Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Expelled ten days later … plus other news

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

According to Box Office Mojo, Expelled is estimated to have

– earned $5,282,000 in 10 days.

– it is currently ranked 6th in political documentary, 12th in Christian, and 15th in documentary.

– It is currently ranked 13 in films, but every film ranked above it was released in far more theatres.

Meanwhile, John Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, is suing the Expelled filmmakers over their use of his 1971 song Imagine, ranked all time # 3 by Rolling Stone. The producers claim they cited it under fair use for commentary and criticism.

The Expelled producers replied to Ms. Ono, “Let it be,” adding,

Premise did not pursue a license for the song and had no obligation to do so. Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the Imagine clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech. The brief clip – consisting of a mere 10 words – was used to contrast the messages in the documentary and was not used as an endorsement of EXPELLED.

But the irony of this lawsuit was not lost on the film’s star Ben Stein, “So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief Constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to ‘Imagine no possessions’? Maybe instead of wasting everyone’s time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free? After all, ‘imagine all the people sharing all the world…You may say I’m a dreamer But I’m not the only one I hope someday you’ll join us And the World can live as one.'”

John P. Meyer at Pegasus News thinks, as I do, that

Frankly, it looks like the instigators of the lawsuit are playing right into the hands of the filmmakers, who’re naturally (and in time-honored fashion) taking the approach that “all publicity is good publicity.”

Apparently, Ms. Ono is trying to stop the distribution of Expelled, but there she certainly hasn’t the advantage of originality. At least one group of fans has sent me a message urging that people see the film soon in case she succeeds.

In case she succeeds? Huh, what? I can’t think of a better way to be sure that a billion people see it.

Meanwhile, if you want to hear and see Lennon’s Imagine, go here, and here’s Lennon with the other Beatles, in Let it be.

Also: Just up at The Post-Darwinist

Darwin dating: Only a Darwinist would think of something this vulgar (honestly!)

US politics: Churches should holler for Jesus and schools should indoctrinate Darwin?

The miracle of the disappearing prof: St. Charles Darwin’s fanatics make Prof. Nancy Bryson disappear

Blogging: Crocodile, crocodile, cry me some tears (The circulation-bleeding New York Times feels sorry for people like me. Yeah really.)

Blog seeks the firing of Baylor U’s anti-ID president

Darwinism and atheism: No connection whatever?

Expelled: Did Darwin really lead to Hitler? Better question: Did the suggestion lead to free publicity?

A kind correspondent wants to know why I am not in Expelled (“Well, for one thing, I wasn’t kicked out of anything for making the intelligent design controversy my major beat. Oh sure, people laughed at me in 2001 when I said it would be one of the biggest stories of the decade by mid-decade.”)

Reasons to Believe: Reasons to Believe: Old Earth Creation ministry thumbs down on Expelled film – claims there is no persecution of ID theorists

New for blogroll: Atheism is dead

Just up at The Mindful Hack

Things we know but cannot prove: Another nail in the coffin of materialism.

Excerpt: “We are at an undisputed edge of naturalism in computing and math. There is no TOE. Does science have a TOE? If so, will we ever know we are at the edge?”

The fours be with you! (You will be “fours”ed to cooperate with this words/numbers game. (Hey, it’s Friday night!)

Altruism: Why it can’t really exist but why it does anyway

Evolutionary psychology: Eliot Spitzer is a kludgebrain!, psychologist opines (but so are we all)

Mind and medicine: The placebo effect – Did your doctor just prescribe you a quarter teaspoon of coloured sugar? Maybe …

Materialism: When the store is on fire, hold a fire sale:
Excerpt: So this is the latest pseudo-explanation of the soul? I could do better myself! How about this: Minds that are accustomed to think in terms of a future have difficulty grasping the idea that there is no future after death.

Way simpler, to be sure, but materialists wouldn’t buy it because I forgot to drag in the Paleolithic cave guys telling stories around the fireside – the staple of evolutionary psychology.

