TERRIBLE review for Ben Stein’s propaganda film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”

Ben Stein’s soon-to-be-released disingenuous anti-evolution Judeo-Christian fundamentalist crocumentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” has received a scathing review from Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel. Moore described the “documentary” as “a rabble-rouser of a doc that uses all manner of loaded images, loaded rhetoric, few if any facts and mockery of hand-picked “weirdo” scientists to attack the those who, Stein claims, are stifling the Religious Right’s efforts to inject intelligent design into science courses, science curricula and the national debate.”

As others before him have pointed out, Moore notes how the producers of Expelled have tried to frame the evolution-Intelligent Design “debate” (also known as the evolution-creationism “debate”—and this is about as much of a debate as is the debate between the theory of gravity and the notion that God is pulling objects down with his many invisible fingers) as a fight for academic freedom. The lie promulgated is that Intelligent Design proponents are being oppressed by a scientific community made up of dogmatic evil “Darwinists” bent on suppressing any and all criticisms of evolution and hiding all of its supposed “holes”. The Scientific community is the evil oppressive thought policing big brother, and the ID community is the innocent and noble victim who just wants to have the freedom to present its side of the issue. Relatedly, Barbara Forrest, a key speaker against the IDists in the Dover, Pennsylvania trial, on previous occasions has pointed out how the ID crowd tries to frame the evolution-creationism affair as an issue of fairness—it is only fair that each side get its due time. The film completely masks the facts that 1) evolution is viewed by the grand majority of the scientific community as a historical fact (note to reader: evolution is a historical fact; evolutionary theory refers to attempts to explain the mechanisms by which evolution (i.e., changes in populations over generations) occurred, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection); 2) the field of evolutionary biology is among the most thoroughly developed and validated research programs in human history; and 3) Intelligent Design Creationism is an unfalsifiable hypothesis (it is not a scientific theory) which is based on no evidence, but rather on arguments from ignorance and willful misunderstanding of previous findings in evolutionary biology.

Next, according to Moore the crocumentary went to great lengths to cast evolution and modern science in a negative light by repeatedly  linking them falsely to Hitler, Stalin, eugenics and the holocaust, and by attributing false premises to evolutionary science and considering severely out-dated and long-ago supplanted biology research so as to present a strawman of evolution which he could easily tear down. The strawman and fallacious linkage to evil: two of the deceitful propagandist’s best friends.

Stein also presents the probabilistic argument: what are the chances of life arising by undirected natural processes? This is a bogus argument. What are the chances of life and the universe as we know it coming by natural processes? Presumably very low. But who said that this universe is special? The universe could very well have turned out an infinite variety of other ways, but it turned out the way it is. Similarly, sometimes someone wins the lottery. It happens! It doesn’t mean that the lottery was rigged. Moreover, I wonder if he considers that the Earth is but a small corner of the known universe and may be the only part of it that contains any known life. Further, I wonder if he considers that 99% of the species that have ever existed on this planet have gone extinct—it’s kind of a natural and predictable outcome of replicating biological organisms in a changing environment with limited resources. I also wonder if he considers the fact that there could be, for all we know, other parallel universes co-existing with ours—some containing entities analogous to living organisms on Earth, some not. And lastly, I wonder if he ponders the probability and the evidence (read: lack of evidence) of there being an omnipotent, omniscient God existing outside of space and time that took it upon him/her/itself to create our universe. I confidently assume that he considered none of these minor details.

According to Moore, the disingenuity began even before the movie began. The preview that Moore attended was a private showing to what apparently was hoped to be a “friendly, receptive audience of conservative Christian ministers at a conference at the Northland mega-church”. Moore claims that the pitch for this movie parallels that of other pro-Christian films such as Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ and C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia. “In other words, a stealth campaign, one out of the public eye, preaching to the choir to get the word out about the movie, without anyone who isn’t a true believer passing a discouraging judgment on it”.

