Letter to the Editor: Darwin movie deserves exposure
Jeffrey Turner
Tuesday, April 29
The fact that Ben Stein's film ("Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed") is
not playing in any local theaters is frustrating but not surprising. All
that liberal rhetoric about tolerance and openness to differing
viewpoints seems to have hit a roadblock in the mainstream media, even
Berkshire County. The Triplex in Great Barrington will show "Baby Mama,"
and Regal at the Berkshire Mall will show "Harold and Kumar," but
something stimulating, thought-provoking, and perhaps even useful isn't
even given the light of day? Does Berkshire County really prefer the
"intelligence" of bathroom humor? I was treated to an advanced screening
in Times Square in February and the questions raised and insights
provided were startling, to say the least.
It seems that academia has long had an aversion to anything other than
Darwin's theory of evolution, and to propose anything akin to a form of
intelligent design is tantamount to committing career suicide. But the
roots go deeper than that of modern day scholarship. In fact, how could
these roots not go deeper with various Darwinists suggesting that life
formed from crystals, or perhaps aliens from outer space? These are
suggestions given airtime in the serious (?) academic community, but
don't take my word for it: these interviews must be seen in context to
appreciate their full effect.
Atheist Richard Dawkins' interview with Ben Stein is telling. His whole
life's work seems to be committed to proving the non-existence of God,
due to lack of empirical justification. Now, atheism is nothing new, but
what's surprising is how committed he is to proving the non-existence of
something. A friend asks the question, "Why not spend your time doing
something more creative? Why not build bridges, run marathons, or
collect string?" Why doesn't Dawkins spend the same amount of time
disproving unicorns, the Easter bunny, or even the tooth fairy? Dawkins
admits in this movie that an intelligent designer is possible, as long
as he is an outer space being who is himself the product of evolution.
How does this not catch your attention, Berkshire County? Perhaps
because local theaters are not carrying the movie (I called two of them,
and they have no plans to show it; the closest location is Crossgates
Mall in Albany). These Darwinian "scientists" will be teaching your kids
soon, if they aren't already. Regardless of what you believe about
intelligent design, isn't the smart thing to give a position with which
you disagree the chance to make its case, if for no other reason than
that you can disprove it?
Don't be afraid; take it on. If you're willing to take Michael Moore and
Al Gore as gospel truth, then taste the flavor of Ben Stein. Prove your
openness and tolerance. This issue is not soon going away.
REV. BRENT ENGLAND
Housatonic
The writer is pastor, Berkshire Reformed Presbyterian Church.
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/letters/ci_9091701
--
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
[...]
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
[...]
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
--Rudyard Kipling, "The White Man's Burden," 1899
Ernest Major
<jtu...@localnet.com> writes
Seems a good opportunity for someone to write to the editor and let the
readers know that the movie gets its deserved exposure at
http://www.expelledexposed.com
--
alias Ernest Major
Sasha
> Seems a good opportunity for someone to write to the editor and let the
> readers know that the movie gets its deserved exposure athttp://www.expelledexposed.com
Someone should actually remind the writer of that article that movie
theatre's are, ultimately, businesses. They make money by attracting
people to what they have showing in their establishments. When
something isn't attracting people, the theatre loses money.
Expelled isn't being kept out of theatre's because of a liberal
consipracy - it's being kept out because it is a critical and
commercial failure.
Inez
Except it opened on a thousand screens, so I don't see that there's a
very robust case that it's being kept out of theaters to any unusual
degree.
dali_70
ridiculed!
Expelled is being kept out of the movies because its nothing more than
a boring, deceit filled, misrepresenting, unintelligent, propaganda
flop.
Once again the folks at AIG, TDI and like minded groups have proven
what a bunch of hypocritical lying crooks they are.
Mark Evans
Anyone know how many of those 1000 screens will be showing it this
weekend? It seems to have been dropping off of screens rapidly as the
lack of box office bucks is realized. I heard, but have not confirmed
it, that it only took in 1.5 million nationwide last week.
Mark Evans
Ernest Major
<053e00e5-75d7-4262...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Mark
Evans <mev...@gcfn.org> writes
According to Box Office Mojo it was on 1052 screens for a full week, and
only dropped to 1041 screens on the second Friday. In fact it was still
on 1041 screens on Sunday.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=expelled.htm
One wonders how many showings that this represents. If it's three
showings daily, that would be 30,000 showings, at a gross of $175 per
showing. Theatres make a lot of their money from snacks and
advertisements, so the economics isn't as bad as it looks at first
sight. Even so, I suspect that the theatres are taking a hit.