Fitna: A thoughtful Muslim’s response The predicted riots largely didn’t happen, but where to go from here?
Excerpt: And while we are here: Dial-a-mob/rent-a-riot behaviour is NOT copyright to Middle Eastern Muslims. I ran into the same thing among the American Ivy League elite in May 2005, when the New York Times bungled a story I broke on my other blog, The Post-Darwinist, claiming that a film about to be shown at the Smithsonian was “anti-evolution.” It wasn’t; it did not even address the subject. But zillions of Darwinbots, as I called them, behaved exactly as if it had. It’s a good thing that no one gives them sharp objects to play with.

Rupert Sheldrake’s guide to New Atheism (which makes it sound like New Coke, really)

Can a transplanted heart lead to transplanted thoughts? Well, maybe, but the mechanism might be fairly conventional.

Why science without God destroys itself: Because the alternative idea of a multiverse is a step into magic, that’s why

Comments
Would you folks please stick to acronyms that all of us can understand? RTB, NFL, and DE are not common acronyms. I immediately recognized NFL and finally figured out RTB, but I still don't know what DE is.Larry Fafarman
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
"I have commented on this site before that one must keep in mind the very different missions of RTB & the ID movement. RTB is first and foremost a ministry with an apologetics mandate. ID is not. There is a consonance of goals, but one should not expect 100% agreement." Yes, that much is obvious to me and that is an important distinction. Besides, Ross is an astronomer, so most of his arguments are based on the apparent fine tuning of the universe as evidence of I.D. of the universe. He is less concerned with the evolution debate because that is not his area of expertise. Why turn your guns on him when there are people like Dawkins running amok? Seems counter productive to me. I know he has angered YECs. Big deal. Get over it :-)C_G_K
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Even if the bill passes both the House and Senate in Florida, it could still be vetoed by Governor Crist. I find it funny, since my high school biology teacher, who attended a local Methodist church, stood up in class and said, "I don't know what you believe, whether it's evolution, creation, or creationism, but this book teaches evolution." Of course, this was in 1985.Barb
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
RE: ---------- Florida’s legislation conflict: Bill Requires ‘Critical Analysis’ of Evolution ------------ I'd prefer legislators to stay out of education altogether. I prefer local school districts to decide what and what not to include in their biology curriculum instead of being dictated upon by some central authority.SeekAndFind
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Here's another rant from the conservative columnist of National Review, John Derbyshire.... http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGYwMzdjOWRmNGRhOWQ4MTQyZDMxNjNhYTU1YTE5Njk= TITLE : A Blood Libel on Our Civilization. Can I expell ExpelledSeekAndFind
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Okay, I am starting to get conspiracy theories in my head waiting for the weekend box office to come in. What is the delay? I tried a few of my studio contacts to get a handle on how the box office "estimate" is derived, but cannot find a consistent methodology, which means it would be arbitrary for any given source. I do note that, as far as mojo is concerned, they have given the Expelled the largest drop in week-to-week revenue of any movie in the Top 20, and also of any movie in its second week. I don't buy it, but without a line on the est method, who can say. I know the weekend was slow overall, but still, they gave it a Fri-to-Fri drop of almost 63%. It would seem that a number in the high 40's low 50's is more in line with histiorical tracks. Tick, Tick, Tick...Upright BiPed
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Gods IPod:
God created life, the cell, dna, the lot, and then using that raw material like a CPU of sorts, powered all life from it, making subtle changes to create massive differences in the end result. In THAT regard you could say we have common descent, but that’s not what’s inferred by the term.
As far as I can see, that is exactly what is inferred by the term. If, in a world of all knowledge, my ancestry could be traced back to a microorganism in a distant swamp, I am the product of common descent. Common descent does not imply the mechanism of new information. The neo-Darwinian theory suggests that all new information is the result of random events -- mostly "errors" or is the product of a mechanims that was developed by such a random system. The neo-Darwinan theory requires universal common descent (well, it could be possible, I suppose, that each of the domains were separate spawnings of life.) However, Universal Common Descent does not require neo-Darwinism. If there is a genetic twiddler that, using foresight, has guided the development of life from amoeba to man, even if the twiddler periodically injected huge chunks of data, if the twiddler twiddled with an existing species to get the new one, rather than creating ex-nihlo, then we have UCD. I hold firmly to common descent (I believe that many species were the product of twiddling (natural or supernatural) from previous species. I hold loosely to universal common descent, believing that my ancestry could theoretically be traced back to an amoeba 3.5 billion years ago. I say that I hold this loosely because there seem to be some surprising events that may have required an ex-nihlo rewrite, such as the cambrian explosion. I am by all means not a neo-Darwinist (I believe that the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy with all of its modern variety is still missing a huge chunk -- input from an intelligent, foresited agent.bFast