What is more, the promotional team flooded the Orlando Sentinel with email invitations but then tried to withdraw the invitation sent to Moore. Why would they do this? Why would they suddenly withdraw Moore’s invitation? Is it perhaps because they suspected he may not review it favourably?

Between setting up biased movie reviews, relying on strawman arguments and lies, and attempting to bribe Christian schools to bring their students to see this movie, I can’t help but think that Stein and his colleagues are a bit insecure. But no matter how much BS has gone into the production and promotion of this crocumentary, you just know that millions and millions of Americans (and fundamentalists elsewhere) are going to flock to this travesty in droves and walk out of the theatre feeling vindicated in their beliefs. Hopefully the strong opposition that is sure to continue flooding out of the scientific community, blogosphere, and hopefully the mass media will mitigate this unfortunate effect.

About these ads
Comments
23 Responses to “TERRIBLE review for Ben Stein’s propaganda film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed””
  1. scaryreasoner says:

    “Crocumentary.” What a cromulent word! I am so stealing that, next opportunity.

    And this is really nitpicking about very common, easily made typo, but I noticed you mentioned “Intelligent Design proponents.” I assume you surely meant “intelligent cDesign proponentsists” of course.

    I was thinking I should ask you what you think of P.Z. Myers opinion of “framing”, but I suppose that’s probably already on your blog somewhere.

  2. ronbrown says:

    Scaryreasoner:

    Greetings. Yes, spread the word—literally… May it be fruitful and multiply.

    As for the typo, yes, good eye. That is precisely what I meant. But, being the sensitive and caring person that I am, I didn’t want to poke a sore spot of creationists.

    As for framing, yes, I’ve done 3 posts on this (including one in response to a reply I got from Matt Nisbet—he never got around to replying to my response to his initial rebuttal)

    https://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/lying-for-science-trying-to-portray-science-and-religion-as-compatible/

    https://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/framing-science-endorses-francis-collins-as-the-next-presidential-science-advisor/

    https://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/01/06/85

  3. scaryreasoner says:

    Thanks for the links.

  4. Evolved says:

    “Crocumentary”

    Brilliant!

  5. ronbrown says:

    I demand credit for the new meme “crocumentary”! :)

  6. Tyler says:

    How about croc’oduckumentary?

  7. Ishmael says:

    This response sounds like the guy who is writing it is angry… I can’t say that I can accept a stubborn person’s rants.

  8. L. Ron Brown says:

    Ishmael: Why shouldn’t the author be angry? The makers of this movie are purveying a disingenuous set of lies.

  9. Ron:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crocumentary

    Apparently you are 3 years to late to grab credit, at least by one objective measure. As for Ben Stein, he should stick to what he does best, quiz show host.

  10. Jay Rogers says:

    I saw the movie in an advance screening and I thought the movie was hysterically funny, sad, powerful — the gamut of emotions ran through me. It will make people amused, angry, sad, hopeful, fearful.

    See my review for more details:

    http://forerunner.com/blog

    Mark my words. It’s going to open big, get bigger, and then it’s going to stir up more controversy than ever before — and then it’s going to get bigger and have a longer run due to the controversy. All during this, the media will be saying it is tanking.

    Of course. They have to. There is no other alternative except to admit the impending failure of the liberal worldview.

    EXPELLED is entertaining. It’s hilarious, but it’s not meant to amuse.

    The Greek word MUSE means to think or ponder something. A-MUSE-ment is the lack of thoughtful consideration.

    In fact, most of the best humor is unintentional and deeply ironic.

    This is an experience movie. People flocked to see The Passion of the Christ — one of the least entertaining movies you will ever want to see. A low budget film that made a billion.

    EXPELLED is in the same vein. It begins in an upbeat light manner and slwoly descends into serious blackness. You can dismiss it, but it’s another one of these low-budget masterpieces whose producers have chosen to spend their few millions on advertising. And it’s going to get a big boost from word-of-mouth and grassroots efforts (like your blog).