>
>Mark Evans
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Anthropus
> Darwin movie deserves exposure
>
> Don't be afraid; take it on. If you're willing to take Michael Moore and
> Al Gore as gospel truth, then taste the flavor of Ben Stein. Prove your
> openness and tolerance. This issue is not soon going away.
Er, sorry? *What* issue...?
M.
Mark VandeWettering
> Darwin movie deserves exposure
> Tuesday, April 29
>
> The fact that Ben Stein's film ("Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed") is
> not playing in any local theaters is frustrating but not surprising.
Yeah, lots of bad movies don't make it to wide distribution.
> All that liberal ...
Bzzzt! Sorry. I have a new rule in place. Any editorial containing
whinging about liberals is simply deluded. Liberals don't exist any
more. You might just as well complain about hippies.
[ useless, deluded whinging deleted ]
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
[ snippage ]
> One wonders how many showings that this represents. If it's three
> showings daily, that would be 30,000 showings, at a gross of $175 per
> showing. Theatres make a lot of their money from snacks and
> advertisements, so the economics isn't as bad as it looks at first
> sight. Even so, I suspect that the theatres are taking a hit.
Movie theaters are in fact simply snackbars that happen to show movies.
Mark
Rusty Sites
They are still using estimates for Expelled for the weekend. There were
estimates for other movies earlier, but they have all been replaced.
Why just Expelled?
Will in New Haven
Why would liberals be conspiring against it? Why would conservatives
support it?
Again I protest this insistance that I cannot be both off the right
edge of the Earth and accept evolution as a fact. How mandy damn
villages do I have to burn to get my point across? Is there anyone on
here whose sensitivities I can offend? Will my Permit To Carry due for
evidence or do I have to shoot someone?
--
Will Temujin Reich
Robert Grumbine
Which actually raises and interesting issue, as the original letter
mentioned Regal cinemas.
I've just finished reading the revised edition (post-Dover) of
Forrest and Gross's _Creationism's Trojan Horse_. One part of it
was, of course, discussing the money behind 'intelligent design'.
One of the major sources is the guy who owns, among other things,
the Regal Cinema chain.
As they're an enormous chain, this could help explain how the
1000 screens got dedicated to the ID nonsense.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Tim Tyler
> Atheist Richard Dawkins' interview with Ben Stein is telling. His whole
> life's work seems to be committed to proving the non-existence of God,
> due to lack of empirical justification. Now, atheism is nothing new, but
> what's surprising is how committed he is to proving the non-existence of
> something. A friend asks the question, "Why not spend your time doing
> something more creative? Why not build bridges, run marathons, or
> collect string?" [...]
Didn't Dawkins write some biology books once?
``Didn't we have more intellectually satisfying problems to
work on, problems better fitting our training, interests,
and talents? I'll answer for myself, but I think Dawkins
would give much the same answer. Yes, of course I'd much
rather have been spending my time working on
consciousness and the brain, or on the evolution of
cooperation, for instance, or free will, but I felt a
moral and political obligation to drop everything for a
few years and put my shoulder to the wheel doing a dirty
job that I thought somebody had to do.'' - DD
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,630,The-God-Delusion,Daniel-C-Dennett,page1
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply.
raven1
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>The fact that Ben Stein's film ("Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed") is
>not playing in any local theaters is frustrating but not surprising.
Of course not. Why would theater owners want to incur a financial loss
by wasting a screen on it?
raven1
"Out on the road today, I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac..."
Ernest Major
<bo...@saltmine.radix.net> writes
>In article
><7d4bb12d-6393-498e...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>Sasha wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 11:36 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems a good opportunity for someone to write to the editor and let the
>>> readers know that the movie gets its deserved exposure
>>>athttp://www.expelledexposed.com
>>
>> Someone should actually remind the writer of that article that movie
>> theatre's are, ultimately, businesses. They make money by attracting
>> people to what they have showing in their establishments. When
>> something isn't attracting people, the theatre loses money.
>>
>> Expelled isn't being kept out of theatre's because of a liberal
>> consipracy - it's being kept out because it is a critical and
>> commercial failure.
>
> Which actually raises and interesting issue, as the original letter
>mentioned Regal cinemas.
>
> I've just finished reading the revised edition (post-Dover) of
>Forrest and Gross's _Creationism's Trojan Horse_. One part of it
>was, of course, discussing the money behind 'intelligent design'.