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Florida's legislation conflict: Bill Requires 'Critical Analysis' of Evolution
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- A requirement for public schools to teach "critical analysis" of evolution, a term used by intelligent design supporters, passed Monday in the Florida House. The issue now returns to the Senate, which already has rejected the House approach and passed a different version. Majorities in both chambers, however, agree teachers should not be punished for challenging evolution.
Opponents may be trying to force differences to prevent the bill from passing.DLH
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Collin Try calling your theater and asking for it to be shown.DLH
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
I would have seen the movie if it was showing somewhere near me in Northern Idaho. I think a lot of people up here would have too.Collin
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
He is also deleting statements showing evidence favorable to Expelled. Yes, Wikipedia editors are censoring on the topic of Darwinism in general. I am not a YEC, but I do believe in a specific, very-Genesis-style creation event. You could say the same thing about the notion of the Big Bang, such a singularity sounds a lot like a Genesis style creation event. It's interesting that although uniformitarian views may be false (We may not be able to decode the past by reading a knowledge of current regularities back into it.) it's not even really necessary to challenge uniformitarian views to point out the possibility of singularities. At some point even ID proponents who accept common descent believe that singularities and creation events of some form took place. Many would say that the origin of Life is a good candidate, yet if they admit that information or language can be input into the system of Nature then there is no longer any reason to exclude the divine Word as a matter of principle, supposedly based on the principles of matter. As the materialist Lewtonin noted, if materialism gives way at any point then at that point the divine foot is in the door. And as Berinksi recently wrote:
If one is obliged to accept absurdities [based on materialism] for fear of a Divine Foot, imagine what prodigies of effort would be required were the rest of the Divine Torso found wedged at the door and with some justifiable irritation demanding to be let in?(The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski :9)
mynym
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Well, here is an RTB trained apologist who works very well with the ID movement. My work is in cosmology and sometime this year I will have an essay co-written with William Lane Craig in print in the "Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology". I have collaborated with Bruce Gordon at the Discovery Institute and we both have a friendly relationship critiquing each other's work. (He has an essay in a forthcoming book by Eerdmans edited by Fr. Robert Spitzer of Gonzaga University. The subject is the viability of inflationary cosmology) I have commented on this site before that one must keep in mind the very different missions of RTB & the ID movement. RTB is first and foremost a ministry with an apologetics mandate. ID is not. There is a consonance of goals, but one should not expect 100% agreement.sinclairjd
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
I for one do not agree with Common Descent. I have suspicions that some do in order to build something of a bridge to the other side. I am not a YEC, but I do believe in a specific, very-Genesis-style creation event. It seems rather simple to me. God created life, the cell, dna, the lot, and then using that raw material like a CPU of sorts, powered all life from it, making subtle changes to create massive differences in the end result. In THAT regard you could say we have common descent, but that's not what's inferred by the term. If everything had common descent, then would not the only real question be how did life begin? I can't see how common descent supports ID theory, quite the opposite.Gods iPod
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
TomRiddle: I am working on understanding "Common Descent" I would like to see the evidence for "Trans-Speciation" or do you mean that species do change, but still retain their Phylum, Genus & Species classification? thanksalan
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Ugh! The pettiness! That's why I love ID---it's the greatest thing to come along in my lifetime. Young Earth, Day-Age, Gap-Theory, TE ... finally a movement that has gotten it exactly right!Rude
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
"He also wanted ID to broaden its scope and adopt an official model (obviously he’d prefer RtB’s own)." The beauty of ID is that it is a theory of causation, not a theory of origins. However, if ID is correct, any theory of origins which does not take ID into consideration is fundamentally flawed.johnnyb
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