    I have to laugh when I read critics saying that Michael Moore’s style of jump-edited out-of-context mockumentary is better than EXPELLED.

    It is a masterpiece compared to anything More has done. I know he is the patron saint of the radical left, but take out his political views and an ape with a camera could put together a better production. (No pun intended.)

    I am a Christian who can’t stand some Christian movies becasue they have been historically schlocky, but this wasn’t a “Christian” movie (Stein is a Jew) and it had high production quality.

    With the availability of high tech media production at a lower cost than ever before, we are seeing conservatives and Christians in particular turn the corner with high grossing efforts that are at once entertaining, informative, uplifting and provocative.

  11. I wonder, would a public school teacher in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, be allowed to say the following:

    “It is interesting to contemplate … [all the many forms of life on earth] … so different from each other, have all been produced by laws acting around us. … There is grandeur in this view of life, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

    Just imagine a public school teacher who says those words: that God creates life and places it on the earth in a few forms, and then that life evolves according to the physical and natural laws that God put into place in the universe.

    Would that be allowed?

    Actually, it should be REQUIRED FOR THE TEACHER TO SAY THAT.

    Why? Because the quote is from: On the Origin of the Species, Chapter XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion, By Charles Darwin.

    If you are going to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools, you should teach what Darwin actually wrote about it.

    ****

    If you believe in God, you really have only two choices:

    1. God created all life on earth like a carnival magician, or the Amazing Kreskin: a wave of the hands and poof! there was life. That’s Creationism. (I dont believe God does his handiwork like a second rate magician.)

    or…

    2. God created all the processes, chemistry, mathematics, and physical laws that govern the universe with an end in mind – the creation of life. It’s a belief in God as powerful and intelligent on a grand scale. In this belief, evolution IS intelligent design. Evolution is not random, though it may have random elements. The goal was to create man.

    Doesn’t all of science – everything we have learned so far – leads us to this view? It is not an incompatible view. I recall that AT&T/Bell Labs scientists won the Nobel Prize for “hearing” the remaining noise of the Big Bang – the origin of the Universe. But what the scientists couldn’t tell us – and no scientist can yet tell us – is where did the original matter come from, and how did life get breathed into it?

    Einstein proved that space and time are related, and postulated that the Universe is expanding, but finite. What is beyond the finite universe?

    I am an engineer by training, and have always enjoyed science and scientific inquiry. I believe that scientific inquiry only leads to one thing: the discovery and understanding of the rules of the Universe – the rules that God created, the way God decided the Universe would work.

    Year by year, decade by decade, and century by century, we discover and understand more of God’s “scientific” design of the Universe. His “rules.”

    That leaves us with one really important question: Why?

    And THAT is the right question.

    Michael S. Class
    Author

    Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame: The History Book with a Message for Today’s Young Americans

    Read the book. Remember the truth. Share it with your children.

    Web Site: http://www.MagicPictureFrame.com

    ———————–

  12. Frank Cugini says:

    Darwinism a Pseudoscience!

    I am sure that I will create some controversy with the information I bring to you. I am confident in that fact because this topic is polarizing in today’s society. You will find that you either take the side of Darwinism or you will find yourself upset at the way that we have all been deceived, whether blindly or on purpose, by the pseudoscience that has been taught in our schools for years.

    Let me start with a statement of my purpose in writing this series. During my research over the last several years, I have come to the understanding that most of what we have been taught regarding Darwinism is not based on scientific evidence but based on belief of a theory. Furthermore, my purpose here is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of the evidence. I assume that creation-scientists are biased by their precommitment to Biblical fundamentalism, and I will have very little to say about their position. The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based upon fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism.

