One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, ...
... a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.
--Jeannette Catsoulis (New York Times)
... a tiresome ideological bludgeon, an attempt to deceive audiences ...
... a textbook Karl Rove-ian tactic to "reframe" the discussion.
--Mark Olsen (Los Angeles Times)
... a frenetic, chest-beating film worthy of the tabloids ...
--Ethan Gilsdorf (Boston Globe)
... a flimsy attempt to discredit Darwinist theory ...
--Justin Chang (Variety)
... a film that dresses creationist crackpottery in an "intelligent design" leisure suit ...
--Roger Moore (Cicago Tribune)
A hard-core, fundamentalist bit of right-wing propaganda ...
Stephen Whitty (Seattle Times)
A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust.
John Rennie (Scientific American)
It would seem Torquemada tolerates no dissent -- especially among the priesthood. If that's not enough reason to see the movie, I don't know what is.
=== UPDATE ===
New Trailer -- shorter, funnier!
... a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.
--Jeannette Catsoulis (New York Times)
... a tiresome ideological bludgeon, an attempt to deceive audiences ...
... a textbook Karl Rove-ian tactic to "reframe" the discussion.
--Mark Olsen (Los Angeles Times)
... a frenetic, chest-beating film worthy of the tabloids ...
--Ethan Gilsdorf (Boston Globe)
... a flimsy attempt to discredit Darwinist theory ...
--Justin Chang (Variety)
... a film that dresses creationist crackpottery in an "intelligent design" leisure suit ...
--Roger Moore (Cicago Tribune)
A hard-core, fundamentalist bit of right-wing propaganda ...
Stephen Whitty (Seattle Times)
A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust.
John Rennie (Scientific American)
It would seem Torquemada tolerates no dissent -- especially among the priesthood. If that's not enough reason to see the movie, I don't know what is.
=== UPDATE ===
New Trailer -- shorter, funnier!
7 comments:
Thank you for posting this...I will have to see it.
Does not surprise me in the slightest. SO glad that I am a believer of the TRUTH of Jesus Christ.
Jennifer
The second time through was even BETTER !!! I heard the music this time. I was too much for my brain first time through. Wow. And the crowd clapped again. Pretty full theater. I am guessing 80 people.
And here I was knitting in the theater and the darwinlovers equate knitting with religion. wow
I love watching all the cool trailers. Ben Stine is SO funny. Baylor expelled a prof for mentioning intelligent design?? Hope their funding dries up. I hope Baylor parents vote with their voices, their dollars, and realize they sent their sons and daughters to college to learn, not to lose their faith in an intelligent, loving God.
I've heard both good and bad about it. Guess I'll have to see it!
Ben Stine's movie had a "robust" weekend and the media is silent about it. EXPELLED took in over $3.2 million and you have to hunt and peck to find the story.
Box office results list it as number nine out of the top ten for the opening weekend ! Another site says it came in number 5. But, how do you compare it with another movie that opened in twice as many theaters??
Art--
Oh indeed, there's much more bad than good said about the movie. The reviews I cite are just the tip of the iceberg, and they all miss the point. The movie undisputably proves that there is systematic repression of debate over Intelligent Design -- yet the reviewers all see this movie as an attempt to re-introduce religion into the science classroom.
Creationism obviously steps across the line into the realm of unprovable religious dogma. But the very same thing is true of the "scientific" claim that random mutation is the only permissible explanation for the incredible complexity of even the simplest life form.
Not only is there no scientific evidence to support such a "Naturalist" leap of faith, there is an increasing body of knowledge about the chemical factory inside every living cell that strongly argues against any possibility of life arising through random chemical reactions.
Yet the self-appointed priests of academia permit no challenge -- heretics who dare deviate from dogma are hunted down and destroyed professionally.
Intelligent Design (which takes an agnostic view of Darwinianism, accepting it as a one possible explanation for change within species) is the middle road between two competing religious dogmas: Creationism and Naturalism. Intelligent Design doesn't postulate that the Judeo-Christian God must exist, it merely challenges the atheistic premise that the no designer can possibly exist. Statistically, the atheist position is astronomically less probable than the explanation offered by the deists.
=== ENDING SPOILER ===
I had to laugh out loud when at the end of the movie (one after another) all these "scientists", who'd argued so vehemently against Intelligent Design, acknowledged that a designer (in the form of a highly developed race of aliens) might exist -- the "scientists" merely thought the designer couldn't be anything like what we'd call a "god".
How could these highly intelligent fools fail to see that they just gave away their game? If you allow the possibility that someone who isn't "God" is the creator of life on Earth, you've merely said: "My religion is willing to worship lesser gods (such as me), but it utterly rejects the notion of a God to whom I am accountable."
Post a Comment