I asked him some basic questions related to biology and he couldn’t answer them. he is out of his league here. He doesn't understand it, and adheres to a "special creation" model. I wish you had had the opportunity to present evidence for common descent to him, as RtB seems to reject CD, in favor of each group being created individually separate and distinct from the others. Even though Fuz is a biologist, I think these guys are primarily and Old Earth organization, and their biological knowledge is really poor.TomRiddle
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
At a friend's request I attended a Hugh Ross presentation at Florida Institute of Technology on April 9 & 11. During his presentation he bashed Expelled, stating that RtB felt that it was insulting to the scientific community (primary objection). (At the time I had not seen the movie. But now that I have, I'd agree it's insulting toward a very specific subsection of the scientific community, but not as a whole.) He also seemed to believe that ID was useless since "we've been doing ID all along". Among several things that I considered incorrect, he stated that major ID proponents (mentioning Bill by name) have refused to state in writing a position on the age of the earth, which I knew to be false (see designinference.com). During Q&A I stood up and asked him how he could state that considering that the EF and UPB implicitly presume the standard model in the first place. I also mentioned that Bill had written his position years before, but that he's willing to openly work with YECs, and that many ID proponents are not Christian in the first place and thus would not be YEC. His response essentially was that he wanted a stronger position taken against YEC. He also wanted ID to broaden its scope and adopt an official model (obviously he'd prefer RtB's own). I was trying to be polite so I did not argue this point all too much. After the presentation I had a chance to talk face-to-face for about 15 minutes. I wanted to understand his position on ID better. I told him my understanding was that ID proponents were focused on stopping the needless division (constructive critiques of hypotheses is another thing entirely) between those who support the general position that Design was involved "some time" after the Big Bang singularity. There needs to be a united front against those who strive to prevent this position from even being considered. We want to stop the persecution, maintain our jobs, and be capable of receiving research funding. Thus we cooperate with those who are willing (including Darwinists, if individuals allow it). Once the basic questions are settled then we'd turn to considering competing hypotheses. He stated that the end goals are pretty much the same but his preferred approach is to have an "vigorous open debate in the scientific community" now. So apparently his biggest beef with ID is that he doesn't like the approach we're taking. His dislike for YEC is the bone he cannot stop chewing on. Although I didn't voice it, I also doubt his Creation Model is getting much consideration, so where's the debate in the first place (other than from YECs, of course). Also, in the 2nd presentation I asked him some basic questions related to biology and he couldn't answer them. I believe that explains his opposition to ID a little better, in my opinion. His position is so very wrapped up in cosmology while ID tends to focus on biology. All in all, I don't understand RtB. I personally highly doubt the earth/universe is 6000-10000 years old but I don't see a need to be so dogmatic. Why cannot those who disagree work together?
As it is, RTB carries none of my books, including MERE CREATION, which, as you note, has an essay by Hugh.
Hugh said to me that you were "personal friends". That doesn't sound too friendly to me...Patrick
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
bFast at 12 Good point. Confirmed by Wikipedia "editor" "Angry Christian"'s confession of gaming the system:
14:37, 28 April 2008 Angry Christian (Talk | contribs) (156,963 bytes) (?Viewers Reaction: removing highly unreliable source (online poll) , for example I have voted in their poll 4 times and I have not seen the movie.) (undo)
He is also deleting statements showing evidence favorable to Expelled.
DLH
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
"96 percent said they’d recommend Expelled" Yet on boxofficemojo.com 33% gave it an F. This would indicate that about 30% of boxofficemojo.com voters never saw the movie.bFast
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
In a six state exit poll of 1,100 viewers, 96 percent said they'd recommend Expelled. See: Intelligent design documentary creates stir Dallas Morning News 12:00 AM CDT on Sunday, April 27, 2008DLH
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Horses, which have eyes at about the height of a man’s, and have good eyesight, also have an acute sense of smell.
Haven't seen many horses, have you? As a horse owner, I can tell you that they spend most of their time with their noses less than an inch from the ground.specs
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
This is quite amusing: "Circling the Paradigm: Protecting the Theory at Any Cost" The author doesn't appear to be an ID supporter or creationist, but he has fun with the just-so stories that evolutionists tell: I once asked a list of ardent evolutionists why humans, in evolving from lower primates, had largely lost their sense of smell. Their answer was in two parts. First, men evolved an upright posture, and evolved it in the savanna, where the comparatively unobstructed terrain allowed them to see all around them. They therefore did not need a sense of smell. This makes no sense. At night it obviously would be useful to know when predators were about. Lions are astute at using cover to approach their prey, and are the color of dirt. Horses, which have eyes at about the height of a man’s, and have good eyesight, also have an acute sense of smell. The upright-posture stuff is sheer story-telling.Jonathan Sarfati
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Bill I am excited for Stephen's new book The DNA Enigma. I trust you two are working together? I know that you and Behe worked together on Edge of Evolution and being that your all brothers at the DI I figure as much with Stephen's. Also, for what its worth I REALLY loved your book NFL. It really describes the the problem with DE. DE seems, through the icon of common descent, to be so simple and thus so true but NFL seems so simple and so true as well. It is very theory that begs the sythetic explanation. One of the two theories has to be wrong and like Maxwell and Newton there will be a final round. I think we will find that DE cant be purchased without "that fancy stuff." Who knows who the Einstein of origin science will be. One thing is for sure the punctuation of that final theory will be the most profound ever. The only question reamins will anyone accept it?Frost122585
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Jonathan Sarfati: As it is, RTB carries none of my books, including MERE CREATION, which, as you note, has an essay by Hugh. By contrast, I've found the Young Earth community much more open and inviting.William Dembski
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
What do you expect from Hugh Ross? He's always been one to appease materialists and attack his fellow Christians (see documentation in Refuting Compromise. His latest WFJ attack on Expelled doesn't surprise me at all. It's a shame that ID books like Mere Creation included stuff from such a dogmatic old-earther, despite the pretence of not taking a stand on the age of the earthJonathan Sarfati
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique. thats because Hugh Ross speaks mostly in churches, and makes his living from donations from church people. Lets see him enter the open market of science and try to get funding for his ideas. Like Gods ipod, I'm done with this guy...TomRiddle
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
C_G_K - 2, I wish I could be as charitable in this matter as your comment offers to be, but unfortunately, the press release explicitly says "In Reasons To Believe's interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect." If so, that is because their "creation model" is completely irrelevant to science*, unlike fellow astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez's "galactic habitable zone" hypothesis, which is entirely testable and falsifiable - and THAT'S the problem with it. Win or lose, it's still science based on ID assumptions. The conflict from which Hugh Ross and his team have chosen to be absent is primarily between people for whom science exists to defend materialism - no matter how ridiculous its theories, as Lewontin has so usefully pointed out - and people for whom evidence trumps theory In other words, Darwin fans vs. ID theorists. The conflict is secondarily between people for whom science faculties are a tax-subsized private playground for materialist atheists and people who want to restore academic freedom of enquiry for all scholars whose research produces results -like Gonzalez, for example. Again, a conflict between Darwin fans and ID theorists. *completely irrelevant to science? - If your answer to the question "How did life begin?" is that God zapped it into existence (RtB's view, I gather), then the origin of life is not researchable. That's because the key actions take place in a zone we cannot research. If, however, you are an ID theorist, you might say "The origin of life shows evidence of design rather than chance." That doesn't mean it cannot be researched. It can be researched in depth. But the purpose of the research is to reconstruct a series of designed events, not to come up with a scenario about how it might all have happened by chance. The ID theorist sees such fantastically improbable scenarios as a waste of time compared to backward engineering the design. In other words, studying the cell becomes more like studying ancient manuscripts to reconstruct the history of a civilization. We know that the manuscript (and the civilization) didn't all happen by chance, so we are not looking for some "rainwater dripping from a leaky roof" explanation for the marks on the paper. We are looking for what we can learn from the information they convey. Thats the future.O'Leary
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Hugh Ross... That's the final straw for me. He just moved from being someone I have ignored to be someone I am going to warn people about.Gods iPod
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
I personally have a great deal of respect for Hugh Ross and RTB. It sounds like they don't dispute that some Christians have been treated unfairly. My guess is that they just want to avoid controversy as that could take away from from what they are trying to accomplish.C_G_K
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply