing for your belief. Your suit argues that the "correct" answer was chosen because of a prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, despite the fact that .025 of one percent of all scientists support it. You call for (B) to be discussed in schools as an alternative theory to (A).
Your rights have been violated. You're at wit's end. You think perhaps the field of Indie Documentaries offers you hope. You accept a position at the Institute of Undocumented Documentaries in Dallas, Texas. This Institute teaches that the rules of the "$64,000 Question" are the only valid game show rules. All later game shows must follow them literally. The "$64,000 Question" came into existence in 1955. False evidence for earlier game shows has been refuted by scientists at the Institute.
You look for a documentary subject. You know you cannot hope to find backing from the Main Stream Media, because they all fear reprisals from the powerful Game Show Establishment. You seek a cause that parallels your own dilemma, and also illustrates an offense against the Freedom of Speech. Your attention falls on the persecution of Intelligent Design advocates like you, who have been banished from Main Stream Academia.
This looks like your ideal subject. But where can you find financing for such a documentary? You discover a small, promising production company named Premise Media. You like the sound of that word premise. It sounds like a plausible alternative to the word theory. To confirm this, you look both up in your dictionary:
premise noun. A previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion: if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true. e.g., if God exists, then he created everything.
theory noun. A system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. e.g., Darwin's theory of evolution.
Your point exactly! You do a web search for Premise Media. Its co-founder, Walt Ruloff, has observed, "the scientific and academic communities were deeply resistant to innovation, in this case innovation that might revise Darwin's theory that random mutation and natural selection drive all variation in life forms." You could not agree more. Darwin's theory has been around for 150 years, and is stubbornly entrenched. This is a time for innovation, for drawing on fresh theories that life and the universe were intelligently created in recent times, perhaps within the last 10,000 years. How to account for dinosaur fossils? Obviously, dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as human beings.
Dinosaurs walk the earth at the same time as Alley Oop.
Ben Stein, you are growing more excited. You continue your research into Premise Media. Its CEO, A. Logan Craft, once observed that questions about the origin of Earth and its life forms "are answered very differently by secularists and people who hold religious beliefs." Can you believe your eyes? Craft has depended upon one of your own favorite logical practices, the principle of the excluded middle! This is too good to be true.
By his premise no secularists believe in Intelligent Design, and no people with religious beliefs subscribe to Darwin's theory. If there are people with religious beliefs who agree with Darwin (Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists, for example) they are mistaken because they do not subscribe to A. Logan Craft's religious beliefs.
He is certainly right about secularists. You think it's a shame he's right, because then the 1968 Supreme Court decision was correct, and Tennessee's anti-evolution law was "an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account, taken literally." Therefore, according to the Court, ID was a religious belief and did not belong in a science classroom but in a theology classroom. This clearly would be wrong, because the new approach to teaching ID in schools omits any reference whatsoever to religion. It depends entirely on the findings of scientists who are well-respected within A. Logan Craft's religious tradition. These scientists of course are perfectly free to be secularists, although almost every single one seems to be a fundamentalist Christian. This is America.
You meet with the people at Premise Media. It is a meeting of the minds. At a pitch meeting, they are receptive to your ideas, although with the proviso that you should change the proposed title of your film, "From Darwin to Hitler," because that might limit the market to those who had heard of neither, or only one.
You and Premise Media agreed that the case for ID had not always been argued very well in the past. For example, a photograph of a human footprint overlapping a dinosaur track (proof that Man walked the Earth side by side with dinosaurs) has been questioned by secularists, who say the footprint looks more like the print of a running shoe. If you studied it carefully, it could be argued that they had a point, although skewed by their secularist bias.
What was needed was better use of photographic evidence. For example, in your film, "eXpelled: no intelligence allowed," you document the story of Guillermo Gonzales, who was denied tenure at Iowa State because of his personal premises, after 400 professors signed a petition opposing "all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor." Gonzales was forced to accept employment at Grove City College, an evangelical Christian school in Grove City, Pennsylvania.
In documenting the secularist hysteria and outrage against Gonzales, you use more convincing photographic evidence than the footprint. For example, you use footage showing a newsstand selling copies of the New York Post with this front page headline:
CRISIS:
1. Creationist on the loose
2. Support the Petition
3.Stop Gonzales
The typographical design of the New York Post logo, the cars and store signs in the background, and the clothing of the people in the street establish without question that this footage was filmed in the late 1940s. Gonzales was born in 1963. So your film would prove beyond doubt that his enemies walked the Earth with his parents.
Charles Darwin, caught in the act of evolving from a monkey
Gonzales, trained as an astronomer, cited as proof of Intelligent Design that "Earth is in a prime location for observing the universe." Thus he refutes the theory of elitist secularist academia that the universe "does not have an edge nor center, just as the Earth's surface does not have an edge or center." Since all you have to do is look up at the sky to realize that the whole universe is right up there to be seen, the secularists fly in the face of common sense. Yet for stating such an obvious premise, Gonzales was opposed for tenure at Iowa State. That hit home, Ben Stein. He was a victim like you.
You release your film "eXpelled."As you fully expect from all your experience, it is rejected almost unanimously by the MSM. It receives an 8% rating on the TomatoMeter, earning it a place on the list of the worst-reviewed films of all time. In a review not catalogued by Tomatoes, ChristianAnwers.net writes that your film "has made Ben Stein the new hero of believers in God everywhere, and has landed a smart right cross to the protruding jaw of evolution's elite."
Again, the useful excluded middle. Those for whom Ben Stein is not a hero are not believers in God. It also follows that the phrase "believers in God everywhere" does not extend to believers in God who agree with Darwin. So ChristanAnswers has excluded two middles at one fell stroke.
Let's hope that word doesn't get back to the bosses of the critic named "Yo" at hollywoodjesus.com. Yo takes a chance by saying:
This creator could have been anything of intelligence, including aliens. Intelligent Design is a scientific movement, not a religious one, a fact stated more than once in interviews in this film. Unfortunately, those statements are constantly ignored as 'Expelled' continually brings up the question of God's existence and thereby equates the movement with a belief in God.
And right there, Ben Stein, we can clearly see Yo's error. He has included the middle.
Here is Stein's most urgent question: "How does something that is not life turn into something that is?"
Stein poses this stumper to a jolly British professor who seems direct from Monty Python. He thinks there's a "very good chance" that life might have started with molecules on crystals, which have a tendency to mutate. Cut to a shot of a turbaned crystal-ball gazer. Stein dubs them "joy riding crystals." He wonders what the odds would be of life starting that way.
"You would have to have a minimum of 250 proteins to provide minimal life functions," an ID defender explains. We see an animated cartoon of the Darwinian scientist Richard Dawkins pulling at a slot machine and lining up--three in a row! Not so fast there, "Lucky" Dawkins! The camera pulls back to show one-armed bandits stretching into infinity. To win, he'd have to hit the jackpot about a gazillion times in a row. An Intelligent Design advocate estimates a streak like that would take a trillion, trillion, trillion tries. (That number is a fair piece larger than 3 trillion.)
Quite a joy ride. ID's argument against the crystal theory seems like a new version of its classic argument, "How could an eye evolve without knowing there was anything to see?" Very easily, apparently, because various forms of eyes have evolved 26 different times that scientists know about, and they can explain how it happened. So can I. So can you if you understand Darwinian principles.
Anyway, the slot machine conundrum is based on an ignorance of both math and gambling. From math we know that the odds of winning a coin toss are exactly the same every time. The coin doesn't remember the last try. Hey, sometimes you get lucky. That's why casinos stay in business.
The odds of winning on a single number at roulette are 37 to 1. The odds of winning a second time in a row are also 37 to 1, because the table doesn't know who you are. Every single winning roll beats the odds of 37-to-1. And on and on. The more times in a row you win, the more times you face 37-1 against you. If Russian Roulette were played with a gun containing 37 bullets and one empty chamber, it would quickly lose most of its allure--by a process explained, oddly enough, by Darwin.
Still, in July 1891 at Monte Carlo, the same man broke the 100,000 franc bank at a roulette table three times. Wikipedia reports, "A man named Charles Wells won 23 times out of 30 successive spins of the wheel...Despite hiring private detectives the Casino never discovered Wells's system. Wells later admitted it was just a lucky streak. His system was the high-risk martingale, doubling the stake to make up losses."
The odds against Wells doing that are pretty high. But as every gambler knows, sometimes you do actually hit a number. You don't have to do it a trillion trillion trillion times to be a winner. You only have to do it once. This is explained by Darwin. If you are playing at a table with other gamblers and you win $100 and none of them do, you are just that much better able to outlast them as competitors. When the casino closes, one person at that table must have won more than any of the others. That's why casinos never close. Of course if you gamble long enough, you will eventually lose back more than the others. Your poor spouse tells you this. You know it is true.
But tonight you feel lucky. If you leave the table still holding your pot, you could become as rich as Warren Buffett. Somebody has to. Look at Warren Buffett. Evolution involves holding onto your winnings and investing them wisely. You don't even have to know to how to hold onto your winnings. Evolution does it for you; it is the bank in which useful genetic mutations deposit themselves. There is a very slow rate of return, but it's compounded. At the end of one eon, you get your bank statement and find your pittance has grown into an orang utan. At the end of the next eon, it has grown into Charles Darwin. Scientists, at least 99.875 percent of them, believe that in the long run only useful mutations deposit in this bank. Those mutations with no use, or a negative effect, squander their savings in a long-running bunko game, and die forgotten in the gutter. [1]
The assumption of "Expelled" is that no one could possibly explain how Prof. Monty Python's molecules and their joy-riding crystals could possibly produce life. As luck would have it, at about the same time as the film was being made, teams of scientists at the universities of Oregon and North Carolina explained it. They "determined for the first time the atomic structure of an ancient protein, revealing in unprecedented detail how genes evolved their functions."
"This is the ultimate level of detail," said the evolutionary biologist Joe Thornton. "We were able to see exactly how evolution tinkered with the ancient structure to produce a new function that is crucial to our own bodies today. Nobody's ever done that before." Unfortunately, this momentous discovery was announced almost too late to be mentioned in Ben Stein's film. It wasn't totally too late, but it would have been a great inconvenience for the editor.
What tools did the scientists use? Supercomputer programs and, I quote, "ultra-high energy X-rays from a stadium-sized Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago to chart the precise position of each of the 2,000 atoms in the ancient proteins." What did you expect? They put a molecule under a microscope and picked off bits with their tweezers?
Richard Dawkins: Rafting the River out of Eden
Intelligent Design "scientists" in "Expelled" are offended by being called ignorant. When Stein points out that "Catholics and mainstream Protestant groups" have no problem with the theory of Evolution, he is informed by an ID advocate, "liberal Christians side with anybody against Creationists." Now we have the smoking gun. It is the word liberal. What is the word liberal doing here? The Theory of Evolution is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply provable or not.
Besides, I would not describe the Vatican as liberal. Look how cautiously it approached Galileo. He only claimed the earth revolved around the sun. No big deal like the earth being ideally placed in the universe. There are millions of conservative scientists, and only a tiny handful disagree with evolution, because rejecting scientific proof is not permissive conservative behavior. In that one use of the word "liberal" the Creationist religious agenda is peeking through. I would translate it as "evolutionists side with anybody against a cherished Evangelical belief." Why are they always trying to push evolutionists over the edge, when they're the ones clinging by their fingernails?
Scientists deserving of the name would share the delight of 99.975 percent of his or her colleagues after learning of the Oregon-North Carolina findings. Then, if they found a plausible reason to doubt them, they would go right to work hoping to win fame by disproving them. A theory, like a molecule, a sea slug and a polar bear, has to fight it out in the survival of the fittest.
"Expelled" is not a bad film from the technical point of view. It is well photographed and edited, sometimes amusing, has well-chosen talking heads, gives an airing to evolutionists however truncated and interrupted with belittling images, and incorporates entertainingly unfair historical footage, as when it compares academia's rejection of Creationism to the erection of the Berlin Wall.
Hilariously, the film argues that evolutionists cannot tolerate dissent. If you were to stand up at a "Catholic and mainstream Protestant" debate and express your support of Creationism, you would in most cases be politely listened to. There are few places as liberal as Boulder, Colo., where I twice debated a Creationist at the Conference on World Affairs, and yet his views were heard politely there. If you were to stand up at an evangelical meeting to defend evolution, I doubt if you would be made to feel as welcome, or that your dissent would be quite as cheerfully tolerated.
Ben Stein and the author of "On the Origin of Species"
In the film, Ben Stein asks predictable questions, and exploits an unending capacity for counterfeit astonishment. Example:
Scientist: "But Darwin did not title his book On the Origin of Life. He titled it, On the Origin of Species."
Ben Stein (nods, grateful to learn this): "I see!"
The more you know about evolution, or simple logic, the more you are likely to be appalled by the film. No one with an ability for critical thinking could watch more than three minutes without becoming aware of its tactics. It isn't even subtle. Take its treatment of Dawkins, who throughout his interviews with Stein is honest, plain-spoken, and courteous. As Stein goes to interview him for the last time, we see a makeup artist carefully patting on rouge and dusting Dawkins' face. After he is prepared and composed, after the shine has been taken off his nose, here comes plain, down-to-earth, workaday Ben Stein. So we get the vain Dawkins with his effete makeup, talking to the ordinary Joe.
I have done television interviews for more than 40 years. I have been on both ends of the questions. I have news for you. Everyone is made up before going on television. If they are not, they will look like death warmed over. There is not a person reading this right now who should go on camera without some kind of makeup. Even the obligatory "shocked neighbors" standing in their front yards after a murder usually have some powder brushed on by the camera person. Was Ben Stein wearing makeup? Of course he was. Did he whisper to his camera crew to roll while Dawkins was being made up? Of course he did. Otherwise, no camera operator on earth would have taped that. That incident dramatizes his approach throughout the film. If you want to study Gotcha! moments, start here.
That is simply one revealing fragment. This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.
And there is worse, much worse. Toward the end of the film, we find that Stein actually did want to title it "From Darwin to Hitler." He finds a Creationist who informs him, "Darwinism inspired and advanced Nazism." He refers to advocates of eugenics as liberal. I would not call Hitler liberal. Arbitrary forced sterilization in our country has been promoted mostly by racists, who curiously found many times more blacks than whites suitable for such treatment.
Ben Stein is only getting warmed up. He takes a field trip to visit one "result" of Darwinism: Nazi concentration camps. "As a Jew," he says, "I wanted to see for myself." We see footage of gaunt, skeletal prisoners. Pathetic children. A mound of naked Jewish corpses. "It's difficult to describe how it felt to walk through such a haunting place," he says. Oh, go ahead, Ben Stein. Describe. It filled you with hatred for Charles Darwin and his followers, who represent the overwhelming majority of educated people in every nation on earth. It is not difficult for me to describe how you made me feel by exploiting the deaths of millions of Jews in support of your argument for a peripheral Christian belief. It fills me with contempt.
¶
[Footnote 1] My statement is correct as far as it goes, but a reader, Steve Vanden-Eykel, supplies a much clearer explanation of the principle. He writes me:
Imagine flipping a coin over and over. For each toss, the odds are fifty-fifty that it will come up heads (a one-in-two chance). The odds of getting two heads in a row is a one-in-two-to-the-power-of-two chance, or one-in-four. Five heads in a row is 1:2^5, or one-in-thirty-two. A hundred heads? 1:2^100, or roughly one in 1.3 trillion trillion trillion (thank Gates for the little calculator program on my computer). A creationist would claim that all the lucky chances that evolution requires is like getting not one, not five, but millions upon millions of heads in a row."But the creationists are forgetting something. Evolution ISN'T random, as they often claim. It's selected. You can't really blame creationists for missing this fact...Darwin cleverly concealed it from view by calling his theory 'natural selection.' Let's return to our coin-tossing example, this time including the principle of selection. What if, after every toss, we had the option of not counting it? What if we were allowed to simply discard every toss that came up tails? Now, given the ability to select, how long would it take to rack up a hundred heads in a row? About two hundred throws.
"Once you understand the concept of selection, and how it applies to evolution, you realize that what was thought to be vanishingly unlikely actually becomes virtually inevitable."
¶
Auth (c) 2005 The Philadelphia Inquirer. Reprinted by permission of Universal Press Syndicate. All rights reserved.
Oh. My. God.
And yes, I'm a believer, and I agree and am blown away by every one of your words. If only I had the state of mind at this hour to articulate it more in depth. Oh well, it'll be great stuff for the cerebrum as I drift off into REM's.
This is all great, and logical, and Voice of Reason. It would be nice to think that the people who need to see it will see it. It would also be nice if Marilyn vos Savant's The Power of Logical Thinking were a runaway best-seller. Alas--neither are remotely likely.
But it is comforting to HEAR the Voice of Reason. Thank you, Roger.
I must say I completely agree with the points you make. I refuse to see a movie that is so well just plain dumb.
Hey Roger,
Nice review of the film (which of course i havent seen nor would i want to lest my brain explode and send lava into my eyes - which of course could never have evolved by themselves: irreducible complexity dont you know). I think the tact that you take is completely the way we should deal with I.D./creationists: view it not in any way in terms of scientific merit but rather as an odd sociological example. Considering the amount of valid and meaningful debates that can, and should, be had within the general 'field' of evolution, it is a shame that 90% of the times we hear about it is when it has to defend itself from the ridiculousness of creationists.
Just a side note: one thing i have noticed is that while for athiests the theory of evolution is assented to unequivocally, there seems to be this tendency from many left wing people to be suspicious of evolution. I suspect it has something to do with the social darwinist stuff, but of course a cursory understanding of the mechanics of evolutionary theory should surely ease their mind.
Anyway nice work once again Rog!
Dilan
I actually saw this film for review purposes. As appalling as it is, I nearly laughed out loud at the scene where Ben Stein's speech in favor of free scientific inquisition is juxtaposed with Reagan's "Tear down that wall" speech.
Incidentally, I think this review is, in its own way, as good as your Synecdoche one.
I would just like to say, well done. 'Expelled' was a farce... one would almost think a parody, but no, Stein was serious.
Dear Roger,
Allow me to comment: You've just written your best blog! Genius. Take a bow. And take that, Ben Stein!
"Besides, I would not describe the Vatican as liberal. Look how cautiously it approached Galileo." I'm still laughing five minutes after reading that. Of course it's still so damn spooky.
I've always thought that religion was nothing more than a short cut to actual thinking.
This is lovely. Thanks! The forced connections between Darwin, an agnostic, and Hitler, a Catholic who dabbled in the occult, are so strenuous that it is utterly baffling that they continue to be made by creationists and intelligent design proponents. Darwin taught us about the way nature selects evolutionarily beneficial traits for survival; Hitler and his insidious regime sought an artificial genocide to select their own favorite traits. Artificial selection has been understood and practiced long before Darwin ever came to the scene. To conflate evolution by means of natural selection with the racist, homophobic, and antisemitic prejudices that have been around since the dawn of civilization is simply shameful.
I loved the last two sentences. My thoughts exactly! Bravo
Well said Mr. Ebert, I found the films obvious manipulation to be so blatent as to drive me to the other side and I'm an evangelical christian! I also by the way have no problems with evolution nor does it shake my belief system in any way. I would say that it is perhaps unfair to point out all of the tricks and manipulation in the film while ignoring the equally low tricks Micheal Moore puts into his films simply because you agree with his point of view. Manipulation of facts is wrong no matter who is doing it, and Moore should not be excused just because he is better at it.
More anti-intellectualism, this time in the guise of religion. I find it scary.
What I keep wondering is where and when this sentiment arose. I noticed a while ago that the term 'intellectual elites' wandered into the common language as if universities and culture were something to be ashamed of.
I'm Canadian, and our re-elected prime minister had thrown about the notion that government spending on the arts should be cut as the arts are something considered out of touch with ordinary, everyday Canadians. (Our Joe Six-packs, I suppose.) Sarah Palin talked not long ago about the uselessness of fruit fly studies.
Am I wrong in thinking that people used to appreciate diversity in interests, or is that just some sort of nostalgic mistake?
It's a good thing for Ben Stein that this review probably came in too late to make it to the tomatometer. Well written and accurate. A whole 8%, eh?
Thank the intelligent creator for Roger Ebert!
The only issue left unresolved: Should one win Ben Stein's mind, what would one do with it, since it is obviously useless as a functioning organ?
Expelled, indeed.
Get out of class, Stein!
"It also follows that the phrase "believers in God everywhere" does not extend to believers in God who agree with Darwin. "
This statement is at the very heart of how I feel about Creationism vs. Evolution. Why does only ONE side get to be the winner? Can it not be a possibility that by standing so firmly to one set of beliefs you lose by lacking perspective?
Far too many people take science to be the answer OR the Bible. Why is it so hard to believe that God created all things AND that they have the ability to evolve?! We can see through scientific study that indeed evolution does occur, although perhaps not on the grand scale Darwin claimed. The fact that either religion wins OR science wins is leaving even me, a Christian, annoyed with both sides.
Truthfully, I believe in a higher power that created everything and had enough knowledge to create things to evolve and adapt. I also believe that there are more pollutants than at any other time and altered evolution does occur as a result. I guess what it boils down to is simply that both religion and science are man-made. Religion speaks of God, yet somehow winds up perverting all that a higher power is due to mans need to control other men. Science is governed by laws created by man, which comes in handy to disprove a higher power; it is easy to say that the Bible is wrong in saying that the earth is only thousands of years old when you personally create your own way of calculating it to be millions.
The world is not simply black or white. Until both sides realize that they are not involved in a childish argument and instead take up intellectual discussion, we might as well use a test tube as a telescope.
What a -fantastic- skewer! It's hard to argue with facts, but I can almost guarantee that ID supporters would attempt to dismantle your words -- to hilarious results.
Is it wrong that I actually WANT to see this film now? Thanks a lot, pal! I had successfully ignored "eXpelled" without any problem until 10 minutes ago.
I would like to suggest that this movie easily fits your endlessly pliable criteria for an overlooked film. Perhaps you and Nate will decide to open the next festival with this gem.
By the way - I understand that the star rating system is arbitrary and basically worthless, but my brain is not as developed as some, and therefore I must ask the question: What is your star rating for "eXpelled?" Better than zero stars, I'm certain; but how much better?
To your health,
Joe
Mr Ebert, I admire you for taking apart this 'documentary' in such a brilliant and humoristic way. I have laughed troughout your review, but I got the message. And the message is; beware of Ben Stein's film. Thank you.
Mr. Ebert, I thank you for calling a spade a spade, and showing deserved contempt for the indefensible superstitious nonsense that is the obvious agenda of Ben Stein's film.
Wow. Mr Ebert, growing up in Chicago watching you rate movies, I didn't suspect this from you (although in retrospect I should have - yu do have a way with words). This is simply .... marvelous. A round of applause for the eloquent takedown of the propaganda film. I have a feeling this will be quoted often.
I used to think Ben Stein was brilliant. Now, that possibility eludes me.
What a thorough and sound review.
I read this earlier on the site and noticed I couldn't comment. I thought it was dated sometime in November, but maybe I misread it. Regardless, in an effort to not get into another lively discussion on creation vs. evolution, I'll simply applaud your taking the time to review it on a technical level and not just an idealogical one. From what it sounds like, it may not have been the best way of undertaking the subject from Stein's position, which I'll admit disappoints me.
Quote: "That is simply one revealing fragment. This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions..."
Still, isn't pushing one's point of view in a documentary sort of the point for a film-maker? I am instantly reminded of Michael Moore's documentaries of the past several years, but no doubt this is common practice. In my opinion, Moore has made a living of manipulating quotes and scenes, being ignorant of some facts, etc. Is Moore somehow more effective at this?
Still, if Stein doesn't do it effectively, or believably, then it will likely get poor reviews regardless of viewers' opinions on the subject, as well it should. I just hope that other people reviewing the film review it simply as a documentary in and of itself, not as a piece on ID, thus instantly awarding in a low rating.
There are two main species of modern documentary. On the one hand you have observational, insightful and factual (and in some cases even truthful) film making. An example of this would be Herzog's "Encounters at the End of the World" (now available on DVD). On the other hand, you have agenda films, which want to sell you a point of view (see the above film as an example).
If you wanted to go back to Evolution vs. ID, a Herzog doc. seems to start with the evidence and evolve from there. A propaganda doc. starts with a conclusion and designs a pattern of evidence to support it.
The question remains: did all of these films evolve from earlier filmic forms, or have both types existed from time immemorial, handed down to us from the mountaintop?
Well, I think it's fine that you've reviewed this film on your blog. You've just opened pandora's box.
At any rate, I'm not sure a documentary about either creation or evolutionary theories is a good idea. Unless, of course, you plan on making your film ten hours long so that the details of these theories can actually be explored. Even the whole idea of the film as political essay is sort of dull. It's fine for anyone like Mr. Stien or Michael Moore, men who are only interested in pontificating their views to death. If you want to actually think about complex issues like this one, you'd be better off checking out a few select books from the library.
Roger I have yet to see the film but on a purely technical level, these gotcha moments, the dubious practices of contemporary documentarians, seem to me a rather large problem forming what I would label without hyperbole a crisis in the documentary genre. It’s true that more and more documentaries seem to be produced each year, and a sizable portion even find their way to blockbuster video. Yet the majority seems to me biased, flashy, and predictable. Granted I haven't seen every doc made in the last few years, but without Herzog there is little I have liked. How can one compare Wiseman's High School with American Teen or Hearts and Minds with Standard Operating Procedure. There seems a kind of honesty or agreement to find truth though art that is missing from these more recent films (as both were well received I understand I am in the minority.) True story, while attending Fahrenheit 911 in the local Red Bank, New Jersey art theater, an old man appeared to be watching the movie with his daughter, the eager audience leapt at every one of Moore's punch lines, while through the laughter I could hear the old man's audible sighs punctuated by a polite shoosh from his daughter, less than half way through the movie he got up and said paraphrasing "Enough, enough I can't take anymore of this garbage." Of course this kind of divisive, disingenuous "documenting" has only spread further since that film, which makes me wonder when Darwinian principles will kick in and bring the doc genre back into the realm of the fit.
I have some hope Keep the River on Your Right and Jimmy Carter: Man from Plains were both outstanding, and of course everything Herzog has made has always been at *least* worthwhile.
Ebert: I haven't seen every single documentary Herzog has made, but I've seen a lot of them, including the short ones, and I can't think of a single one where he sets out to prove anything. His subject is the planet and people he has met here, and his motivation is curiosity. He may have an opinion (about Timothy Treadwell, for example) but he discovers it while considering the material. In fact, I can't easily tell you what Herzog's politics are. I have assumptions, but I can't prove them from his films. The more I think about that man, the more singular he becomes. He doesn't manipulate facts--he creates them! As when he shows Dieter Dingler obsessively making sure all the doors and windows in his house will open. That invented behavior finds an essential truth. And Herzog is always willing to disclose what he has invented. Aborigines do not dream of green ants, but his film uses that invention to suggest a deep truth about Aborigines.
Religious Creationism is just funny. 'The Lord works in mysterious ways'. Thereby, to the tiny nugget of population belonging to that camp - and to them, alone - the Lord evidently works through science.
Oh, the paradox.
I hope that Ben Stein realizes what a service you did to his movie, Roger.
Normally I'd sooner see Cannibal the Musical or Open Water again (the movie equivalent of gnaw my leg off) than see a movie that defends Intelligent Design.
But to so thoroughly examine a movie and accuse it of at best being Sophist and at worst being duplicitous is to at the same time suggest it has some brains to it (innocently wrong or consciously malicious brains, of course).
I may now just have to check this movie out some time. Thanks.
Hear, hear! +1
The use of the word "liberal" is key to understanding why seemingly intelligent and rational people adopt ID doctrine. It's all the more important that we educate ourselves on evolution so as to not fall for Creationist nonsense and to confront it. For all the talk of "liberal" professors for example, my professor in my personality psychology class actually attempted to encourage students to go watch Stein's "documentary". When he called it "interesting", I raised my hand and asked him if he found it immoral how Stein attempts to connect Darwinism as causation for the Holocaust. As psychology students, we knew well that correlation did not assert causation. He had no argument, just repeated that it was an interesting film and then began the lecture.
