Expelled Disappoints at the Box Office
I was at the theater Friday night to see, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I thought the movie was great and that the message was a very important one. However, the box office numbers are not as great. The following was found at the drudgereport:
The only other newcomer in the Top 10 was conservative commentator Ben Stein's #8 documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which makes the intelligent design argument. Playing in 1,052 theaters, the pic distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures earned $1.2M Friday for what should be a $3.4M weekend. But the per screen average for Friday was a feeble $1,130 (that $3,000 ballyhooed on the Internet would be for the entire weekend), showing there wasn't any pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign.
So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the "agenda of liberal Hollywood". (Just for comparison purposes: Michael Moore's most recent Sicko did $4.4 mil its opening weekend from only 441 theaters, and his Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9M its opening weekend from 868 venues.)
If you are a Christian and are concerned about how Evolution is being taught as a fact and no one is allowed to question it, then you need to go see Expelled this weekend!
The only other newcomer in the Top 10 was conservative commentator Ben Stein's #8 documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which makes the intelligent design argument. Playing in 1,052 theaters, the pic distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures earned $1.2M Friday for what should be a $3.4M weekend. But the per screen average for Friday was a feeble $1,130 (that $3,000 ballyhooed on the Internet would be for the entire weekend), showing there wasn't any pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign.
So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the "agenda of liberal Hollywood". (Just for comparison purposes: Michael Moore's most recent Sicko did $4.4 mil its opening weekend from only 441 theaters, and his Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9M its opening weekend from 868 venues.)
If you are a Christian and are concerned about how Evolution is being taught as a fact and no one is allowed to question it, then you need to go see Expelled this weekend!
15 Comments:
Hopefully most large groups of Christians plan to see it on Sunday as sort of an after church fellowship thing!
So at 3.4 million it would rank at only the #3 opening weekend for a documentary film?
Oh! What a failure!
Really, if it does that well, the DVD sales are sure to make it a big profit and Premise will trot out more of these low-budget documentary films.
I see that as a great victory. See my blog fr my take on all of this plus some EXPELLED clips.
Thanks for the comments Jay. I don't believe it is as big a failure as some will try to make it, but I really beleived that the movie would easily surpass the Michael Moore's films. You have done a good job with your blog.
Expelled is a fraud of a documentary if there ever was one. The premise of the movie is fraudulent. The conclusions of the movie are fraudulent.
For more information, please go to:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Thanks Dave for taking the time to visit the blog and to post your comments. I understand that many are disputing some of the claims found in Expelled and I appreciate you pointing us to the link you gave in your comments. Since you seem to be so knowledgeable about this subject maybe you could provide us a few answers:
How did life on earth originate?
If mankind is simply a product of million of years of evolution and natural selection then is it morally ok to remove people who are hindering and holding back the human race?
Thanks for your time.
Trevor, your comment shows that either you don't know what the Theory of Evolution is, or you are deliberately misrepresenting the truth as part of the Expelled propaganda machine.
Evolution does not address the origins of life.
Many Christian scientists and the Catholic church accept evolution as scientific fact. It does not contradict their faith.
Unless you believe in Young Earth Creationism, which has absolutely no basis in any scientific fact and refuted by virtually every scientist, why do you perpetuate a "conflict" that doesn't exist?
The dishonesty of Expelled is shameful and embarrassing. IMHO you discredit yourself by blindly following this propaganda nonsense.
truth&honesty,
Question one: If evolution does not address the origins of life, then what does evolution address?
Question two: Personally, have you ever wondered what does cause the origins of life?
Question three: When you say many Christians accept evolution as fact, do you refer to macro-evolution or micro-evolution or both?
Question four: How exactly do you defend your statement that there is no conflict between those who hold the hypothesis that Intelligent Design better explains the complexity observed in nature than does macro-evolution and those who disagree? Would you not agree that when there are two opposing views on a subject that those opposing views in debate could be said to be in conflict?
Question five: If you agree that two opposing views can be in conflict and opposition to each other, would you then agree that if one side not only opposes but also oppresses the other side then that would be a violation of Freedom of Speech?