    My argument is this – although most people believe that an enormous amount of empirical evidence supports the general theory of evolution, this is in fact an illusion. Most people in the intellectual world are certain that evolution is true because it is the only tenable naturalistic explanation for the development of complex life, therefore it must be true if non-naturalistic explanations are ruled ineligible for consideration. Their belief is then built up on a pre-existing theoretical certainty based on philosophical presupposition. Non-evolutionary explanations of the evidence are not even considered, and therefore the evidentiary support that seems to exist is the product of cultural certainty rather then true cause or support.

    I suggest that there are only three ways that my argument can be attacked: (1) One could deny that the doctrine of evolution is in fact grounded upon a conclusive presumption in favor of scientific naturalism, but I doubt that anyone would want to deny so obvious a fact. (2) One could defend scientific naturalism on philosophical grounds, demonstrating that it is indeed a superior philosophy. The problem with this would be that science is now thrown out and we are talking about philosophy – or maybe religious belief. (3) Scientists could present compelling evidence that is capable of proving the truth of the doctrine of evolution without support from the philosophical presupposition that only naturalistic explanations can be considered. I doubt that such evidence exists but I would be eager to hear of any.

    One would assume that the line of most criticism would be the third line of attack because we have been taught that evolution is based on evidence through our education and in the media. Unfortunately, for scientific naturalists this line of attack would only expose the lack of empirical evidence they claim supports the theory of evolution. In other words this would put the spotlight on the fact that there is no evidence and Darwinism falls apart.

    In December 1989 near Boston a small group of scientists, including the leading evolutionist of the time, Stephen J. Gould, met to discuss the writings of Phil Johnson who called into question the lack of evidence to support Darwinian evolution. During this discussion the group witnessed the spectacle of the reform-minded evolutionist Gould as he fell apart when academically respectable critics appeared to be losing confidence in the Darwinian paradigm and it’s naturalistic base due to the lack of proven evidence. Gould’s final response was a desperate plea for more time, “science needs more time to find the evidence”, but that “never the less evolution was fact not myth.”

    It’s been almost 150 years – common sense would lead one to think that we would have found something he could have used to defend his position, yet Gould’s only response was – “we need more time”.

    The fact is that macroevolutionary claims have not been supported by one discovery since 1859. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Michael Denton summarizes the thought above, “As the analogy deepens between organism and machine, as life at a molecular level takes on increasingly the appearance of a sophisticated technology and living organisms the appearance of advanced machines, then the failure to simulate Darwinian evolution in artificial systems increasingly approaches a formal logical disproof of Darwinian claims.”

    “The fact that systems in every way analogous to living organisms cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange chance do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems.”

    To read Denton is a highly educational experience. In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis he discusses dazzling test cases and Darwinian conundrums, which appear impossible to solve under the glare of “deep common sense.” He piles example upon example of complex organs, structures, or behaviors known to exist in nature that appear to defy any plausible step-by-step evolutionary scenario of development.

    One such example in his book is the case of the bird lung mystery. Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles, but this poses an embarrassing problem due to major differences in lung structure. Reptiles have a bellows-type lung, similar to humans and all mammals – air flows into the lungs and then is reversed with each breath. All birds however have a fundamentally different kind of system. Air flows in then breaks out into thousands of tiny parallel passageways (parabronchi) for oxygen exchange, and then continues flowing in one direction through the parabronchi, and finally exits the lung. The bird lung is, thus, entirely unique in structure – it is a circulatory system.

    If evolution is said to take place over small intermediate forms – what then might have been the hypothetical intermediate forms by which a reptile’s bellows lung evolved into the completely different circulatory lung system of a bird? At the level of deep common sense, it is virtually impossible to conceive a plausible step-by-step transitional scenario in thought experiments.

    In one chapter of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Denton amasses twenty-two such cases in which plausible intermediate structures cannot even be imagined.

