1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to
eugenics and the Holocaust.
When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of
evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's
narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man
The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they
chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes

2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
"Viewers of Expelled might think that Ben Stein has been giving
speeches on college campuses and at other public venues in support of
ID and against "big science." But if he has, the producers did not
include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged
solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by
speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes
were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most
were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein
receives accordingly

3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a
different movie.
As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other
proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked,
the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to
be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the
intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently
surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which
"exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who
are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning
orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.

When exactly did Crossroads become Expelled? The producers have said
that the shift in the film's title and message occurred after the
interviews with the scientists, as the accumulating evidence gradually
persuaded them that ID believers were oppressed. Yet as blogger Wesley
Elsberry discovered when he searched domain registrations, the
producers registered the URL "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007—
more than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the
scientists were interviewed. The producers never registered the URL
"crossroadsthemovie.com". Those facts raise doubt that Crossroads was
still the working title for the movie when the scientists were
interviewed.

4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost
his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was
a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of
Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after
Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C.
Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted
at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered
other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark
Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the
Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment.
This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that
are awkward for the movie's case)

5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations
because of dogmatic atheism.
Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to
mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never
explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are
just described as having an atheistic preference.

Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out
of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously
observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as
evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated
(a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement
prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and
overcomplicated.

By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor
without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the
nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly
become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed,
so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this
looks designed."

A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is
that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID
"theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are
disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design.
Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a
productive or useful approach to science.

6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious
people accept evolution.
Expelled includes many clips of scientists such as Richard Dawkins,
Daniel Dennett, William Provine and PZ Myers who are also well known
as atheists. They talk about how their knowledge of science confirms
their convictions and how in some cases science led them to atheism.
And indeed, surveys do indicate that atheism is more common among
scientists than in the general population

7) There more important items you could buy rather than to waste 8-10
bucks on a ticket to some schlock job film...a dime bag of herion, a
really cheap hooker, two bottles of wine, a gallon of petrol, a box of
condoms...,.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Ken 
wrote:

>1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to
>eugenics and the Holocaust.
>When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of
>evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's
>narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man
>The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they
>chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes

On Stein's planet there wasn't any Christian anti-Semitism before
Hitler, which is strange coming from a Jew who would be expected to
know such things.

"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote

> On Stein's planet there wasn't any Christian anti-Semitism before
> Hitler, which is strange coming from a Jew who would be expected to
> know such things.

Dawkins reply :...
The alleged association between Darwinism and Nazism is harped on for what 
seems like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage. We are supposed to 
believe that Hitler was influenced by Darwin. Hitler was ignorant and 
bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled 
misunderstanding of Darwin (along with his very ungarbled understanding of 
the anti-semitism of Martin Luther, and of his own never-renounced Roman 
Catholic religion) but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did. My own view, 
frequently expressed (for example in the The Selfish Gene and especially in 
the title chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) is that there are two reasons why 
we need to take Darwinian natural selection seriously. Firstly, it is the 
most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of 
all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to 
organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a 
passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to 
construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I 
approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of 
universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic 
philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever 
wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy 
with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest 
representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate 
conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own 
hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social 
Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the 
is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking 
garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the 
truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning 
fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as 
to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page80

Steve M
>

On Apr 27, 1:56 pm, Ken  wrote:

> 7) There more important items you could buy rather than to waste 8-10
> bucks on a ticket to some schlock job film...a dime bag of herion, a
> really cheap hooker, two bottles of wine, a gallon of petrol, a box of
> condoms...

April 27, 2008): The second weekend's estimated take is $1,378,867
($1,325/theater, The-Numbers) or $1,379,000 ($1,324/theater, Box
Office Mojo), with a total of about $5.2M for two weekends. First
weekend in 1,052 theaters, about $3.8M
NOT a good return when one considers these other documentaries first
weekend's take
Fahrenheit 9/11 - $23,923,637
Tupac: Resurrection - $4,632,847

Sandy

On Apr 27, 1:56 pm, Ken  wrote:
> 1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to
> eugenics and the Holocaust.
> When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of
> evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's
> narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man
> The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they
> chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes
>
> 2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
> "Viewers of Expelled might think that Ben Stein has been giving
> speeches on college campuses and at other public venues in support of
> ID and against "big science." But if he has, the producers did not
> include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged
> solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by
> speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes
> were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most
> were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein
> receives accordingly
>
> 3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a
> different movie.
> As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other
> proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked,
> the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to
> be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the
> intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently
> surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which
> "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who
> are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning
> orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.
>
> When exactly did Crossroads become Expelled? The producers have said
> that the shift in the film's title and message occurred after the
> interviews with the scientists, as the accumulating evidence gradually
> persuaded them that ID believers were oppressed. Yet as blogger Wesley
> Elsberry discovered when he searched domain registrations, the
> producers registered the URL "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007—
> more than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the
> scientists were interviewed. The producers never registered the URL
> "crossroadsthemovie.com". Those facts raise doubt that Crossroads was
> still the working title for the movie when the scientists were
> interviewed.
>
> 4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost
> his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
> One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was
> a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of
> Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the
> Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after
> Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C.
> Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted
> at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered
> other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee
> on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark
> Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the
> Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment.
> This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that
> are awkward for the movie's case)
>
> 5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations
> because of dogmatic atheism.
> Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to
> mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never
> explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are
> just described as having an atheistic preference.
>
> Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out
> of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously
> observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as
> evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated
> (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement
> prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and
> overcomplicated.
>
> By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor
> without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the
> nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly
> become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed,
> so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this
> looks designed."
>
> A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is
> that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID
> "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are
> disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design.
> Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a
> productive or useful approach to science.
>
> 6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious
> people accept evolution.
> Expelled includes many clips of scientists such as Richard Dawkins,
> Daniel Dennett, William Provine and PZ Myers who are also well known
> as atheists. They talk about how their knowledge of science confirms
> their convictions and how in some cases science led them to atheism.
> And indeed, surveys do indicate that atheism is more common among
> scientists than in the general population
>
> 7) There more important items you could buy rather than to waste 8-10
> bucks on a ticket to some schlock job film...a dime bag of herion, a
> really cheap hooker, two bottles of wine, a gallon of petrol, a box of
> condoms...,.

