Even though I’m one of those guys that never sees a movie on the first (or second, or third) week it’s release, I admit this is taking the cake.
After watching Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the documentary(?) starring Ben Stein, here are my comments:
1. Remember Spider-Man 3 or Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End? I loved the first two movies of each franchise, but felt that the writers/directors/producers/whoever tried cramming in too much story and thus left behind a bloated and less satisfying movie experience. I felt the same about Expelled (except it ain’t a sequel, let alone a sequel to a sequel – threequel???). In my view, there were at least 4 plot lines: the (alleged) persecution of ID advocates in the ivory tower, examining the holes in evolutionary theory, the atheists (again, I’ll expand on this later), and the link between Darwinism and the Holocaust/Eugenics. Each one could constitute a documentary on its own, but crammed together in less than 90 minutes doesn’t do justice to each topic. Pass the Ovol, please!
2. Richard Von Steinberg and Guillermo Gonzalez were the best candidates for “ID persecution”. IMHO, the others (Crocker, Egnor, Marks) were quite weak. I firmly believe that no one has the right to not be offended. Some thick skin is in order. (see here for examples of true persecution). Also, lip service was given to the “persecuted” who did not want to be identified. This topic needed to be expanded on to be properly explored. Bottom line, Expelled failed to prove their case of wide-spread persecution.
3. One of the funniest parts of the film was Ben Stein “lost” in Seattle trying to find the offices (or is that walk-in closet) of the Discovery Institute. It was a brilliant move to counteract the critics’ claims that the DI is (to paraphrase) massive, privately funded, religious front for theocracy. 
4. Putting aside “transparency issues”, Dickie Dawkins looked pathetic*, Eugenie Scott radiated pseudo self-importance**, and P.Z. had the manner of a cold dictator***. The only atheist I came away impressed with was the fiery cowboy, Will Provine. If you’re gonna slam them “creationists” into the ground, that’s what I expect to see and hear, not the duality that is P.Z.*** Regarding Michael Ruse, I would like to see the entire interview so I can try to understand why he was so exasperated. I mean, he HAD to have provided more than just crystals. He HAD to go into SOME detail, didn’t he? If not, well, the footage speaks for itself.
5. Eugenics is a topic that needs to be treated with extreme caution. Expelled did the subject a great disservice by merely scratching the surface.
Overall, not bad. Better than other so-called documentaries I’ve seen (Bowling for Columbine, The Corporation), but not by much. (Sorry, I don’t have a cool scoring systemlike some bloggers do).
*Quoting Alvin Plantinga: “You might say that some of [Dawkins's] forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.” (and it shows in his interviews).
**I came away with the feeling that Eugenie considers herself important but that the more militant atheists (Dawkins, P.Z.) would consider her a “useful idiot”. This is what I mean by pseudo self-importance.
***In his review, Dr. Heddle has a great description of P.Z. (third paragraph of “The Atheists” section).
I find there to be quite the contrast between the P.Z. of the interview (and real life, so I’m told) and the P.Z. of Pharyngula, so much so I figure one of them has to be fake (or a muppet). It’s this duality that I consider disingenuous.
Recent Comments