    So if evidence is pointing in the opposite direction why is it that Darwinism is not being challenged? I believe the answer is clear, scientists have forgotten their pledge to the priority of empirical investigation and the importance of going where the evidence leads. Why have they strayed so far from their duty as scientists? I believe that one of the best known Darwinists, Richard Dawkins, summed it up himself when he said, “although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” In other words, before Darwin, a potential atheist might be genuinely troubled by the stumbling blocks of biological design and its implication of an intelligent designer.

    If Darwinian theory has spectacularly flunked the empirical tests in regard to macroevolution and has become little more then a culturally and socially induced illusion, why is it still being taught as fact in our schools? I believe it’s because the lie has grown too big. Virtually every trend in the university environment is linked somehow to the reality of the Darwinian worldview. If this ultimate foundation proved false or even highly problematic, the universities and modern thought would undergo a vast intellectual upheaval. In other words they are in too deep.

    But does it make much sense to continue down a dead end road? It does if you are an atheist and currently the only other solution is to open up to an intelligent designer. So, have we let the atheist religion into our schools? Has the state found it’s religion? The state force feeding their religion is what drove our forefathers to seek freedom in this land.

    Belief in macroevolution is a belief in an illusion. Darwinian scientists that are dogmatic are a different kind of fundamentalists – they would have us believe in a cosmogenic myth called evolution based solely on their faith in scientific naturalism with no evidence to back their claims. The call for separation between church and state has taken a terrible twist when the church of Darwinism can disguise it’s pseudoscience religion as “real” science and force us to accept it as fact all the while keeping other theories out by claiming separation of church and state – of course their church of atheism is the only true religion.

  13. L. Ron Brown says:

    Reply:

    1) Evolution of the human eye has been simulated by artificial intelligence simulation.

    2) Atheism does not require evolution. Let me explain. Agnostic atheism, the position of simple lack of belief in a God pending evidence, is sustainable even if all of science is discarded tomorrow. Even if everything in Science is disqualified, there is still nothing even coming close to sufficient evidence for any of our religious traditions for a God in general. Rejection of evolution would simply mean that we know less than we thought we did. But agnostic atheists already believe that we know very little. It is this highly limited knowledge that gives rise to agnostic atheism in the first place.

    3) You alluded to irreducible complexity. IC is a fictional problem. Scientists have addressed it. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org

    4) Not all scientists are atheists. Most are, that is true. But there is a significant minority of religious scientists. Off the top of my head, I would conjecture that perhaps 30% of scientists are believers. Yet the proportion of scientists who do not accept evolution is WELL below 1%. And of those that deny evolution, every one of them (save perhaps a handful, at best) are devout religionists. Further, there are even devout religious scientists like Francis Collins (evangelical Christian and Director of the Human Genome Project) who have written off ID and who accept evolution.

  14. Frank Cugini says:

    First let me say I appreciate the open discussion.

    Regarding your reply…

    1) A simulation done by a computer is not proof …the computer is only as intelligent as its “creator”. Actually your answer makes a case for ID. Show me a simulation in nature. You can’t. There is no evidence for macroevolution. If there was I’m sure it would have been presented by now. Instead we have countless situations where data was manipulated then presented as evidence. All of which have been proven false.

    2) Yes, I relate Atheism with the Neo-Dawinists…but My major point is missed…”the church of Darwinism has disguised it’s pseudoscience religion as “real” science”…whether atheism or naturalism it doesn’t matter. If we are going to argue religion then clear the table of all science and lets argue religion. But if we’re going to argue science…pure science then lets look where the evidence leads. There is no scientific evidence for macroevolution.

    3) Irreducible Complexity is real.
    Here is Michael Behe’s (developer of IC) response to the site you quoted. He tears their thoughts apart.
    http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_toresp.htm

    4) Do you just rattle those stats off the top of your head? …30%…1% – If 99% of people get a wrong answer – It’s still a wrong answer!