Perhaps if you answer these question, then my understanding can be corrected. I would hate to be left in the dark here, seriously. Why can I not admit the possibility that you may be right and I wrong? If I could be wrong, then I would take your answers to heart and seek the truth of the matter. (This is not Trevor writing by the way.)
Thank you
Question one: If evolution does not address the origins of life, then what does evolution address?
- Speciation. If you do not understand what that means, then I suggest you need more information before you reply.
Question two: Personally, have you ever wondered what does cause the origins of life?
-I would assume most people, including myself, have... but my personal opinion has no bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution. The fact that it keeps being dragged into the discussion tells me that those who do so are not interested in learning and understanding scientific fact, but only in forwarding a pre-ordained conclusion that is usually based on religious dogma.
Question three: When you say many Christians accept evolution as fact, do you refer to macro-evolution or micro-evolution or both?
- There is no macro/micro evolution. They are the same thing. The terms are used to deceptively create the perception that they are different. But if you are asking if Christian scientists and the Catholic church accept speciation, the answer is "yes."
Question four: How exactly do you defend your statement that there is no conflict between those who hold the hypothesis that Intelligent Design better explains the complexity observed in nature than does macro-evolution and those who disagree?
- I was referring to the "conflict" that Christians could or could not accept evolution as fact based on their faith.
Would you not agree that when there are two opposing views on a subject that those opposing views in debate could be said to be in conflict?
-I would agree that believers in ID want to make it seem as if they are on equal footing with biologists. They are not. ID has no scientific basis. Any claim of scientific proof is always based on the Fallacy of Assumption including irreducible complexity. ID makes no predictions which is one of the basic requirements to be considered science.
It is a manufactured conflict.
Question five: If you agree that two opposing views can be in conflict and opposition to each other, would you then agree that if one side not only opposes but also oppresses the other side then that would be a violation of Freedom of Speech?
- That is a strawman... there is no oppression or violation of Freedom of Speech. Every "case" presented in Expelled ID is propaganda ultimately aimed at putting creationism into the science class.
If you want to know the complete history of each "case" please read the complete histories here:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
BTW your arrogant sarcasm is neither clever nor edifying and your questions were not asked in the pursuit of fact or truth, but instead worded to avoid the observations of my original post.
I have no illusions that this will change your perceptions in any way because I am convinced you are working from a predetermined belief that decides how everything else must be viewed.
Unless you can show me something that proves otherwise, any more time spent responding to you is pointless.
truth&honesty,
You said, "Trevor, your comment shows that either you don't know what the Theory of Evolution is.”
Where in my comments did I give a definition for the theory of evolution?
I am perfectly free to ask anyone how did life originate.
Just to ensure you that I know the definition for evolution, I offer the following:
Source: berkeley.edu
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
Now you may not like the question about the origin of life but if I am told that things come from a common ancestor then I want to know who that ancestor is and how they got here?
You said the following:
"There is no macro/micro evolution. They are the same thing. The terms are used to deceptively create the perception that they are different.”
You may want to contact some of the major universities in the United States:
Source:
This site was created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation (grant no. 0096613) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (grant no. 51003439).
I would think they would know if there is Micro and Macro evolution. They have the following posted on the web site:
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.
You can check out the web site for yourself at this link:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
I think the following statement can be applied to you as well:
“I have no illusions that this will change your perceptions in any way because I am convinced you are working from a predetermined belief that decides how everything else must be viewed.”
truth&honesty
First, please allow me to apologize for my arrogant sarcasm (and I admit some false humility as well). Please forgive me. It was uncalled for and a mark of my pride for which I am ashamed. By God's grace I'll learn from this and grow. And I thank you for sharing your views and want to show more respect.
As for the rest, I see I have a lot to learn, and I plan to take the time to look into both Intelligent Design and the current Theory of Evolution more. In fact, I have already read the 6 cases presented on expelledexposed.com. I have more to say on that subject but will wait until I've learned more of the facts.
