It’s a bit late, but Mr. Ebert gets around to reviewing Ben Stein’s Expelled.
Wow!
I used to have a hard time understanding creationists, but some people just don’t have a problem believing in something that is purely out of the realm of day to day life. IOW something that really has no effect on any actions or decisions the make. Although I was surprised as I considered Ben Stein too smart and realistic for it.
I always like Ebert’s reviews, but recently he’s really let his liberal politics show outright in his reviews. I figured that because of his health problems, i.e. he’s feeling his mortality and can’t help but be less objective.
I still like his reviews, just not as much.
Ebert missed a chance here. He could’ve educated a lot of people on a pretty important issue. Instead, he commits himself to one of the most convoluted and confusing–and completely ineffective–analogies I’ve ever come across. I saw the movie, I know a decent amount about Darwinism, I know what the movies specific flaws are, and I still can’t figure out what the fuck Ebert is trying to explain here.
If by “liberal politics” you mean “scientific factuality,” then yeah. Otherwise, I don’t what you’re talking about.
I get the impression that Ben Stein is more concerned with free intellectual inquiry than endorsing creationism. As you said, he’s too smart for that. For Stein it’s an analogy about political correctness.
Hardly. The creationists have, for example, fought against research into bacteria and cancer cells developing drug resistance, because those involve evolution. They’ve intimidated schools around the country out of teaching evolution, which is one of the most important scientific discoveries there is. They’ve continually tried to force schools to teach their delusions, sometimes successfully.
Same thing, these days. Conservatism is more and more about outright denying reality, whether it’s imaginary Iraqi WMDs or denial of evolution.
Let’s leave politics to Great Debates, o.k.?
I think Ebert did a great job exposing the intellectual dishonesty and dirty tricks of this “documentary”, no matter what side you take in this debate.
No, I can’t buy that. I’m convinced that Stein is motivated by the old saying that in Ancient Rome the various conflicting mythologies were considered by the common people as equally true, by philosophers as equally false, and by officials as equally useful.
That was a rather confusing review, I thought.
If he wanted to make a movie about political correctness, why would he need to use an analogy instead of simply showing examples of actual political correctness? To pretend that a scientific consensus based on fact and logic is a good analogy for “political correctness” is ridiculous and dishonest.
Much as I agree with Ebert about this (and he makes the point that biological science isn’t liberal or conservative; it’s just science), he does use a needlessly complicated argument, and also gets drawn into the trap of equating evolutionary theory with speculation on abiogenesis.
Both Ben Stein AND Roger Ebert think they know a lot about Darwinism.
They’re both wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. Which makes each man a pathetically bad spokesman for his side.
Uh . . . have you seen the movie? It’s not possible to get that impression from this movie.
Ebert took a long, convoluted path to get to the meat of his review, but when he did he effectively exposed (expelled?) Stein’s deceptive and sleazoid tactics.
You don’t sound very sure with that “uh”.
What does defending science have to do with politics?
I’ve seen the movie and I’m sure. Stein’s agenda is transparently religious. I’ve heard him in other interviews prior to his making this movie, and he’s one of those 12 Steppers who replaces chemicals with religious zealotry. He used to hide it better, but even smart people can be religious fanatics.
I haven’t seen the movie and certainly do not subscribe to Creationism, but I read the review and I couldn’t agree with you more.
Why do people keep calling it a review? Far as I can tell, it is not a review. It is just a rant posted on his blog, a response to people who say he is a wuss for NOT reviewing it. I don`t think I am just being pedantic here: I think the difference is very relevant. Ebert has a definite style when he reviews movies, and a philosophy of judging them for what they are. Here he is just airing his ideas on his blog, like everyone else on the SDMB does. He is making an argument, not reviewing a movie, and they require different styles.
Ebert didn’t review the movie right when it came out because he was in the hospital getting various cancerous parts sawn out. Give the man a break.
Derleth makes a snarky post.