  15. L. Ron Brown says:

    1) The comp simulation was a reply to your claim of no artificial simulation. That’s all. And it’s not an argument for ID at all. There is also Conway’s game of life which shows that complex repeating patterns can emerge from simple starting rules and reproduction. Anyhow, moving on, what would count as a simulation in nature for you? What about the genetic, temporal (as inferred from location in fossil record), embryological, anatomical, and cognitive/behavioural continuity among known species? The independent convergence of all of these factors does not impress as you? Actually, we should get something out of the way: Are you discounting evolution, or simply nontheistic evolution? Are you taking the Behe stance that evolution did in fact happen but that divine intervention happened here and there?

    Given the strong converging evidence for the historicity of evolution (i.e., dissent with modification) from common dissent offered by the fossil record, genetics, and comparative embyology, anatomy and cognition, it would be hard to deny that much.

    But was a designer intervening? Where is the evidence for the idea that one did? You’ve pointed out that we may not understand how some complex systems evolved without intervention, but where is the evidence that there was intervention. At this point, it just looks like an argument from ignorance for me, and one that does not result in a better situation. If you assume a divine intervener, then you go from having to explain mousetraps to intelligent highly resourceful engineers – this is a far worse place to be. If you think that holes in our understanding have been found, great. That’s a good thing. But lets not go overstepping the meaning of these potential holes. Lets not go from “there are holes in our understanding” to “evolutionary biology is a pseudoscience”, allegations that science is being used by atheists as a political tool, and that evidence for an intelligent designer has ever been given.

    I’m not a biologist. So I can’t sit here and site this and that relevant finding for you to as great a degree as would be needed to respond to your charges. I have sent emails to two people who know more than me about these things and perhaps they will respond.

    As for the stat, yeah, that one I did rattle of. I figure it’s probably in the ball park. The point, though, is that there is a noteable minority of scientists that are religious, but only a trivially small fraction of them seriously doubt naturalistic evolution. How many years has the DI been trying to collect signatures for its Dissenters of “Darwinism” list? And it only has about 735 or so signatures. This represents less than 1% of the world’s scientists. Unless you for some reason think that less than 1-2% of the world’s scientists are religious (which would not be good for your argument at all), then you would have to admit that the majority of religious scientists do not seriously doubt naturalistic evolution. And if you think it is because they fear losing their jobs, then where are all the tenured IDists? Why aren’t there thousands of tenured religious researchers who have signed the document after having received tenure? And where are the agnostics? And what about the nominal religionists?

  16. Eric Tetz says:

    “But what the scientists couldn’t tell us – and no scientist can yet tell us – is where did the original matter come from, and how did life get breathed into it?”

    And? Science, unlike religion, doesn’t suffer from the irrational conceit that we CAN know everything. There may be (and probably are) questions whose answers are as inaccessible to us as calculus is to dogs. That doesn’t mean we throw our hands up in the air and give up, “Well shit! Maybe it was magic! Maybe a guy, who just *happens* to look and think just like us but has super powers, did it!” That’s a cop out of epic proportions, and it has an *abysmal* track record: virtually everything that has ever been attributed to gods by man has proven to be natural.

    Now, because you’ve run out of things to attribute to God, you want to attribute Nature itself to Him. “Well, OK, maybe he didn’t make everything just as we see it today (despite my Holy text saying so), maybe he made the laws of physics themselves knowing they would eventually lead to what we see today!” All you’ve done is pushed the same intellectually impotent cop-out back another step.

    If you want to take it to it’s logical conclusion, you must ask: who created your God? Super God? Who created Super God? Super Super God? At some point, you have to simply concede that nothing created Him, that He just spontaneously appeared or has always here. Either can can be said of a Universe without God, and Occam’s razor directs us to select for that Universe.