Having said that, if this is a review, where is your star rating? I know it is ultimately irrelevant but I would enjoy seeing it this time around. Is it "ZERO" stars for its immorality? A half-star for not being a bad film from the technical point of view? May I be as bold as to suggest the first ever "NEGATIVE" star?
Good review.
I agree totally. What a terrible thing to link Darwin with Hitler.
My only question has to do with this paragraph.
"Hilariously, the film argues that evolutionists cannot tolerate dissent. If you were to stand up at a "Catholic and mainstream Protestant" debate and express your support of Creationism, you would in most cases be politely listened to. There are few places as liberal as Boulder, Colo., where I twice debated a Creationist at the Conference on World Affairs, and yet his views were heard politely there. If you were to stand up at an evangelical meeting to defend evolution, I doubt if you would be made to feel as welcome, or that your dissent would be quite as cheerfully tolerated."
Isn't this point a bit hypocritical? You argue for a middle but then you divide and polarize sides yourself with this point. I am in the middle but I am a Christian. I know many groups that would welcome an evolutionary discussion. I just felt it weakened an otherwise brilliant review.
Please keep these articles coming...
P.S. I was really curious about your thoughts on Rocky Balboa. You never went back and reviewed it.
Wow. That was outstanding. And it's fascinating that in Israel, home to many of the survivors of "Darwin's Legacy", the idea of teaching ID in a science classroom has never even been broached. Holocaust survivors must be inherently liberal.
Dear Roger,
Is Man, as a race, destined to shrivel away with the passing of time, to dissipate and die out into the darkness of the space? Or worse, is it fated that our Existence should someday meet its end under the shadow of a radiant mushroom cloud? (If indeed there is such a thing as predestination.)
If not, then to what is Man heading for? Since Evolution is ever-changing, where is this all leading us? What does the Future have in store for us? If we can extrapolate the very distant past through empirical means, then can we not also envision Man’s future with the same study?
I have been cogitating through these philosophical questions for many years now, and am very certain that down into the far future, we will reach a very advanced stage in our existence where we will have created sentient Life, playing the role of Creator. When that comes to pass, how should our moral responsibilities to this New Life be played out? Do we play it out to the fullest, choking its bickering life and forcing it to accept our higher ways? Or do we set it free, stay silent and render our unseen guidance in the background?
Wouldn't it be amusing for our creations to regard us as non-existent?
And now we know that word limits aren't always a good thing. There is always a premium put on articles and entries that are short and to the point (such as a movie review), but when an exceptional author can be freed from any type of arbitrary limit when there is a lot to say, the results tend to be beneficial to the reader.
Or maybe I should just say, it was beneficial to me.
I have not seen "Expelled", but I find it ridiculous that he was able to connect Darwinism with the Holocaust. That isn't even subtle. Its clear what he is trying to do with that comparison, and its appalling.
You know, I try to separate an actors personal life from their on-screen roles, but its hard to do that when the actor makes a movie exposing their personal agenda and parades their ignorance around for all to see.
Wonderful analysis, as always. It does fill me with a simple question for you, though: at what point does an argument fail to be worthy of response? I am befuddled by the ID movement because it fails on its face to be a scientific movement. It would be like trying to pretend that we should use alchemy for our materials science. And I wonder how much we've stunted our intellectual development by wasting time on this issue. While I believe academic and intellectual diversity is a crucial component of life, it seems like the ID folks are so disingenuous in their approach that they do not merit serious consideration.
On a separate note, your classic (and excellent) standard of film review is, "it is not what the film is about, but how it is about it." (Apologies for poor paraphrasing.) How does this apply to documentaries? Is persuasiveness sufficient or does the inherent bias of the viewer tint this somewhat? Depending on our leanings, we might find an agenda driven documentary more persuasive than is reasonable or less so. I'd love your thoughts on that.
Thanks very much for your thoughts Roger, I could not agree more. Ben Stein is a despicable and dangerous man (dangerous because he gets publicity).
Perhaps not surprisingly Stein does not confine his ignorant and mocking nature to propaganda regarding religion and scientists. Watch this video (at the 4 minute mark) to hear him pouring scorn on Peter Schiff for predicting that America would face a financial crisis http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
I wish America was paying more attention to Peter Schiff and less to Ben Stein.
Well, this one's sure to get a lot of responses. If you're comments weren't filled with "duud, you re a libeal wiener" by now, chances are this post will fuel it. But then, you've always had smart readers, so maybe there isn't much to worry about. As for the review itself...well, to be honest (and I am truly not saying this to sound mean), this didn't feel like much of a review rather then a 500+ word rant on how stupid you think some guys ideas are. While you have always been a great film critic, once in awhile you tend to let your personal feelings get in the way of the actual movie itself. See your reviews for "The Life of David Gale," "Courage Under Fire," "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Gangs of New York," etc, etc...
Actually, "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be a perfect example of why people accuse you of some of the things you do, because Michael Moore uses every evil, cheap, and unfair technique that this movie uses, yet you gave that three and a half stars. Same thing with "Sicko," which was even less subtle in it's "documentary" approach. I'm not even going to get started on your "thumbs up" for "Outfoxed," where you were happy that a movie exposed how Fox slanted the news to a conservative viewpoint, never mind the fact that all news stations are in some way slanted and unfair. Which brings us back to "eXpelled." Now here's the thing: I'm, in a technical sense, a "creationist." I believe that a God created the world, and whether it happened through instant speed (like a text message) or through an evolutionary process, I believe there was intelligence in the mix.
I can't see this world and universe being working as well as it does without some thought put into it. Does that mean I like this movie? Kind of. It's refreshing to actually see the evolutionary process challenged, which it isn't very often, so it's nice. But yes, the film is flawed. It's overly sentimental. It's cheap. It doesn't play fair. It's not balanced. It's ignorant to the other point of view. It's...holy cow, it's just like EVERY OTHER "DOCUMENTARY" OUT THERE!!! See, the thing that makes your readers upset is not that you have a viewpoint (because if this did bother them they wouldn't bother reading), but that you yourself tend to not be very subtle about it. Reading the above post I'd say roughly 85% of it was creationist/Stein bashing and 15% spent arguing the merits of the film itself.
You give Moore a pass for his films because you say he's upfront about it. Well wasn't Stein upfront about this movie too? He's trying to argue a case too, it's just fewer people agree with that stance. Most of the reviews I've read on this film are more Stein-bashing then actual reviews, and the few positives I've read actually didn't agree with the subject matter, but the critics were impressed with the argument none-the-less. The point I have (and there is one) is that you are too emotionally involved with this subject to be fair with it. You've proved multiple times that you can't be in this discussion without being a little bully.
You give this film hell for points that you let slide with other documentaries you agree with. Of course, this can't all be your fault. No, I think there's ultimately some fault with the way documentaries are made these days. If the documentaries did less to prove a point and more to tell a straight, non-cynical story of real life events (or in other words practiced journalism), then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Roger, you're not smarter than Ben Stein, so please go back and edit this down to half as long. It reads like Geek (you) vs. Super Geek (Stein). It's embarassing. What you are is "right", and what you have is "integrity", both traits lacking in Mr. Stein. Ben Stein is a super smart idiot and ugly opportunist. There! I cut it down for you. Much love and admiration to you Roger Ebert. Your pal James in Phoenix.
Roger, you're not smarter than Ben Stein, so please go back and edit this down to half as long. It reads like Geek (you) vs. Super Geek (Stein). It's embarassing. What you are is "right", and what you have is "integrity", both traits lacking in Mr. Stein. Ben Stein is a super smart idiot and ugly opportunist. There! I cut it down for you. Much love and admiration to you Roger Ebert. Your pal James in Phoenix.
That is an awesome and entertaining takedown :-) Many thanks for wading through the pile of cr*p and spending your time deconstructing it.
What I don't understand is why Ben Stein made this film. He's always struck me as a reasonably intelligent person, humorous person. Even if he is of a different ideological stance, I am shocked at his disregard of logic.
I never would have guessed he'd make a fundamentalist propaganda flick and package it as a documentary. It seems as ludicrous as taking a religious belief and packaging it as a scientific theory.
I had planned to type "Perhaps Stein's portrayal of a clueless teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off was actually a documentary clip packaged as a teen comedy seen" next, but I realized that type of smarmy response is exactly what's wrong with Stein's film and the general strategy of proponents of ID. Scientists, the vast majority of which support evolution as a theory, don't reject alternative theories and criticism outright. They do ask that alternative theories be presented in an honest manner and based in evidence.
Finally, if God exists, what would be a more awe-inspiring display of God's power? Why do some religious people so harshly reject a theory that Human Beings came into existence despite the odds of this occurring being extremely slim? Couldn't this be seen as a miracle of God? Why must some see science, explanations of the physical world, as conflicting with religion? As you allude, it used to be unthinkably offensive to God to suggest the Earth be located anywhere besides the center of the universe. If this view can change, why must creation views remain stubbornly static?
thank you, mr ebert. mr stein has promoted himself into the unusual position of unfunny class clown, a palin without the l, a cynical exploiter of the weak minded. his economics is no less ridiculous. back in january he wrote 'This isn't a development to strike terror into your hearts -- if you're a long-term investor, it signals a time to buy. (As I've said many times, if you're a short-term investor you can just skip my column.) The history of stock market investing is unequivocal on this point: When the market is low, when the economy is in a recession, it is -- in the long run -- by far the best time to buy."
stein is that most remarkable of modern american media frauds, a false contrarian, the pretend mencken, a pretend mensch. his only flaw is that he expects his audience to take him seriously.
Hi Roger,
As far as I can see it, there are just a couple of salient points to the whole ID skerfuffel: 1) literal but selective interpretation of the Old Testament (Leviticus, anyone?), and 2) an agenda that benefits from such an agenda. Scientific evidence to the contrary is anathema, ergo fight back with Alley Oop and that really cool Dinoboy museum.
Stein et al's premises are easily refuted, absurd on the face of it. Cells and organisms mutate in response to external forces, cf. drug-resistant bacteria and hoo boy those viruses and cockroaches get immune pretty quick. In the inimitable words of Spielberg/Goldblum "nature finds a way". There's also spontaneous mutation, what is exactly a carcinogen? Google pubmed and question methods always.
I can't say whether there's benevolence behind these changes in living things. Vonnegut wrote a wonderful book called Galapagos, in which the artist refutes the Darwinistic idea of survival of the fittest, puts evolution on a random, haphazard course, as one might expect from him.
I think it's somewhere in between.
Ciao for nao,
Ben Y not S
Roger, it happens to be my birthday today. This is the best birthday present I could wish for. I know there are plenty of other scathing Expelled reviews out there, but yours was the one I was always looking forward to.
Anyway, now you've got this heap of crap out the way, I know of the ideal cleaning agent to scour away its dirty taste in your mouth: Hitchcock. I've been watching his films recently, and I've noticed you haven't reviewed all of them.
Your comments are spot on. I saw the movie, because I like Ben Stein and was expecting a comical take on the evolution debate a la Bill Maher. Wow, was I wrong. I was amazed by how easily he compared scientists to killers. Maybe I'm dumb, but I don't see how Ben Stein gets from Darwin to Hitler. When the concentration camp imagery came up I was totally dumbfounded. It is like he pulled out the ultimate trump card with his stupid chain of logic:
Darwin->Theory of Evolution->Survival of Fittest->Eugenics->Hitler->Greatest Horror World Has Ever Known->Scientists' fault???
He wants you to believe that because Hitler is evil, evolutionists are evil by extension because evolutionists influenced Hitler. I'm not a logician, but I know there is something wrong with that logic.
I am a creationist and I firmly believe that science makes the world a better place. There is no place for religious belief in science, because Theories are tools, not dogma like Ben Stein wants you to think. If the Theory of Evolution has done such an excellent job of advancing our understanding of how the ENTIRE PLANET works...well, how can you be against that?
Wow. I don't think I've ever read a better indictment of that ignorance laden excrement pile of a movie that is Expelled. BRAVO Mr. Ebert and THANK YOU! :)
Excellent as usual Roger, yet can't we see this becoming a huge success? I imagine the accusations you've received indicate some level of support already. At the very least I suppose we should be grateful the film isn't telling us about how all of that 'climate change' stuff is a load of nonsense too.
Excellent review. Excellent. I was hoping the film was actually a "mockumentary" -- a straight-faced satire of pro-creationist gibberish -- but apparently Stein is taking it, and himself, seriously. I've lost a lot of respect for the man. My respect for you, however, continues to grow.
Ebert,
Great article as usual, but I have two questions. First: Why is this not listed as a review? Is it because you felt you were approaching the material in a different manner? I've always appreciated your view that a film should be looked at in relation to "how it goes about" its material. Expelled sounds like a distracted work at best.
Second: I'm only passingly familiar with intelligent design, but would believing that God created the universe, with an idea for the outcome, count as ID? I've always found the concept of a God who can nudge the universe at its start and create people more engaging than a Big Man who dropped people in a garden 5,000 years ago. I myself am Catholic and I think several people take Genesis as being an abstract work (though certainly not all).
Wonderful read. You have nailed this miserable excuse for a documentary as precisely as it may be nailed. Thank you for this review.
JC
Brilliantly on target, Roger. Thank you for giving this intellectual twaddle and its proponents the spanking they deserve.
What did I do to deserve such beautiful writing so early on my birthday?
Thanks Roger.
Much kudos, Mr. Ebert, for seeing straight through the fundamentalist flim-flam. The common descent of life on earth is not scientifically controversial; it's on the list of propositions such as "The earth orbits the sun once a year." We thought about it for a few centuries, we checked, look what we found.
Incidentally, Hitler explicitly said that his program of elimination of "inferior races" was inspired by Pasteur and Koch- a matter of hygiene. Therefore, use of household cleaning agents consitutes fascism. We await Ben Stein's next documentary on the subject.
Roger:
Being deaf, movies have played a minimal part in my life, at least until the advent of VCRs and closed captioning, but I have read every review of yours I could lay eyeballs on.
You are not only my favorite film reviewer, but one of my favorite cultural touchstones as well. However. . .
I believe you have strayed, my friend. As a movie review, this does not measure up, and as cultural commentary, well, you've touched on ID already, and I believe everyone already knows where you stand. This "rant" is neither a satisfactory review of a movie, nor a successfull refutation of ID.
I fully agree with the points you have made about ID, but, really, why do you wear yourself out refuting idiot notions? You're mainly preaching to the choir. I enjoyed reading it, of course, as I expected I would, but I would rather have read about the view out your window.
Keep on keepin' on.
--Alfred
Much kudos, Mr. Ebert, for seeing straight through the fundamentalist flim-flam. The common descent of life on earth is not scientifically controversial; it's on the list of propositions such as "The earth orbits the sun once a year." We thought about it for a few centuries, we checked, look what we found.
Incidentally, Hitler explicitly said that his program of elimination of "inferior races" was inspired by Pasteur and Koch- a matter of hygiene. Therefore, use of household cleaning agents consitutes fascism. We await Ben Stein's next documentary on the subject.
As a devout Mormon with a PhD in genetics, I am always amazed at the anger that evolution evokes in some people or why they think that learning evolution is so dangerous to faith. Personally I think that religion that cannot handle truth gained from looking at the world around us is denying the most important works of God. The Bible is a short and incomplete book that does not attempt to explain orchids or dinosaurs or many other things.
Haven't you just described everything that Michael Moore has ever produced, PLUS Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? And yet, you give their films 3- and 4-star reviews, and Ben Stein gets vilified.
Nope. No political bias there.
What long and penetrating article. I think you do a wonderful job explaining a difficult scientific theory, and I also applaud you for equating the survivability of viable scientific theories as an example of natural selection as well. I think one thing that those unversed in science don't realize is that science itself is constantly evolving and changing. The recent demotion of Pluto as a planet is a perfect, accessable example.
I wanted to draw you attention to a recent New York Times - Science Times article about the early times on Earth (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/science/02eart.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink). In the article it was discussed that perhaps the very earliest period in Earth's formation wasn't nearly as hot and hellish as previously thought. The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and one of the connundrums has always been, when the earliest life formed 3.85 billion years ago, it seemed to do so at the earliest possible time, after the Earth had cooled and settled down sufficiently, almost immediately. This would imply that those trillions of random protiens formed at a terrific rate, more than could be easily accounted for. The new findinds, however, mean that only about 4.4 billions years ago, the conditions on Earth may have started to be more suitable for life, so it is now likely that the protien roullete wheels now had about a billion years to turn, instead of some very small amount of time. Given our ability to create said protiens in a lab, with little effort or time, I think this puts to bed the difficulty of doing it on a large scale. With a billion years to play the game, it seems almost inevitable at this point.
Just thought I would share one more nail for the coffin of ID. Keep up the good work, you are fighting the good fight against ignorance and demogoguery.
Miles Blanton
Ebert: That important NYTimes article about the cooling of the earth fits perfectly with the theory that life may have had its earliest origins on crystals. The scientists I cited demonstrated how it could have happened. Now it is provided with another billion years in which to happen. And both findings will be subjected to rigorous scientific challenge. That's how science works.
Thank you Mr. Ebert for yet another insightful film review. I wonder if Mr. Stein would be okay with colleges teaching alternatives to the theory of heliocentrism (the idea that the sun is at the center of the solar system)? Would he seriously want the next generation of American kids (our future pilots, astronauts, engineers) to grow up questioning that, to think that the idea of the sun being at the center of the solar system is "just a theory" while the rest of the world is educated with actual science? Probably not, but that's because the idea of a heliocentric solar system does not threaten his worldview. As an anthropologist, I agree with a court ruling from the Simpsons: "Religion must stay 500 yards from Science at all times."
I have not seen Ben Stein's movie and I never will. As for arguing with people like him, I have found that they enjoy playing the martyr so I'm not going to be the one to give them any fodder. Creationism is not even a poorly proven science, it is not even science at all. The scientific method involves coming up with a theory and doing everything possible to try and disprove it. A Creationist does the opposite and attempts to come up any evidence they can to collaborate with their ideas. It is such flawed logic that it is not logic at all, so what is there to argue with?
Also, almost all of your arguments about his disreputable tactics could be applied to most documentaries. The manipulative nature of film is what makes it appealing to audiences, so he is just attempting to make something that will resonate with audiences. The fact that he is completely unsubtle is more of a commentary on his abilities as a filmmaker then his personality. The Holocaust sequence sounds really low of him, but I've seen worse things used in documentaries for dramatic effect. The next time he makes a poorly made documentary, you should just send him a copy of Grizzly Man and let him see how its done. No, that would probably be a bad idea. He might hunt down the tape of the couple being torn apart by bears and play it to audiences in an attempt to prove the existence of God.
For someone who is so proud of his intellect and has made a career of touting it, through all the many manifestations of the Ben Stein experience, I have never seen any actual evidence of it. I am not sure that he isn't just goofing with us.
I don't begrudge anyone their faith, but it has never made sense to me why evolution would not be seen as a wonderful mechanism worthy of God's impetus and approval. Complexity as an argument for a supreme being is ridiculous. An omnipotent being would have no need for complexity. A God would make a seeing eye out of a solid orb. Complexity is evidence of kludging together things over time, which, if we'd like, we could call evolution.
I saw Expelled (with 2 friends who, like me, have a science background) as a "know your enemy" exercise. We were appalled. But what I would like to know is how CBS News' Sunday Morning program justifies having this anti-science, media-manipulating moron on their roster of commentators.
Ugh.
Yeah..... But he was very good in FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, do you not agree?
Seriously though... Fantastic stuff! The impression I get is that there is more (and more interesting) things to learn on this subject from your blog of it, then the documentary itself!
Being a Unitarian Universalist, one of the two "rules" I have to follow is to respect the beliefs of others as there is a kernel of truth to be found in all religions. While this is true in the vast majority of cases, what makes me a bad UU is that I can't honestly say the same thing about creationism. It is founded in a deliberate disregard of the facts and its "justifications" require one to throw critical thinking out the window.
Seeing films like this bother me, because I just know people will be watching, and since they similarly lack in critical thinking, will follow along blindly, dragging on an argument that should have been buried 30 years ago.
Being of the agnostic variety, I have a hard time understanding why people of deep faith find it impossible to reconcile "God" and Evolution. The two need not be mutually exclusive. If they were so inclined, one might ask how such a complex and beautiful biological system came to be? What spark drove the Big Bang? Far deeper and more meaningful philosophical questions and statements than: "I ain't descended from no damn monkey!"
Wow. Thank you! That was a most entertaining review and it was spot-on. I agree with you that one of the most insulting things in the film was Stein's exploitation of the Holocaust.
Mr. Stein spoke at my university just after the release of the film and delivered an interesting speech about politics and the economy (forecasting that there would be no recession). He was most unwilling to answer questions about Expelled during the lecture and instead asked that we address them afterwards at the reception. I remember thinking that you don't get to make a movie blaming a set of people for eugenics without having to answer to it.
I am constantly amused by the fact that our presence on this planet is explained by EITHER Creationsim OR evolution. Personally I believe in both. There are obvious records of species no longer with us, that look suspiciously similar to species that followed them immediately. This would support evolution rather solidly I think. Else, where would all these skeletal remains come from?
I had that explained to me once by someone who said in all sinserity that there were no fossils, they were created by scientists. This, because if they could convince us of the existance of dinosaurs, they could convince us of anything, and therefore we were good litle sheep. No hyoles in that theory.
I believe in Creationsim, because I find it impossible to think otherwise. Too much exists to assume it is the simple outcome of natural events strung out over time. I cannot explain God, but it makes more sense that we are the result of trial and error and not intial concept. I mean WD-40 was attempt 40, and it's just WD-40.
It's not the big picture that convinces me, but the little pictures. My grandmother saw a beautiful moth one day, and very matter of factly remarked, 'How can someone look at that and not believe in God?' The simplest thing that convinces me of a greater being is an eclipse. Think of how stirring it is to see, and the wonder that must have inspired in the peoples of long ago. The moon passes between the sun and Earth, and for the briefest of moments covers the sun perfectly, leaving only the outer glow of the sun peaking around the edges. When one realizes that the sun is 400 times the size of the moon, we have to accept that they are positioned at the precise distance apart to make this effect possible. In all of the vastness of space, they are perfectly placed. Evolution? No. Design. An element of creation undoubtedly inplace to begin our evolution from simple hunter gatherers to wonderers, philosophers, and explorers.
We are not accidental survivors of evolution, and we did not drop from the heavens one morning. We were but troubled seeds, planted to grow and perish.
Thanks, Roger.
Careful what you wish for, Expelled.
Hee!
See also Wondermark's "In which the classroom becomes tense".
I remember thinking that the movie's subtitle was quite apropos, just not in the way its makers intended.
It fills me with contempt too, and I haven't even seen the film. (I never will.) I just blogged about some articles Ben Stein left lying around on the web:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/ben-stein-admits-he-has-only-little-pea.html
Thanks for the review. I will not be watching the movie. That's not very scientific of me, I know. I should really watch it and prove to myself that it is as base, biased and unfounded as you have written. Then again, it's been a while since I learned that hot water scalds.
For those keen to at least dip their toe in the hot water, however, I hope you will let me recommend the "Expelled" review on "Answers in Genesis" as a fine example of the Creationist/ID viewpoint Link!. It has the same aroma as many Creationist/ID work and takes less time to get through than the movie.
I am a scientist. I know at least one person who devoted years of his live to a research area, only to see it die because of the weight of evidence which built up against the core theory. It's a little like when she tells you that she doesn't love you. The way to keep your dignity is to just accept it and move on. The other way is to make up a new name (like "friendship" or "intelligent design") and keep that torch burning.
Incidentally, the AiG review of Expelled is the first result on a Google search for "expelled review". I would suggest that you move this movie review over to your standard page, if only to save the poor folk who Google for a review.
cheers,
Andy
It's a little weird to hear (bah, to read) someone talking like this about a person I always knew as "the guy from 'The Mask'".
I'm a catholic from a catholic family, my mother was born in a little town in the middle of nowhere (and, as everybody knows, little towns in south america are very religous) and my father went to a highschool run by the order of Friars Minor Capuchin in the middle of the swiss Alps. I went to a catholic school. None of us belive in creationism (well, my mother likes to think that God is the origin and then evolution happened). That doesn't mean at all that we deny our christian roots. Unfortunately the grand majority cannot deal with nothing but absoluts: everything must be black or white, pro or against, good or bad (of course that doesn't apply only to this subject, once a friend was shocked when I told him that I enjoy watching every weekend with my niece "my neighbour Totoro", because, as he said, "you can't love Fellini adn enjoy kid movies at the same time)
P.D.: sorry if my english is to "Tarzan-like", I'm from Argentina and I quit my english class almost the day after I realised I could watch "Pulp Fiction" without subtitles.
Ebert: I'd say if you can pass that test, your English is pretty good.
"It's not what a movie is about, but how it is about it." -R. Ebert
Your reviews of other documentaries generally tend not to discuss the truth or falsity of the claims made within, but the success or failure of the persuasiveness or dramatization of the director's vision. "Fahrenheit 9/11," for instance, was effective not because of whether certain statements are inherently true, but because candid footage is effective and "vintage Moore." "Super Size Me" was effective in spite of the acknowledged qualifier that, yes, fast food is part of a "responsible" diet. "The King of Kong" eschewed hard facts about who scored which score, but it presented a compelling story of two hardened competitors.
I was saddened, then, to see you take the bait. You give it away with this acknowledgment: "'Expelled' is not a bad film from the technical point of view. It is well photographed and edited, sometimes amusing, has well-chosen talking heads, gives an airing to evolutionists however truncated and interrupted with belittling images, and incorporates entertainingly unfair historical footage."
I have not seen "Expelled." I do not anticipate viewing it. But your review is entirely unhelpful for someone evaluating whether or not it is a good film--whether how it is about its subject is any good. Instead, it is a series of nit-picks, of philosophical and scientific counter-thrusts, of "Shocked! Shocked!" ejaculations regarding "gotcha" footage (as if no documentarian, not even Michael Moore himself, would use "gotcha" footage).
It seems that Stein is held to a different standard. While other documentaries are evaluated based on how they are about it, your review of "Expelled" is focused almost exclusively on what it is about, and why you disagree, and which facts are wrong, and how unfair or ludicrous or arbitrary it is.
Golden Rule, anyone?
It pained me to see this film in theaters. When I pondered to myself that I had actually given money to the Fundamentalist Christian Agenda, I felt a pang of disgust deep inside. Stein's shameless attempts to set up lame duck interviews (with Dawkins! One of the most erudite men on the subject!) and baseless historical juxtaposition injured the film somehow even more than the subject matter. Of course, as an atheist, my views are perhaps compromised by my personal beliefs, but in the interest of objectivity I gave this one a chance and I have never been more wrong about a movie. After hearing about this film on word-of-mouth, I thought perhaps it might have a good spirit, or at least a sense of humor about the credulity of its content. But Mr. Stein is dead serious about actually having this drivel taught in school! I hope Mr. Ebert discouraged anyone from seeing this on DVD. And thank you, Mr. Ebert, for calling out the film on its awful use of Holocaust footage for their own hideous agenda.
I have always wondered what Ben Stein's agenda was. Here was a Jew (I am Jewish) who was a speech writer for Richard Nixon, I believe,(Nixon made no bones about being anti-semitic,) and a right wing politician who supported a neocon agenda that is so opposite of what the Jewish religion teaches. And now a Creationist theory that is supported by the right wing Christian movement. The Jewish religion is based on education and the Creationist Theory is an anti education belief.
Hi Roger,
You compare the process of evolution to the gambling, where mutations are the occasional lucky "wins" at games of chance and the buildup of complexity is analgous to a large number of lucky wins in a row.
In fact, it's actually easier than that. Since any mutation that is favorable will, by definition, have a higher chance of reproducing, evolution is like playing poker, where you get to turn in cards over and over again until you've built up a good hand.
To illustrate: Imagine you're dealt an ace in a regular poker hand, and a bunch of other cards. Since that "ace" is favorable, evolution encourages you to hold onto it and turn in the other cards for more tries. These "turn ins" are like mutations. You turn all "bad" (that is, bad mutations) picks in for more cards. When another ace turns up (a favorable mutation), you can hold onto that (it conveys an advantage). Play long enough, and you've got four aces (a "miraculously well-designed" hand!).
I loved reading this. Thanks Roger. Now for me to ramble my (identical, if I've understood you) opinion in a much less eloquent way.