One more item.
Ben Stein is not expected to win either a Noble Prize an Oscar for the
film.
Although a Golden Raspberry Award or the "Razzie" might be offered to
him
Sandy

On Apr 27, 3:56 pm, Ken  wrote:
> 1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to
> eugenics and the Holocaust.
> When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of
> evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's
> narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man
> The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they
> chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes
>
> 2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
> "Viewers of Expelled might think that Ben Stein has been giving
> speeches on college campuses and at other public venues in support of
> ID and against "big science." But if he has, the producers did not
> include one. The speech shown at the beginning and end was staged
> solely for the sake of the movie. Michael Shermer learned as much by
> speaking to officials at Pepperdine University, where those scenes
> were filmed. Only a few of the audience members were students; most
> were extras brought in by the producers. Judge the ovation Ben Stein
> receives accordingly
>
> 3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a
> different movie.
> As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other
> proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked,
> the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to
> be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the
> intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently
> surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which
> "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who
> are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning
> orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.
>
> When exactly did Crossroads become Expelled? The producers have said
> that the shift in the film's title and message occurred after the
> interviews with the scientists, as the accumulating evidence gradually
> persuaded them that ID believers were oppressed. Yet as blogger Wesley
> Elsberry discovered when he searched domain registrations, the
> producers registered the URL "expelledthemovie.com" on March 1, 2007—
> more than a month (and in some cases, several months) before the
> scientists were interviewed. The producers never registered the URL
> "crossroadsthemovie.com". Those facts raise doubt that Crossroads was
> still the working title for the movie when the scientists were
> interviewed.
>
> 4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost
> his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
> One section of Expelled relates the case of Richard Sternberg, who was
> a researcher at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of
> Natural History and editor of the journal Proceedings of the
> Biological Society of Washington. According to the film, after
> Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C.
> Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted
> at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered
> other professional setbacks. The film mentions a 2006 House Committee
> on Oversight and Government Reform report prepared for Rep. Mark
> Souder (R–Ind.), "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the
> Smithsonian," that denounced Sternberg's mistreatment.
> This selective retelling of the Sternberg affair omits details that
> are awkward for the movie's case)
>
> 5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations
> because of dogmatic atheism.
> Expelled frequently repeats that design-based explanations (not to
> mention religious ones) are "forbidden" by "big science." It never
> explains why, however. Evolution and the rest of "big science" are
> just described as having an atheistic preference.
>
> Actually, science avoids design explanations for natural phenomena out
> of logical necessity. The scientific method involves rigorously
> observing and experimenting on the material world. It accepts as
> evidence only what can be measured or otherwise empirically validated
> (a requirement called methodological naturalism). That requirement
> prevents scientific theories from becoming untestable and
> overcomplicated.
>
> By those standards, design-based explanations rapidly lose their rigor
> without independent scientific proof that validates and defines the
> nature of the designer. Without it, design-based explanations rapidly
> become unhelpful and tautological: "This looks like it was designed,
> so there must be a designer; we know there is a designer because this
> looks designed."
>
> A major scientific problem with proposed ID explanations for life is
> that their proponents cannot suggest any good way to disprove them. ID
> "theories" are so vague that even if specific explanations are
> disproved, believers can simply search for new signs of design.
> Consequently, investigators do not generally consider ID to be a
> productive or useful approach to science.
>
> 6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious
> patheieople accept evolution.
> Expelled includes many clips of scientists such as Richard Dawkins,
> Daniel Dennett, William Provine and PZ Myers who are also well known
> as atheists. They talk about how their knowledge of science confirms
> their convictions and how in some cases science led them to atheism.
> And indeed, surveys do indicate that atheism is more common among
> scientists than in the general population
>
> 7) There more important items you could buy rather than to waste 8-10
> bucks on a ticket to some schlock job film...a dime bag of herion, a
> really cheap hooker, two bottles of wine, a gallon of petrol, a box of
> condoms...,.

REPLY:  And...#8 :   Dawkins isnt even a proper 'Atheist' !!!!