  17. Frank,

    For someone who is so confident about how “Darwinism” is a modern myth, you seem to be totally ignorant about what Gould meant at the time. Gould was simply saying that there are other mechanisms that drive evolution apart from the strict Darwinian RM + NS process. He was *not* saying that the whole fucking field of evolutionary biology has been called into question, you ignorant buffoon of a cretinshit! If you are too stupid to understand the difference between “Darwiniam processes” which Gould mentions and evolutionary biology as a whole, perhaps you should think of taking some remedial biology lessons.

    Now, of course there are still things that we don’t understand, and finding answers to those questions is the purpose of science. Your foolish ‘GODDIDIT’ or ‘the Designer did it’ is as intellectually lazy and moronic as someone who says ‘Xenu did it’ or ‘The giant pink fairy did it’. These assumptions contribute nothing to science, is not science and should not be taught in science classrooms. Anti-science notions such as ID belong in the rubbish heap of history.

    Creationism is dead as far as real science is concerned. Move on.

  18. Isn’t it interesting that when someone like Michael Moore or Al Gore attemptes to redefine truth – no matter how bogus or outrageous – that the mainstream pundits and others can’t seem to offer enough praise. Noble Peace Prize even.
    But when a movie like this comes out it’s immediately and
    comprehensively labeled as a crocumentary. Nice try.

  19. L. Ron Brown says:

    Rick:

    1) I agree that Michael Moore can be a sleaze bag. In fact, I no longer trust him at all. Is it because I think that everything he says is a lie? No, surely not. It’s because sometimes he’s flat out honest, and sometimes he throws in major spin, half-truths, and so on, and unless you’re an expert on what he’s talking about, it’s often hard to tell the truth from the garbage. The extent of my experience with Moore is as follows: Movies: I’ve seen Canadian Bacon (liked it a lot – funny), Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. Books: About half of Stupid White Men. I have declined to read/watch the other half of SWM, Sicko, and Dude Where’s My Country because I lost trust in Moore – though I’ve heard that Sicko is pretty fair, but who knows.
    2) I haven’t seen Al Gore’s film so I can’t comment. However, because I know how science works and because the people who oppose global climate change all seem to be driven by profit motives and profound ignorance (e.g., “God made this planet for us, so it’ll be fine; and the rapture is just around the bend…”), I’m gonna have to go ahead and trust the strong degree of agreement within the scientific community on this one.
    3) This movie absolutely is a propaganda film and deserves to be labeled as such.

    As for “nice try”. No dice.

    • rick czechowicz says:

      You’re more screwed up than I thought. You actually believe that it’s those in opposition to the concept of global climate change that are out for profit? You can’t be serious.
      I’d suggest you do a little research on Al Gore’s stake in a company called “Generation Investment Management.” As
      the chairman of this firm, he is heavily invested in carbon
      offfset stocks and stands to make millions as the company and the hoax of global warming grows. You might call it a slight conflict of interest, but of course he learned this startegy all too well from the Clintons. Don’t expect to hear
      about this from any of the network news programs. They’re
      probably invested in the stock as well. Get your head on straight, and start looking for the facts instead of what the
      “in the tan” news media tells you.

  20. arlene harper says:

    Read “Bones of Contention” by Marvin Lubenow

  21. j. schmoe says:

    -Ben Stein is not stupid.
    -Ben Stein does not believe in intelligent design.
    -He was, according to Wikipedia, valedictorian of his class.
    -People on this forum criticize Stein for his
    anti-science movie.
    -Stein is laughing at them.
    -Stein has not made an anti-science movie.
    -Stein is a Zionist and is doing exactly what Zionists have done for many years now.
    -He is forging links between Zionism and the American Fundamentalist community. (Evolution caused the Holocaust) Now who do you think that
    message is aimed at?
    -Stein is not doing Science, nor is he doing Anti-Science
    -He is doing POLITICS. (and making money at the
    same time)

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. [...] to keep out of their pre-screenings, which already includes PZ Myers and Orlando Sentinel columnist Roger Moore. Way to stand up for academic freedom and against suppression of dissent… Posted in [...]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers

%d bloggers like this: