Jeopardy-like game show featuring Ben Stein as both a host and a contestant. The second and third rounds of the game are played by Ben Stein himself as he tries to defend "his" money ... See full summary »
Richard Dawkins' highly critical documentary attacks the pulsing heart of all mainstream religion- faith; with special focus on Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Contains repeated ... See full summary »
Academic freedom is being suppressed, says Ben Stein. He contends that professors from around the United States are being fired from their jobs for promoting, or even exploring the possibility of, intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Stein interviews the expelled academics and other supporters of intelligent design. He also interviews the scientists in the mainstream, who support Darwinism. Stein links Darwinism to Nazism, Communism, eugenics and abortion. Vintage clips of educational films and Hollywood movies are used to illustrate points in a satirical way. Written by
The film sets up the lecture scene as if it were an actual university lecture. While filmed at Pepperdine University, the auditorium had been rented by the producers and the lecture was not an officially sanctioned event. Pepperdine officials confirmed that the audience was made up of paid extras with only "two or three" actual students attending. Pepperdine administration claims that their student body, while overwhelmingly Christian (Pepperdine is a private Christian college), accepts evolution and does not accept the concept of Intelligent Design. Ironically, Michael Shermer, one of the "Big Science" interviewees in the movie, is a Pepperdine graduate. See more »
Before the Richard Dawkins interview, Ben Stein is seen walking across campus on his way to the interview location, but when he arrives he's wearing different clothes. See more »
What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?
Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, ...
[...] See more »
Spirit in the Sky
Written and Performed by Norman Greenbaum
Published by Trans/Tone Productions Inc. & Great Honesty Music
Under license from Trans/Tone Productions Inc. & Varese Sarabande Records Inc. See more »
I don't know if this movie could even be considered a legitimate documentary. The movie is filmed with interjected scenes of Nazi war camps while the interviews are taking place. Apparently Ben Stein blames the holocaust on science and uses this to support his view against evolution. The entire "documentary" is misleading, he rarely shows any subtext of who he is talking to or make mention of any of their accreditation. Ignoring this, Ben never actually makes any real scientific points at all during the entire film. He never even stumps or even makes it appear that he has stumped a scientists anywhere in this film.
Apparently, Mr. Stein's entire objective of this film is to convey no real science (not there there is any in ID to begin with) but rather to preach out about free speech and how we should "teach the controversy". However, there is no real controversy, the "controversy" was already sorted out decades ago. I guess this means we should teach alchemy AFTER the discovery of chemistry because some backwards, ignorant, bronze age people from a time capsule still think alchemy is viable science.
Creationism's explanation for the unexplained is that of supernatural. However, by definition supernatural is unknown. So what the film is really saying is: we cannot explain X with current knowledge, therefore, X = supernatural = unknown (why is there a middle term there?). Just because theory A may not explain X does not mean that theory B automatically explains X.
Disregarding everything that I have mentioned above, the movie is still directed poorly, uses cheesy clips and doesn't flow well.
It is a terrible and misleading movie.
121 of 220 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?