Expelled: Reviewing the Reviewrs

EXPELLED: REVIEWING THE REVIEWRS

By Danzil Monk

No copies of this material are to be made in any form without documented permission from the author except for brief quotes for review and news purposes.

______

Since the reviewers were so kind to dedicate their time and minds to reviewing the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I thought I should return the favor by reviewing their reviews. The following is my brief analysis of some of the reviews I found online.

A Review of By Bill Thompson

(I emailed him and he responded. At first he said he was not the author for the review, and later he acknowledged he wrote it but said that he did not consider it a review).

Mr. Thompson opens with the following comment on the film:

.“…. one of the most disingenuous documentaries of the year”

I find a comment such as this highly suspect. It does not give the producers the benefit of the doubt, as if he knows for a fact that there was another more pressing motive and purpose for the film. Yet he says nothing about the comments made by Richard Dawkins and the other Darwinist who were interviewed in the film. I find this most disingenuous of him.

“The film's asserts that the scientific community has mounted an intellectual Berlin Wall between Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and the rival "scientific" notion of Intelligent Design.”

Notice that science when referring to I.D. is in quotation marks. This is typical of many who value Darwinism; they don’t even acknowledge that I.D. has any relation to science. If they bothered to examine the I.D. evidence rather than just take the word of Darwinist, they would know that I.D. is more scientific than evolution is.

“ …the film is undercut by the former Nixon speechwriter's underhanded method of presenting his case.”

An interesting point of observation, just about every hostile reviewer that I have read that chose to mention Ben Stein’s presidential speechwriting, has only mentioned the disgraced Richard Nixon and excluded Gerald Ford, seemingly hinting that Ben Stein is untrustworthy as a writer and thus as a film host. Thompson’s convenient omission is an example. I will be sure to ask him if he was aware that Ben Stein wrote for President Ford as well.

“ scientific establishment, in and out of academe, frequently has been hostile to ideas that challenged the widely accepted view. But science also is alone among all human endeavors in that, ultimately, it is self-correcting.”

USUALLY FAR TOO LONG AFTER THE DAMMAGE HAS BEEN DONE,it took 40 years for science to acknowledge that Pilt-down man was a complete fraud, and the process known as bleeding, before it was discovered that blood was not the cause of all sickness, killed many people, including President George Washington.

“If Intelligent Design is valid, it will win out. But it shows no signs of doing so, mainly because it is not science.”

Since when does validity guarantee victory? And besides, whose definition of “science” is he referring to? Today’s Darwinist has changed the definition of science in order to better protect their Darwinism. They have redefined science to mean “naturalism”. Additionally, it seems at least from this statement, that Thompson is basing his opinion of I.D. on evolutionist opinion rather than on his personal examination of the evidence.

“Intelligent Design is a sanitized version of so-called Creation Science, or Creationism. And "Expelled" is right-wing political invective, just as execrable as those left-wing creeds that conveniently ignore evidence that does not support their claims about everything from oil industry profits to global warming to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

It seems that Thompson has brought the Darwinist mantra concerning I.D. without checking the details, I.D. stops short of the discussion of God, since such topics are clearly outside of the realm of empirical evidence. But to accuse I.D. of “ignoring the evidence” that does not support their claims is disingenuous. If Thompson had really examined the arguments of I.D. honestly, he would know that the “evidence” supported I.D. against evolution. I am curious to know why Thompson spends all of his time ridiculing and accusing the film without giving constructive reason for doing so. It would have been far more productive and less suspicious had he pointed out the errors of the film and documented his sources, instead he, like nearly all of the negative reviewers of this film that I have read online, has resorted to comments without substance. What is most unfortunate about this review is that Mr. Thompson though polite in our dialog, was unwilling to answer five questions that I asked him about his comments in this review. He first agreed to answer my question but after receiving them he decided that it would take to much time to do so. However, I would have settles for brief comments. He did however take the time to at least respond to my emails to him, for that I must give him credit. None of the other reviewers that I emailed or called returned my correspondence. The following is my full dialog with Mr. Thompson

Hi Bill, I just read your review of expelled and
would like to talk to you.
I am an administrator at a college in BrooklynNY.
What is the best time to call and chat with you briefly?

Bill Thompson wrote:
I did not review "Expelled," sir. Perhaps it was
a wire service review.
Bill

Danzil Monk
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 20084:58 PM
To: Bill Thompson
Thanks. Sorry.

Bill Thompson wrote:
No problem. What was youtr (your) question?

Danzil Monk
To: Bill Thompson
Well, after seeing the movie I decided to check out
the reviews on line and in the News. After reading 10
or so bad reviews I began to wonder why the
reviewers were using such harsh and mean tone just to give a
review. I was also concerned about some of the
comments made and thought that maybe I should ask
the writers themselves. Since you were not the author I
should not bend your ear with my questions.
Here is the link where I found the review:
If you get any lead on who wrote it I would like to
talk with them. Thanks much.