I understand your points now in your original post. I am actually thinking about what you said and correcting my stance on the whole matter accordingly, but this will take more time as I am needing to include the facts I mentioned that I am looking into now.
I hope that my apology and adjusted actions will be an encouragement to you and to the study of science on the basis of science without presupposed beliefs and the like. I have a new appreciation for science and the difficulty of removing pre-conceived biases and such.
As you will probably encounter others who struggle with the information being presented from both sides and trying to figure out who's right and who's wrong, or what's right and what's wrong, I pray that you will be able to be patient with them. They may not deserve it, but be patient none the less. And I say this at the risk of it being taken as a strike against your character in order to redeem my own, but my honest intention in saying this is for your benefit and that of others involved in the matter. I speak out of humility having been corrected.
Thank you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trevor;
Of course you are free to ask about life's origin, however it is deceptive to include it in the discussion of evolution because evolution does not claim to address how life began. Catholics are perfectly willing to accept a common ancestor. How the original "common ancestor" came to be is a different issue.
You prove my statement that macro and micro evolution are the same thing.
"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution."
The point is that micro and macro are part of the same measuring scale... they are not independent of each other but fully dependent and represent extremes of that scale.
The Berkeley site states "Microevolution and macroevolution encompass change at very different scales, but both work through the same basic processes."
Anti-evolutionists have seized on the terms as somehow proof that there 2 different processes but they are the same. Speciation takes an extreme amount of time to happen and evolve while evolution within species proceeds much more rapidly.
Ask any evolutionary biologist and they will tell you the same thing: macro and micro evolution are not mutually exclusive, they are just descriptives representing differences in time scale.
I am not working from a pre-determined belief system. The facts of evolution direct me to the conclusion that evolution is the correct
But just as when Hubble revealed that our galaxy was not the entirety of the universe and that millions of other galaxies exist, I changed my perception to include this new and undeniable evidence, I will do the same with evolution if new real evidence is presented. But since science is always progressive and predictive, any changes, corrections or additions will not, I can asssure you, negate the theory itself. Since Darwin there have been many additions corrections discovered but all still unquestionably support the original premise of speciation and evolution.
anonymous:
My sincerest apologies if I misconstrued the meaning behind your words. If you are truly seeking knowledge without prejudice you have my sincere respect
Also from the Berkeley site:
"Accumulating Change
Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution."
Again just to be clear... micro means small and macro means large. If you have 1 second and 1 millennia, the difference is in scale of time but they are both time from the same scale. They are not different subjects or premises.
Any attempt to say otherwise is willful deception.
truth&honesty
This is taken from Berkeley's website:
"The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
Through the process of descent with modification [the definition of Biological Evolution], the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."
This basic tenet of Evolution is what Christians reject out of hand. And the rejection of it is not based on ignorance or willful deception. (Please understand where I'm coming from and bear with me, I think you'll understand the point I'm making at the end.)
The rejection of this common ancestor idea is instead based on the Bible, Genesis chapter 1 (again, don't put up a wall just yet!).
Now, this obviously sounds like Creationism and perhaps Intelligent Design. If I am correct, these two subjects are said by Evolutionists, such as yourself, to simply not be science or based thereon, but rather on religion.
And, what you and Evolutionists seem to want is a level playing field where those who may claim Creationism or ID must do so based solely on science, not a religious text!
Fair enough!
I believe there are Christian scientists who have done so or are trying to. At this point, I cannot cite the references. But, it seems to me that Intelligent Design is in fact, to some degree, a way of scientists to try to explain the origins of life based on science vice religion. That may be false, but that's what seems to be the case. If it's true, then all I'm saying is academia should allow them the chance to voice their position.
But it is argued that it's not true and that the movie Expelled is bunk junk. I grant that may be the case.
At this point then we have both sides who believe what they're saying is true and who both seem to present sufficient evidence for their claims. This makes it difficult.
Personally, truth&honesty, I would love to be able to intelligently discuss with you based solely on science the Theory of Evolution. It seems that is what you are arguing for and I respect that.