Dinosaur fossils: the late, great comedian Bill Hicks pointed to another Creationist explanation -- "God put those there to test our faith." Hicks was rightly horrified at the idea of such a childish God. The Creationist reply usually comes -- "But God works in mysterious ways." To believe in those ways is to have mysterious beliefs, which don't belong in the science-classroom.
And, of course, the "scientized" version of Creationism -- ID: it can't distinguish fundamental simplicity from apparent simplicity. Yes, the theory of evolution relies on a very complicated body of science, with subatomic particles and nano-scale crystals and game-theory and is compatible with this crazy unedged spacetime idea. But it will always be simpler than introducing an unexplainable Intelligent Designer. If ID wants to be scientific, it must accept that the simplest theory wins, when all else is equal with regard to explanatory and predictive power. Even ignoring ID's pantsing in the simplicity stakes, it would be a brave ID-defender who'd dismiss the theory of evolution's explanatory power, and even braver one to claim that ID had any predicitive power.
And a final Bill Hicks quote [not verbatim]: "Ever notice how Creationists all look really unevolved?". Maybe we're only seeing the final 0.025% of Stein's haircut in that photo.
As someone who was a huge fan of "Win Ben Stein's Money", i was really shocked to read the description of this movie when it came out. I remember re-reading it to make sure i had it the right way around.
Still, i have to call you on "Bowling for Columbine" here, by a guy who started this recent "documentary" craze. As you said about this movie, "If you want to study Gotcha! moments, start here." Ben Stein got the torch from Michael Moore (though im sure it was passed to someone else in the interim) and is just passing it along.
I found it especially nice when he pulled "gotcha" on a tired old man who, im sorry to say, was losing his marbles. (and i am no fan of the NRA)
I dont need to go on, there are plenty of sites detailing the complete crap in "Bowling for Columbine", and when you read them you realize almost the entire movie is Gotcha's. The stuff about there being a factory that makes rockets in the town (and therefore its more violent, or else they all get free subscriptions to satellite TV, i cant remember which) was grasping at straws at the very least.
Though those movies were, at the very least, very entertaining. Best documentary oscar.... i definitely wouldnt go that far, considering that there were actual documentaries in it the same year. Moore was right about Bush all along though, in fact he was using kid gloves on him.
I am sure if say a documentary say by someone like Michael Moore used Historical footage unfairly or out of perspective you would be applauding it be you agree even if what they are saying is false.
Did you mean to post this on the same day more Nixon tapes were released? Ben Stein accuses all of us of censorship when he made his living speech writing for the man who said,
"I don't give a s*** what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up or anything else."
Nov. 17, 1973
Ben Stein somehow manages to equate the Holocaust to Darwin while defending Nixon to this day. Here’s how Nixon felt about Stein’s fellow Jews:
“The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards.”
February 1, 1972
And blacks:
"The second point is that coming out--coming back and saying
that black Americans aren't as good as black Africans--most
of them , basically, are just out of the trees. Now, let's
face it, they are."
July 11, 1971
(He said that one to Donald Rumsfeld, by the way.)
And Gays:
"I don't want to see this country to go that way.
You know what happened to the Greeks.
Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was
a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates."
May 26, 1971
And the Vietnamese:
Nixon: The only place where you and I disagree ... is with regard to the bombing. You're so goddamned concerned about civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care.
Kissinger: I'm concerned about the civilians because I don't want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher.
Wow, Ben really got under your skin. But I don't think left-wing docu-types have been as shameless with their metaphors and conclusions as Ben was here. Michael Moore may be winking at the camera when he says Cuba and France are cool, but America sucks. This movie blames evolutionists for the Holocaust. Where do you really go from there? I was entertained at times watching Stein try to out-Moore Moore. Did he sell me on his argument? No. I don't think the 8% that liked it were sold on the argument.
Excellent statement Roger.
For myself, I have summed up the issue of creationism and its advocates like Ben Stein with one word - dishonesty. Obviously there must be many ignorant people who believe the nonsense, but many advocates and leaders in the movement cannot be that ignorant. It comes down to other motives which essentially means they are being dishonest.
Thank you Roger for such a well written piece on this film. I had been following this film for a while but as yet have been unable to see it for myself as I don't believe it has been, or if it will be released here in Australia. I had always wanted to know what you're opinion on this film would be and I found this a fascinating read.
Thank you for going so indepth and providing an opinion backed up with actual facts, a technique that seems to be lost in much of society today.
It's funny that you should mention the scene with Richard Dawkins getting make-up applied. The ones applying the stuff were actually employed by Premise Media, and were doing so under orders of Mathis, the movie director. Mathis reportedly insisted to Dr. Dawkins that it was necessary, due to glare. This was mentioned by Dr. Paul Myers, who was also targeted in this movie, on his own website.
Ebert: Another smoking gun.
I'd rather watch Ben Stein's Visine commercials than listen to his nonsensical adventures with creationists vs what really happened. Go back to hawking eye drops for the liberal pot smokers you loathe Ben. Well done Mr. Ebert.
Mr. Ebert,
I have to agree with you about the makeup--I went on camera for the first time last month and didn't receive the proper brush-up. The video, an interview with a local television station in Iowa, is ghastly to say the least.
Cheers!
Roger,
While I agree with a number of your comments about some parts of the film (e.g., the manipulative editing, the "connection" between Darwin and the Nazi agenda, etc.), I think Stein's key point has been lost in this discussion. The core point of this documentary is that the collegiate academic community, which is supposed to encourage discussion of conflicting view points, in this arena appears to be unwilling to tolerate any viewpoint other than "Darwin was 100% correct". Stein showed several people in the film who had lost their jobs not because they argued that Darwin was wrong, but because they suggested the possibility that evolution may not have been an entirely biological process.
Galileo is an intersting analogy here. The church's condemnation of his theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun prevented us from even discussing the problems with Galileo's math. Once we were allowed to discuss the theory, it was altered over time to account for slight differences between the theory and the observed locations of the planets. Finally Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity which put the last piece of the puzzle in place.
The theory of evolution is suffering the same problem. There are some parts of the theory that don't agree with observed phenomenon. If we can't discuss those problems and offer alternative hypotheses, how will we we ever complete the theory?
I know some people reading this are thinking that since Intelligent Design posits a supernatural influence, it does not belong in a scientific discussion. That viewpoint suffers the same closed mindedness that often afflicts the Christian Right. Suggesting that an intelligent being influenced evolution is a perfectly valid scientific hypotheses. It may be difficult or impossible to test, but so are a number of other scientific theories. It may suggest the presence of something outside the observable universe, but so do a number of other scientific theories. It may be wrong, but so were a lot of other scientific theories.
The point is that the academic community should be encouraging these discussions instead of black listing people who suggest an alternative view.
For whatever reason, people strongly defend their thoughts on both religion and politics, and Stein's movie (which I did see, it was ok. Thought he took a bad turn with the Nazi = Darwinism angle) both expresses a belief in God, but also a belief in conservatism. They say the two things you shouldn't discuss are politics and religion. Mr. Ebert, do you think this entry just might be the biggest commented on entry you have written since you started your journal?
Ebert: Seems to be starting out that way.
Roger--
Good article, even from the perspective of this OLD-earth Creationist.
One thought, though. You accuse the film of being "cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions...segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association(s)." (whew!)
The only thing I can say to that is...welcome to the club. As a Christian (albeit a fairly liberal one), I could say the same thing about 95% of what the mainstream media reports about my faith. It's frustrating, isn't it, to see what you believe in so maligned and misrepresented? I'm not saying Ben Stein was right to do it (and I refuse to give his film money, so I haven't seen it), but I think it's indicative of the larger tendency in our culture to demean and demonize those who believe differently from us.
I long for productive and fruitful discourse on this subject, but I fear it will never happen. Both sides seem too interested in painting the other as agenda-driven ignorance-mongers.
Roger, you do realize that there is a creationism of the political left that's in denial about evolution as applied to humans.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
The impression I got from Roger's review is that the movie only sets out to criticize the theory of evolution, rather than to provide substantive arguments in favor of Intelligent Design. It strikes me as an exercise in futility, as science itself most often refutes long-held theories when evidence rejecting them is discovered. That the criticisms offered by Stein are baseless and outlandish just adds insult to injury.
I am agnostic and don't particularly care if evolution or creation or a mix between both of them is what lead our universe to its current state. My take on it is: we're here now, so let's make the best of it and try to make things a little better. What does frighten me is that, while evolutionists are not satisfied with the answers they have found and continue to seek for new evidence to explain the world, those advocating for intelligent design are throwing out no arguments; instead, they attempt to interfere with research and education by jamming school boards with unsubstantiated faith-based claims.
I question the existence of God but know that I am surrounded by amazing and inexplicable things. While I am unwilling to make the leap of faith and be confident that there is a God, I know I'd be much quicker to accept that if there were a God who were omniscient, omnipotent, and with limitless foresight, It surely would have allowed for evolution, if only to maintain humanity's inquisitive nature and to ensure progress until the very end.
I see that many others before me have thrown down the Michael Moore gauntlet, so I was hesitant to beat that dead horse, but what the heck, I'll throw in my own two cents anyway.
But first off, I'd like to say that I am an evolutionist, always have been an evolutionist, and always will be an evolutionist. Just like my mother and father, both in the medical profession, and both Southern Baptist conservative Christians. They believe in the Bible, but both, without hesitation, embrace the facts about biology and how species evolve over time to adapt to their environment. Ah yes, that pesky middle again. My parents, like the rational-minded pastor of my youth, fled the church (but not the faith) after it became shanghaid by the fanatics.
Oh, I'll never forget the last day I was required by my parents to attend Sunday school. The "teacher", with veins bulging in his neck, was scremaing "they are stupid. Anybody who believes in evolution, that we're nothing but monkeys, is stupid stupid STUPID!!!!" I politely raised my hand and offered, "both my parents believe in evolution. Are they stupid?" At that moment, I knew what it was like to be in a vacuum. All the air was sucked out of the room. The man froze, completely clueless as how to respond. Where could he have gone from there? Does he back away from the courage of his convictions? Or does he say something insulting (and potentially abusive) to a child? I let him off the hook. I politely excused myself from the room. I always assumed the subject was immediately changed.
So I respond here to neither praise Ben Stein's documentary or to bury your review, but to make an observation (admittedly one that has already been made). And I'll spare you the charge of Liberal Bias. Oh, no. Your brazen double standards are not present because you are liberal, but because you are human, a sentient being with an Ego, a Super Ego, and an Id. It is human nature to embrace arguments with which we agree, and scrutinize those with which we don't.
Now here is where I'm going to take the rod to that deceased equine. I quote:
As Stein goes to interview him for the last time, we see a makeup artist carefully patting on rouge and dusting Dawkins' face. After he is prepared and composed, after the shine has been taken off his nose, here comes plain, down-to-earth, workaday Ben Stein. So we get the vain Dawkins with his effete makeup, talking to the ordinary Joe.
You did not have these objections to the identical scenes in Fahrenheit 9/11, which began with a montage of the Bush administration being "prepared and composed", prior to being raked over the coals for the next two hours by plain, down-to-earth, workaday Michael Moore, with his baseball cap, working class, attire and scraggly beard. The effete vs the ordinary. And if you want to talk about the mother of all "gotcha" moments, let's not forget that completely irrelevant, yet no less uncouth, bit of Paul Wolfowitz licking his comb.
Again, I make this observation not to denounce you as a liberal shill, or to denounce you in any way whatsoever. I'm not here to call you out on any supposed obligation to view any film with total objectivity. You're a critic, for crying out loud. The fact that you have biases is the whole point of your job. And many people seem to forget that you did call Michael Moore out on his shifty tactics in Bowling For Columbine when you discovered how deceptively he edited the Charlton Heston speech. But (*whack*), you had to "discover" it. You didn't think to question it when you first viewed the movie. You accepted it at face value and described Heston as "borderline pathetic" in your initial review. Hey, let's go back earlier to Roger and Me. Upon learning of how Michael Moore shifted chronology and omitted key details, you (*whack*) defended it as "making a good story better".
But you've heard all this before. That dead horse has been beat real good. But this is an open message, not just to you, but to everybody reading this journal. We are all, each and every one of us, to varying degrees, solipsistic. We want our values and beliefs to be confirmed, not challenged. We crave reinforcement and validation. It is human nature. I'm am just as bad about this as the next day. So I do not wag my finger at you. If I wag my finger at anybody, it's to the Michael Moore's and Ben Stein's of the world. Here's something that the honest among us call all agree upon: they don't win hearts and minds. Their detractors see easily through their tactics and dismisses the premsise. And the end of the day, all they so is produce rousing sermons for the choir. The glowing reviews they receive is their "Amen".
Two thumbs up!
And thank god for opposing thumbs. A miracle of human evolution.
I just want to point out one thing about Expelled that annoys me more than most: When Stein asks Dawkins if there's any situation where intelligent design could conceivably be true, Dawkins offers up the very reasonable hypothesis that life on Earth could have been seeded by some alien life form, but that you would still need to use some sort of evolution-style process to explain the existence of the aliens. Then Stein uses this statement to ridicule Dawkins, pretending that (a) Dawkins believes in little green men and (b) that Dawkins is proposing an unexplainable creator no more reasonable than a god.
But that's a blatant lie since even in the heavily edited clip the film uses Dawkins adequately explains this hypothesis. An alien culture that seeded Earth is HIGHLY improbable, but because it's a natural explanation with an evolution-like backstory built into it it is still MANY, MANY, MANY times more likely than creationism. IF Stein had cut out Dawkins' statement that the aliens would have needed to have evolved then Stein could pretend that the scientist believes in unsupportable fairy tales (which would have been disingenuous as well as hilarious, since Stein himself seems to believe in fairy tales) but the fact that Stein left Dawkins' disclaimer in and STILL ridicules him shows that he's not only disingenuous but also incredibly stupid.
And this BS is the climax of the entire movie! It's the clip that Stein took on shows like Glenn Beck. Beck, an impossible stupid person saw this clip (with the alien-evolution disclaimer intact) and exclaimed "But where did the aliens come from?!?!?!" And Stein agreed that this is a reasonable question, even though (a) Dawkins answered it IN THE CLIP and (b) that VERY SAME question can legitimately be asked of Beck and Stein's (incompatible) deities.
The whole thing makes no sense!
I must say, this is certainly one of your longest blog posts, but I was drawn to read every word because once again, you've hit on an issue I've recently devoted a lot of time to.
For my journalism class, I did a content analysis on Creationism and Evolution, viewing both the New York Times and the St. Petersburg Times, hoping to glean some facts based on geography. Anyway, I found that in most cases, people challenging Creationist beliefs rarely cite Evolutionary theories in order to justify their argument, but instead prove why Creationism has no place in science classrooms and why their arguments are logically and even psychologically unsound, despite the fact that an understanding of Evolution is something most skeptics are lacking.
The truth is, there need be no debate between Evolution and Creationism. The two are asking different things. Evolution asks how life has formed, and Creationism asks why life has formed. Most religious people feel by embracing Evolution, it threatens their religious values, when the two are incompatible.
I've recently been quoting one of your own statements that science will one day explain everything, discovering realms we can't even imagine. "You could call that realm God; the realm won't mind."
While I agree with that sentiment, I find God to be more of a mental concept, providing for internal stability, confidence and hope, as opposed to an actual presence. In doing so, I feel it does not conflict with any religious values, and in a follow up to my project, I intend to explain why so many people feel this way about Evolution and religion.
Thank you for this.
The entire notion of Intelligent Design has always struck me as absurd. It has also greatly worried me. As an earlier commenter remarked, the movement smacks of anti-intellectualism – and yet its backers try so hard to couch their language in terms of reason. They use pseudo-scientific terms to help legitimize their ideas to people who might be on the fence.
And they try so hard to suggest that they haven’t rejected all of scientific fact but are rather proposing a ‘reasonable’ way of explaining, and combining, evolution with fundamentalist religion. Of course the whole notion is absurd, but I’ve met people – actually met people – who feel that there might be something to Intelligent Design.
Of course, from the way you describe the film, Stein’s tactics aren’t even close to being subtle. As you noted, his use of the word ‘liberal’ would seem to be an immediate reveal of his agenda.
I haven’t seen the film, and thus cannot comment first-hand on its content. From your description, however, its sounds as though it is jaw-dropping in its intellectual and moral dishonesty. Stein actually went to Auschwitz and equated Darwinism with Nazi concentration camps?
Wow. That is wrong on so many levels.
Roger-
Great review. I would just like to clarify how Stein was selected to appear.
This is from an interview with Logan Craft (executive producer of Expelled), with the Texas Southern Baptist Convention magazine-
TEXAN: How did Ben Stein come to be involved in the film?
CRAFT: Well, John (Sullivan, producer of Expelled) had a real insight, we believe, into the necessity to have a person, first of all, who wasn’t overtly Christian or overtly religious...
Ben Stein is a hack.
While I will stipulate that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, we all must insist that opinions are only as good as the information that they are based on. ID is inherently intellectually dishonest, it takes a mathematical trick and raises it to the level of scientific proof. To anyone who has a curiosity on this subject I would recommend the writing of Michael Schermer and that they visit . Many proponents of ID often site the vehemence of the criticisms against them as proof of bias and equate resistance to ID theory to ad hominum attacks. To that I will say that politeness is wasted on the dishonest, who take any well meaning concession as validation. ID theory is creationism in sheep's clothing and it is false science put forward by those who have no real understanding of the goals of scientific exploration.
Bloody brilliant. I have never respected Ebert so much! I wish everyone who'd seen the movie were able to read this review. Just perfect! I will certainly be posting this on religious discussion forums ^^.
Though I know it will be largely ignored, perhaps one person will see the light and be driven by curiosity and a thirst for knowledge.
Ben is a moron. Triva knowelge is not actual intellegence if it were I'd be a fucking King. His crimes include more than just a documentary on an outdated controveral subject. This is a man who let Nixon make him look like a fool and still sticks up for Dickey and his place in history. For the past 20+ years he's lived off a cameo in a 80s movie. His game show gave Jimmy (I'm really not funny) Kimble a career. He's only job seems to be that of the TVAd pitchman which I believe is lower than Crackwhore on the "what do I wanna be when I grow up" career list. Win Ben Steins money- That was a lie too wasn't it. It wasn't Ben's money it was part of his paycheck from the show that he "bet" against the other players in a game so rigged in his favor that no-one really had a chance. Why cause (ask Jimmy) Ben couldn't take losing to the "norms". His huge out of wack with reality ego couldn't take it. Smuggly superior Ben Stien is really just talentless jackass and should be ingored at every turn. Not really shocked a guy with a an ego so large he mistakes it for intellegence can't understand evloution it kind of passed him by.
Your comments on the 'gotcha' moments in eXpelled reminded me a lot of another documentary in which I left feeling emotionally manipulated, Bowling for Columbine. To me, having Michael Moore stand in Charlton Heston's home holding a picture of that poor little girl as the old man turned and walked away from what he had probably realized by that point was a hit job seemed fairly gross; I'm no fan of Heston, but who wouldn't walk away in a situation like that? I quite liked Michael Moore before that film, but haven't been able to watch anything of his since then. To me he represents the same kinds of manipulative tactics you describe in eXpelled; I get so sick of that kind of thing from the right, why on earth would I want someone who more closely represents my views to do the same thing? But your review of Bowling for Columbine was 3 1/2 stars, so I'm curious as to why you think Moore's tactics were better or more acceptable than Stein's?
Ben Stein wants us to believe that people like him are being silenced. But his refusal to accept modern science is, in fact, one of the oldest "viewpoints" on the planet and has always been the mainstream. For centuries, it has been the scientists and non-believers who have been silenced. And so we should celebrate the fact that FINALLY, science is having a say and is at long last standing up to the pressures to put non-scientific, religious ideas into the science classrooms.
But the religious people are still trying to silence those of us who do not agree with them. As the author of the book Christian No More (ISBN 0981631304), I can say first hand what a struggle it is, a struggle that Ben Stein and his likes really haven't experienced, no matter how much they claim to have. Films like Ben Stein's and religious museums like the Creation Museum are treated with far more welcome by the people of this country than a book like mine (or a book by any of the bigger names such as Dawkins or Harris). If I wrote a book celebrating Christianity, I would have no fear of being attacked. But having written a book explaining why I'm no longer a Christian, I feel constantly attacked and I do no feel comfortable telling just everyone about it. And so we smaller-named authors with something to say continue to struggle to get our message out as we are constantly silenced by the likes of Ben Stein and his religious community.
Ben Stein has everything backwards, from his understanding of freedom of speech, to his understanding of the scientific method, to his delusion of who exactly has, for centuries, been silenced by whom.
Great job, Mr. Ebert. (And I'm also thrilled to see you still going strong after your struggles with health issues. Keep up the great work!)
Jeffrey Mark
jeff at EscapingChristianity dot com
Roger,
Nice review. However, while it seems you have your logic correct in the roulette example in that you state "Every single winning roll beats the odds of 37-to-1", the odds you talk of are the odds against winning on a single number not the converse. In addition, they are actually 1:35 for winning versus 35:1 against since the total number of possibilities has to be 36, not 37 (for each try, one chance of winning, 35 chances of not winning).
Ebert: Thank you for demonstrating why I did not get straight As at math. When my error is corrected on the blog, it will be with my gratitude to you.
I've been listening to and reading your articles on a weekly (now daily) basis for over 25 years. This has got to be one of my favorites. Thank you Mr. Ebert. I wish you much health and joy.
My beautiful friend Roger,
The question of humans, humanity, existence, freedom, love, joy is no longer a question of logic or science but irreparably a question a beauty a question of ecstacy.
"People commonly travel the world over to see rivers and mountains, new stars, garish birds, freak fish, grotesque breeds of human; they fall into an animal stupor that gapes at existence and they think they have seen something" *Kierkegaard* "It was completely fruitless to quarrel with the world, whereas the quarrel with oneself was occasionally fruitful and always, she had to admit, interesting" *Kierkegaard* " "not much chance for survival, if the neon bible is right" *arcade fire* The world is too much with us and could never produce us of itself before it would destory us and take us and grab our hearts and our souls and lift them, while destroying them, while destroying them, while destroying em, "we're just - a million little gods causing rain storms - turning every good thing to rust. - I GUESS WE'LL JUST HAVE TO ADJUST!!!" *arcade fire* "been singing hallelujah with the fear in your heart!" *arcade fire* My God is everywhere and he is nowhere contained. " Men go abroad to wonder at the heights of mountains, at the huge waves of the sea, at the long courses of the rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motions of the stars, and they pass by themselves without wondering." *arcade fire* If I keep this up I will fall apart apart apart. "You live in a deranged age, more deranged that usual, because in spite of great scientific and technological advances, man has not the faintest idea of who he is or what he is doing." *Walker Percy* Oh my sweet beautiful love. My soul is free and despairing. My love is true. I will sit in the classrooms with the children with the children and with myself, and listen to the teachers the scientists, the posters on the walls and ask myself about myself. If we don't teach the children they were made while in these walls maybe, perhaps, they will believe it... rosebud... rosebud...
"now who here among us still believes in choice? not i" *arcade fire* "I want very much to tell, to talk about, the wholeness inside every human being. It's a strange thing that every human being has a sort of dignity or wholeness in him, and out of that develops relationships to other human beings, tensions, misunderstandings, tenderness, coming in contact, touching and being touched, the cutting off of a contact and what happens then." - Ingmar Bergman... meaningless, meangingless, everything is meaningless. Do those who love, love truly or does their creation and createdness fail them precisely at this moment. What does it mean to BE created. To be created means to be loved, to be reckoned with? Or to fall, fall short and empty? Less. Less. Less. Flags wave at night and we fall into despair.
"Film as dream, film as music. No form of art goes beyond ordinary consciousness as film does, straight to our emotions, deep into the twilight room of the soul." *Bergman* There is no room that is not twilight that is worth dreaming about or worth knowing. You can have my mind, but please oh please do not take my SOUL. I want to be enveloped deep deep in the recesses of my own heart. Fill my heart in all it has and knows...
The question is not that of knowledge but that of beauty. (the lions and the lambs ain't sleeping yet *arcade fire*)
Mr. Ebert, this is one of the best reviews you've ever done, dissecting the film with logic and razor wit. It seems that truly bad movies do bring out the best in you sometimes.
At this point I am ready to bankroll a pro-creationist movie: "Deuce Bigalo, Intelligent Design Gigolo" written by Ben Stein, just to read your resultant review.
Good work, sir.
First-time poster, long-time reader, and a huge fan of your writing. Like usual, this was a total pleasure to read.
Has intellectual laziness always been this widespread? Or do you think this is a result of the complete media saturation we live in thanks to cheap internet and 700-channel cable TV, where everybody is clamoring to be the MOST OUTRAGEOUS just to get noticed?
What a paradox... I have no doubt that Ben Stein is a very intelligent man, but how can you know so much and still support such a fantasy? Faith, I guess. Can you prove God didn't invent the world exactly as it is 10,000 years ago, along with all the evidence to make us believe otherwise? No. And so it comes down to what people prefer to believe. A lot of people just like the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent God at the wheel of a rather chaotic world. Maybe it's reassuring, maybe it's out of loyalty to whoever taught them about God, maybe they just don't care.
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but a disturbing trend I think I see in today's always-online world is--due to the sheer incomprehensible volume of data available--people's tendency to only expose themselves to views they already agree with. How many supporters of I.D. have ever even glanced at Dawkin's website?
Sometimes I imagine that humanity is on the cusp of becoming a true sci-fi cybernetic hive consciousness... except it's schizophrenic. How's that for next summer's sci-fi blockbuster thriller? :-)
Wow, 100+ comments already. I love how a few folks compare your dislike of this film to your approval of some of Michael Moore's work, as if they have anything in common aside from being documentaries. So pathetic.
I'd love to see Ben Stein's "response" to this.
What's a darned shame is that at one time Ben Stein was fairly watchable on "Win Ben Stein's Money." What's unfortunate is that he thinks so highly of himself.
"Yeah, yeah, but MICHAEL MOORE, wah, wah, nah-nah-nah-nahnah."
Fundamentalists are so weak-minded! Confronted by challenges based on facts they always, automatically, deflect. It's as if they are six-years-old! "No Mommy, I didn't take the cookie I am chewing because sissy took my coloring book."
It would be funny, if it weren't actually so serious.
And, I can't be comforted by the natural swing of the pendulum. The blade is never sharp enough to strike a fatal blow.
Speaking as one of the resident conservatives who enjoy this blog immensely:
Never saw the movie, probably never will. So, how well it is made I take Mr. E's word for it. But I have suffered through most of Michael Moore's docu-dramadies and I think he took the documentary to the point it is today: filmmakers bring a hypothesis into the film and do whatever they may to prove that hypothesis, or falsely take one side of a belief only to be shockingly enlightened as the denouement. Oh, or the revisionist filmmaker that attempts to redress past wrongs by over-emphasizing people and events that were not necessarily part of the record at the time. Regardless of what the filmmaker is trying to say, they are FAR more entertaining than the dreck we were forced to watch in school.
Regarding the "science" behind the theory of evolution of the universe (not species that populate it), I think that we have wonderful scientists that do a fair amount of work to figure out why we are here, but have as many "facts" behind their beliefs as creationists do about their beliefs. Scientists hold to a different dogma than creationists. You can choose to believe one over the other, or a combination of both. That's pretty much how religion has been degraded in this country, if not the world, over the past 50 years - constant erosion of faith by the scientific community and society which holds those who believe in a higher power as ignorant and unimaginative neanderthals.
I profess my faith in God and Jesus Christ. I believe that the world and everything in it was created by God. It does not mean that species could not have evolved to deal with the ever-changing planet. God created a living universe, and not to evolve with the universe would be a death-sentence to any species that populates it.
The existence dinosaur is fairly easy to explain to anyone who is not completely anti-religion: Dinosaurs predate humans. The scientific record is clear on that. What is the Bible? It is the historical record of a people and their coming to know and understand their God. Man could not have known about dinosaurs because there were no humans around to write about it. And certainly, Moses was not going to the mountain to dig up a T-Rex.
