|
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed | 
| Director: Nathan Frankowski
Actors: Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Sternberg, Mark Souder
Studio: Premise
Category: DVD
List Price: $26.99
Buy New: $14.90
You Save: $12.09 (45%)
New (46) Used (15) Collectible (1) from $12.93
Avg. Customer Rating:  472 reviews
Sales Rank: 190
Format: Color, Dvd-video, Widescreen, Ntsc
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 95
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: MCMDPM0492D
UPC: 883476004921
EAN: 0883476004921
ASIN: B001BYLFFS
Theatrical Release Date: 2008
Release Date: October 21, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Ben stein travels the world & learns an awe-inspiring truth .. That educators & scientists are being ridiculed denied tenure & even fired - for the crime of merely believing that there might be evindence of design in nature & that perhaps life is not just the result of chance. To which ben says enough!. Studio: Uni Dist Corp (music) Release Date: 10/21/2008 Starring: Ben Stein Run time: 90 minutes Rating: Pg
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 467 more reviews...
 Ben Stein rules! January 9, 2009
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
This film is not so much an argument for Intelligent Design theory but rather an expose of the spanish-inquistion-like way the mainstream scientific community seeks out and destroys all heretics to their godless religion.
I am not a proponent of "Intelligent Design" because it is not really a scientific theory but a bunch of people going around saying "no it isn't". You can't find two people that can describe "Intelligent Design" the same way. (Are they saying that the initial cell was designed intelligently and then evolved into all life forms after that, or are they saying that every single species was designed intelligently as is, or is it something in between? How do we explain it - what mechanism was used? How do we test it?).
Still, Darwin's theory has a lot of holes and has led to a lot of Junk Science. (Do Junk DNA, Vestigal Organs, Bacteria "evolving" to be antibiotic resistant", "Embryology reflects Ontology", Eugenics, or Moths that evolve from white to black ring a bell?)
Here are a couple of things I don't get about the Scientific community:
1. Darwin writes this broad sweeping manifesto entitled, "Origin of the Species" which contains a lot of big conclusions that are not supported by any real data at the time of it's writing (DNA wasn't even discovered and cells were still thought to be "simple") and it is accepted widely and no one is allowed to question it. In modern times, the peer review process is so strict that even the slightest word or phrase that is not directly supported by the data presented in the paper will cause the entire paper to be sent back for re-write.
2. Darwin did NOT invent the concept of evolution - it was a well-defined concept already and there were alternate theories already in existance. One of the more famous theories was that of Lamark, who said that as organisms interact with and adapt to their environment, they pass those adaptations onto their off-spring. (Of course this theory is most often cited in order to hold it up for ridicule). Darwin was simply the first person to suggest that the process of evolution is driven by Natural Selection.
3. Natural Selection by itself CANNOT account for the sheer amount of diversity in the world. Natural Selection does not PRODUCE change - it actually eliminates a lot of potential change. Saying Natural Selection drives evolution is like saying the reason we have such a large diversity of books in print of all different topics in all different language is because we have editors that serve to limit the number of books that get printed.
It is because of this 3rd point that other scientists have come along and said that random mutation is the cause of diversity and natural selection ensures only good mutations survive. The problem is that there are not enough random mutations to account for all of the diversity.
However, as the "simple cell" continues to be examined by molecular biologists we are starting to see that much of the "Junk DNA" actually serves important functions. Also, the DNA of the cell was once thought to be the brains of the cell that told the rest of the cell what to do. Now, we are starting to see that there is a complex series of protien interactions that are used by the cell to determine what genes will be transcribed and in what quantity. The entire cell acts as a tiny little super computer that reacts to outside stimulus, makes computations and then accesses the DNA (which is more like a data storage unit) and makes the needed proteins to resolve the problem. Scientists have also seen examples where the cell can actually edit its own DNA by rearranging genes to create new genes. Some examples:
1. Transposons in Bacteria (also referred to as "jumping genes") - the bacteria were seen to move a piece of their DNA chromosone from one position to another. This resulted in the creation of new proteins that the bacteria couldn't produce otherwise.
2. Fruit flies subjected to extreme conditions were shown to produce strange mutations (such as legs growing out of their eye sockets). The scientists were able to isolate a protein that was produced by the fruit flies only when under extreme stress that induced the cell to rearrange sequences of its DNA.
3. B-cells which produce antibodies use a relatively short sequence of their genetic code to produce antibodies to millions of different antigens. They do this by rearranging this sequence of DNA to produce an unlimited number of unique gene products.
These are but a few examples of cells altering their genetic code in direct result to changes in the environment, allowing them to adapt. These changes in many cases CAN be passed onto the next generation.
Sounds more Lamarkian than Darwinian... Isn't it time to move beyond Darwin and consider other ideas?
Want to understand how our scientific community behaves and is funded? January 9, 2009
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
Insightful piece by Ben Stein, thank you Ben. Details the intolerance any scientific professional (yes, those with real degrees and teaching positions at institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, Cornell and others) experiences who dares question any element of Darwin's theory of evolution - careers trashed and excommunicated from the scientific community. Those who want an open debate and have legitimate questions are simply not tolerated (but wait isn't failing to be tolerant failing the political correctness test? ooops...no that's only if you fall on your knees and profess all the right beliefs...). Read or watch Lee Stroebel's THE CASE FOR A CREATOR before watching this. It will prime you with the legitimate scientific issues which need to be answered in evolutionary theory.
A Terrific Expose of Political Correctness Gone Wild January 9, 2009
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
This documentary is a real eye opener. It is informative, shocking, and riveting.
Although some think that this is about promoting intelligent design theory or creationism, that is not the case at all. It is really about exposing a repressive academic environment that is more about political correctness and maintaining the status quo than it is about seeking the truth.
The 'science' community in academia and elsewhere has become a big kool-aid drinking cult on the issue of Darwinism. The filmmaker, Ben Stein, does a superb job of showing how universities and other organizations have retaliated against those who do not follow the party line. He documents how they have been denied tenure, fired, had research money cutoff, etc. when they have dared to raise questions or take an unpopular position. He also names names.
This should be watched by everyone who is interested in academic freedom and the search for truth.
 Decent point, unbalanced presentation January 9, 2009
The film's thesis seems to be that the scientific community should not kill debate surrounding intelligent design. Fair enough. The trouble was that I could not walk away believing that the scientific community is killing debate because the filmmakers did not make their case with any attempt at balance or sobriety. Had this been done, the film may have been a great deal more effective. As it stands, it's simply another voice yelling loudly among others. This did not add to debate or conversation, but surely made the idea of debating the merits of intelligent design a great deal less palatable to the powers that be. I'm sure the filmmakers lined their pockets nicely, though.
Truth in media format! January 8, 2009
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
This is a great film! It clearly shows the agenda behind many scientists in academia. It helps if you have some experience studying the debate between ID and Darwinism. Also, I think the average viewer would benefit if they understood how significant the people being interviewed are. These aren't just loonies off the street, these are well respected "scientists."
It would be great is they included some interviews with people on the street that shows the average person's ignorance of the matter and their willingness to be fooled by media.
|
|
|
 Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