I would caution you however to not accuse others of willful deception so fast. The case may be a misunderstanding of terms and definitions, especially through blog comments on such a large subject that is inherently linked to religious and anti-religious bias' at the same time. But in all fairness at this point it may be said I've digressed too far off topic.
On your point of macro vs micro evolution, I say that is irrelevant to the ultimate discussion. How so? Let me answer.
Based on two things: the Berkeley definition of Evolution, all things coming from a common ancestor, and based on Darwins' own title of his infamous book, "The Origin of Species".
Thus I contend that your statement that Evolution does not address the origins of life is incorrect. Here is why:
When the definition of Evolution and the father of Evolution both agree that the ultimate question of life is its origin, it is illogical to think so otherwise? Or as you have said that Evolution merely explains how life came from a common ancestor, does it not stand to reason that you would go one step further and ask where and how did that common ancestor get here??? Certainly it does. If not, why not? As you have said, most all people including yourself have asked about the ultimate origin of life. If science can address all the way back to the common ancestor, why can it not address one step back and explain or even theorize where that common ancestor came from? Why do Evolutionists seem to hide from this question? Simply because science has no rational theory of it? Is it because they are afraid of being held accountable to a God who made them? What do you think? Or would you rather ignore that ultimate topic altogether and stay focused on just Evolution?
But if in fact evolution does not seek to explain where and how our common ancestor came to be, as may be the case for Richard Dawkins himself stated that he and no one knows the origin of life, then we are still left with the same question. And if Evolution cannot answer that question, why can we not imagine that maybe science can answer that question with another theory, perhaps that of Intelligent Design?
Here's a premise I think you would hold to: Evolution cannot account for or explain sufficiently the ultimate origin of life, namely where our common ancestor came from. Until science can do so, why can we not accept a religious answer while seeking one from science as well?
Do we not understand other things not based on science, like emotions and people who fall in love? Is there a scientific theory that explains why humans should not kill each other or hold to any other moral code? How does evolution explain where moral code came from? I do realize though that there are many who are not Christians who come up with answers to these questions based on psychology, sociology, philosophy, and science. But that doesn't mean they're right.
Again, I'm sure I've digressed too far off topic. There are those who are better equipped than myself at discussing with you the facts based on science. If you've read this far you are truly gracious.
Now if I could indeed prove to you based solely on science that part of Evolution that claims we all came from one ancestor is false, would you accept that? In other words, if Intelligent Design for example could also better explain the origin of life, would you accept Intelligent Design, if it were truly based solely on science?
I do clarify that I believe there are modifications within species, but that's as far as evolution goes. One species does not, has not, and cannot evolve from another species. Trees and humans didn't come from the same thing. Berkeley is just flat wrong on their most basic definition of Evolution there. You would probably say that I'm wrong and ignorant of the scientific and paleontological evidence that proves otherwise. Rebutting that notion with scientific proof, although granted highly desirable, is beyond the scope of this comment at this time. I say the same thing you said earlier, however. If I can be shown the evidence that evolutionists claim exists, I'll correct my erroneous thinking! (Granted that it would be difficult given my pre-conceived biases with religious texts, but in the name of honesty and science at least, I would sincerely try!)
Lastly, although I do have pre-conceived biases from religion, I want you to know, whether you believe me or not, that I am truly seeking now, as I am able, to better understand both sides of the argument from both camps. I'm going to Berkeley's website to learn more, ExpelledExposed.com to hear their proofs, and others. I want to hear how each side defines each term in an attempt to be able to better argue, debate, or discuss with others like yourself based on science as much as possible while keeping an open and humble mind knowing that I could either be wrong in my facts or right with them but present them wrong.
I hope you do the same. If you've read this far, thanks for bearing with me so long. Any further discussion will help me gain better understanding. Please know that is my intent, and I will honestly admit that my motives, unfortunately, are mixed with the temptation to "win the argument" for argument's sake and pride. I am sorry. But I confess by biases. I believe you and everyone has biases in there thinking, including their science and objective critical thinking, more than they care to admit. I say that to establish fairness, not boast about my honesty or transparency.
Thank you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home