I don't hold to the notion that God wrote the Bible. However, men and women INSPIRED by God wrote the Bible. The Jews who wrote the Old Testament mainly transcribed the origin of man from a rich oral tradition that passed on from generation to generation. Adam and Eve (symbols of the creation of humanity) did not have blogs back in the day. So, to hold the early actors in the great Biblical stories as accountable for not identifying dinosaurs and the different geological epochs is much like holding Copernicus accountable for not having the foresight to use the Hubble Telescope.
Oh, and I still think that science is woefully deficient on explaining the origin of the eye. To even mention an alternative theory on the eye's development to refute the concept of creationism is as ignorant as using the Genesis story in the Bible to refute Darwinism.
And, with two similies in consecutive paragraphs, I hail Ebert for another great blog entry.
The spate of tu quoque responses to Ebert's review makes me wonder if the political right is now hoping to take up Adlai Stevenson's famous offer—“If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”
Sorry fellows, that expired a long time ago.
I am an advocate of the Intelligent Design idea, because I think the evolutionary theory has some serious flaws. However, as a whole, I was very disappointed with the film, mostly because of the hyperbole, juvenile jibes, and silly editing. I was hoping for a more intelligent debate on the subject. Instead, we get the Darwin/Nazi implication (duh, just because a megalomaniac uses a theory to justify murder does not make the theory itself wrong). I would have liked to see more scientific refutation of the origin of species, especially an exposure of the paucity of evidence behind its assumptions. That was what I was hoping for, rather than the farce we got. Oh, and Ebert, I am disappointed in you for lazy thinking. Just because 99+% of scientists agree with something doesn't make it fact. There was a time when 99+% of scientists believed in the sun revolving around the earth, spontaneous generation, and a whole host of other nonsense that was eventually and rancorously disproved. I am willing to keep an open mind and look at the actual evidence, rather than base my opinions on what the majority believes.
Kevin T. Rodriguez said, "See, the thing that makes your readers upset is not that you have a viewpoint (because if this did bother them they wouldn't bother reading), but that you yourself tend to not be very subtle about it. Reading the above post I'd say roughly 85% of it was creationist/Stein bashing and 15% spent arguing the merits of the film itself.... you are too emotionally involved with this subject to be fair with it. You've proved multiple times that you can't be in this discussion without being a little bully."
Yes, yes, yes! Please listen to this man, Roger. I love that you're writing more these days, but I wish that you would limit yourself to the art of film. When you start discussing political/worldview matters you start to sound like Bill Maher--just throwing out spiteful comments against the other side.
Greetings Mr.Ebert,
thank you for another wonderful article, a great read.
I had not heard of Stein till today, and I am appalled certainly by what your review points to, in regards to his film. Frightening that there are people like this out there. Sometimes I just feel a little sad for the human race when it comes to this kind of ignorance and manipulation. I've been quite down this week just with the events occurring in Mumbai (and I pray the people of that wonderful nation, where men and women of every faith, colour, creed, belief, language jam pack the streets, do not retailiate in anger and with impulse towards the innocent). Reading about Stein just confirmed my belief again that there the human shadow is alive and well on our planet, and education and facing it full on is the only solution. We need more brilliant, intelligent people like you in this world! My hats off to you and your review.
But i did want to make on comment about the cartoon at the end of the page, the one box pitting astronomy versus astrology. I am an avid believer in astrology/numerology -- it is tied in deeply with hinduism, and a science -- yes a science -- that spans into history over thousands of years. Albert Einstein himself acknowledge there is real science and theory and truth behind astrology. Astrology, God, conciousness -- they are all linked, they hold the mysteries and answers to life. Unfortunately, in the west, (and yes in the east as well), the science of astrology has been reduced to a ridiculous joke, an entertainment, and the 'science' is gone -- it's a side-show, that would like to claim it can "foretell the future".
This is not the case. But I can tell, you from personal, un-biased experience, that it holds gobs of information -- there is enlightenment, God, and science, all rolled into one in the depths of astrology and the study of the science of the plants, and their position in the sky when one was born. ifyou were to look into the volumes, thousands of books available on the subject, which such precise, intricate math and science written by scholars and sages over thousands of years -- it would stun the western mind.
Like I said...it's a lost science,and what's left in the west, is largely a lot of gobbldy gook. But there are some points of light out, that there is something wonderful here - an ignored world of science that is just starting to reclaim knowledge, and grow, and develop, and move out of the shadow of silliness that has claimed it.
The most beautiful thing? The science behind astrology, much like the most meaningful interpreations of the bible, of the Hindu Gita, and of buddhis teachigns, etc., -- are all compatible with the Darwinian theory of evolution and with current scientific thinking about the quantum nature of the universe.
Respectfully,
Vikas =)
how does one insert a slow clap into a comment???
Thank you Roger.
The capacity for people to blind themselves to clear, logical, rational thinking due to their own biases continues to astonish me. Not that I'm not susceptible to making logical errors too, but if someone can point them out to me I'll be more than happy to adjust.
Which is what science is all about - a continuous feedback loop of theories, experimentation and validation (to the person who claimed "It's refreshing to actually see the evolutionary process challenged, which it isn't very often" - you simply don't understand the scientific method. It's constantly being looked at). Science is very dispassionate in this sense. It doesn't care if your theory is new or been around for centuries - if the facts or experimental evidence falsify it, then it's back to the drawing board with you.
The late Stephen Jay Gould had a brilliant article in Discover magazine years ago called "Evolution: Fact And Theory" (I may not be wholly accurate in the title here). He described how the specific methods and details of how evolution worked were still being debated as we continue to learn more and discover more evidence. But evolution itself had so much evidence behind it and had withstood so many arguments that it was indeed fact.
Kinda like the Theory of Gravity. Apples might fall upwards tomorrow, but I think we're pretty safe in stating that they won't.
Intelligent Design is not a Scientific Theory because it isn't falsifiable. It's very much like Astrology from that point of view.
The attempt to tie evolution to the Nazis is not only deplorable, but shows how desperate they are and how little evidence and logic they possess.
Reply to: For my journalism class, I did a content analysis on Creationism and Evolution, viewing both the New York Times and the St. Petersburg Times... despite the fact that an understanding of Evolution is something most skeptics are lacking. The truth is, there need be no debate between Evolution and Creationism. The two are asking different things. Evolution asks how life has formed, and *** Creationism asks why life has formed...***
That last statement is wrong.
You're confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design. Creationism says that human beings were created in their current form, and if you go back in time, you will NOT find a point where our direct ancestors were mammals the size of rabbits.
What you fail to understand is, Intelligent Design is a scam. A former law professor at Berkeley, Phil Johnston, created a phony science because a statement by Supreme Justice Scalia seemed to open a loophole, and Phil wanted to teach 'supernatural origins' in public schools as a first step to teach full-blown Christianity.
Many Christians think you can be both a Christian and believe in evolution. What they're missing is, Christianity is a con game. You can always believe in a Con Game AND scientitic truth, in the same way you can drive to Los Angeles AND Chicago at the same time. (ie, it's a joke on how stupidity works.)
If you don't understand what I mean by con game, let me give an example: Mark 1:32 When the sun had set, they brought to Jesus all who were sick and demon-possessed, and... Jesus did not allow the demons to speak because they knew him.
The con game is simple. Sickness is caused by demonic possession, and a man with the power to command demons can cure illness.
But Christianity takes it one step farther: Jesus did not allow the demonic spirits to speak BECAUSE they knew him.
It's like, trying to think of a premise so stupid, only the stupid stay past the opening credits.
That's Creationism. Creationism began at a time before we understood DNA. Creationism has the premise, our human minds and bodies are so complex, they couldn't have evolved from a less complex form. They must have been created in their present form.
Young-Earth Creationism is the religious belief that humans did not have ancestors going back before Adam and Eve, that the first two human beings were created in their present form and, well, never had human parents. Other forms of Creationism avoid the two-parent controversy, but they share a common central premise: if you go back in time beyond 10,000 years, you won't find a direct ancestor of modern humans. Our ancestors were created as humans, and didn't evolve from a smaller mammal with a smaller brain.
Evolution and Creationism cannot co-exist. They describe events that contradict each other. I know this is difficult to see when you're using a newspaper as your source material,
The lesson from Ben Stein's mistake is, Don't Accept Authority. Question Authority. Find out the facts and don't be afraid to reject a silly idea. Don't cling to a belief after it's been proven wrong. And, demonic spirits do not exist. Anyone who claims that demons are silent because of his power to command them, and if allowed to talk, the demons might reveal his true identity, is a con man. Don't be afraid to say it. If intelligent people remain silent, the Creationists could win.
While not defending Intelligent Design at all, there is an intriguing concept called "the Antropic Principle" which operates outside of Darwin's theory.
It sounds like a tautology, but it isn't quite, but maybe my limited ability to express its subtlety it will lead to that result.
The question it addresses: "gee if the universe could have developed along all sorts of different paths, then how come it leads to one with human beings in it?"
The simplistic answer: "if it didn't develop in a way that would result in human beings, then we wouldn't be here to pose these questions."
This answer says nothing about causality; it merely observes something that might sound superficial but also has some depth to it.
Mr. Ebert, do you think Ben Stein realizes that he is being dishonest in so many of his tactics or do you think his prejudice blinds him to it? This is a question that perpetually fascinates me. It seems pure chicanery, but to what extent are such dogmatists really not able to hear opposing viewpoints? I used to give them the benfit of the doubt, but the last 8 years have really opened my eyes to the extent that a certain set really does think their end justifies any means.
First off I have to say awesome blog post! It's poignant and hilarious all at once. I always get caught up in reading them and then my boss strolls in, and I keep reading. It's a risk worth taking. Here are some of my thoughts...
Many scientists have spent their lives devoted to the study and testing of this Universe. I look to up these people and highly respect their endeavours. It doesn't seem reasonable to think one's own fantasies would somehow disprove scientific theories, which have been so rigourously tested. If anything science seems like a good start to double check if you have a relatively sane outlook on the world.
Why would anyone be so arrogant as to claim that these people, who have devoted their lives to studying and informing people of how the Universe operates, are wrong? Science grows and scientists do make mistakes along the path of discovery yet it is the intellectually honest avenue. I definitely don't understand all the beauty and complexity of every scientific theory (although I wish I somehow could), but I feel confident I can rely on scientists to provide insight into the workings of the Universe with some accuracy.
The human brain is limited and as Socrates more or less said, it's wise to be aware of your own ignorance. If only Ben Stein could follow this great advice and put a little more trust in the scientific community, or at the least apply some greater use of critical thinking. Really, if you're going to clash with the titans of science than you'll need some critical thinking to debate. Then again critical thinking would probably cause you to agree with science. I digress.
The truth is scientists aren't evil demons come to delude people (just clarifying for any fundamentalists reading blog comments) - they're just telling you how it is - and it's a strange, beautiful and dangerous Universe we live in. I don't think any human or other species will ever really understand it all. The Universe is a living question. You just have to enjoy the mystery.
"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense." ---Carl Sagan
Hey, since it worked so well in Iraq when we started with the conclusion we wanted to come to and then used cherry-picking, distortion, misunderstanding and suppression to manufacture the "facts" that would support such a conclusion, why not apply the same rigorous intellectual process to the origins of life? The scientific method is obviously best applied when it mirrors America's progress since 9/11: blind, half-assed, and in reverse.
Once again, I am frustrated by an arguement. What makes me mad is the fact that there is two sides to an issue, which leads to a stalemate. Just think of this: we have had three major forms of protests against descrimination: Race, Gender, and Sexuality. But wait, aren't those three in their own ways different than each other? So the problem isn't what is under descrimination, but the fact that something is under descrimination. Now when you get into a Creationist vs. Evolutionist fight, I think we have to look at it in the same way. Could the fact that we are fighting each other be the real problem? I believe in God and that he created the earth, but that is not why I believe in him. I believe in him because he helped my father overcome insainity and drug addictions, and completely restored several family relationships. What it all comes done to is that their is no logic to forgiveness, and yet that is the only thing that will save people from destroing their inner self.
Roger,
Ben Stein makes light of darwinism and he should.
You are very wrong about the way ID proponents are treated in academia. This is so clear in the Dover case. There are even some petitions currently in circulation on several university campus' trying to coerce their faculties into signing solidarity agreements for the unquestioned endorsement of evolution as the only existing theory for the origin of life. Their excuse is "protecting science".
The real motivation for evolution isn't even science. It's the "scientific establishment" desperately trying to keep "science" atheistic.
The proof of ID is clear and pervasive in all living things at every level. Nano technology exists everywhere within every living cell. Nano technology uses machinery operating at the molecular and atomic level. Much if not all using zero tolerances, meaning that even a single molecule out of place can shut down the entire cell.
This is just one example of the problems facing darwins theory. Yes, small changes can take place and organisms can adapt in a limited sense. But, the machinery of living things must remain basically constant. If you would bother to take a course in developmental biology, you'd understand a little better just how critical the process of cellular differentiation is.
Ben's critics are really trying to keep "science" atheistic. Evolution is the new creation myth that seems to explain everything, but needs a critical reevaluation.
Wayne
www.scifaith.com/blog
How did I know people were going to raise hell because you gave "Bowling for Columbine" and "An Inconvenient Truth" good reviews? I hate it when people turn everything into simple black/white liberal/conservative issues. And yes, that goes for the guys at the Huff Post too, so please don't accuse me of being another one of them damn liberals.
First of all, "Bowling for Columbine" and "An Inconvenient Truth" have nothing to do with "eXpelled". Just like Chappaquiddick has nothing to do with George W. Bush, but people still bring it up as some weird defense for the Republicans. I'm sure there are similar unreasonable things that the ultra-liberal democrats yell about when people trash Bill and Hillary. But once again, these two films have nothing to do with "eXpelled." "Raiders of the Lost Ark" has more in common with "eXpelled" than these two films. Both have evil Nazi's and God is real and tangible in both their film universes. But no one is yelling because "Raiders" got a good review. Because one film obviously has absolutely nothing to do with the other one.
Secondly, both those movies won Academy Awards. They were the best documentaries of the year. So why not ask the question "Why did Ebert give good reviews two two Academy Award winners, but not to some crappy film that isn't getting ANY nominations?" Probably because the answer is obvious. It makes it a little harder to accuse Mr. Ebert of liberal bias now, doesn't it?
Add Episcopalians to that list of science-minded believers. Can't wait to discuss this Sunday in adult ed as we're watching "Inherit The Wind" at St Nicholas Episcopal, Elk Grove. It's at 10am between services in the parish house. I'll save this for when we get onto the ID part of our ongoing discussions in the next few weeks.
Everybody's welcome. Church website is in the link.
The core point of this documentary is that the collegiate academic community, which is supposed to encourage discussion of conflicting view points, in this arena appears to be unwilling to tolerate any viewpoint other than "Darwin was 100% correct". Stein showed several people in the film who had lost their jobs not because they argued that Darwin was wrong, but because they suggested the possibility that evolution may not have been an entirely biological process.
Which might have actually been a useful argument, had it, or anything else in the movie, been factually true. I don't remember the specifics of each of the stated "cases", but you can find explanations for the real reasons these people where denied tenure, **chose** to move to different schools, etc., all over the net. The fact is though that in every single case they either failed to make the grade, failed to publish anything worthy of the institution they worked for, or intentionally chose to work someplace else, because they preferred that school over the one they where "supposedly" expelled from. In no case was evolution, or their disbelief in it, ***ever*** even brought up, either by the institutions they left, or themselves, until later, when it became a convenient political football for Stein and the DI.
Your even more off with the rest of your rant my friend. The reality is that Darwin's version has been pretty much set aside for some time now, and its that version that all these clowns always argue against, the underlying principles are as rock solid as steller mechanics at this point, and all the arguments fall into categories like, "Well, classic evolution doesn't quite explain this case, so is there something that does?", for precisely the same reason that Steven Hawkins came up with Hawkins radiation to explain some things about black holes that didn't quite "fit" into the existing framework.
Basically, at this point, suggesting that we don't ask questions is absurd, and suggesting that ID, which amounts to "It is just to hard to figure out, so God must have been involved", is even more absurd, and not just because there isn't one scrap of actual science going on at DI, or that ever time they come up with some "trump card", they think the science can't adequately explain, someone points out some scientist some place that has published an article on that very subject weeks, months, or even years prior, which the DI somehow **missed**. No, at this point, suggesting that ID is a valid "alternative" would be a bit like suggesting to a particle physicist that they need to take a serious second look at alchemy, because its "easier" than doing all that complicated and confusing stuff involving particle accelerators, and they, "won't even find the answers anyway".
Seriously, try to learn something about what "is" being researched and what the real science says, then maybe someone will listen to you, instead of laughing their ass off.
Brazenness of dishonesty is certainly painful.....disrespect of reason is disrespect of humanity.....disrespect of Man is the antithesis of religion.....it is the legal mind in a less edifying manifestation more than the scientific or spiritual,keen to win a losing "case" rather than advancing authentic social discourse or dialogue,which is surely the propellant in man's continuing evolution as a social animal....bringing in the camps out of nowhere is certainly most distasteful......that said,agreeing that the molecules had to win the roulette game only once,and further is only the cumulative bonanza of an initial wise investment....science,like film and literature has it's own austere beauty....but then that initial 1 to 37 chance WAS favourable.....there's your caring Godess of chance,minimally.....not necessarily a universe which is a chunk of dead rock...
To quote Daisaku Ikeda
"In closing, I would like to share with you a passage from Rabindranath Tagore ....... This poem is a paean to the eternal rhythm of life that permeates all people, society and the universe.
'The same stream of life that runs through my veins night and day runs through the world and dances in rhythmic measures.
It is the same life that shoots in joy through the dust of the earth in numberless blades of grass and breaks into tumultuous waves of leaves and flowers.
It is the same life that is rocked in the ocean-cradle of birth and of death, in ebb and inflow.
I feel my limbs are made glorious by the touch of this world of life.
And my pride is from the life-throb of ages dancing in my blood this moment.' "
I don't think the world, universe, or a higher power if there is one, would allow humans and dinosaurs to exist at the same time.
Life would most likely be difficult for humans that had to coexist with dinosaurs. Imagine a dinosaur taking an afternoon walk. Its neck is so long and its head is so high that it is unable to see the humans below. It accidentally stomps on a nice family having a barbecue in their backyard and flattens them like pancakes. Than again, the world has allowed humans and ants to coexist. Humans flatten ants every day, don't they?
There is another problem, however. If humans had to coexist with dinosaurs, wouldn't humans have legal battles over whether or not dinosaurs should be hunted and killed. Wouldn't there be liberal animal rights activists trying to protect the rights of dinosaurs and possibly attempting to domesticate them? Wouldn't there be conservatives fighting for their rights to hunt dinos and own the weapons to kill them?
What would life be like for humans and dinosaurs if they coexisted? Would it be like Jurassic Park with meat eating dinos chomping on humans? Or would there be a friendly relationship between the two in which humans ride on dinosaurs rather than in automobiles to get to their local grocery stores.
The question is what would Ben Stein do with a dinosaur. Try to convert it to Christianity. Could evangelical Christians and dinosaurs have meetings together? Ben Stein might think so.
Yikes. Mr Ebert, whatever happened to reviewing a film objectively? This was a film review, was it not? Although I must say...it certainly didnt appear like one. I hate to say it..but your "review", which was scathingly condescending and at times downright mean, coupled with the almost rabid response of 99.975 percent of your commenters has proved exactly the point of Stein's film. I believe what he was setting out to document, more than the argument for a mere discussion on ID, was the immediate dismissal and mockery of anything to do with ID. The majority of your review felt like a mockery of not only the film but the idea of ID itself...and Im sure that was your intention. Regardless of your religious beleifs (or lackthereof) or your views on ID or creationism, you can't possibly believe that there shouldn't at least be a discussion or a debate on the subject, right? We live in a democracy where every voice and every opinion supposedly matters yet you feel that the final decision on how we all came to be should be determined by an inconclusive theory that has been around for a little over 100 years?! Why has this suddenly become a closed case? That is what I truly took away from the film. That the argument for ID has been shunned completely and that the evolutionist camp has tried to belittle and squash any idea other than their own. And I feel that the film did a superb job in exposing that. And also, one more thing...I dont believe I know a single protestant that subscribes to the theory of evolution. Do you?
Ebert: Let's do the math.
*U.S. Population: About 300 million.
*Percent Protestant: 51.3%, or 153,900,900
*Percent of Protestants believing mankind has only existed in its present form: 32%, or 49,248,000
*Remaining Protestants: 104,652,900
I personally know quite a number of them who subscribe to the theory of evolution. Anybody else met some?
You'd think Ben Stein would have heard of the "reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy. Not that it would matter to his target audience: "logical fallacy" is liberal elitist speak.
Who needs logic or rationality when you got Jesus in your heart?
This whole rant is just a result of your liberal Catholic School education. Your whole argument reeks of intelligence and rationality aforethought.
I must state for the record, however, that Einstein would have been an awesome magic teacher...
Roger,
Clearly there are plenty here and elsewhere who would fall in lock-step with your dismissal of the film and the points which its author attempts to make. However, since when does a majority belief automatically equal truth?
The repression of evidence in opposition to one's theories -- however commonly held they may be -- represents intellectual fascism and willful ignorance quite unbecoming of scientists, politicians, filmmakers, and journalists alike.
Ebert: A 99.975% agreement on something does not make it right. But it makes it the wiser choice if you stand to lose the million bucks. Any reasonable person examines all the available evidence and bases an opinion on the findings. There is no credible evidence for ID. Every one of its attempts to advance such evidence has been debunked and demolished time and time again. To ignore this looks to me very much like willful ignorance. Darwin's original theory, on the other hand, has been extensively criticized, revised, refined and challenged by the scientific method, and its underlying principles thus proven all the more credible. And what does fascism have to do with any of this?
-Eric
Being a devout Evangelical Christian I recently saw eXpelled & I thought it was a bit dry at times & the info was nothing new either. The film was OK...but "The Privilged Planet" or "Darwins Black Box" were better sources of ID info.
Mr. Ebert, you act as if Ben Stein was the originator of the documentary "gotcha" moment. Please, save your indignity for Michael Moore or Al Gore. Richard Dawkins can handle himself & is no intellectual slouch, so if he came off a bit badly...well who is really at fault for that? Dawkins knows that the red light in front of the camera means it's rolling, so making an issue of the make-up scene is disingenuous.
Overall, all of you evolutionists patting yourselves on the back for disagreeing with ID are somewhat silly in my view. It's no better than one lemming giving directions to the next as they plunge themselves over a cliff. Also Mr. Ebert you cannot deny the racist bent that is clearly in "Origin of Species". Darwin did not hide it & it was definitely a factor in both Germany & Russia in some of this world's bleakest times. Did Stein play this portion up a bit? Probably....but it's his film, so deal with it.
ID simply asks the question, where did all of this come from, as getting something from nothing has long been rejected as a plausible explanation....except where origins are concerned of course.
If you don't believe in Intelligent Design then no big deal. Live your lives & let others live theirs....what I can't understand is the hate & anger from evolutionists. Why are some of you so mad? If you don't agree with an idea, no worries...just move on. I'm a Christian & if you don't agree with me, no problem we can still get along. I have friends from all faiths & some that are agnostic & atheistic....we disagree on religion & origins, but we're still friends.
I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on you...try not to do the same to me.
Last thought, regardless of the percentages of those who do or don't believe in ID or evolution...it's irrelevant. If a 100% of the scientists believe that money grows on trees....they'd still be wrong. Percentages of those who think something are not a valid arguing point. For instance it was generally agreed upon 150 years ago by most scientists that the inhabitants of the African continent were less evolved & less intelligent than those from Europe...they were wrong too. New information often causes those percentages to shift & should never be used as a method of proving a truth.
Ben Stein tried to make a funny & thought provoking movie/documentary....he succeeded in some aspects & others not so much. Better luck next time Ben.
The subtitle of Stein’s film is spot-on: “no intelligence allowed.” Seemingly, Stein’s treatment of the subject matter was unencumbered by critical thought or intelligence of any kind whatsoever.
Stein’s motives are only to promote his version of creationism, and as such is nothing more than religious indoctrination. I have zero respect for the religious right when they feel it necessary to lie to promote their views. Theology and science are not necessarily antagonistic, but neither are they synonymous. I would suggest that Stein heed the words of a well known fellow Jew, namely Jesus:
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)
After reading the comments here, I am quite astounded over how many people are calling you out for your bias in this post to your reviews on documentaries by Michael Moore and others of a liberal leaning.
I'm astounded because this wasn't posted as a review but as a blog entry. Since when are blog entries (or movie reviews for that matter) constrained by journalistic impartiality? It reminds me of reading letters to the editor complaining about the bias of commentaries on a newspaper's opinion pages.
If this was posted as a review complete with stars or thumbs on your review page, they might have a leg to stand on - if reviews were supposed to be objective. But it's not. It's presented as an opinion piece on your blog, a purely subjective and completely biased arena as it should be. I know I've never read an unbiased blog.
With that off my chest, I'd like to say how much I love this particular blog entry.
I've fallen to my knees and given thanks to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, grateful that Roger agreed to watch this film, so that I don't have to.
All praise His noodly Goodness!
It's a measure of how mucked up things are, in terms of the clash between religion and politics around here, that I simply can't believe for one moment that Ben Stein believes in God. How could such a harsh, harsh capitalist, with such a smug outlook, possibly believe in something that requires so much soul? He's a negative guy, gives off negative vibes, wrote speeches for Dick Nixon, etc.
Maybe I'm wrong. I probably am. Ben Stein probably falls to his knees in humility before the Creator at every chance he gets, overwhelmed by the impossible beauty of even the grubbiest morning. But I don't know: the radical right's hi-jacking of Christianity in this country has really negated at least my ability to see an endeavor like EXPELLED as anything other than a way to sneak religious folk across party lines in the middle of the night, with devious intent.
And further, when we're talking about the basic revulsion most of the less-fun religious types have for Darwinism, I find it almost always has to do with horror at the thought that we could be related to the other species of animal life on this planet, which implies that humanity has a smug superiority all its own - we simply MUST have a system of belief that explains why we can open a can of tuna, and the cats can't. In fact, simply the way we'll open a can of tuna s-l-o-w-l-y for a whining cat says more about humanity's frailty than BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ... (I've always held the strong belief that a human life, in principle, isn't inherently WORTH any more than a dog or a cat or a bee or a fly. It's what the human, dog, cat, bee, or fly DOES that measures their worth - and since all those other types of life are "innocent", it would seem to be us humans that need to prove that we are good enough to be related to all of THEM, and not vice-versa.)
But I don't need that broader image of humanity to remind me of my species' smugness and superiority. Just look at that picture of Ben Stein at the top of the posting. I say it again: Can someone CAPABLE of making such an insincere face have enough soul to be the one making this argument?
You know what? When dolphins finally deign to learn English, a lot of this will be cleared up for us. But I don't blame them for playing hard to get.
Points duly noted and agreed with, with one exception --- that being the point some responders take which is this: why must one disbelieve the notion of a supreme being if we also believe in evolution? Karl Sagan didn't. Neither, most say, did Einstein. Though Linus Pauling did.
If the requirement for belonging to the league of believers in evolution is that we must also be atheists, then that echoes and sustains Ben Stein's irrational outlook --- that believers of evolution have to be atheists.
If there is a God, as I believe there is, than a being capable of creating the universe is an entity far beyond human comprehension. God is, in fact, Wallace Shawn's cigar store --- understanding God would blow our brains out.
So in "God" terms --- God created the world in seven days --- is basically a simplification of what really happened. After all, the Bible would scarcely serve its purpose were it to contain the "billions and billions"* of pages of scientific explanations of the evolution of life. "And then God created Man" is much simpler, and in God terms maybe only took one of his days.
How's this for an argument that would blow Ben Stein's brains out --- Creationism and Evolution are exactly the same thing!
*Ibid Carl Sagan
Thanks for writing this. To paraphrase Lewis Black, "the Flintstones was not a documentary!"
To get a scientific theory recognized, you have to prove it. You have to perform tests on it and experiments; you have to figure out what predictions it makes about the world and see if those predictions are true. You can't just sue people until they're forced to teach your half-baked fairy tale.
Elitism - does it equate with the Chinese re-education period of Mao? Reminds me of that interesting movie "The Little Seamstress."
Matt Hone: "Roger, it happens to be my birthday today. This is the best birthday present I could wish for."
Hey, Matt: Mine, too. And I agree: Roger, you've given us a swell present.