>One of the major sources is the guy who owns, among other things,
>the Regal Cinema chain.
He doesn't own the Regal Cinema chain. He is the largest shareholder in
Regal Entertainment Group, with approaching 40% of the 'A' shares, and,
I guess, all of the 'B' shares.
>
> As they're an enormous chain, this could help explain how the
>1000 screens got dedicated to the ID nonsense.
>
Regal Cinemas have 529 theatres, and the idea has escaped into the
meme-space that "Expelled" is showing on all of them. However it is
mentioned on Jim Lippard's blog that it was only showing in 141 of them.
If any cares to do the work, and doesn't mind enabling JavaScript, you
should be able to get the information off
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php
--
alias Ernest Major
Faux_Pseudo
I don't remember who said it but I think it was one of the first
people to put a snack bar in a theater that said something to the
effect of "We found the prefect place to sell popcorn and built a
theater around it.
Before that there were street merchants who sold the snacks to people
going to see movies.
--
=()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
\ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
:F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- Get your ASCII Art T-Shirt:
http://www.keystroketshirts.com/ascii/dream-in-ascii-fullView.php
Ritsjoena
> Darwin movie deserves exposure
> Tuesday, April 29
>
> The fact that Ben Stein's film ("Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed") is
> not playing in any local theaters is frustrating but not surprising. All
> that liberal rhetoric about tolerance and openness to differing
> viewpoints seems to have hit a roadblock in the mainstream media, even
> Berkshire County. The Triplex in Great Barrington will show "Baby Mama,"
> and Regal at the Berkshire Mall will show "Harold and Kumar," but
> something stimulating, thought-provoking, and perhaps even useful isn't
> even given the light of day? Does Berkshire County really prefer the
> "intelligence" of bathroom humor? I was treated to an advanced screening
> in Times Square in February and the questions raised and insights
> provided were startling, to say the least.
>
Unfortunately this startling insights are based on misinformation.
What a waste of mind.
> It seems that academia has long had an aversion to anything other than
> Darwin's theory of evolution, and to propose anything akin to a form of
> intelligent design is tantamount to committing career suicide. But the
If that is so, that has everything to do with the nature of id and not
with criticism of evolution.
> roots go deeper than that of modern day scholarship. In fact, how could
> these roots not go deeper with various Darwinists suggesting that life
> formed from crystals, or perhaps aliens from outer space? These are
> suggestions given airtime in the serious (?) academic community, but
There is a reason for that you know.
> don't take my word for it: these interviews must be seen in context to
> appreciate their full effect.
>
> Atheist Richard Dawkins' interview with Ben Stein is telling. His whole
> life's work seems to be committed to proving the non-existence of God,
Actually no. His life's work seems (to me) to be bringing science
(biology) to the general public. He also has done some science. But I
agree that at the time he spends a lot of time correcting
misinformation distributed by creationists and such.
> due to lack of empirical justification. Now, atheism is nothing new, but
> what's surprising is how committed he is to proving the non-existence of
> something. A friend asks the question, "Why not spend your time doing
> something more creative? Why not build bridges, run marathons, or
Yeah, he should. However he needs time to fend of the creationists
that are constantly bugging him. Now if the creationists stop with the
nonsense and get serious he can go back to what he should be doing.
The GD is a (necessary) counterattack.
> collect string?" Why doesn't Dawkins spend the same amount of time
> disproving unicorns, the Easter bunny, or even the tooth fairy? Dawkins
Because unicorn/eastern bunny etc-believers are not distributing
misinformation about science on a level that requires his attention.
> admits in this movie that an intelligent designer is possible, as long
> as he is an outer space being who is himself the product of evolution.
>
> How does this not catch your attention, Berkshire County? Perhaps
> because local theaters are not carrying the movie (I called two of them,
> and they have no plans to show it; the closest location is Crossgates
> Mall in Albany). These Darwinian "scientists" will be teaching your kids
> soon, if they aren't already. Regardless of what you believe about
> intelligent design, isn't the smart thing to give a position with which
> you disagree the chance to make its case, if for no other reason than
> that you can disprove it?
If it behaves like science it can makes its case in the science arena.
If it survives that it can be considered for adding it to the
curriculum.
>
> Don't be afraid; take it on. If you're willing to take Michael Moore and
> Al Gore as gospel truth, then taste the flavor of Ben Stein. Prove your
I don't take them as gospel truth. But I do think they are extremely
much further in the direction of right than expelled.
