The totalitarian ideological status that neo-darwinism, a faith position, enjoys in the majority of our institutions is inversely proportional to its plausibility and evidential support, this is my opinion, but not far from the film’s expression.

Having seen this film twice, first alone, then again with my dear wife, I feel somewhat qualified to comment on its contents. Reading your review I enjoyed it until I reached the last sentence of your initial paragraph. It reads: “However, it [Expelled] also is clearly biased and teeters on the edge of propaganda throughout.” While your statement could be thought to be valid and many may defend it as such. It comes across as a panning of the movie, which I believe is an unfair appraisal of its merit. The fallacy employed whether by design or accident is called ‘damning with faint praise’.

You imply by use of the loaded terms “biased” and “propaganda” that the film is based on unproven and undocumented source material, a besmirching without substance. These terms connotate misinformation, disinformation and malice, none of these would seem to be fairly understood to be a part of this film. These two words, in there denotations, are rightly applied to much, if not most, art , the purely aesthetic would be a prime exception.

Stein’s film is correctly termed ‘propaganda’ in the best sense of the word because it involves the “dissemination of ideas, [and] information…for the purpose of helping [intelligent design] or injuring an institution, or a cause [neo-darwinism]…” Your later comparison of the movie to works of Michael Moore is a fallacy. You cite no explicit similarities invalidating the claim. In my estimation ‘Expelled’ is on a much higher artistic and intellectual plane than anything of Michael Moore’s which I have seen. Since you give no specifics to validate the generalization it seems to be an intentional, undeserved smear.

Honest, well-read, discerning individuals could not judge this movie harshly. It expressly was intended as propaganda in the best sense of the term. Mr. Stein was up front about his motives and methods. He was advocating for fair and respectful treatment of his life-long view that we live in a created universe not an accidental one. He was so meticulously clear about his motivations, his charity and his tolerance that it seems impossible that you actually saw this film in its entirety without distraction.

Did you miss Stein’s open acknowledgment of unavoidable bias, and his disclaimer at some length as an avowed traditional monotheist, and a non-Christian? Therefore, your usage of the loaded terms “biased” and “propaganda” seem to unfairly pan this noble and necessary work. My appraisal of the film is that it is both educational and entertaining. And, it is legitimate in its content and approach, and worthy of viewing by every American school child of sufficient age. I believe that every adult should see this film.

Being a scholarly film critic, as one would infer from the official description of your role on this site, we all should pardon you for your apparent inadequacies in formal logic skills and ignorance of the science of theology. Yes, classical western thought considers theology the king of the sciences. And theology fits the definition of modern usage of the word ’science’. Your assertion that Stein committed many fallacies in his film is far from proving the same. Saying does not make a thing so! Logical fallacies have names. You fail to specify a single instance of any specific fallacy. While Stein’s film was careful to define key terms like ‘intelligent design’, ‘evolution’ and ‘neo-darwinism’ your review is very careless in its use of ‘evolution’ and ‘ID’ and totally omits ‘neo-darwinism’ the oft used word for the movie’s arch villain.

David if I may critique your critique, it would seem that you are defending an untenable proposition that “science” has proven “evolution”. Of course it all depends what you mean by your undefined terms. Your film critique labors under the fallacy of undefined terms of which the film warned. On the other hand, while you assert without proof the commission of many fallacies within the film ,you have commited many noted fallacies yourself and others yet.

Do we agree that theories by definition are not provable? If we do it follows that Evolution cannot be demonstrated to be true. Nor, can holders of ID prove the correctness of their theory, per se. The film made the assertion to which I agree, that the scientific evidence leads more toward an intellectually honest embrace of intelligent design than to that of macro evolutionary origins. Yet we suffer under totalitarian like dominance of evolutionary theory in our education systems and scientific communities and public policy debate.

In my humble opinion the film proved its point resoundingly, through its several examples of scientists who were fired, laid off, denied tenure and otherwise ostracized. Further prove was provided by evolutionary scientists who expressed no tolerance for ID within science or the public sphere and animus or other disregard for all who embrace ID.

Without sharing a factual basis you claim that the individuals did not suffer real harm. That by definition merits the use of propaganda in its worst sense. You are dealing in rumor and bald assertion, not the method of scholars. The pretense that you have debunked any one of the cases presented in the movie is certainly an argument from silence as you gave no proof for your unfounded claim. The argument from silence is a fallacy.
I suggest that you go see the film again. I saw it twice opening weekend to do my part to ensure it had a long run. Despite its early success it has largely disappeared from the market. Hmm? Might there be some undue pressure involved? Now, my three adult children who I encouraged to go out and see it have been unable to find the film available in their locals.

You clearly are intelligent and educated. But why dump on Mr. Stein or his movie? Did he step on your toes?

I apologize for sounding like someone’s father or grandfather, which I am. Those are two of my most cherished roles, which I am pleased to have achieved by God’s grace. I found your blog was linked on the blog of a loved one. With a click here and a click there, I found myself reading with interest your film review of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”.

Your review demonstrates that you did not see the forest for the trees. Which at one time was understood by any well-educated people to be a major fallacy.

Furthermore, the film is much to simplistic. As I said in my review, it fails to address important issues like people who believe in Creationism and evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive; to believe in creationism does not mean that one does not believe in any of the theories of evolution.

Moreover, the film essentially dwindles into an unconvincing attempt at disproving the idea that there is no God: a backwards way of saying there is a God. And to prove that Richard Dawkins was an idiot doesn’t go very far in proving any of that.

If you look closely and do your research you will find that a fair amount of the info they offer in the film, especially regarding the supposed plights of the ID backers, simply is incorrect. Some of what they report about how those people suffered seems to have been exaggerated.

Basically, Expelled tarnishes all Darwinist and evolutionists as maniacal murderers responsible for the worst atrocities of man. Linking Hitler and Darwinism is basically a specious argument, after all how many Christian Germans prayed to God that Hitler would triumph? Should we equate Christianity with the Nazis too? That’s stupid and simplistic, right? Or do we just ignore the previous two thousand years of anti-Semitism in Europe and assume it had it had no impact on the holocaust or do we blame all Christians for the camps? Again, that’s a simplistic answer.

To quote the Anti-Defamation League: “The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”

By the way I agree that you can be a Christian and a Darwinist, too. To me, one is science and the other is faith and they each have their place in life, one in a class room, the other in a church. If ID is truly a valid scientific theory then win the debate within the scientific journals not in the court of public opinion (and please don’t give me that nonsense that the ID proponents lost their jobs, that was basically a Michael Moore liberty if I ever saw one.) To date, the arguments of irreducible complexity are not enough to allow ID to stand as a valid scientific theory. And even if it was what can you do with it as theory? What predictive models will come from ID other than to ask us to marvel at god’s handiwork?

Here’s a quote from my http://www.millenniumwriting.com site that Jason provided from St. Augustine:
“For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]“

Erik John Bertel
Author of Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot

andrew webb