I'm sitting in my office--should be grading papers, but it's my Ebert Lunch Break--and at my back is not only Time's winged chariot hurrying near but also a Darwin poster. He's his usual solemn self, and below the portrait is the obligatory quotation: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."
Say Amen, somebody. The God I believe in loves us so much he makes us absolutely free--and seals the deal by plunking us into a Universe whose First Principle is Absolute Freedom. Free to bounce around, rub random crystals, do what-all whenever--responding to change, trying to do the right thing. The alternative would be a Universe of childish fools, shielded from harm--and joy, and terror, and all the rest. But God wants free agents, come what may; this time around, He got bipedal primates with opposable thumbs and enormously complex brains. I can hear Him now: "Primates, schmi-mates, just be good to each other."
As for miracles, I'm reminded of Bogart's Rick in Casablanca. Every once in a while, we make Him feel just enough pity He fixes the wheel so that we can get our letters of transit. Now that's an intelligent design.
Ebert: In fact, having read all the comments, I can tell you we're up to three birthdays. Isn't there some party game that that if x-number of people are in a room, you're safe in betting that two of them will have the same birthday? As we move toward 150 posters (an all-time speed record), the odds are we could get up a nice-sized poker game.
I find it extremely unlikely that Rev (smirk!) Stein would choose "Answer 'B'" and lose one million dollars: he surely is not stupid enough to put his lies to the test. I do not doubt for an instant that Stein knows evolution happened and happens, and that evolutionary theory correctly explains how evolution works--- he just claims otherwise because it is popular and financially rewarding.
By Paul West on December 3, 2008 10:39 AM
I love how a few folks compare your dislike of this film to your approval of some of Michael Moore's work, as if they have anything in common aside from being documentaries. So pathetic.
The reason why a few of us have made the comparison because Roger Ebert criticizes Ben Stein for the same tactics that Michael Moore uses them in his documentaries: cherry picking quotations, makes outrageous juxtapositions, segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, etc. Roger has defended this when Moore did this (although stopping short of how Charlton Heston was treated in Bowling For Columbine) as "making a good story better"
I have no opinion of this movie. I haven't seen it, and the mere fact that Ben Stein with a straight face draws a parallel of the theory of evolution to the Holocaust means I never will. Even Moore never stooped that low. But regardless, many of the points that some of the people have been making here in comparing this film to Moore's have been valid. The two have more in common than you would like to believe.
My favorite line in this review, and I think the one that encapsulates all the reasons why Stein and ID proponents are wrong: "A theory, like a molecule, a sea slug and a polar bear, has to fight it out in the survival of the fittest."
ID has been given its chance, and like a mutation with no use, it has lost. We're just watching it founder in the gutter. Its death rattle is noisy.
Mr. Ebert,
Well said. The sort of lies and filth disguised as a film from Ben needs to be called out more and then thrown into the trash where it belongs. I'm just sad that this deceit gets more exposure. I can only hope that eventually mankind will give up on these childish superstitions and get to work on actually cooperating as a species.
Ebert: In fact, having read all the comments, I can tell you we're up to three birthdays. Isn't there some party game that that if x-number of people are in a room, you're safe in betting that two of them will have the same birthday? As we move toward 150 posters (an all-time speed record), the odds are we could get up a nice-sized poker game.
**raises hand**
I turned 38 today. I suggest Texas Hold 'Em.
Wow. You eviscerated this film much more thoroughly than I did or could have. I was equally filled with contempt as you. Yet I don't agree completely with the review.
I watched the film out of fairness to my sister, who is Born Again and recommended it. I had already read the reviews and did not expect to like it. I hated it.
But for about the first half, it had me. And by "had me," I don't mean "converted me." Merely, I took it as a call for greater intellectual curiosity: Do not demonize opposing perspectives, debate them, study them, prove or refute them. Let the best science win. That's the great thing about science: Once something is proven objectively, it can speak for itself.
For instance, you cite that 99.975% of scientists agree with Darwin's theory of evolution. I think the other 0.025% might have interesting thoughts on the subject, and if they can prove God using scientific methods, more power to them. Or if our earliest molecules were manufactured by aliens, I'd love to meet them.
Early in your review, you conflate Creationism with intelligent design. But the film establishes, if nothing else, that there is an approach to intelligent design distinct from Creationism, in the sense that it doesn't claim man walked with dinosaurs or stepped barefoot out of the Garden of Eden. It's about a fundamental question that I think consumes all of science: Why is there something instead of nothing?
Is the film dishonest about its agenda? Certainly. But is it fair to equate ID with Creationism? I don't think so. It's not necessary to condemn this wretched film. It condemns itself.
What tanks the film is its abject hypocrisy. It appeals to our reason and then throws reason out the window. It asks us to be fair to other points of view but then proceeds its shameful smear campaign that would implicate evolutionists in the Holocaust. It claims that intelligent design isn't about religion but then argues Darwin destroys God and that godless science results in eugenics and genocide. It sets itself up as the victim of intellectual bigotry, and then that snide treatment of Richard Dawkins. It even vilifies Planned Parenthood. May as well have thrown in the ACLU and broadcast the whole ugly mess on FOX News.
It isn't even artful propaganda. Subtlety is not its strong suit. It takes a sledgehammer to Darwin and then compares Stein to Ronald Reagan. Hitler, the Berlin Wall, the Civil Rights Movement -- and then a roaring standing ovation at film's end. Understandable I guess: A film such as this has to applaud itself. No one else is going to.
Kevin T. Rodriguez (December 3, 2008 4:49 AM) said
"You give Moore a pass for his films because you say he's upfront about it. Well wasn't Stein upfront about this movie too? He's trying to argue a case too, it's just fewer people agree with that stance... You give this film hell for points that you let slide with other documentaries you agree with."
Here's the thing: that way of communication, presenting both sides of an issue in a way that lets people discover the truth for themselves, DOESN'T WORK IN TODAY'S SOCIETY. Your argument will be drowned out by all the flashy graphics and talking-heads shouting at each other.
In order for an idea to receive attention, it must be MARKETABLE now. Intellectual curiosity, the desire to understand who we are, is not enough by itself anymore. (Just look at the grosses of Herzog's lastest films.) Advertising and mainstream culture have have answered those questions for us.
Kevin T. Rodriguez (December 3, 2008 4:49 AM) said:
"If the documentaries did less to prove a point and more to tell a straight, non-cynical story of real life events (or in other words practiced journalism), then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion."
Intellectual curiosity is currently not very marketable (reminds people too much of school, I guess). The market demands flashy graphics and "gotcha" moments. It's harder to create "a straight, non-cynical story of real life events" with enough gotcha moments to be marketable.
I agree that it's a problem our society needs to deal with. But the fault isn't just within documentary makers--the problem is that we, the consumers, insist that our information be entertaining: "the marriage of communication with entertainment." Things won't improve until we get past that.
Mr Ebert, Congratulations, your review is proof positive of the great lengths that man will go in order to make a monkey out of himself. Hey, hey we're the monkeys. Instead of calling your review,"Win Ben Stein's Mind" you should have called it "Stroke Roger Ebert's Ego." I amazed how a movie critic is an expert on every subject. You should have left well enough alone and not reviewed the film at all because all your review revealed is your bias on the subject. Your review fills me with contempt. Your critique is guilty of the very same things that you accuse Ben Stein of. Starting with "99.975" of scientists agree that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the beginning of the universe. That statement alone is more ridiculous than any statement made in Stein's docudrama. Poor Ben he ought to be congratulated that he was even able to find more than one person to interview out of the .025 of all scientists who support something besides Darwinism. I amazed how you are guilty of making quotes such as "various forms of eyes have evolved 26 different times that scientists know about, and they can explain how it happened. So can I." as case closed factual statements as if there is no debate on the other side. You want tolerance in films, in society towards alternative lifestyles, etc.. but when it comes to the science classrooms, you are so afraid of even one alternate choice such as ID that you lambast even the thought of it. You only preach freedom when that freedom supports your views. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The constant theme of the film from beginning to end, (which was obviously missed by you,) is there was a time in this country when only creationism was taught in the public classrooms. And if you check your history, you will find out that was the prevailing view at that time. Then those on the other side, the Darwinists screamed bloody murder enough years, for their view to be taught that it finally was. But eventually that wasn't good enough and since 1954 only one view has been taught in schools. All the film asks is where is the freedom in that? I mean, Mr Ebert, what made your movie review shows so interesting to watch (as opposed to your print columns to read) is that, Gene Siskel and later Richard Roeper also reviewed the same films as you and sometimes (as you well know) they might angrily disagree with your review of the film and vice versa. But it would not have been much of a show ( and we would not have learned as much about the film)if you just said, here is my review, end of discussion, no debate. There is always two sides to every story and to completely silence one viewpoint is the worst form of censorship imaginable. I think your view is wrong, "Even a big bang requires a big banger," but I don't have a right to censore it as you want to with my view. As the Bible says, "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."
Chad Kelley said, "I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on you...try not to do the same to me."
That is all fine and well, but you just made an argument based on how angry "evolutionists" (is that even a defined belief-system like you make it sound? how about "non-crazies" instead?) are, without seeming to notice that the entire point of the documentary can be summed up as: HEY! AREN'T THESE GUYS REALLY BIG, FASCIST, ANTI-RELIGIOUS IDIOTS WHO DON'T WANT YOUR KIDS TO LEARN ABOUT THE TOOTH FAIRY IN A SCIENCE CLASS?!? DON'T WE WANT EVERYONE TO LEARN EXACTLY WHAT WE THINK, EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD BE OUR PERSONAL PLACE AS PARENTS TO INSTILL PERSONAL BELIEFS IN OUR OWN KIDS WE DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO?
Sure, go ahead. Teach about mythologies in a class that deals with establishment of fact-based observations and accounts for how the world operates on a day-to-day (or millenia-to-millenia basis.)
How about I just come to your Sunday school class and teach a little bit about evolution and how science can be used to disprove the idea of God, say, next week? 10:00 a.m. okay for you? Special topic: 80 Year-Old Drunks and 40 Day Floods: The Hidden Talents of One Family and Their Struggle to Re-Establish All Life On This Planet As We Know It From a Significantly lowered Gene Pool (or, How I learned to stop worrying and trust in God to save the "chosen" people).
Yeah, thought not. But, hey, what's it matter? Human beings are all going to go extinct one day anyway. Who cares if you call it the rapture? I wonder what the dinosaurs called their final throes...it probably sounded a lot like "Roar...[fart]."
Hey all:
Again, not seeing the film, I do not know how tastefully the discussion of Darwisnism as the progenitor of the holocaust was done (I am thinking it was not, but what do I know). I see a lot of comments stating how reprehensible it is to use in the ID/Darwinism argument and genocide.
But just look up eugenics on wiki or google, or hell, even an encyclopedia, and you will find that eugenics was a pseudo-science based upon Darwinism (The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin - wiki), and oh by the way, proponents of eugenics implemented the racial philosophies of Nazi Germany.
I don't think it is an absolute stretch to say that maybe the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews and at the same time populate the Earth with the Aryan ideal. People perverting Darwin's theory should not debunk the theory, much like a deviant priest or the Crusades should discredit the whole of Christendom.
Kevin T. Rodriguez (December 3, 2008 4:49 AM) said
"You give Moore a pass for his films because you say he's upfront about it. Well wasn't Stein upfront about this movie too? He's trying to argue a case too, it's just fewer people agree with that stance... You give this film hell for points that you let slide with other documentaries you agree with."
Here's the thing: that way of communication, presenting both sides of an issue in a way that lets people discover the truth for themselves, DOESN'T WORK IN TODAY'S SOCIETY. Your argument will be drowned out by all the flashy graphics and talking-heads shouting at each other. In order for an idea to receive attention, it must be MARKETABLE now. Intellectual curiosity, the desire to understand who we are, is not enough by itself anymore. (Just look at the grosses of Herzog's lastest films.) Advertising and mainstream culture have have answered those questions for us.
Kevin T. Rodriguez (December 3, 2008 4:49 AM) said:
"If the documentaries did less to prove a point and more to tell a straight, non-cynical story of real life events (or in other words practiced journalism), then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion."
Intellectual curiosity is currently not very marketable (reminds people too much of school, I guess). The market demands flashy graphics and "gotcha" moments. It's harder to create "a straight, non-cynical story of real life events" with enough gotcha moments to be marketable. I agree that it's a problem our society needs to deal with. But the fault isn't just within documentary makers--the problem is that we, the consumers, insist that our information be entertaining: "the marriage of communication with entertainment." Things won't improve until we get past that.
So how was the film? Seems to me that this "review" fails your mantra, which, to paraphrase, is that a good or bad film is not what the film is about, but rather how it is about what it is about. Had you been as scientifically rigorous in your review relative to Al Gore's film, you may have been able to cite those knowledgeable, credible scientists who think human caused global warming is hot air.
Ebert: In fact, having read all the comments, I can tell you we're up to three birthdays. Isn't there some party game that that if x-number of people are in a room, you're safe in betting that two of them will have the same birthday? As we move toward 150 posters (an all-time speed record), the odds are we could get up a nice-sized poker game.
Well, today is also Daryl Hannah's birthday. I for one would be more than willing to play a little Texas Hold-em with Ms. Hannah. (Sorry; it's the cake talking. I'll go back to work now.)
Roger, you are da man. Thanks for this masterpiece of reason. Loved the snark! It doesn't matter how late you reviewed that piece of garbage lie-fest, it just matters that you did. I love it!!!
I too saw "Expelled" for review purposes. There were six people in the theater and all six thought it stank. Ebert pretty well covered all the ground. The creationists do not have a leg to stand on, yet they are giving Texas fits and Gov Jindal in neighboring Louisiana recently signed a bill to push creationism in that state. Ben Stein should hang his head in shame.
" Stein showed several people in the film who had lost their jobs not because they argued that Darwin was wrong, but because they suggested the possibility that evolution may not have been an entirely biological process."
Actually, Stein lied and thus you are vastly misinformed. Richard von Sternberg didn't lose either of his two jobs, though he should have. Guilliermo Gonzales failed to get tenure at Iowa State because his academic record as an astronomy researcher there was weak (and of course like all ID 'scientists' he produced no actual scientific research in support of ID). Carolyn Crocker, who taught blatantly inaccurate science in her classes, suffered the same fate as vast numbers of itinerant, non-tenured, visiting faculty : she finished out her contract, and it was not renewed. As is also typical, she got another academic job in short order, and also decided to pursue postdoctoral work (i.e., her career did not 'come to an abrupt end' as Stein claims). Eventually she *quit* academia to take a position with an ID group, giving ID lectures at $1K-$5K a pop. Robert Marks was not fired from Baylor; his pro-ID website was removed from Baylor's website because Marks refused to put in a disclaimer dissociating its contents from the University, and refused to remove his false claim that he ran a 'laboratory' of 'Evolutionary Informatics'. Pamela Winnick's journalism career seems not to have suffered from her pro_ID 'reporting' on evolution -- she was still writing for her Pittsburgh paper several years after the first pro_ID article, and more recently has written for such obscure rags as the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.
That's the roll call of the supposedly 'Expelled'. You can read all about them at Expelled Exposed
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Would that there were this much skepticism aimed at the ludicrous man-made Global Warming hoax!
Ebert: Can't believe that even George W. Bush has fallen for it.
Great review.
Even if it were true that Darwin's theory led in a straight line to Nazism, that doesn't mean that Darwin was wrong. Physics and chemistry and mathematics led in a straight line to Hiroshima. Are they wrong, too, Ben Stein? Should they not be taught?
COuld Dinosaurs live among humans? we know they didn't, but could they?
This writing is illuminating and entertaining, as always, but I must confess I still don't understand why the film wasn't reviewed originally. On the TV show, you and Richard began doing a segment where you chastised the studios and filmmakers when they kept a movie from the critics. These were usually bad, very bad, movies, but you guys voiced that you wanted to see them and review them for your audience. Now, here's a film that I don't believe was kept from critics, and one that you admit is "not a bad film from the technical point of view," but it doesn't get reviewed. Because of philosophical differences with the filmmaker, I suppose (even though "The Birth of a Nation" has a slot, deservedly so, in your Great Movies list). I am an agnostic and a vehement supporter of Darwinian theory, but I do love to be entertained with opposing viewpoints. Thank you for finally reviewing a film I confess to being quite curious about.
Ebert: It opened in April, when I was still in the hospital. I bought my copy of the DVD.
Brilliant Roger!…and funny too!
Here’s the biggest laugh of all. The religious right has totally missed their own astonishing biblical heresy, that’s right heresy, in invoking the concept of “accidental evolution.” According to the Bible (Pv. 16:33) God controls all chance and there are no accidents. That’s a pretty big Ooops! You might enjoy this from the current Google News listings:
Intelligent Design Rules Out God's Sovereignty Over Chance
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977514804
“What proponents of so-called intelligent design have cynically omitted in their polemic is that according to Biblical tradition, chance has always been considered God's choice as well.”
Does anyone else find it astonishing that Ben Stein- who is obviously not some sort of feral simpleton -can pretend not to understand what constitutes a fact? The human capacity for self-deception is bottomless. Thanks for calling this liar out.
Reply to: Wayne :The real motivation for evolution isn't even science. It's the "scientific establishment" desperately trying to keep "science" atheistic.
False. Science is inherently atheistic, and no one needs to keep it atheistic. why? God does not exist. If there was even one legitimate evidence for God, science would embrace the supernatural.
Reply to: The proof of ID is clear and pervasive in all living things at every level... This is just one example of the problems facing darwins theory. Yes, small changes can take place and organisms can adapt in a limited sense. But, the machinery of living things must remain basically constant. If you would bother to take a course in developmental biology, you'd understand a little better just how critical the process of cellular differentiation is.
This is a perfect example of the Nonsense. These are the people who are NOT allowed to publish in peer journals. They are presenting a "straw man" theory, which they say is wrong, and then pretend it's part of evolutionary theory.
Yes, small changes take place. And if you look at human evolution over the last million years, ONLY small changes have taken place. If you look at human evolution over the last ten million years, ONLY small changes have taken place, at the molecular level and at every other level. If you add the proper time frame into your answer, you might realize your mistake.
ID proponents are victims of a scam. Until you realize that Intelligent Design is a scam that spreads false information, you can't get rid of it. You have to actually say "con game." People are lying to you, because they have an agenda, to fool you into thinking there is evidence of a God.
Think of the lottery. The odds against any single combination of 5 plus 1 coming up, in the Mega Millions, is 175,711,536 to 1. And yet, someone wins every month or so.
Reply to: Ed: You want tolerance in films, in society towards alternative lifestyles, etc.. but when it comes to the science classrooms, you are so afraid of even one alternate choice such as ID that you lambast even the thought of it. You only preach freedom when that freedom supports your views... There is always two sides to every story and to completely silence one viewpoint is the worst form of censorship imaginable.
Again, completely wrong. Every legitimate alternative choice is being presented in science classrooms. Your mistake is, Creationism is NOT a legitimate alternative. It's a con game. By far the prefered alternative would be to examine ID in a classroom and show WHY it's wrong. And that's being done. Seriously, every time there's a discussion of evolution, the evidence is presented. The proponents of ID are the ones who don't listen, and can't read the Cliff notes.
Young-Earth Creationism limits the number of times humans have produced a "new generation," which is the mechanism of evolution. Even worse, they include a Global Flood where one family survived. Well, let's look at sexually transmitted diseases. Did they all evolve in the 5,000 years since the Great Flood? Or were Noah and his family infected with the ancestors of every SD around today? The evidence PROVES Creationism is wrong. A hundred different tests, many of which you've never considered, but are part of legitimate evolutionary theory.
That's the standard. Legitimate Evolutionary Theory.... learn what it is, and quit trying to fool us by shooting down ridiculous "Straw Man" theories that aren't part of modern science.
"On the Origin of Species" was published 24 November 1859.
Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau published a book called "An Essay on the Inequality of the Races" or as it was originally known: "Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines." American physician Josiah Clark Nott translated this 1853 essay with Henry Hotz into English in 1956.
It was Nott who wrote "Types of Mankind or Ethnological Research" in 1854 along with George Robins Gliddon in which he put forth the polygenist theory of separate originals of the human races.
All this predates Charles Darwin's 1871 "The Descent of Man" as well as his "On the Origin of Species."Darwin concluded that the races were one species.
Gobineau is a well-known name amongst people who have studied the social aspects of racism, but as Mr. Ebert points out, intelligent discussion probably isn't what Ben Stein was interested in.
What is interesting is the article written in "Scientific American," entitled: "Six Things in Expelled that Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know."
According to the article, Stein has taken Darwin's words out of context. Shame on Stein.
Darwin was also influenced by his interest in horticulture according to the exhibit "Darwin's Garden" (currently at the Huntington Library in Pasadena, CA). In the garden we find that variation within a species as beautiful and something to be sought after and even actively pursued. Think of a rose garden or peonies or bamboo. Diversity is treasured in such gardens. In the garden that is the planet Earth, it is unfortunate that too many people do not find diversity within the species of homo sapiens as something wonderful.
Kudos to Roger Ebert! I would have never spent a dime to see this movie, so thankfully I was able to see it for free for review purposes, and the comments from Roger Ebert are dead-on! I actually used to like and respect Ben Stein quite a bit (and probably still do), but the ideas and conclusions he tries to draw in this film are just a shame. An otherwise intelligent man, and seemingly personable, WHY he is unable to separate fantasy from reality when it comes to religion and science, I have no idea! Science can explain it, I guess, with the theory of "Cognitive Dissonance," where you actually KNOW and have been explained the truth, but you still cling to the wrong ideas, and indeed embrace them more powerfully! And I agree with Ebert when he is "filled with contempt" over Stein's connection with the Nazis to Evolution ... SHAMEFUL, Ben Stein!
I think a great deal of the motive force behind ID is a unwarranted fear of science. These religious people feel that science makes very broad claims about reality and in great part these claims are contrary to their dearly held traditions.
They ascribe to science abilities and powers of scope that science does not claim for itself. They are afraid of a fake science. I think a understanding of modern science's philosophic underpinnings would be very useful. Science's power comes from its LIMITED scope. The claims of science are narrow assertions limited by the practical limit of experimentation and the theoretical limits of sensory experience. It is by imposing strict experimental limits on its claims that science creates knowledge that is supremely cumulative and transferable.
The questions of God and religion are outside this narrow range. Science can make no claim on the existence of a personal God. That assertion is outside the theoretical, and therefor ultimate, limits of science. The idea of a threat by science to religion is a psychological one based on a misunderstanding of the limits of science.
Mr. Dawkins likewise makes the same error, but I imagine with less excuse of ignorance. He makes broad claims, specifically against God, that can not be subject to experimentation. That God does not exist is as much a scientific claim as that God does exist. Mr. Dawkins cloaks his personal beliefs in scientific jargon and sells it as science itself. In my opinion this confusion about what science is from a scientist is more damaging to the public than ID. It frightens unnecessarily and confuses his readers who assume he propounds a rigorous scientific viewpoint.
Hi Roger,
Thanks for wadding into such dangerous waters with your wit and intelligence as weapons against the superstitious and ignorant.
In reading through the replies, I see Michael Moore cropping up as an example of the 'same' cheap tricks on the left towards which you are apparently tolerant. Can you address your views on the distinction between Stein and Moore in this regard. Are they different in kind, quality, intent, or outcome?
Thanks again for such a marveloud journal entry,
Don in Huntsville, AL
Whatever Ben Stein says must be truth because he wrote speeches for Nixon.
"I love how a few folks compare your dislike of this film to your approval of some of Michael Moore's work, as if they have anything in common aside from being documentaries. So pathetic."
First, they do have something in common...it's called motive. Moore has a distinct motive going into all of his works & in this case so does Stein. They started with an end in mind & that's the rub here...both Moore & Stein had an agenda they were trying to forward.
Roger,
About those shared birthdays....
Amazingly, if you have 24 people gathered together, the chances are better than 50% - 50% that two of them will have the same month and day of birth.
With 30 people, the chances are 68.7% that two will have the same month and day of birth, and with 35 people the chances are 80.0%.
I don't know how to upload the math or send it to you, but the concept is pretty simple:
[ chances people have shared birthday ] + [ chances people do not have shared birthday ] = 100%.
The chance that they do not have a shared birthday is (364/365) * (363/365)*(362/365) etc. carried out for the number of people in the group (actually the math I cited above also contains a technical factor to account for Feb 29 birthdays in leap years).
I've tested this empirically as well at large gatherings and even though the numbers seem astounding they do seem to hold true (i.e., in groups of about 20 - 25 people, around half the time there is a shared birthday).
I have yet to come across a creationist who is able to present me with evidence of a 700 million year old rabbit fossil. J.B.S. Haldane said it would blow evolution out of the water.
Still waiting, guys.
The truth is that even if Expelled and Moore's movies use similar tactics, Moore tackles concepts that are real controversies, while ID VS Evolution has not been a legitimate scientific controversy for over a hundred years. Because the point of the movie is baseless, the creators are forced to manufacture their story to a much higher degree than Michael Moore ever does. This erodes the quality of the movie.
Also, even if Ebert is wrong in his anlysis for Moore's film does not change how right he is about this film.
Yes. (to the article).
Incidentally, the logic is that with 23 people in a room, there is a 50% chance that to of them will have the same birthday.
At 200 people, which we must be at by now, there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999998 % chance that 2 will have the same birthday. Seriously.
Roger, I don't watch movies very often therefore I'm not up on reviews, but this essay you've created is far more than a simple review. You are a wordsmith who deserves praise for your intellect and wisdom. Never has the foolish belief in Intelligent design been dragged out in the daylight in the center of town and exposed for the hokum crap it is, the way you have done so.
Thank you.
Signed, A new fan.
PS I read every review you write from today forward.
With regard to X people in the room leading to two of them having the same birthday, the odds are lower than you might think - with 23 people in the room, the odds are 2 to 1.
That's right - the number 23 strikes again!
"but I don't have a right to censore it as you want to with my view"
Tell me Ed Hamilton, how is your view (or Ben Stein's view or the producers' view) of ID being censored? Didn't an entire film about it just get released? Aren't you able to discuss it here and elsewhere on the Internet? Is it because ID is not taught in the Science classroom? Ah, well if that is it, there's actually a good reason:
ID is not a scientific theory.
It simply isn't. It isn't falsifiable.
If you want to have a debate about origins of life and match up Evolution vs. ID please go right ahead. Just don't do it under the guise of science.
That's what many of us are concerned about. Not because it threatens evolution. Seriously (I really mean this), if evolution were disproved by new evidence, evidence that was validated and found by others as well, but was also consistent with all previous evidence found, scientists as a whole would actually be happy. Yes, happy. Stunned likely, but indeed they would be happy.
This will be a legendary essay.
Mr Ebert, re: your question about the chance of people in a group of a certain size having the same birthday — Wikipedia has been there (of course):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox
A quote:
In a group of 23 (or more) randomly chosen people, there is more than 50% probability that some pair of them will both have been born on the same day. For 57 or more people, the probability is more than 99%, reaching 100% as the number of people reaches 366.
Excellent article, btw. Maybe you could look into why this creationist bs is such a hot topic amongst Americans. The last time it was an issue in the Netherlands was a few years ago, when a Christian Secretary of Education tried to put it on the agenda. During the row that ensued she weakened her stance and declared herself a believer in “iets-isme”, a Dutch term meaning ”believing in something”. Our current Secretary is a biologist/geneticist, thank Darwin. ; )
Ed Hamilton's post above would have us believe that since alternate ideas to evolution are not taught in public schools today, it is evidence of liberal, elitist, academic intolerance. Nonsense. First of all, the only thing taught in any science class should be SCIENCE, not religion. Intelligent Design/Creationism has not met the most basic standards of scientific proof. If it ever does, it will be given the same level of credence as Darwin's work. Until then, it is just ignorant nonsense.
Secondly, no intolerance has occurred. Intolerance would suggest an effort to limit freedom of speech, an unwillingness on the part of liberals to even allow Stein, Hamilton, et al., the right to give voice to their absurdities. Last time I checked, no one prevented the Stein film from being made or distributed, and as evidenced by Hamilton's post above, no one has prevented him from promulgating his ludimocrosity-as-science rant.