Bill Thompson wrote:
Beg your pardon. I misunderstood you. I did write
about the movie fleetingly in my column, but that was not a "review" as
such. My tone reflects the fact that I have lost patience with these slanted,
willfully dishonest, ridiculous diatribes -- on both ends of the
political spectrum. The very next week I was unloading on something from the
other end of the ideological divide from Stein, a show biz type who, to me, has
lost all credibility. My only agenda is rational discourse and fairness,
which these extremists ignore. Bill

From: Danzil Monk

Friday, May 16, 200812:58 AM
To: Bill Thompson
I would like to see what you wrote from the
other end of the ideological divide from Stein.
As it was you who wrote the comments of which I spoke
to you of, may I say that I am sincerely sorry you
have lost patience with the political diatribes on
both sides. I have no love for either of them myself,
however, that aside, I believe that the topic of the
debate is valid. I am very familiar with both sides of
the argument and I feel that they can and should be
addressed without bias. Although any subject can be
used by political diatribes for their own motives,
that does not invalidate the argument itself. It is
unfortunate that some have allowed their destine for
diatribes and other motivationsto hinder them from
honestly examining the facts and defending the right.

Bill

I agree, sir.
From: Danzil Monk

Wednesday, July 02, 20084:54 PM
To: Bill Thompson
Hi Mr. Thompson, I would like to see the piece you did
on the opposite ideological divide from Stein. I'm not sure if you
heard but the Expelled movie producers won their case against Yoko Ono. I am
doing an article on the film and I would like to pick your brain about some
of the comments that you made on the film. Can I send you my questions?
there are only 3.

Bill did not answer my request and I had not checked my email for a while. When I did I found this message from him.

From: Bill Thompson
Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2008, 6:11 PM

Danzil are you still going to send the questions?

I responded to his question:

Thanks for taking my questions.

I know I said there 3 but I realized there are 5. I hope it’s okay?

You call Expelled, “one of the most disingenuous documentaries of the year”

Is that because you feel he was just pushing I.D. and that nothing else in the film was relevant or important? So much was covered in the film that you did not give your opinion on such as the treatment of Darwin rejecters and the arguments presented by I.D.

And the comments made by evolutionist Richard Dawkins and Michael Ruse.

You say that:

“The film's asserts that the scientific community has mounted an intellectual Berlin Wall between Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and the rival "scientific" notion of Intelligent Design.”

When you refer to science in relation to I.D. you put it in quotation marks and you later state: “If Intelligent Design is valid, it will win out. But it shows no signs of doing so, mainly because it is not science.”

And you imply that they “conveniently ignore evidence that does not support their claims”.

Why do you consider I.D. a non-science, and what evidence do you feel they ignore that does not support their claims?

You say:

the film is undercut by the former Nixon speechwriter's underhanded method of presenting his case.”

Are you aware that Ben Stein also wrote for President Ford?

You state:

Would you agree that this is not always the case, and that often a long period of time passes before such corrections are made during which time much damage is done and minds are poisoned against truth and remain so long after the correction? I speak of “Blood draining to cure sickness” of which President Washington died, and the Pilt-down man hoax that lasted for 40 years and when exposed little was done to undo the damage.

Thanks again for your time.

Danzil

From: Bill Thompson <
Subject: RE: from Danzil,Questions about your Expelled comments
To: "Danzil Monk" <
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 4:39 PM
Danzil,
I'm sorry, but these questions are much too broad, and
about a movie I saw many months ago and barely remember. It would take hours to
give you a proper reply, and I fear I do not have hours to devote to
this. These questions are way beyond the scope of a simple film review.
Reviews are not articles. They are not about equal time for both sides of an argument.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm putting in 60-hour
weeks and am constantly under the gun of deadline pressure..

From: Danzil Monk [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 20084:55 PM
To: Bill Thompson
Subject: RE: from Danzil,Questions about your Expelled comments
My apologies, I understand, I did not realize they were that involved.
I know that your time is valuable and you have been kind enough to share with me your thoughts earlier. I wont trouble you further. And Thanks again for your patience and time.

Bill Thompson

No trouble. Truly sorry I can't help at this time.

End of dialog.

As you can see I graciously accepted his decline. But I must comment on his statements

I'm sorry, but these questions are much too broad,

BUT THEY WERE CONCERNING HIS COMMENTS ON THE FILM.

And about a movie I saw many months ago and barely remember.

THIS I CAN UNDERSTAND BUT IT WAS ONLY 2 MONTHS PASS.