Chris Krolczyk
> Except it opened on a thousand screens, so I don't see that there's a
> very robust case that it's being kept out of theaters to any unusual
> degree.
It got advertised in print here and there in the Chicago area, but
the _Reader's_ *original* review consisted of a blurb (only
paraphrased
here) that it was a "documentary about the teaching of intelligent
design". This seemed like copy written on the basis of having no
preview footage to speak of, IMHO, which seems consistent with
the way _Expelled_ has been "previewed" elsewhere.
Unfortunately, someone got around to actually seeing it,
namely _Reader_ critic Reece Pendleton:
http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/briefs/33054_EXPELLED_NO_INTELLIGENCE_ALLOWED.html
"Embracing evolutionary theory will turn you into a close-minded,
God-denying Nazi--that's the upshot of this ludicrous propaganda
piece about the "intelligent design" movement's struggle for academic
and scientific respectability. A straightforward account of the debate
between evolutionists and ID proponents might have been both
entertaining and enlightening; instead this follows the avuncular
Ben Stein (who cowrote the movie) as he jet-sets around the globe
trying to prove that a cabal of Darwinians has conspired to destroy
academic freedom. Stein's paeans to free speech are especially rich
given the movie's willful distortion of the words and work of
evolutionary
scientists interviewed. Nathan Frankowski directed."
You've got to admire the size - and depth - and the hole that Mathis
and Stein dug for their cause when they released this spectacle of
pure, unadultered crap. Good job, guys.
-Chris Krolczyk
Inez
> On Apr 29, 11:14 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Except it opened on a thousand screens, so I don't see that there's a
> > very robust case that it's being kept out of theaters to any unusual
> > degree.
>
> It got advertised in print here and there in the Chicago area, but
> the _Reader's_ *original* review consisted of a blurb (only
> paraphrased
> here) that it was a "documentary about the teaching of intelligent
> design". This seemed like copy written on the basis of having no
> preview footage to speak of, IMHO, which seems consistent with
> the way _Expelled_ has been "previewed" elsewhere.
>
> Unfortunately, someone got around to actually seeing it,
> namely _Reader_ critic Reece Pendleton:
>
>
> "Embracing evolutionary theory will turn you into a close-minded,
> God-denying Nazi--that's the upshot of this ludicrous propaganda
> piece about the "intelligent design" movement's struggle for academic
> and scientific respectability. A straightforward account of the debate
> between evolutionists and ID proponents might have been both
> entertaining and enlightening; instead this follows the avuncular
> Ben Stein (who cowrote the movie) as he jet-sets around the globe
> trying to prove that a cabal of Darwinians has conspired to destroy
> academic freedom. Stein's paeans to free speech are especially rich
> given the movie's willful distortion of the words and work of
> evolutionary
> scientists interviewed. Nathan Frankowski directed."
>
> You've got to admire the size - and depth - and the hole that Mathis
> and Stein dug for their cause when they released this spectacle of
> pure, unadultered crap. Good job, guys.
Exactly right. They are running into one of the major problems that
ID has- when you say things people can examine your words to see
whether or not they're wrong.
Robert Carnegie
> On Apr 29, 5:17 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> > Atheist Richard Dawkins' interview with Ben Stein is telling. His whole
> > life's work seems to be committed to proving the non-existence of God,
>
> Actually no. His life's work seems (to me) to be bringing science
> (biology) to the general public. He also has done some science. But I
> agree that at the time he spends a lot of time correcting
> misinformation distributed by creationists and such.
His job title is something like "Professor for the public
understanding of science." And is term-limited, I think someone
said. But however Stein makes him look - not pretty, but I also think
someone said Dawkins and Stein never actually met or spoke - I think
he is more interested now in religion and promoting atheism than in
otherwise advancing science.
Cj
news:3a12a01a-9856-44f5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
the Scopes trial; a reminder of the folly of the creationists.
Cj
Ritsjoena
Yes and no. Yes he spends a lot of time with it. Especially countering
religion. I would however not be surprised if this is an impression
partly caused by unbalanced media-attention to his work.
In the current climate advancing understanding of science leads to
conflicts with religious people/thinking. Especially the creationists
that spread misinformation. They form an important force that tries
(willingly or as a side-effect) to reduce science knowledge and
understanding. We could not take him seriously in this function if he
did not take this force seriously and did nothing against it. So he
has an obligation from his function to spend time and energy on
religion.
Whether the balance is good and whether his methods are good I can't
tell. Maybe only time can.