Mr. Hamilton, if you ever need surgery, which surgeon do you want operating on you: A.) a medical scientist who understands and respects empiricism, has thorough command of basic human anatomy, is familiar with the concept of an aseptic field, and has a record of continuous education in the latest advancements in surgical technique, or; B.) a religious zealot who received a faith-based education, assiduously avoided any offending inconvenient scientific truths, who thus remains pure in thought, and is content to let faith and prayer alone guide his knife?
Ignorance marketed as alternatives to demonstrable fact is a threat to us all.
As one of the few bloggers who has seen this film, I think its important to correct one common misconception people are getting from your review. Stein did not blame Darwin or evolutionists in general for the Holocaust. What Stein points out (accurately, by the way) is that some "scientists" used the theory of evolution to support their theories of eugenics, race superiority, etc.
And just to be clear, I agree that this was not an appropriate subject for the documentary. Even mentioning Nazis, Hitler, or eugenics in this documentary was a huge mistake becuase it leads people to immedately make the kinds of inaccurate conclusions that several posters on this blog have made, namely that Stein is blaming Darwin for the Holocaust. It was a mistake for Stein for include this section in the film as it distracts from his main thesis which is that the academic community is waging an all out war against any type of intellgient design discussion and, ultimatley, against religion itself.
Loved the review, and in it's own special way, I loved the movie, too. It was easily the funniest movie I've seen all year, culminating with what could easily be seen as one of the very funniest scenes in all of film history: the climactic showdown between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. I haven't laughed so hard in years: here's this man, Dawkins, clearly the movie's "villain", and he just dominates all over the ill-prepared, condescending "hero" Stein. Stein comes off in these final scenes as a babbling moron, while the composed and intelligent Dawkins hands him back his questions with a fat slice of humble pie. It was so funny and so satisfying that it almost made me forget that I'd been called a Nazi and a robot for the last hour and a half for believing something that's more or less, you know, true.
Rather than praising this wonderful essay or insulting Mr. "Bueller-Bueller-ClearEyes-Wow!" some more, I'd like to tell a quick anecdote on the subject.
I remember once as a kid closing the front gate of my home one morning and being called behind it by Word-spreading passers-by. (Evangelists? Mormons? Jehova's witnesses? I didn't ask.) I can't remember the debate that followed with specifics, but I recall its central theme being: "Do you believe in dinosaurs or God? One or the other." I said: "Both."
"Don't you believe in the Bible?," they asked.
"Sure," I answered.
"Genesis says God created the world in seven days, but dinosaurs supposedly existed millions of years ago. How can that be?"
I responded: "Well, time for God isn't the same as time for people."
Would that I could be as wise an adult.
Obviously you are right, and any sensible person will agree. What I wanted to comment on was the quality of your writing, which just seems to be getting better and better. And it was great to begin with.
(it's my birthday today too. deal me in.)
It seems odd to me that someone hasn't proposed a middle ground for this ridiculous argument. As a person in the scientific community I'm a firm believer in evolution, however, I also hold a believe in God. Is it so blasphemous to say that God used evolution as a tool to create the creatures of this earth (including humans)? Evolution is an incredible process that allows life to accommodate to an ever changing environment. It seems to me that giving God credit for its implementation is a compliment, and certainly not a negative. If the religious community doesn't stop taking every specific detail of the bible (dates, lengths of time, the rapture) so seriously, then they will only succeed in driving away every person of intelligence.
Roger, excellent work! While I have nothing substantive to add regarding the article, I wanted to comment on this comment:
By Tor Ramsey on December 3, 2008 1:05 PM
"Points duly noted and agreed with, with one exception --- that being the point some responders take which is this: why must one disbelieve the notion of a supreme being if we also believe in evolution? Karl Sagan didn't. Neither, most say, did Einstein. Though Linus Pauling did."
I do believe it is generally thought now that Einstein was a nonbeliever, at least in any traditional sense. In a letter to a colleague (Edgar Meyer) dated January 2, 1915, he said:
"Why do you write to me "God should punish the English"? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
Similarly, Carl Sagan on God:
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
It is my understanding that both Sagan and Einstein were not believers in a sentient supreme being. There are other quotes and sources that would suggest the same as the above.
matt said "How about I just come to your Sunday school class and teach a little bit about evolution and how science can be used to disprove the idea of God, say, next week? 10:00 a.m. okay for you?"
You're welcome anytime, we can setup up the discussion for the adult & teen Sunday School Classes. I go to church at the Maple Hill Community Congregational Church in Maple Hill, KS. You're always welcome although you should take your meds first....that anger again?
These claims of mythology you say ID believers subscribe too, perhaps you're oversimplifying it. It's not as if I believe in ID because I don't understand anything else....I love science. Love it. My faith is not in jeopardy & I don't check my brain in when I go to church just the opposite. I actually came to faith because of science & it is bolstered by it...if you'd like to discuss actual specifics, I feel pretty confident with my beliefs & we could certainly engage in a debate...but dude you gotta check your anger at the door. Emotional debates are useless, it invariably turns into conjecture & name-calling. I'm all for a discussion & can easily articulate my beliefs without all of the emotion. Just the facts...I'm not intimidated by science.
So if you're serious, let's talk.....not yell or rant...talk.
"Isn't there some party game that that if x-number of people are in a room, you're safe in betting that two of them will have the same birthday?"
If you have as little as 23 people in a room, it is more likely than not (51%), two of them have the same birthday. 57 people in the room, 99% chance. 100 people, 99.99997%. 366 people, 100%.
See here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox
I like Ben Stein. I liked Expelled, too.
Ben Stein is important because, like our friend Socrates, he makes the weaker argument the stronger. That's always fun. It helps that Stein's smart enough to put the evolution argument on the run, and they have little room for retreat. Right or wrong, they only have the past 200 years or so to draw on, and creationism has all that longevity and writing on its side. Pretty fertile ground.
Many of the writers have already mentioned Michael Moore's celebrated techniques being picked up and used by Stein. I would add that Bob Eubanks knows all too well what can happen to you when the camera's rolling during makeup. That was when I broke with Michael Moore, and although it's entertaining to see Stein stoop to the same tricks, it is a stoop, and I think he's more than capable of giving his argument a good run without trickery.
I think rational well-intentioned people can at least agree to this: both systems come down to belief. Science is still unable to solve Hox's paradox and until they can, there will be no definitive proof for evolution. After they do--and they will--and we find that we have in our hands the solution to aging and cancer, we'll all throw creationism out the window.
Another worthwhile attribute to this movie is that it shows that it's possible, in fact preferred, to investigate and tolerate competing belief systems in order to determine truth. As you pointed out, Roger, Deiter Dengler did not open and shut doors in his house until Herzog asked him to. So was that a lie? No. It was a method.
The truth does not lie around in the back yard hoping we'll trip over it and then move on. It requires some sort of apparatus for us to get at it, and after that what we do with it determines who we are. No one would be foolish enough to posit that climbing a rope is a lie, while climbing a mountain is true. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact--they're interdependent. That's a good lesson for everyone.
My favorite prof was a fellow who branched out into semiotics from Boolean algebra and kept a copy of the Shroud of Turin over his desk. He was a believer, but he did not preach anything but method, and if that method let you use Christianity as a stepping stone for more arcane beliefs, then go ahead, he said. Or, as Wittgenstein (no relation to Benstein) pointed out, language in and of itself is a technique and once used to gain perspective, should be thrown away, like a ladder you've used to get on the roof. It's a tool. Don't confuse the tool and the work--even when they seem to trade places.
All I would tell Ben Stein as he clomps around in the Socratic method is to remember what happens when you make the weaker argument the stronger. It may soon be Ben that requests a sacrifice be made in his name to Aeschylus as the cold, cold hemlock does its job. Vanity vanity all is vanity and there is no new thing under the sun.
Roger,
In response to your reply, how does one scientifically prove there is or isn't a God? It can't be done. How, then, can anyone authoritatively state that Intelligent Design is completely without basis? As I recall from the film, Richard Dawkins himself made a fairly interesting case for at least some form of ID.
Furthermore, I'm curious as to how exactly you arrived at this "99.975%" figure. Which scientists were polled to produce such a result? Which ones were sick that day? Was the poll taken on a Sunday morning, perhaps? When all the dissenters were in church?
Fascism has a great deal to do with this, Roger. People are being actively persecuted for having this non-conformist notion that there's more to the universe than random chance and chaos. Why is it so important to repress even the mere possibility that someone or something might have put us here?
Finally, I consider it particularly interesting that you so readily dismiss the tactics of this film, yet you seem to hold the highest regard for "Religulous", "Farenheit: 9/11" and "An Inconvenient Truth". I suppose "Expelled" does lack the same polish and finesse of those others, but surely the topic itself isn't off-limits? After all, "it's not what the film is about but how it's about it", right?
-Eric
I was a physics student at Iowa State University, and Alberto Gonzales was my astronomy teacher. He was a fine teacher. But, I recall he didn't get tenure because he secured way less research grants than the typical professor.
Great review, by the way. I feel like watching, just to see what they make of Gonzales.
It may be a nit pick of CR's comment, but before you change your blog Roger, and to defend your math capabilities, your use of 37 chances of losing for the Roulette odds is correct. CR said 1:35 but that "denies the existence" of the "0" and "00" on every Roulette table that allows casinos to make such a killing.Thus, 1:37 is correct.
I had hoped this movie was a joke - especially when I saw Ben Stein's name attached to it. My opinion of him really took a dive - since he always seemed so learned and sincere. Oh well.....
ID'er need to get over the fact that their idea is not Science, never has been Science, and never will be Science. The Scientific Method mandates that you test, re-test, and test again the various hypotheses - ID'ers can't. Their answer to every question is "God did it." How do you test that?
And, if the you look at the history of Science, you will see a field of continuous change, as new information and insight is gained into the natural world, theories change to conform to the new information that is available. People who claim that Scientists have been wrong in the past - well yes, of course they were wrong (like the Sun revolving around the Earth and other outdated and discredited theories) because they didn't have access to the tools that would allow them to make the observations necessary to disprove the "mainstream" theory.
Science constantly changes - ID'ers don't accept any change at all. "God Did It" is the one and only answer - so tell me, which side is biased & inflexible?
Mr. Ebert, I am a great admirer of your work, but I must stand with the minority on this one and say that this review was not up to your usual standard.
Yes, Intelligent Design (or whatever they're calling it now) is, to put it kindly, idiotic. But for that very reason, a drawn-out attack on it from an intelligent debater smacks of bullying, like watching a prizefighter beat up a cripple. A light touch is sufficient to knock it down. Yes, there will still be some who still believe it, but no amount of logic or evidence will sway them, so why bother?
And yes, from what you say this film sounds like garbage. But it would be garbage even if it espoused a conclusion which happened to be correct. If you had simply described the film's trickery and illogic -- too obvious to be sinister but too offensive to be laughable -- it would have been a good read, but by railing against the subject matter you spoiled your own prose style and diluted what could have been a crisp, sharp review.
If the film had been a subtle and persuasive defense of an utterly bankrupt idea, now that would have been interesting!
For a wonderful exposition on how something that is not life turns into life, I heartily recommend the book At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-organisation and Complexity by Stuart Kauffman. Absolutely wonderful stuff.
I love it, still I was reading through the pop references and hoping that a Ferris Bueller one was going to come along at any second.
You're thinking of the Birthday Paradox in the comment above, where the magic number hovers around 25 people as the minimum to guarantee a match, depending on who is providing the analysis.
And in an off-topic comment, check out Odetta's Christmas record if you don't have it. Good stuff.
Ebert: So sad that she died today.
"But eventually that wasn't good enough and since 1954 only one view has been taught in schools. All the film asks is where is the freedom in that?"
Scroll back up, look at the comic at the end of the article. It's also been a good long while since chemistry teachers taught alchemy, but I don't see all that many people whining about intellectual repression, the "cult of chemistry", etc. etc. There are people who believe lots of crazy things - there is in fact a society that proclaims the truth of the flat earth - but that doesn't mean we should be giving them equal, or even partial time in academic discussion. It's not censorship, it's merely following the principles of good science. There are unanswered questions about evolution, but scientists are constantly striving to solve such problems, and new discoveries are constantly being made. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, and all the "problems" they've identified with the theory of evolution have been thoroughly addressed by scientists, using, once again, the principles of science and rationality and truth. The creationists, in spite of all that, continue to rant about how nobody can answer their questions, how horribly repressed they are, etc. (And, for the record, the stories of academic repression are largely exaggerated, if not completely false - check out Expelled Exposed and various other websites.)
"There is always two sides to every story and to completely silence one viewpoint is the worst form of censorship imaginable."
There really aren't two sides to this though. No matter how much you may scream it. There really aren't.
Here's the thing - you can hold your views all you want. You can believe that evolution is a flawed theory and that intelligent design is a more probable answer. I don't think you're being completely rational, but everyone has some irrational aspects about them. However, when you try to say that such views should be allowed to be taught in schools, and that they should have a place in scientific institutions and the sort - well, I'm going to fight against that as much as I'm going to fight against someone trying to teach that the earth is flat or that the theory of gravity is false. No, it shouldn't even be taught as an option because there's absolutely nothing scientific about it.
"I think your view is wrong, "Even a big bang requires a big banger"
And even a god requires a godmaker. You may say - "well, God is infinite and eternal and has always existed", but that, unfortunately, doesn't make any more sense than the idea of the big bang.
Let me clarify the end of my last post. I wasnt saying that I believed that evolution thinking protestants do not exist. Astonishingly, they do. I was simply saying that of the hundreds that I know (at least the ones that are true followers of Christ and believe the Bible to be God's Word) I have yet to meet one that believes that we weren't created by God and God alone. Sure there are some that may believe that somewhere along the way, some forms of evolution occured. I respectfully disagree with them. But as far as a true protestant who claims to believe the very word of God that says "Man was created by God", I have yet to meet one who believes that we....well, weren't. Mr. Ebert, I respect you and have admired your writing for some time now, but I feel that you are way off base here. Judging by your review and the responses to some of the commenters here, I have concluded (and correct me if Im wrong) that you think anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution is in some way ignorant or "of lesser intelligence." Really? Am I just an ignorant American because I have a faith in something greater than a microscope? I wont get into the whole "faith vs. science" thing, but in practicing my faith and aligning my beliefs with what the Bible says do I therefore forfeit my right to a voice in the discussion? I certainly don't think so.
Ebert: In other words, no Protestant as you define a Protestant subscribes to Darwin's theory. Yet two out of three Protestants as they define themselves apparently have no problem with it. I suppose by your definition Catholics aren't even Christians at all, so their opinions, including the Pope's, are not relevant here.
This is, without a doubt, one of the clearest, most brilliant refutations of the nonsense that is ID, that I've ever read. Thank you Roger.
Roger, this was an extraordinary piece of writing, as usual. Once again, I have so much admiration for your passion and insight in championing the cause of reason and logic in the face of willful ignorance. Ben Stein should be ashamed of himself, though it's unlikely he will be. And you should be very proud. You are among my literary heroes.
The very basis of creationalism is steeped in a tradition that is not attempting to answer the "hows" of this world. And as many "101" theologian/spiritualists would agree, the important question faith attempts to answer is not so much the how, but the why.
Quick tangent. You have moved into a new phase of critique that I hope to see more of in the media. Why don't we get more depth in our reviews and news? We deserve better.
Isn't Ben Stein that dude from the Clear Eyes commercials?
You've always been more than just another film critic, Roger, and this blog shows that even more so. An extraordinarily lucid voice of reason in whatever you choose to write about. Bravo!
Mr. Ebert,
Why did you not throw such a fit over Michael Moore's Faranheit 9/11, when he used the exact same tactics (distortions, manipulating facts, lying, etc.) to get his point across? I don't believe you objected to that movie. What's the difference here?
Roger, this was an extraordinary piece of writing, as usual. Once again, I have so much admiration for your passion and insight in championing the cause of reason and logic in the face of willful ignorance. Ben Stein should be ashamed of himself, though it's unlikely he will be. And you should be very proud. You are among my literary heroes.
Oh, and the birthday party game: probably no one is interested in this, but given the discussion of odds within the article it's not entirely irrelevant. If there are 367 people in the room it is absolutely certain that two people have the same birthday (366 days in a year, including Feb 29, plus 1); if there are N people in the room, the probability of at least two people having a birthday is about (1 - 365!/N!/366^N), where N! = N*(N-1)*(N-2)*...*3*2*1, and 366^N is 366 times itself 366 times; this is a bit of an approximation as it assumes it's equally likely to be born on any day of the year, including Feb. 29! So the actual point where the probability crosses 50% is, somewhat surprisingly, 23 people, and it crosses 90% at about 41. Of course the probability of more than one poster having a birthday TODAY is somewhat different. For N posters, that's 1-(365/366)^N, which crosses 50% at...254 posters.
For a summary (better than mine), see Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox.
As an agnostic who grew up in a family of intelligent Episcopalians that use the Bible more as a guidebook than as a strict set of rules, I ate this review up. I watched about half of the film (for the 'know your enemy' argument) but I had to turn it off because I knew that there has to be other, better researched arguments out there for ID.
I don't understand the people criticizing your tactic in reviewing this. The point of a documentary is both to inform and, in some cases, entertain. Michael Moore's documentaries may have cherry picked quotes and cheap editing tactics at times, but they also have facts and figures that are accurate and cross referenced on Moore's website. He also never equated Bush with Hitler in Fahrenheit 9/11. Stein's film has a few moments (from what I saw) where there are legitimate facts and figures, but for the most part, it's cheap shots, and that's just wrong and immoral.
I watched a great documentary called "For The Bible Tells Me So" a month or so ago, which explained how homosexuals are viewed within the church and how the Bible is misinterpreted to further the agendas of political figures. I felt like I learned more about religion from that film in four minutes than I did from Stein in forty five.
Ultimately, as Dawkins said, if there was some sort of undeniable proof that ID was legitimate, then I would believe it. But at this point, it's all conjecture and hearsay. God may exist, and he may have created the heavens and the earth, but we sure as hell can't prove it. Atheists have the fossils. We win.
Sorry. This is just too much. There is an enormous amount of misinformation here. I was going to limit myself one comment, as I'd already had it out with Tyler D. on a previous post.
HERE IT IS: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/the_third_most_important_story.html#more
1. Science is NOT democratic. Science is based solely upon evidence. The evidence (look at all the links I provided Tyler) overwhelmingly shows that evolution occurred and occurs. It doesn't matter at all if 99.9% of believers in special creation voted in favor of it. There is no evidence for special creation. The reason nearly all scientists accept evolution is because of the preponderance of the evidence.
2. Charles Darwin (like most 19th century Englishmen) was racist. The full title of his book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." To label this as racist is a misnomer, though, as the subtitle refers to natural selection, not races that census takers measure. But whether he was right about evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with his racism. Evolution happened and happens.
3. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. It is neither Republican nor Democrat, liberal nor conservative. I have colleagues colleague who teach science that are fiscal and social conservatives, while I am a liberal both fiscally and socially. We teach science and fully accept evolution.
4. Not all people who accept evolution are Darwinists. Some adhere to Margulis' theory (theory meaning she actually has evidence to support it) of an endosymbiotic relationship driving evolution. This does NOT mean Margulis denies that evolution occurs and occurred. She provides a theory of the mechanism that drives it.
5. Intelligent Design is NOT a new theory brought forth by Michael Behe and his ilk. It is the result of the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard. In that case, the Supreme Court (rightly) decided that creationism could not be taught in public school science classes because science teachers would be advancing a religion by doing so, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution. During the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District trial, the plantiffs representing the parents pointed out a piece of text in which the word "creationist" was partially whited out and "designist" was typed in. At the trial, Michael Behe admitted his "theory" was no more scientifically valid that astrology.
6. I am a Protestant Christian, fully accept evolution, and share the same birthday with Jessica Alba, Sadaam Hussein, Ann Margaret, Harper Lee, Oskar Schindler and James Monroe.
The only problem I have with people who claim to "believe in Evolution" is that most of them don't have a clue what they're talking about. Darwin espoused Natural Selection. The word "evolution" is used only once in Origin of the Species, and then in a different context than how "Evolutionists" tend to use it. There's a HUGE difference between Natural Selection, which says organisms with stronger survival traits tend to pass along their traits, and Evolution, which says "Fish magically grow wings". I've found that most so-called "Evolutionists" are really just anti-religious, and use "Evolution" as a cover for their own hatred and prejudice.
I haven't seen this film, but I probably will now. I have a degree in Geology, and this whole argument disgusts me. Not because of ID or evolutionism or any of that, but because I find so many people saying that someone else is an idiot just because they say so and then offer no real scientific evidence to prove their point. I see very little scientific evidence offered in the original review or in the comments (some, but still very little). Of course, I got tired of reading all the logical jumps in both and never got to the end of either. Logic can be skewed too easily for my tastes. I did get to where one commenter said this:
"The scientific method involves coming up with a theory and doing everything possible to try and disprove it."
I would agree with that - but no one has done this with evolutionism in a long time, to be fair. While I probably won't like the bias in Expelled, I have to agree with the basic thought that dissent is not allowed in current scientific circles - it is mocked. Just look at how many comments here offer no real substance, just mockery. Are scientists really above that? My experience would say No. I applaud ID followers and even creationists just for their guts in being the voice of dissent. And for that matter Hindu and Islamic creationists, devolutionists, teleologists (the non-creationist strain, that is), etc. If Science were true anymore, we would allow anyone to debate their theory based on its scientific merits - which all of the above can do despite what many have said. But, no - you have to accept the current party line or else. Why all the fear and all-out sissy-ness I say? If you really believe in evolution, then grow a backbone and let people challenge it. Who cares if they have religious motives? Who cares if you don't agree with their science? And learn something called respect for those that disagree with you.
I think that is what makes me sick about all of this. Since when did it become cool to mock someone just because they believe differently than you? Both sides are guilty of this, and it is just stupidity. Pure stupidity.
Also, I must point out that, while earning my degree, I did read polls that indicated as many as 20% of the scientists polled believed in ID. And I read studies and polls that indicated anywhere between that and your 0.025%. But picking the lowest possible number of all polls and using as a basis for your review seems cheap to me. And a little biased.
And for heaven's sake, yes is it bad to blame Darwin for Hitler, but it is also a historical fact that many Nazi leaders wrote about how they were inspired by Darwinism. Once again, we scientists need to grow a backbone and not be so offended just because someone points out how people took our theories incorrectly.
Scientists have got to be the biggest wimps I have ever met. And I is one.
In a way, watching this has desensitized me to similar things. Seriously, comparing Evolution "Darwinism" to Nazism and Hitler?
When my friends told me to expect this coming, I was fraught of anticipation. I really wanted to catch this "gem" I was expecting that would make the movie all the more ridiculous. Contrary to my expectations, I did not find a slight tidbit or an interview answer that ended up suggesting that. I found an extended length of the documentary spent on looking at the Holocaust and why it was bad.
Why?
Why is this is in the movie? Why do we have to be reminded that the holocaust is bad? Of course, we can easily realize what the movie is trying to do, it's not subtle in the least to the intelligent viewer. Propaganda equating "Darwinism" with Hitler, Stalin, the Holocaust, the Berlin Wall... It was ridiculous. I won't even go into all the individual problems.
Worse of all, it was sickening.
@ CJ
Don't be so quick to correct Roger's math! You assert that the odds against winning on a single number are not 37 to 1, but 35 to 1; actually, they are either 36 or 37 to 1, depending on whether the wheel has just a 0, or whether it has a 00, also. In the latter case, with both a 0 and a 00 on the roulette wheel, the odds against are, in fact, 37 to 1, although the payoff is only 35 to 1 in either case, thus the house edge.
See what you did? Now I want to see this film, because I want to have a good laugh...
It's rare these days to see a film having no idea what it is about. I watched this film believing it be a high school comedy - I know, I am the fool.
It was far funnier than I had any right to imagine. I sat there in amazement wondering how someone in 2008 could actually believe this sort of stuff. My mind drifted onto other things. Who actually financed this junk? Who was it aimed at? Is Ben Stein serious? Is this the film that finally kills film criticism :-) Could this only happen in America, land of the free and the stupid? And of course, as Monty Python might say... the Meaning Of Life.
The sad fact is that whilst I have an open mind and love meeting well constructed arguments that are opposed to my point of view. Those who believe in this theory will doubtless switch off to your marvelous discussion as they really don't want to know anyway.
Great stuff as always!
Anglophile Rob
What you say is mildly true, if not stereotypical. There are many ways that this could have been broken down. No one can truly understand the meaning of life. It is because we lack this comprehension we develop a need for there to be someone or something will all the answers to questions we never even asked. This is how God was introduced into the world. First by Yaweh, then by "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit" otherwise known as God, and then for a thrice version Allah. Not to mention the countless others. Man's curiosity betrays itself when we believe what we create. Did God truly do this? Does he even exist? That is open to wide spread debate and it is not ours to say. I would prefer to believe that something is brought upon as a similiarity to having a God with all the answers, but I would be just as well without that comfort.
Darwin sent out to strudy the similarities between speicies, it is only through his pain staking work that he found similarities that allowed him to combine that with common sense. If everything is similar, then they must have been created by the same thing. Then adding common sense into the mix. He speculated tiny organisms millions of years ago. Well... about 700 if you want to get technical. You can also easily see this as "God created this, so God made them similar, or it was his touch that made then similar" this is equally debatable. The only thing that isn't is the Bible Genesis. It is wrong. There is no doubt about it. Unless those 6 days were not days of 24 hours and closer to nearly a billion years, it is false. We can draw parallels but we can never truly concieve the truth.
-Dennis Michael Murphy.
I have to admit, I didn't walk away from Expelled with the same disdain you have for it, Mr. Ebert. Funny, because it's actually the first review I've read from you that I didn't agree with (and I've read a lot of 'em).
See, I do have a problem with evolution, not because I believe it upsets my own personal beliefs, but because I believe there is a fundamental issue with the theory. I've been back and forth on the subject for some time now, studied many different thoughts and theories, and so far been unsuccessful in answering my one fundamental question that Stein also posed to Richard Dawkins: at what point did non-life become life? I really would love a great answer here, because I can't find one. My understanding is that non-life, no matter how many eons you give it, can never produce life. In Stein's last interview, correct me if I'm wrong, Dawkins actually points out in so many words that not even he has an answer for that. He seems to suggest that maybe aliens seeded us here. Surely he doesn't really believe that that's anymore than some extremely unlikely possiblity, but either way he seemed to seriously pass the buck with that answer.
I know that there are aspects of evolutionary theory that are true. No on can deny that there are slight to significant modifications that occur among animals in nature. For instance, there are grizzly bears and polar bears. They are different because their environments are different. Perfectly understandable example of one form of evolution. My question is: at what point does the bear mutate into a completely different animal?
By the way, I know a lot of animosity has come from the ID camp and it's not right. I am a Christian, and I've been left wondering how it is that the guy on the street corner with the pamphlets and the bullhorn telling everyone they're going to hell has come to represent me and many other of the "excluded middle men" of the Evolution vs ID debate. I have a problem with evolution, but I'm not closed to the theory. Besides even if evolution is right, it doesn't disprove the existence of a Creator. It just defines how He did it.
Hopefully I can get some help though. It just seems that it takes a lot less faith to believe "In the beginning, God..." than "In the beginning, dirt (or ice crystals, or something or other)..."
Seth W.
Jonesboro, La
Ebert: My blog mentions the North Carolina and Oregon scientists who believe they have demonstrated how life might indeed have evolved on crystals, and this article in the Dec. 1 NYTimes [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/science/02eart.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=australia%20zirconium&st=cse] discovers another billion years for the process go take place. Neither of these discoveries would have been known to Dawkins, and as a good scientist he did not postulate them. The hardest thing to accept (and I find it hard, too) is that life might in fact simply have happened to happen. Life does not by definition require a god. The first specks of life would have had an incalculable advantage over the non-living specks around them. If you have enough time and enough specks to start with, life seems almost inevitable. That brings you to what Bernard Shaw called the Life Force, which by one definition involves the intense focus of all living things on remaining alive, and the complete indifference to life of all non-living things.
Way to go, Roger.
The real issue with Intelligent Design that Ben never acknowledges in his propaganda film is not that ID is being denied a fair hearing -- it's that it has been rejected after its fair hearing.
There's a huge difference between suppressing a concept before it is considered and rejecting an idea that has been thoroughly evaluated and dismissed.
ID is clearly the latter.
Thank you Roger. Been reading you since about the time Royko reviewed your first movie. As he said, what, 40 years ago?, one to watch.
For the birthday coincidence: if birthdays were evenly distributed through the year, we'd only need a group of 23 to have a better than even chance of a duplication. The first person could be born on 365 of 365 days. The second person, to avoid duplication, has to be born on one of the 364 days remaining, and so on. Then multiply out the 365/365 * 364/365 * 363/365 ... to see what the probability of not having a duplication is up to that point. The probability of having a duplication is 1 minus that number.
Two web sources of information on ID Creationism, including regarding the truth about the people changing their jobs, are expelledexposed.com (focused on the movie, run by the National Center for Science Education -- itself a good place to get more general information) and www.talkorigins.org (more general, and more contentious). I'm a member of both and we've wondered if you (Ebert that is) are a member or reader. Some comments have looked like you are.
I was surprised to see someone sympathetic to ID Creationism refer to Dover as a negative example of scientists' behavior. This is the trial where the ID Creationism supporters were documented at length as lying, cheating, perjuring, bullying, destructive (burning a students' mural), etc. -- and doing so at such length and frequency that the conservative judge hearing the case wound up putting comments in his final decision about the poor behavior of these people who said they were Christians (as the judge was) and in the name of Christianity. There are several books out on the trial. I like the one by a local person who discusses the case from the inside -- growing up in the area, knowing the people, responses to her from parties involved (some of whom she'd already known) during the trial, etc.: _The Devil in Dover_ by Lauri Lebo. The NCSE web site also has many of the court documents online.
ID Creationists also complain about ... well, a lot of things. More complaining than doing science. Even Philip Johnson, godfather of the movement, agrees about that. In any case, There have indeed been serious examinations and documentations of just why it is that ID Creationism is not science, and fails to bring anything of scientific merit to the table. See, for example, _Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design_ by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. More specific to schools, see _Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for our Schools_ ed. by Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch.
People in general wonder why a person of Mr. Stein's intelligence keep grasping at straws in order to maintain their beliefs. I was raised as a Christian, and I had my core beliefs ripped apart by the ingestion of science as life progressed. It was a soul rending experience. It's difficult to feel the importance of being God created with purpose transformed to a random, meaningless piece of junk.
Mr. Stein and others like him may be doing more harm than good. They often do. But he's simply trying to support the set of beliefs about his life and purpose in the face of a completely devastating and disastrous truth: Life is a random accident and without some intervention it always ends in death. No amount of written history can give a "kind" of immortality. The universe will either run down, or it will collapse upon itself and destroy every trace of the existance of everything.
So don't get so riled up if you've handled the truth better than Ben Stein. He is at an intellectual stopsign which if past relegates him to our status: that of completely wasted energy.
Please pardon my spelling mistakes. I'm at the age where I've started adding extra consonants and such to once memorized words. I could spell check, but again, what's the point?
Roger, I suspect that if you had a more enlightened or evolved view of God you would see that Creationism and evolution are one and the same. The mass of humanity still subscribes to the mythical religious framework of childhood -- you know, do good and you get to go to heaven and sit next to God for all eternity. These are immortality projects that stunt true spiritual growth. Sadly, through no fault of your own, you're stuck refuting a marvelously unsophisticated view of God. In my view, God is so radically different from what humanity at large perceives. Is it not true that all the major religions are steeped in mysticism? By "mysticism" don't we mean to say that meditation or looking inward played the most crucial role in the formation of these religions -- Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism? The standard belief is that God reached down to man, but didn't man actually reach in to God? And this enlightened space inside the human mind, which may be called God, wasn't it then interpreted by all the different cultures of the world? One God, by many different names and sliced into many different pieces due to cultural influences. What a beautiful "space" inside the mind it must be, don't you think, so much so that man was so moved by this ultimate reality that moral frameworks came about shortly thereafter.
Ebert: Well, to begin with, your notion of God would not he subscribed to by many Creationists. For another, your God is so abstract even Dawkins might accept it; you are defining God as a concept created within the human mind out of a hope for good things. It does not require a supernatural being. Evolutionary theory has a fascinating area of study about altruism, about creatures who sacrifice themselves for a greater good, or the general good. This apparently moral choice turns out to be a survival trait for a species benefiting from it. Let's move on two two classes of humans who do not reproduce: Homosexuals, and the sterile. A population with an incidence of sterility greater than its replacement rate would become extinct. Why, then, in contrast, does the occurrence of homosexuality remain steady through time and across population and racial groups? Darwinian theory suggests the possibility that homosexuals confer a benefit upon their fellow beings not limited to reproduction. I am not aware of this having been proved; it remains a hypothesis, one that seems testable by numerical analysis, if the right theoretical experiment can be agreed upon. Darwin's theory in its magnificent simplicity applies to a multitude of such questions.
You cannot reason somebody out of what they weren't reasoned into. Creationists base their view on faith not science. Faith cannot be defeated or staggered by a blow from science no matter how reasonable it is. Creationists lose their invincibility when they try to use science against scientists. It doesn't ever work. In the end, evolutionists appear to be bullies and creationists appear stupid. I wish creationists would stick to what they do best- faith. They should leave science to those who believe in reason.
This is an angry review. This film has clearly upset you. I believe you once said words to the effect, "A film is not judged by what it is about, but how it is about what it is about." You have critiqued this film's methodology and technique of course. If you think this is a poorly made film, then fine. However you are clearly angry at what this film "is about." The subject matter itself has set you off. In my opinion you have lost your objectivity because of it. Perhaps the mind of Roger Ebert and Ben Stein are not so far apart.
Ebert: I do not object to the subject. I object to how it was about it. For example, I gave a positive review to a film critical of Michael Moore.
"What's in a name?", asks Shakespeare rhetorically. If he didn't write such famous words, I'd say there's some b.s. in Ben Stein, as would a bunch of other name falsities like Obama's a terrorist because his name means he is sympathetic enough with arabs to let Isreal be bombed. So, lets not go there.
But if Ben Stein is so scientific in thinking, how could he vote for people that have so much contempt for science--because McCain is a war hero?.."I will always vote on the side of the war hero...everytime", I quote him on Larry King...well, by memory...you go look it up. But aside from that odd logic,--ideologues aren't perfect for anyone--although apparently the Rambo Truth Vote should not only be taught but debunk all political thinking at all if you think like Ben Stein--, let's go back to what I was saying: science. Sarah Palin and McCain in their political rallies were saying they would not allow genetics to be done on fruit flies or DNA to be studied with bears. Bears are going extinct and the only way to count them is to take a hair from the bear and look at it's DNA, and fruit flies were the very foundation of genetics and continue to be just as relevant in teh field today. So, lets see: vote for Rambo, and ignore all science--oh I can't wait to see "expelled". That's a little too much B.S. for me.
It may just be my liberal nature, but I do not see a double standard, intellectual hypocrisy, or critical dishonesty at place when Roger Ebert attacks Ben Stein and his film for manipulative tactics, yet ignores them when praising Moore's work.
This could just be splitting hairs, but in Moore's films, he is presenting his spin (and there is no question that spin is involved, sometimes to the detriment of making his point - yes, watching preening pictures of the men behind the Iraq war elicits a laugh, but how does that help in forming an argument why they should not be re-elected, one of Moore's self-proclaimed goals of "Fahrenheit 9/11") on issues where there doesn't exist an absolute factual answer.
Guns + Fear are the primary reason for violence in America, Bush has done more harm than good in the War on Terror, Socialist health care serves patients better than the free market: all of these are opinions on the political and social issues of the day. Each have their own studies, own experts to support their position and offer a counter to the arguments of the other side. And though some points are better than others and some positions hold more legitimacy than others, ultimately there isn't going to be a definitive solution at the end. The films are there to bring light to a position, much like an op-ed piece in a newspaper. It is expected that each side will only use the information that helps their case, and the side that brings more flair to it (in Moore's case this means humorous soundtrack and some "gotcha" moments) will get more attention.
Though I haven't seen "eXpelled", it sounds as if when it comes to tactics not a whole lot separates Moore from Stein (though Moore has yet to go to a concentration camp to prove his point, but I wouldn't put it past him for a future film). The problem with "eXpelled", and therefore the justification for Mr. Ebert's different treatments, is that there IS a definitive, specific answer as to where we came from and how life was formed. It may not be entirely knowable at this present date, but an answer does exist, and one can hope that as scientific techniques improve or at some point before the "end of days", the answer will be found.
Therefore, since an answer does exist, there is a responsibility when presenting the issues to be intellectually honest about it. Though one can still use some razzle/dazzle in the presentation, ultimately a film about this issue should not be treated as an op/ed piece but rather a factual article in the science section, and therefore be truthful about the arguments both pro and con. Now I am not saying the Evolution theory has been perfected. Debates are still ongoing as to whether some adaptations/mutations occurred rapidly or whether it was a gradual process, to name but one on-going question. But what is clear is that as the knowledge grows with regards to genetics and biology, Darwin's theory has been proven time and again more right than wrong, and the idea that humans came about in present form at the creation of the planet has lost nearly all credibility.
The problem with Stein's film and the Intelligent Design argument in general, is that its primary concern is not the ultimate discovery of the right answer, but rather proving Evolution wrong, using whatever tactics are at hand. This includes making false comparisons, twisting studies, and arguing issues that evolutionists are not concerned with. The majority of evolutionists do not want to kill/destroy/or disprove the existence of God or a higher being. Man being descended from apes and moths who can change colors surviving over those who do not does nothing to prove or disprove whether there is a higher power in the universe, so why spend time and money debating this issue? Furthermore, blaming the theorist for actions by those who use an illegitimate interpretation of the theory has no place in an intelligent argument. Darwin has about as much to do with the Holocaust as Adam Smith does for the current economic downturn and Karl Marx does for Stalin.
I realize I have gone off-track from my original point, but my point is this. A filmmaker, as with anyone, is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Therefore when a filmmaker begins to use their own facts, they should be called on it. Mr. Ebert has often said that a film should be judged based on it's own merits and on what it was attempting to achieve. Michael Moore attempts to bring light to his opinion on political and social issues, and he succeeds in doing that, even if he does manipulate presentation and only uses self-serving facts. "eXpelled" attempted to create a factual counter argument to evolution, and by manipulating facts and making fallacious arguments, it failed. And Ebert rightly pointed it out.
Enough has been written about the Moore "comparisons," but I find it interesting that there aren't more concrete examples of all the stuff Moore made up. I could name some of my own, but no bother: I think what you can get out of this is agreeing with a film's premise versus the point of view. Certainly Mr. Ebert has made no secret his political point of view. But comparing this to Moore's film on the Iraq war is stupefying. They aren't using the SAME tactics. Moore made a film whose premise is debunking the reasons we went to war; if he shuffles timelines and uses other tactics (like cutting Congressmen off or using a letter to the editor as a "major headline"), at least his basic idea has proven to be correct. And as Ebert discusses, you can almost disprove the Iraq war argument, as Moore did, the same way Mr. Ebert does in discussing Ben Stein's theories vs. Darwin.
Part of what annoys me in society is this notion that we HAVE to give equal time to EVERY argument. The **vast** majority of scientists, for example, believe in topics like global warming (or climate change) and evolution. No matter how many opposing points of view you see on FOX News, doctoring it up to be a "bigger minority," it's still a minority. So if one argument is not simply stupid (which is a point of view, not necessarily a fact) and is provably ludicrious using real science, do we really need to feel an obligation to ensure ALL arguments are heard?
OK, let me put it this way: everyone has the right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. And if you make an argument, like creationists do and say that people played tic-tac-toe with dinosaurs, then yes, you do have the right to that opinion and you have the right to speak and you might have the luxury of being heard.
And I, to counter, have the right to make fun of you for believing it without apology, or without having to be branded an "elitist" or something like that.
To respond to a few points from people above, do people really expect a film critic to not put his opinion into a movie review? Isn't that the point of film criticism? You did point out that it was technically proficient, but you did not like it because its facts were inaccurate.
As for the documentary tactics problem, it is true that filmmakers like Michael Moore use similar tactics, in fact he used the makeup one in "Fahrenheit 9/11". However, linkning Darwinism and the Holocaust is not simply far-fetched; it is absolutely despicable. Though I do not like a lot of Michael Moore's tactics, he has never made that kind of an outrageous connection.
I'm in high school and I had to make a documentary for a class two years ago. The topic I chose was the Iraq War. The whole point of it was going to be that kids are knowledgable about the war, but guess what, they're not. So, I had to use quick editing to get the little bit of information I needed to support my point. So, I get that filmmakers use tricks. But not connecting things to the Holocaust. That's just not right.
I think it simply comes down to, there's tangible evidence for evolution and little or no tangible evidence for Intelligent Design.
Said Brad:
//The standard belief is that God reached down to man, but didn't man actually reach in to God? And this enlightened space inside the human mind, which may be called God, wasn't it then interpreted by all the different cultures of the world? One God, by many different names and sliced into many different pieces due to cultural influences. What a beautiful "space" inside the mind it must be, don't you think, so much so that man was so moved by this ultimate reality that moral frameworks came about shortly thereafter.//
You attempt to hide your "God" behind a polymorphic palisade of lexicon, but it does nothing to prove your quasi-ignostic-cum-pantheistic contentions; you simply wish to entertain a "God" rendered logically immune due to its ambiguous, unverifiable nature.
I await your evidence supporting your contentions.
Look at ALL these entries! This is still a dismayingly hot topic, which shows how pathetically backward this country still is in a LOT of ways. I suppose Hindus and Buddhists, who are far more numerous on this earth than Christians (let alone Evangelicals), have hard-core Darwin-denying believers in their Creation myths as well--wouldn't it be great to get a few of them together with some IDers for a debate? Once upon a time in LA there was a character named Joe Pyne who had a late-night talk show that catered to all the lunatic fringes. He once pitted a wild-eyed Evolutionist against a cool rational Creationist--and the Creationist won. What it comes down to for me is simple--you can't create something from nothing, and all the Creationists have to go on are holes in evolution. That's the THEORY of evolution, you morons, not the FACT of it. Poor ol' Ben Stein--the downfall of a great mind.
When people (in this case, creationists) have such a weak and unfounded arguement or theory, they tend to resort to bullying the other side by calling them "elitists". I see this as a silly way of demonizing intelligent people who ask questions, conduct research and search for evidence, instead of relying on simplistic idealology and propaganda to support their theories.
Throughout the comments by fellow readers, there is the frequent challenge that true Christians can not believe in evolution. Let me share what my father shared with me.
I was raised in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Every dotted-I and every crossed-T was interpreted verbatim. When I went to college and earned an engineering degree, my faith was tested repeatedly. Looking at waveform on an oscilloscope, I would ask my instructor why a 2nd-order effect was present - what is that? I was made to study the circuit with him until I found it. We took nothing on faith. I submit it is the rare person who can attain a technical education and maintain a perfectly rigid faith where every word of the Bible must be literal.
My faith could not bend, so it broke. I no longer know if God exists. I fear for my afterlife because I simply don't know. I used to know.
Genesis describes the universe was made in six days. I was taught that the author of Genesis received these words that were written through divine inspiration. God told him what to write. This author was not a cosmologist. If God did create the universe in the time frame believed by 99.975% of people (a statistic I use recklessly as I have not confirmed it), how is He to convey this to the author of Genesis? First there was light, then the planet, then form to the planet, then plants, then animals, then us. That sounds just like evolution, except for the time between the events.
My father helped me by explaining this idea: that the billions of years required by evolution are not refuted by the Bible, unless you insist that every word be taken literally. That the universe and earth was created in six days was just God's way of explaining a massive concept to a simple man.
I regret I did not receive my father's insight until after my faith had broken. Had it been able to bend, I might still have it.
Well Roger, you say that you can show how the eye was created and then you do not back it up. If evolution is based on adaptation then how would the body know to adapt and create an eye if it does not know what sight is? You say you can prove it so do it. Prove how something just appears for no reason at all and it happen to fit perfectly into our lives. Man you really do not think when you talk about topics outside of film.
By the way I love your film reviews and agree a great deal of the time. I've never seen a review of "Knocked Up". I'm not the only one who would like to see it though.
Ebert: Here's my theory. After millions and millions and millions of years, there were eventually a lot of living specks. They needed energy to continue to live. The sun provided energy. Specks that over a very long time developed a random mutation that provided them with the most rudimentary ability to determine light from dark were better adapted to survive. Other living specks were an excellent source of energy. Those specks whose light-spots by random mutation developed an ability to sense (not "see") movement had an advantage over those that could not. Specks could be eaten. Specks that by random mutation became better at being the diner than the meal had an advantage. And then Bob's your uncle. A scientist could do this better, but you asked for my theory.
Questions for "Intelligent Design" believers:
What is the definition of scientific theory?
Was Darwin an atheist?
What tangible evidence do we have towards intelligent design?
Why are bananas curved? (See "an atheist's nightmare" on youtube)
"As a Jew" I find Ben Stein ignorant, offensive, and at least two sandwiches short of a full picnic basket.
Going to start with this one:
Mickey on December 3, 2008 1:46 PM
But just look up eugenics on wiki or google, or hell, even an encyclopedia, and you will find that eugenics was a pseudo-science based upon Darwinism
Well gosh! Isn't is amazing that if you google for, or look up a word that ***isn't used by any scientist***, but was instead invented by the ID people in the first place, all the definitions for it are going to claim it was somehow involved with eugenics... Point in fact, Darwinian (note the ian, not ism) Evolution states that there is no "end goal", that any living species is "by definition" the better species, and that fittest, even in his time, meant simply that it outlived others. In modern terms, it means, "what ever best fits the niche it lives in, even if that environment changes, such that the ones that cannot adapt to that change are 'no longer fit', even if they where before." What you are looking for is called "Lemarkian Evolution", which was an alternative theory, which stated that everything evolves towards some specific goal of being better. Under such a system it makes sense to kill off the apparently inferior, to help the superior, so fits real well with eugenics and Nazism. In fact, Hitler hated Darwin's version, since it pulled the rug out from under his basic presumption that any single race was "superior", or that you could breed one that was a "master race".
So.. moving on to the next comment:
Tobias Ragg on December 3, 2008 4:14 PM
There's a HUGE difference between Natural Selection, which says organisms with stronger survival traits tend to pass along their traits, and Evolution, which says "Fish magically grow wings". I've found that most so-called "Evolutionists" are really just anti-religious, and use "Evolution" as a cover for their own hatred and prejudice.
Sigh.. Anyone that claims this is what evolution says is an idiot, even if they are what ever the hell an evolutionist is. Yeah, there are such idiots. But, you also are making the same goofy argument that ID people do, which is that things "poof" into existence. Well, sorry, but a) sometimes they do, but only if the genes for them where already there some place, and b) the rest of the time they don't, but instead it takes thousands of minor changes, over many generations, to produce the result. Fish didn't magically grow anything. Flying fish just have big fins, and they "do not" fly, just glide, which isn't that hard when fracking fluid dynamics are nearly identical to aerodynamics (duh!). But, if you really thing taking a fish hundreds of billions of years ago, tweaking its fins in tiny, minor ways, for hundreds of millions, until they are more like legs, then tweaking those for a few hundred million more, to stand more upright, then a few hundred million more to "rediscover" the membrane that used to exist between the bones in the fins of the fish,then a few hundred million more to turn scales into some primitive feathers (there is a chicken in Asia that still has them today), then hundreds of millions more to get real feathers, etc... Well, your definition of "magically grows" is only makes sense if you also claim to live 5 billion years, sleep for 10-20 million years at a time, and just happen the "wake up" to find these things magically one animals.
Now, as I said, it is possible to "lose" things a lot easier and quicker. Why? For the same reason that its faster to steal someone's car stereo than to install one. The later takes a lot of time to wire things right, while the former just requires you rip the thing out of the dash board. Even today we see skinks, in environments that are getting more wet, and hard to navigate one legs, losing them, in favor of becoming snakes. There are also a few snakes converting back to lizards, in places where those traits are now better. Its happening fast enough for people to notice, since changing a few genes to hide the legs, which are "still there" in the genetic code, or making other changes that "wake up" those dormant genes, is *far* easier that inventing them out of no place. So, we see snakes regrowing limbs they had in the first place, and we see other animals losing them, where they are less helpful, but what we "don't" see is flying snakes, who inexplicably, and for not naturally selected reason, fashion their suppressed front legs into wings, never mind lizards growing an extra pair, and forming those into wings, or other absurd things.
No, you have it backwards my friend. If fish magically grew wings, it would be evidence "for" god, not for "evolution".
And finally:
Seth W on December 3, 2008 5:35 PM
See, I do have a problem with evolution, not because I believe it upsets my own personal beliefs, but because I believe there is a fundamental issue with the theory. I've been back and forth on the subject for some time now, studied many different thoughts and theories, and so far been unsuccessful in answering my one fundamental question that Stein also posed to Richard Dawkins: at what point did non-life become life?
This is like complaining that the entire history of man made vehicles is obvious, but that you have a major problem with the idea that it wasn't handed to man by a magic Djinni in the Middle East, because you can't find evidence of the first person to make a connection between a rolling rock, and the principle of putting wooden spokes on an axle, therefor all the automechinics you know are lying to you, because not one them can explain this "critical discovery". Or... Better yet, arguing that plate techtonics are wrong, because there isn't a clear explanation of what existed "prior" to the Big Bang. Its irrelevant. Evolution is about how things that are already alive change over time. A number of experiments have been done to try to get at "earlier", just as the people at places like the LHC are poking at the early universe, to try to figure out that, but, you don't refuse to fly in plane, refuse to put gas in your car, or jump off cliffs, secure in the idea that gravity is all wrong, based on the idea that its all fatally flawed, due to no one knowing what the first moments of the universe really where.
That said.. There are in fact a lot of chemicals that are "necessary" to form the building blocks of life. A while back an experiment was done using lighting and what was thought to be the early conditions on the earth, and they found a lot of them in the result. The recently recovered the original materials from the experiment, still sealed, still uncontaminated, and ran more tests, using technology that was 20 years newer, and could detect smaller amount of the chemicals, and found that the experiment produced something like 5 times as many as originally thought. This is still short of the total, but.. one can't say if a) you really need "all of them" to start out, or b) different conditions would produce more of them, especially given that those conditions are now thought to have been *wrong*. While people like you are busy arguing about the equivalent of whether or not Big Macs are divine, based on a lack of evidence of the first "accidental" formation of bread in 10,000,000 BC, or something.. Well, its an important question, but doesn't undermine anything else in the theory, at all. And, frankly, simply insisting that, in the mean time, any wacky idea someone wants to replace 100% of the entire theory with is a good idea... Tell me when you go back to using horse drawn chariots, like God, intended, instead of all these impossible "airplane" things, which obviously can't exist.. lol
No, Roger, you are defining God as a concept. A supernatural being is a concept, is it not? It exists against a backdrop of natural being. God is not part of that whole discussion. God is radically non-conceptual. God is radically outside all frameworks that seek to show how radically non-conceptual God is . . . And once again, you fall back on one of the familiar arguments that work so well in refuting the mythic framework -- God as a facilitator for hope, God as a comforting force in the bleak twilight, God as man's rebuttal to awareness of death, God as a crutch for human frailty . . .
Ebert: Rather, I am defining the posters' god as a concept. An entity that created and regards all that is, ever was and ever will be, and all that is beyond space and time, and all that is nothing, would be inconceivable. All of man's definitions of such an entity are conceivable, because we conceived them, and therefore are the product of man and cannot describe god.
For causing all this trouble Ben Stein, shame on you. What has Roger ever done to you? Things are changing in this country and it's time you learn; keep your right-wing opinions to yourself!
Ebert: Creationism is not a political issue. It is either a scientifically viable theory or not.
Here's an old joke that might allow the ID and Evolutionary theory folks to meet in the middle:
A man was having a conversation with God. He asked, "God, how long is a million years to you?"
And God answered, "Oh, about a minute."
The man considered this. Then he said, "Well, how much is a million dollars to you?"
And God answered, "Oh, about a penny."
The man thought for a minute, and then asked, "God, can I have one of your pennies?"
And God replied, "Sure. Wait a minute."
Robin Williams, in his HBO special a few years ago, asked if it were possible that the seven-day story told in Genesis told in the Bible might be just a metaphor for the Big Bang. Then he went into the "fundamentalist" voice and said, "No. God just went 'Click.'"
We're going through our own version of that ID nonsense down here in Texas. Our State Board of Education is trying to water down the "theory" of evolution by "teaching the controversy." You can do a Google search on it, but here's an editorial on it from the San Antonio Express-News: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/Dont_water_down_science_curriculum.html (Disclaimer: I work for the Express-News as a graphic artist)
I don't have a problem with Christianity and its various forms being taught in public schools, any more than I have a problem with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism or any other religious study, as long as it is taught in social studies class, not science class. ID has no place in science class, as it is not based on the scientific method. It is an article of faith.
I do not seek to denigrate those who believe in Creationism, or ID. If your faith in such helps you deal with the crazy world we live in, be my guest. But a science curriculum should be based on quantifiable scientific method, not a thinly veiled attempt to insert Creationism into the school curriculum.
Just because you believe that some higher power engineered the wonderous world around us does not make it so. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this one instance and say that it's not completely impossible. Several literary examples use that as their basic premise: two that come to mind are Douglas Adams ("The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy") and Star Trek: The Next Generation ("The Chase").
Show me an explanation that can be arrived at using the scientific method and I'll listen. But ID just shrugs off the inexplicable by saying "well, things are just too neat, so someone must have engineered it."
I found the secret prize! "In the film, Ben Stein ... exploits an unending capacity for counterfeit astonishment." I hope to find a use for that phrase in everyday conversation myself some day. (Aunt Susan is the way to go, I think--Z-Man has a lot of the best lines, but you can't repeat most of them.)
Seriously, terrific article. I read a few reviews for this when it first came out and desperately wanted more details--surely it couldn't really be like this. But, it seems, it is. I'm not wild about running out to give money directly to the filmmakers, but I think I'm going to have a memorable time when I catch this on cable. Thanks so much for taking the time to write this so long after its release, and for being so devastatingly thorough.
But...I do have to be the four thousandth person to wonder aloud why Michael Moore has been getting a free pass, if you can be so clear-headed when writing about something like this (not to mention several other documentaries you've reviewed whose internal evidence brings up red flags about how they were created). There's something really wrong with Moore's films. In short, a lot, if not all of what's suspect about his films can't have gotten that way by shoddy research or mistakes. Moore goes out of his way to strongly suggest things that he must know aren't true, by simple virtue of the fact that he's suggesting them the way he is. Isn't that, like, a scandalously huge problem? Especially with issues as weighty as the ones he discusses?
Ebert: I didn't think anyone would find that. Re Moore: I have my hands full without opening a second front.
You just made my day, Mr. Ebert. To see you post such a smackdown, and on my birthday even...
Thank you.
Ebert: Fifth (proclaimed) birthday in about 230 posts. What are the odds?
Matt From Morgantown,
Christians believe the bible is the word of God, which is why they take it literally. I have always had a problem with this idea. To suggest that God uses words to communicate with humans or simply has something to say, is to imply that he is like a human being. I have never believed that God was like a human being. I don't think he is some old man with a white beard sitting in a castle up in the clouds. God has to be different and more powerful than human beings. God has to have a more interesting way to communicate with life than by using words.
If you HAVE to watch this, watch it with the great lie exposing subtitles that the guy at 'bogosity tv' made! Just search for 'bogosity tv' or 'expelled lie subtitles'
Ebert: Here's my theory. After millions and millions and millions of years, there were eventually a lot of living specks. They needed energy to continue to live. The sun provided energy. Specks that over a very long time developed a random mutation that provided them with the most rudimentary ability to determine light from dark were better adapted to survive. Other living specks were an excellent source of energy. Those specks whose light-spots by random mutation developed an ability to sense (not "see") movement had an advantage over those that could not. Specks could be eaten. Specks that by random mutation became better at being the diner than the meal had an advantage. And then Bob's your uncle. A scientist could do this better, but you asked for my theory.
In fact, there was a studied of cave fish living in dark ares which provides yet more evidence for evolution.
The evidence for evolution comes from the fact that when two cavefish from *different caves* produced offspring, the offspring were not blind.