It would take hours to give you a proper reply,

I WOULD HAVE SETTLED FOR BRIEF COMMENTS ON EACH. HE IS A WRITER AND THAT IS WHAT HE DOES, GIVE BRIEF COMMENTS, RIGHT? MAYBE NOT.

and I fear I do not have hours to devote to this.

AGAIN, THIS I UNDERSTAND BUT I ONLY EXPEDCTED A BRIEF COMMENT ON EACH.

These questions are way beyond the scope of a simple film review.

HE DID NOT TREAT HIS REVIEW OF EXPELLED AS A SIMPLE FILM REVIEW. IN FACT, HE SAID THAT HE WOULD NOT EVEN CALL IT A REVIEW. BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR HIM TO TRASH THE FILM.

Reviews are not articles. They are not about equal time for both sides of an argument.

I DISAGREE, AND I MUST SAY THAT I AM SURPRISED THAT MR. THOMPSON WOULD MAKE A COMMENT LIKE THIS. AT THE SAME TIME I AM GALD THAT HE DID BECAUSE IT PROVES A POINT THAT I HAVE BEEN MAKING, NAMELY THAT THESE REVIEWERS ARE PUSHING AGENDAS THAT ARE HOSTILE TO THE CHRISTIAN WORLD VIEW AND NOT SIMPLY REVIEWING MOVIES.

BUT IN RESPONSE TO HIS STATEMENT, I DARE TO SAY THAT A REVIEW IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN HONEST AND ACCURATE TAKE ON THE MOVIE BEING REVIEWED. IF THE MOVIE IS ABOUT TWO SIDES OF AN ARGUMENT, WHICH EXPELLED WAS; THEN THE REVIEWER SHOULD FARELY AND HONESTLY STATE THAT.

I BELLIEVE THAT MY QUESTIONS WOULD HAVE FURTHER FORCED MR. THOMPSON EXPOSE HIS BIAS AND HE DID NOT WANT TO GO THERE.

The Following are other reviewer that I reviewed who did not reply to my attempt to contact them

TV GUIDE- Ken Fox

First a point about his opening comment.

“It's hard to pinpoint the most insulting aspects of this obvious propaganda piece from Ben Stein,”

This means that the film is so bad that just about every aspect of it is insulting, so much so that it is hard to say which part is the most insulting. However in his concluding paragraph we find these words:

“But surely the film's greatest offense is…”

So apparently it was not so hard to find the worst offence of the film after all. Could this be a hint that Ken Fox is so set on blasting the film that he really isn’t paying attention to what he is saying?

Let’s examine his complaints.

“What's so insulting? Perhaps it's the way the film skews its perspective to the point where evolutionary theory is made to appear old-school, reactionary and intolerant of such innovative ideas as Creationism,”

My question to Fox is, why would that be “Insulting” if it were true? The fact is that evolution is “old school” but not as old as Creationism which by the way was not the subject of the film but always seems to be injected by Darwinist to cloud the real issue. And evolutionists are reactionary and intolerant of any idea that threatens their pet theory, which was one of the points of the film.

“Or maybe it's the way a flag-waving Stein casts responsible attempts to keep faith-based belief outside the realm of empirical science as a violation of free speech and a threat to our American way of life,”

Here Fox reveals his bias and ignorance at the same time, for him to refer to the education and science institutions attempts to keep I.D. from being taught in the schools as “reasonable”, exposes his bias towards anti-Darwinian teaching and the freedom of speech in this case. For him to refer to I.D. as a “Faith Based Belief” without recognizing that the same is true of Darwinian evolution, thus placing it too, outside of “empirical science”, exposes his ignorance as to what “empirical science” is.

Since there is far more evidence of “empirical science” supporting I.D. (and creationism), than there is for Darwinian evolution, it is amazing that such people as Fox who present themselves as being knowledgeable of the subjects that they are writing about, are not the least bit embarrassed about their role in propagating the myth of evolution as intelligent truth.

“likening conditions in this "scientific gulag" to life in East Berlin (the film makes ample use of Cold War-era newsreel, kitschy social engineering films from the '50s and footage of Stalin).”

Naturally such comparison would be insulting to anyone who refused to acknowledge the connection, not because it is not true, but rather because they do not like anyone connecting the dots to make the clear connection that shows a common mind set among such people.

“Or maybe it's the way in which the lack of evidence supporting "I.D." is glossed over in favor of a one-sided attack on Darwinism's "failings," like evolutionary theory's inability to provide a simplistic answer to the huge question of how life was first created.”

His placing the “failings” in Quotes is an indication that he does not believe there are failings in Darwinism. Also, it should be pointed out that I.D. and Creationism do not insist on “Simplistic” answers to major questions like the origin of live. But they do insist on honest and intelligent answers, which evolutionists refuse to give.