Q, Bond, and Ebert

Share this post via email


I have much respect of Roger Ebert and the few reviews of his I have read have been well done. Granted, I tend to stick to the more scathing comments over on Rotten Tomatoes instead of listening to professional critics... because I'm like that.

Ebert even agrees with me about Bond's latest movie, which is a good sign--even if he never mentions me by name. That's probably because he doesn't know who I am because he probably only reads Rotten Tomatoes and doesn't bother with IMDb, even though we could be buds there. <cough cough>

But this post isn't about Bond.

It's about Ben.

More specifically: About Ben's movie and Roger's response.

I had the opportunity to see Expelled in the theaters before reading anything about it--other than a few people who were, perhaps, a tad too excited that it was coming <smile>. During the film I noticed that Ben, or the editor, was rather brutal to Dawkins from a filmic standpoint. But the quotes and the people they had seemed bright, albeit snarky, and the points I thought were well made.

But today I came across Ebert's rant about Ben's flick.



It appears that this little project has created quite the uproar.

After an initial brush I see the real complaints as such:

1. Intelligent Design people are dumb because
2. Over 99% of scientists know ID is wrong.
3. The eugenics movement and Hitler are not tied to evolution because
4. Evolutionary scientists don't ascribe to Hitler.
5. Ben's a flippin' liar and scum.

As I think back to the movie, I would say that:

1. The point was that ID has some valid things to consider, and main stream media and scientists simply reject it as "dumb"--or "boring" if you watch the flick. Thus, this complaint seems to reinforce Ben's point, and not critique his film at all.
2. Appeal to majority. Who taught these guy's logic?
3. I'm no historian, but people I trust (appeal to authority <smile>) say that Ben's point has merit. And from what I can tell, this holds water.
4. The point is not what evolutionary scientists think, but rather to what this line of thought can lead.
5. It does sound like Ben may have been less than honest--which is terrible--and he may be scum--I don't know--but attack on personality and name calling are, I have observed, the primary weapons used when people can't use logic, reasoning, or actual argumentation.

But herein lies the problem: If Ben is playing dirty and his opponents are playing dirty... how do we know what's true?

What about the new research that has to do with the similarities in DNA which leads to an argument much like the one for the Q document?

This certainly is a hot topic which is convoluted by people's biases and emotions on both sides. And I'm glad that Kevin pointed this out in response to Roger.

I wish Q had given Bond a gadget that helped him arrive at truth.

Until such a marvel appears in the real world, feel free to read the snark surrounding Ben on Rotten Tomatoes and consider...

~Luke Holzmann
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father

Share this post via email


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.