The explanation is that the cave fish evolved blindness cause there was a lack of selection pressure for vision as it is not beneficial in dark areas where there is no sunlight. Therefore, mutations which crept into the genes causing blindness, which are usually lost as they are harmful, where allowed to propagate in the population leading to blindness. However, such mutations came in *different* alleles in geographically different cave fish, and are recessive. So, when cave fish further away produce offspring, it's more likely that they can see. To quote the study, "The genetic deficiencies from each parent's lineage were easily overcome by the strengths of the other."
Here's the link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080108-cave-fish_2.html
This is why evolution is a scientific theory, while Intelligent design is unverifiable theology. It has absolutely no place in science classrooms and belongs in churches.
Reply to: Mr. Ebert, I respect you and have admired your writing for some time now, but I feel that you are way off base here. Judging by your review and the responses to some of the commenters here, I have concluded (and correct me if Im wrong) that you think anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution is in some way ignorant or "of lesser intelligence." Really? Am I just an ignorant American because I have a faith in something greater than a microscope?
I've had more experience with Creationists than anyone on this blog, and I'm pretty confident in saying Yes, if you disagree with the theory of evolution, you are in fact "of lesser intelligence." Maybe not in the ability to read a text and remember it, but in the more advanced form of intelligence where you have good judgment.
The conversation usually starts with the Creationist telling me some fact about evolution which is (a) wrong and (b) explained in most high school science classes. In other words, they heard the Correct Answer and it didn't penetrate. They ignored it because some inner voice said "that's not right."
One common statement is, "Prove to me that one species can change into another." And that simply doesn't happen.
During the Cambrian Explosion, microscopic forms of life increased vastly in number when a type of gene called a HOX gene entered the mix. A HOX gene can cause a limb to appear in different places in an animal, depending on where it's attacked to the DNA strand.
From the time of the Cambrian Explosion to today, life hasn't changed very much. We've gotten larger. We've gotten more complex. But the basic structure of the cell hasn't changed. We have the APPEARANCE of major changes, which are in fact thousands and thousands of microscopic changes (random mutation) in DNA over millions of years, a very few of which produce visible change, such as making us six feet tall instead of a foot tall.
Creationists... flunked science. That's the easiest way to put it. I've yet to have a Creationist talk about Evolution in terms that would earn him an B+ in tenth grade science class. Creationists have often heard various explanations for how long it took light to reach us from distant galaxies, but they don't seem to understand how scientists know that.
The solution is pretty simple. Creationists need to find some legitimate texts on Evolution and learn how it works. Then, if they want to attack the theory, they can do so without stumbling over the Straw Man arguments and wasting our time.
You didn't get to the crux of the matter-- that the studio would not screen the film for critics, deciding that the critics would be too biased against the film.
Ebert: Now I remember that. I was in the hospital at the time, having broken my hip a week earlier. I reviewed the DVD, which I purchased myself.
A lot of people say evolution is how we got from point A to point B. Evolution is a theory that could explain how we got from point B to point C. The fact is we will never truley know how and/or why we are here and I believe it is best humans do not know. Roger, be respectful to Ben Stein; he is smarter then you
It seems my comment didn't pass muster; perhaps it was expressed too vulgarly. I'll try again.
Whenever I get a coughing fit because food or drink has entered my windpipe, I think "This arrangement hardly seems like an Intelligent Design".
Roger:
I find your review interesting, and I agree with much of what you said, especially about Ben Stein's hardball "all or nothing, with us or against us" debate tactics. (I don't think he's a very good economist either.)
I'm not sure, however, that I agree with your notion, Roger, that 99.975% of all scientists accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution, while only .25% accept Intelligent Design. I'm willing to bet that if you asked 100 scientists to choose which theory they believe, maybe 25-30 would say Darwin, 1-5 would say Intelligent Design, and the rest would say, "Why do we have to choose between the two? I personally believe it's a combination of both theories."
(And they would probably add, in a hushed whisper, "But don't quote me on that.")
For me, a leaf on a tree is proof enough of the existence of both God and evolution. The anatomical shape and structure of the leaf, and the fact that it helps to provide the tree with nourishment is proof of a well-balanced, well-thought-out botanical system. Hence God. The fact that today's leaves don't resemble the leaves you find imprinted in fossils is proof that things change over time. Hence evolution.
But never mind what I believe. Let me refer you to the "anti Ben Stein." His name is Dr. Francis Collins, who until earlier this year was Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Dr. Collins is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. In 2007, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his work on the Human Genome Project, and for his research to discover the genetic causes of such diseases as cancer, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes.
In his book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," Dr. Collins, a Christian, rejects Creationism and Intelligent Design, choosing instead the theory of Theistic Evolution, which he prefers to call "BioLogus." (Greek for "Life-Word")
Dr. Collins's six principals of BioLogus are:
1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
Dr. Francis Collins has openly debated with Richard Dawkins's views on the Theory of Evolution being an instrument of athiesm. Because of his rejection of Intelligent Design, Dr. Collins was not asked to appear in "eXpelled." Producer Walt Ruloff accused Collins of "toeing the party line" by rejecting Intelligent Design.
I recommend, Roger, that you should read Dr. Collins's book "The Language of God" -- not because I hope to change your views or Darwin, which I know are strong, but (a) because Dr. Collins provides another opinion to think about in this never-ending debate, and (b) because Dr. Collins is a fine writer, and a pleasure to read for thinking minds.
For now, I leave a quote by Dr. Collins that sums up his view (and to a large extent, mine) on evolution:
(When asked, "What do you say to your fellow Christians who say, 'Evolution is just a theory, and I can't put that together with my idea of a creator God'?") "Well, evolution is a theory. It's a very compelling one. As somebody who studies DNA, the fact that we are 98.4 percent identical at the DNA level to a chimpanzee, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that when I am studying a particular gene, I can go to the mouse and find it's the similar gene, and it's 90 percent the same. It's certainly compatible with the theory of evolution, although it will always be a theory that we cannot actually prove. I'm a theistic evolutionist. I take the view that God, in His wisdom, used evolution as His creative scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad idea. That's pretty amazingly creative on His part. And what is wrong with that as a way of putting together in a synthetic way the view of God who is interested in creating a group of individuals that He can have fellowship with -- us? Why is evolution not an appropriate way to get to that goal? I don't see a problem with that."
Someone way up above mentioned the anthropic principle. I think the most succinct commentary on this observation was made by the late Douglas Adams.
I paraphrase, but it goes something like this: Upon coming to consciousness the puddle looked around and marveled at the perfection of the pothole - just right for the puddle's precise dimensions!
what a great post and its my birthday, too...on Tuesday.
Said Brad:
//No, Roger, you are defining God as a concept. A supernatural being is a concept, is it not? It exists against a backdrop of natural being. God is not part of that whole discussion. God is radically non-conceptual. God is radically outside all frameworks that seek to show how radically non-conceptual God is . . . And once again, you fall back on one of the familiar arguments that work so well in refuting the mythic framework -- God as a facilitator for hope, God as a comforting force in the bleak twilight, God as man's rebuttal to awareness of death, God as a crutch for human frailty . . .//
You claim that "God is not part of that whole discussion. God is radically non-conceptual. God is radically outside all frameworks that seek to show how radically non-conceptual God is . . ."
Existence is a concept. You attempt to refute Roger's alleged conceptualization of "God" as erroneous because of the aforesaid descriptor of "God"--you then provide your /own/ concept of "God". You, Brad, have fallen back on one of the familiar arguments: "Your concept is wrong because only MY concept is correct!"
An assertion without justification is merely empty pontification, Brad. I still await your evidence for your claims; I imagine Roger is equally eager to hear this evidence. But finding a black cat in a dark room is difficult--especially if the cat doesn't exist.
Hi Roger,
Sorry for going off topic. The more important question for me is what has the future in store for us.
The other day I saw a clip of your interview with bill o'reilly on RFID chips. Though this is not directly related to this article, I would like to like to see your thoughts and the thoughts from all your readers on A.I. I am sure you are familiar about this thought provoking article from Bill joy
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
Vijay
Since no one else has yet, I'll take a stab at defending Michael Moore while disapproving of Stein.
Notice neither Bowling for Columbine nor Farenheit 9/11 made Ebert’s top 10 of the year lists. Think of Ben Stein and Michael Moore like writing the cliff notes of true works of art. It won’t get either of them a full 4 stars, but if the original story was good, it’s still culturally valuable.
I have to disagree with Michael Zey on December 3, 2008 9:41 AM: “If I wag my finger at anybody, it's to the Michael Moore’s and Ben Stein's of the world. Here's something that the honest among us call all agree upon: they don't win hearts and minds.” Hearts and minds are won gradually over time (much like the way a species evolves.) And that’s the potential value in their work. I agree neither give definitive arguments, but they both do a good job of drawing people’s attention.
Both Moore and Stein are simply speaking in the language of the times, like an abridged version of Shakespeare. Yes, it cheapens the material, but that’s not the only factor to judge a work by.
By urging people to see Moore’s work, Ebert is saying “Yes go ahead and read that abridged version of Shakespeare.” And by speaking out against Expelled, he is saying “Don’t bother with this abridged version of (I don’t know, Karl Marx?) It was trash to begin with.” There is no double standard that I can see.
1. I admire Roger Ebert's writing even when I disagree with him.
2. This essay is so long, rambling and unstructured that it is, in practice, unreadable. Which suggests to me he is expressing hostility as opposed to expressing a reasoned opinion. Everybody has an off day--just too bad this subject can't be debated reasonably. If Stein's points are so silly, should be easy to dismiss them with cold reason, not thousands of words of sarcasm.
3. Looking forward to other reviews and fewer screeds.
stick to reviewing movies. You are world class at that and clearly not skilled or qualified for what you tried here. Plus, you just angered a sizable portion of your audience, why?
Roger, thank you for remembering all of us in the middle. It still baffles me how ultra-conservative evangelicals came to represent Christians in this country. Most of us are Catholic or Protestant and have very little problem with evolution.
Here's something about Intelligent Design that I've never understood: they want to teach it in schools, but what is there to teach? The entire extent of it can be explained in twenty seconds.
Ebert: I can't think of anything more boring than a semester of ID, which would consist mostly of refuting Darwin. Sort of like a class about atheists getting sidetracked onto the subject of God.
If the scientific community is so sure that science and science alone is the only way to truth, then why don't they just set up a series of experiments and prove it, be done with the whole thing. Hey wait, that would be impossible wouldn't it? Wait a second here, so the idea that science is the only path to truth is a bit a faith statement then, right? We tend to think that dogma doesn't exist on that side of the aisle, don't we?
Ebert: Science doesn't believe that. It is extremely reluctant to declare anything "truth." It believes the scientific method is the best way to test a theory. How do you test your theories on your side of the aisle?
Let's do the math:
U.S. Population: About 300 million.
U.S. Population that believe God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so: 44% (132 million)
U.S. Population that believe human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process: 36% (108 million)
U.S. Population that believe human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process: 14% (42 million)
(Source: Gallup poll)
For as windy as you people are, you apparently aren't very convincing. Only 14% of Americans agree with you. That must be very frustrating for you.
Pure brilliance, sir. Your demolition of Stein is compelling, logically watertight and laugh-out-loud funny; it is beautifully written, and will be a topic for my next year's critical thinking class, if you don't mind.
Christopher Zeidel,
I agree with you, the idea that God is remotely human I find to be a rather arrogant concept. What I meant about not taking specific dates and timelines in the bible too seriously is that you have to consider the fact that the bible has been through many translations to finally reach what we Americans see it as. Which is why we should focus on the major points and not argue about the details. Although I guess dates in the New Testament are a little more reliable considering the Roman influence during that period of time.
With regards to the movie, although I like Ben Stein, I didn't understand why he felt the need to attack the scientific community for not teaching ID. Evolution is a very strong scientific theory that is central to biology - you can't effectively teach biology and leave it out. Whereas ID and creationism have nothing to do with science by definition because they are faith based concepts and are not testable theories. Believe in them or not, how can you possibly expect someone to teach students that in a classroom?
Christopher Zeidel,
I agree with you, the idea that God is remotely human I find to be a rather arrogant concept. What I meant about not taking specific dates and timelines in the bible too seriously is that you have to consider the fact that the bible has been through many translations to finally reach what we Americans see it as. Which is why we should focus on the major points and not argue about the details. Although I guess dates in the New Testament are a little more reliable considering the Roman influence during that period of time.
With regards to the movie, although I like Ben Stein, I didn't understand why he felt the need to attack the scientific community for not teaching ID. Evolution is a very strong scientific theory that is central to biology - you can't effectively teach biology and leave it out. Whereas ID and creationism have nothing to do with science by definition because they are faith based concepts and are not testable theories. Believe in them or not, how can you possibly expect someone to teach students that in a classroom?
Ben Stein is an idiot. He would have us believe that all of science - or better yet, all learning - is merely a grand intellectual smorgasbord from which we are free to randomly graze. You don’t like some bit of knowledge which is a bedrock of science? No problem! Merely state that you don’t agree with that “theory,” find a couple of “scientists” who agree with you and move on until you find a dish of knowledge that better suits your tastes.
Stein might as well advocate selective choices for the periodic table. “You know, I never really trusted #85, Astatine. If you drop the last six letters and add an ‘s’ you get ‘ass.’ It is obviously a smutty, liberal, secularist element.”
Stein and those of his ilk have seized upon an accident of the English language to buttress the entire substance of their argument. Because we refer to the “Theory of Evolution,” Stein reasons that anyone may dispute evolution merely by positing an alternate “theory.” That their “theory” has no scientific basis whatsoever bothers Stein not in the least. Stein et al. are clueless as to the meaning of empiricism, and blithely ignore its precepts. Yet, he demands equal time for his moronic “scientific” delusions.
Stein- and a few posters in this thread - would have us believe that science is merely a belief system that is as subject to debate and differing opinions as are matters of religion and faith. He contends that all is needed is to shout “I disagree” and POOF!, you have rendered a pillar of scientific thought moot. The scientific method does not allow for mere disagreement: it demands actual proof. If you would find fault with any bit of scientific discovery you must either: 1.) find fault with the methodology of a study and in great detail document that supposed fault, or; 2.) provide new a competing study, replete with evidence that will allow for peer review and results that will be replicated by the work of others. Stein does neither. He is so uninformed that he simply seems unable or unwilling to understand what is and is not science.
Stein’s goofball notion is premised upon our fairly recent journalistic tradition of “fair and balanced” reporting of all issues. This means you have one person representing position “A” and one representing position “B.” When evolution is discussed this way in the media, it gives the impression that there is some sort of parity in the scientific community between the views of Darwin and Stein. To represent the true division among scientists, a panel for the discussion of evolution would require about 10,000 scientists on Darwin’s side of the set and 3.5 on Stein’s. They couldn’t even muster a whole fourth scientist. If a discussion regarding evolution were presented in that fashion, few reasonable people would mistake Stein’s position as legitimate. If you are going to treat evolution in Stein’s disingenuous manner, you might as well do so for pedophilia. “And in this corner, representing the pro-Child Molester position....” Maybe that is the subject of Stein’s next documentary.
Since the responses have already escalated into chapter length level let me put some comments in. First, as someone who has jousted with ID creationists before (e.g. postings at Talk Reason.org on Ann Coulter among others) I doff my cap to you for an utterly fabulous review Mr. Ebert, skewering the faulty underpinings of Clueless Stein as well as any I have read. For those ID-friendly posters who desire yet more evidence of evolution, they might dive back into the Thornton work you alluded to, and here's the tech ref for those who need it: Science (Aug 16, 2007) pp. 1544-1548, a work which has already spawned several followups on evolutionarily significant molecules and processes. As for why the ID movement cannot be seen as some peripheral "fair play for us" issue, the majority of ID grass roots advocates are quite ideologically driven wingnuts. For instance, Tom Willis (the fellow who actually wrote the 1999 Kansas antievolution science curriculum) not only doubts evolution and the Big Bang, but also happens to be very skeptical about that new fangled "earth revolves around the sun" theory. Yep, Willis is geocentrism friendly too. So fasten your seatbelt, its going to be a bumpy ride if ID friendly education ever comes to America. Anyhow, keep up the good fight Mr. Ebert, and applause for showing that love of film and love of science are not mutually exclusive.
Roger,
Well Done! As usual, leave it to you to reduce a simmering intellectual crisis to its essence. After reading several replies to your post (most positive), I can't help but notice a pattern among your harsher and more serious critics. They tend to accuse you - not simply of impartiality, but of violating your own maxima ("its not about what the film's about - its about how its about it", etc. - sorry for the poor paraphrase).
I would like to point out here, especially for the younger readers, that in this thoroughly postmodern age of the corporate leviathan, as more and more of our personal pleasures and freedoms slip away (not to mention our livelihoods - read Roger's last post - its not just factory workers!), as our personal space becomes more unrecognizable and our thoughts unoriginal, it becomes imperative that we hold on closest to that which we all share and makes us human. I'm speaking of our ability to share ideas, opinions, and feelings through the medium of language. This assumes of course that the thoughts, feelings, and ideas are original. Within this context, I'd like to suggest that Roger's harsher critics accuse him of violating this last human refuge, when in fact their views are the ones that grab the headlines and dominate the polls. Consider: "...By 58% to 26%, a majority of Americans express their belief in creationism..." -www.gallup.com (do a search on evolution - this changes and there are nuances, but the trend toward "God created as is, 10,0000 years ago" is unmistakable). If you search even further, you will find that no other developed nation on earth produces numbers like that! We just got through a presidential election in which not a single real political issue was mentioned (my definition of "real political issues" goes as follows: List three reasonable things that would improve your life or the life of loved ones - yes, I know health care WAS mentioned, but no detailed plan given) and the right-wing candidate suppressed his view on when life begins in deference to the views of his extreme running mate. I actually never heard (or bothered to look up) Ms. Palin's views on evolution, but would I be hasty in assuming she's a nonbeliever, in light her other extreme religious views? In short, Roger's detractors and Mr. Stein seem to represent the majority. I say "seem" because I am not convinced that they themselves actually believe this drivel. There is a sort of rebellious individualism in people that tends to resist "narratives". To the incurious and the bigoted entrenched, the Theory of Evolution (TOE) has somehow become a model for the views of wealthy, disconnected, elites. The fact is that most practitioners of the fields of evolutionary biology and genetics struggle (by most standards) to make a living. More than 150 years of their dedicated toil have produced a breathtaking theory which sheds light on who we are and where we come from that would make any thoughtful person pause and reflect. Consider: the next time you play with your dog or cat, when you look into its eyes and see a glimmer of recognition, when you rub their tummy and rejoice in their pleasure, this "gift" of nature may be more meaningful than a Creator's whim. Once you understand that 90 percent of the genes in your body have counterparts with your pet, and (surprising to some) you share a good deal of your behaviors, then it becomes almost natural to accept that you shared an ancestor - a long, long time ago. Once you make that leap, what epiphany it might be to many that indeed all life on earth might really and truly be one big family (about 50% of the genes in a banana perform the same function as in humans: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/questions/question/919/).
These are the hard-won results of overworked and largely ignored researchers. This is science - hard science, subjected to the harshest scrutiny. When the word "theory" is used in this context, it is not simply some clever person's opinion - it is used to mean "To the best of our ability to do so, this is what we know". Everything else is fantasy, delusion, conjecture, or dogma.
This is just spectacular!
I think the biggest problem surrounding a belief in evolution isn't religion, it is pure and utter ignorance combined with utter inability for some people to fathom the amount of time the Earth has existed. Similar to the whole "10,000 times 10,000" line was written into the Bible 1700 years ago, nobody COUNTS beyond 1000 or 10,000 even. Sure, we can use mathematics to get large numbers, and on paper the principles of math make them easy for most people to understand...on paper.
But put into a real world setting, count the number of water molecules on Earth. Now, count the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons contained in all of those molecules. Now count the quarks, and the 15 other sub-subatomic particles we have found and hypothesized contained in all of those protons, neutrons, and electrons. People have a hard time scaling down to think about things at a genetic level, let alone a molecular level. At the same time, they have an even harder time scaling up to incredibly large numbers. The Earth cannot have existed for 4 Billion years, that number is too large to actually exist for something other than a math problem or a computer! The universe can't be 13B years old, that's an even bigger number!
As a computer geek, i fall under the "bill gates syndrome" of being able to think in very large or very small scales easily (often getting lost when dealing with "normal" scales). I don't claim to be superior in any way, but I think that as a society and as a RACE we have a long way to go before we reach the mental maturity where a belief in $Deity is separated from a belief in something like the Bible, Creationism, etc.
I see ID/Creationism as what boils down to: a niche the Right is exploiting to inject Christian faith into American schools, claiming their morals are superior to everybody else's. They think if they can make it *sound* scientific, they will be able to prey on the weak minded and ignorant in the country, which sadly is getting easier everyday, and without a significant amount of resistance, they will succeed, and instead of a Democracy we'll be back in the Theocracy we were formed to escape.
"By Tom on December 3, 2008 10:44 PM
Since no one else has yet, I'll take a stab at defending Michael Moore while disapproving of Stein.
Notice neither Bowling for Columbine nor Farenheit 9/11 made Ebert’s top 10 of the year lists. Think of Ben Stein and Michael Moore like writing the cliff notes of true works of art. It won’t get either of them a full 4 stars, but if the original story was good, it’s still culturally valuable.
I have to disagree with Michael Zey on December 3, 2008 9:41 AM: “If I wag my finger at anybody, it's to the Michael Moore’s and Ben Stein's of the world. Here's something that the honest among us call all agree upon: they don't win hearts and minds.” Hearts and minds are won gradually over time (much like the way a species evolves.) And that’s the potential value in their work. I agree neither give definitive arguments, but they both do a good job of drawing people’s attention.
Both Moore and Stein are simply speaking in the language of the times, like an abridged version of Shakespeare. Yes, it cheapens the material, but that’s not the only factor to judge a work by.
By urging people to see Moore’s work, Ebert is saying “Yes go ahead and read that abridged version of Shakespeare.” And by speaking out against Expelled, he is saying “Don’t bother with this abridged version of (I don’t know, Karl Marx?) It was trash to begin with.” There is no double standard that I can see."
Tom,
What I see is the template for documentaries having been set by the enormous financial success of Moore's 911 film, the studios said "Oh that's why these documentaries haven’t made a cent, they were requiring people to actually think!" So now we have a glut of forced, dishonest films, driven by wide ranging agenda's (Super Size Me, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, The Kid Stays in the Picture), preconceived thesis statements that manhandle image and sound into "documentaries.” Instead of defending Moore and chastising Stein, a sort of black and white way of looking at things, I would rather assume that both could be equally valid if their he"art"s were in the right place. If as Godard says "Form tells us what is at the bottom of things," then the documentary genre has hit rock bottom.
And not to come off as a hater The Gleaners and I, Heart of Gold, Encounters at the End of the World etc... will always have me returning to this singularly special genre. I should also note that all three of those films have a sort of “Lets see where this takes us,” spirit not found in the majority of recent docs.
Reply to: Americans who believe God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so: 132 million (44%) (Source: Gallup poll) For as windy as you people are, you apparently aren't very convincing. Only 14% of Americans agree with you. That must be very frustrating for you.
I don't know if frustrating is the correct word. It's instructive. 44% of the people I meet, call it 4 out of every 10, don't have enough curiosity to look up the correct facts on the Internet.
PROOF #1: According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who survived the Great Flood. 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (assuming they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles). Today we have human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have over 700 different alleles. Somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED dramatically... in 4,400 years?
PROOF #2: Major Types of Diseases that can be transmitted sexually are:
Bacterial vaginosis
Chancroid
Chlamydial infections
Cytomegalovirus infections
Herpes
Genital mycoplasma infections
Genital (venereal) warts (Papillomavirus)
Gonorrhea
Granuloma inguinale (Donovanosis)
Group B streptococcal infections
Molluscum contagiosum
Pubic lice
Scabies
Syphilis
Trichomoniasis
How many of these diseases were present in the eight passengers aboard Noah's Ark? Where did the others come from?
PROOF #3: There are some 5,400 species of mammals alive today, spread across 153 families. The number of species must have increased from (however many fit on an Ark) to 5,400 in 4,400 years.
It takes less than half an hour to research these topics on the Internet, and come up with compelling reasons why Creationism can't be true. And yet, even on a message board like this one, you read posts from Americans who want to share their opinions about the credibility of.... well, something they know nothing about.
What I've learned, is simply to ignore people. On the average, only 14% have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation. And most of them tend to live within driving distance of colleges, where they talk to each other.
I've never understood the controversy or apprehension about evolutionary theory. Why does it necessarily have to be evolution vs anything? I'm a Christian. However I also subscribe to evolution. I suppose I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe the Bible (or whichever text you adhere to) tells us who did it. Darwinian theory offers us a glimpse into how. What I don't agree with is the notion that the concepts are exclusive to one another.
A born-again Christian perspective here ...
In response to Micah Pearson, who wrote, "[...] I have a hard time understanding why people of deep faith find it impossible to reconcile 'God' and Evolution.":
Make that "some people of deep faith", please. My faith is very important to me, and nigh unshakeable, being based on a personal relationship with God (and subjective experiences I know darned well can't be used as 'proof' of His existence to anyone outside my own skull, but that doesn't bother me), and I have no problem with either:
a) strict evolution as a scientific theory and sufficient explanation of the origins of and interrelationships between species[1], suitable for teaching as "the correct answer as far as we currently know and gosh there's an awful lot of evidence behind it" in science classes; or
b) a religious belief in 'directed evolution', the idea that God (or the FSM or whomever, though I think it's the God of Abraham and Moses) set evolution into motion with some 'plan' (a very vague one, I suspect) that He knew would result from using natural selection as His tool for creation ... which is not suitable for science class except maybe as a footnote for when a student asks, "but doesn't evolution contradict faith?" -- though it may be a topic for a philosophy class or Sunday school.
As a Person Of Science, I believe that all or nearly all[1] questions of science can be explained without requiring the existence of God. As a Christian, I do not feel I need science to require His existence in order for me to believe in Him. Conveniently, not having my faith be based on a 'God of the gaps' allows me to subscribe to the 'nonoverlapping magesteria' paradigm.
I am a person of deep and abiding (if occasionally irreverent) faith. And I, like many other believers, have no poblem with evolution.
[1] (Yes, I did mean for both footnote markers to point to the same footnote.) Note that Darwin's theory does not address abiogenesis, a favourite thing for IDers to conflate with evolution, though recent scientific developmemts (referred to in the essay/review) did address abiogenesis without naming it. Until recently, I would have included abiogenesis in the short list of scientific questions that I thought had completely natural answers but would admit might possibly turn out to be either beyond our means to prove (or actually depend on a Creator to explain). Recent developments make it seem even less likely that the origin of those very first protein seeds of life will remain grist for that mill much longer.
I actually watched this movie when it came to my theater, just for laughs. At least I laughed until the part with the Holocaust...it was just so blatantly pandering to fear mongering that I wasn't to hurl my popcorn at the screen. But the worst part for me was that there were about a dozen people in the theater who had obviously *not* come to see it for the laughs. And these people were nodding along and "mmm-hmmm"ing the movie right and left. Afterwards this older couple got up and the woman turns to the man and says, "That was great. Very convincing."
WTF?!?!
There is irrefutable evidence that Humans walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs one million years BC - and Ray Harryhausen was their creator.
Like many fellow posters above, I was going to ask Roger Ebert why he objects to the methods employed by Ben Stein while praising the same methods in Michael Moore's films ("Dawkins' make-up" vs. "Wolfowitz's comb"). However, there is one significant difference - Stein ties in evolutionary theory with the Holocaust, which is demeaning to the survivors and the memory of the victims as well as obfuscating the numerous reasons for the rise of Nazism.
I submit to you that ID is a political issue. Particularly in America, championed by that peculiar know-nothing-with-glee crowd on the right. They confuse intellectual curiosity with arrogance. I often visit this one political forum, and there are two anti-Darwin, anti-Gore characters there who refuse to allow reason to flow into themselves and will always counter with the variation of "that you try to make me seem like I'm stupid doesn't help your argument". To which I inevitably have to counter with "Well stupid is as stupid does". Willful ignorance isn't a good enough argument, and a proper divide there is reasonable, especially when you stand on the side of a proven theory. It's ju